::Let It Be...Naked

A discussion of all the Beatle albums

Moderator: Mike

Postby Steve-o » Sat Jun 18, 2005 11:10 am

I have been playing this some lately, and boy does this album just kick the original's butt.....clarity...and it mirrors the movie much better as well. Thank goodness we have it. Both of them actually...without the "Spector-Puked up" Version, we wouldn't have anything to compare this to, now would we?
How Come No One Older Than Me Ever Seems To Understand The Things I Wanna To Do?
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby Bluebird » Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:19 pm

I very agree. I think naked is wonderful. It reminds me more of the beatles than the original. I love TLAWR version especially. Good idea to have DLMD on it too. And even the best is thay both Dig it and Maggie mae aren´t there at all.
You must appreciate the day...
User avatar
Bluebird
Platinum member
Platinum member
 
Posts: 9023
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:06 am
Location: Copenhagen - Denmark

Postby Lazarus_2 » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:47 pm

I don't like LIBN. It is my least-liked beatle release of all time.

Awful sound.
And what re-affirms my conclusion is the pop-up program when you play it in a PC(it clearly displays in view "128Kbits/sec")... That's not cool.

What did paul/the producers think? We wouldn't know the difference? Well apparently some of us don't, must have tin-ears jeez.

128Kbits/second is alright for techno junkies, but i demand better sound from offically bought CDS!
I'm glad i never bought this Cd( i previewed it from a friends copy), i feel guilty i'd convinced him to buy it.
Dissapointing to say the least.

128Kbits/sec used to be the standard for mp3s, but now that space on hard drives is increasing and so-fourth, 192Kbits/sec is the standard(that's what i believe at least), and for people who need even better audio for mp3s, there's 320Kbits/sec(which sounds great considering the compression)...
Anyways, to think that the producers of LIBN would deliberately opt for a miniscule bit-rate is beyond reasoning.

LIBN is a shambles of a record...
youtube.com/kinnarchimedes
User avatar
Lazarus_2
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby HeyJude » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:29 pm

Hmm, I know nothing about the technical side of anything, but for an Audio CD to be in 128k, I can't quite imagine that. I got an mp3 rip of the album before I got the real thing, and that's clearly in 192k. To me, the album's sound quality is very good.
one sweet dream came true today!!!!!
4.6.2004 Leipzig
yay Anna!!!! :mrgreen:
User avatar
HeyJude
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 9:14 am
Location: Hungary

Postby kylestyle » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:56 pm

Nah, that's not right. Which audio program were you using? Windows Media Player? Winamp? Musicmatch? In my Winamp, it quite clearly states 1408kbps as the bitrate, which funnily enough turns out to be exactly 11 times the bitrate of an mp3.

And when you think about mp3 compression being roughly 10% of the original uncompressed filesize (depending on the chosen bitrate of course), it makes total sense that an audio cd is 1408kbps.
I needed comfort of love just to get me some piece of mind.. wo-oh
User avatar
kylestyle
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:28 am
Location: New Zealand

Postby Lazarus_2 » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:00 am

kylestyle wrote:Nah, that's not right. Which audio program were you using? Windows Media Player? Winamp? Musicmatch? In my Winamp, it quite clearly states 1408kbps as the bitrate, which funnily enough turns out to be exactly 11 times the bitrate of an mp3.

And when you think about mp3 compression being roughly 10% of the original uncompressed filesize (depending on the chosen bitrate of course), it makes total sense that an audio cd is 1408kbps.
I'm using the program that comes with the CD(it's on the CD itself, and automatically launches). The record company seems to think it's 128kbps...

Hmmm,
the quality of a CD is only 4.4x greater than a 320kbps mp3...

Less compression=gooda.
youtube.com/kinnarchimedes
User avatar
Lazarus_2
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Steve-o » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:20 pm

Lazarus_2 wrote:LIBN is a shambles of a record...
CHOKE!!!
Sounds GREAT to me. Much better than that crap that Spector puked out 35 years ago. I'm so glad that they finally released this material as it was meant to be.....
How Come No One Older Than Me Ever Seems To Understand The Things I Wanna To Do?
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby Lazarus_2 » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:58 pm

Steve-o wrote:
Lazarus_2 wrote:LIBN is a shambles of a record...
CHOKE!!!
Sounds GREAT to me. Much better than that crap that Spector puked out 35 years ago. I'm so glad that they finally released this material as it was meant to be.....
some how i think you'll eat-up any beatles release with a spoon now matter how bad it sounds.
youtube.com/kinnarchimedes
User avatar
Lazarus_2
Silver member
Silver member
 
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Postby EddieV » Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:47 pm

Bluebird wrote:This album should have been used instead of the original album. I love all the tracks, good idea to delete DI and MM and take DLMD instead of. Maybe he could have added " Old brown shoe"? and don´t forget "COme and get it"

For your information was Old Brown Shoe and Come and get it not recorded in January 1969 for the Get Back project as it was called. They were recorded later. I´m referring to Mark Lewisohn´s book"The Complete Beatles recording sessions". By the way it is a very good book with lots and lots of details.
Last edited by EddieV on Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Now junior behave yourself
User avatar
EddieV
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 7036
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:13 am
Location: Svendborg, Denmark

Postby Steve-o » Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:01 pm

Lazarus_2 wrote:
Steve-o wrote:
Lazarus_2 wrote:LIBN is a shambles of a record...
CHOKE!!!
Sounds GREAT to me. Much better than that crap that Spector puked out 35 years ago. I'm so glad that they finally released this material as it was meant to be.....
some how i think you'll eat-up any beatles release with a spoon now matter how bad it sounds.
Somehow I think you are wrong---LIB was always my least fave. The production is mostly horrid and I've felt like this since it came out in 1970. It just never SOUNDED like a Beatles release or what I heard and saw in the movie. Naked does. 'nuff said.
How Come No One Older Than Me Ever Seems To Understand The Things I Wanna To Do?
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

PreviousNext

Return to The Beatles: Albums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron