I'm not sure... A cool looking box?
I know the DVD documentaries will be a limited time thing.
New Beatles Song Finally To See Light Of Day?
- Thread starter pixletwin
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
I'm not sure... A cool looking box?
I know the DVD documentaries will be a limited time thing.
I'm heavily leaning towards the mono versions.
https://gizmodo.com/5216258/sorry-stereo-but-beatles-in-mono-rocks-a-lot-more
and stereo for Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be, natch.
https://gizmodo.com/5216258/sorry-stereo-but-beatles-in-mono-rocks-a-lot-more
and stereo for Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be, natch.
Last edited:
If you want to listen to the purists (and if you yourself are a purist) mono is the way to go.
I aint no purist. I like my Haydn's Ghost at the end of ROTJ and Adywan's awesome reedit of A New Hope and I like my early Beatles to sound pristine shiny, new, and stereo.
I aint no purist. I like my Haydn's Ghost at the end of ROTJ and Adywan's awesome reedit of A New Hope and I like my early Beatles to sound pristine shiny, new, and stereo.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
to me, I listened to Beach Boys Pet Sounds in Mono vs Stereo and anyone that thinks Mono is better is an idiot, imo
to me, I listened to Beach Boys Pet Sounds in Mono vs Stereo and anyone that thinks Mono is better is an idiot, imo
Its just the purists and people who are pretentious about music who think mono is better. They think it makes them look smarter and hipper than everyone else.
They are actually dumb.
I know for a FACT that if The Beatles could have chose back in 1963 to record in Mono or Stereo there is no doubt they would have chosen stereo. They were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
I wish they would have divided the eras into seperate box sets. I would have been more interested in a pack of just the last 4 or 5 albums for $50 or so. Also, the fact they aren't doing 5.1 is a huge copout. For the almighty Beatles they should have gone even better than what Genesis did with their box sets (each album was remastered in stereo and 5.1. You received 2 discs for each album and each DVD disc also had extensive videos, interviews, photos and concert footage in addition to the 5.1 mix).
Regarding stereo, there is a reason we have 2 ears and 2 eyes. Perceiving things in multiple channels or angles is better and the brain can perceive things with added depth and clarity.
Regarding stereo, there is a reason we have 2 ears and 2 eyes. Perceiving things in multiple channels or angles is better and the brain can perceive things with added depth and clarity.
Last edited:
Its just the purists and people who are pretentious about music who think mono is better. They think it makes them look smarter and hipper than everyone else.
They are actually dumb.
I know for a FACT that if The Beatles could have chose back in 1963 to record in Mono or Stereo there is no doubt they would have chosen stereo. They were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.
The gizmodo article certainly made it seem they chose to record in mono.
"Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building."
And George Martin greatly prefers the sound of the mono versions. But I'm sure these new stereo mixes are superior to the old Capitol ones. I'm a bit torn and generally like stereo but want to listen to the versions the artists themselves actually prefer.
https://www.beatlescollecting.com/the-beatles/faqs/the-story-of-the-capitol-albums.html
Last edited:
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
i don't know the history, but one can maybe assume the choice to record something in mono was due to the limits of people's record players and radios back then. Most people didn't have multiple speaker systems that would benefit from seperate channels.
The gizmodo article certainly made it seem they chose to record in mono.
"Apparently, the Beatles didn't give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building."
True. Until they understood what stereo did.
Sentimentality?
Get the mono version for all I care.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
well...its entirely possible that for these particular releases that the engineers or producers ^^^^ed up the remastering into stereo.
But all things being equal stereo > mono for a more lifelike experience.
But all things being equal stereo > mono for a more lifelike experience.
Basically it comes down to this:
If you want authentic go Mono.
If you want "Sounds Great" go stereo.
If you want authentic go Mono.
If you want "Sounds Great" go stereo.
True. Until they understood what stereo did.
Sentimentality?
Get the mono version for all I care.
Nah. Just searching for the best sound and the way the songs were meant to be heard. Many I've read have said the mono is where it's at, not out of sentimentally or being authentic, but because it sounds better and stronger. Do you have an article or quote about the Beatles realizing "what stereo did"?
"Each of the Beatles albums issued by Capitol Records from 1964 through 1967 was issued in both mono and stereo versions."
https://www.beatlescollecting.com/the-beatles/faqs/the-story-of-the-capitol-albums.html
"If a stereo master was not available, companies would often create a simulated stereo mix. This was achieved by transferring the mono master to two separate channels and then boosting the low bass frequencies in one channel and emphasizing the high treble frequencies in the other. In addition to boosting the bass and tweaking the treble, Capitol often ran the separate tracks slightly out of sync and added reverb. These simulated stereo mixes were described by Capitol as "duophonic recordings." " ---> Not a fan of this, but I'm sure the new stereo versions are better.
Also, "[Capitol] sometimes chose not to use the mono masters, instead creating its own mono mixes by combining the left and right channels of the stereo masters into single-track mono mixdowns. Internal Capitol documents and acetates identify these stereo-to-mono mixes as "2 to 1 mixdowns" or "mono Type B." The industry often refers to such mixes as fold-down mixes."
Last edited:
Was Sgt. Pepper is stereo or mono? Abbey Road?
Use common sense and you should know that once the beatles understood stereo's potential they went ALL stereo ALL the time.
Mono was a technical limitation because, as prog correctly pointed out, most people's record players were mono. To say mono > stereo is about as stupid as saying VHS > DVD.
In any case, you might find this an interesting read: https://www.ptrob.com/Music/Beatles/Stereo_vs__Mono/body_stereo_vs__mono.html
Use common sense and you should know that once the beatles understood stereo's potential they went ALL stereo ALL the time.
Mono was a technical limitation because, as prog correctly pointed out, most people's record players were mono. To say mono > stereo is about as stupid as saying VHS > DVD.
In any case, you might find this an interesting read: https://www.ptrob.com/Music/Beatles/Stereo_vs__Mono/body_stereo_vs__mono.html
Thats capitol. The Beatles recorded for EMI and were distributed in America by Capitol.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
it all boils down to the source material and the skill of the engineer putting it back together in the remaster.
I own albums in stereo and 5.1 and I don't always like 5.1 better because sometimes they just use silly tricks or they mess up the mix like mixing vocals in the center channel too low or something.
But for the most part if the engineer knows what they are doing I like the 5.1 experience better.
I guess mono to stereo can have similar possible snafus. However, I can't imagine enjoying listening to a recording in my car or home stereo system with the same sounds coming out of every speaker. It would sound like when talk radio am stations play background music. Its hollow and tinny compared to stereo.
I own albums in stereo and 5.1 and I don't always like 5.1 better because sometimes they just use silly tricks or they mess up the mix like mixing vocals in the center channel too low or something.
But for the most part if the engineer knows what they are doing I like the 5.1 experience better.
I guess mono to stereo can have similar possible snafus. However, I can't imagine enjoying listening to a recording in my car or home stereo system with the same sounds coming out of every speaker. It would sound like when talk radio am stations play background music. Its hollow and tinny compared to stereo.
Last edited:
In the end this is pretty much like a religious debate. You need to find out which mix best suits your tastes. Listen to samples and make a decision.
Or that vinyl is richer and better than CD? And it's the oddity, but certainly the Star Wars VHS are far superior to the craptastic DVD versions.
That said, these new mono and stereo versions will both shine and I'll prolly get both at some point.
Clearly you have crappy taste EC. I think the mono versions should suit you fine.
Similar threads
