Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Beatles Remasters: Mono or Stereo
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Beatles Remasters: Mono or Stereo
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Poll Question: Which mixes do you prefer on the 10 albums mixed in mono AND stereo?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
13 [29.55%]
31 [70.45%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
JLocke View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 20 2009 at 09:49
Originally posted by lwdj905 lwdj905 wrote:

I grew up listening to these albums on records, and I'm not sure that the remasters are going to be able to capture that dynamic, especially since I would be buying cds.  If they put them in some "lossless" manner I might be more willing to pony up the dollars.  Otherwise I think I'll just keep the discs I already own.  
 
CDs sound better than Vinyls. The only reason some Vinyl originals sound better than the CD re-releases is because the mastering was botched. There is no reason why the Compact Disc version of an album originally released on Vinyl can't sound just as good or better than the original as long as the handling of the mixing and mastering is done with extreme care.
 
I agree, the Vinyl versions of the Beatles records typically sound a lot fuller than their Compact counterparts, but due to poorly handled transfers (Which happened a lot in the early days of Compact Disc), this creates the illusion and indeed falsehood that CD can't sound as good as Vinyl.
 
You must also take into account the existance of record hiss (a different thing from tape hiss), pre and post echo, and various other anomylies like that which don't exist on CD because of the superior lifespan and recording techniques. Ironically, the abscense of these elements on a recording that one may be used to hearing on Vinyl records creates the illusion that something is missing from the original recording, when in actuality the sound quality has been improved and better focused. But we still still miss the pops and crackles of the Vinyls, so we tend to think they sound better.
 
Anyway, to finish my boring lecture on recordings . . . these Remasters are still going to sound great regardless if they are going to be re-mixed completely or not (Though I'm truly hoping they will be).
Back to Top
J-Man View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2008
Location: Philadelphia,PA
Status: Offline
Points: 7826 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2009 at 19:41
Stereo. I have more than one speaker in my stereo for a reason.WinkTongue

Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime
Back to Top
Phideaux View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 27 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 378 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 27 2009 at 19:41
On 7 April 2009, it was announced through The Beatles website and email newsletter that their entire back catalog is to be re-released in digitally remastered form for the first time on 9 September 2009, following an extensive remastering process that lasted four years.....The digital remasters will replace the outdated 1987 CD masters... The stereo versions have been treated with gentle peak limiting, to keep the overall volume of each track consistent with that of the other tracks, but not to make the tracks louder. The mono versions, to be collected on The Beatles in Mono, have not been treated with peak limiting.  {from wikipedia}


As has been pointed out, this project is a REMASTERING of the catalogue.  There will be no new mixes, so fans interested in hearing how the original releases - stereo and/or mono will hear them the way they were heard at the time.   Therefore, Rubber Soul in Mono and Stereo will be the versions from 1965 and Pepper will be the mono and stereo from 1967...

I will be excited to hear the mono versions, although I will be getting both boxes...

Edited by Phideaux - August 27 2009 at 19:42
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 01:15
Despite the Beatles recommending their mono recordings, especially "Rubber Soul" LOUD version (XEX 579-1) and most famously "Sgt. Pepper" where they said "you haven't heard Sgt.Pepper if you haven't heard it in mono" I am not a big fan of mono.
 
i bought my first stereo system in 1972 and never looked back, i even obtained stereo records for years before that momentous moment, and these days though sounding powerful i can't get used to having the sound hanging over my head rather than spread around with those little surprises appearing now and then.
 
 I have all the Beatles early albums in mono stored away and listen to stereo reissues, but i think it is important for today's market to include both .
 
I am a bit disappointed the remasters will only be available in 16-bit CD, especially after the "Love" thing a few years ago (the whole catalogue had been mucked about with but produced amazing sound quality) this would have been a great opportunity to hear these great albums at their best in SACD or DVD-AUDIO quality, or at least 20-bit CD, a missed opportunity after all this time, though you never know.....some vinyl remasters would be excellent!
 
