The Beatles Remasters: Mono or Stereo
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=57044
Printed Date: April 26 2024 at 08:00
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Beatles Remasters: Mono or Stereo
Posted By: marktheshark
Subject: The Beatles Remasters: Mono or Stereo
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 21:36
|
As some of you may have read that the Beatles catalog has finally been re-mastered with more digital state-of-the-art technology that has advanced since the initial 1987 releases. Way overdue! Here's the deal, aside from the individual releases, two box sets will be released. The first will be the complete catalog of the stereo mixes of all 12 albums along with the Past Master cuts. The second will be the mono mixes of ten of those albums with some of the Past Master cuts that were mixed as well. Only Let it Be and Abbey Road were never mixed in mono. For a little history on this, throughout most of their reign, The Beatles always opt more for the mono mixing on their earlier albums. In fact, they were rarely present for the stereo mixing sessions when they were always attentive for mono mixing. George Martin has been quoted as saying "You've never really heard Sgt Pepper until you've heard it in mono." And this is somewhat true, you hear all sorts of little differences between the two mixes. Certain sound effects and instruments will jump out more on mono then on stereo. I had a mono copy of Pepper when it first came out and when my parents finally got rid of that old Magnavox hi-fi and got a stereo, the new stereo copy sounded quite different. So what's your preference? |
Replies:
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 22:07
|
I can't vote on this one. I originally heard The Beatles (and many other bands of the era) on that marginal sound reproduction device known as the AM radio, which obviously was mono, and probably not very good mono at that. I was also listening to the U.S. mixes, which were unmercifally tampered with by Capitol Records and their mindless engineers, though to their credit they did optimize the overall sound for the playback device of choice, i.e., the AM radio. Those songs sounded huge coming out of a 3" speaker and drove an entire generation to near madness (in a good way, I should add).
So the enjoyment was not in the sound quality, it was hearing the songs and somehow saving enough money to buy the mono singles of I Want To Hold Your Hand b/w I Saw Her Standing There, or Can't Buy Me Love b/w You Can't Do That, or I Feel Fine b/w She's A Woman, or even the funky VeeJay release of Do You Want To Know A Secret b/w Thank You Girl, and playing them on my parents' stereo (yeah, right) phonograph.
Now that I have something measurably better than an AM radio with a 3" speaker, my head tells me to go with the stereo recordings. But my heart says perhaps the mono is the way to go. Too early to tell, but assuming I still have disposableincome, I'd probably get both. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 04:14
| Analog and mono? Neil Young would explode with happiness. I, on the other hand, am happy with evil stereo. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 07:19
| 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. |
Posted By: mono
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 07:22
|
Lilttle analog will be left.... I think Neil Young hates remasters. I would go with stereo for the remasters and mono for the originals ------------- https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 07:27
|
You're right when you say the mono sounds better than stereo at points due to certain sound effects being missing from the sterio version and whatnot, however, with this new mix, I have a feeling that the new stereo remasters are going to be done right this time, meaning that what was missing from them before will now become part of the stereo mix as well.
Even if that doesn't happen, I'm going with stereo. It's the version I listen to the most, therefore the version I am most familiar with. I am not paying for both boxsets, either. Especially in this economy.
|
Posted By: mr.cub
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 09:52
|
Stereo...though it would be interesting to hear phenomenal mono recordings -------------  |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 10:06
|
^ And phenominal they will be, indeed. No matter which version you end up purchasing.
