Unboxing The Beatles Limited Edition Stereo USB

[Andronicus]

I'd expect a little bit more bang for your buck. I mean, $280 for a usb stick with some songs on them? You could download your ass of in the Istorethingey (sorry, no Ipod owner) for that kind of money!

I won't tear your post asunder, seeing as you're not an iPod owner, but just so as you know the Beatles songs were never officially released as digital downloads until they released the DLC for Beatles Rock Band (illegal methods notwithstanding), and that's only a small amount of the Beatles' catalogue so far. As most people have already said, this represents the entire catalogue of one of the greatest bands of all time in digitally enhanced quality, in a relatively new format for the Beatles music in general, presented as a quality collector's piece. $280's a bargain, and I want one.

 

[qbanknight]

cool lil thing for a beatles fan

 

[theultimateend]

Man that is actually super neat.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

TL;DR = I WANT THIS SO BAD

Ah, someone else who understands the sheer awesomeness of this. This is not something that a torrent of 192kbps files should even be mentioned in the same sentence as (and I apologize for having to do so). This is a little USB apple of sheer concentrated awesomeness.

Totally. I bet we start seeing audiophile labels offering this sort of thing for a lot of new products, not packaged in an apple but on a flash drive contained in a uniform package. Audiophiles really appreciate getting their hands on physical product just as much as they like their super-high-quality gear and recordings. This seems like the best of both worlds. Flash drives could very well be the most practical means of distributing 24/192 DTS and Dolby recordings, unless a Blu-Ray audio format really takes off. I doubt it will, considering how well DVD-Audio did.

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

Eh, I'd like it better if it didn't look like an apple... how about... a Yellow Submarine?

Nice, I see what you did there.

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

ADD. to the above:

FINALLY!

A Label sees that Lossless formats are the future.
and the Artbooks etc. give you a real reason to buy.

Although I will not buy this, because I don´t like Beatles but that´s not the point here.
It's the Signal to the industry that counts.

Feeding the crowed with low quality mp3 will hopefully come to an end soon.
I only buy CDs and they end up as Lossless Format on my Hard Disk.
I would glady throw my money at iTunes or whatever IF they give me Lossless Formats.
44Khz is acceptable, FLAC/ 24 bit is sweet!!!!

GOGOGO!!!

 

[Elementlmage]

"The FLAC 44.1 Khz 24 bit files are actually better than CD quality."

Since 24-bits @ 44.1 KHz IS the current standard, I am having trouble understanding how they are better than CDs. That being said, MAJOR props to them for not being content with Apple raping everyone's ears.(Yes, 192 Kbps is ear rape, and everyone who is content with that is deaf, stupid, or both)

I do hope this signals a change in the industry's treatment of the digital format, but I doubt it. Why take the extra time to encode tracks at higher quality and purchase 5 times the bandwidth when people are just as likely to purchase the lower quality crap.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

"The FLAC 44.1 Khz 24 bit files are actually better than CD quality."

Since 24-bits @ 44.1 KHz IS the current standard, I am having trouble understanding how they are better than CDs. That being said, MAJOR props to them for not being content with Apple raping everyone's ears.(Yes, 192 Kbps is ear rape, and everyone who is content with that is deaf, stupid, or both)

I do hope this signals a change in the industry's treatment of the digital format, but I doubt it. Why take the extra time to encode tracks at higher quality and purchase 5 times the bandwidth when people are just as likely to purchase the lower quality crap.

Relax buddy, not everyone is an audiophile.

A USB to distribute music? That is awesome for it's sheer novelty.

 

[AWC Viper]

Relax buddy, not everyone is an audiophile.

A USB to distribute music? That is awesome for it's sheer novelty.

Oh yeah it is, My dad would love that. but it would not last long (technophobe) it would probably be eaten. >.>

 

[robrob]

$8,370,000 (at $279 a pop) for 30,000 of these things.

Wow. Even if production costs were $40 each for these (which I highly doubt) they would have made over $7m for them. Nice marketing.

 

[Caligulove]

hmmm... I never thought about USB keys used as distribution of music... thats actually a really good idea. Considering solid-state memory and all. Completely digital is still better, but for the people who just love having something physical... well, nothing better.

What about DRM, though? Or are the songs able to be taken off the USB and onto your HDD?

 

[Ophiuchus]

If I weren't completely penniless, I'd be snapping one of these up. It's incredibly priced - the CD boxset is £180 here, which is about $290 to you lot.

As it happens, I've already got the entire Beatles discography - thanks Mum for being a teenager in the 60s and passing on the obsession to me as a child. I just want this because it's so lovely.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I WANT ONE!!!

 

[300lb. Samoan]

Also, what's to get excited about? They are higher quality versions than have been realesed before, but it won't be noticeable on almost any home system, and if the old versions were good enough for you, this really isn't required. Lossless audio is actually a gimmick unless you are playing your music in an arena.

In a big reverberant arena on long throw speakers and synth-enhanced subwoofers? UGH no thank you, it's the very definition of fake fidelity. Hi-Fi recordings are meant to be enjoyed in a controlled listening space on a suitable loudspeaker configuration. The difference is readily noticeable even over the recently released Ones collection.

I'm no fan of the Beatles (flame shield erected) but a friend of mine showed me some Beatles tracks that had been remastered for 5.1 to take advantage of all the directions and I thought that was very cool - check it out if you haven't already, sorry I don't have a link.

Believe me, no one here is questioning your fandom at this point. I'm sure the surround sound mixes are an interesting listen, but I'd much rather listen on a fine-tuned stereo system instead of a small set of 5.1 satellites. The Beatles were mostly mixed in mono then reproduced in stereo kind of slap-dash, so even the stereo mixes are a little disingenuous. Do you know if the surround mixes were an official release? I've never heard about them.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

This is actally quite a good deal. I don't have nearly good enough speakers to make out any difference, but it looks so cool. I'm not a giant Beatles fan, but I am a fan. So Beatles lovers would be mad to pass up on deal like this. As has been said it's about the price of simply buying the songs if they where on iTunes (which they aren't) . They could have charged double, and still sold them all.