The Beatles on Vinyl
I ranted a few weeks ago about the fact that virtually all new vinyl these days is derived from a digital source. In some cases this is a crappy 16 bit CD that has beenripped and then mastered on vinyl. For most new recordings it is a 24 bit 192 kHz digital file set (I presume). In many cases the best available version of an album is a digital folder derived from the original masters, many of which are in very poor physical condition. If I am going to fork out big bucks (20 to 30 euro/pounds/dollars) for a vinyl LP that I probably already have (or could buy the CD for a fiver), I would generally prefer if it is an analogue sourced, analogue mixed and mastered recording. These are few and far between. If you are analogue obsessive then you need to go to specialist labels such as mobile fidelity. Otherwise – lord knows the provenience of recordings.
And so, the Beatles. On vinyl. Lots of publicity and Beatles fans frothing at the mouth. $300 – nice box, gorgeous hard cover book and heavyweight vinyl – what more could you ask for? How about analogue mastering and the original mono albums. Well, unfortunately these are the stereo versions (including the 1980s crappy versions of Rubber Soul and Help), and, believe it or not, they are derived from digital files. No not the 24/192 masters that were down sampled for the CDs, those self same 24-48 files that came in the apple usb key. Boingo. According to an article in this month’s HiFi World, this was the best source available, and that 48kHz was easier to work with than 96 or 192. Moreover, there is absolutely no sonic benefit, in vinyl, using an inaudible source. Makes sense, of course. But……The reviewer, Paul Rigby, informs us that the new box set is better than previous 1970s reissues and may be better than the original releases. This is unsurprising, as, lets face it, vinyl in the 70s and 80s was crappy and aeons away from the beautiful virgin 180g vinyl that we buy today. The original pressings were made for Dansettes not ClearAudio turntables. But still, what is the point of vinyl derived from digital sources. Does 
it sound better? I recently bought Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust remaster on vinyl that came with a DVD-A disc encoded at 24/96, which I immediately ripped to flac and played on my squeezebox thru SPIF to my Benchmark Dac 1 Pre. I flicked back and forth between vinyl and 24 bit file and I could not tell the difference. They both sounded great. It is a pity that Paul Rigby didn’t compare the vinyl box with the usb box, and compare different delivery systems for the same music source. I found the reviews on Amazon hysterical – “the quiet bits are really quiet” – yes they are but they are quieter still if you listen to the digital files. I really think that this vinyl thing is a fad – a cool fad that impresses guys like me. [the amazon reviews are worth a read]
Lets face it – when you see John Cusack’s apartment in Hi-Fidelity – you really wished you lived there: vinyl everywhere when it was still out of fashion. I often wonder how many guys got into vinyl after seeing that film or reading the book. I think that walls of vinyl look cool, but I thought walls of DVDs and CDs were cool too, and that would horrify any modern interior designer. Hence all of us store our CDs in the attic in boxes. Beware vinyl lovers – today’s obsession is tomorrow’s storage problem.
I suppose it is the job of record companies to sell music, no matter which way it is packaged. I am astonished that they have not flogged a Beatles box set in SACD, cassette tapes or wax cylinders. There are those of us who would buy them. Will I replace my 1970s Beatles records with the new vinyl release – NO – not even Abbey Road.
ps. Did they include all of the extras in Sgt Pepper – the masks, posters etc?
audioexchange 