The Beatles Remasters on Vinyl

Neil Gader -- Wed, 11/04/2009 - 17:40

It's official (thanks Firedog). Apple Records announced to Mojo that the Beatles catalog will be released on vinyl one more time. The day and date haven't been stated and there no are details like prices, individual or deluxe box sets, mono etc. I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this. Can Apple be trusted to do this correctly or will they expedite the discs to market without regard for exceedlingly high expectations of the audiophile community? For example, do you think they will cut from the digital or truly return to the original analog masters? Will they go 180 gram or 200 gram vinyl? Looking forward to hearing from everyone.

mecolwell -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 09:17

Hi, Neil.
As you know, I own all the pristine Early Parlophones, and have the stereo CD remaster box.
I am very fond of both, and feel that the "team" gave us a great set, with the stereo box, and I am generally very happy with the sound. Comparing to the early LP's, they sound really true to them, with some differences, usually very minor, and even some anomolies fixed like a few dropouts, but always remaining true to the music. I even prefer the Capitol (yikes!) CD version of "Rubber Soul", as I like the feel of the running order a bit better and it has a more acoustic feel to the whole listen, and, it was from the original stereo mix, not the digital remix (with the mono version thrown in..'ya listening, Apple/Capitol!!)   As far as what Capitol did to "improve"..i.e ruin!, a number of songs for the US market, don't get me started on that!
This new vinyl effort seems like the "marketing machine" at work, still, wanting to sell us yet another set of the music, kinda like they do in the film side of the house (how many "Terminator 2"s" must we have!!!)
As far as the source, I bet they will be the digital copies of the analog masters, maybe the remastered digital masters. We will have to see on that.
I am truly an analog lover, generally liking LP's, but I won't buy into this, as I feel with having both the originals and the box, I have it all.
 Maybe for someone who doesn't have all the originals, a way to get new pristine copies on vinyl, but not for me!!!
As always, "Enjoy!".


neil.gader -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 10:17

Points well taken. I'm envious of your collection. However, I think you are more the exception than the rule out there. Many of us-I believe- would either like to fill in a collection or merely own the last "statement" vinyl from Apple itself. Nonetheless,  there are many pitfalls for Apple to avoid as they approach this.  I think that any vinyl reissues will be subject to even greater scrutiny than the digital discs. The Beatles on vinyl already has a rich and storied history not to mention terrific sound in many instances. This was not the same road that the digital remasters had to follow-they only had to improve on the 1987 reissues. Except for a handful of dedicated analog people like ourselves few buyers probably spent much time comparing them to vinyl (if they even had playable vinyl any longer). I think Apple will find an analog audience to be more highly critical with expectations far exceeding those of the digital buyer. If the pressing stinks (noisy, or full of pops) they will be in for a world of hurt. Apple  either goes in all the way, first class, or they shouldn't proceed. 
Finally, on your point about marketing-I wonder how much they expect to make and if they are judging the market correctly. Analog while resurgent is still not what we could call a market force. It's a digital audio world, discs or downloads. Sure there is a buying audience but depending on  pricing I'm not sure how many would cough up, let's say $500 for the vinyl box, $1000?? I realize for many it will be a vanity purchase or for collecting only but still money is money and vinyl pressings and packaging are vastly more expensive than CDs.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

firedog -- Fri, 11/06/2009 - 10:32

My reading between the lines of the publicity: the vinyl releases will be based on the 192 digital copies of the original master tapes.
Since they apparently digitized everything, they could do a TOTALLY new mix in digital and try to get it to have a similar, but improved, sound to the original vinyl. Very tough to do. So I bet they will just tweak a 192 copy of the original masters.
If they take enough time I think they could come up with something outstanding. But of course, the "original vinyl" purists won't like it in any case.
I personally would like a totally new remix (similar to the great stuff done on the Yellow Submarine DVD) but I doubt they have the balls or want to devote the resources needed for this.
I'm pretty happy with the CD remasters, so I won't be buying unless they do the full remix.
Based on the marketing so far, I bet they will sell it as premium vinyl in high end packaging, box set only. 14 albums, so I'm guessing $500 or $600 for the box.
Neil is right. The audience for this is the high end analogue crowd, people who tend to be very knowledgeable/critical and have high end sound systems. To be well received, the pressings will have to be very good and the sound will have to not only be very good, but also "sound like" analogue.
BTW, I think individual releases of some of the LP's could sell very well, but it doesn't seem that this is the route Apple is going.