I think my Dad is going to get the Mono recordings and I will get the Stereos
|
Posted By: lwdj905
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 14:32
| 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. |
Posted By: maups2
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 20:02
|
Mono Beatles is surprisingly awesome. It has so much punch. I prefer mono generally, though the first four albums in stereo are great because the channels are so separated, you can listen to it instrumentally |
Posted By: Lota
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 22:26
|
I preffer mono, Ringo's drums will be heard harder. I'll get both anyways ------------- And In The End, The Love You Take, Is Equal To The Love You Make |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: April 10 2009 at 10:19
|
Although the original albums were mixed in mono, except since the whie album, I prefer stereo because it sounds fuller and richer. But of course I hope the stereo mixes have been bettered this time and there's no sound effects missing like in the older mixes, and I also hope there's more punch in the drums like they had in the mono mixes. -------------  In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: April 10 2009 at 20:30
I'm not really sure what the deal is on these. These are called REMASTERS, not REMIXES. Remastering doesn't always mean the engineers are tweeking the EQ controls on the multi-tracks. Boosting fidelity and dynamic range can be done without messing with the original mix. Nothing has been said about whether Paul or Ringo were overseeing the project or at least listening in. And George Martin being over 80 and retired certainly had little to do with it. And what about Geoff Emerick? Was he there too? I guess we'll find out with our ears coming this September. |
SgtPepper67 wrote:Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 09:08
|
Well, the stereo mixes from the 80's remasters aren't the original mixes cos the original were in mono and the members of the band had nothing to do with them, so I don't know what would be the problem with changing them a bit. They did it for the Yellow Submarine Soundtrack, although the mixes are too different there. Anyway, with just being remastered I think it's enough. The songs on the One albums sound a lot better than the versions on the albums ------------- In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 20:16
You're about half right. If memory serves me (I haven't read Lewisohn's book in years!), all but the first 2 albums were mixed for stereo at the time. But the Beatles didn't really have much interest in those mixes. So it's really a debate as to whether the initial stereo mixes are just as original as the monos. I guess I can go along with you that they're really not since the Beatles didn't give much of a stamp of approval on them. The Beatles really didn't start to indulge in stereo until 8 track was coming around. They started on that around late '67 when they would go outside Abbey Road to Olympic studios which at the time was the only facility in England that had 8 track. The story goes that Abbey Road had an 8 track console sitting in the basement for over 6 months (maybe longer) and didn't get around to installing and testing it. The Beatles finally put their foot down and told the engineers to break it out and get it up and running. |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 20:48
|
I know there were stereo mixes made for each album, but like you said, the band had nothing to do with them, maybe George Martin. At least that's what I read somewhere. What I actually mean is that if we're going to get a stereo version of the albums, what difference does it makes to listen to a mix made in the 60's in wich The Beatles weren't involved at all, or a better mix made recently for these new remasters in wich of course the band had nothing to do either. ------------- In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 22:04
Good point. That's why I'm curious as to what the liner notes will say on this. My guess is that Paul and Ringo didn't really get too involved. They're in their 60s now, and I can imagine they feel they've done enough with these recordings for the past 47 years! Just let it be, I guess. |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: April 19 2009 at 13:50
And if he'd wanted us to listen to 5.1 he would have given us 5 ears.
 Now i wonder what the Beatles would sound like in 5.1. |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: April 19 2009 at 19:03
The Yellow Submarine DVD that came out in 2001 (and is now out of print) had 5.1 mixes on all the songs in the film. And I have to tell you, they didn't sound all that great. You have to remember, the bulk of their recordings were done on 4 track and spreading 4 tracks over 5 channels along with a low frequency channel doesn't really work too good. The seperation is too chopped off and uneven, best I can describe it. About the only way I can see Sgt Pepper done in 5.1 properly would be a complete re-construction of all the multi-tracks involved. The Pepper master is actually 4 seperate 4 track recordings compressed into one 4 track master. If Abbey Road preserved these 4 track recordings in their seperate form, then a 16 track digital master coud be constructed. But who knows, maybe that's just what they did for these new releases. The details are pretty vaque at this point. |
Posted By: DamoXt7942
Date Posted: April 20 2009 at 03:51
|
I prefer mono to stereo...as Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" or Brian Wilson said they had no need of stereo for music.
------------- http://www.facebook.com/damoxt7942" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 20 2009 at 09:49
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).
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 19:41
Stereo. I have more than one speaker in my stereo for a reason. 
-------------  Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Phideaux
Date 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... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#cite_note-tcpalm1-189 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#cite_note-191 -
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_in_Mono - 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... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles#cite_note-192 - |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date 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!
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 28 2009 at 01:47
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.
 ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: npjnpj
Date 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? |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date 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!
true high end audio equipment only comes with an on/off switch and nothing else, no filters, even no tone controls..
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date 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. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: August 28 2009 at 12:28
|
^no need to tweak the eq, it is self tweaking !
