Beatles remasters soon available on vinyl Options

[2Bdecided]

Stereo 12th / 13th November...
http://thebeatles.com/#/news/Vinyl

Mono coming in 2013.


I'm just waiting for the first claim of how much better they sound than the CDs.

For me, the only vaguely interesting thing is whether these will be cut without peak limiting. Given that they applied the same peak limiting to the 24-bit ultra-expensive USB apple release, I doubt we'll escape it here.


However, it'll (hopefully!) be a much cheaper way of owning and playing Beatles vinyl than tracking down originals, and they'll sound better than most of the 1988 vinyl remasters. (Though for Help and Rubber Soul, they'll be the same masters!). The Beatles website is mostly selling the "experience" of playing vinyl, rather than any actual sonic superiority. How strange for a vinyl press release to be TOS 8 compliant!

Cheers,
David.

P.S. and so it starts...

linuxglobe on 27th Sep 12: “I just want to own Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road on audiophile 180 gram vinyl; I have a usb turntable, easily import into my iPhone! I *HEART* Los Beatles!!! @MarkusMcLaughln

Yeah, 'cause obviously...
digital file > vinyl stamper > vinyl > USB turntable(!!!!) > iTunes > iPhone
will sound better than
digital file > CD > iTunes > iPhone!

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Sep 28 2012, 11:35

[greynol]

ABX?!?

Are we now claiming that different masters all sound the same?

Give it a rest.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 2 2012, 22:56

[mzil]

ABX?!?

Are we now claiming that different masters all sound the same?

Give it a rest.

The topic I quoted you on is MFSL releases, not all masters from all sources. What I am asking for is objective evidence to back your claim besides "well just listen to it yourself, can't you hear it?" or "everybody knows". ABX would be one example, but others I would be interested in include measurements showing they have been EQ'd by an amount we all would generally expect to be audible. [many dB, not tenths of a dB, for example] This could come in the form of an independent spectrographic analysis by a third party, or perhaps a statement from MFSL supporting that they do this sort of EQ you claim they do.

TOS #8: "All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims..."

"MFSL ...tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board" would be an example of "a statement concerning subjective sound quality". I'm kindly asking for objective evidence to support this statement, that's all.

I never stated my beliefs on the matter, they aren't set in stone, but I have a vague recollection that MFSL claim they do minimal processing.