mecolwell -- Fri, 11/06/2009 - 08:59

Good mornig.
I agree, Neil, that the vinyl expectations will be very high, and Apple should do it completely right, or not at all.
Firedog says they will be sourced from the new 24 bit/196K digital masters, which should sound very good, if done right. I wonder, however, if the LP sector, like me, would rather have the vinyl sourced from the analog masters. That would, I am sure, add considerably to the cost, due to the labor involved re-doing all the analog masters, and would it really be better than the 24/196K?
I will be interested to hear their results, and to compare the new LP's to the CD's, and to the original British LP's.
The new CD's do sound great, but there are still some areas the Parlophones better them...listen to the twangy guitar in "Words Of Love", and the LP sounds more like the tubed guitar amp, and conveys the bite a bit better.
Still, as always, great discussions.


neil.gader -- Fri, 11/06/2009 - 11:28

I believe mastering engineer legend Doug Sax commented a few years ago of the reasons why a digital master sounds superior when transferred to vinyl than to compact disc. The same would hold true for a high rez 24-bit/192kHz master, probably even more so. It does seem ironic that if Apple doesnt go the full analog to analog route (and chooses the digital to analog) that we will be likely to hear the high rez masters played  back first not on a digital player but via a turntable.
I still think they will seriously consider going back to the original analog tapes. the reason being the potential backlash from vinyl purists. For them, it will always leave the question unanswered about how good a true modern AAA vinyl pressing (as opposed to an ADA pressing) can sound.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

firedog -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 07:55


I think it would be funny if they did the LPs as ADA, but didn't let it be known. Would the vinyl purists detect the digital source without being clued in?

I know this could never actually happen, but it would be an interesting experiment.

mecolwell -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 14:17

Hi, Neil.
Interesting point about the Beatles catalog first being presented on High-Rez being not on a digital platform, but an LP platform.
Shows where we stand, these days on the High-Rez formats and where our interests are.
In the Sunday Oregonian, today, and ad from Fred Meyer, a local all-in-one chain of stores, with groceries, home improvement, electronics, etc, had an ad for vinyl LP's!   Hmmm, I have not seen any ads for SACD's??
Interesting, indeed, how "mainstream" vinyl seems to be these days, isn't it?


Suteetat -- Sat, 11/07/2009 - 21:54

So why not release the 24/192 in its high rez format?
The market for that may be small right now but if they already have the master,
it would not cost them nearly as much as reissuing vinyl.
I suppose market for 24/192 is still considerably smaller than vinyl but
it can only grown, right?

firedog -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 07:51

Don't worry.

They will let our pocketbooks recover a bit after all these fall/Christmas/LP releases, and then release the Hi-rez digital remasters. I say in a year or two, when the sales of the CD's/LP's fall off in a big way.

neil.gader -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 15:19

I agree that they are going to want to recoup all their costs before mounting another campaign for another format. Also there just isn't much market awareness for high-rez (but a lot of confusion!) while everyone knows what vinyl is, even if they don't listen to it. I think Apple would like to see more players capable of decoding hi-rez audio out there before making the commitment.  With Blu-ray players dropping below $200, this could be the holiday season that gets the ball rolling. Or, maybe not.
I also wonder whether they might be looking to make their play with hi-rez dowloads and perhaps completely bypass optical disc formats. It all kind of depends on whether Blu-ray becomes a popular format or just a niche for videophiles.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

neil.gader -- Mon, 11/09/2009 - 14:10

I think Apple sees one last opportunity to market vinyl to the largest record buying generation, the Baby Boomers. Even in these tough economic times, empty nesters have more disposable income than most other people. The high-res stuff will inevitably find a market in some form but Apple might see the current moment as vinyl's last gasp. And even though vinyl will be more costly, they can charge what they want and the LP collectors will pay. Boy oh boy, will they pay.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

