September 9, 2009, could be a Beatles perfect storm
On September 9, the Beatles will release their entire catalog, digitally re-mastered for the first time, on CD. The same day, The Beatles: Rock Band will be released, and there is speculation of an Apple music-related event the same day. Could it be an entertainment perfect storm?
(Credit: The Beatles)What is it with the Beatles and nines?
As my colleague Caroline McCarthy pointed out in March when the launch date (September 9, 2009) for The Beatles: Rock Band was announced, the band's song "Revolution 9" ends with the words, "number nine, number nine, number nine."
So clearly, the date 09/09/09 has at least some symbolic significance for the band. And now, in addition to that date being the launch of the Rock Band title, it was announced Tuesday that on that same day, the Beatles will release a CD box set of their entire catalog, digitally re-mastered for the first time, re-confirming reports from months ago.
At the same time, many people have been talking about the high likelihood of an all-music-related Apple event around some unknown product announcement on September 9. So, with all these facts--and some informed speculation--in hand, one has to think seriously that we may get a star-studded event with Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr (who, you may remember, showed up at Microsoft's E3 press conference to promote The Beatles: Rock Band) and, of course, Steve Jobs, to announce the availability of that same digitally re-mastered catalog on iTunes.
If that were to come to pass, it would seem to me an entertainment perfect storm. Of course, as is always the case with these things, we have to temper our enthusiasm because the most exciting speculation could well turn out not to be true. But if it does happen like this, well, it would easily be worth the price of admission.
As for today's news, EMI Music and Apple Corps--the Beatles' publishers--said that it took engineers at the famed Abbey Road Studios four full years "of utilizing state of the art recording technology, alongside vintage studio equipment, to create these amazing re-masters."
Having talked to the folks behind both The Beatles: Rock Band and the Cirque du Soleil's Beatle-themed "Love" about the re-mastering processes, I know that this is something that those involved with the band have been putting a lot of effort into over the last few years. And assuming that there will be a digital distribution element to this whole 09/09/09 thing, it's nice that after being very strict for years and years about how their music got out into the world, the band may finally have agreed to loosen the reins a little bit.
Of course, it's not altruism. There will no doubt be massive amounts of money flowing into the coffers of everyone financially involved with the band. And that's because even for people like me who already own the entire catalog on old mono CDs or records, there may be a few extra dollars available for legitimate digital copies of songs like "Hey Jude," "Yesterday," and "A day in the life."
But, of course, as of today, we don't know anything for certain about the Beatles and iTunes. What we do know is that The Beatles: Rock Band will have 45 songs, and that the digitally re-mastered CD collection will comprise all 12 Beatles studio albums--in stereo, no less--as well as "Magical Mystery Tour" and a combined "Past Masters Volume I and II," for a total of 14 titles on 16 CDs. The whole thing will be available, along with a DVD set of Beatles documentaries in one--presumably pricey--stereo boxed set.
Daniel Terdiman is a staff writer at CNET News covering games, Net culture, and everything in between. E-mail Daniel. 
But thanks for playing....
So, do you have references for your cited statistic or is this just another Internet 'fact'?
I've had several people 'attempt' this argument with me, so I just put them through a blind test using a real audio system (not that crap you stick in your ears or place around your computer) and every time they can identify the difference between regular MP3s or AAC and the original source content, especially when using content with dynamic complexity like classical or jazz.
For 'Lossless", it takes a little more discerning ear, but again there *are* differences. We did a blind using AAC Lossless, FLAC, WMA Lossless and True alongside the original CD and 6 of the 7 people identified the CD.
Don't get me wrong, I love Digital. We converted our studio to 24 Bit 96KHz several years ago and haven't looked back, but don't ever think you can strip bits out of a signal and not alter it.
So, thank you...for playing.
Put aside that "virtually no" is actually "plenty, just not most", and that while most people can't tell the difference on $2 earbuds and an ipod or noisy analog computer output, plenty can with a decent digital output on their real amps and speakers.
What the hell is Apple "256k Lossless"? By definition, you can't have different levels of losslessness; either all the info is there or it isn't. The only space saving comes from shortening how you express strings of bits, like a WinZip, and even on the least dynamic, most repetitive music you don't get much smaller than half the original file size. For real music it's a little more.
So is 256k "lossless" kinda like 128k "cd quality"?
Actually, to possibly tell the difference between Apple Lossless and the original CD master would require stereo equipment far beyond what most people could afford. You could probably the difference between the AAC 256 kbps variable data rate encoding (the Apple "iTunes Plus" format) and the CD original, but it's extremely hard to tell the difference between Apple Lossless and the CD original.
There is no bit stream difference between FLAC and the original CD source. So by the very definition, no one can tell the difference between FLAC and CD because the same exact data stream gets fed into the DAC.
Let me repeat that, the same exact bit stream. Digital ones and zeroes. There is no difference. Same clock, same bits, perfectly matched. So unless the DAC is completely defective and converts the bit stream differently on each invocation, then there is no possible way to tell the difference. There is no 'magic' on the shiny disc. Ones and zeroes and nothing else. If you are comparing a CD player against FLAC coming through a sound card, then you are not comparing the source data streams, you are comparing the DAC in the CD player against the DAC on your sound card, and that is not a valid test. The only valid test is to take SPDIF data from a CD player and SPDIF from a FLAC converter and feed them into the same DAC so that the analog sound path is exactly the same.
