I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

samples here sound pretty awesome:

www.beatles.com/vinyl/

Haven't heard it myself, but what I've read so far doesn't bode well ("under a thick blanket"..."gloomy nightmare"..."missed opportunity").

We sold like $300 worth of these today. I still don't get why you wouldn't just buy the originals.

tarfumes, do you have any links to impressions?

Yep, the Steve Hoffman forums: part 7, and towards the end of part 6. More favorable impressions are being posted, but the big hangup is that these were not mastered at 24 bit/96kHz. Which is apparently a thing.

some initial Hoffman postings did claim the same about the CDs; that they were 'a botch' etc. i wonder if these are considered better/worse.

Here's a bunch of Beatles nerds comparing various pressings on a http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-12/entertainment/ct-ent-1113-beatles-vinyl-20121112_1_beatles-nostalgia-beatles-catalog-beatles-lps65,000 system. Verdict seems to be that, overall, the new pressings are just fine.

Wow, fucked that up. Anyway, there's the link.

thanks for the links, man it's hard to parse the discussions of mastering engineer dorks

haha, seriously.

the chicago tribune thing is funny, too, because they basically can't come to consensus.

fuck it, i might just buy sgt peppers or something and check one out

i mean i'd love original pressings too, oh for a world where beatles UK orig pressings were just laying around in used record shops for 25 bucks

mm copies of the white album that are tatty but play ok go for 100 quid in Mono, excellent copies you're looking close to £200.

The Chicago Tribune story is pretty useless when you consider that the listening test was done on a $165,000 stereo system. Most of us don't hear music that way.

Bought a $1 copy of "Yesterday and Today" last weekend. It's a little bit warped but there is like one skip on the entire record and it sounds damn fine anyways.

i feel so dumb, in the 90s when i first started buying records you used to see beatles shit around more, just figured they'd always be around for a decent price, should have bought them all up

not to mention the literal fortune i could have made if i would have bought up every dollar bin prog record in like 96/97

As I read more posts on the Hoffman forums, the problems seem to mostly center around the quality of the US pressings themselves, rather than the mastering. Lots of reports of warping, off-center records, and something called "non-fill" which, according to wikipedia, is "where the vinyl biscuit does not sufficiently fill a deep groove during pressing (percussion or vocal amplitude changes are the usual locations of these artifacts). This flaw causes a grinding or scratching sound at the non-fill point."

http://www.tonepublications.com/analogaholic/review-the-new-beatles-box/

"Lots of reports of warping"

i see this a lot with new vinyl in general. don't know if its because people are rushing things because of high demand for vinyl or if its because people putting out vinyl now are getting sloppier but its pretty common with new reissues and new underground records i see. like, to the point where i am used to it.

Thanksfor that link skot, seems like a pretty rational assessment

Thanks for posting that review, Scott.

The majority opinion on the Hoffman forums seems to be that EMI cheaped out by going with Rainbo for the US pressings, which is (apparently) the source of warping, surface scuffs/noise, and off-center pressings. Supposedly, in order to get this out by x-mas, corners were cut. I suspect it's less about the high demand for vinyl than it is about rushing things to make sure the box got on the market asap.

If EMI was serious about chasing the audiophile market with these, they would have gone all-analog with the mastering/pressing process, and they wouldn't have used George Martin's much-maligned 1986 stereo remixes of Rubber Soul and Help! (which, to me, is the biggest problem with this new set). But going all-analog would have cost money, and EMI knew that most potential buyers wouldn't necessarily know or care that these are, for all intents and purposes, vinyl copies of CDs.

There's a similar vinyl Who box out now, and while I'd love to hear Endless Wire on vinyl (which puts me squarely in a tiny subset of the distinct minority of those who would love to hear Endless Wire, period), I can't for the life of me imagine that, like this Beatles set, it's anything more than a rush-job cash-grab by the record company.

Endless Wire was released om vinyl, btw. I think it's easily attainable.

I haven't heard any of the new vinyl but anyway. The Beatles remasters rock, both the stereo and mono boxes. They did it right. Hard to complain, really, about any of it. There might be a thing or two, ok, like the funky intro to the stereo version of A Hard Day's Night, but whatever. There is more bass overall, on the stereos, but that's a good thing. The vocals and the ambience are vastly improved across the board, I think.

