The Beatles In High Resolution?

I'll throw in there that the best representation of the band during the Let It Be sessions is the "Naked" release from a few years back. None of the Beatles or their crew had anything to do with the album release and Phil Spector butchered it.

I have the Beatles remastered boxes in both mono and stereo and I also have the 24/44.1 USB. They all pale in comparison to the Beatles Love in 24 96(with thanks dvd extractor). I'm certain that we'll see higher rez Beatles recordings at some point in the future, even if it's just limited to 24 96(like Band On the Run of All Things Must Pass). McCartney and Harrison in 24 96 are fine enough sounding recordings but the Stones' Let It Bleed in 24/176.4 is something else again(and who would have guessed that we would ever be discussing a Rolling Stones audiophile recording series?).<br />

<br />

Oh and BTW, the Beatles Love listened to with headphones is sublime.<br />

<br />

Esau

Funny thing...I can sing all the lyrics to probably every Beatles song they ever put on tape and I probably learned 50% of them on a mono car radio. I listened to Pauls first solo release on direct drive JVC into a very simple receiver and small pair of whatever bookshelf speakers so many times I wore it out and my memory of those days and having that as the backdrop to my life is so vivid and deeply ingrained in me that it can be overwhelming when I hear a song from it. I know that album so well and I know all of them so intimately that when I hear a song it just physically washes into me.<br />

<br />

Low res. What a beautiful sound it was.

Both remastered box sets and USB 24 bit are eclipsed by the Love DVD-Audio! For a Beatles fan I can't think of a better audiophile journey. Especially on headphones. It's such a tease to know what's possible.

<i>None of the Beatles or their crew had anything to do with the album release and Phil Spector butchered it.</i><br />

<br />

Gotta get the "Naked" version as I really loved several of the non-hit songs on that album (e.g., "I Dig A Pony").<br />

<br />

I thought it was John's idea/insistence to have Spector produce?

Hopefully, they will continue the drip feed of higher resolution Beatles music.

Is there any trick to ripping this with DVD Audio Extractor? The last time I checked I just had DVD Audio Explorer and it did not find the hi-res tracks. It only had them in 5.1.

I found ripping using DVD Extractor to be fairly straight forward, using Chris' primer on ripping as a guide. <br />

<br />

Esau

BTW, I fully agree with Realhifi's comments on the beauty of low res. It's one of the ironies of life that we so completely enjoyed listening to music in low res when our ears were hi rez. Now that we're older and time, loud music and good living have shaved off the higher frequencies we finally have the technology and perhaps the means to dip our toes into the waters of 24/96 and beyond. We may be better trained in how to listen, what to listen for, etc., but I don't know if that makes up for youthful enthusiasm and the capacity to hear the higher frequencies. A particular downside for me is listening to music that I loved 30 years ago and being annoyed by the amount of compression used in too many of the recordings. The lack of dynamic range is that much more bothersome with headphone listening. It's something that even the most expensive, well engineered dacs are unable to fix. It's that much more amazing what the Beatles were able to accomplish with four track recording and mixing down to mono.<br />

<br />

Esau

There is a big difference between low resolution analog and low resolution digital. We can hear a lot more detail from that low resolution analog with high resolution digital.

Love DVD-Audio disc has two ways to rip to stereo. The highest rez would be to have DVDAexplorer use the "get stereo downmix" button/funtion which uses a hidden SMARTS table encoded on the disc. This SMARTS toc is available on most discs that don't have a dedicated stereo layer...it tells the hardware downmix how to mix correctly. It's very good. The second way to do a 2 channel rip would be to pull up the DVD-V portion (Video_ts folder) in either DVD Audio Extractor (top pulldown menu) or DVDAexplorer and rip the PCM stereo mix, which is "only" 16/48. It's is also good.