I hate the tagging of some lossy formats as 'Lossless'. There is no such thing as 256K Lossless. There is no pseudo lossless, it is either lossless, or it is not.
ACC Lossless and WMA Lossless are equivalent to FLAC for this discussion. I am not talking about 256K HQ, I am talking about true lossless. They are both bit stream perfect, and if you feed them through a common DAC using SPDIF there is no analog difference on the output. To say there is you have to deny physical reality. In the digital domain, one is always one, zero is always zero, and a DAC doesn't care where the ones and zeros come from.
Sorry, but I just don't agree. Mathematical models aside, there is a tangible and measurable difference in the sound. First noticed it several years when I tried to jump on the FLAC bandwagon. In side by side comparisons, there is a difference, especially in more complex music.
I completely agree that if you take most of the stuff put out today that has been Wave Hammered to death and has spectrum response that mimics the volume level, that you will not notice the difference, but take a pristine digital recording that hasn't been put through the sweetening factories in use today and compare them. The difference in dynamics is not only audible, but visible on a Spectrum Analyzer.
I love it when people argue with mathematical and technical fact (ie. final bitstreams are identical to originals in lossless formats) by saying "I disagree".
For those who asked for references, here are some:
http://erikjheels.com/?p=1236 blind test - try it yourself
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off
I just don't understand this obsession Cnet has with iTunes. They could have mention that the songs may be available in digital distribution too, without specifically referring to any of the content providers...
Who cares? Did you not read the article? Or did you just decide to post to express that you don't like iTunes (it is not required, incidentally)? The whole point here is that Apple is doing a music-related announcement on the 09/09/09 and that this coincides nicely with The Beatles obsession with the number. If you can tell me why other digital distributors should be mentioned, particularly when Apple has about 75% of the digital downloads market, then please be my guest.
"...number nine, number nine, number nine."
I expect we'll all find out this September.
Last time I checked, music doesn't have an expiration date.
Anyone with an ear? Just a thought...
You are both wrong. Some people will really care. And I mean really really care. I know at least one person that will be waiting in line for the box set to go on sale.
And some of us, even though we have ears, won't care at all
It is historically interesting, but musically I don't care. I find about one or two songs on any given Beatles album to be at all interesting, and even then, far less interesting musically than most of the music I have picked up in the last ten years, and I was buying albums back when some of the later Beatles albums were being released, but I didn't buy them then, and I won't be buying them now.
If not and you don't respect the achievement, you might as well listen to the sound of kicking a can.
999 is 666 upside down.
It's no longer what it once was: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134
See, I can do stupid math stuff that doesn't mean anything either.
I thought your commenent as well as the following comments to be very funny . . .
Don't forget to laugh people - And math is very important
"And now, in addition to that date being the launch of the Rock Band title, it was announced Tuesday that on that same day, the Beatles will release a CD box set of their entire catalog, digitally re-mastered for the first time, re-confirming reports from months ago."
Announced? Re-confirming reports? All of this was fully announced in press release form and on the Beatles web site on April 7. Presumably pricey? Why not instead report the published MSRP of $259.98, or Amazon's price of $179.99? And "Revolution 9" starts with "number 9, number 9," it doesn't end with it.
"And now, in addition to that date being the launch of the Rock Band title, it was announced Tuesday that on that same day, the Beatles will release a CD box set of their entire catalog, digitally re-mastered for the first time, re-confirming reports from months ago."
Announced? Re-confirming reports? All of this was fully announced in press release form and on the Beatles web site on April 7. Presumably pricey? Why not instead report the published MSRP of $259.98, or Amazon's price of $179.99? And "Revolution 9" starts with "number 9, number 9," it doesn't end with it.
Also, the words "Number nine" are not just at the end of Revolution 9, but throughout.
9 was John Lennon's favorite number...his birthday is the 9th. He had a few addresses with 9s. Sean's birthday is the same as John's. 9s just keep coming up in John's life. He had a song called "#9 Dream"...
How about a novel concept...instead of spending countless hours playing game that doesn't get you anything except maybe a temporary sense of accomplishment, why not pick up a real guitar and, and spend countless hours learning to play the real song???
Obviously iTunes may be the 800lb Gorilla when it come to digital downloads . . .
And Apple Corp. and Apple Inc. have had their past grievences . . .
But for a "music" corporation to ignore the entire digital revolution to me is just very bad business practice . . .
As a sidenote:
I've used Mac computers since the 1980's
I own 2 iPods
I've never ordered a song from iTunes
- by getrocky September 8, 2009 12:10 PM PDT
- the number 9 is a john lennon thing not a beatle thing. i don't understand the sept. significance.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(45 Comments)i think this is ploy because sept. 9 09 sounds interesting for the companies to use and try to tie into a fact that is already there and make it what they want it for.