Beatles remastered...Mono or Stereo?

[luckylarue]

Considering I never picked up all the Beatles cds first issued in '87 & the fact that my four year-old is now a Beatles fanatic, I'm thinking of throwing down and getting one of the remastered box-set releases. Question is, which one? The entire collection in stereo or the first 10 lps in mono?
Any thoughts?

[MikeEdgerton]

I never did like the remastered CD's, they just lost something. If it was me I'd be there in mono but YMMV.

[Steve L]

I would prefer to hear them the way Martin recorded them.

[mandroid]

the 4 year old may be a bit hard on old LP's, so the CD to MP3 and into an iPod like widget
would, perhaps [?] be ideal ..
back in the analog era the tape cassette got the wear and tear the LP source kept down to minimal surface wear...

the egg really did come before the

[Rick Schmidlin]

In the early eighties I bought a new collection of all British studio albums. They sounded great and since the ones I bought as released had been play to to death by this 9 to 16 year old during the day. The CD's sounded OK but did not blow me away. I will pick up a few if they sell them seperatly.

[Paul Kotapish]

George Martin is on record as saying he and the lads considered the mono mixes the definitive versions of everything up through the White Album.

That concurs with my opinion--I never liked those early stereo remixes--placement and balance just sounds weird to me.

The reviews of the reissues I've read so far also support the preference for the mono mixes on most albums. That won't give you the late releases, which were stereo only.

The new stereo mixes are available individually or as a box, but the mono mixes are only available as a box set--at a whopping $299 list (probably cheaper at Amazon et al), that's probably going to discourage me for a while, anyway. If they become available individually, I'll pop for five or six of the mono versions.

Apparently the stereo mixes are much improved, too, in any case. Here's a pretty good review comparing and contrasting the options:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ar...ic/06alla.html

[Ben Milne]

indeed the original 10 albums were originally produced and engineered for
Mono (what else was there? people's wireless' only had on sepearker right). In the years since it has seemed that all of the remasters where all done rather thoughtlessly and quickly to get the release onto the new format. AFAIKT people (not martin) who weren't involved with the band basically went back to the fourtrack tapes, did a quick pan here and there. this happened by all sorts of different people at different times making for a rather undifinitive library of remasters on various formats. Alas people yearned for the vynyl copies and we all know that LPs win for sonics but degradation must also be a factor.

This is the reason that out of the 1500ish CDs i own, sadly none are Beatles albums.

So what i am hoping is that these new masters finally glue the decade of records together. (I truly hope that the all new stereo editions do the Band justice.) - the lack of mono listening environments and the fact that the modern standard is currently stereo I'm certainly interested to see how the mixes hold up in the stereo field.


I have always planned to have a Beatles collection, and now that it seems the processes undertaken may indeed have done the band justice. now for the hard bit: mono v stereo

yes i want mono.
yes I want all the albums...
sure... the DVD would be good.
will the stereo albums be available individually?

I think it is kind of unfortunate that indeed no matter what version we choose, we may be left wanting more, and the serious collectors will probably be spending some serious money on ensuring they have both versions...

@marketing....

[luckylarue]

Therein lies the rub - the mono cds are only available as a box-set. The stereo versions are available in both a box-set & individual cds. I suppose I'll pick up a few of the stereo releases to check out how they sound. Of course, my fear is that if they do sound as good as the hype, I'll want to replace all the '80's cds most of which my four year-old has absconded anyways.

[Rick Schmidlin]

I think it will be fun to have a few. One I never bought during the era was Rubber Soul and Revolver. I also want A Hard Days Night and first two albums, oh gee in the next year I will get them all.

It a hard days morning right now.

[Perry]

Been eagerly anticipating these. FWIW my strategy is

Mono Box Set
Abbey Road in stereo

Down the road I may pick up the Let it Be and Sgt. Pepper's stereo versions especially the latter to compare Pepper stereo to the mono version which the band has often said is superior to the stereo mix. Some articles have pointed out that the White Album's stereo mixes have some interesting differences from the mono version too. I prefer Phil Spector's version of Let it Be to the
"naked"version that came out a few years ago so I'm sure I'll get that too eventually.

Personally I don't think it's necessary to get both the stereo and mono version of the earlier albums....for those mono seems the way to go.

Regardless I haven't listened to much of the White Album since vinyl because the 1987 CD version is almost unlistenable. So it IS gonna be like listening to it for the first time.

