If/when they release the remasters of Rubber Soul, Revolver, and "The White Album", I'll be all over them.....otherwise...not going there.

I Am Lono Wrote:If/when they release the remasters of Rubber Soul, Revolver, and "The White Album", I'll be all over them.....otherwise...not going there.

They released the entire catologue in stereo remasters, and all up through the "White Album" in mono remasters.

I have a few of the older Beatles remasters.

These remasters are amazing. Trust me. Even though you may have second thoughts when you see them in Hot Topic, don't think twice; they're great.

Parsifal Wrote:

MacPhisto Wrote:Remastered CDs are convenient. You can play them in yr car. Besides, decent record players cost upwards of $200 at the least over here, if you're lucky. And, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less about the sound quality, unless it sounds really tinny. Therefore, I'll stick to good ol' compact discs 'n' mp3s, thanks.

That's why I'll stick to vinyl rip downloads until I can afford a decent turntable. I've got some nice 96 kHz / 24-bit rips of some Led Zeppelin albums, which I downsample to 48 kHz to put on my MP3 player as opposed to just using the CD versions. I also don't listen to the CD mix of Frank Zappa's Hot Rats, ever since I downloaded the vinyl mix.

Of course, ideally there would be official releases of the original masters of classic albums on high-definition formats such as DVD-Audio (although the record companies will use all three optional types of DRM offered as part of the DVD-Audio standard so you can't rip them to FLAC), but instead record companies insist on remastering them for CD, an outdated and nonstandard format. And why? Because more people listen to CDs, and they know there's more guaranteed money that way.

As an aside, they could probably make more money out of high-definition formats if they were to stop cluttering them up with so much DRM protection that you can't feasibly do anything with them, but record companies never were famed for their sensibility.

I have to say its good to see somebody refer to Frank Zappa for once! Personally, he's the only artist I really see above Floyd. "Hot Rats" is a classic, and the vinyl lovers are correct; the only way to fully get the feel for an album is by listening to it on analog, or the compact version of that, (basically) vinyl. Although, I'm not trying to get away from the original topic; I'm also excited for the new Beatles remasters. My reasoning for the excitement is not only for the obvious, I love The Beatles, but for the fact that their work (good solid song writing) is being celebrated and remembered in some form. Not only that, it gives new fans and collectors the chance to buy a ton of The Beatle's material, in good quality, all at once, and all at a fare price when compared to buying them individually. The remasters may not end up sounding as pristine as a vinyl, but you have to admit that this release is still a positive thing; at least in someway...

I want, nay NEED the whole collection. :C

I do too!

Having listened to the remastered version of The Beatles, and currently listening to that of Abbey Road, I can say with total confidence that the Dr. Ebbetts bootlegs are definitely the superior versions of these albums. Abbey Road in particular sounds very cold and harsh on the remaster, whereas the Dr. Ebbetts version has a much warmer, cosier feel to it.

(12-26-2009 09:13 AM)Parsifal Wrote:  Having listened to the remastered version of The Beatles, and currently listening to that of Abbey Road, I can say with total confidence that the Dr. Ebbetts bootlegs are definitely the superior versions of these albums. Abbey Road in particular sounds very cold and harsh on the remaster, whereas the Dr. Ebbetts version has a much warmer, cosier feel to it.

Dr Ebbet is obviously a very good person. I'll have him deliver my next child.