[Nels Ferre]

Rod,

If I were doing one set, it would be the stereo.  Remember the mono set has no Yellow Sub, Abbey Road, or Let It Be.

Nels

[Housteau]

I would have liked to have seen the mono versions available separately as well.  That way each of us could have mixed and matched as desired.

On another note, I have some digital stereo mixes of the older recordings that place the vocals in the center where they should be.  I am not sure where I had originally gotten them though, as they were done by someone as a home project I believe.  However, they are professionally done and sound quite nice. 

[Levi]

I like my "The Beatles" Stereo Box set.  Later on, I will buy the mono box set out of curiosity.  Then I can say, I have both!

[Levi]

The 2009 Stereo remastered has more subtle details and is well engineered. They are worth the wait and has high value.  That should sum it up.   

[funkmonkey]

So, I picked up a Mono box set and was reading through the liner notes, where they mention the stereo versions of Help & Rubber Soul that are included in the mono set (they are the "original" stereo mixes, not done by George Martin).  My question is wether the 2009 stereo version of these two albums is the 80's stereo mix done by Martin, and newly remastered, or is it the same version that is included on the mono's?

[ted_b]

The stereo mixes are different than the ones in the RS and Help monobox set (known as the '65 stereo mixes).  When George remixed them in 1987 (for the cd release) he tried to clean them up, and add better separation of instruments (rather than just in right channel) but many think he made them too bright.  Many love the '65 mixes for their warmer analog sound.  I think both have been remastered for the 2009 release.

[funkmonkey]

Thanks Ted.  So, it sounds like the 2009 stereo edition is a remaster of the 1987 stereo mix.  making three different mixes for both Help and Rubber Soul.

1) mono  (available in the 2009 mono box set)
2) original '65 stereo  (available in the 2009 mono box set)
3) '87 stereo  (available on the '87 CD release, and on the 2009 stereo re-master)

[ted_b]

Thanks Ted.  So, it sounds like the 2009 stereo edition is a remaster of the 1987 stereo mix.  making three different mixes for both Help and Rubber Soul.

1) mono  (available in the 2009 mono box set)
2) original '65 stereo  (available in the 2009 mono box set)
3) '87 stereo  (available on the '87 CD release, and on the 2009 stereo re-master)

Correct.

[marknoir]

Has anyone compared these remasters to any of the original CDs yet, just out of curiosity? I would expect the new transfers to sound 'cleaner' than the old discs perhaps, but how does everything in the EQ/compression department hold up? Or is there still too much excitement to bother?

Hi. I just got my stereo box yesterday.

Am I the only one who finds them extremely bright and compressed? They do sound better than previous CDs, but upper mids/treble - hot, hot, hot! And everything is pushed up to the near 0 db level! I never liked any of the previously released Beatles on CD, with following exceptions (some of these I have, and some only borrowed):
 
1) original Japanese version of "Abbey Road" (worth about $100 used, and now I can see why)
2) 80's Japanese "Let it Be"
3) import "Yellow Submarine" (blue cover with additional tracks and no orchestral maneuvers)
4) "Let it Be" naked

Everything else sounded unbearably bright to me, with the xception of "Abbey Road", which was just muddy. So I thought this time they would do a nice analog-like remastering job. And new version definitely has more detail and overall is not as congested as the ones before. But it seems that most people involved in the project have a severe high frequency hearing loss, either due to age, or desire to push the sound thru those car stereos and all the traffic noise. This reminds me of the 60's and 70's theory, that sound should be mixed in such a way, that it sounds great through AM radio. I have a similar sounding "enhanced" Japanese mini LP edition of Bill Evans' "Walts for Debby" - also much brighter and compressed than the original. My system was never known to be bright, so I'm pretty sure I'm hearing what I'm hearing. And I hear a lot of talk that original Beatles tapes were recorded bright. I don't know - I don't remember any of the original Parlophone LPs to sound this bright, and I've had a bunch of them in the early 70's.

As of today, I still prefer my Japanese vinyl Beatles (never was impressed with MOFI version, for the similar brightness issue and strange EQ). I hear that mono version is not as bright, so I might try that, since they are available again. BTW, stereo box is available now on Amazon for a measly $179.99

[bummrush]

 I've got the two stereo cd's MMT,Abbey Road, in my system not bright whatsoever.

[marknoir]

I've got the two stereo cd's MMT,Abbey Road, in my system not bright whatsoever.

You are very lucky... Wanna buy my whole set?

[Larkston Zinaspic]

Am I the only one who finds them extremely bright and compressed? They do sound better than previous CDs, but upper mids/treble - hot, hot, hot! And everything is pushed up to the near 0 db level!

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...thanks for your honesty.

Some interesting comparisons can be made at the following link:
http://www.beatledrops.com/

[marknoir]

Am I the only one who finds them extremely bright and compressed? They do sound better than previous CDs, but upper mids/treble - hot, hot, hot! And everything is pushed up to the near 0 db level!

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...thanks for your honesty.

Some interesting comparisons can be made at the following link:
http://www.beatledrops.com/

Amazingly, the best sound in this set is on the "Mini-documentaries" DVD. All music bits on it sound better than their corresponding cuts on CDs, and some are actually mind-boggling. Just real, free-flowing, full-bodied, detailed to the point of practically hearing saliva in their mouths, dynamic and - most importantly - correctly tonally balanced sound. Total lack of shrillness, huge bass, treble well integrated into main spectrum. You just forget about sound, and listen to real live musicians. Why couldn't they put the same sound on CDs? Or do we get into the old discussion on benefits of high-res DVD vs relatively low res on CD? I don't think so...