Beatles USB format revisited, Opinions - ANY one tell the diff? Options

[bugfella]

Hello,
I was reading comments on the old forum from just after the release of the USB Beatles catalog. I understand purchase justification by the comments from Amazon, but I also understand people being PO'ed by EMI and their antics!! Any fresh comments now that the sting of that release and screw from EMI has settled down? The USB will likely disappear soon and I am very interested. Personally, I hear very crisp, clear and great versions on Beatles-A-Rama and I often wonder what the source of these versions are. They are obviously not alternative mixes or versions, but the same as the 2009 and are much better sounding with elements of the music I had not noticed before. I believe I have a more acute sense of hearing than the average person, so maybe the subtle differences are not noticed by most people. My bragging aside, I have always been able to notice things in music that other people thought I was crazy to point out. I also believe this would be the source of the "better" versions I hear on Beatles-A-Rama as they state they sell a service to receive a higher sampling rate which they make available free from time to time. Thanks for reading and your comments.

[hlloyge]

As for hearing, check out TOS #8.

What elements of music you are hearing and not heard before? I find that old music hard to listen anyway, because the sound is rough, but they had like, what, 4 instruments and vocals to record, it's not that they forgot to mix Ringo drumming, and now you hear drums...? And there is no high frequency content worth mentioning anyways.

So, care to explain in some more detail? But first, check out TOS, especially #8.

[bugfella]

As for hearing, check out TOS #8.

What elements of music you are hearing and not heard before? I find that old music hard to listen anyway, because the sound is rough, but they had like, what, 4 instruments and vocals to record, it's not that they forgot to mix Ringo drumming, and now you hear drums...? And there is no high frequency content worth mentioning anyways.

So, care to explain in some more detail? But first, check out TOS, especially #8.

Sorry, not really able to extensively test myself or the audio profiles. My observations are strictly anecdotal as I do not have access to the tracks I hear differently. I do hear things like background comments, drum fills, bass lines, hand-claps and distinguishing background vocals sometimes I never noticed before, sometimes with greater clarity. Again, not sure of the source, sorry about that. I really just wanted to hear if anyone found any differences by simply listening to the tracks rather than "testing" or "analyzing" them. I know you guys are more intense than I regarding audio, but I am interested in breaking down the sound and I have done some fun stuff with Audacity regarding sound inversion, reversal, and other mixing. I have also been interested in "oopsing" music, especially Beatles, but have never done that.

[cliveb]

I do hear things like background comments, drum fills, bass lines, hand-claps and distinguishing background vocals sometimes I never noticed before, sometimes with greater clarity.

That is a common phenomenon. Everybody has experienced times where a track that they thought they knew really well suddenly revealed a detail they had never noticed before. But it is rarely anything to do with the playback system, because once you have noticed it, you then hear it clearly everytime you play the track, regardless of the hardware in use. It's probably more to do with your state of mind at the time you first noticed it.

Perhaps a different mastering might reveal a previously hidden detail, but before you draw that conclusion about these Beatles-A-Rama tracks, be sure to go back and listen to the old version - I bet you will now hear that detail which had previously gone unnoticed.