  Smile
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by mystic fred - August 28 2009 at 02:24
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 01:47
Originally posted by p0mt3 p0mt3 wrote:

Originally posted by lwdj905 lwdj905 wrote:

I grew up listening to these albums on records, and I'm not sure that the remasters are going to be able to capture that dynamic, especially since I would be buying cds.  If they put them in some "lossless" manner I might be more willing to pony up the dollars.  Otherwise I think I'll just keep the discs I already own.  
 
CDs sound better than Vinyls.   generally untrue, there are always exceptions in the original mastering of course but played on good quality equipment vinyl is usually superior, many hi fi experts agree on this and originally CD was pushed forward as the format of the future but had many problems, SACD and DVD-A provide the best quality digital sound available today but there is nothing like the sound of a vinyl record on a good system!
 
The only reason some Vinyl originals sound better than the CD re-releases is because the mastering was botched.
most  mastering engineers struggle making CD  sound as good as the original masters, the vinyl reissues are much better, there are many excellent vinyl remasters out there (Quiex, MFSL etc).
 
There is no reason why the Compact Disc version of an album originally released on Vinyl can't sound just as good or better than the original as long as the handling of the mixing and mastering is done with extreme care.
 
there is every reason, the original sound has to be broken up and re-mastered into bits to get on a CD, studio mastering techniques have to overcome the shortcomings in the transfer, such as enhanced "loudness".  the recording still comes out as uninvolving,  flat and two -dimensional , not true hifi.
 
I agree, the Vinyl versions of the Beatles records typically sound a lot fuller than their Compact counterparts, but due to poorly handled transfers (Which happened a lot in the early days of Compact Disc), this creates the illusion and indeed falsehood that CD can't sound as good as Vinyl.
 
there is no illusion, vinyl sounds better than CD,  millions of music lovers (not computer or ipod jockeys)   are realising this and sales of vinyl are rapidly  increasing.
 
You must also take into account the existance of record hiss (a different thing from tape hiss), pre and post echo, and various other anomylies like that which don't exist on CD because of the superior lifespan and recording techniques.
 
if you mean surface noise some cheap vinyl decks have surface noise, this is a hangover argument made by pro-CD people in 1983, most of my records played on my system have virtually no surface noise at all, if the records are kept clean there will be rarely be  any pops and clicks either.
 
as for lifespan, tests in Germany confirmed  CD's sound quality starts to deteriorate after 25 years due to the metal skin inside the plastic ageing and corroding.  Vinyl on the other hand is based on plastics which take 500 years to biodegrade,the oldest record i own is from 1956 and still plays perfectly.
 
 Ironically, the abscense of these elements on a recording that one may be used to hearing on Vinyl records creates the illusion that something is missing from the original recording, when in actuality the sound quality has been improved and better focused. But we still still miss the pops and crackles of the Vinyls, so we tend to think they sound better.
 
sorry , your arguments are supported by myth not fact! you believe all the hype.
 
Anyway, to finish my boring lecture on recordings . . . these Remasters are still going to sound great regardless if they are going to be re-mixed completely or not (Though I'm truly hoping they will be).
 
Like it or not, today Vinyl is still about sound quality and CD's are and have always been about storage and convenience, only in the last few years has the "new kid on the block" had pretensions of calling itself "hi-fidelity"  - some improvements have been made but will never be taken seriously by true Audiophiles, this is a completely different ball park.
Tongue


Edited by mystic fred - August 28 2009 at 02:42
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
npjnpj View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 03:30

Don't know about CD mainly for storage and convenience, to me their main attraction is the absence of the inevitable crack and rustle of any vinyl players that always set my teeth on edge.

Apparently my hearing is just not acute enough to detect any big difference between analog and digital, so I'm happy with CDs.

As for mono mixes: No thanks, I like my stereo sound.