...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...?
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date 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. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date 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.)..  ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date 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. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date 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! 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
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!).
btw you should listen to "Metanoia" by Porcupine tree for good drum recording, the set is very prominent and almost in-the-room.
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: jammun
Date 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. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: August 30 2009 at 01:49
Indeed he wouldn'tve! ------------- 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date 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..?
 )" Without question, Vinyl will be a popular choice. "
Undoubtedly!!!
 that makes sense! ------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date 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. " |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 15:31
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. 
|
Posted By: Matthew T
Date 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 |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date 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. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 06 2009 at 19:36
|
Well now that we know the story, I guess most of us will have to settle for stereo.
Mono box set is limited edition. Stereo box set not limited. Individual albums all stereo. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 07:58
|
I was listening to the Stereo re-master version of Beatles For Sale a couple of hours ago in a local HMV. They played it over their PA system. The sound was just incredible and many of us just stopped up and was listening. Most of us with a big grin, myself included. Finally; The Beatles albums has got the justice they deserves. Unfortunate, I do not have the HMV PA system at home. But be kind to yourself and go to a record shop today. Ask them to play a re-master over the PA system. Enjoy ! |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 08:05
|
I listened to the stereo version of A Hard Day's Night and it sounds so much better!
------------- In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 08:23
i ordered Hard Days Night, Rubber Soul, Sgt.Pepper, White album and Abbey Road, hope they turn up today 
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Fritha
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 12:04
|
I've celebrated the Beatles Day to the fullest: cranking my stereo box-set (bought in my local record shop called Yellow Submarine in Finnish :D) in chronological order and finally becoming familiar with the entire Beatles catalogue. Right now I'm listening to the White Album for the first time ever, believe it or not! It really was worth waiting for this glorious day and hear it in such great sound quality! I was only familiar with a couple of tracks on it and all I can say so far is...What a quirky album, lol. Such a marked difference to what went on before... I'll have lots of fun with it in the future! This stuff may be forty years old by now but omg, does it stand up even today... It must have been mind blowing to be a contemporary witness to this music way back then. ------------- I was made to love magic |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 16:25
| Yep, the White Album sounds fantastic. Not so sure about Sgt Pepper yet - just seems to be even more bass on it. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 19:53
|
Y'all are surely whetting my appetite. Maybe I'll pick up a couple tomorrow. Probably start with Rubber Soul and Revolver, then work my way backwards and forwards. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 09 2009 at 21:15
Nice review of the box by Klosterman, possibly the funniest and most insightful thing I've read about this release... 
http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles%2C32560/ - http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles%2C32560/ ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 02:03
|
The Beatles Remasters I originally posted this in The Shed 2 Apple goes a bit pear-shaped 'I would go as far as saying that the boffins at Capitol/Abbey Road have missed a trick.They have fallen at the first fence. There should be a sticker on the albums from Rubber Soul through to and including Revolver saying 'Buyer Beware!' There is a bit more punch and they are less tinny,but they (the remasterers) have not sorted out the vocal seperation that has blighted the stereo cds since they were issued. For example; Revolver. 'Eleanor Rigby' Paul McCartney keeps his voice in a jar by the door in the corner of a very large room. The seperation/channeling of McCartney's vocals is so extreme that I checked the input connection on my speakers! Listening to it on head/earphones is useless. In these times where most people listen to music on headphones,you would think that the boffins would have considered this. A few tracks on Revolver suffer badly from seperation but,suprisingly,most of the tracks had the vocals double tracked left and right and sound fine. I am still going to buy the first four albums, I bought A Hard Days Night and that sound very good, and I will also buy the albums from Sgt Pepper onwards. The reason for this is that the first four albums were never rebungled for stereo and the last four were recorded when the Fab Four suddenly took an interest in stereo recording.Previously,the band never wanted the albums to be recorded/mastered in stereo. I have 'Japanese' 'remasters' in mono and stereo of all of the Beatles albums and I must say that on the whole I prefer the mono versions. They have a warmer,fuller sound. The White album sounds great both in stereo and in mono. The subsequent albums were never recorded in mono. Back To Mono ' -------------  Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: Matthew T
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 02:22
I picked up the Mono Box,Abbey Road,White Album,Let it Be and With the Beatles in stereo as well. With the Beatles ( stereo played half in the car on the way back home and it sounded great.John's harmonica on Little child is right up front. The intro to Roll over Beethoven has been separated nice and it was clear as crystal. Help sounded very nice in mono as well. On to Abbey Road now. It is pretty bassy but I have to hear a bit more for comment ------------- Matt |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 02:34
|
Got the stereo box yesterday and spent most of the night listening to the whole lot, just lying on the couch and having a great time.
