|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 3, 2014 10:22:32 GMT -5
Mastered for itunes is a fancy way to say: compressed, but in a way that maximizes a mix to hear through the little shi##y buds we provide. I have a better suggestion. Seeing that you already have the CDs..take $200 (US) of your hard earned cash, and set it on fire. All joking aside, unless it is something otherwise not avaialble on disc like 1963 Boots, itunes purchased for CDs already owned is a waste, because you can rip them as 256kbps (superior mp-3)and still fit a lot on your ipod, with audio quality only the most professional audiophiles can discern from wave files (standard CD). I mostly listen to music these days with an iPod in my car. When I get a new CD, I rip it with Windows Media Player. iTunes converts the WMA files as MPeg-4 files when you import the songs in. You're right though, I doubt anyone could tell the difference. The tracks sound good now. I've got better things to buy. Thanks for talking me down!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 3, 2014 11:29:58 GMT -5
For one thing, the discs won't fall out and hit me on the feet as they do in the first volume, and second, I prefer the way they sound as compared to the originals. JcS LMAO! You and I have had the exact same experience with those discs falling out of Volume 1! Maybe CoachBK and other youth sports coaches could use Capitol Volume 1 as equipment to improve their student athlete's eye-hand coordination: open Vol. 1 and catch the disc before it falls! That might be good for budding basketball and baseball players! That could have been a training tool in The Karate Kid but it didn't exist when that film made!
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 3, 2014 12:34:38 GMT -5
Mastered for itunes is a fancy way to say: compressed, but in a way that maximizes a mix to hear through the little shi##y buds we provide. I have a better suggestion. Seeing that you already have the CDs..take $200 (US) of your hard earned cash, and set it on fire. All joking aside, unless it is something otherwise not avaialble on disc like 1963 Boots, itunes purchased for CDs already owned is a waste, because you can rip them as 256kbps (superior mp-3)and still fit a lot on your ipod, with audio quality only the most professional audiophiles can discern from wave files (standard CD). I mostly listen to music these days with an iPod in my car. When I get a new CD, I rip it with Windows Media Player. iTunes converts the WMA files as MPeg-4 files when you import the songs in. You're right though, I doubt anyone could tell the difference. The tracks sound good now. I've got better things to buy. Thanks for talking me down! i tunes gives you several options to rip CDs, including as wav file and newer software as Apple lossless, which only newer ipods can play. I rip everything as wav file, which takes up way more storage space, but also serves to back up my CDs. I can still fit 10-12 full LPs on my 8G ipod. But that is just me. I settled previously on the 256 mp3 option, but haven't had the time to go through my library over what I ripped, what size, and when I did it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Mar 3, 2014 19:05:24 GMT -5
I have no idea; I've never bought anything from iTunes, and it wouldn't dawn on me to pay for something like this that I already owned. JcS Mastered for itunes is a fancy way to say: compressed, but in a way that maximizes a mix to hear through the little shi##y buds we provide. I have a better suggestion. Seeing that you already have the CDs..take $200 (US) of your hard earned cash, and set it on fire. All joking aside, unless it is something otherwise not avaialble on disc like 1963 Boots, itunes purchased for CDs already owned is a waste, because you can rip them as 256kbps (superior mp-3)and still fit a lot on your ipod, with audio quality only the most professional audiophiles can discern from wave files (standard CD). Agreed. And I have several "mastered for iTunes" versions and I don't hear a whole lot of difference.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 4, 2014 8:12:21 GMT -5
Mastered for itunes is a fancy way to say: compressed, but in a way that maximizes a mix to hear through the little shi##y buds we provide. I have a better suggestion. Seeing that you already have the CDs..take $200 (US) of your hard earned cash, and set it on fire. All joking aside, unless it is something otherwise not avaialble on disc like 1963 Boots, itunes purchased for CDs already owned is a waste, because you can rip them as 256kbps (superior mp-3)and still fit a lot on your ipod, with audio quality only the most professional audiophiles can discern from wave files (standard CD). Agreed. And I have several "mastered for iTunes" versions and I don't hear a whole lot of difference. Generally, my itunes purchases consist of gift cards I have to use. I did buy a Ringo LP I didn't have for $7.99 and also Badfinger's Wish You Were here, which I had never heard. I decided not to buy the 1963 Bootleg series, but I might from 1966 on.
