beatles remaster (mono or stereo)

SonikJesus · 08.28.2009, 12:36 AM

I never really got why some like the mono versions to the stereo ones. Other than one having more channels, are they mixed differently? Which set will you guys buy if you are looking forward to the sets?

mkuboot · 08.28.2009, 03:26 AM

I have the Mayall/Clapton BEANO in both original mono & stereo-remix (original release, both on one CD):
Mono does sound twice as 'fat' or 'full' as the stereo remix.
It just has more BOOM. Do PLEASE PLEASE ME or WITH THE BEATLES have BOOM? YEP!

Stereo of mono is often lacking, partly because there's a lot of 'spill-over' (kinda 'narrow' stereo-sound without much panorama).
I could imagine that it is very hard technically, to divide the tracks meaningfully. Could be that instruments share similar frequencies, thereby producing a pleasing 'melted' sound in mono, while if ripped apart l/r I'd agree you get more details, but that might not always be desirable concerning the general sound of the mix as a whole: Originally, the tracks were EQ'ed for mono, and stereo remixing could mean having to re-EQ each single track, which will change the audible result (IMHO, you can hear this adverse effect listening to the Davis remixes of Genesis, when he just tried to broaden the panorama). The problem with re-EQ-ing older tracks is that you are limited in available fequencies (bandwidth) and dynamics tend to suffer by trying to digitally 'enhance' - it's hard to 'enhance' something that just isn't there...
and take a listen to the dynamic range & bandwidth of the early Beatles recordings -

Recently, I've only liked 2 folks' abilities to do the fragile job: George Martin did great on LOVE (the idea behind it is debatable, I'm only talking sound here!), and James Guthrie did quite well on ECHOES, although all that cross-fading is crap IMHO (Gilmour, do you read?).

So yeah, I mostly prefer mono, if it's mono.

Satan · 08.28.2009, 03:28 AM

mono > stereo unless you're listening to jimi hendrix through headphones.

mkuboot · 08.28.2009, 03:37 AM

+1 *swirl, swirl!, SWIRL!!!* - someone kill that univibe! (AXIS through headphones)

atsonicpark · 08.28.2009, 03:58 AM

Because the stereo mixes sound kinda distracting on some songs. Drums to the extreme left in one speaker, vocals to the extreme right in another speaker. Weird stuff like that.. actually sounds straight-up bad on some songs. Of course, you will probably only really notice with headphones on, but yeah. It's not a big deal either way.

radarmaker · 08.28.2009, 04:59 AM

Also worth bearing in mind that in the mid-60's, recording engineers had decades of experience working in mono, while stereo was a relatively new thing which often led to the temptation to go overboard with stereo effects so that people would actually notice the difference.
For just about everything recorded prior to around 1968, mono will give a "truer" representation of the music. After that, mono was being phased out anyway, so most things that were still released as "mono" were just stereo fold-downs.

Santa's Monkey · 08.28.2009, 06:56 AM

I'm sure I read somewhere (poss an issue of Uncut a few months ago) that the Beatles had little to no involvement with the stereo versions of their albums. They created the mono and then studio hacks stereofied them - hacks may or may not include Mr Martin.

StevOK · 08.28.2009, 11:48 AM

Let's just hope the re-masters sound better than the original stereo mixes.

noisereductions · 08.28.2009, 11:50 AM

I like mono.

gmku · 08.28.2009, 12:17 PM

Most artists in the mid to late 60s preferred to mix their albums in mono because they thought it sounded better and was suited to AM radio, where releases were played. The record companies often released stereo versions because they thought that's what the public really wanted. So if you're listening to the mono version of a lot of those LPs, chances are good that you're listening to it the way the artist intended it.

SuperCreep · 08.28.2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa's Monkey

I'm sure I read somewhere (poss an issue of Uncut a few months ago) that the Beatles had little to no involvement with the stereo versions of their albums. They created the mono and then studio hacks stereofied them - hacks may or may not include Mr Martin.