JCF -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 08:22

So we don't we try and "influence" this process and send a letter signed by The Abolsute Sound and it's readership?
You could draft the letter, post it for comment.  Then have anyone who wants to "electronically sign" the letter and TAS sends on our collective behalf.
I'd even commit to buying, and commit to pay more if the produce it in the best format.  This begins to equate to a sales forecast from a critical group of listeners and Beattles fans...

neil.gader -- Sun, 11/08/2009 - 15:20

an interesting idea. I'll bring it up with the powers-that-be later this week.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

millermax10 -- Thu, 06/24/2010 - 19:10

This is cool. The Beatles are my favorite band of all-time, and one more Beatles vinyl catalog to commemorate them would be a great collector's item. I still wear my Beatles costumes every Halloween, and if that doesn't show you how big of a fan I am I don't know what would.

Cabiner -- Sun, 06/27/2010 - 12:56

In regards to the remarks about 'marketing', I agree that the market for such a releae may not be that big.  For example, I recently listed my complete Beatles collection -incl. eleven like new vinyl bought in Canada in the late 1980s (played not more than twice and on either a LINN or Rega TT), the Very Together album backing Tony Sheridan, the Live at Hollywood Bowl release and the movie sound track of all Beales tunes (All this and WW II) and my asking price was less than 20$ per album. 
Did not get even one contact,  Bob  

Sam -- Thu, 10/07/2010 - 02:26

I went searching for the Beatles "Revolver" and other Beatles albums on LP and they are not available anymore.  Am I too late to the game.  They sold out so quickly? Any news of them coming back on LP or on High Resolution.

firedog -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 07:58

You can still get Beatles LPs - do a search at Amazon for "Beatles vinyl" - but they tend to be pricey.

You might want to wait for the soon to be released Vinyl remasters, based on the 192k digital transcription of the original analogue tapes, that is due out in the near future.

Sam -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 08:01

Do you know by what label the LP's will be made? and will these be only on vinyl or can they be High resolution digital downloads?

firedog -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 08:37

It will be by Apple/EMI as far as I know. Don't know where the actual pressing will be. So far only vinyl has been officially announced.

The stereo remasters are available as 24/44.1 files on a USB stick and they sound superior to the CD remasters; so far no announcement on any 24/96 or 24/192 digital releases, but you can be sure it will come at some point. After all, $ is there for the taking.

Sam -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 09:33

Thanks for the info firedog. I went back up to the blog and read Neil Gader's comments... caughing up $500 to $1000 for the set and then finding out its not that great quality or has lots of clicks and pops or not up to audiophile quality...that would really suck. My guess is that they will go like hot cakes... Vinyl has come back in a huge way in these last 2-3 years.....yes it will die down...but for the very near future it will be around. I am also worried if High resolution will even catch on. Most people are after stupid MP3 compressed garbage sound quality just cuz its cheap and you can load up an ipod with it real good.

neil.gader -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:26

I just got an email response back from the EMI/Apple PR person asking if any release dates or further details were imminent. "No, not yet" was the quick reply. Keeping their cards close to the vest eh?

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

Sam -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:50

Neil if and when you find out please post here or on avguide for ur readers. Looking forward to it.

firedog -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:53


As I commented a while back, "the marketing machine rolls on". I'm sure they want tight control of some PR/Marketing campaign to build up interest.

BTW, thanks for checking with your sources, even if no useful info was forthcoming.

firedog -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:58


I wouldn't worry about the vinyl reissues not being of high quality. Apple's track record on this shows they treat this material with loving care, and are very aware of the "legacy".

