Stereo Vs. Mono-A Battle Breaks Out over Beatlemania

[oldtimer]

Actually hard to figure out all the fuss over a pop group. Me, I'd be in the studio working on remastering the early mono recordings of a real British rock band, these guys:

javascript:emoticonp(':wall:') Yeah keep trying thebes.

[oldtimer]

try and try again

[fini]

Heh, I've a mono box in me grubby little hands...

Excellent ! ! ! ! Are you playing them on the Thorens ?

Umm, no....they're cds!

[seti]

Heh, I've a mono box in me grubby little hands...

Excellent ! ! ! ! Are you playing them on the Thorens ?

Umm, no....they're cds!

Ah yes sorrry. The funny silver records with very very very tiny grooves.

[fini]

BTW, they sound great so far! I've started with Please Please Me and working up from there!

[edwinr]

I'm all for the new stereo re-masters. In my view, you can't have enough of a good thing. If you were llistening on a period hi-fi, it wouldn't matter. But most modern hi-fi is so much better than what was doing the rounds in the 1960's. Just think of it like this, if the original engineers didn't have to worry about the needle jumping out of the groove, they would have released the recordings in their full glory...

[seti]

If you pick up a copy of The Beatles Sessions there is section where Emerick talks about The Beatles difficulty in changing processes at place in EMI. Other record companies had changed by this time.

In large recording companies such as EMI, the mastering process was
usually controlled by specialist staff technicians who were
conservative in their work practices. These big companies were often
reluctant to make changes to their recording and production
processes—for example, EMI was very slow in taking up innovations in multi-track recording and they did not install 8-track recorders in their Abbey Road Studios
until the late 1960s, more than a decade after the first commercial
8-track recorders were installed by American independent studios. As a
result, by the time The Beatles were making their groundbreaking recordings in the mid-1960s, they often found themselves at odds with EMI's mastering engineers,
who were unwilling to meet the group's demands to push the mastering
process because it was feared that if levels were set too high it would
cause the needle to jump out of the groove when the record was played
by listeners.

It seems they could have proved or disproved this by getting many available examples of home hifi and just playing an acetate mixed how The Beatles wanted it done.

Speaking of recrods jumping out of grooves this ebay auction for a scratchy acetate at $50K is crazy.

http://cgi.ebay.com/BEATLES-JOHN-LENNON-ACETATE-TEST-PRESSING-WEDDING-ALBUM_W0QQitemZ110427437078QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMusic_on_Vinyl?hash=item19b5fcf816&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

[fini]

"Jumping out of the groove" could be the next big phrase the kids use (see my brand new sig). You know, like "hella stoked" or "bummed off."

[Invidiosulus]

My Sony TT has a dead stylus because it Jumped out of the Groove one night after I had passed out with a glass of scotch in my hand while listening to an ELP LP.

[Islander]

My Sony TT has a dead stylus because it Jumped out of the Groove one night after I had passed out with a glass of scotch in my hand while listening to an ELP LP.

Wasn't there a country music album called Best Heard While Drunk?

[oldtimer]

I thought that was every country album?

[thebes]

"Two decades later, in 1988, I finally broke down and bought a CD player and
the first of many Beatles CDs -- now, that was a jump from what I'd been
hearing on vinyl for years. There were so many more instruments I'd never
noticed. And notes I'd never heard."

It seems to me that either the lps were really badly mastered or this guy had a truly crappy stereo system, cheap cart or crummy TT. Why do I say this? Because to my mind, the early cd reissues of most rock were mostly of very poor recording quality.

I don't know, but to me there is a lot of self-serving nonsense being put out by the recording engineers. But I'm probably missing the point of why I started this thread and that is stereo vs mono. I understand the attraction of mono for old jazz Blue Notes and such, after all they were not mastered with AM radio play in mind. For pop music, though? Would there really be a large group of people who really want these songs in mono?

OH, OT, oh contrairary my friend. Let's look at an early Beatles hit:

Oh yeh, I’ll tell you something,

I think you’ll understand,

Then I’ll say that something,

I wanna hold your hand,

I wanna hold your hand,

I wanna hold your hand.

Oh and then a little something by the Animals (released in 1965)

In this dirty old part of the city

Where the sun refuse to shine

People tell me there ain't no use in trying

Now girl you're so young and pretty

And one thing I know is true

you'll gonna die before your time is due



watch my daddy in bed and tired

watch his hair been turning gray

He's been working and slaving his life away

[Marvel]

I heard parts of some stereo cuts on an npr story today (or yesterday). The audio was pretty stunning. Really, really nice mixes.

[joshnich]

"Two decades later, in 1988, I finally broke down and bought a CD player and

the first of many Beatles CDs -- now, that was a jump from what I'd been

hearing on vinyl for years. There were so many more instruments I'd never

noticed. And notes I'd never heard."