Yeah, pretty much this. The Beatles didn't start putting thought into their stereo mixes until The White Album.

Personally, I could take either mono or stereo for RS, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, and MMT, but I'd rather have mono given the option since it's much more "natural" sounding. Anything before RS on stereo just sounds fucking awful, though.

radarmaker · 08.28.2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa's Monkey

the Beatles had little to no involvement with the stereo versions of their albums.

ditto for the Velvets banana album - they spent 3 days mixing the mono version, then left the engineer to whip up the stereo mix by himself in an afternoon.

pantophobia · 09.09.2009, 06:48 AM

amazon has both boxes back in stock after their pre-orders sold out, for $230 (down from 300 list for mono) not bad at all

SonikJesus · 09.10.2009, 12:43 AM

Damn, that kinda sucks for me. I bought the mono box at rhino today for $300. They only had 4 too. Did anyone else have trouble finding the mono box or was the "sold out everywhere" thing just overdone?

Also, do you guys know if they are reprinting more mono box sets? If they are, are they any diifferent from the initial pressings?

demonrail666 · 09.10.2009, 03:50 AM

I plan on getting the mono boxset and picking up the remastered stereo ones individually. Saying that, I'd feel slightly less exploited had they just put the mono and stereo versions side by side on a single disc - as regularly happens with reissues from that period.

jennthebenn · 09.10.2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I plan on getting the mono boxset and picking up the remastered stereo ones individually.

FTW.

SuperCreep · 09.10.2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I plan on getting the mono boxset and picking up the remastered stereo ones individually. Saying that, I'd feel slightly less exploited had they just put the mono and stereo versions side by side on a single disc - as regularly happens with reissues from that period.

I heard that the mono box set has stereo versions of Help!, Rubber Soul, and (I think) Sgt. Pepper's on one disc. Pretty odd.

AllHandsOnTheBigOne · 09.10.2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperCreep

I heard that the mono box set has stereo versions of Help!, Rubber Soul, and (I think) Sgt. Pepper's on one disc. Pretty odd.

The mono remasters of Help! and Rubber Soul have the original 1965 stereo mixes (which are different from the stereo remasters) added on the cd as well, but not Sgt. Pepper's.

ricechex · 09.10.2009, 12:50 PM

Going for the mono box, just bc that's the way they wanted it to sound. And i trust them.

Rob Instigator · 09.10.2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa's Monkey

I'm sure I read somewhere (poss an issue of Uncut a few months ago) that the Beatles had little to no involvement with the stereo versions of their albums. They created the mono and then studio hacks stereofied them - hacks may or may not include Mr Martin.

that is true but abbey road, let it be, and I think white album were recorded solel;y in stere-ere-o

