GEEK HELP, please? Beatles Box Set

vanity | February 2, 2010 | Lancey Howard

[Lancey Howard]

I am hoping somebody can help/advise ...

I picked up the new Beatles box set and loaded the first CD onto ITunes. (I like to burn my own compiliations.) Here's the problem: When I play it back, the vocal tracks sound like they are in the background. The vocals are overwhelmed by the instrumental tracks.

I have heard this effect before (though rarely) and it usually seems like if the channels were reversed, it would sound right. In other words, it sounds like if the tracks coming out of the left speaker were coming from the right speaker and vice versa, the overall sound would have the right vocals/instruments balance.

Does anybody know anything about this, and is it possible to load CDs from this set with the channels reversed? (No, switching the speakers won't do it, ha ha. Pffft.)

These are stereo recordings originally made in the early '60s, when stereo tracking was a relatively new art form for producers and engineers. I mean, producers would have distinct tracks totally separated between the stereo channels back then. If you ever listened to old stereo records from the era, you might remember that if you played with the balance knob on your receiver you could hear totally different tracks from the same song from speaker to speaker.

Thanks in advance to anybody who can help with this problem. I have been looking forward to these remastered recordings and am disappointed that they don't sound right.

By the way, I tried loading the CD using my NERO program and had exactly the same problem.

FRegards, LH

[aflipflop]

Is the CD made in China?!

[ETL]

I picked up the new Beatles box set and loaded the first CD onto ITunes. (I like to burn my own compiliations.) Here's the problem: When I play it back, the vocal tracks sound like they are in the background. The vocals are overwhelmed by the instrumental tracks.

Could it perhaps be a way of preventing people from copying the CDs? ie, DRM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

[Lancey Howard]

The songs sound the same (ie., vocals too much in the background) whether I play them directly from the CD loaded into my stack, or listen to the playback after they’re burned onto my drive. And like I said, it’s not just ITunes, it’s also NERO.

I have loaded many, many songs over the years and they all (still) play great on my computer. That’s why this is so frustrating.

Also, see post #19.

Thanks for your interest in this.

[ETL]

Clarification: a way of preventing people from making *quality* copies of the CDs.(?)

[vollmond]

I bought a few of the individual cd’s and they sound fantastic when played. Ripping them into iTunes degrades their quality because of the compression algorithms of MP3 and AAC. Check to see if iTunes allows for lossless ripping to another format that’s also playable on in iPods. At least bump up the sampling size as high as you can.

[ETL]

The songs sound the same (ie., vocals too much in the background) whether I play them directly from the CD loaded into my stack, or listen to the playback after they’re burned onto my drive.

If even the original CDs play this way, try them in a different player. If they still don't play correctly, return the suckers.

[Jane Long]

If you play the CD backwards, do you hear “Paul is dead”? Just curious.

[Lancey Howard]

Do you mean you have the CDs? ie, you didn’t download the set from iTunes?

Yes, I bought the box set of actual CDs. It just came out about a month ago.

[sportutegrl]

When the Beatles first recorded in stereo, they would sing into one mic and have their instruments play in the other.

[ETL]

Thanks. I should have more carefully read what you wrote before responding.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I bought a few of the individual cd’s and they sound fantastic when played. Ripping them into iTunes degrades their quality because of the compression algorithms of MP3 and AAC. Check to see if iTunes allows for lossless ripping to another format that’s also playable on in iPods. At least bump up the sampling size as high as you can.

There is Apple Lossless on iTunes... some compression (about 50% smaller) without any data loss at all. There's also FLAC, which with an added component (putting it in iTunes) you can play FLAC files in iTunes.

But, I'm not sure if you can play "lossless files" in an iPod, I have to check that one out first before I say anything on it...

