Beatles Revolver Box Set (Dolby Atmos Mix available for streaming; No Blu-Ray)

[bktouchstone]

I may be in the minority. Given a choice between listening to outtakes and trying to make a sweater out of the lint in my navel, I would choose the latter. Not interested in a CD of outtakes. Not interested in a stereo remix on a CD. Not interested in a remix of any kind on streaming. Not interested in a book with rejected photos "never before seen" because they're bad. Not interested in a book that says the same stuff I have read elsewhere. Not interested in paying primo prices for all of these and music on CDs. But throw in a blu ray with a 5.1 mix and Atmos and I'm 100% in, primo price and all. For a measly $3 blu-ray, I will pay a price that supports a massive margin and profit. Do you see, Beatles' Apple? In fact, throw out all the other stuff and just offer me the blu-ray and I will pay the same primo price as I would have paid with all the crap that I don't want and don't have space for. Stated simply, I would pay $100 for a stand-alone blu-ray with surround and stereo in hi-rez. Because it's the Beatles.

And then I would complain about the remix. Of course. After paying so much, there's an obligation....

But streaming won't cut it. The sound quality isn't there and even if it was, it's not something I want to subscribe to and have any of my favorites which I would otherwise own, subject to the streaming company's economic situation, bankruptcy, merger, "change in philosophy", boycotting of "certain artists" etc. I just want it in a hi-rez surround version (and the stereo remix) on a blu-ray (or SACD or DVD-A but you haven't done that in the past so wouldn't expect it now) disc. Period.

In summary, to me, nothing special enough about these sets any more to justify the price. Sad to say, but I don't think I will be getting any of them in the future.

 

[Mesozoic Mike]

I will NOT be buying this disappointing remix release. I don't care if it is The Beatles.
The hell with Apple Streaming and all of their illegitimate children.
I hope this box set bombs.

 

[key_wiz]

I may be in the minority. Given a choice between listening to outtakes and trying to make a sweater out of the lint in my navel, I would choose the latter. Not interested in a CD of outtakes. Not interested in a stereo remix on a CD. Not interested in a remix of any kind on streaming. Not interested in a book with rejected photos "never before seen" because they're bad. Not interested in a book that says the same stuff I have read elsewhere. Not interested in paying primo prices for all of these and music on CDs. But throw in a blu ray with a 5.1 mix and Atmos and I'm 100% in, primo price and all. For a measly $3 blu-ray, I will pay a price that supports a massive margin and profit. Do you see, Beatles' Apple? In fact, throw out all the other stuff and just offer me the blu-ray and I will pay the same primo price as I would have paid with all the crap that I don't want and don't have space for. Stated simply, I would pay $100 for a stand-alone blu-ray with surround and stereo in hi-rez. Because it's the Beatles.

And then I would complain about the remix. Of course. After paying so much, there's an obligation....

But streaming won't cut it. The sound quality isn't there and even if it was, it's not something I want to subscribe to and have any of my favorites which I would otherwise own, subject to the streaming company's economic situation, bankruptcy, merger, "change in philosophy", boycotting of "certain artists" etc. I just want it in a hi-rez surround version (and the stereo remix) on a blu-ray (or SACD or DVD-A but you haven't done that in the past so wouldn't expect it now) disc. Period.

In summary, to me, nothing special enough about these sets any more to justify the price. Sad to say, but I don't think I will be getting any of them in the future.

The guy who doesn’t care about any of the rest of the package, will pay almost any price just for the surround mix and won’t bother with streaming period at all ever?

Yep. Pretty sure you’re in the minority. And the labels understand this. Wish it was different but that’s where we are.

 

[stobo222]

Super Deluxe Edition says:

• Blu-ray audio
  1. Dolby Atmos Mix
  2. 5.1 Mix
  3. Possibly the mono transfer

https://superdeluxeedition.com/news/giles-martin-confirms-that-revolver-is-the-next-beatles-reissue/
For what it's worth. I don't see them regressing and not including surround mixes. Time will tell!

 

[smokey911]

I am absolutley devestated that we're not getting a blu-ray. I was hoping it was a mistake when I saw a list of the contents, but the picture of Ringo holding the box confirmed it.

