MiC up for order on Amazon, August release

[sockittome]

I wouldn't say there is anything  necessarily wrong with them. However, technology has progressed an incredible amount in these 13 years.

No, it hasn't. Which is the point. There are amazing sounding CDs from the early '80s. That isn't to say they *all* sounded great, but the technology existed then.

Differences in sound from release to release are almost never about technology and almost always about 1) the sources used and 2) the tastes of the engineers involved. Technology can play a part, but it is usually pretty subtle compared to the reasons above.

These are pretty flawed points.  First of all technology does play a big part.  Look at the '09 Beatles remasters.  It's pretty universally accepted that these are better than the '87 issues.  Why?  Nothing was done to them other than mastering with more advanced digital converters, and it's made a big difference.

Regarding cds mastered in the 80's, there may be a few good sounding ones that got buggered up reissues later on, but then again, there are a lot of really muddy, noisy cds that sound that way because they were rushed out using the heavily compressed and rolled off masters intended for vinyl.  The rush was on to jump on that digital bandwagon and get as much product out on cd in the beginning.

[JohnMill]

I wouldn't say there is anything  necessarily wrong with them. However, technology has progressed an incredible amount in these 13 years.

No, it hasn't. Which is the point. There are amazing sounding CDs from the early '80s. That isn't to say they *all* sounded great, but the technology existed then.

Differences in sound from release to release are almost never about technology and almost always about 1) the sources used and 2) the tastes of the engineers involved. Technology can play a part, but it is usually pretty subtle compared to the reasons above.

These are pretty flawed points.  First of all technology does play a big part.  Look at the '09 Beatles remasters.  It's pretty universally accepted that these are better than the '87 issues.  Why?  Nothing was done to them other than mastering with more advanced digital converters, and it's made a big difference.

Regarding cds mastered in the 80's, there may be a few good sounding ones that got buggered up reissues later on, but then again, there are a lot of really muddy, noisy cds that sound that way because they were rushed out using the heavily compressed and rolled off masters intended for vinyl.  The rush was on to jump on that digital bandwagon and get as much product out on cd in the beginning.

I think your premise is pretty much on the money but the sticking issue is that this whole issue is subjective to the listener.  For example you bring up The Beatles 2009 remasters?  While most agree that they are an upgrade over the 1987 issues, they haven't exactly been the recipient of much praise either.  The stereo issues especially have come into a great deal of flak as far as not representing the original sixties recording accurately alongside a bunch of other complaints.  The mono issues quite contrastingly have been the recipient of much praise which is a rare thing among Beatles scholars most of whom are of the opinion that the majority of Beatles remasters (audio and video) are flawed in one way or another.

Back to The Beach Boys.  I think the 2001 remasters sound fine and that is probably why I have stayed away from the 2012 remasters up until now.  I'm kind of at the point where how many copies of "Pet Sounds" do I need to have in my collection?  So again we are back to the issue of subjectivity which is sort of where my argument started off.   

[lukpac]

These are pretty flawed points.  First of all technology does play a big part.  Look at the '09 Beatles remasters.  It's pretty universally accepted that these are better than the '87 issues.  Why?  Nothing was done to them other than mastering with more advanced digital converters, and it's made a big difference.

Actually, no.

First off, it isn't "universally accepted" that they are better than the older CDs.

Second, there was quite a bit of tweaking done to the 2009 CDs, for better or worse. Different EQ, noise reduction, narrowing of the stereo image, limiting the dynamic range, etc. Those are all aesthetic choices that aren't related to technology. Some people like those aesthetic choices, while others don't. The original CDs were mostly flat transfers of the original tapes, for better or worse. The 2009 CDs had a fair amount of processing, again for better or worse.

Third, in the case of the first 4 albums, the 1987 CDs used the mono mixes, while the standard 2009 issues use the stereo mixes (the mono mixes are available, but only in the mono box). So those are an apples to oranges comparison anyway.

Regarding cds mastered in the 80's, there may be a few good sounding ones that got buggered up reissues later on, but then again, there are a lot of really muddy, noisy cds that sound that way because they were rushed out using the heavily compressed and rolled off masters intended for vinyl.  The rush was on to jump on that digital bandwagon and get as much product out on cd in the beginning.

That was certainly true sometimes, but that was an issue with the sources used, not the technology. Which gets back to my original point.

I think your premise is pretty much on the money but the sticking issue is that this whole issue is subjective to the listener.  For example you bring up The Beatles 2009 remasters?  While most agree that they are an upgrade over the 1987 issues, they haven't exactly been the recipient of much praise either.  The stereo issues especially have come into a great deal of flak as far as not representing the original sixties recording accurately alongside a bunch of other complaints.

Exactly. I find A Hard Day's Night in particular to be a dreadful remaster. Many stereo LPs of the album, and even the cuts from Something New and Beatles for Sale in the Capitol box set sound very open and expansive; a joy to listen to. On the other hand, the 2009 CD has been narrowed and EQ'd to the point that it sounds kind of dead and lifeless. Again: nothing to do with technology, everything to do with the choices made by the mastering engineers.