I read a great quote from a source I can't remember regarding quality of hifi and what it means as far as actually listening to music. It went something like this, "I'd rather listen to Mozart on the telephone than Britanny Spears on a high end stereo". Pretty sure that's why so many don't give another thought to listening to 320kps iTunes on an iPod. Kids want to hear THEIR music. Just like I wanted to hear my music back then and it didn't matter that it was a 45 on a marginal and cheap hifi. I certainly didn't listen so closely to Paul's first solo effort through anything remotely close to an actual hifi back then but the impression it left on me and the memories are deeply burned in me. It was because it was Paul. It was the music. It was the times. Did I care that it was recorded somewhat oddly or that I couldn't hear every tiny detail of what he was doing in the background? Nope. Still don't.<br />

<br />

As long as Paul sounds like Paul I'm pretty happy. <br />

The last time I loaded Beatles Love, I'd read a lot fewer of your posts. I am going to give it another go.

ted-b: <br />

"Love DVD-Audio disc has two ways to rip to stereo. The highest rez would be to have DVDAexplorer use the "get stereo downmix" button/funtion which uses a hidden SMARTS table encoded on the disc. This SMARTS toc is available on most discs that don't have a dedicated stereo layer...it tells the hardware downmix how to mix correctly. It's very good. The second way to do a 2 channel rip would be to pull up the DVD-V portion (Video_ts folder) in either DVD Audio Extractor (top pulldown menu) or DVDAexplorer and rip the PCM stereo mix, which is "only" 16/48. It's is also good."<br />

<br />

Thanks for good tips on getting that wonderful disk onto HD.<br />

Of course another way is to simply listen to it on a good DVD Audio player. I still haven't heard anything from the computer side of things that can compete with great multi channel SACD or DVD Audio on a really good system. Listening to the multi channel SACD of Pink Floyd's dark Side of the Moon on a really good surround system is just mind blowing too!<br />

<br />

the Beatles Love 5.1 mix is beyond reproach and THE way to listen to Beatles Love. I used to think of myself as a Beatles purist, but except the mash-ups, I love the few full-song remixes off of Love and the entire Yellow Submarine Soundtrack. They have life, don't mess with no-noise issues, and remain true to the feel of each song IMO.

FULL of life! I heard that Paul and Ringo loved them and also really dug the show in Vegas that the music was used in.

(they were doing some filming that night and our plebian balcony seats were closed off so they escorted us to the 2nd row!!)The theater is split into 4 wedges as the main stage is somewhat in the round, with walkways coming from the four corners. So my second row was all of three seats and I had my elbow on one of the stage walkways. Very cool indeed, with action happening all around, even above me.<br />

<br />

Dude, I hope you know those Stones albums on HD TRACKS are downsampled DSD masters done by Bob Ludwig in 2002. These are NOT new digital transfers from the master tapes.<br />

<br />

Theoretically, those SACDs, released then, will sound better than your downloads.

I have the Love CD, but except for the alternate version of "...Gently Weeps," I've never really cared for it. We almost went to see the Las Vegas show, but my wife wanted to see "O" instead (and she always wins). If I get another chance to see the show, I will... perhaps I'll like it better if I do.

I have no doubt that we will see 24-Bit/192kHz versions of The Beatles catalogue at some point in the future ... We will probably get 24-Bit/96kHz as well!<br />

<br />

EMI are struggling as a company and The Beatles and Pink Floyd are the biggest cash cows that they have. It makes good business sense to release HiRes Beatles albums. I've no doubt that Pink Floyd in HiRes will also be available before too long.

Interesting details. The quality of the redbook is quite good enough for me! I havent really heard that much of a difference in 24/96 recordings vs good redbook when it is "handled" properly. IMO 16/44.1 has to filtered right by the server/DAC. Computer based audio has opened this field wide open. Topic for other threads....

Why bother with hi-res for the Beatles? The recordings are dated, compressed, distorted, with very little dynamic range. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference between hi-res and mp3 versions of a Beatles album.

Hi Mike - Have you compared the redbook version of The Beatles remastered catalog with a lossy converted MP3 version? I've found it pretty easy to tell the difference without high resolution involved.

Hi Mike - Have you compared the redbook version of The Beatles remastered catalog with a lossy converted MP3 version? I've found it pretty easy to tell the difference without high resolution involved.

As you know, after committing an enormous amount of resources into remastering the Beatles catalog what EMI came up with was 24 bit/44.1 kHz remasters. I would expect that EMI has made more money on the iTunes downloads than they might ever see with the redbook remasters or the limited release 24/44.1 higher resolution versions. There will always be people who want hi res Beatles simply because they're the Beatles. Whether or not there's is value in 24/96 or higher versions is a different question altogether. I can say that the 24/96 downloads of "All Things Must Pass," "Band On the Run," and "McCartney" are not predictive of deriving greater value with his res Beatles.<br />

<br />

Esau