It seems to me that either the lps were really badly mastered or this guy had a truly crappy stereo system, cheap cart or crummy TT. Why do I say this? Because to my mind, the early cd reissues of most rock were mostly of very poor recording quality.

I don't know, but to me there is a lot of self-serving nonsense being put out by the recording engineers. But I'm probably missing the point of why I started this thread and that is stereo vs mono. I understand the attraction of mono for old jazz Blue Notes and such, after all they were not mastered with AM radio play in mind. For pop music, though? Would there really be a large group of people who really want these songs in mono?

OH, OT, oh contrairary my friend. Let's look at an early Beatles hit:

Oh yeh, Ill tell you something,

I think youll understand,

Then Ill say that something,

I wanna hold your hand,

I wanna hold your hand,

I wanna hold your hand.

Oh and then a little something by the Animals (released in 1965)

In this dirty old part of the city

Where the sun refuse to shine

People tell me there ain't no use in trying

Now girl you're so young and pretty

And one thing I know is true

you'll gonna die before your time is due

watch my daddy in bed and tired

watch his hair been turning gray

He's been working and slaving his life away

I happen to like the Animals as well. But to compare them to the Beatles is kind of like comparing Barry Mcguire (not that there is anything wrong with Barry McGuire) to Bob Dylan.

Animals

Strobe lights beam create dreams

walls move minds do too

on a warm San Franciscan night

old child young child feel alright

on a warm San Franciscan night

angels sing leather wings

jeans of blue Harley Davisons too

on a warm San Franciscan night

old angels young angels feel alright

on a warm San Franciscan night.

Beatles

Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,

They call me on and on across the universe,

Thoughts meander like a restless wind

Inside a letter box they

Stumble blindly as they make their way

Across the universe

[oldtimer]

Not sure I see a great contrast there josh. The thing is there are beatles worshippers and then there are the rest of the population. People can agree on certain aspects until a certain threshold is reached. Or maybe On a Threshold of a Dream?

[oldtimer]

"Two decades later, in 1988, I finally broke down and bought a CD player and the first of many Beatles CDs -- now, that was a jump from what I'd been hearing on vinyl for years. There were so many more instruments I'd never noticed. And notes I'd never heard."

It seems to me that either the lps were really badly mastered or this guy had a truly crappy stereo system, cheap cart or crummy TT. Why do I say this? Because to my mind, the early cd reissues of most rock were mostly of very poor recording quality.

I don't know, but to me there is a lot of self-serving nonsense being put out by the recording engineers. But I'm probably missing the point of why I started this thread and that is stereo vs mono. I understand the attraction of mono for old jazz Blue Notes and such, after all they were not mastered with AM radio play in mind. For pop music, though? Would there really be a large group of people who really want these songs in mono?

OH, OT, oh contrairary my friend. Let's look at an early Beatles hit:

Oh yeh, I’ll tell you something,
I think you’ll understand,
Then I’ll say that something,
I wanna hold your hand,
I wanna hold your hand,
I wanna hold your hand.

Oh and then a little something by the Animals (released in 1965)

In this dirty old part of the city
Where the sun refuse to shine
People tell me there ain't no use in trying
Now girl you're so young and pretty
And one thing I know is true
you'll gonna die before your time is due

watch my daddy in bed and tired
watch his hair been turning gray
He's been working and slaving his life away

I happen to like the Animals as well. But to compare them to the Beatles is kind of like comparing Barry Mcguire (not that there is anything wrong with Barry McGuire) to Bob Dylan. Animals… Strobe lights beam create dreams walls move minds do too on a warm San Franciscan night old child young child feel alright on a warm San Franciscan night angels sing leather wings jeans of blue Harley Davisons too on a warm San Franciscan night old angels young angels feel alright on a warm San Franciscan night. Beatles… Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes, They call me on and on across the universe, Thoughts meander like a restless wind Inside a letter box they Stumble blindly as they make their way Across the universe

Comparing lyrics like these simply demonstrates why the Rolling Stones lasted longer than any of them. Lack of pretentiousness. "I know. It's only rock and roll but I like it."

[oldtimer]

Back on topic thebes. The early original monos are collectible so the current marketeers play into that by creating a new mono collectible. It's simple baby boomer crass. People who want to listen will more than likely get the stereo version. Mono on a cd?

[DU73]

Well I have never heard on vinyl being remastered, maybe they got it right the first time

By the way I have no idea what I am talking about I just thought I will get my post count up by +1

[oldtimer]

Maybe they got it right the first time. OK Candide.

[Travis In Austin]

I just got one box of each, and I started with the stereo version of Please, Please Me, and the vocals are all out of the right ch and music out of left, but I must say, this version is actually very enjoyable. Rubber Soul is the same way, which is so very odd, but again, it is best stereo version I have ever heard. Revolver was out of the park. I really can't wait to hear the Mono versions tomorrow which have always been my favorite in Reel to Reel format.

Travis