[CaseCom]

I'm considering springing for one of the Beatles box sets out this week. But I'm not sure which to get. I initially figured on the stereo set. But, the mono is tempting because it's how the earlier albums were originally intended to be heard -- some of the early stereo mixes are kind of cheesy, with vocals on one channel, instruments on the other, stuff like that. BUT, the mono set is more expensive and doesn't include the last few albums (which were originally recorded in stereo). So ... which one should I get?

[- - e r i k - -]

I got the Stereo one already. I'll let you know how they compare to my previous discography once I get a chance to sit down and listen to it.

Mono is how the first four was intended to be heard, and the review of the mono set I read said that it sounds kick ass.

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by CaseCom 

I'm considering springing for one of the Beatles box sets out this week. But I'm not sure which to get. I initially figured on the stereo set. But, the mono is tempting because it's how the earlier albums were originally intended to be heard -- some of the early stereo mixes are kind of cheesy, with vocals on one channel, instruments on the other, stuff like that. BUT, the mono set is more expensive and doesn't include the last few albums (which were originally recorded in stereo). So ... which one should I get?

Not sure about that point! IMO those albums sound the best they could do at the time they were recorded. I am sure that if they had todays Logic driven digital studios that they wouldn't have hesitated to use them, after all they didnt sound mono in the recording booth did they!?

However some people might prefer those old sounding record, just like i love the sound of a 1959 jazz record.... they usually have alot more soul!!

Rich

[- - e r i k - -]

In those early days the Beatles didn't care about stereo (for the aforementioned cheesiness of the contemporary stereo mixes), so they oversaw the mono mixes themselves.

I'll still compare and see which one I prefer myself as the stereo set also is reportedly stellar.

[richwig83]

I heard some clips on the radio last night and they did sound very impressive.... Clean... but not SO clean to sap the vibe of the music!

[TheoCryst]

I voted for the mono mix. The best part about the stereo set is that they're also selling it on an album-by-album basis, unlike the mono mix which must be bought as a set. So you can always supplement the mono set with the later, stereo-only albums.

[CaseCom]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I got the Stereo one already. I'll let you know how they compare to my previous discography once I get a chance to sit down and listen to it.

Mono is how the first four was intended to be heard, and the review of the mono set I read said that it sounds kick ass.

Thanks; I'll be interested to hear. From what I've read, the quality of both sets is top-notch.

I think I would clearly prefer the early albums in mono. But some of the later ones (Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, White Album) really have me on the fence. Just not sure I'd like those better in mono.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Mono is how the first four was intended to be heard

No.

The mono MIX MADE IN THE EARLY/MID SIXTIES is how the first four were intended to be heard.

I completely, utterly fail to see the point of discussing "how they were intended" if they've been remixed and ripped out of the context that led to their creation.




In other news, GM will be producing a collectors' series of classic Jaguars of the 50s and 60s. They are being brought up to date in all technical and aesthetic aspects, and none of the original engineers and designers are involved in the process.

Will you get the racing green edition (as they were intended), or the red versions with the spoke wheels?

I'm on the fence.

[ghporter]

A mono mix that uses modern technology to rid the final product of the unavoidable artifacts of the recording process available in the early 1960s, but respects the way the original vinyl releases were mixed would be what I'd want. Nobody likes tape his or vinyl crackle, and there are some other issues you sometimes run into when listening to early multi-track recordings that could be cleaned up with today's techniques. But I think I'd ask Paul and Ringo what THEY wanted to have their audience hear out of their earliest records before I made blanket statements, pro or con, about "how they were intended to be heard."

[CaseCom]

My understanding is that both the new mono and stereo versions have been remastered but NOT remixed. The mixes are the original ones.