08.28.2009, 12:36 AM	#1
SonikJesus the end of the ugly Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,006	I never really got why some like the mono versions to the stereo ones. Other than one having more channels, are they mixed differently? Which set will you guys buy if you are looking forward to the sets?
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 03:26 AM	#2
mkuboot empty page Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Detmold, Germany Posts: 12	I have the Mayall/Clapton BEANO in both original mono & stereo-remix (original release, both on one CD): Mono does sound twice as 'fat' or 'full' as the stereo remix. It just has more BOOM. Do PLEASE PLEASE ME or WITH THE BEATLES have BOOM? YEP! Stereo of mono is often lacking, partly because there's a lot of 'spill-over' (kinda 'narrow' stereo-sound without much panorama). I could imagine that it is very hard technically, to divide the tracks meaningfully. Could be that instruments share similar frequencies, thereby producing a pleasing 'melted' sound in mono, while if ripped apart l/r I'd agree you get more details, but that might not always be desirable concerning the general sound of the mix as a whole: Originally, the tracks were EQ'ed for mono, and stereo remixing could mean having to re-EQ each single track, which will change the audible result (IMHO, you can hear this adverse effect listening to the Davis remixes of Genesis, when he just tried to broaden the panorama). The problem with re-EQ-ing older tracks is that you are limited in available fequencies (bandwidth) and dynamics tend to suffer by trying to digitally 'enhance' - it's hard to 'enhance' something that just isn't there... and take a listen to the dynamic range & bandwidth of the early Beatles recordings - Recently, I've only liked 2 folks' abilities to do the fragile job: George Martin did great on LOVE (the idea behind it is debatable, I'm only talking sound here!), and James Guthrie did quite well on ECHOES, although all that cross-fading is crap IMHO (Gilmour, do you read?). So yeah, I mostly prefer mono, if it's mono. __________________ In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. IKE Light, More Light... GOETHE
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 03:28 AM	#3
Satan invito al cielo Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: noo yawk Posts: 6,331	mono > stereo unless you're listening to jimi hendrix through headphones. __________________ "I love meth." - batreleaser
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 03:37 AM	#4
mkuboot empty page Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Detmold, Germany Posts: 12	+1 swirl, swirl!, SWIRL!!! - someone kill that univibe! (AXIS through headphones) __________________ In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. IKE Light, More Light... GOETHE
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 03:58 AM	#5
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	Because the stereo mixes sound kinda distracting on some songs. Drums to the extreme left in one speaker, vocals to the extreme right in another speaker. Weird stuff like that.. actually sounds straight-up bad on some songs. Of course, you will probably only really notice with headphones on, but yeah. It's not a big deal either way. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 04:59 AM	#6
radarmaker the end of the ugly Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,122	Also worth bearing in mind that in the mid-60's, recording engineers had decades of experience working in mono, while stereo was a relatively new thing which often led to the temptation to go overboard with stereo effects so that people would actually notice the difference. For just about everything recorded prior to around 1968, mono will give a "truer" representation of the music. After that, mono was being phased out anyway, so most things that were still released as "mono" were just stereo fold-downs.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 06:56 AM	#7
Santa's Monkey little trouble girl Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 40	I'm sure I read somewhere (poss an issue of Uncut a few months ago) that the Beatles had little to no involvement with the stereo versions of their albums. They created the mono and then studio hacks stereofied them - hacks may or may not include Mr Martin.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 11:48 AM	#8
StevOK expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Henrietta, TX Posts: 2,412	Let's just hope the re-masters sound better than the original stereo mixes. __________________ Follow me! Soundcloud Tumblr Facebook
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 11:50 AM	#9
noisereductions invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: New England, USA Posts: 16,210	I like mono. __________________ noisereduxinstalled.weebly.com
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

08.28.2009, 12:17 PM	#10
gmku invito al cielo Join Date: May 2006 Location: Oxford, England Posts: 15,225	Most artists in the mid to late 60s preferred to mix their albums in mono because they thought it sounded better and was suited to AM radio, where releases were played. The record companies often released stereo versions because they thought that's what the public really wanted. So if you're listening to the mono version of a lot of those LPs, chances are good that you're listening to it the way the artist intended it. __________________ Ever notice how this place just basically, well, sucks.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.09.2009, 06:48 AM	#13
pantophobia expwy. to yr skull Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Maryland Posts: 2,349	amazon has both boxes back in stock after their pre-orders sold out, for $230 (down from 300 list for mono) not bad at all
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 12:43 AM	#14
SonikJesus the end of the ugly Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,006	Damn, that kinda sucks for me. I bought the mono box at rhino today for $300. They only had 4 too. Did anyone else have trouble finding the mono box or was the "sold out everywhere" thing just overdone? Also, do you guys know if they are reprinting more mono box sets? If they are, are they any diifferent from the initial pressings?
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 03:50 AM	#15
demonrail666 invito al cielo Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 18,509	I plan on getting the mono boxset and picking up the remastered stereo ones individually. Saying that, I'd feel slightly less exploited had they just put the mono and stereo versions side by side on a single disc - as regularly happens with reissues from that period.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

09.10.2009, 12:50 PM	#19
ricechex the destroyed room Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 582	Going for the mono box, just bc that's the way they wanted it to sound. And i trust them. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|