The delay in The Beatles on iTunes...they're all LP.

[nlivo]

What do ya reckon? Uno ono, lennon's wife said they were coming to iTunes. It was recently digitalized or whatever. They're just converting them and making LP's right now. Interview Paul Mac and the other one. Do everything. Really cool for every album. Sgt. Peppers, all the other cool albums. It'll be sweet.

Well they better bloody do that!

 

[tofagerl]

Well... If they are releasing on iTunes, they will be using LP - that's just a fact. But it seems like they would be in a perfect position to squeeze Apple for some dimes, you KNOW Apple must have wanted to release LP with the tagline "... and one more thing - all of The Beatles albums are available... today!"

So to me it seems like either Apple refused to pay and The Beatles are just playing hard to get, or The Beatles has a grudge against Apple due to the Apple Corp lawsuit of a few years back.

 

[JonHimself]

What do ya reckon? Uno ono, lennon's wife said they were coming to iTunes. It was recently digitalized or whatever. They're just converting them and making LP's right now. Interview Paul Mac and the other one. Do everything. Really cool for every album. Sgt. Peppers, all the other cool albums. It'll be sweet.

Well they better bloody do that!

I would think they would definitely release the set as the iTunes LP format, perhaps even in the two collections they just released (remastered mono and stereo) as well as by each individual album.

Another reason for a delay, in my opinion, is that Steve wanted the Beatles on iTunes to get the attention he feels it deserves. Releasing it on the same day as the box set and the rock band game would mean that Beatles on iTunes would just be added to that news story. I would think Steve would rather have "Beatles finally available on iTunes in our iTunes LP format" tied to something like "Apple also released a tablet device that will allow you to browse your newly purchased Beatles content and change how we use our media and compute on the go".

 

[netdog]

Given that the remasters are supposed to have such brilliant sound, why would anyone want to buy them more compressed than the already suboptimal 44.1 sample rate on the CDs?

 

[GermanSuplex]

Given that the remasters are supposed to have such brilliant sound, why would anyone want to buy them more compressed than the already suboptimal 44.1 sample rate on the CDs?

Because 256kbps AAC is transparent for probably 99.99% of listeners. Hell, 128kbps AAC probably is.

I reckon the people with equipment to where lossless vs. iTunes Plus makes a difference is miniscule, then the people who just say they can hear a difference without ever conducting a blind test whittles that number down even more.

No offense to anyone who has the equipment, knowledge and ears to tell the difference, but that percentage is probably so small that it's not worth mentioning. Plus, you'll hear a difference on remastered audio even with lossy compression.

 

[netdog]

Sure you'll hear a difference on the remasters. To be fair, I think that AAC is a pretty good compromise and I agree that on my equipment, you won't hear the difference (i.e. iPods, computer speakers and even most "hi-fi" equipment).

That said, on a good set of speakers with good amplification, there is quite a difference. I'd like to think that most people could not only hear the difference, but that they would hear how pronounced the difference actually is. Maybe not.

Personally, I find the quality of CDs to be piss poor, but I am a guitarist and am accustomed to live music. While I understand that the difference isn't primarily the sample rate, from experience recording I am certainly sure that higher bitrate audio sounds a whole lot better than 44.1 on CDs does. I am sure those Abbey Road Studio recordings can sound pretty damned good, especially after being remixed to remove a lot of the burps and belches and to sweeten the tracks that may have been "good enough" in the old days.

 

[JonHimself]

Because 256kbps AAC is transparent for probably 99.99% of listeners. Hell, 128kbps AAC probably is...

...No offense to anyone who has the equipment, knowledge and ears to tell the difference, but that percentage is probably so small that it's not worth mentioning. Plus, you'll hear a difference on remastered audio even with lossy compression.

That's a whole other debate haha

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is but I think most of the testing done indicated that well over 50% of people couldn't determine the difference all the way down to 256kbps or 192kbps, one of the two.

