Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[J.A.W.]

another take on the Mono vs Stereo opinion.

I found some of the results surprising.

http://onethirtybpm.com/2009/09/10/the-bea...mono-vs-stereo/

They're talking about listening to the various albums on "normal stereo equipment" without defining whatever that might be and without giving any specifics of the actual setup they were using, and they're presenting personal opinions as facts (which also happens a lot on the Hoffman forum). All this makes their reviews rather unconvincing in my view.

Edited September 24, 2009 by J.A.W.

[sjarrell]

It sounded to me like they were biased against the mono from the get-go, because that's what the audiophiles, with their super-hearing, like. My hearing is crap and, with no new mono mixes in the house, there's Purble Chick monos that I enjoy more than the new stereo ones. On normal stereo equipment, even.

[Matthew]

All this mono talk is just making wish that my mono box will truly ship in early October, should be fascinating.

[J.A.W.]

All this mono talk is just making wish that my mono box will truly ship in early October, should be fascinating.

I have only heard the Mono Box, so I can't comment on any comparisons with the Stereo Box (though comparing mono and stereo mixes sounds like comparing apples and oranges to me), but in my opinion the mono set sounds great and is something to look forward to.

[J.A.W.]

It sounded to me like they were biased against the mono from the get-go, because that's what the audiophiles, with their super-hearing, like. My hearing is crap and, with no new mono mixes in the house, there's Purble Chick monos that I enjoy more than the new stereo ones. On normal stereo equipment, even.

The mixes in the Mono Box are the original ones, they're not new

[jazzbo]

I have some of the stereo, and over the last few nights have been able to hear a half a dozen of the mono discs, borrowed the mono set of a friend of a friend (literally).

There IS less bass on the mono versions I've heard. Not that significant, but the bass lines are more clearly delineated in stereo and seem "louder."

There are instances in the mono where in comparison to the stereo whole clusters of the instrumentation are "more distant" than in the stereo. What they do mention about the mono versions, that they have more punch, seems to me to be the most significant determining factor between them.

[J.A.W.]

I have some of the stereo, and over the last few nights have been able to hear a half a dozen of the mono discs, borrowed the mono set of a friend of a friend (literally).

There IS less bass on the mono versions I've heard. Not that significant, but the bass lines are more clearly delineated in stereo and seem "louder."

There are instances in the mono where in comparison to the stereo whole clusters of the instrumentation are "more distant" than in the stereo. What they do mention about the mono versions, that they have more punch, seems to me to be the most significant determining factor between them.

As was stated in the press release in which the remasters were announced earlier this year, the stereo remasters have a bit of added compression and limiting, whereas the mono remasters have none - at least no added compression and no limiting. Maybe that accounts for the bass lines being more clearly delineated and "louder" in stereo; it should also account for the stereo remasters having less dynamic range than the mono remasters.

Edited September 24, 2009 by J.A.W.

[RDK]

I'm not sure how much the added compression to the stereo remasters really affects the sound. By all accounts, it's been done with a light touch. You have to remember that the original mono and stereo mixes also used different levels of compression - I believe the monos were compressed more heavily (originally) to give them a slightly more punchier sound.

I'm not one who swears by one mix over the other. The first two (duophonic) albums benefit most from being heard in mono, of course, but after that I generally prefer the stereo over the mono if only for the wider soundstage the stereos offer. I agree that the some of the mono mixes may be "better," but in most cases it's a fairly subtle difference that (to me) is outweighed by other factors.

Still, its fun to get all analytical about it and compare the mixes looking for the minor differences!

[J.A.W.]

I'm not sure how much the added compression to the stereo remasters really affects the sound. By all accounts, it's been done with a light touch. You have to remember that the original mono and stereo mixes also used different levels of compression - I believe the monos were compressed more heavily (originally) to give them a slightly more punchier sound.