There is absolutely nothing negative I can say about this release, I'm in Beatles heaven. It's just as good as I'd hoped and then some, I can honestly get rid of all my old Beatles releses, this is all I'm going to need. The difference between this and the older releases is just incredible, you can hear EVERYTHING!
I've read some negative reviews about these mixes, and I honestly have no idea what these peolpe are talking about, it could not be better!!!!
|
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 02:40
Have you listened to the albums on headphones or transferred the albums to ipod/mp3 and listened to them via earphones yet? Listen to Rubber Soul and Revolver especially Norwegian Wood,Girl,Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine and then tell me what you think. I'd be interested to know. Admittedly,The White Album sounds amazing as does A Hard Days Night.The problem that I am having is with Rubber Soul and Revolver and am wondering whether to buy the post mono/pre stereo recorded albums (First four albums (mono only)-Let It Be,Abbey Road (stereo only) ). ------------- Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 03:39
|
I should be receiving my Stereo box set in the mail soon. Can't wait! Now, I have managed to hear some uploaded songs via youtube that are apparently from these new remasters, and I have enjoyed immensely what I have heard so far. Some of the vocal issues I have had with the previous mixes have been fixed, with double-tracked, left-and-right channel vocals present the majority of the time. However, some songs still feature vocals in only one channel, though the overall mix and master is much crisper, and you can hear a helluva lot more Bass, I noticed right away. But I'll give a more indepth review once my copies arrive, whenever that is. Either way, it's going to be worth it because the production values and packaging are clearly much better quality from what we've already got. Plus, I haven't but one original Beatles Compact Disc, so this will be my first true CD collection of The Beatle's works. The only way I've had the entire discography before is on Vinyl. |
Posted By: Fritha
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 04:57
"Within You Without You" has so much more going on than I'd heard before on the original CD - clearly an improvement! Not to mention "For The Benefit of Mr. Kite", always one of my favs, which sounds properly psychedelic now, with much more distinct vocals to boot. I listened through all the studio albums bar Yellow Submarine yesterday, in one ten hour stint with a lunch break in the middle. Probably the greatest musical ride I've ever taken... You really get a sense of the incredible evolution of the band in that six and a half year span during which the music was created. I truly feel that these remasters are able to bring the musical treasure of the Beatles to the 21st century without abandoning the original spirit of it and that is a great feat. Kudos to EMI and Apple Corps. for salvaging this essential pop catalogue for future generations. ------------- I was made to love magic |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 05:24
|
@Man Erg: Transferred them to iPod as mpeg4 and listened to them via earphones. I've finished listening to all of them and my overall impression has not changed, it's absolutely fantastic.
One example makes it clear how much things have improved: On the first album for instance there are two tracks to which the stereo mixes don't exist (Love Me Do and P.S. I Love You´), so the original mixes in mono have been used. As a contrast, squeezed between the remixed tracks (in their original order), the difference smacks you right between the eyes, it's almost painful.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 06:31
I always thought that Rubber Soul was one of the worst stereo mixes in the set. I agree with what you say about the vocal seperation, it's way too chopped off. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 11:23
|
^very true, but stereo in 1965 was not what it is today, it was still an experimental novelty, though i used to love playing with the balance control on these recordings..
the remaster engineers have only adjusted the sound of the recordings not tha actual mix, which would be difficult to do with only 2 channels....so no 5.1 surround will be available either
..you could always place the speakers together, stand back....instant mono!
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 11:31
|
I heard some limiting was done, which makes me nervous....