But I was just thinking: HiFi eqipment used to come with a mono/stereo switch for people that wanted that for some reason. Does this exist at all any more?
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 03:40
crackle and rustle is not inevitable and need not be a problem if recores are cleaned,  anyone with reasonable hearing will detect the differences between analogue and digital very easily they are so obvious, like the difference between stereo and mono, believe me you don't know what you're missing!  Tongue
 
 true high end audio equipment only comes with an on/off switch and nothing else, no filters, even no tone controls..Wink
 
   


Edited by mystic fred - August 28 2009 at 03:43
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 12:26
I'm not too keen on SACD because I like to be able to EQ the sound to my liking and you can't do that with SACD.
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 12:28
^no need to tweak the eq, it is self tweaking !  Wink
 
 
...seriously, if you need to adjust SACD or DVD-A there is something seriously wrong with the way your system is set up, wrong cables, wrong speakers...?
 
 


Edited by mystic fred - August 28 2009 at 12:31
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 12:51
Nothing wrong with system, it's a MacIntosh, I've been an audio buff for over 30 years. It's just that a SACD sounds flat to me. DVD-As are alright because the signal is digital as opposed to the analog signal an SACD sends. So a digital equalizer will work with those but not with SACDs.
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 14:15
i've never used an equalizer ,    they can degrade the signal, not improve it....
 
(perhaps we should be in "tech talk", i   ha ve inadvertantly hijacked the Beatles thread.)..Embarrassed
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 28 2009 at 17:59
Hey, it's my thread, if you want to talk tech, go for it. Surely you have wanted to at least tweek the bass, mid-range or treble when listening to something. I always like boost the treble a little because as a former drummer, I like the hi-hats and cymbals jump out more, I can pick-up on the rythms better. Little things like that. But I'm not one of those bass-boost junkies that want the earthquake effect all the time.

The SACDs sound great in terms of clarity and warmth, but to me it's all flat. I don't know if this is a tech thing or an artist thing where if you get the SACD you have no choice but listen to it the way the artist wanted you to.

But in a nutshell, if the Beatles catalogue does come out in SACD form, I'll go for it anyway. But in the meantime I've the got the MSFL vinyl collection I bought in the 80s transfered to lossless CD and they sound great.
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 29 2009 at 07:18

fair enough mr M,  you are very lucky having those MFSL Beatle albums, they should sound good on any system! Clap

i have an SACD/DVD-A player, i never really felt comfortable with digital, and have always thought advances in this digital lark were making the best of a bad job - after saving up for a CD player in 1983 and a collection of my favourite albums on CD it was all a huge disappointment and never botherered with them until SACD / DVD-A came out some years ago and appreciated the improvements, and many recent  20bit reissues of old albums (Creedence Clearwater Revival,  the  Doors)  on SACD and  showed a marked improvement over some of the original albums which were not mastered   to  their   best i must admit.
 
I am surprised you found the SACD flat, whereas i found these recordings to be very three-dimensional and didn't need any adjustments at all - hence my suspecting a fault in your setup,  are you using an SACD player with 5.1 channel amp?  I have always been averse to graphic equalisers of any kind, believing their use implicates shortcomings within a system -     the  exception   is  computer music or recording live where one is battling with shortcomings at every turn in a home studio.
 
I rarely play music from the computer, always throu analogue equipment and have rarely found any problem with SACD or DVD-A, though CD 's do sound flat and clinical, but everyone is different, my vinyl records do have a much better sense of space, tighter bass and smooth treble, but i do listen to these most of the time on a Linn Sondek so CD's seem like a step down after a long listening period, but one's ears adjust after a time.  I'm not a hifi snob and sorry if  i came over as such, i just wish everybody could hear great sound - there are those who own those sumptuously expensive setups that you see at the shows,  to hear my system would be a disappointment for them but there is nothing wrong with getting the best from resources one can afford Wink
 
I like to do my own drumming on a Roland TD-12 ,  i agree with you about the hi-hats, love to hear them cut through but overall accept an original recording as it is but appreciate some intelligent remixing or mastering where possible, hence some vinyl 180g  reissues (Quiex etc.) in my collection (the Led Zeppelin albums from this range are stunning!).
 