You may well be right; I don't have the stereo box yet, so I can't compare them. From what I've heard from people who have both boxes I understand that the mono remasters have more dynamic range, but that seems unlikely if they were indeed originally more heavily compressed, unless the "newly" added compression on the stereo remasters is heavier.

Edited September 24, 2009 by J.A.W.

[jazzbo]

To be honest I haven't noticed much of a difference between them in dynamic range . . . .The punchiness is not so much dynamic range I don't think as a sort of full soundstage, full spectrum wave that seems more "forceful", maybe due to compression(?)

Anyway, I really think only Beatleholics like JETman and those who just love the first records NEED the mono set. The stereos sound fantastic (though I haven't heard the first four albums in stereo form, yet).

Edited September 24, 2009 by jazzbo

[Matthew]

Anyway, I really think only Beatleholics like JETman and those who just love the first records NEED the mono set. The stereos sound fantastic (though I haven't heard the first four albums in stereo form, yet).

Sounds ideal for me then, I totally dig the first five albums, though I hear that the stereo version of Help! the way to go (bought that yesterday). I'm becoming very excited about getting that mono box.

[skeith]

thanks to everyone who is posting the reviews and their own personal observations on the stereo vs. mono releases.

Might save me some money

[Quincy]

Anyway, I really think only Beatleholics like JETman and those who just love the first records NEED the mono set. The stereos sound fantastic (though I haven't heard the first four albums in stereo form, yet).

Sounds ideal for me then, I totally dig the first five albums, though I hear that the stereo version of Help! the way to go (bought that yesterday). I'm becoming very excited about getting that mono box.

I'm still waiting on the mono box (though have it in other forms) but I totally love the remastered stereo For Sale. Let me add the . The job they did on it essentially sold me picking up the mono box and I'll mosey along and pick up more stereo remasters as they go on sale or eventually clog up the used bins. And I'd hate to be with just the mono or the stereo White Album, and that goes for Magical Mystery Tour. The latter may be that the German version was my great white whale as a kid. When I finally got it then I find out the thing to get was the mono. For those who are on a budget have patience with the stereo albums that are less important to you as they will show up used once the iPod kids have dumped their Xmas gift discs after they've ripped them.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Quincy

[Norm]

Speaking for those who have ordered but not received the Mono box set, is there any reason for us to be concerned? I had heard that the original pressing was limited to 10,000 units. I mostly shop through Amazon and it seems that they ran out of preorder stock some time in August. Now, I thought I heard that 20,000 more units were to be issued. Has anybody else heard a figure? Any sense if this figure will meet demand. I didn't put my order in with Amazon until 9/17. I assume that big sellers such as Amazon would get a certain portion of the second run and send them out to customers in the order they received those orders.

I really want this and at $230 it still seems like a bargain...but I don't want to have to pay like $400 from an exploitative seller on Ebay.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Norm

[JETman]

To be honest I haven't noticed much of a difference between them in dynamic range . . . .The punchiness is not so much dynamic range I don't think as a sort of full soundstage, full spectrum wave that seems more "forceful", maybe due to compression(?)

Anyway, I really think only Beatleholics like JETman and those who just love the first records NEED the mono set. The stereos sound fantastic (though I haven't heard the first four albums in stereo form, yet).

Guilty as charged --- but I didn't start to like the first five again until I heard them on these remasters!

[Matthew]

Speaking for those who have ordered but not received the Mono box set, is there any reason for us to be concerned? I had heard that the original pressing was limited to 10,000 units. I mostly shop through Amazon and it seems that they ran out of preorder stock some time in August. Now, I thought I heard that 20,000 more units were to be issued. Has anybody else heard a figure? Any sense if this figure will meet demand. I didn't put my order in with Amazon until 9/17. I assume that big sellers such as Amazon would get a certain portion of the second run and send them out to customers in the order they received those orders.

I really want this and at $230 it still seems like a bargain...but I don't want to have to pay like $400 from an exploitative seller on Ebay.