I'm sure they'll sound great, the only question will be in the minds of those who won't accept anything except a vinyl remaster direct from the original analogue tapes. But many of those people are so picky, they probably would find reasons to complain about such a re-release even if it did appear.

neil.gader -- Fri, 10/08/2010 - 13:30

It also raises the old question of exactly how good the analog masters really sound today. I've recently talked to a well known mastering guy and he stated flat out that there is no way they sound the way they did thirty years ago. The fact that the latest digital remasters sound wonderful yet clearly "different" from the most pristine, original analog pressings could also be indicative of the steps Apple not only wanted to take but needed to take to compensate for loss and degradation of the tapes over the decades. It would be nice if when the time arrives, Apple will be as forthcoming as possible. Just a dream I suppose.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

mecolwell -- Mon, 10/11/2010 - 08:19

They could release them all on a few Blu-Ray discs, complete with all artwork, and it would be in lossless DTS HD-Master Audio, which would be a bit- perfect copy of the digital remasters. That scenario would probably give us the best sound possible from the high-res remastered versions. Just a thought. Mike


firedog -- Thu, 10/14/2010 - 09:42

 Just wondering: apparently the released remasters were produced like this:
1. Digital transcription of master tapes to 24/192
2. Downsampling of master transcription to 24/44.1
3. Editing EQ, etc. on the 24/44.1 files.
4. Release master finalized in 24/44.1 (this is what is on the USB Stick).
5. Release master downsampled to 16/44.1 for CD release; no other changes made for CD.
So my question is: how does it make sense to do the LPs? Are they going to just make a few minor changes/editing out anomalies to the 24/192 master and make an LP master direct from that? Or do they have to go through the whole editing EQ process again in order to put out an LP?  Or is there any chance they will use the 24/44.1 "master" as the basis for the LP? 

BTW, I've done a lot of listening comparing between the 16 and 24 bit versions and to LPs. The 24 bit is clearly superior to the 16bit. More detail is heard, and everything sounds more natural, more like analogue. Especially percussion of all types.
My favorite comparison song has turned out to be "Words of Love" from "Beatles for Sale" (melcowell was right when he suggested it as a way of comparing);:
24bit vs 16 bit: 
1. the lead guitar sounds more "jangly" and singing than 16 bit; the hand clapping is more distinct and actually reminds one of hands clapping, not just some amorphous percussion in the background.
2. In addition, after the 4X intro guitar rift (where the band sort of drops out) you can hear Ringo counting out his re-entry (with his hi-hat?) in the background. You can also hear it on the 16bit, it's just much less distinct.
24bit vs. LP, same song:
1. Guitar sounds even more "jangly" and singing on LP;
2. hands clapping actually sounds like hands clapping on the LP;
3. can't hear the Ringo count in near the beginning on the LP.
So the LP gets points for a bit more realistic sound (the difference isn't big); but loses points for loss of some types of detail. I assume the count in tapping is so faint it gets lost in the lower signal to noise ratio of the LP. Maybe one of you has  better LP playback than me or discs in more pristine shape and can hear that detail on the LP that I can't.
Anyway, just thought it was interesting. Gets us no closer to solving the "digital vs analogue" argument, IMO. It does make me VERY curious to hear what a digital release of the 24/192 would sound like.

Sam -- Thu, 10/14/2010 - 13:42

To me it makes sense to completely switch to high rez music like we r switching to blueray video and move to the better quality future . Depending on how successful this last round of LP production goes (if it is the last?). Only the beetles may????? Release as 24/192. It might never happen. It's been several years since high Rez. Came out and I'm afraid to say doesn't look like it's catching on or any well known titles on high Rez. It's all the stuff no one listens to but hardcore audiophiles and equipment reviewers. I checked hd tracks and reference recordings and save for few titles that I'd never buy were they not high Rez. I wouldn't buy anything from the selection available. All the high Rez may come after my life time or it may just fade away given the last 30 years trend of highest priority on portability of music and the least of sound quality. High Rez may die out like sacd and DVD audio. Yes downloads will be the format. But high Rez digital? A dream so far.

