Beatles Remastered

floresjc · « **on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:25 pm »

Anyone get the new box sets of the Beatles recordings? I'm trying to figure out which one to get, mono or stereo. Too young to know the difference in the recordings.

Scottdazzle · « **Reply #1 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:32 pm »

I'm getting both! The monos will let us hear the music the way the Beatles intended and the stereo will reveal all the intricacies. We're talking about the Beatles here, not just any ole band.

rockadanny · « **Reply #2 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:35 pm »

I was undecided until I heard some clips on a page at NPR (National Public Radio) which showcased a few songs mono and stereo. Surprisingly, as I was contemplating getting the mono box, I preferred the stereo and thus am in the process of buying the stereo CDs individually - only the ones I want (Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, Abbey Road, Let It Be, for now). Best Buy has (nearly?) all stereo CDs individually on sale today for $12.xx and White Album for $16.xx.

Only did a cursory listen but Rubber Soul (stereo) has improved immensely over previous release(s).

vintagebob · « **Reply #3 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:35 pm »

My understanding is that the music was originally recorded in mono so I went with that set.

Tbadder1 · « **Reply #4 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:38 pm »

I own the mono box, and if you can only get one I'd suggest the mono. The recording is revelatory. Paul's bass comes thundering through and the young John loses some of his nasaliness, revealing a far richer vocal tone. There's great balance and a real lack of tinniness of the earlier versions. Please Please Me, Hard Days Night, and Help really take their place alongside Revolver and Rubber Soul as the Beatles best work. Outstanding.

rockadanny · « **Reply #5 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:39 pm »

I'm a purist by nature but I say don't order mono too quickly just because that was the original mix. The stereo sounds much more enjoyable TO ME. These were taken from the mono 4-track tapes and remastered to stereo for these releases - and they did an awesome job! After all, it is me whom I am trying to please, not the historians. Listen for yourself and decide.

WGH · « **Reply #6 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 09:49 pm »

Quote from: rockadanny on 9 Sep 2009, 09:35 pm

I was undecided until I heard some clips on a page at NPR (National Public Radio) which showcased a few songs mono and stereo.

Here is the link:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/allsongs/2009/09/mono_or_stereo_help_2.html

konut · « **Reply #7 on:** 9 Sep 2009, 10:52 pm »

Bought the stereo cuz thats what I'm used to. 3 words.
NO MORE MUSH!

R Swerdlow · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am »

Not all the Beatles recordings were originally made in mono. By 1965, albums such as Revolver were almost certainly recorded in stereo. Is there a way to find out for certain?

Now for a dose of cynicism. The Beatles catalog is owned by the estate of Michael Jackson. I wonder if these recent releases have anything to do with the Jackson family's incessant need to extract more cash from their dead son/brother?

konut · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:32 am »

Heres the skinny on what has been released previously.
http://www.beatlescollecting.com/the-beatles/faqs/the-story-of-the-capitol-albums.html
I have the new stereo boxed set, and can tell you that the mixes are different from what I remember of the American(Capitol) stereo album releases. That said, I'm really happy with what I'm hearing!

The recording catalogue is owned by EMI. The publishing rights are owned by the Jackson estate. Different things.

chadh · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:38 am »

Quote from: R Swerdlow on 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am

Now for a dose of cynicism. The Beatles catalog is owned by the estate of Michael Jackson. I wonder if these recent releases have anything to do with the Jackson family's incessant need to extract more cash from their dead son/brother?

I might have imagined this, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the remastering process has taken about four years, and stretches back to the efforts to produce the music for the "Love" show. I don't think this release, then, was a "recent" decision. However, it seems destined to make somebody a boatload of money. Apparently, the release of the remastered discs coincides with the release of a Beatles "Rock Band" game, that features a slew of the remastered tracks. The whole effort seems designed simultaneously to empty the pockets of every generation of consumers with any disposable cash.

Chad

vintagebob · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:51 am »

Quote from: R Swerdlow on 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am

Not all the Beatles recordings were originally made in mono.