|
|
|
Post by dcshark on Mar 4, 2014 11:07:28 GMT -5
For one thing, the discs won't fall out and hit me on the feet as they do in the first volume, and second, I prefer the way they sound as compared to the originals. JcS I'm all for originality, especially when it comes to The Beatles, but these 2014 CDs do sound great, and I'm looking at them as what these records should have sounded like in the 60s. I have Vol 1 & 2, and I've played them once or twice. I don't care for the packaging either. Meet The Beatles sounds really muddy on the previous issue CD. I haven't done a comparison on the others. But this one is really noticeable. Plus I didn't have to spend a fortune to buy a Capitol issued Butcher Cover.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Mar 4, 2014 14:19:14 GMT -5
For one thing, the discs won't fall out and hit me on the feet as they do in the first volume, and second, I prefer the way they sound as compared to the originals. JcS I'm all for originality, especially when it comes to The Beatles, but these 2014 CDs do sound great, and I'm looking at them as what these records should have sounded like in the 60s. I have Vol 1 & 2, and I've played them once or twice. I don't care for the packaging either. Meet The Beatles sounds really muddy on the previous issue CD. I haven't done a comparison on the others. But this one is really noticeable. Plus I didn't have to spend a fortune to buy a Capitol issued Butcher Cover. I know what you mean. I only played the first volume a couple of times; I don't remember playing the second one twice, but I may have. I will try to do an A/B on MTB and some of the others. Of course, I have a problem in that I don't have most of these on vinyl, and therefore don't know if the CAPITOL ALBUMS box faithfully replicates what a good sounding vinyl copy from the '60s would give us. As to the point about these being what the records should have sounded like in the '60's, I'd take it a step further. Up to, and maybe including REVOLVER, the mixes had to keep the bass levels down because it would cause the stylus to jump out of the grooves. Thus, there were technical limitations to what could be put on the record that didn't necessarily reflect the intent of the artist. Today, we don't have those limits, and I favor remixing the records to take advantage of the freedom to mix it without thinking about if the vinyl LP can handle it. The YELLOW SUBMARINE SONGTRACK is the template for what can be done; as long as these are clearly labeled as remixes, there shouldn't be any griping that it was done--the gripes rather would be HOW it was done! I mean, there are going to be gripes... JcS
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Mar 4, 2014 20:17:56 GMT -5
I'm all for originality, especially when it comes to The Beatles, but these 2014 CDs do sound great, and I'm looking at them as what these records should have sounded like in the 60s. I have Vol 1 & 2, and I've played them once or twice. I don't care for the packaging either. Meet The Beatles sounds really muddy on the previous issue CD. I haven't done a comparison on the others. But this one is really noticeable. Plus I didn't have to spend a fortune to buy a Capitol issued Butcher Cover. I know what you mean. I only played the first volume a couple of times; I don't remember playing the second one twice, but I may have. I will try to do an A/B on MTB and some of the others. Of course, I have a problem in that I don't have most of these on vinyl, and therefore don't know if the CAPITOL ALBUMS box faithfully replicates what a good sounding vinyl copy from the '60s would give us. As to the point about these being what the records should have sounded like in the '60's, I'd take it a step further. Up to, and maybe including REVOLVER, the mixes had to keep the bass levels down because it would cause the stylus to jump out of the grooves. Thus, there were technical limitations to what could be put on the record that didn't necessarily reflect the intent of the artist. Today, we don't have those limits, and I favor remixing the records to take advantage of the freedom to mix it without thinking about if the vinyl LP can handle it. The YELLOW SUBMARINE SONGTRACK is the template for what can be done; as long as these are clearly labeled as remixes, there shouldn't be any griping that it was done--the gripes rather would be HOW it was done! I mean, there are going to be gripes... JcS There's already way to much bass on the remasters. I listen to my needle drops from my old LPs more...Beatles the way they were meant to sound. you can actually hear the guitars over the bass, drums and other percussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 20:33:53 GMT -5
I only bought the (individual) YESTERDAY & TODAY for the novelty of the packaging (and, because: already having had multiple format -vinyl/reel to reel/cassette- versions of the Capitols my father had bought around 1970). A lot of people may decry that a remaster onto a different medium doesn't remind them of the way the records sounded (*excepting the other issue -in this case- of the 2014's not being the Capitol masters, anyway*); however, the records never sounded great due to their mechanical limitations: the bass was always thin and phasey (a major reason, in fact, why Paul's bass playing was routinely written-off in America) or the way Capitol would try panning the eq of the vocals across channels (not just on Duophonic tracks...but on stereo ones as well where, if the separation was so wide: they'd cut the treble out of the vocals bleeding-through one channel while leaving them -somewhat- full range on the other) was very artificial. The pre-1969 vinyl copies of Y&T are especially guilty of this. Other formats of the time (really only tape), though, had none of those limitations because they were not taken from the copy the futzed-with RIAA prepared source (the BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT in the way, as far as I've always been concerned, to getting "closer to mastertape sound") required to cut a lacquer "mother disc" came from. The first time I'd ever heard the stereo cd of BEATLES FOR SALE (as I'd never collected imported records and, thus, had only had the mono 1987 cd): I was amazed, for example, by how VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL the tracks "No Reply", "I'll Follow the Sun", "Mr. Moonlight", and "Honey Don't" sounded to my vintage Capitol reel of BEATLES '65 (the remaining four common to both albums have the Capitols with varying degrees of more reverb than the BFS copy). So, to me, it's like: the crowd that wants to believe the whole mono thing is more "authentic" a listening experience (when it really involves somebody doing the music a disservice by their sentimental hangups restricting the full power it's capable of).
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 1, 2018 21:27:00 GMT -5
Yeah, to my ears, the stereo version of She Loves You from the Capitol Albums is still the best version of the song.
|
|