(Two exceptions: George Martin did new stereo mixes of "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" for the 1987 CD release. The new remastered stereo versions of those two albums use the 1987 mixes, but the original 1965 stereo mixes are included in the mono box set.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...0.story?page=1

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

I'm also thinking to get the Mono box, and buying YS, AR and LIB ad hoc.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by CaseCom 

My understanding is that both the new mono and stereo versions have been remastered but NOT remixed. The mixes are the original ones.

(Two exceptions: George Martin did new stereo mixes of "Help!" and "Rubber Soul" for the 1987 CD release. The new remastered stereo versions of those two albums use the 1987 mixes, but the original 1965 stereo mixes are included in the mono box set.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...0.story?page=1

Ah - that sounds a lot better.

Basically, it's saying that they've finally corrected what can thus only be described as a colossal ****-up for their digital releases.

Finally, you can hear the music AS IT'S BEEN AVAILABLE FOR OVER FORTY YEARS to anybody who searches out the original vinyls.



(incidentally, there are plenty of vinyl pressings out that sound like complete crap - most notably the "digitally remastered" versions from the late 80s. The sonic difference to older pressings was shocking when I first got them.)

[- - e r i k - -]

Ah yes, nothing like a well worn early pressing for that "authentic sound"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Ah yes, nothing like a well worn early pressing for that "authentic sound"

You don't actually have a clue?

The trick is to find a copy that's not "well-worn". They cost a pretty penny, but are worth every single one of those pennies thrice over.

[Big Mac]

I think Apple would prefer we wait for the 9/9/09 announcement.

[- - e r i k - -]

And for every time you listen to it you wear it down. Vinyl may have it's sonic qualities that are pleasing, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's the end all be all format fidelity-wise. A decent tape has it beat.

In any case after listening through it I am going to change my vote to mono. The stereo mixes are still the cheesy extreme left/right mixes that they always was. A missed opportunity after the sonic masterpiece that was Love (and to a lesser extent the stereo remix of Yellow Submarine).

I expected more to be honest…

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And for every time you listen to it you wear it down. Vinyl may have it's sonic qualities that are pleasing, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's the end all be all format fidelity-wise. A decent tape has it beat.

Why are you telling me this? Are you just trolling me?

You do realize that people who care don't listen to vinyl on an MkII with the weight set to 2.2g; that in fact, one of the primary reasons for $5000+ turntables is to minimize the abrasion that takes place every time it's played?

And isn't it implied by these new remasters that people have been buying complete **** for the past twenty-five years, for all the money they've been spending on the Beatles' music on CD?

Also, the original master tape is (actually, "was") obviously superior to ANY generational copy, including a good vinyl pressing, BUT: a lot of tape doesn't actually age well.

Many, many masters have been lost due to bad storage conditions, and a *huge* number were destroyed by chemical deterioration (a whole slew of masters were made on tape that separated into layers over time; in some cases, this can be literally "baked" for one-time playback only - for transfer - but is completely unrecoverable after this).

Also, stored tape will inevitable have "ghosting" - the effect where you can hear the next layer of tape as its magnetic charge wears off into the adjacent layers (often heard in the intros to songs), and tape hiss can also increase over time.


IOW: more often than not, the first vinyl pressing made at the time (often supervised by the artists themselves) will have been the absolute best transfer ever to have been made of the material, and no amount of trickery and marketing will ever achieve the same level of fidelity, let alone surpass it.


That's just an aside, though: It's nice to know that CD buyers now have the chance to shell out for a THIRD (and fourth) copy of music they already have, except with the promise of NOT getting inferior crap for their money this time.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You do realize that people who care don't listen to vinyl on an MkII with the weight set to 2.2g; that in fact, one of the primary reasons for $5000+ turntables is to minimize the abrasion that takes place every time it's played

Mein gott, audiophiles are easy to rile up.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

And isn't it implied by these new remasters that people have been buying complete **** for the past twenty-five years, for all the money they've been spending on the Beatles' music on CD?

Not at all true. These new masters are better, but I would go to as far as to say not better enough. If you already own the previous albums (and I do in several formats), this new stereo set is not worth the money.