If you have the album LOVE then you have an idea as to what some present day remastering can do...check out "Because" or the strings on "Eleanor Rigby"

p.s. Rubber Soul and Revolver are among their best

[mando.player]

I think it will be fun to have a few. One I never bought during the era was Rubber Soul and Revolver. I also want A Hard Days Night and first two albums, oh gee in the next year I will get them all.

It a hard days morning right now.

Rubber Soul and Revolver are my two favorite Beatles albums. For me they mark a transitional period for the band, moving from a pop group to what I consider, well, the Beatles. That's not to diminish the earlier albums, but everything from these two albums forward distinguishes the group from other bands of the time.

[journeybear]

My problem with remixed/remastered versions is that I've heard the originals so much, first as they were originally released ("Meet The Beatles" was the first record I bought - now there's a thread ), and over and over again over the years, that they are imprinted in my memory in this form. Anything that doesn't sound like that is not going to sound right to my ears - even if what I heard isn't what The Beatles intended, which is now moot. So I would have to recuse myself from judging which version would be "better." As to the consideration of which version would be "truer," it seems obvious to me to go with mono. As Paul Kotapish says -

George Martin is on record as saying he and the lads considered the mono mixes the definitive versions of everything up through the White Album.

- and whatever George Martin says is good enough to me.

That NY Times article is very interesting, a nicely articulated analysis, but since it seems parts of each version are superior, it doesn't help entirely. It does seem that both versions are superior to the 1987 releases, and things are getting better all the time, but for some reason getting it all right still eludes the powers that be at EMI. Perhaps it's all too much.

I spent a bunch of money getting three entire collections in the mid-90s - one for my mom, one for my niece (then entering her teens and having been a Beatles fanatic for years), and one for me - though I hardly ever listened to them. Imprinted. I assume now these were the 1987 releases and just on sale or something. I am not about to run out and plunk down a couple hundred again. If you want to, go right ahead, but I think it would be wise to wait a few months or half a year and see where the price is then.

[EdHanrahan]

... I never liked those early stereo remixes--placement and balance just sounds weird to me.

Some recollections, for which I can't really provide references (sorry!):

- Pre-mastering, the Beatles' earliest recordings were actually THREE-track. They recorded half the instruments onto each of 2 tracks and put the vocals on the third. Pretty obvious on the early "stereo" LPs; no concept of a "soundstage spread". Don't forget that many recordings were adapted to stereo by filtering selected frequency ranges to the left, right, or both channels, so who knows WHAT may have been done to the Beatles along the way.

- The original US releases were different from the UK, mostly with a good amount of reverb added. The initial ('87?) CD releases were the non-reverbed UK version. That's why many say, as Mike E. above, that the initial CD releases "lost something". Yes! The lack of Americanized reverb did lose something to our accustomed ears.

A point of little-known trivia: Many or most stereo LPs had the bass mixed across BOTH tracks so that the grooves would remain small enough to fit on the disc. The 2 sides of the groove (channels) are recorded out of phase with each other, so the sounds tend to "cancel each other out" on plastic (i.e., smaller groove) but are then added electronically to provide a full sound.

[Perry]

Hey Beatle fans

I just picked up the remastered Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road and Let it Be (all stereo). All at a very nominal price of $11.98 each at Target.

Great packaging with high quality booklets, expanded liner notes and loads of pictures that I've never seen before.

Any way you won't be dissapointed. The improvement is nothing short of amazing......cymbals, drums, vox, bass guitar, and background effects like you've never heard them before...and all this on my car stereo.

Can't wait till the mono box set arrives

[Ivan Kelsall]

At the UK price of £14.99 UK each ($24.00 US) i'll pass. Apart from having all the recordings on LP mostly in glorious MONO,i've never liked 're-mastered' recordings. The only re-mastered recordings i have are [B]Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab [/B]"Original Master" recordings where a new LP 'stamper' was made fto a very high standard,from the original master tape.Most of them were well worth the high price,but I have the Beatles 'Magical Mystery Tour' on MFSL & frankly,it doesn't sound any better than my bog standard 'original' LP !,
Ivan

[Perry]

Ivan

You're lucky enough to have original vinyl; for those of us who were too young and stupid to take care of their old vinyl (me) or are stuck with the despicable 1987 CD's (me again) these new remastered CD's are DA BOMB!

