Sweet to see a re-release, although i already have Abbey Rd. Deluxe, had a sweet t-shirt.
You're always the first person to report us about anything Beatles related. Thanks! Also, Revolution sounds a bit different than I remember it to be. Guitar sounds a bit distorted.
well i imagine that was the effect that they were hoping for
iirc lennon hooked his guitar right up to the soundboard and went wild, and that's why it sounds so fucking rad, he was like "fuck amps"
that book looks fucking nuts
and yeah lennon did that distortion on purpose. that's the single version. on the album version its acoustic.
i know a few people that are gonna be pissed that they are 180 gram.
but doesn't 180 gram = better sound quality?
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;38270295]but doesn't 180 gram = better sound quality?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. While the 180 gram vinyl discs are less prone to warping and most of the time use virgin vinyl (Non-recycled plastics, so it has less imperfections), sometimes record companies jack up the Db on the records, or just use the CD master to master the record.
However, Apple and EMI seem to not have an issue with remastering, so these should come out fantastic.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;38270295]but doesn't 180 gram = better sound quality?[/QUOTE]
It's less prone to warping over time, but the quality depends on the press. A 120 g can sound better then a 180 g or 200 g.
I've got originals from the 60's. Re-release is nice and all but I'll take the ones I already have, which are also in stereo. I just don't have a cool collectors box for them =(
Oh boy I [b]seriously fucking want this[/b] but I imagine it won't be all that cheap...
"you just don't get the visuals on CD!"
What visuals?
If she was talking about tripping out, i don't think the drugs gives a shit if it's digital.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38273955]"you just don't get the visuals on CD!"
What visuals?
If she was talking about tripping out, i don't think the drugs gives a shit if it's digital.[/QUOTE]
Album art and all the stuff they put in for the albums on vinyl
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38271483]I've got originals from the 60's. Re-release is nice and all but I'll take the ones I already have, which are also in stereo. I just don't have a cool collectors box for them =([/QUOTE]
the original records up until revolver (I think) are mono so...?
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38273955]"you just don't get the visuals on CD!"
What visuals?
If she was talking about tripping out, i don't think the drugs gives a shit if it's digital.[/QUOTE]
With vinyl albums, you'd get glorious artwork, pictures, and even lyric sheets. Cd's would come with a small album cover 5inx4in and if you were lucky, some extra artwork, almost never lyrics.
Vinyl was made for the full experience and albums seldom skimped on details like that.
But shit sound quality after like two playthroughs.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38276218]But shit sound quality after like two playthroughs.[/QUOTE]
I disagree
Too bad my record player was broken during a party.
[sp]I wouldn't buy it anyway.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38276218]But shit sound quality after like two playthroughs.[/QUOTE]
Your record player is fucked.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;38280297]:smile:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/The-Beatles-Stereo-Vinyl-Box/dp/B0041KVW2K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351813454&sr=8-1&keywords=the+beatles+vinyl+box+set[/url][/QUOTE]
I was going off this link; [url]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-beatles-vinyl-album-catalog-reissue-20120927,0,4463869.story[/url]
Thanks.
Still: Fuck.
[QUOTE=FeartheMango;38280315]I was going off this link; [url]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-beatles-vinyl-album-catalog-reissue-20120927,0,4463869.story[/url]
Thanks.
Still: Fuck.[/QUOTE]
Still considering the price, it will still be a lot more to buy the albums individually instead of buying them in the box
$320 isn't a bad price if you're a fan.
[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;38275652]the original records up until revolver (I think) are mono so...?[/QUOTE]
No they're in stereo as well. My With The Beatles one has STEREO written in big fat letters right in the corner, and it was printed in 1963
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38286454]No they're in stereo as well. My With The Beatles one has STEREO written in big fat letters right in the corner, and it was printed in 1963[/QUOTE]
must be a repressing because they were not in stereo until much later
In [i]glorious[/i] [b]STEREO!![/b] Shame my stereo busted a while back.
[QUOTE=Zenpod;38280077]Your record player is fucked.[/QUOTE]
Why would i use one? it's too expensive and anything Analogue, but video, sucks nigger-ass!
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism. Again." - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;38295885]Why would i use one? it's too expensive and anything Analogue, but video, sucks [B]nigger-ass[/B]![/QUOTE]
uhhhh
Saying vinyl > CD is bull shit, it depends completely on the quality of the remaster.
some vinyls may sound better than some CDs of the same album, but that boils down to what the data looks like on the CD, it could be made to sound [i]identical[/i] to the LP, picks and crackles included. Or, it could be made to sound way, way better.
Some CDs that demonstrate this are the 2011 remaster of Aqua Lung, the Tom Scholz Boston remaster and the most recent Led Zeppelin II are all great examples of how good CDs can sound.
Also, shitty DACs are partial to blame.
[QUOTE=Barbarian887;38296087]Saying vinyl > CD is bull shit, it depends completely on the quality of the remaster.
some vinyls may sound better than some CDs of the same album, but that boils down to what the data looks like on the CD, it could be made to sound [i]identical[/i] to the LP, picks and crackles included. Or, it could be made to sound way, way better.
Some CDs that demonstrate this are the 2011 remaster of Aqua Lung, the Tom Scholz Boston remaster and the most recent Led Zeppelin II are all great examples of how good CDs can sound.
Also, shitty DACs are partial to blame.[/QUOTE]
Vinyl has an uncompressed sound, while CD is compressed. Makes the sound on vinyl sound more clear than a cd which is compressed
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.