Unboxing The Beatles Limited Edition Stereo USB

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

BlackWidower:
What's the big deal with packaging. Ooo, it's so impressive that they spent so much work designing something you will throw out once you buy it. I remember when I bought my iPod a few years ago, an iPod that was since stolen, and remember the packaging which I didn't throw out because I thought it might have a purpose...turns out, no. It was completely useless and I really think they should have spent less energy on the packaging and more energy making the iPod not shit.

Hype hype hype hype hype hype hype hype hype hype <- the lasting legacy of the Beatles.

armageddon74400:
wouldn't it have been cheaper to just buy a 20$ usb drive, shove it into an apple, write "the beatles!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111oneoneone" on it and download everything off of limewire?
just saying...

Cheaper? Yes. Producing the same effect? Yes. Making fanboys drool? No.

300lb. Samoan:
People don't seem to understand the appeal of this. One, these are the newest digital masters, the highest quality ever made of the Beatles material from the original mixes. Two, they are professionally encoded right from the digital source. Three, none of the material is available for purchase digitally except in this format. So this offers the absolute highest quality digital "pressing" - the best source via the best transfer - and in a convenient, well packaged and legal format. If you were to obtain copies from the internet they would suffer by comparison because One: they would be from older masters made using dated technologies and/or inferior methods; Two: they would be transfered from a CD and encoded on a home computer, most likely using inferior software (very likely ripped using the horrible iTunes encoder); and Three: they would be illegal pirated copies.

You'd be right about not being able to get the same quality off the internet before now, but now that these have been released it is merely a matter of time before the FLAC format is widely available in torrents.
Also, what's to get excited about? They are higher quality versions than have been realesed before, but it won't be noticeable on almost any home system, and if the old versions were good enough for you, this really isn't required. Lossless audio is actually a gimmick unless you are playing your music in an arena.
I'm no fan of the Beatles (flame shield erected) but a friend of mine showed me some Beatles tracks that had been remastered for 5.1 to take advantage of all the directions and I thought that was very cool - check it out if you haven't already, sorry I don't have a link.

SikOseph:

Also, what's to get excited about? They are higher quality versions than have been realesed before, but it won't be noticeable on almost any home system, and if the old versions were good enough for you, this really isn't required. Lossless audio is actually a gimmick unless you are playing your music in an arena.

In a big reverberant arena on long throw speakers and synth-enhanced subwoofers? UGH no thank you, it's the very definition of fake fidelity. Hi-Fi recordings are meant to be enjoyed in a controlled listening space on a suitable loudspeaker configuration. The difference is readily noticeable even over the recently released Ones collection.

SikOseph:

I'm no fan of the Beatles (flame shield erected) but a friend of mine showed me some Beatles tracks that had been remastered for 5.1 to take advantage of all the directions and I thought that was very cool - check it out if you haven't already, sorry I don't have a link.

Believe me, no one here is questioning your fandom at this point. I'm sure the surround sound mixes are an interesting listen, but I'd much rather listen on a fine-tuned stereo system instead of a small set of 5.1 satellites. The Beatles were mostly mixed in mono then reproduced in stereo kind of slap-dash, so even the stereo mixes are a little disingenuous. Do you know if the surround mixes were an official release? I've never heard about them.

300lb. Samoan:

Believe me, no one here is questioning your fandom at this point. I'm sure the surround sound mixes are an interesting listen, but I'd much rather listen on a fine-tuned stereo system instead of a small set of 5.1 satellites. The Beatles were mostly mixed in mono then reproduced in stereo kind of slap-dash, so even the stereo mixes are a little disingenuous. Do you know if the surround mixes were an official release? I've never heard about them.

He had a pretty sophisticated amp and speaker system so I think your objection (while certainly right in principle) probably wouldn't apply to his set up. I'm pretty sure they aren't an official release, just some renegade sound engineer. I've sent him an e-mail and am waiting for info.

300lb. Samoan:
snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%28The_Beatles_album%29

There's all the response I got to my e-mail...

This is actally quite a good deal. I don't have nearly good enough speakers to make out any difference, but it looks so cool. I'm not a giant Beatles fan, but I am a fan. So Beatles lovers would be mad to pass up on deal like this. As has been said it's about the price of simply buying the songs if they where on iTunes (which they aren't) . They could have charged double, and still sold them all.

I couldn't possibly care much less about the Beatles, but the presentation is just wicked cool. And that apple has some serious heft to it. Highly neato for a Beatles fan.

JRShield:
I'd expect a little bit more bang for your buck. I mean, $280 for a usb stick with some songs on them? You could download your ass of in the Istorethingey (sorry, no Ipod owner) for that kind of money!

No, you can download shit mp3's.
Read the article, you get higher quality versions of the files.
The whole reason I never use itunes to buy music is because I don't feel I should pay money for poor quality files when CD quality is better. But this is even better than that.
I think its a smart move and I hope more bands start DD like this.