Since I bought all my vinyl in Amercia in the seventies my Beatles experience
has all been stereo....my mono box set is on the way though as a matter of fact it just arrived this minute

[David]

I picked up Revolver and Hard Days Night stereo versions yesterday and they sound fantastic. It was like I was hearing Revolver for the first time, glued to my couch in front of my stereo. And for all the nitpicking talk of mono vs. stereo, I have to think that if stereo playback equipment was more widely available at the time, Martin and the Beatles would have chosen stereo for their original masters. If mono is so superior, why aren't people still using it? Don't hesitate, go buy these records now!

[journeybear]

I don't think anyone is saying mono is better than stereo, in general. I think the issue is more about, in this paricular situation, being as true to the original recordings as possible, which were mono for the early and middle periods. Also, a lot of people objected to the way the 1987 releases were fiddled with. I truly hope they've got it right this time, both mono and stereo. Of course you ae right about George Martin and The Beatles - they were leading the way, setting the standards, for recording techniques and technology. The concern here and now is about making sure these releases are truly representative of their original vision.

[Rick Schmidlin]

I love early Blue's and Jazz like Tampa Red and Bix, both mono and both fantastic.

[Ivan Kelsall]

JB - You're dead on (again). Many recordings of early 'Rock'n Roll' stars have been tampered with,much to their detriment - those of my favourite rocker,Buddy Holly for one. I bought a couple of 're-mastered' BH LP's in the mid 80's,& there was so much 'compression' on them (used to cut down tape hiss) & so much added reverb,that they were a complete travesty of the original.
I wish i'd been into collecting some of the oddball LP's that came out during the Beatle era - the coloured vinyl ones etc.. A few of them are worth a small fortune these day to collectors.
I attend the occasional Record Fair over here,looking for certain LP's (mainly Classical music),but i've come across a few 'first issue' LP's that i own,going for silly prices,many of them in much worse condition that my own.
Perry - Luck has nothing to do with it - i'm OLD(ish),
Ivan

[John McGann]

I'm starting with the mono box...it was a revelation to me to get the English vinyl EPs of some of the early stuff (Money, I Feel Fine) which were absolutely glorious in how direct the sound was, compared top the US releases with the heavy reverb and fake stereo where the reverb is sent to the opposite channel...the feedback intro of I Feel Fine being incredibly revealing as to how ghastly those recordings were treated in the gool ol' US of A.

I think Giles Martin did a great job on "Love" and that the catalog could have been as lovingly and gently remixed as (intact/unedited portions of) that release...if those early records could be remixed/mastered in stereo as well as Yellow Submarine Songtrack, I'd be over the moon.

Of course I'll eventually get that stereo box anyway, gotta save up from my paper route!

[Ivan Kelsall]

I'm in agreement with what you say John - 'direct' is a good description of the sound. In spite of the Monaural recording used,the Mono.recordings are (IMHO), infinitely preferable the to 'pan-potted' fake stereo that's used on so many re-mastered recordings. OK,you don't get the Stereo 'spread' that a Stereo recording gives (how could you ! - am i stating the blinding obvious again ?) ,but on the original issued Mono.LP's that i have,the sound is crystal clear, with enough detail to hear all the individual instruments & vocals.
For those of us who don't have any (or very few) Beatles recordings & wish to buy their records,this is a good opportunity. BUT - how many re-issues do we really need ?. I'm reminded of the DVD situation - first it was Video Tape > DVD > Blu-ray (commonly regarded as the greatest non-event in the UK). Let's face it,these re-issues are driven by commercial mores,NOT musical ones,
Ivan (IMHO !!)

[journeybear]

... BUT - how many re-issues do we really need ?. I'm reminded of the DVD situation - first it was Video Tape > DVD > Blu-ray (commonly regarded as the greatest non-event in the UK). Let's face it,these re-issues are driven by commercial mores,NOT musical ones ...

Naw, how could that be? Record companies are doing so well they don't need to pump up their revenue by any and all means possible. I'm a little disappointed, though, that these new releases aren't available on 8-track. Now I'll never get to hear them!

You can have my LPs and videotapes when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers! Or if you want to send me CDs and DVDs. Christmas is coming soon ...

[Spiritinthesky]

I bought Rubber Soul and Revolver last week, and I have to say they sound fantastic. So clean, they sound more like the old records sounded? I think they've done a brilliant job at Abbey Road.