Beatles 1+ Blu-Ray / DVD 5.1-channel surround audio on Nov 6, 2015

[ar surround]

I just stopped hanging around on Steve's forum...Endless squabbling like little children...

As opposed to here where you can be absolutely delighted by endless squabbling among aging Baby Boomers!!!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I just stopped hanging around on Steve's forum because the thread on +1 went to about 12,000 posts of which 11,000 were bitching about the wrong selections, lousy surround and the fact that two measures of a piano overdub on ADITL were missing. Endless squabbling like little children. No the set is not perfect but it is still an amazing value and a historical record. I hope this forum doesn't descend into a similar chaos. The set has been released. All the endless bitching will not convince Apple to recall the set and fix the problems. It is what it is. Get over it.

That type of "extreme" complaint is pretty much over here...there were a few that went overboard at first...it's now just the normal type of discussion..once the realilzation that this VIDEO release didn't include a Steven Wilson type of audio presentation... things calmed down...maybe this release will serve as an example of not letting expectations rise to unrealistic levels...we have gotten so many outstanding surround titles this year we expect everything(even a video release)to be of that type of quality...

 

[Franklin]

I'm not sure the expectations over here were entirely unrealistic judging by previous form, especially as part of the marketing blurb made a point of mentioning 5.1.

Maybe it's the same most places but the H*ffm*n site can seem to have a particularly bad signal to noise ratio at times.

 

[seilerbird]

As opposed to here where you can be absolutely delighted by endless squabbling among aging Baby Boomers!!!

Fortunately most of the squabbling is about things I could care less about.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Fortunately most of the squabbling is about things I could care less about.

You mean you don't care about hip operations and the side effects of Viagra

 

[seilerbird]

You mean you don't care about hip operations and the side effects of Viagra

Well I am going to have to have a hip operation eventually, mine are wearing out. Viagra I could care less about. Women no longer are a problem with me. Naked women at my age look pretty bad. Kinda ruins the whole thing.

 

[GOS]

OH boy.....

 

[LennonCobain]

Anyone know why the start of "Come Together" is cut in ever so slightly (missing John's vocal)?

 

[seilerbird]

Anyone know why the start of "Come Together" is cut in ever so slightly (missing John's vocal)?

It's not cut. Different players take different amounts of time to switch resolutions. It is not noticeable on most cuts since they start with girls screaming and such. To find out if I am right simply hit the button to restart the song after it has started and it will start properly.

 

[alk3997]

what seilerbird said is correct. However, it isn't the girls screeming that provides the player enough time to change resolution and more importantly frame rate, it's those silly Atari 800-level graphics before each song. Unfortunately on Come Together the graphics don't last long enough (or weren't the right frame rate).

The real question is who is the band being drawn in the flash animation during Come Together? I know it isn't the Beatles but the biblical figure that it appears to be didn't have a rock band, that I'm aware of.

Andy

 

[LennonCobain]

It's not cut. Different players take different amounts of time to switch resolutions. It is not noticeable on most cuts since they start with girls screaming and such. To find out if I am right simply hit the button to restart the song after it has started and it will start properly.

I noticed this when I created MKV files of all tracks on the Blu-ray set. All of the other tracks were fine. I'll have to re-rip. Thanks.

 

[keenly]

Save your money. Do not bother with this.

 

[Failed Muso]

I noticed today that there is now an iTunes version of the "1+" version of the video content, containing what looks like the same content as the Blu Ray, i.e. 50 videos, Paul and Ringo contributions, a digital version of the book and all audio in 2.0/5.1. It only costs £17.99, which is half that of the Blu Ray disc and all video is 1080p. I've delayed buying the Blu Ray and given that there are equal amounts of "for & against" comments, this price makes it less of a gamble. Plus I have £40 if iTunes gift vouchers from Xmas to spend

 

[ssully]

Don't badmouth those late-era, super-compressed redbook CD's. They make great woodpecker repellent. Just hang them from your gutters to keep the birds from drumming on the wood siding of your house.

There is no way the Beatles CD remasters can be classified as 'super-compressed', sorry. They just aren't.

 

[ar surround]

There is no way the Beatles CD remasters can be classified as 'super-compressed', sorry. They just aren't.

Note that Plan9's original post referred to the CD in the Beatles 1+ set, and that it doesn't sound nearly as good as those 2009 remasters. So I totally agree with you. I even told my wife not to play those 2009 remasters, stereo or mono, in her low-end CD player!

 

[Plan9]

There is no way the Beatles CD remasters can be classified as 'super-compressed', sorry. They just aren't.

Agreed. The albums were compressed at mixing of course, but the 2009 CDs only have relatively small amounts of limiting.

 

[Plan9]

Note that Plan9's original post referred to the CD in the Beatles 1+ set, and that it doesn't sound nearly as good as those 2009 remasters. So I totally agree with you. I even told my wife not to play those 2009 remasters, stereo or mono, in her low-end CD player!

Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[ssully]

Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Me neither.

 

[ar surround]

Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

Guess I had better respond. Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I am saying is:

1. I agree the remastered 2009 Beatles CD are not compressed.
2. The CD from the Beatles 1+ set sounds like it utilizes excess compression, typical of run of the mill late-era CDs that compete in the volume wars.
3. The 2009 Beatles remasters, both mono and stereo, are so good that I don't want my wife playing them in her cheapo CD setup that is near the treadmill. (That machine is subjected to all sorts of debris flying around from the rubber mat on the treadmill and I don't want the debris contaminating The Beatles CD's.)

 

[Plan9]

Guess I had better respond. Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I am saying is:

1. I agree the remastered 2009 Beatles CD are not compressed.
2. The CD from the Beatles 1+ set sounds like it utilizes excess compression, typical of run of the mill late-era CDs that compete in the volume wars.
3. The 2009 Beatles remasters, both mono and stereo, are so good that I don't want my wife playing them in her cheapo CD setup that is near the treadmill. (That machine is subjected to all sorts of debris flying around from the rubber mat on the treadmill and I don't want the debris contaminating The Beatles CD's.)

Gotcha. Much clearer! Thanks.