 

[Imbobman]

Super Deluxe Edition says:

• Blu-ray audio
  1. Dolby Atmos Mix
  2. 5.1 Mix
  3. Possibly the mono transfer

https://superdeluxeedition.com/news/giles-martin-confirms-that-revolver-is-the-next-beatles-reissue/
For what it's worth. I don't see them regressing and not including surround mixes. Time will tell!

Glad you brought this up! I guess so much for what SDE had to say about the release having a blu-ray with 5.1 mix?
....& I'm in agreement with bktouchstone on almost all the the points he made! (...though I don't know if I'd be willing to pay $100 for the stand alone blu-ray). So yes, then I guess I'm also in the minority.
I will not be buying this boxed set period! The 5.1 surround was what I was interested in. The rest, I'd probably never listen to.
It goes w/o saying that if this news is true, it is very disappointing!

 

[haikubass]

(Chorus)
That’s where we are.

 

[Colin London]

I have the Boot;leg DTS 5.1 CD
The Two Of Us Production.

It is Fantastic in DTS 5.1.

I will buy this Expensive Box set
to have all the outtakes.

 

[Quiet Beatle]

Isn't Ringo holding the LP vinyl box? The blu ray would be in the cd box no?

 

[Quiet Beatle]

I have the Boot;leg DTS 5.1 CD
The Two Of Us Production.

It is Fantastic in DTS 5.1.

I will buy this Expensive Box set
to have all the outtakes.

Same here.

 

[Scott65]

I will not be purchasing this one. As others have said, more money available to purchase DV SACDs.

Will they release a blu-ray at some stage? Tomorrow never knows......

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. If the surround mix is so terrible the suits only deemed it fit for streaming on headphones, we all might have saved some money.

 

[SHB]

Thank goodness Animals and Holidays in Eden come out next week, that'll help me get over this disappointment.

 

[TheAbsentMind]

What a shame. I imagine Rubber Soul will be issued the same way next year without a multi channel mix.
Thanks Pete for including a multi channel mix in Who's Next. The money I saved from this debacle can be put towards purchasing Who's Next.

Thanks for this post. I've been a bit checked out, so I didn't know about Who's Next. I prefer Revolver but this certainly frees up the budget for that set. I'd never have expected to skip a Beatles release in favor of The Who and Animals (personally my least favorite of the big albums).

Little doubt I'll buy Revolver eventually, but not remotely for the ~$140 asking price (same price point as previous SDEs but no surround/hi-res?). I'll be waiting however long it takes for a commensurate discount or a used copy. That'll be a first for me on the Beatles-front. Until this, they, Dylan, and R.E.M. have always been immune from budgetary concerns without reservation. And then there were two.

 

[Bill B]

The guy who doesn’t care about any of the rest of the package, will pay almost any price just for the surround mix and won’t bother with streaming period at all ever?

Yep. Pretty sure you’re in the minority. And the labels understand this. Wish it was different but that’s where we are.

In the minority amongst the general population but probably not amongst QQ members.
I cannot find any reason, beyond being a completist, to buy this without a surround mix.

 

[rtbluray]

Here is the pack shot:

So this confirms it alright. 5CDs and nothing else.
One of the biggest shames is that I would love to have this box set for the book alone, but it's simply too much money without the Blu-Ray.
Oh well...Maybe something better will come along later this year.

 

[ar surround]

I may be in the minority. Given a choice between listening to outtakes and trying to make a sweater out of the lint in my navel, I would choose the latter. Not interested in a CD of outtakes. Not interested in a stereo remix on a CD. Not interested in a remix of any kind on streaming. Not interested in a book with rejected photos "never before seen" because they're bad. Not interested in a book that says the same stuff I have read elsewhere. Not interested in paying primo prices for all of these and music on CDs. But throw in a blu ray with a 5.1 mix and Atmos and I'm 100% in, primo price and all. For a measly $3 blu-ray, I will pay a price that supports a massive margin and profit. Do you see, Beatles' Apple? In fact, throw out all the other stuff and just offer me the blu-ray and I will pay the same primo price as I would have paid with all the crap that I don't want and don't have space for. Stated simply, I would pay $100 for a stand-alone blu-ray with surround and stereo in hi-rez. Because it's the Beatles.

And then I would complain about the remix. Of course. After paying so much, there's an obligation....