[Mikie]

I don't have a problem with "Hard Day's Night" or ANY of the '09 remasters.  Don't like those?  Go listen to Doc Ebbetts or the fan mixes on YouTube.

[lukpac]

I don't have a problem with "Hard Day's Night" or ANY of the '09 remasters.  Don't like those?  Go listen to Doc Ebbetts or the fan mixes on YouTube.

That's nice. I do.

[Generation42]

The Beatles 2009 mono issues quite contrastingly have been the recipient of much praise...

And rightly so!  They are fantastic, starting from the top with the terrific sound, straight through to the presentation of each 'mini album.'  I couldn't possibly have asked for anything more from the mono box.

That said, despite the Beatles being my lifelong musical favourites, I still haven't purchased the bulk of the 2009 stereo releases (aside from Let it Be and Abbey Road, for obvious reasons), and I can't see myself ever really taking that plunge.  While they certainly had their moments, I wasn't blown away by most of the stereo samples I heard.  There's also the matter of the voices in one channel/instruments on the other approach (I mostly prefer to listen with headphones, and hearing Ringo panned entirely to one channel during "Strawberry Fields Forever" tends to distract, rather than move me in the way the mono version does, and no remaster is ever going to address that).

Now if Apple ever endeavors to offer a stereo remix of the entire catalogue... 


But back to the Beach Boys!

[Dunderhead]

The lack of proper stereo remixes is maybe the one reason I simply don't like listening to the Beatles. I like the songs well enough, but the mixes are just dreadful. The Beatles are, *in my opinion*, the worst sounding group on record of all the top-tier 60s bands, their releases just sound like sh*t frankly to my ears and give me a headache whenever I listen to them on headphones.

[TV Forces]

Back to The Beach Boys.  I think the 2001 remasters sound fine and that is probably why I have stayed away from the 2012 remasters up until now.

The 2001 remasters are probably better than the 2012 remasters, but the new remasters would often include a mono or stereo mix of an album that is now available on CD (or ever!) for the first time.  That was the draw to picking those up.  Obviously, that doesn't apply to Pet Sounds, Sunflower, of Surf's Up.. but plenty of the others.

The Beatles are, *in my opinion*, the worst sounding group on record of all the top-tier 60s bands, their releases just sound like sh*t frankly to my ears and give me a headache whenever I listen to them on headphones.

First time I've ever heard that.  Most 60s music is pretty awful in headphones due to the wide stereo mixes.  I solved that by not listening with headphones.  The Beatles were the best recorded of all those other bands.  I wish the Kinks stuff sounded as clear.

First off, it isn't "universally accepted" that they are better than the older CDs.

Yes, it's universally accepted, you just don't agree.  There was a poll on the Hoffman Forum that asked if the 2009 remasters are better than the original 80s CDs and it was something like 92% yes.  That's unheard of at the Hoffman Forum.  You're obviously in the 8% and therefore discount the rest.  And to all the people crying about NR on those CDs..  they said it was used in 5 minutes of the 10 hour catalog and nobody has been able to tell where those 5 minutes are. 

[JohnMill]

The Beatles 2009 mono issues quite contrastingly have been the recipient of much praise...

And rightly so!  They are fantastic, starting from the top with the terrific sound, straight through to the presentation of each 'mini album.'  I couldn't possibly have asked for anything more from the mono box.

That said, despite the Beatles being my lifelong musical favourites, I still haven't purchased the bulk of the 2009 stereo releases (aside from Let it Be and Abbey Road, for obvious reasons), and I can't see myself ever really taking that plunge. 

Funny story: The Beatles 2009 Stereo Remasters Box Set is still the only occasion where a merchant has tried to talk me out of purchasing an expensive box set.  I had that thing on pre-order for months in advance and on the release date, I went down to my local cd emporium to pick it up.  The guy working the counter that day upon being informed of what I was about to purchase gave me the once over and asked "Are you sure you want to purchase this?".  Intrigued I asked him why wouldn't I and he responded that to his ears the stereo remasters didn't live up to their billing and sounded funny.

I did end up taking the plunge however and while I don't regret it, generally find myself agreeing with those who believe the 2009 stereo remasters to be flawed in several ways.

[sockittome]

The '01 remasters are very good, thanks to the absence of that hated no-noise.  My only gripe is the fact that the mastering is fairly LOUD.  Is that really necessary?  And it begs the question, are we going to have loud compressed mastering on MiC?  That idea makes me a bit hesitant.

[JohnMill]

The '01 remasters are very good, thanks to the absence of that hated no-noise.  My only gripe is the fact that the mastering is fairly LOUD.  Is that really necessary?  And it begs the question, are we going to have loud compressed mastering on MiC?  That idea makes me a bit hesitant.

By and large a lot of the modern remasters of the artists I listen to including The Beatles and The Beach Boys are LOUD.  I guess I've gotten used to them being that way although I understand the gripe.  In layman's terms I wonder if those in charge of such projects realize that LOUD doesn't necessarily equal high sound quality.  But that being said I prefer anything over the albums mastered during the no-noise era.  Most of the albums that were in my collection from that era, unless there is something that is absolutely essential that I need from them (Disney's "The Music Behind The Magic" boxset for instance) have gradually found there way out of my collection.

