[ted_b]

I thought it was all in the mix down.  I know the stereo versions where done at a later time.
So they had different takes done in true stereo for the stereo albums that were also available
in Mono?

Jeff

Just different mixes, one for mono, one for stereo.  In some cases, the stereo mix was done months later and used a few different pieces from the multitracks.  For the first several albums (really up until after Pepper) George Martin would elicit comments and feedback from the boys on the mono mixes, but seldom if ever for the (typically) later stereo ones.  They (the band) were on to other things by then.

[Wayner]

Actually that doesn't make any sence, since the radio station will boadcast it in what ever format they are broadcasting in. If you have a pocket radio, the L and R signals will be combined by the receiver, not the transmitter.
 
There is a story here that is not being told, IMHO.
 
Wayner

[orthobiz]

From pitchforkmedia.com:

Why mono? Two reasons. First, pop music in stereo was still a novelty through most of the 60s. Radio was dominated by single-channel AM, and the young people who bought LPs were far more likely to have a mono record player as a sound source. Given their audience and the technology of the time, for much of the Beatles' run, the band themselves considered the mono mix as the "real" version of the record and devoted more of their attention to it. Mono mixes were prepared first with the involvement of the band, and in some cases, George Martin and EMI engineers completed stereo remixes of the albums later, after the group had left the studio. So mono, first off, presumably hews closer to the intentions of the Beatles themselves. It's what the Beatles had in mind, their vision of the records.

Secondly, since the mono and stereo mixing sessions happened at different times, there are differences between the two versions, not just in the balance of the sound but also in the actual content. Different takes were sometimes used for punching in overdubs, or an alternate vocal take might make its way into the mix. Sometimes tracks were edited differently, and would be shorter or longer, and in some cases the tape ran at a slightly different speed, changing the pitch slightly. Some of the differences are subtle, and some are not. The mono version of "Helter Skelter", to take one example, is a minute shorter, as the "false" ending fadeout is presented as the track's true ending (and it thus omits the closing scream of "I got blisters on my fingers!") The significance of these differences will depend on the level of one's Beatles fandom; of course, those shelling out for the In Mono box will likely enjoy poring over the details.

Paul

[orthobiz]

This edition of Record Producers, previously announced on another thread,
will answer all your questions on 2 track, 4 track, unlocked 2/4 track and
finally 8 track and how they made mono and stereo versions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00mkgzx

PM me if you missed this broadcast. It's great.

Paul

[mathgeek97]

Just finished a first listen of the remastered Abbey Road (stereo).  I really liked what I heard.  Definitely well cleaned up and I didn't hear any clipping from compression (well, anything that sounded clipped back in the day still sounds clipped).  I know that the clarity and separation aspect has been covered, so I'll just say I acknowledge the improvement.
The one piece that really surprised me was "I Want You (She's So Heavy)."  Between the tight, articulate bass coming out of my pair of HT2-TLs (this is a Salk Circle - I had to throw that in!) and the improvement from the remastering, I was hearing so much more of what Paul was doing on the bass.  There are a lot of fast notes that I couldn't really pick out before.  I guess Sir Paul could really lay down some serious licks.  Who knew?

-Kevin, who's young enough that the first Beatles 45 he bought was "Let It Be" when he was barely three years old.  It was a new release and I played it on my sister's monophonic turntable.  And, yes, music's been an obsession since I was that young!

[Wayner]

I don't think compressors were available back then. It was pretty much gain riding on the microphone mixer. I also doubt that they had more then 4 tracks in the early Beatles recordings, so getting fancy was going to be a live thing rather then depending on a bunch of tracks to "fool around" with. So, if you like the stereo or mono version, that's cool. Just remember, there aren't any overdubs to speak of. They recorded the band playing the songs. Not like today where they can add 20 tracks of some crappy guitarist trying to sound like he knows how to play.

Wayner

[grenamc]

I purchased the mono box from my local Best Buy. It is, IMO, the finest box set I have ever seen. The attention to detail to preserve the look of the original LPs is impeccable. The sound has been mentioned several times, and I will chime in once more. The depth of sondstage and seperation of voices and instruments is astonishing. I haven't yet heard any of the stereo versions aside from what was available only stereo, so I haven't gotten a chance to compare. I hope to get a chance to soon. In short, I am rediscovering my own Beatlemania!

-Michael

[martyo]

Michael, All of Abbey Road sounds real fine now. 

[grenamc]

I bet it sounds beautiful Marty.  I am amazed at how good it sounds here!

-Michael

[Srgtfury]

Michael, All of Abbey Road sounds real fine now. 

I am running Ht3's with an Arcam AVR600 biamped and I would have to say that some tracks are good and some OK, but most are, I hate to say it-a bit shrill on the top end, compared o many other, even vintage CD's that I have.  Is this just me?  I have some of my iriginal Vinyl of these albums-not to compare, specifically, but just to say that a whole lot of reviews of these remastered CD's are glowing and I just don't hear it.

Thank you vey much

Fury

[zybar]

Michael, All of Abbey Road sounds real fine now. 

I am running Ht3's with an Arcam AVR600 biamped and I would have to say that some tracks are good and some OK, but most are, I hate to say it-a bit shrill on the top end, compared o many other, even vintage CD's that I have.  Is this just me?  I have some of my iriginal Vinyl of these albums-not to compare, specifically, but just to say that a whole lot of reviews of these remastered CD's are glowing and I just don't hear it.

Thank you vey much

Fury

Fury,

I don't hear what you describe, but we all hear differently and all have different gear.  I am sorry that you find most of the remastered cd's not to your liking.

At this point I have listened to all 16 albums and I think they are well worth it.  I am pretty much in full agreement with all of the positive press and posts here on AC.  If somebody is on the fence, just buy one album and listen for yourself. 

Just for shits and giggles, I played the "Here Comes the Sun" at work on some logitech speakers and asked some co-workers what they thought and if the two versions sounded different.  7 out of 8 people who listened to both said they heard a difference and 6 out of the 7 who heard a difference correctly picked the remastered version.  Hardly scientific, but hey, I was happy to be listening to tunes and possibly expanding others horizons.

George