I think as long as you have it on pre-order you'll be okay, since the seller can place definite orders. I sure would not wait to pick it up in store because I'm sure there are jerk ebay sellers who are ordering one hundred at a pop so they can clean up, with a result that the second run will be gone by the end of October. We can blame the Grateful Dead for all this.

[J.A.W.]

We can blame the Grateful Dead for all this.

Please explain.

[Matthew]

We can blame the Grateful Dead for all this.

Please explain.

The fiasco that was The Complete Fillmore West 1969, that was released a couple of years ago. Sold out quickly, people make a killing off it on ebay, record company "forget the customer, we won't print any more." so everyone buys up a ton of the sets to sell on ebay. Why is Apple going down this road anyway? Just print all the mono boxes that people want, why this limited run stuff to begin with?

[ejp626]

We can blame the Grateful Dead for all this.

Please explain.

The fiasco that was The Complete Fillmore West 1969, that was released a couple of years ago. Sold out quickly, people make a killing off it on ebay, record company "forget the customer, we won't print any more." so everyone buys up a ton of the sets to sell on ebay. Why is Apple going down this road anyway? Just print all the mono boxes that people want, why this limited run stuff to begin with?

I think I read that there is no longer an upper limit on the number sold, but they will still be available in a fairly narrow window for ordering. Still a bit dumb, but anyway I am pretty sure that my order for the mono box from Amazon will go through.

[Big Al]

Not sure if it's already been discussed, so I'll risk asking a second time: since these are the original stereo mixes, does this mean that "I Am the Walrus" still ends in fake stereo, and "It's All Too Much" is entirely in fake stereo?

I'm still gonna get the Yellow Submarine album (and MMT) regardless; yes, I'm one of those nuts that actually enjoys side 2 of YS!

[JETman]

Not sure if it's already been discussed, so I'll risk asking a second time: since these are the original stereo mixes, does this mean that "I Am the Walrus" still ends in fake stereo, and "It's All Too Much" is entirely in fake stereo?

I'm still gonna get the Yellow Submarine album (and MMT) regardless; yes, I'm one of those nuts that actually enjoys side 2 of YS!

I tried to enjoy side 2 once again, but it still sounds like cheesy classical to me. Oh well.

I think the bigger issue (for me anyway) is how did Yellow Submarine become part of the Beatles' core catalogue?

[jazzbo]

Wow, this is a convoluted thing, this MMT release. I don't hear any fake stereo on the stereo cd (but that is a weird sounding release in stereo or mono to me).

Here's what wikipedia says:

When standardising The Beatles' releases for Compact Disc in the late 1980s, the American LP version (which was imported into the UK, peaked on the British album charts at #31 as an American import, and was issued by[Parlophone Records in Britain in 1976) was included with the British album line-up instead of the British EP, with true stereo recordings replacing the earlier processed ones (except for the portion of "I Am the Walrus"). (The true-stereo version of the Magical Mystery Tour LP was first issued in Germany in 1971, but the 1976 Parlophone issue used the Capitol masters with the fake stereo.) Capitol quietly reissued the Magical Mystery Tour LP using the German masters in the US with catalogue number C1-48061 in true stereo. The remaining Beatles non-LP single sides were compiled in the two-volume Past Masters compilation.

Edited September 24, 2009 by jazzbo

[JSngry]

How much is that Mono box again?

[jazzbo]

This week it's 240 from Amazon; went up ten bucks this week.

[Norm]

How much is that Mono box again?

Yes, Amazon just went up to $240 today (it had been at $230 since Aug. 11), but as Hans pointed out a while back CD Pacific has a pre-order price of $216 (plus $5.50 shipping to a U.S. address) or $222 total. I decided to fork over the extra $8 to Amazon because their customer service is second to none in the case of a problem. Maybe CD Pacific is just as good but I've never dealt with them. Anyway, here's the link once again to CD Pacific's item.

http://www.cdpacific.com/CDitem.asp?ID=1753008

Edited September 24, 2009 by Norm