The fact that they weren't remixed as well as remastered is a lost opportunity. I suspect we have another decade to wait before we get a high fidelity remaster AND remix. *sigh*

[- - e r i k - -]

Anyways, one of the most improved albums are Magical Mystery Tour, which had its faked stereo replaced with a proper stereo mix. (Compare the start of All You Need Is Love for an obvious example).

The mix of the 1999 Yellow Submarine is better although the mastering is definitely not.

Remastering significantly boosted sound quality, particularly on Revolver and The Beatles (aka the White Album). Remixing, the manipulation of separate tracks to alter the placement of vocals and instrumentation, could have yielded more dramatic results, but Apple has yet to green-light a catalog remix.

"That's the only thing that would make a massive difference," says Rouse, acknowledging that while some fans yearn for a full remix, purists regard it as retouching the Mona Lisa. "So far, some 120 Beatles songs have been remixed in 5.1 stereo for DVD, and they're great alternatives, but not replacements."

Fans who cry "revisionism" should seek out their old records or the mono set, McCartney says. "It's not like the originals have gone away. If you want what we consider an improvement, this is it, the stereo CDs. Our guys worked hard to get it faithful to the original."

I am definitely in the camp who would like to see a REMIX as well as a remaster, but I applaud the efforts so far and see the importance in this release as an as-close-to-the-original-release as possible.

[- - e r i k - -]

Here's my preferred version of the albums:

Please please me -MONO
With the Beatles - MONO
A Hard Day's Night - MONO
Beatles For Sale - MONO
Help! - Both
Rubber Soul - Both
Revolver - Both
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - Both, prefer Mono
Magical Mystery Tour - Both, real stereo vastly improvement over fake stereo
The Beatles - Both. All tracks (Except For 'Revolution 9') have mono versions that are sometimes vastly different from the stereo versions
Yellow Submarine - STEREO, prefer 1999 mix
Abbey Road - STEREO
Let It Be - STEREO

Love - Shows you what is actually possible to do when remixing the source.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

But I think I'd ask Paul and Ringo what THEY wanted to have their audience hear out of their earliest records before I made blanket statements, pro or con, about "how they were intended to be heard."

It is known that Paul prefers the original mono-mixes, but how about John?

Originally Posted by WNEW's interview with John Lennon in September of 1974

Dennis Elsas: You know, many of these things have been remixed with stereo...

John: Oh, it was awful.

Dennis Elsas: Yeah, I think the original monaural recordings are...

John: I didn't realize it happened. When they put out that package last year...

Dennis Elsas: The blue and red...

John: The two albums. I just thought...I presumed that they would just copy `em from the masters and put `em out. And I didn't even listen to it until after it was out and I took it back and I played it and it was embarrassing, you know. I mean some of the tracks survived, but it was really embarrassing. Some fool had tried to make it stereo and it didn't work.

Dennis Elsas: People should stay with the mono and not be so...

John: Cause there's a difference between stereo and mono, obviously. If you mix something in mono, then you shouldn't try and fake it. You lose the guts of it, you know. A lot of them lost their...The fast version of "Revolution" was destroyed, you know. I mean, it was a heavy record and then they made it into a piece of ice cream.

[starman]

So on the fence with this. I think I'm going to buy the mono box and individual stereo albums like TWA.

[- - e r i k - -]

Here's my full opinion on it:

Beatles Remasters 09/09/09

So the remasters are here. Everyone should get them of course, there is no doubt that this is the most important singular collection of just one band's music ever to be released. It is, as intended, the original mixes as close to the original master tapes as we can probably get at this stage in history, past or present.