But streaming won't cut it. The sound quality isn't there and even if it was, it's not something I want to subscribe to and have any of my favorites which I would otherwise own, subject to the streaming company's economic situation, bankruptcy, merger, "change in philosophy", boycotting of "certain artists" etc. I just want it in a hi-rez surround version (and the stereo remix) on a blu-ray (or SACD or DVD-A but you haven't done that in the past so wouldn't expect it now) disc. Period.

In summary, to me, nothing special enough about these sets any more to justify the price. Sad to say, but I don't think I will be getting any of them in the future.

Write the above up on paper and mail it to the head of UMG!

 

[rtbluray]

Well, Giles does have a point in that it is not up to him.
He might be just as disappointed as we are about the lack of a Blu-Ray.
After all, like most producers and engineers, I think he does want his work to be heard in the best possible quality.

So who is to blame for how this turned out?
Paul and Ringo? I don't think so. Their greatest sin is one of apathy, but I don't think they specifically said they didn't want a Blu-Ray included this time.
So is Apple Records to blame? Again, I don't think so. The last 4 box sets (for "Sgt Pepper", the White Album, "Abbey Road", and "Let it Be") have shown that they can put together some really high quality box sets, and like Paul and Ringo, I don't think they specifically said they didn't want a Blu-Ray included this time. What would they have to gain by not including one?
So who does that leave? To me, the answer is very clear. This is probably a Universal Music decision.
Someone at these Dolby Atmos streaming services (probably Apple Music primarily) must be pressuring these major labels to not only create Dolby Atmos mixes but specifically to release them only on their streaming services.
Why? Because fans not only have to pay a subscription to hear these mixes, but also they have to purchase special equipment for such streaming too, whether it's an Apple TV or even better, one of those stupid little amazon speakers.

So yeah, I think that's what it is. The major labels and streaming services working together to line each other's pockets.
Pretty typical if you ask me...

So far this year, it appears Universal have two different strategies for releasing Dolby Atmos mixes:
1) Streaming only (on Apple Music, TIDAL, Amazon Music, etc.)
-OR-
2) Release on Blu-Ray audio as part of a really expensive box set (RUSH "Moving Pictures" = $300, KISS "Creatures of the Night" = $300)

This appears to be where we are right now.
Sad, but true...

 

[surroundsoundman]

I may be in the minority. Given a choice between listening to outtakes and trying to make a sweater out of the lint in my navel, I would choose the latter. Not interested in a CD of outtakes. Not interested in a stereo remix on a CD. Not interested in a remix of any kind on streaming. Not interested in a book with rejected photos "never before seen" because they're bad. Not interested in a book that says the same stuff I have read elsewhere. Not interested in paying primo prices for all of these and music on CDs. But throw in a blu ray with a 5.1 mix and Atmos and I'm 100% in, primo price and all. For a measly $3 blu-ray, I will pay a price that supports a massive margin and profit. Do you see, Beatles' Apple? In fact, throw out all the other stuff and just offer me the blu-ray and I will pay the same primo price as I would have paid with all the crap that I don't want and don't have space for. Stated simply, I would pay $100 for a stand-alone blu-ray with surround and stereo in hi-rez. Because it's the Beatles.

And then I would complain about the remix. Of course. After paying so much, there's an obligation....

But streaming won't cut it. The sound quality isn't there and even if it was, it's not something I want to subscribe to and have any of my favorites which I would otherwise own, subject to the streaming company's economic situation, bankruptcy, merger, "change in philosophy", boycotting of "certain artists" etc. I just want it in a hi-rez surround version (and the stereo remix) on a blu-ray (or SACD or DVD-A but you haven't done that in the past so wouldn't expect it now) disc. Period.

In summary, to me, nothing special enough about these sets any more to justify the price. Sad to say, but I don't think I will be getting any of them in the future.

My thoughts Exactly! The surround Mix (Atmos or otherwise) is the reason for the purchase. Most of us serious fans have purchased the LP, 8 track, Reel, cassette, several versions of the CD, then back to the 180 gram Vinyl LP sets. But the surround mix is like hearing the piece again for the first time, with real depth. Streaming does not cut it for me. I will have a hard time jumping in on this one, and I am an Uber Beatle Fan.

 

[ar surround]

Is the stereo remix going to be on a standalone CD like Sgt Pepper?