Okay, you can put Apple Lossless on an iPod, but it's not a good idea... :-)

Don't put Apple Lossless onto your iPod. You won't gain anything from it other than craptacular battery life. Your iPod moves 25MB of music from the hard drive (HD) into cache memory, and plays the music from cache memory. If it didn't work this way, your HD would be spinning for as long as you use it. The HD uses a lot of power, which is why the cache memory makes the battery life reasonable.

Anyway, if your iPod has 25MB of cache memory, and you have 3 mp3 songs, and each mp3 takes up exactly 8 MB of space, this means that your cache memory can store these 3 songs onto cache memory (24MB worth of songs), and your iPod will play all 3 songs before it has to reload more songs from the HD into the 25 MB cache memory.

HOWEVER, if you encode all your songs in Apple Lossless format, and each of the 3 songs is now 25MB in size (ie: much larger) instead of just 8MB per song, your iPod will only be able to store a single 25MB song in memory instead of 3 songs. So after each song is finished, it has to get another song from the HD and put it into memory, which uses up a lot of power. In the previous example, it could play 3 songs before having to fetch more songs.

Also, your anti-skip will barely work if your song files are enormous.

When you Import songs, set the file format to AAC and either 128kbps, 160kbps, or 192 kbps. I say encode the songs at 160kbps to make sure the battery life is good. 192kbps means that each song takes up 50% more space than a song encoded at 128kbps.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=85227

[Star Traveler]

Check Post #9... :-)

[Star Traveler]

Which particular CD (i.e., #1, #2, etc...) is the one you notice it on the most?

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Is it possible that you’re hearing the stereo versions of these songs after listening to the mono versions for a while? The difference can be a little startling.

[ETL]

Does anyone know why it’s just about impossible to find downloadable Beatle songs/tracks on the internet these days? iTunes doesn’t have them. Amazon doesn’t either. Does it have anything to do with Michael Jackson’s rights to the collection?

Amazon search results for “Beatles”:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-music&field-keywords=beatles&x=17&y=17

[Lancey Howard]

Which particular CD (i.e., #1, #2, etc...) is the one you notice it on the most?

The first CD, 'Please, Pleae, Me'.

I started with that one and when I listened to it I decided not to waste my time with the others until I could figure out what to do. I went through all the controls and features (as far as I could tell) on ITunes and Nero looking for a way to reverse the channels but saw nothing helpful.

I will try a later CD and see what it sounds like. As Martin got used to multi-tracking (by the way, his autobiography, 'All You Need Is Ears', is amazing) there wasn't the distinct separation of tracks that there was in the earlier recordings, so maybe the later CDs will sound "right".

[Lancey Howard]

Is it possible that you’re hearing the stereo versions of these songs after listening to the mono versions for a while? The difference can be a little startling.

I am familiar with the phenomenom you are talking about, but I am an old guy... been around and listening to tunes forever. I thought about that possibility, but no, the vocals are way too low in comparison with the guitars and other instrumentation coming out of the other speaker.

[ETL]

Thanks! (i think)

#9, #9, #9, #9...

:)

[Star Traveler]

You were asking ...

Does anyone know why it’s just about impossible to find downloadable Beatle songs/tracks on the internet these days? iTunes doesn’t have them. Amazon doesn’t either.

The remaining Beatles say they do want that to happen, i.e., the legal sales and downloads of their products -- but -- the problem (the Beatles say) comes from problems with EMI.

EMI: The Beatles won’t be on iTunes tomorrow. Sky News: The Beatles will be on iTunes tomorrow. Take your pick.

Record label EMI, which holds the rights to the Beatles catalogue, says the band’s music will not be on iTunes starting tomorrow. (Not that that matters, of course.) It seems EMI is concerned about piracy. I wish I were joking. But then Sky News in the UK supposedly ran a story that said, yes, the Beatles will be available on iTunes starting tomorrow. Our take: chill out. After all, tomorrow is only a day away. We’ll all get the answer then.

[Star Traveler]

Okay, from my list that’s “Please Please Me” (2009 Stereo Remaster)... is that right? :-)

I’ll download that one and see if it sounds wanky or what... LOL...