The Beatle Remasters

[Lord Grendel]

As far as I know Feldster, Paul bought the rights back to the Beatles catalog, he was really pissed off years ago when he told MJ that buying publishing rights to artists catalogs was a great investment, MJ promptly outbid Paul for the rights to the Beatles songs and that pretty much ended their friendship.

I agree about the record labels being greedy Bleeps, but as you said if you want the music then you have to buy the products no matter how you feel about the executives that run the corporations.

[Hepcat]

Originally Posted by TheFeldster We all know the record companies are owned and managed by greedy a-holes, shouldn't stop us enjoying their products.

My point is that I'm sceptical of their marketing pitch, "Hey, this is better, buy it", because I know they're going to say that even if it's no better.

[Lord Grendel]

^^That's where my "Black Ops" come in handy Hep, we have discussed this before, you don't always have to pay your hard earned cash for something before you "Test Drive" it.

The new remasters are good, better than my old CD's so I take the company at their word in this instance. There is a simple test Hep when you play a "Remastered" CD, you play the old one and crank it up to a modest volume, then do the same with the new improved CD, if it's been done right everything is just clearer more defined and within the same Decibel level at the same volume. A poorly done remaster will start sounding out of balance as you turn the volume up, you can tell they boosted one part of the sound spectrum and it throws the balance out of whack.

Some purists even rip the CD's and do a side by side sound spectrum analysis using one of the cool apps available for that purpose, as I said it's extremely difficult to try and get away with a poorly done remaster these days.

[CP/M User]

Craig in Indy wrote:

I don't think there's any question that mono was the way the first several albums were intended to be heard, up until, what, Sgt. Pepper? But I think that was driven by the available reproduction technology of the time. Can anyone seriously think that if the Beatles were recording today, they'd be turning out their material in mono?

I cannot seriously consider anyone recording in Mono these days (unless a band wants that ol' sound to their music! ), but if I said that Rick Wakeman did his "Return To The Centre of The Earth" just over 10 years ago in Dolby Surround and that within that time - many artists are still using Good Ol' Stereo - one has to question why is this the case! Dolby Surround is backward compatable and sounds fine on a Stereo System and yet for something which was archieved 10 years ago - lots of people are still using Good Ol' Stereo which came out in 1958!

[Craig in Indy]

Originally Posted by CP/M User Craig in Indy wrote: I don't think there's any question that mono was the way the first several albums were intended to be heard, up until, what, Sgt. Pepper? But I think that was driven by the available reproduction technology of the time. Can anyone seriously think that if the Beatles were recording today, they'd be turning out their material in mono? I cannot seriously consider anyone recording in Mono these days (unless a band wants that ol' sound to their music! ), but if I said that Rick Wakeman did his "Return To The Centre of The Earth" just over 10 years ago in Dolby Surround and that within that time - many artists are still using Good Ol' Stereo - one has to question why is this the case! Dolby Surround is backward compatable and sounds fine on a Stereo System and yet for something which was archieved 10 years ago - lots of people are still using Good Ol' Stereo which came out in 1958!

I might not have been clear in making my point, CP/M. I wasn't referring to when a certain technology was available, but when it became the predominant technology in the consumer-grade sound reproduction marketplace. I don't know what percentage of the hi-fi marketplace Dolby Surround has ever enjoyed, but I doubt it's ever been in the double-digits.

[Hepcat]

Originally Posted by CP/M User ... many artists are still using Good Ol' Stereo - one has to question why is this the case!

Probably because the vast majority of hard core audio buffs stick to stereo. Surround Sound's main market is the Home Theatre crowd.

[CP/M User]

Craig in Indy wrote:

I might not have been clear in making my point, CP/M. I wasn't referring to when a certain technology was available, but when it became the predominant technology in the consumer-grade sound reproduction marketplace. I don't know what percentage of the hi-fi marketplace Dolby Surround has ever enjoyed, but I doubt it's ever been in the double-digits.

Yes we are on the same wavelength. I'm simply saying that "Dolby Surround" is well and truly alive and has been for quite a while now and yet people are still stuck using Good Ol' 1958 Stereo! So why are people sticking with Stereo? As I said earlier, it's not like you cannot play a Dolby Surround CD or whatever on your normal Stereo and it will still sound fine, but people are still stuck in a rut in that regard because their still recording in Stereo instead of using Surround Stereo and limiting themselves as a consequence. And you cannot say that it's a dead system cause I've seen many Hi-Fi's with more than 2 speakers - these days it seems the only thing with 2 speakers are Micro Hi-Fi units!

[Lord Grendel]

There are still numerous good quality stereo systems available from entry level to esoteric and everything in between. Granted the trend seems to be towards "Docks" for i-pods etc., and surround systems but you can find anything you want easily enough.

I have a program that can split any two channel source into a 5.1 Dolby track, and I can reverse the process. Things are recorded in stereo still because we have Two Ears, at least that is the case over here CP/M.(Maybe Aussies have more?...) I think it's a matter of tradition as much as anything else, we have been recording in stereo for decades, something like "Holographic" multi-dimensional sound may be next who knows...

[Hepcat]

Originally Posted by CP/M User So why are people sticking with Stereo?

Most audiophiles stick to stereo because they want the best sound they can afford. Two speakers cost less than five of the same quality. And even if five ridiculously good speakers might just about be within one's budget, any audiophile worth his salt will start considering those crazy good speakers that he might be able to purchase one at a time if he sells his house first.

Moreover, I don't know if any top-of-the-line speaker (meaning the ones that cost as much as high end automobiles) comes in a compact size. They tend to be monsters in size. Not many people live in houses with rooms big enough for five to seven of these.

