In terms of the statement, "Keep in mind, intent or not, what was released was w hat was possible and

optimal for '60s technology", please also do not confuse th e (in some ways) better technology of today with the Fabs' intentions - in fact, the statement seems to negate their intentions, or to imply that those intentio ns do not matter in light of the improvement in technology (also, I would disput e that technology has improved in some ways - I would have loved to have heard ' Abbey Road' recorded on the console which recorded the White Album - John and Ge orge tried, in vain, to get the guitars on 'Abbey Road' to have the same sonic ' signature' as those on the White Album). In fact the player (whatever player you are using) will track the original disc properly bit the copy will, in effect, "start" a fraction or a second later. The statement is conjecture, or, at the mo st, inference, mine is grounded in fact according to what the Fabs actually did and controlled directly. To me, one of the simplest 'tests' of this kind of thin g is to make a copy of a copy of a copy - eventually (sometimes after only 1 or 2 generations) you will hear changes in the way that the various musical frequen cies are conveyed (e. The '1's and '0's may not be changed, but the means of con veying those '1's and '0's to one's ears introduces a distortion (literal and me taphorical) thereby preventing the original presentation of the content. A CD pl ayed once of which a recorded copy is then made and then listened to instead, is obviously going to be less prone to this condition, which obviously some of the members here do, and that's why many have claimed that their copies are still a s good as the day they were made regardless of how many years ago. Distortion in cluded, but most definitely not offensive. Analogue is a complete copy, but pron e to added distortion or colouration whereas digital will ALWAYS have something missing.