The Beatles on iTunes: we can’t work it out

Simon · Nov 16, 2010, 19:25:30

Beatles on iTunesSo The Beatles have finally released their back catalogue on iTunes. Whoopi-do. Can we get on with the rest of our lives now?

To a man (and woman) in the PC Pro office, none of us can work out why anyone would want to buy the albums off iTunes, let alone the £125 Beatles Box that wraps up all 16 of the albums plus a selection of questionable extras.

For starters, you're far better off buying the albums on CD – presuming you haven't already. Take for example the The Beatles 1967-1970 (The Blue Album) is £17.99 to download in iTunes' 256Kbits/sec AAC format, while the double-CD version of the very same album is half the price on Play.com. And that's in a completely lossless format, that arrives with its very own backup media (ie. the CD) and sleeve notes.

The only possible reason for buying the album off iTunes instead of Play is the convenience and unbeatable speed of delivery: but is anyone really in that much of a hurry to download albums that have been out for 40 years or more?

Read more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2010/11/16/the-beatles-on-itunes-we-cant-work-it-out/

Niall · Nov 16, 2010, 20:03:50

You can get the remastered box set online now. I don't see why anyone would buy it on itunes, with the exception of people with a lot of disposable income that can't be bothered buying it cheaper, then ripping it themselves.

pctech · Nov 16, 2010, 21:04:53

The average Apple Mac user then

Simon · Nov 16, 2010, 21:52:21

Steve · Nov 16, 2010, 21:52:57

There's no such thing as 'average' when it pertains to a Mac user, we are a highly discernable minority who have no disposable income as we give gladly to the house of Mr Jobs.

Predjudice is a terrible burden to carry.

Rik · Nov 17, 2010, 10:10:58

The only way I could see buying from iTunes is if I wanted a particular track, or two, from the album, but not the entire thing.

Ray · Nov 17, 2010, 10:29:51

I agree, Rik, I bought a Barbra Streisand album download over the weekend from Amazon, it was £5.50 cheaper than Itunes.

Rik · Nov 17, 2010, 10:32:33

And without the DRM.

Ray · Nov 17, 2010, 10:33:07

True.

pctech · Nov 17, 2010, 18:10:18

You can de-DRM it, just burn it to an audio CD format.

Rik · Nov 17, 2010, 18:14:01

True, but it's not ideal to convert and re-convert, Mitch.

Niall · Nov 18, 2010, 23:21:13

Quote from: Rik on Nov 17, 2010, 10:10:58

The only way I could see buying from iTunes is if I wanted a particular track, or two, from the album, but not the entire thing.

I bought the new Buddy Guy song on there the other week (the new album is great by the way), but only because I had one free credit from them from months ago. I'll be buying the album from amazon on payday, or use a company that delivers in the period specified.

pctech · Nov 19, 2010, 13:24:46

HMV?

drummer · Nov 20, 2010, 02:09:58

I bought the remastered box set...

The dynamic range of the original mono recordings beggars belief and there's no way iTunes' compressed offerings could even compete.

That is all.

Gary · Nov 20, 2010, 08:40:54

Quote from: drummer on Nov 20, 2010, 02:09:58
I bought the remastered box set...

The dynamic range of the original mono recordings beggars belief and there's no way iTunes' compressed offerings could even compete.

That is all.

People are used to that in this day and age, tbh as you get older you hearing does fade, but a really good turntable and amp, and music really sings, depending on what it is of course.

Gary · Nov 20, 2010, 09:54:06

What can I say

Rik · Nov 20, 2010, 10:56:55

Simon · Nov 20, 2010, 11:18:31

Ray · Nov 20, 2010, 12:01:48

Technical Ben · Nov 20, 2010, 12:55:55

Quote from: Simon on Nov 16, 2010, 19:25:30
...And that's in a completely lossless format, that arrives with its very own backup media (ie. the CD) and sleeve notes....

CD is not lossless.
... oops. It's considered lossless at over 1400kbps.
From wiki though "224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality. 320 kbit/s comparable, virtually indistinguishable to CD quality".
But CD is not lossless.

Technical Ben · Nov 20, 2010, 12:57:42

Quote from: Rik on Nov 17, 2010, 18:14:01
True, but it's not ideal to convert and re-convert, Mitch.

I'm reminded of that skeleton and the "re-record not fade away" song.

Rik · Nov 20, 2010, 12:58:06

Quote from: Technical Ben on Nov 20, 2010, 12:55:55
CD is not lossless.
... oops. It's considered lossless at over 1400kbps.
From wiki though "224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality. 320 kbit/s comparable, virtually indistinguishable to CD quality".
But CD is not lossless.

Nothing in the chain is lossless, of course. Live performances still win.