 

[netdog]

That's a whole other debate haha

I'm not sure what the exact percentage is but I think most of the testing done indicated that well over 50% of people couldn't determine the difference all the way down to 256kbps or 192kbps, one of the two.

192 is surprisingly good in AAC. A very good choice for iPods if you must put more music on than would otherwise fit.

Looks like audio-heads are unintentionally hijacking the thread. Me bad.

 

[JonHimself]

192 is surprisingly good in AAC. A very good choice for iPods if you must put more music on than would otherwise fit.

Looks like audio-heads are unintentionally hijacking the thread. Me bad.

It happens... haha

I do hope that iTunes LP really does take off. I bet there are a lot of creative things we'll see with the medium as it grows. The Beatles on iTunes LP (box set, or just individual remasters) would be great promotion for the format. I was impressed at the videos/art they put in the rock band game and would love to see the menus and presentation in iTunes LP.

 

[netdog]

It happens... haha

I do hope that iTunes LP really does take off. I bet there are a lot of creative things we'll see with the medium as it grows. The Beatles on iTunes LP (box set, or just individual remasters) would be great promotion for the format. I was impressed at the videos/art they put in the rock band game and would love to see the menus and presentation in iTunes LP.

If you buy something in the iTunes LP format, when you put it on your iPod can you leave all the video and crap behind?

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think EMI held off because they wanted to sell as many of the remastered albums on Compact Disc format first.

Expect by late November 2009 the release of the remastered albums on iTunes in AAC 256 kbps VBR format (iTunes Plus format), including the LP liner notes that you can see in iTunes 9.0.

It should be noted that AAC 256 kbps VBR does sound very good, and to tell the difference between this format and the original CD would require stereo equipment that most of use couldn't afford, anyway.

 

[JonHimself]

If you buy something in the iTunes LP format, when you put it on your iPod can you leave all the video and crap behind?

I bought the Jay-Z album, when it showed up in the Downloads menu there was all 15 tracks and two music videos cue'd up to download. Then a 500mb file named something like "iTunes LP - Jay-Z - Blueprint 3 (Deluxe Edition)".
In my iTunes library all 15 tracks were listed just like any other songs I've bought/ripped as well as the 2 music videos just like any other music video. There was also the iTunes LP file.
The songs/vids could all be watched and sync'd (well, I only sync'd songs, not video so I can't technically confirm that part) to my iPhone.
Double-clicking the iTunes LP file opened up the LP that was size of the whole iTunes window (the top grey/white bar remained, side menu and music list were replaced with the LP). Within that experience were all of the music files, two videos and three other bonus videos.
I couldn't directly sync the bonus videos, but by "Show package contents" on the *.itlp file I could navigate to and watch the bonus vids in quicktime - I quickly converted them to wmv, xvid and mkv and was able to watch them all in VLC so I imagine if I made a copy of the bonus vids within the *.itlp package and re-imported it as a music video I could likely sync it).

 

[JonHimself]

It should be noted that AAC 256 kbps VBR does sound very good, and to tell the difference between this format and the original CD would require stereo equipment that most of use couldn't afford, anyway.

... and back to audio discussions haha

I'm not one of those, "I need lossless files, always, everywhere" kind of guys. I rip in lossless, back-up and then convert to 256kbps AAC for my iPod/iTunes (one day when I'm not living in apartments and have a legitimate home theatre/stereo I'll use lossless files).. BUT using my headphones (Grados, ~$150? So not terribly expensive) and I can notice a difference between the CD and the 256kbps file, mostly in the bass, but the 256kbps still sounds great. Maybe it's just mental (likely is, again based on all the other studies).