I'm hearing that this may be a worthwhile acquisition especially for a Beatles addicted family. My parents still have their original Sergeant Pepper's LP with the cutouts. Everyone in my family has the complete discography on their iPods.
But I'm hearing that the upgrade might be worth it.
Anyone have the monos? ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 11:39
| I am definitely interested in acquiring one of the box sets. The big negative with the mono boxset is that it's about $50 more expensive - and then I still have to get the stereo remasters of Abbey Road and Let It Be. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 11:40
I think I read somewhere (please don't quote me  ), that at least on the mono version, absolutely no limiting was done. May also be true for the stereo version, but I don't know for sure. |
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 13:43
putting 24bit remasters on 16bit CD's must involve some limiting, hopefully the albums will be released in their full glory in the future - much to the puzzlement of the mastering engineers the 16bit CD's were a marketing choice by Apple Corps.
------------- Prog Archives Tour Van
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 13:53
It doesn't. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 15:22
Well, it doesn't NEED limiting, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they did use some limiting on the stereo releases to created the illusion of 'fullness' to compensate for the lower bit rate. I could be crazy, though. Who knows. |
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 15:30
|
I also read that there was no limiting on the mono, and perhaps no re-EQ either. Just re-digitizing of the mixes that the Beatles themselves actually participated in.
But I may have dreamt that. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 15:31
Well you ARE crazy, but you could also be right. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 15:58
Well, there's no such thing as 24-Bit CDs, really. There are HDCD and SACD which do contain extra bits, but without a special player, you're only going to be hearing the 16 bits anyway. I guess I'm trying to justify this choice as if the engineers had no choice, but in reality, they still could have mastered 20-bit CDs so that those of us who DO have HD CD players could benefit from the extra bits, but hey, what Apple Records says goes, ultimately, and I'll just be happy to have a properly packaged Beatles CD set for once. |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 16:08
Well if you listen to the previous 3 (Hard Days, For Sale & Help) albums when Abbey Road upgraded to 4 track, you can hear much better seperation than what was done on RS. Martin had both the vocals AND the instruments spread out more over the two channels. A good example is the track And I Love Her, you hear can John's acoustic on the left channel and George's on the right. I don't know what Martin and engineers were doing with Rubber Soul by putting ALL the instruments in one channel and the vocals in the other. Paul's voice on You Won't See Me sounds so tinty and John's on Nowhere Man as well. But I'm going by my MoFi pressings, I have yet to get the newbies. I'm not in a big hurry. As for 5.1, I've listened to the mixes they did for the Yellow Sub DVD that's now out of print. Trust me, you don't want the catalog done in 5.1, they sound terrible. Remember, most of their recordings are done in 4 track, so there's not a whole lot you can do with those limitations. Abbey Road would probably make for a decent 5.1 mix being done in 8 track. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 16:10
From what I understand, the sh*t placing of vocals are still present even in these new released.  |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 16:13
It's weird crap like this that's making me lean towards mono. I'm on headphones all the time, vocals in one channel only would just annoy the hell out of me. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 16:18
|
As usual, I only intended to buy a disc or two, and instead picked up the stereo box today. Ah well, would have bought them all anyway, eventually. Decided to listen to Past Masters first, since it covers the band start to finish. WOW! Who knew about that piano track on She's A Woman? On one of Ringo's fills (forget which song) you can hear the sticks barely hitting the metal of the snare rim instead of the drumskin. Can't wait to hear every album. I tend to forget what a great rock band they were. Now I'm remembering. For anyone sitting on the fence on these, if you are a Beatles fan, from what I've heard so far these are well worth the expense. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 16:36
Well, I mean, I have heard some songs they changed, but a lot of the issues were left untouched. Makes me think that the engineers just randomly picked which songs to fix and which ones to leave alone. 'Unfinished' is the term I am leaning towards, here. How can a team of modern engineers with a complete understanding of how to properly mix stereo take four years on this project, and only have half the songs properly re-mixed? Makes no sense to me.  |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 17:25
These are remasters, not remixes, and assuming they are using the original stereo sources, maybe there's only so much they can do with them.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily want to listen to those early 'stereo' albums (I'm now listening to With The Beatles) on headphones.