Rik · Nov 20, 2010, 12:58:43

Quote from: Technical Ben on Nov 20, 2010, 12:57:42
I'm reminded of that skeleton and the "re-record not fade away" song.

Couldn't have been me, I don't resemble a skeleton.

Steve · Nov 20, 2010, 13:04:24

Although a CD does not have the dynamic range of the studio masters you can convert to any lossy format and compression you wish plus you can repeat this. You should not convert or alter the compression of a lossy format i.e CD to 320 MP3 ok CD to MP3 250 ok but MP3 320 to MP3 250 is not recommend.

pctech · Nov 20, 2010, 14:36:08

Quote from: Technical Ben on Nov 20, 2010, 12:57:42
I'm reminded of that skeleton and the "re-record not fade away" song.

You mean this one?

Rik · Nov 20, 2010, 16:05:13

They very same. (YT is working!)

pctech · Nov 20, 2010, 16:46:02

Quote from: Rik on Nov 20, 2010, 16:05:13
(YT is working!)

Yee-ha!

drummer · Nov 21, 2010, 01:44:41

Quote from: Gary on Nov 20, 2010, 08:40:54
People are used to that in this day and age, tbh as you get older you hearing does fade, but a really good turntable and amp, and music really sings, depending on what it is of course.

And that's why you shouldn't dismiss the remastered mono recordings.

I schlepped over to a friend's house and we listened to the original (mono) vinyl using a Pink Triangle turntable, a Musical Fidelity power amp, two MF preamps and Mordaunt-Short speakers. Stunning is what it was.

Then we did the same thing with the remastered CDs using a Musical Fidelity CD player with the same rig and it was just as stunning but without the crackle, pops and hiss.

These have been remastered to represent exactly what George Martin and the Beatles wanted people to hear. Seriously, you'd be very hard-pressed to spot the difference (apart from the crackles, pops and hiss). If you like the "warmth" of analogue, you won't be disappointed with these remasters.

Early CD releases of older albums were a disaster because the industry couldn't be bothered to do the research - it was a new income stream from old stock and the less money spent, the better. Genuine remasters change all that.

Gary · Nov 21, 2010, 02:11:16

Quote from: drummer on Nov 21, 2010, 01:44:41
And that's why you shouldn't dismiss the remastered mono recordings.

I schlepped over to a friend's house and we listened to the original (mono) vinyl using a Pink Triangle turntable, a Musical Fidelity power amp, two MF preamps and Mordaunt-Short speakers. Stunning is what it was.

Then we did the same thing with the remastered CDs using a Musical Fidelity CD player with the same rig and it was just as stunning but without the crackle, pops and hiss.

These have been remastered to represent exactly what George Martin and the Beatles wanted people to hear. Seriously, you'd be very hard-pressed to spot the difference (apart from the crackles, pops and hiss). If you like the "warmth" of analogue, you won't be disappointed with these remasters.

Early CD releases of older albums were a disaster because the industry couldn't be bothered to do the research - it was a new income stream from old stock and the less money spent, the better. Genuine remasters change all that.

I used to have a Roksan Radius piped through a NAD amp and Tannoy floor standing speakers, vinyl sounded so good

drummer · Nov 21, 2010, 02:16:06

Quote from: Technical Ben on Nov 20, 2010, 12:55:55
CD is not lossless.
... oops. It's considered lossless at over 1400kbps.
From wiki though "224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality. 320 kbit/s comparable, virtually indistinguishable to CD quality".
But CD is not lossless.

CDA isn't measured by kbps and the Red Book standard defines it as "two-channel 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz".

drummer · Nov 21, 2010, 02:29:03

Quote from: Gary on Nov 21, 2010, 02:11:16
I used to have a Roksan Radius piped through a NAD amp and Tannoy floor standing speakers, vinyl sounded so good

Oh, don't get me started! When we'd finished with the chin-stroking Beatles exercise, he shoved Abraxas on the turntable and the world briefly became a better place.

Hey ho.

zappaDPJ · Nov 21, 2010, 04:02:29

Abraxas always was and still is one of the best pieces of vinyl I've ever heard.

Niall · Nov 21, 2010, 08:27:06

Quote from: Gary on Nov 21, 2010, 02:11:16
I used to have a Roksan Radius piped through a NAD amp and Tannoy floor standing speakers, vinyl sounded so good

My sisters other half has what could be considered a cheap NAD amp but the sound quality through that thing is second to none. I honestly haven't heard anything through a warmer sounding amp. All the other amps I've heard that are more modern seem to be a bit clinical. Still, I haven't had a great deal of experience in amps, other than guitar amps so there probably are better amps around for your hi-fi but I haven't heard one.