Sam -- Tue, 10/26/2010 - 06:32

MF at music angle says that the "MONO" version is in production. and a "Stereo" or individuals are also planned.  Which one do you recommend? Buying both Mono and Stereo box sets when they are out will be super expensive.  Some of their stuff was origonally mono and some stereo.... How would you choose and what would you choose, once its out? Mono? stereo? or both?

radberanek -- Sun, 10/31/2010 - 02:41

I am astonished with most of the above comments, especially with Neil gader's ambiguity about "THE VINYL".  Does anyone wonder why do we have to suffer through those ridiculous releases of Blue Notes on 45RPM 2 disc releases, when a SACD remaster would do the same job for 1/3 of the consumer price ? I am not very technical, but it seems to me that some of the voices here invoking new formats such as BlueRay (on the top of SACD) have been ignored. I surely would like to hear more from the remastering "legends" like Grundman etal. about a possible collussion to keep pops and ticks on 200gram vinyl for $100 a pop (pun unintended). It is coming, you bet.  
We audiophiles suffer from an unidentified mental condition that is being skillfully exploited by cold people who diagnosed us as shlemiels with obsessions and plenty of disposable income. We  don't  even listen to Harry Pearson, too esoteric, he... Hey, it's clear to me now : the Beatles music is not the object bur rather the subject of a tedious discusion of handling this heritage. Well, too much of beating around the bush, while millions of fellow Americans live with their earbuds filling their brains with the anesthesia of marching rhythms of "hip hop" in MP3 126. And we here are arguing  about the Beatles Remastered yet again ? Huh?!?
Please don't knock me to much for this comment, as some of you would be compelled to, but rather try to show me, where am I wrong.

firedog -- Sun, 10/31/2010 - 03:10


Not sure I understand your point. A large number of audiophiles think vinyl sounds better. If they are willing to pay high prices for low volume, high quality pressings, who am I to argue?

It's not like the existence of vinyl releases is preventing the re-release of material in digital format. In fact I think the opposite is true. Vinyl gives the record companies another way to make money on physical music releases, and that only encourages them to remaster and release material in quality formats.

The recent musical and commercial success of remasters like the Beatles (including 24bit) and Dylan, and the upcoming Paul McCartney remasters (Band on the Run due out in all formats, including vinyl and hi-res on Nov. 2) will further encourage the labels to release carefully done remasters in quality formats. Good for anyone who is interested in good sound, and not just in iPod playback.

Sam -- Sun, 10/31/2010 - 12:20

I also have been guilty of spending $50 to $100 on an LP which is insane. But what choices do we have. In 2010 the best sound we can get is From a 100 year old technology. The new much better technology of hi Rez digital is there but so many business and economical hurdles untill we start arriving to that place. It will happen but not anytime soon and many of us audiophiles won't be around untill then. So today to enjoy the best we can LP reissues is the best we have. Future generations may have a nice surprise coming up if we can kill mp3 and switch to hi Rez.

firedog -- Tue, 11/02/2010 - 09:28

 Band on the Run now released in 24/96, remastered by same team that did Beatles remasters.
I'll start another thread on this topic.

neil.gader -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 00:41

Have you had a chance to hear these yet? Any word whether McCartney's first solo album is being remastered?

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

firedog -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 01:11

Yes. I've listened quite extensively. I like them both, but I prefer the "unlimited" - I think the balance of the instruments in the mix sounds more natural. In the "limited", there seems to be a strong emphasis to the drums and bass.

In general (both versions) there are the improvements you would hope for: more detail, more "air" between instruments, more dynamics (especially in the unlimited version). I would say the differences are a bit less dramatic than with the Beatles remasters (especially the 24 bit ones) but are a significant improvement in sound quality. I'm very happy with the purchase.