And don't worry, the remixes will be available hmm 'round about 50th anniversary time, or in four years. At which time 'The Beatles tax' will be due again. Let me tell you how this will be... ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 17:53
| Not much can be done to remix Please Please Me & With The Beatles since they were recorded on 2 track machines. I Want To Hold Your Hand was the first 4 track song and Hard Days Night was the first 4 track album. |
Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 20:47
|
I haven't heard all of them yet, but WOW! It sounds incredible to me so far. It really hurt me to spend so much money for the stereo box set but it's totally worth it. I've heard A hard day's night and like someone posted before, the stereo mix sound a lot better than Rubber soul, I never understood why there's such a extreme panning on that album, but now I think the better sound makes it up a bit for the bad mixing. By the way, I also think A hard day's night sounds better in stereo, it has a more dimensional sound. I've also heard Revolver and Abbey Road and the sound is very clear, especially the bass and the bass drum, they have more punch, and also the voices sound clearer. ------------- In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made... |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 21:05
The problem with that analogy is that some of the songs have in fact been remixed with the vocals in both channels where before they hadn't been. Face it, the four years story was just part of the campaign to build anticipation. They're just trying to make a buck quick like usual. And here I actually believed they were doing it for the fans. Silly me. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 10 2009 at 21:42
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Man Erg
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 02:14
|
I believe that one of the reasons that the early albums suffer from seperation is because of George Martin's production technique.He wasn't that experienced in producing 'Rock 'n' Roll' bands. His forte lay in the production of radio shows such as The Goons etc. Martin was well versed in using special effects and studio trickery to accompany radio sketches and dramas.Placing sounds in different places on the tape almost layering the sounds was still,(and I should imagine still is with just the availability of two tracks and bouncing across) an art as he was,in pre-Beatles/early Beatles days using 2 track recording facilities. The basic recording of a standard 4 piece band used to be and,probably still is for demo purposes, bass,guitars keyboards etc. on one track and drums and vocals on another. Whenever I have ventured into a studio,most engineers tend to centre the vocal/drum track and pan the 'melody/rhythm' track. Martin was stiil pioneering production/recording techniques in 1962-1965 so it's understandable why the stereo versions of the original recordings sound unbalanced at times. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ On another note (sic),I was playing the remastered Abbey Road yesterday and the splicing between the tracks on the medley seem more obvious or have my ears become for sensitive? On The Beatles (White Album) one of my favourite tracks is Long,Long,Long.Wow! I have never heard the intro before as it was buried so far down in the mix as to be inaudible.The other revelation is the wine bottle atop the Leslie Cabinet 'accident'. When McCartney held down a chord on the organ toward the end of the track.It caused a wine bottle that had been put on top of the Leslie Cabinet to oscillate causing an eerie sound.On the remaster,this has been brought forward in the mix and sounds even stranger...fantastic stuff. ------------- Do 'The Stanley' otherwise I'll thrash you with some rhubarb. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 16:13
Perhaps I'm being too hard on these things. I haven't even received mine in the mail yet, but I'm already calling 'bullsh*t' on them. Maybe I should just stop expecting perfection from them. It just pisses me off, though, because everything about The Beatles was arguably 'perfect' EXCEPT for the production values of their work, and now once again, I feel like they still haven't been given the proper care. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 16:31
|
Seems interest to hearing the Beatles in full Remastering option. I will buy in separate disc when i can.