Not only does it have a wackload of high quality Beatles songs, but it is cheaper than buying ripoff CDs and comes in a cool USB stick. I can't decide between games or this to buy for myself over Christmas.

BlindMessiah94:

JRShield:
I'd expect a little bit more bang for your buck. I mean, $280 for a usb stick with some songs on them? You could download your ass of in the Istorethingey (sorry, no Ipod owner) for that kind of money!

No, you can download shit mp3's.
Read the article, you get higher quality versions of the files.
The whole reason I never use itunes to buy music is because I don't feel I should pay money for poor quality files when CD quality is better. But this is even better than that.
I think its a smart move and I hope more bands start DD like this.

The high quality versions will assuredly be on btjunkie or something within the week. As long as it isn't a CD, isn't from iTunes and doesn't come from an RIAA member label I'll buy the album. If the band is an RIAA label, they can go fuck themselves, I wouldn't even pirate their songs since that still supports them by generating buzz.

What about licenses?

Can I copy this to my MP3 Player and listen to this on the bus or is
there a stupid only copy three times catch?
Because if there is none I will order one immediately.

SikOseph:

300lb. Samoan:
snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%28The_Beatles_album%29

There's all the response I got to my e-mail...

OH I see, I didn't realize that recording was in surround sound. Now it's much more interesting. Thanks for asking him.

Citrus Insanity:
What's the total file size, and how much can the USB hold? Sounds like it would have to be around 15 gigs to me... the Beatles had a ton of songs.

The sticks are 16gb, so you're probably close. I'm sure they would have went with an 8gb drive if it would have fit.

DiscoveryOne:
What about DRM, though? Or are the songs able to be taken off the USB and onto your HDD?

Crazy_Bird:
What about licenses?

There's no DRM on the files at all, they're just vanilla MP3 and FLAC.

Still, for $280 I could buy a PS3 or a xbox360. No matter how good the quality of the music, all you get is some bits and bites inside an apple. Maybe I'm old-school, but I love to touch things and smell them. Maybe that's why I still dig LP's. The covers, the smell of vinyl. Aaah! All the Beatles their LP's in a nice luxe box, that I would consider.

JRShield:
Still, for $280 I could buy a PS3 or a xbox360. No matter how good the quality of the music, all you get is some bits and bites inside an apple. Maybe I'm old-school, but I love to touch things and smell them. Maybe that's why I still dig LP's. The covers, the smell of vinyl. Aaah! All the Beatles their LP's in a nice luxe box, that I would consider.

An what are your Games made of, man? Sticks and Stones?
and then you still donīt own 14 remastered Beatles CDs plus Artbooks.
You are just confusing the format with content, thatīs it.

And I hope you spent some grands on you turntable, amp, speaker and cables to actually hear
the difference of digitally mastered audio on vinyl with your ears. Not only in your imagination.

Itīs unsetttling to see how many gamers actually have no clue how digital audio works! :(

and for the egg head comments:
CD standart is 44.1kHz 16bit, wile the FLAC is 24bit. So it has a much greater dynamic range.
and iTunes uses the official Fraunhofer mp3 codec.

have a nice day.

Elementlmage:
Since 24-bits @ 44.1 KHz IS the current standard, I am having trouble understanding how they are better than CDs.

CD audio is essentially raw data. FLAC is (lossless) compressed data; the format achieves compression rates of 30-50% with most music. It's kinda like how a text file converted to a 10 MB Gzip file is storing more text than just a 10 MB text file does.

Elementlmage:
(Yes, 192 Kbps is ear rape, and everyone who is content with that is deaf, stupid, or both)

Higher-quality encoders developed over the last ten years have really redefined what a 192 Kbps MP3 sounds like.

-- Alex

There are a few here who scoff at this box set usb apple, but rest assured, I have one, having been one of the early adopters at Xmastime when only 30K were available (must be more now as these surely would have sold out). But this is not just a copy of the Beatles box set in a cute package, although the aluminum apple is quite fab as a design. It's about the resolution of the files. these are FLAC files, which stands for "Free Lossless Audio Codec", at least I'm pretty sure that's what it is. I read about the audiophile stuff here: Beatles usb review and can tell you that they DO sound better than the previously issues CDs. And if you have real high-end audio system they actually sound better than anything you've ever heard, including the old vinyl records which certainly have their charm but which are basically outdated in the 21st century.

Long live the Beatles.

to answer the question from user above... these MP3s are what they call DRM free which means you can copy them as many times as you want. Pretty damn awesome.

Mmm, most definitely want one...

@ElementImage: 24 bits @ 44.1 KHz is NOT the current standard. CD quality is 16 bits @ 44.1KHz. Bit rate (or depth) is more important than sample rate in determining the quality of the sound you will hear, so raising the bit depth to 24 bit should result in significant sonic improvements over 16 bit.
DVD is 24 bit @ 96KHz - even better. One reason why the notoriously picky Neil Young has started releasing albums as CD/DVD double packs.
I joined this site just to post this message. That's how much I care.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here