You have it right. I did order some of the later albums in stereo since that was the way the were recorded. The mono set does not include all of the albums (i.e. Abbey Road, Let it Be, etc.) but does include mono & stereo versions of Help! and Rubber Soul.

mfsoa · « **Reply #12 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:58 am »

I was suprised to read that they were well aware of the "Loudness War" when remastering and didn't juice them up as much as the modern stuff is recorded, but they still did some limiting on the stereo releases to make them more modern-sounding.

Too bad they still felt the need to "modernize" through compression - Is it that ingrained in the psyche of the 21st century listener? I guess so...

orthobiz · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 02:15 am »

Quote from: R Swerdlow on 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am

Not all the Beatles recordings were originally made in mono. By 1965, albums such as Revolver were almost certainly recorded in stereo. Is there a way to find out for certain?

Now for a dose of cynicism. The Beatles catalog is owned by the estate of Michael Jackson. I wonder if these recent releases have anything to do with the Jackson family's incessant need to extract more cash from their dead son/brother?

No.

Paul

orthobiz · « **Reply #14 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 02:16 am »

Quote from: R Swerdlow on 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am

Not all the Beatles recordings were originally made in mono. By 1965, albums such as Revolver were almost certainly recorded in stereo. Is there a way to find out for certain?

Now for a dose of cynicism. The Beatles catalog is owned by the estate of Michael Jackson. I wonder if these recent releases have anything to do with the Jackson family's incessant need to extract more cash from their dead son/brother?

They were originally mixed down into mono. Apparently they did not care much about the stereo versions up through the White Album.

Paul

vinyl_lady · « **Reply #15 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 02:40 am »

Quote from: orthobiz on 10 Sep 2009, 02:16 am

Quote from: R Swerdlow on 10 Sep 2009, 12:47 am
Not all the Beatles recordings were originally made in mono. By 1965, albums such as Revolver were almost certainly recorded in stereo. Is there a way to find out for certain?

Now for a dose of cynicism. The Beatles catalog is owned by the estate of Michael Jackson. I wonder if these recent releases have anything to do with the Jackson family's incessant need to extract more cash from their dead son/brother?

They were originally mixed down into mono. Apparently they did not care much about the stereo versions up through the White Album.

Paul

According to Bob Gendron (http://www.tonepublications.com/magazine/toneaudio-magazine-issue-23/), George Martin prefered mono and all Beatles albums through the White Album were mixed to be heard in mono.

audiotom · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 01:26 pm »

I ordered the mono and stereo in June when they were first available for pre-order. They shipped out tuesday - maybe today for arrival

mono is already SOLD OUT may be a reprinting in October

couldn't help myself and bought White Albume ($16.99) and Rubber Soul with T shirt ($25) at Best Buy

these sound great with increased clarity and no shrill top end

my mint blue beatles box set on vinyl is still the preferred medium

orthobiz · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 02:01 pm »

My birthday was 9/7 so I bought both. Ordered the mono in time and it shipped yesterday. Anticlimactic to not have it in my hands on 9/9, though.

Paul

floresjc · « **Reply #18 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 08:14 pm »

audiotom -

Would you care to share your impressions on the differences between the two? You have a really good system and it would be nice to hear an avg Joe's impressions of the two products. My wife ordered the stereo version and some books from Amazon, but I'm kind of intrigued by the "way it's intended" argument that alot of the older listeners are putting forth and are familiar with the original sound. I may end up getting both if they reprint, which it sounds like they will.

Wayner · « **Reply #19 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 09:59 pm »

R Swerdlow is correct. When the Beatles first came into the scene, mono was the only technology. As time progressed, albums like Abbey Road and St. Pepper were released in stereo. Lots of other artists where caught in the same time period like Tommy James and the Schondells or even Elvis, Roy Orbison and Frank Sinatra. I think our dearly departed Les Paul had some major influence on multi-tracking and the advent of stereo sound reproduction in the vinyl format, which at the time (other then a few R to R affectionados) was the only way to listen to canned music.

I also like the stereo versions.

Wayner