Smile
 
btw you  should listen   to "Metanoia" by Porcupine tree for good drum recording, the set is very prominent and almost in-the-room.
 


Edited by mystic fred - August 29 2009 at 07:26
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 30 2009 at 01:23
Well, apparently many of y'alls Beatles albums are in much better shape than mine, mine being 40 years old and not necesarily cared for with due respect back when.  What can I say, I was a kid at the time, no idea that the things would have any sort of importance later. 
 
(Actually, not so.  I knew I was listening to something that was changing my life.  I just did not know how...).
 
I think I'll get the Past Masters CD in both mono and stereo, then decide from there.  Once I hear Rain in  both formats, all will beome clear.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
progkidjoel View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 30 2009 at 01:49
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

The mono versions do have a few interesting differences but if we were meant to listen to mono recordings, God wouldn't have given us 2 ears.


Indeed he wouldn'tve!


Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2009 at 13:08
with a few days to go before their release, i quote from "Record Collector" 's interview with Allan Rouse, head of Beatles remastering project for EMI Abbey Road Studios..
 
"The remastering was done using 24-bit technology, yet the albums are only being released on 16-bit CD's.  Is there a reason why they're not being released on higher quality formats such as DVD-A,  SACD or Blu-ray?
 
It was EMI and Apple's choice. The masters now exist on 24-bit 192 kHz, ready and waiting should they want to put them on a higher resolution format.
 
Regrettably most people have gone backwards in terms of listening.......hi-res is not of great importance to most people......we now have a buying public who aren't as interested in sound quality as they used to be, which is sad. 
 
It's all mobile today, not many would sit down in the living room and listen to an album all the way through...most people buying these CD's will be plugging them into their iPod....or listening to them in the car.
 
We're mastering in the very best quality possible, but do know that 99% of people will hear it as an MP3 file...and not complain. 
The Beatles are one of the few bands where you need to release their music on Vinyl,CD and high-res. Not all bands need that, but this band does because of the vast age group of people that are interested...  "
 
(the strange thing here though is if sound quality is not a priority, what on earth have they  been doing the last four years remastering them..? Confused)
 
 
" Without question, Vinyl will be a popular choice. "   
 
Undoubtedly!!!  Big smile
 that makes sense!


Edited by mystic fred - September 06 2009 at 13:20
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15783 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2009 at 13:10
Depends on the song to me honestly. I'd much rather hear something like For No One in mono, but the A Day In The Life I would greatly prefer in stereo.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2009 at 15:31
Originally posted by progkidjoel progkidjoel wrote:

Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

The mono versions do have a few interesting differences but if we were meant to listen to mono recordings, God wouldn't have given us 2 ears.


Indeed he wouldn'tve!



So I guess since we've all got an ear on our forehead and two more in the back of out heads, God mean't for us to listen to 5.1 surround.
Back to Top
Matthew T View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 01 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5291 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2009 at 15:43
I heard them in Mono as a kid. Help the first LP I ever bought is in mono and the original Sgt Peppers is mono as well that I have.
I will buy the remaster of Abbey Road ( stereo)which is not in the mono set. I will not purchase Yellow Submarine again as the original cd version will do fine (one of them is enough). Let it Be maybe.
Matt

Back to Top
marktheshark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 06 2009 at 17:12
I just hooked up with a guy from another forum who was able to get the White Album, Abbey Road and Let it Be from a CD outlet where he knows the owner. He says these re-masters are miles ahead of the old pressings. I know this guy well, and he generally doesn't like modern re-masters, plus he's also a vinyl buff as well. He says these are right up with his British vinyl collection. So I'll take that as a good sign.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.143 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.