I haven't heard the 16/44 remaster, so I don't know how it compares. I did see yesterday that HDTracks is also now selling the hi-res BOTR, and you can buy individual tracks.

I haven't seen a list of exactly which albums, but I did read that this is the first release in a series of remasters of the McCartney catalogue ("The Archive Collection"). I would certainly assume that the first solo would be one of the ones remastered. No word on if the others will also be sold in hi-res. May depend on the success of this hi-res release.

radberanek -- Tue, 11/02/2010 - 13:14

I appreciate the responses to my rant, which had to do less with the aestethic aspects but rather the cold exploitation of them by the "wax" people. I personally know people who have priceless (inherited) collections of rare LPs and tried to get some audiophile luminaries interested in just look at these titles for the purposes of sale, no bites. Someone, someday, will inherit my collection of vinyl mostly purchased at Sam Goody's in Manhattan, avge price       @$ 4.00 in 1970's, unsaleable even at half of that price. No more pops and thicks in those records than in a 45 RPM remastered $50 200gm set after fifteem plays. Thousands of audiophiles purchased Michel Jonasz's a 2CD set "La Fabuleuse Histoire de Mister Swing", that would be $50 in 1990's dollars, amidst the brutal campaign against then young CD recording technologies. This recording was recommended in the Absolute Sound , of course, as esoteric, but highly desirable import. The point ? Then we were able to make acompromise in that anti-CD battle, not only an ideological one but a musical one, as well.
The SACD technology is being questioned nowadays, even though nobody has ever proposed to remaster Rudy's "original master tapes" onto SACD and sell them to us for twenty bucks a pop.  What's the RPM of SACD disc, not sexy enough for us? Here's a cheap shot : Less vinyl means less dependence on foreign oil and will also help reduce audiophile inflation.
Regards to all  RB

radberanek -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 02:36

I guess Firedog and Neil Gader have a dual monologue and I am getting messages that someone responded to my rant. Why don't we remaster Screaming Jay Hawkins or , damn it, Tiny Tim - anyone? Let's all vote on the future "remasters" with the grreat Jonathan Valin casting the tie breaking vote - the octogenerian can't hear past  10,000Hz but reviews only any thing  which price resembles a telephone number. Incroyable, n'cest pas ? The point is : some non-sequiturs are in the open (cynical), and some are well hidden behind some mercenary writing like in the Investment newsletter teasers, egging us on. Just sayin'.

firedog -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 04:16

Sorry if I offended you, I did say in the earlier post that I started a thread devoted to the subject of BOTR remaster. But Neil asked a question so I responded. I don't think any harm was done.

BTW, the thread isn't "yours", and I think you are getting messages that the thread was responded to, not your rants. And in any case, since the topic of the thread is "The Beatles Remasters on Vinyl", your rants are also off topic....Just sayin'

neil.gader -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 08:48

I really don't understand the issue here. Expensive vinyl is not an impediment to 24/192 Bluray content-it's a blip on the accounting books. A revenue stream that will likely continue as long as there are hobbyists-that's fine with me. Are they gouging the market? Maybe, but limited production anything always commands a premium price while demand remains strong. Fact is, they sound damn good. And you should never underestimate the pleasure music lovers get spinning vinyl-the technology maybe archaic but they got it right unlike digital which has been an unsettled, and confusing and moving target for years-DVD-audio, SACD, a multitude of resolutions, etc. On the other hand I've heard high Rez Bluray done right by the inimitable Doug Sax himself-a genuine booster of the format. Sax loves vinyl yes but his high Rez disc blew me away. Getting the majors interested is the issue. If they can smell the know the rest.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

neil.gader -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 09:02

Keep in mind this is a thread about Beatles vinyl remasters. If you want to call into question Jon Valin's motivations or otherwise slam his integrity you're welcome to your opinion but you are also flat out wrong. JV does review breathlessly expensive gear but that's not really the point. The point of this hobby is the pursuit of the absolute sound. Often but not always that pursuit correlates with expensive r&d and innovation typically reflected in costs. But that's not to say that fabulous performance isn't available at a fraction of those prices, because we report on it every issue.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