Vote stereo BTW. -------------  |
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 16:41
| I'm now downloading a few of the albums on soulseek. I still intend to get the CDs, but I want to get a taste of these. Best I could find is 320 kbps which is enough to at least get an idea on how they sound. |
Posted By: Chair
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 19:39
|
It seems like the preference most audiophiles have is that every album from 'Please Please Me' until 'Magical Mystery Tour' sound best in mono. 'Magical Mystery Tour' and 'The White Album' are claimed to sound better with the stereo mixes. Does anyone agree with this? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 21:14
I'll probably be buying the mono versions of a few of the albums just for comparison's sake. I'm a huge Beatles fan, but never have listened to mono Sgt. Pepper, for instance. Would be interesting to have a choice. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 21:17
| Problem is, I think the mono releases are only available through the boxset. |
Posted By: Chair
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 21:32
That would be nice to be able to only buy a few mono albums, but unfortunately, the mono CDs are only available as a whole. It's all or nothing.  By the way, Sgt. Pepper sounds phenomenal in mono. At first I found that it sounded strange and not as good as the stereo since I was so used to always hearing it like that, but after doing comparisons, I found that the mono blew the stereo out of the water. I'm already getting used to the mono mix, so the stereo is now starting to sound somewhat strange to me.  Another album that sounds great in mono is Help!. The song Yesterday sounds so much better in mono than in stereo I find. For the White Album some songs sounded better in mono than stereo, but some tracks sounded 10x better in stereo than in mono like While My Guitar Gently Weeps, which has nice smooth bass in the stereo version yet lacks it on the mono. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 21:34
Well then, f**k them. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 21:50
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 22:19
I have never understood this limited edition concept. Doesn't making a product available indefinitely ensure the companies more money? All you're doing when you limit the production of something is alienate a fanbase. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 11 2009 at 23:26
By the way, the stereo versions (I'm now up to Rubber Soul, listening-wise) do sound great. I have no mono versions (except the original LP's, not in that great of shape given that I played the sh*t out of them now for 40 years) to compare them to. As for Rubber Soul, there is some of that hard-panning (vocals right, instruments left) to much of it, but the headphone experience is not as bad as one might imagine based on some of the reviews I've seen. I'm listening to it on headphones as I type this. They've managed to let some of each channel bleed into the other (or maybe that was the way it was originally). Girl is probably the worst offender, panning-wise. Still not unlistenable, however, as there is another guitar track that comes into the right (vocal) channel about midway through the song. Run For Your Life has the same problem and the same redemption.
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Chair
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 00:09
|
For the record; they are releasing more mono sets. I read this just today. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 12 2009 at 01:06
Source? |
Posted By: miker
Date Posted: September 14 2009 at 08:44
|
Check out the new Beatles Widget featuring videos and the new digitally
remastered audio tracks. You can also do things like post the widget in
your facebook profile so that your friends can listen to The Beatles. Just click on the link below: http://www.clearspring.com/widgets/4aa4cbc0d1c4b34a - http://www.clearspring.com/widgets/4aa4cbc0d1c4b34a |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: September 14 2009 at 11:26
|
I just got my 2009 stereo remastered boxset today,and let me tell you I was like a kid at Christmas.
Listening to Revolver right now,and so far sounds excellent. -------------  |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 15 2009 at 19:17
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 14:02
|
I bought Abbey Road remaster in stereo, to see what's all the fuzz behind the remasters...
I don't regret the buy, the remasters are very good, the sound is more "natural" and muscular.
I forget how sad are songs like Carry that Weight are.
i will buy the others cd's one by one.
BTW the White Album hadn't come to México. ------------- |
Posted By: inrainbows
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 14:58
I feel just the same! Excellent! ------------- 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 20:04
|
Okay, getting to the The White Album now. Sounding good. Rocky Raccoon is the immediate progenitor of ELP's The Sheriff, right down to that saloon-style piano.
Edit to add: has there ever been a better song written about heroin addiction than Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me and My Monkey? ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 21:29
Guess not, especially since I didn't know that's what it wad about. All I knew was that the title came from something the Maharishi was always lecturing about people and their secrets. I'm actually pretty embarrassed that I didn't realize John was talking about addiction. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 21:38
I'm just guessing. He was pretty into it at this point, and the lyrics, well they say it all. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 17 2009 at 23:56
No, I believe you have assumed correctly. It fits perfectly. I dunno what it is . . . my brain just never went in that direction when hearing the lyrics, I have no idea why.  |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: September 18 2009 at 02:02
I usually don't pay attention to how many viewers a topic generates, but this appears to be one of the most viewed in PA's history 
I for one constantly return to read the responses. I will definitely get the stereo box but am also considering investing in the mono box.
I have listened to the entire stereo catalogue (or rather the 30 second samples) at the Beatles' website and most say that I was most thrilled by Magical Mystery Tour but to a much lesser extent by Rubber Soul and Revolver. I wonder if the mono box actually solves some of the panning issues.
|