The Beatles

[adriaan]

Are you sure you don't want that in imperial measurements? 180 grams equals 6.349313150924474 ounces, surely that can't be right for analogue sound.

[terryc]

jacko..I am telling you that the remastered CD's are brilliant, okay vinyl would be the ultimate but I would be a right collector and never play them.
Is that Deutsche Gramaphone weights?? I always remember they were much heavier than the run of the mill LP's that were sold

[jacko]

I believe you Terry. However, I'm unlikely to ever find out as I already have all the Beatles albums and I've never got into the habit of collecting all the different releases. I only started collecting 'Audiophile' LP releases around 6 or 7 years ago when I upgraded my turntable but I'm only buying music I didn't already have. There's something very satisfying about handling one of these heavier LPs. I have Carole King's 'Tapestry' in 200gm vinyl which is about the heaviest in my collection and it sounds superb. I don't know much about the earlier DG releases; I have quite a few of karajan's works from around the late 80's - early 90's when CD was getting very popular and you can tell that the company was starting to focus on the new media as the LP vinyl is very flimsy. Same with YES releases from then e.g. Big generator and Talk.
 
Graeme

[terryc]

jacko..I bet 'Tapestry' sounds as good as you describe and as you say you need a high quality turntable to play those discs.
On the CD note, I remember when my son was very young and I got an LP out and he said 'That's a big CD, how do you get it in the machine!'  LOL

[benson_murrensun]

I just re-organized my vinyl albums after making a move last year and found my Country Joe And The Fish Live At Fillmore West 1969. It is on two thick, heavy vinyl discs. The sound is OK, but I wouldn't describe it as audiophile.
It's an awesome jam, with Garcia, Hart, Casady, Kaukonen and others contributing.
And hooray for my old Acoustic Research XA turntable, which has been with me since 1970!

[tomhug]

I posted before when the 2009 remasters came out, and I'll say it again. ANY BASSIST MUST GET THESE VERSIONS!
 
Paul is mixed way up and the level of detail and definition is nothing short of revolutionary.
 
I don't care much one way or the other about the iTunes version (although the stats on the Beatles sales figures are quite interesting).
 
The 24-bit FLAC versions that came in the Apple-shaped USB key are like a doctoral dissertation on what would become rock bass going forward. I know Sir Paul wasn't the only innovator, but after listening to these in full resolution, I realize I didn't give him enough mental credit.

[glocke]

I posted before when the 2009 remasters came out, and I'll say it again. ANY BASSIST MUST GET THESE VERSIONS!  
 
I agree, though when I mention to some other musicians that I consider Paul, James Jamerson, Jack Cassady and Phil Lesh to be four of the greatest bassists to have lived, and my four personal favorites, I get weird looks because I dont have Stanley, Victor, or other slappity slap guys on my list.

[tomhug]

Well you'd get a high-five from me (or maybe a low four!).
 
I would substitute Entwistle for Casady in my list (and somehow try to sneak John McVie on there, too). Casady would still be high on my overall list though.
 
One very good low, round note, right in the pocket, beats clickety slappity in my book (with no offense to the many highly talented slappers in the world intended - just not my absolute favorite thing)

[bigredbass]

Paul and Jamerson and Carol Kaye and Duck Dunn made me want to play bass.  As much as I can admire Stanley and Victor and the latest NAMM-show Bass Olympics monster, that's not who I am.
 
I always say the greatest four-minute bass lesson in the world is Carol Kaye's 'Good Vibrations' chart.  PROOF that God really may be a woman, if it's not Susan Wickersham !
 
J o e y