Being an enormous Beatles fan, I am mostly (if not entirely) interested in the content that this phenomenal group had produced. I am to a very large degree disinterested in the container used to deliver that content.
What do I mean by the container? Well, there's been a number of containers used to package and ship the Beatles music. From reel-to-reel tapes, LPs, cassettes, to CDs, DVD-Audio, lossless digitized files, such as wave and aiff, flac, all the way down to lossy formats such as mp3.
All of these containers were/are a mere artifact of the moment in time when the music was being disseminated using the state of the current technology. Back in the pre-digital days, the only available format was analog, and several media was being utilized to store and package the sound (as already mentioned, reel-to-reel tapes, vinyl, 8-track, cassettes). The product (i.e. the music) was then distributed via traditional channels (i.e. loaded on trucks and shipped to the record stores).
With the advent of digital technology, analog media got replaced by the digital media. First we got the CDs, which is a digital content packaged inside the traditional tangible object (i.e. a compact disc). This container was also being distributed via traditional channels (i.e. trucks/trains/vans/ocean liners etc.) to the record stores.
With further advancement of the digital technology, world wide network (a.k.a. the Internet) became a reality for most people worldwide. That reality had altered the rules of the game, so that today the distribution channels have shifted from trucks and trains etc. to the invisible, intangible networks.
At first, the scarcity of the network availability (i.e. the bandwidth) dictated that the original content be first crippled and squished, drastically reduced in size and repackaged in a lossy container (the mp3) before being shipped to its destination. Today, however, what used to be scarce turned into abundance, so that the container does not need to be squished and compromised anymore. In other words, we can now afford to distribute digital music using the lossless containers (such as flac, wave, aiff, etc.)
In the end, the container doesn't really matter, as all we're really interested in is the digital content which we can easily obtain and use to play back the music.
The reason I'm engaging you in this cut and dry description of the state of the technology is to open up the discussion on various qualities of the Beatles material, as they are made available to the general public. Today we have a choice: use the traditional analog source, which comes packaged in a proprietary container (such as a vinyl record), or use the digital source, which may also come packaged in a proprietary container (a CD), but it does not necessarily have to. The digitized content can just as easily be freed from any confines of a physical object, such as a compact disc, and live as a dimensionless, invisible, untouchable digital artifact.
There is also a wide variety of quality offered to the public with regards to how faithful the reproduction of various incarnations of the Beatles music might be. Despite the fact that there are parties who claim the vinyl is the most superior medium for ensuring the highest possible quality of sound reproduction, the indisputable fact remains that one can have a large number of vinyl pressings of the Beatles LPs, such as Revolver, for example, and each and every pressing may vary in the quality of sound reproduction.
So the medium itself, the container itself, is not in any way a guarantee that the outcome, in this case the quality of sound reproduction, will be above certain minimal standard. I have, for example, heard such atrocious pressings of the Beatles LPs (one example would be an egregious Peruvian pressing of the Revolver I've obtained from a friend who lived in Peru back in the '70s), that even lossy digital formats, such as a 128 kbps mp3, if ripped from a high-quality digital lossless course, will be guaranteed to sound much, much better.
So in a way, the format (analog or digital) doesn't make much of a difference. What does make a difference is the care with which the source material is being packaged for presentation.
And that is exactly what the latest 2009 remasters bring to the table -- care. Some people tend to dismiss these remasters on account of the media type and the container (i.e. that, because these remasters are in digital format, and are packaged as CDs, they claim that these remasters must be inferior). But again, that's a very blanket statement, that doesn't take into account the fact that these remasters have been produced with an extraordinary, previously unheard of care.
So even though, admittedly, digital format is technically speaking inferior to the analog format (because digital format out of necessity carries less content, less information than its analog counterpart), and even though so called Red Book CDs are technically speaking inferior to the SACD/blu-ray containers, that fact does not automatically imply that ANY content packaged using the digital format stored on a Red Book CD is inferior.