radberanek -- Fri, 11/05/2010 - 23:28

Sorry I tugged on this thread too hard as in "off topic" perhaps. The Beatles CD remasters sond very good and make for an excellent package. Do you think a new vinyl remastering would improve on the CD sets sound quality significantly enough while staying competitive price-wise? Or should I not worry about the price because if I have to ask, I can't afford it, most likely.
What got me started on this vinyl remastering of ANYTHING was the incontrovertible fact that the vinyl medium regardless of price we pay, requires a tenderest loving care to maintain the quality of enjoyment implied in the going today price. As I said I own some remasters at 45RPM which, even in a laboratory environment, developed pops and ticks. Is your experience different from mine? If so, pray tell the secrets how to protect $500 vinyl set of remastered Beatles heritage to pass it relatively intact onto my children, after I'd unsealed it, played it and cleaned it when the need arose.
This is the trade-off I propose : someone give the consumer (audiophiles are just that) an alternative with a very slight sound quality decrease, in a digital medium e.g.SACD with better physical medium persistence. Quite similar to a dual layer SACD, well, not quite, I know but you get the gist. Then, maybe, I would buy both versions, just for the enjoyment of private 3-way sound comparison sessions, dragging in all those inferior Beatles LP pressings I also own and play still.
Regards RB

firedog -- Sat, 11/06/2010 - 00:57


I'm sure the Beatles remasters vinyl will be quite pricey. Apple's pricing policy on all things Beatle seems to be to price it at the going high end of the MSRP for whatever medium it is. So vinyl $25-$40 a disc, maybe some discount for the boxed set.

Clicks and pops - I don't thing anyone can avoid them entirely. But some vinyl enthusiasts put tens of thousands into their equipment, including expensive cleaning systems. I'm sure this helps. But I think if you really prefer the sound of vinyl a small amount of clicks and pops don't bother you - someone once compared it to the experience of someone coughing at a symphony: do you hear it - yes; do you care - no. Does it ruin the experience - no.

VincentK -- Fri, 11/19/2010 - 01:37

The Beatles music catalog is now available for download. This was the official November sixteen Apple announcement. Here is the proof: iTunes announcement - Apple announces that Beatles are on iTunes. For the last 24 hrs, Apple has been teasing the headline. There were many rumors about the iTunes announcement. Very few, if any of the rumors were about The Beatles, however.

neil.gader -- Fri, 11/19/2010 - 09:42

We're talking resolution and vinyl here. So what's the bit rate?

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

DH -- Thu, 09/20/2012 - 15:04

Beatles remasters on vinyl announced:

Remastered from 24/192 digital transfer of analogue masters; implied that there will be a mono set also. Apparently individual titles will be available: ; other titles also listed as individual albums

neil.gader -- Fri, 09/21/2012 - 12:42

 thanks for the news!! how was it implied about the mono set?

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

DH -- Thu, 10/04/2012 - 10:56

 From Analog Planet "> (I'm not the person who wrote the letter, I'm just quoting):

“Just for kicks, I sent an email to Abbey Road Studios, regarding the Beatles vinyl remasters, asking:

Simple question – were these mastered using the 24/192 digital masters or 24/44.1?


“I got this response this morning:

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your email.

For the recent Beatles remasters, The original tapes were copied to digital at 24/192k. The tracks were then remastered at 24/96 and the vinyl was cut from these 24/96K masters.

I hope this answers your question


Abbey Road Studios”

This seems to jibe with what the press release already said: Originals transferred to 24/192, edited for some sibilance reduction and EQ tweaks, saved/converted down to 24/96. LPs cut from the 24/96.

Also mentioned there that a mono vinyl release is planned for 2013

neil.gader -- Thu, 10/04/2012 - 11:02

thanks DH and btw if you'd like to continue this thread check out the absolute sounds's new website. and then head to the blog section. the discussion continues there.

Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.