Yet, I can't shake what an incredible opportunity wasted this is. The stereo mixes are – let's be blunt here – awful. The extreme left/right mix was not something that the Beatles or their contemporary listeners preferred. It was a novelty at best. Vocals in one channel, instruments in the other? Yeah.
So why now, with the chance of re-releasing new cleaned up masters to a new audience (and to some of us OCD completists) did they not also take the opportunity to do a proper REMIX as well? We have got tiny morsels of the greatness awaiting to be unlocked: LOVE and the 1999 remix of Yellow Submarine (albeit the mastering and excessive noise removal on that leave some to be desired). And Let It Be …Naked of course, but to be honest apart from a few tracks, overall I preferred the original.
Listening and A/B comparing (yes, like the nerd I am) the 09/09/09 box set releases to my carefully collected compilation of 1987 releases and assorted others, I am disappointed to say:
There just isn't that much of a difference.
Sure, people with freakishly good range of hearing, stereo systems that exceed the price of their cars and quite possible a drop of that sweet sweet delusion dubbed "audiophilia" will disagree, but if you already own the lot there is not much point, save for a few exceptions: Revolver, White Album and Abbey Road. Oh, and the stereo mix of Magical Mystery Tour is vastly improved (yet still firmly in juvenile stereoland) to the horrid faked stereo mix available to most.
This might sound like an odd post in between snob and nerd, but still. If you want to be a completist like me, yet not a total wanker (I'm skirting that in this context already I am sure), here are my recommendations for which albums to get in Mono, Stereo or both:
Please please me - MONO
With the Beatles - MONO
A Hard Day's Night - MONO
Beatles For Sale - MONO
Help! - Both
Rubber Soul - Both
Revolver - Both
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - Both, prefer Mono
Magical Mystery Tour - Both, real stereo vastly improvement over fake stereo
The Beatles - Both. All tracks (Except For 'Revolution 9') have mono versions that are sometimes vastly different from the stereo versions
Yellow Submarine - STEREO, prefer 1999 mix
Abbey Road - STEREO
Let It Be - STEREO
Past Masters - If you want to be anal, get both. Otherwise Past Masters I: Mono, Past Masters II: Stereo
Love - Shows you what is actually possible to do when remixing the source.

So in essence you'd be safe acquiring the mono box set and getting the 1999 Yellow Submarine release and the 2009 Abbey Road and Let It Be stereo releases sold separately.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Heh.

Compared to what a middling record collection can be worth if a little care has gone into it (especially if you were lucky enough to get the last end of the switch to CD, and real gems were dirt cheap, before the switchers realized that they'd just been had by the industry and the vintage vinyl market took off), then a turntable is as much an investment into protecting your collection as it is into listening experience.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Not at all true. These new masters are better, but I would go to as far as to say not better enough. If you already own the previous albums (and I do in several formats), this new stereo set is not worth the money.

The fact that they weren't remixed as well as remastered is a lost opportunity. I suspect we have another decade to wait before we get a high fidelity remaster AND remix. *sigh*

Most of the stuff was recorded on two-, three-, and four-track, bounced and re-bounced to fit, sometimes assembled from multiple machines, "synced" by hand, bar-by-bar, or section-by-section, during the final mix. This is actually the step they left off/re-did for the "Let it Be…Naked" album, and it was only possible because "Let It Be", being the last album, was recorded on comparatively many tracks.

People tend to forget that what makes "remixing" possible - having each instrument on a separate track - wasn't even *possible* until the early/mid-70s.

I'm sure there won't be many "remixes" beyond completely new music collages like the "Love" album.


Edit: There's also heavy irony in how public perception is that somehow these old recordings need to be "remixed" and "improved", when sound engineers spend *immense* amounts of money in the attempt to even come *close* to the sonic quality of the old Abbey Road recordings. The late Beatles albums are some of the best-sounding studio recordings ever produced.

[- - e r i k - -]

While some albums could benefit more from remixing than others, simply re-panning the extreme stereo mixes would do wonder for the earlier ones.