As I've already mentioned, I can quite easily supply examples of analog, vinyl pressing that sound inferior to its digital, Red Book CD counterpart.
Now, here is where the digital tends to win over the analog: even though admittedly a high-end vinyl pressing from the original source material packaged using the highest possible quality virgin vinyl material may outperform current digitally remastered Beatles CDs, such high-end vinyl pressings are as rare as hen's teeth. Even if one is fortunate enough to get a hold of some such rare birds, two additional hurdles remain:
1. In order to truly hear the content packaged inside that container, you need to play those rare gems on a really high end turntable (we're talking sound equipment worth thousands of dollars)
2. Furthermore, each time you're playing them back, your heart must sink, knowing that the clarity of the signal buried inside the groves deteriorates.
Yes, it is true -- each playback of the vinyl record wears the record down. As the stylus travels through the vinyl groves, the friction generated by the velocity and the impact tends to generate high heat, which in turn melts and thwarts the original shape of the groves. So the container basically comes with a built in shelf life. Bummer.
Very few among us will therefore have the luxury to enjoy, in an unencumbered fashion, the sonic pleasures of playing back our favorite Beatles grove, over and over again, using the super rare high quality vinyl pressings. Most of us, if we're adamant about sticking to the analog, vinyl containers, will be sentenced to live with inferior second grade pressings that drastically deteriorate over time (I remember that, back in the '70s, I was forced to replenish my Sgt. Pepper's copy at least four or five times).
A much more pragmatic solution, therefore, is to opt for the digital medium, because at least that medium does not come with a built in expiry date. There are certain compromises, to be sure, that we're asked to make by transitioning from analog to digital, but the question remains: are the sacrifices we're expected to make really that big of a deal?
In conclusion, I'd say that even a lossy rip of the 2009 remastered Beatles catalog will sound better than a lousy vinyl pressing, played back on a crappy turntable. It is therefore clear that the content, and the way it was treated before committing it to a finished product, is of much higher importance than the actual container in which that content was packaged in and shipped to us.
What do I mean by the container? Well, there's been a number of containers used to package and ship the Beatles music. From reel-to-reel tapes, LPs, cassettes, to CDs, DVD-Audio, lossless digitized files, such as wave and aiff, flac, all the way down to lossy formats such as mp3.
All of these containers were/are a mere artifact of the moment in time when the music was being disseminated using the state of the current technology. Back in the pre-digital days, the only available format was analog, and several media was being utilized to store and package the sound (as already mentioned, reel-to-reel tapes, vinyl, 8-track, cassettes). The product (i.e. the music) was then distributed via traditional channels (i.e. loaded on trucks and shipped to the record stores).
With the advent of digital technology, analog media got replaced by the digital media. First we got the CDs, which is a digital content packaged inside the traditional tangible object (i.e. a compact disc). This container was also being distributed via traditional channels (i.e. trucks/trains/vans/ocean liners etc.) to the record stores.
With further advancement of the digital technology, world wide network (a.k.a. the Internet) became a reality for most people worldwide. That reality had altered the rules of the game, so that today the distribution channels have shifted from trucks and trains etc. to the invisible, intangible networks.
At first, the scarcity of the network availability (i.e. the bandwidth) dictated that the original content be first crippled and squished, drastically reduced in size and repackaged in a lossy container (the mp3) before being shipped to its destination. Today, however, what used to be scarce turned into abundance, so that the container does not need to be squished and compromised anymore. In other words, we can now afford to distribute digital music using the lossless containers (such as flac, wave, aiff, etc.)
In the end, the container doesn't really matter, as all we're really interested in is the digital content which we can easily obtain and use to play back the music.