 

[netdog]

... and back to audio discussions haha

I'm not one of those, "I need lossless files, always, everywhere" kind of guys. I rip in lossless, back-up and then convert to 256kbps AAC for my iPod/iTunes (one day when I'm not living in apartments and have a legitimate home theatre/stereo I'll use lossless files).. BUT using my headphones (Grados, ~$150? So not terribly expensive) and I can notice a difference between the CD and the 256kbps file, mostly in the bass, but the 256kbps still sounds great. Maybe it's just mental (likely is, again based on all the other studies).

But you wisely archived at the highest resolution possible.

Before I archived (and then binned) all my CDs, I made sure that I could restore the Apple Lossless files to WAV files as absolute bit-for-bit duplicates of the original files on the CDs.

 

[JonHimself]

But you wisely archived at the highest resolution possible.

Before I archived (and then binned) all my CDs, I made sure that I could restore the Apple Lossless files to WAV files as absolute bit-for-bit duplicates of the original files on the CDs.

It definitely helps. I lost my iTunes library once and had to re-import CD by CD.. at least now I can just drag and drop all of the lossless files and let them copy overnight.

 

[Wotan31]

Personally, I find the quality of CDs to be piss poor, but I am a guitarist and am accustomed to live music. While I understand that the difference isn't primarily the sample rate, from experience recording I am certainly sure that higher bitrate audio sounds a whole lot better than 44.1 on CDs does.

I guarantee you that on a *real* hi-fi system, one that costs $15k+, you will not be able to tell the difference between a well mastered CD and a live performance. The CD recording will send chills down your spine, it's that good. If CD sounds "piss poor" to you, you just have piss poor equipment.

And are you really trying to assert that a 256k AAC file is somehow *better* sounding than a CD? Because you'd be quite wrong there, laughably so. Unless your speakers cost more than your Mac did, 256k AAC will sound just like the CD. It's indistinguishable from Lossless when played in a car, or on an iPod. But it certainly is not better when compared head to head on top end equipment.

 

[netdog]

I guarantee you that on a *real* hi-fi system, one that costs $15k+, you will not be able to tell the difference between a well mastered CD and a live performance. The CD recording will send chills down your spine, it's that good. If CD sounds "piss poor" to you, you just have piss poor equipment.

If I monitor 44.1 recordings against higher bitrate recordings, the higher bitrate version sounds a lot better. That's in a studio.

are you really trying to assert that a 256k AAC file is somehow *better* sounding than a CD? Because you'd be quite wrong there, laughably so. Unless your speakers cost more than your Mac did, 256k AAC will sound just like the CD. It's indistinguishable from Lossless when played in a car, or on an iPod. But it certainly is not better when compared head to head on top end equipment.

Of course I am not arguing that. Yeah, my speakers cost considerably more than my Mac Pro. My amplifier isn't exactly a budget brand either. That said, I can also hear a real difference between 256k AAC and CDs on my 685's in the study -- very reasonably priced bookshelf speakers. Perhaps calling CD's piss poor was an overstatement, but it isn't a great standard for the commercial media. I wish that by now that we had moved beyond it with some sort of backwards compatible scheme, but I think the demand in the marketplace for good sound is ever waning at this point. The iPod generation has its focus elsewhere.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I'm sure the iTunes LP idea is good enough to warrant an update to make them playable on the iPhone/iPod Touch in the future. That would be really nice.

 

[JonHimself]

I'm sure the iTunes LP idea is good enough to warrant an update to make them playable on the iPhone/iPod Touch in the future. That would be really nice.

This was on these forums somewhere (or linked to it) but if you take the iTunes LP file, create a duplicate (not necessary, but this is what I did), change the .itlp to .zip, move it into your Sites folder, turn on web-sharing and navigate to it on your iPhone (lot of steps, sorry for lack of detail) you can somewhat browse around the menus. The media doesn't play and the alignment is off, but it works.
I would think the only issue is determining how the re-format the content to fit on the iPhone's screen. I wouldn't be surprised if they released an app to view them (or modified the current iPod to give you another menu option (like genres, artists, songs, etc .. just add LPs).