Past Masters is still a thing (versus including the singles etc. on the appropriate albums) and I'm cool with that. I would have been cool if they'd put the singles on the albums but ultimately, that sort of compromises the integrity of the album as a unit, a standalone statement. The singles likewise were standalone statements, but collecting them together (with the EP-only tracks) does make sense. Listening to PM gives an accelerated experience of the growth of the Beatles, which isn't a bad thing, in fact the opposite, it can be quite mind-blowing.

The Anthologies are still out there, for them that wants them. I got each of mine on release day, vinyls and CDs. It was a big deal at the time, at least the first one (talky bits and all). Honestly? Some of the bootlegs sound better but the official versions are extremely welcome, after-the-fact fuggery and all. The iTunes versions of the Anthology stuff seem to be remastered, they sound better. It would be nice if the series could be remastered for cd also. Maybe a good excuse to include some more stuff, Carnival of Light, 104-minute version of Helter Skelter, etc.? Who knows.

Wow, didn't realize that it was/didn't think to look; thanks!

xp

these shitty new ones will just make a decent original White Album in mono go even *higher* in price then i guess.

Volume One of the triple volume Mark Lewisohn biog expected in October, and due to clock in at 1856 pages in the special 'author's edition'!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beatles-Complete-Story-Special/dp/1408704781

more here
http://www.examiner.com/article/beatles-author-lewisohn-says-epic-group-bio-will-go-where-none-has-gone-before

lol vol. 1. does the first one go up to 1962 or so?

ahahaa, i was kidding but: "He said the first volume, which will be out around this time next year, will cover up through 1962."

Hahahaha

He is the George RR Martin of rock biographers. Poor dude.

1856 pages that take you up until the music starts getting made! that 'authors cut' will set you back £120, normal edition; £30.

How much is that in people money?

He is the George RR Martin of rock biographers. Poor dude.

Can't wait for the sexposition in the film version. Also, this probably means he'll keel over half-way through the volume that covers '66.

I'm excited to find out how many olives the Beatles ate.

irl lols

Ringo = inordinately fond of "neeps"

Chapter 6
Harrison's cousin was born and raised in Shropshire, the only child of a couple who owned a local pub called ...

Great detail about the color of all the assistants' tunics shirts at each Abbey Road session.

Holy crap what.

blah blah RELEASE Carnival of Light! blah blah blah

Stereo Vinyl box set review from Stereophile.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-123

spoiler: not as good as the absolute best releases of the Beatles on vinyl.

Mono box set still out there in the either, waiting for that algorithm at Apple corps. to decide when we're all ready to spend silly money on Beatles stuff again...

looking forward to the Sterephobe review.

Like most Americans at the time, I first heard the Beatles on Capitol vinyl that wasn't displaced by CDs until the late '80s, and Capitol though nothing of mucking with the music (adding tons of reverb, wildly altering the stereo mix, etc.) as well as the album titles and tracks. All of the "real" British CDs, LPs, and downloads sound dry compared to what I grew up with.

I don't know how legit some of the Stereophile points are - yes, a modern vinyl reissue doesn't sound like an original 1960s pressing played on modern equipment, but what was there to play it back upon their original release that compares to what we have now, in terms of phono cartriges, turntables, amps, speakers? What 1964 turntable/cartridge combo could capture the nuances of a good post-'80s setup?

yeah hard to say. haven't bought this yet because of reservations like that article.

i did think White Album sounded like absolute shit on the CD reissues for whatever reason, esp the Mono version (which i generally liked the mono CDs esp on the early albums)

there were lots of great turntables in 1964! most people didn't own them though.

So what was it that people didn't like abt the 2009 white album remaster exactly?

Should have been a single album.

sounds pretty fucking marvelous to me. (then again, it always sounded good)

I think the Mono White Album is one of the best of the remasters. People are tripping.

I only have the stereo one but it's awesome. "Helter Skelter" never sounded so crushing. That bass!

I don't have anything against "helter skelter" and love many Macca's bass lines but I've always found the sound of the bass on "helter skelter" not satisfying. too thin, I dunno...

Lennon played the bass on "Helter Skelter" iirc