[Mikie]

Yes, it's universally accepted, you just don't agree.  There was a poll on the Hoffman Forum that asked if the 2009 remasters are better than the original 80s CDs and it was something like 92% yes. 

Exactly! You remembered that!  So yeah, I pretty much trust my ears and all those ears polled at the Hoffman.  Bought both the Beatles mono and stereo boxes and love 'em to death.

[lukpac]

First off, it isn't "universally accepted" that they are better than the older CDs.

Yes, it's universally accepted, you just don't agree.  There was a poll on the Hoffman Forum that asked if the 2009 remasters are better than the original 80s CDs and it was something like 92% yes.  That's unheard of at the Hoffman Forum.  You're obviously in the 8% and therefore discount the rest.  And to all the people crying about NR on those CDs..  they said it was used in 5 minutes of the 10 hour catalog and nobody has been able to tell where those 5 minutes are. 

Last I checked, 92% isn't "universally accepted". And I didn't vote, for what it's worth.

If people prefer the 2009 CDs, good for them. But lots of people don't.

Noise reduction: intro to the 1965 mix of You've Got To Hide Your Love Away on the mono box. It's subtle, but noticeable.

[Sie W]

Just pre ordered at Sainsburys for £63.99.
I'm happy to pay that at just over a tenner for each CD.


http://www.sainsburysentertainment.co.uk/en/Music/CD/The-Beach-Boys/Made-In-California/product.html?product=E11250584

[Paulos]

Just pre ordered at Sainsburys for £63.99.
I'm happy to pay that at just over a tenner for each CD.


http://www.sainsburysentertainment.co.uk/en/Music/CD/The-Beach-Boys/Made-In-California/product.html?product=E11250584

That's a great price, there now seems to be a price war between amazon and Sainsburys, maybe it will get below £60?

[Sie W]

I don't know how Sainsburys works, as in if it's like Amazon, you won't pay more than the pre-order price, and if it does drop you pay the lower price.

At that price I had to take a chance,it may rise.... It may fall.....

[Micha]

The Beatles are, *in my opinion*, the worst sounding group on record of all the top-tier 60s bands, their releases just sound like sh*t frankly to my ears and give me a headache whenever I listen to them on headphones.

First time I've ever heard that.  Most 60s music is pretty awful in headphones due to the wide stereo mixes.  I solved that by not listening with headphones.  The Beatles were the best recorded of all those other bands.  I wish the Kinks stuff sounded as clear.

Definitely the clearest! The first Rolling Stones album sounds pretty clear, too, and then again from Aftermath on. But The Who and the Kinks though - I wonder why those tracks sound so muddy, but actually I like that.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Bloody hell - it's down to £66 on Amazon UK now! See, as predicted the price has dropped considerably, so all that whining and moaning for nothing... Patience is a virtue, as always.

[Rocky Raccoon]

By US standards, £66 is about $100, though that's still much better than the current Amazon US price.

[alf wiedersehen]

By US standards, £66 is about $100, though that's still much better than the current Amazon US price.

I pre-ordered on Amazon UK and it came out to be about, since I'm ordering from the states, 58.16 pounds, which is $88.76 (including shipping.)

Edit: Oops, I accidentally converted Euros.

[leggo of my ego]

Bloody hell - it's down to £66 on Amazon UK now! See, as predicted the price has dropped considerably, so all that whining and moaning for nothing... Patience is a virtue, as always.

About $100 US - I could go that route but cant get free shipping to the States. Probably another $20 to ship to me.

  Still $145 @ Amazon US. 

[leggo of my ego]

By US standards, £66 is about $100, though that's still much better than the current Amazon US price.

I pre-ordered on Amazon UK and it came out to be about, since I'm ordering from the states, 58.16 pounds, which is $76.39 (including shipping.)

Really? What was the shipping charge? I forgot about the taxes.... 

Looks like this is the route I am going to take as well.

[alf wiedersehen]

By US standards, £66 is about $100, though that's still much better than the current Amazon US price.

I pre-ordered on Amazon UK and it came out to be about, since I'm ordering from the states, 58.16 pounds, which is $76.39 (including shipping.)

Really? What was the shipping charge? I forgot about the taxes.... 

Looks like this is the route I am going to take as well.

The shipping charge was about 2 or 3 pounds, but it's going to take a week to ship .
You can choose it to ship in 2 to 4 days, but that costs over 20 pounds.

[leggo of my ego]

Hmm this is the exchange rate that I got on the XE site....

58.16 GBP    =    88.8365 USD

Still a darn site cheaper than $145.00 

[leggo of my ego]

    
   
I just bought: 'Made In California' by The Beach Boys
www.amazon.co.uk
Brand New Product! Ready to despatch in 2-5 business days worldwide international delivery. Established seller since 1999.

- Done - I don't mind the delay, I just hope it arrives without any dings and dangs from poor handling.  

And maybe the Price War will drive the price down even lower! I can hope anyway as at the moment my wife doesn't know
about the purchase. yuk yuk.