The reason I'm engaging you in this cut and dry description of the state of the technology is to open up the discussion on various qualities of the Beatles material, as they are made available to the general public. Today we have a choice: use the traditional analog source, which comes packaged in a proprietary container (such as a vinyl record), or use the digital source, which may also come packaged in a proprietary container (a CD), but it does not necessarily have to. The digitized content can just as easily be freed from any confines of a physical object, such as a compact disc, and live as a dimensionless, invisible, untouchable digital artifact.
There is also a wide variety of quality offered to the public with regards to how faithful the reproduction of various incarnations of the Beatles music might be. Despite the fact that there are parties who claim the vinyl is the most superior medium for ensuring the highest possible quality of sound reproduction, the indisputable fact remains that one can have a large number of vinyl pressings of the Beatles LPs, such as Revolver, for example, and each and every pressing may vary in the quality of sound reproduction.
So the medium itself, the container itself, is not in any way a guarantee that the outcome, in this case the quality of sound reproduction, will be above certain minimal standard. I have, for example, heard such atrocious pressings of the Beatles LPs (one example would be an egregious Peruvian pressing of the Revolver I've obtained from a friend who lived in Peru back in the '70s), that even lossy digital formats, such as a 128 kbps mp3, if ripped from a high-quality digital lossless course, will be guaranteed to sound much, much better.
So in a way, the format (analog or digital) doesn't make much of a difference. What does make a difference is the care with which the source material is being packaged for presentation.
And that is exactly what the latest 2009 remasters bring to the table -- care. Some people tend to dismiss these remasters on account of the media type and the container (i.e. that, because these remasters are in digital format, and are packaged as CDs, they claim that these remasters must be inferior). But again, that's a very blanket statement, that doesn't take into account the fact that these remasters have been produced with an extraordinary, previously unheard of care.
So even though, admittedly, digital format is technically speaking inferior to the analog format (because digital format out of necessity carries less content, less information than its analog counterpart), and even though so called Red Book CDs are technically speaking inferior to the SACD/blu-ray containers, that fact does not automatically imply that ANY content packaged using the digital format stored on a Red Book CD is inferior.
As I've already mentioned, I can quite easily supply examples of analog, vinyl pressing that sound inferior to its digital, Red Book CD counterpart.
Now, here is where the digital tends to win over the analog: even though admittedly a high-end vinyl pressing from the original source material packaged using the highest possible quality virgin vinyl material may outperform current digitally remastered Beatles CDs, such high-end vinyl pressings are as rare as hen's teeth. Even if one is fortunate enough to get a hold of some such rare birds, two additional hurdles remain:
1. In order to truly hear the content packaged inside that container, you need to play those rare gems on a really high end turntable (we're talking sound equipment worth thousands of dollars)
2. Furthermore, each time you're playing them back, your heart must sink, knowing that the clarity of the signal buried inside the groves deteriorates.
Yes, it is true -- each playback of the vinyl record wears the record down. As the stylus travels through the vinyl groves, the friction generated by the velocity and the impact tends to generate high heat, which in turn melts and thwarts the original shape of the groves. So the container basically comes with a built in shelf life. Bummer.
Very few among us will therefore have the luxury to enjoy, in an unencumbered fashion, the sonic pleasures of playing back our favorite Beatles grove, over and over again, using the super rare high quality vinyl pressings. Most of us, if we're adamant about sticking to the analog, vinyl containers, will be sentenced to live with inferior second grade pressings that drastically deteriorate over time (I remember that, back in the '70s, I was forced to replenish my Sgt. Pepper's copy at least four or five times).
A much more pragmatic solution, therefore, is to opt for the digital medium, because at least that medium does not come with a built in expiry date. There are certain compromises, to be sure, that we're asked to make by transitioning from analog to digital, but the question remains: are the sacrifices we're expected to make really that big of a deal?
In conclusion, I'd say that even a lossy rip of the 2009 remastered Beatles catalog will sound better than a lousy vinyl pressing, played back on a crappy turntable. It is therefore clear that the content, and the way it was treated before committing it to a finished product, is of much higher importance than the actual container in which that content was packaged in and shipped to us.