[Craig in Indy]

Originally Posted by Hepcat Most audiophiles stick to stereo because they want the best sound they can afford.

For me, that's it in a nutshell, or at least mostly it. Plain and simple, I can't afford a surround music system of the quality I expect in a hi-fi, or for that matter, of the quality that would even just make me glad to have bought it.

I say mostly it, because there's the software side of things, too. SACDs (and to a lesser extent, DVD-Audio) are the only multi-channel recordings I'm personally aware of that have a high-end pedigree or even reputation. They might sound great on a really good multi-channel system, but even if they do I couldn't afford it. But CP/M mentioned Dolby surround specifically, and if there are Dolby surround discs out there, I'm not aware of them, whether they're reported to have superb sound or not.

It's unfortunate that the music reproduction industry isn't much more than hardware chasing software's tail, and vice versa. Sometimes it seems the only reason we have any good sounding music at all is pure dumb luck.

[CP/M User]

Well it sounds like the Rest of the World is behind Australia in terms of Hi-Fi Units - in Australia the more expensive Hi-Fi units over $1000 or $1500 price range have 7 speakers and a Sub-woofer to go with it! But I've had my 5.1 Sound System for nearly 10 years and while I paid $1100 when I got the dam thing, it's perhaps a Quarter of the value of what it's worth. And who seize you need to sell your home just to have great speakers, the speakers I got on my Hi-Fi System are as clear and great as the day I brought the Unit.

I simply don't think people understand. People can play Stereo on their Stereo Hi-Fi, but you can also play a Dolby Surround on your ordinary Stereo Hi-Fi and one wouldn't know the difference - Dolby would have to be pretty dumb in creating something which wouldn't work the same as something they'd made in the past - in this case Stereo, but my point is if everything was done in Dolby Surround - then everyone would be happy - but it isn't and because there's so many Hi-Fi Units out there with more than 2 speakers, it's a technology which has been neglected. Sure someone can take a Digitally Remastered CD in Stereo and play it in Pro-Logic, but the effect isn't quite as true as a true Dolby Surround Disk - and then there was things like DVD Audio which offered 5.1 Surround Sound, but as the technology wasn't really compatible and one needed a DVD-Video player with 5.1 Surround Sound to get the effect, not many people were prepared or realised what this meant or some people assumed one needed a specific DVD-Audio player just to listen to it - specifically DVD-Audio units were made and Sold and I saw these years ago, though they were offering even a more superior sound to the 5.1 Surround Sound which was why one brought a DVD-Audio Hi-Fi player. And SACDs have the advantage of being compatible with ordinary CD players, to get the improved sound one needs a SACD player and I never saw one of those!

And while I realise we only have 2 ears LG, it's the surround experience one doesn't get with Stereo and our Ears ability of capturing sounds from different spots around us is the experience - so you're not looking outside the Square.

And as I said earlier - Rick Wakeman's "Return To The Center Of Earth" which came out in 1999 was done using Dolby Surround Technology and sounds Excellent in Dolby Surround or Stereo, though especially Dolby Surround because it's been recorded that way, though as an album played on an ordinary Stereo system, it sounds just as good as anything done in Stereo. But I guess nobody has adopted the technology due to the cost factors involved - which is strange cause the technology has been around for a while - "Jurassic Park" was one of the first movies done in DTS 5.1 some 16 years ago, so what's the story and why hasn't Surround being incorporated more into music? I would have thought people would have got excited about the surround experience and music would have put on another dimension, but to this point it doesn't seem like it's heading that way!

[Hepcat]

Right now I aspire to Paradigm Signature S8 speakers. They cost Cdn.$9000 per pair before sales taxes.



(I've decided not to aspire to speakers costing $100,000 and up per pair.) Do the mathematics.

Each of these Signature S8s stands 48 1/2 inches high, 20 1/2 inches deep and weighs 100 pounds. They can handle 250 watts of power. There is no room in my house where I could position five of these. I'd need a house with a small auditorium actually. In Toronto such a house would cost well over $2 million anyway.

That's why I'm "settling" for stereo.

[CP/M User]

Hepcat wrote:

Right now I aspire to Paradigm Signature S8 speakers. They cost Cdn.$9000 per pair before sales taxes.



(I've decided not to aspire to speakers costing $100,000 and up per pair.) Do the mathematics.

Each of these Signature S8s stands 48 1/2 inches high, 20 1/2 inches deep and weighs 100 pounds. They can handle 250 watts of power. There is no room in my house where I could position five of these. I'd need a house with a small auditorium actually. In Toronto such a house would cost well over $2 million anyway.

That's why I'm "settling" for stereo.



That's ridiculous - you don't need to spend that sort of money just to have a good sounding sound system - even a decent Bose Surround Sound system doesn't fetch that kind of money.

Money with Speakers is ridiculous cause you can spend heaps of money on speakers and they'd still be crap compared to something within a budget, but you do what you will with your money, I'm merely talking about a something which sounds great without blowing the roof of your home!

[PinkFreud]

I got the remastered "Abbey Road" for Christmas this past year. Definitely an awesome album to have!

[Lord Grendel]

I hate Bose CP/M they are mediocre at best and overpriced as well.

Hep those are nice, but there is nothing wrong with a multi-channel setup either, you get some matched speakers add a subwoofer and the sound is very good, even if you just play two channels.

Having been a collector for years, in the ultra high end of audio gear you are spending thousands more for minute differences that can no way justify the expense, except to impress your other friends. Like a Ferrari vs Lamborghini deal, both are great cars but I would never buy one even if I had the money.