[CaseCom]

Thanks for the good discussion erik and Spheric ... I think what I'm going to do is just buy a few stereo albums for now -- definitely Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper, and maybe Revolver and/or the White Album -- and if I get enough Best Buy gift cards for Christmas I'll spring for the mono set then (if they haven't sold out).

Maybe I can talk my dad into splitting the cost with me ... he had Sgt. Pepper and the Red and Blue albums (the compilations Capitol released in the '70s) on vinyl, and I played them over and over again when I was 11 or 12 years old (circa 1980-81). I played "Hey Jude" so much I think I wore it out.

Then I became a teenager and got into real music like Men at Work and A Flock of Seagulls

Cheers!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

While some albums could benefit more from remixing than others, simply re-panning the extreme stereo mixes would do wonder for the earlier ones.

Yeah, ping-pong stereo is weird, but if all drums are on a single mono track together with the guitars, and all the vocals are on the other track together with the bass, there's not really much else you can do.

This is why stereo was considered a "gimmick" by so many engineers: it WAS a gimmick.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yeah, ping-pong stereo is weird, but if all drums are on a single mono track together with the guitars, and all the vocals are on the other track together with the bass, there's not really much else you can do.

This is why stereo was considered a "gimmick" by so many engineers: it WAS a gimmick.

Didn't Les Paul sort of pioneer "split instrument tracks"? With one instrument on one channel and a different one on the other channel... Anyway, the first uses of stereo WERE to provide separation of an accompaniment from the vocals, but not "left is instruments, right is voices." Putting the vocals at basically the same level on both tracks, and separating different instruments on the separate channels is not that new. But with what was thought of as "disposable" pop music at the time, a lot of labels went with gimmicky stereo mixes simply because they were different. Throwing in a bowed saw would have been different too, but that instrument was thought of as hokey and dated in the late 50s and early 60s. (I'm not making up the instrument, either.)

[Spheric Harlot]

multitracking != stereo.

multitracking is a prerequisite for stereo (since you need at least two tracks), but they're not the same thing at all.

And yes, it was Les Paul.

[Thorzdad]

Personally, I'd love to have the mono collection. I have the stereo releases (CD and Parlaphone vinyl) and, really, the use of stereo is pretty simplistic, for the most part. Just everything shoved into left, center and right boxes. Maybe the occasional rudimentary pan. There's rarely a coherent soundstage.

The later albums are better with the stereo use, of course. But, the earlier albums just might sound much more coherent in mono. Anyway, I'd love to hear them.

[lavar78]

Having heard them both, I'm definitely in favor of the mono box. The Beatles were right: you haven't heard Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band until you've heard it in mono!

I'd like to point something out to the mono crew: Past Masters (stereo) and Mono Masters (mono) don't have the same tracks. The new Yellow Submarine tracks ("All Together Now," "Hey Bulldog," "Only a Northern Song," and "It's All Too Much") are available on Mono Masters, but "The Ballad of John & Yoko," "Old Brown Shoe," and the single version of "Let It Be" aren't. So I ordered the mono box and I bought the individual albums of Abbey Road, Let It Be, and Past Masters.

[moep]

I bought the mono box yesterday after listening to both versions.
I mostly listen with to music on my MBP or iPhone with in–ears and the extreme channel separation (instruments one side, vocals other) of some tracks on the stereo box would drive me bonkers. Besides that I figure I could (but won’t) buy the stereo box later on — the mono, not so much.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

multitracking != stereo.

multitracking is a prerequisite for stereo (since you need at least two tracks), but they're not the same thing at all.

And yes, it was Les Paul.

Good point. Most people forget all about multitracking and all the wonderful stuff Les Paul did with instrument separation because stereo came along and added a different dimension. The transition period between "everything is always mono" and "real stereo is what you should expect" was longer than many people care to think of-maybe 12-15 years. In that time, a LOT of really good music, that wasn't intended to be "real stereo" was made, and minimizing the contributions of that body of work is just a loss for anyone who's never heard that stuff.