Just in time for Record Store day.

How many times can there be a new release of 40+ year old material?

Is there a link somewhere to _get_ the aforementioned FLAC Mono recordings? Am I just being blind?

Probably because the mixing was crap, Instruments on one channel and the vocals on the other in most cases. The geeks in the AV Club could have done a better job.

/Beatles still awsome

Too bad when the new remasters come out in September you'll only be able to get the mono versions in the box set, which will undoubtedly cost a small fortune.

Unlike most bands, the Beatles re-recorded stuff for the stereo albums. The mono mix of The White Album, for example, is VERY different (and better IMHO) than the stereo mix..

From what I've heard, stereo was an afterthought at the time, at least in the minds of the Beatles and their engineers. A fad.

So they'd all focus heavily on the mono mix, and the stereo mix was a cute little project the lower-end engineers would do when all was said and done.

I'm fairly certain that even mild-mannered George Martin would have to kick your ass for that remark, monomitter.

Seriously though, some of the stereo work of Martin and The Beatles is mind-boggling even to this day. True artistry in production.

Burn_The_Plows: Unlike most bands, the Beatles re-recorded stuff for the stereo albums. The mono mix of The White Album, for example, is VERY different (and better IMHO) than the stereo mix..

Pick up the Beach Boys Pet Sounds, which includes mono tracks, followed by the stereo mixes. The mono mix is better on that too.

/listening to Sgt Pepper's in mono right now

Am I really reading an article where the guy is saying he heard more presence in a MONO 192kbit MP3 as opposed to a STEREO 192kbit MP3?????


Yeah buddy, I bet the 192/channel stream sounded better than the 96/channel stream

/farking facepalm
//Pet Sounds probably sounds better b/c Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear.

No, no, he's got it all wrong.

The Beatles sound better when someone else is playing their music.

/seriously

Personally, I've always thought the Beatles sound best on mute. But that's just me.

mp3 is teh suxxors

no idea why people put up with it. Cassette tape is waaay better.

/just bridge L+R if you want mono. how hard can this be?

discount sushi: /listening to Sgt Pepper's in mono right now

And right now you're reading Sgt. Pepper's post. Trippy.

Being better in mono isn't a good thing at all

Blasphemy!

Yes but it sounds best in herpes.

/finds audiophiles making a big deal about tech stuff amusing
//can't hear differences they do
///gonna go listen to 128 kbps mp3s now

patcarew: mp3 is teh suxxors

no idea why people put up with it. Cassette tape is waaay better.

/just bridge L+R if you want mono. how hard can this be?

It's not entirely the same. Very typical of early sixties production is to tweak your EQ for certain instruments in a way that you would probably find less-than-desirable if it were a solo take, so they "fit" better into the mix. Typical of Barry Gordy, Phil Spector. I imagine that starting with "Rubber Soul/Help" and four track Beatles(as opposed to 3), the same applies to their stereo mixes.

However, by the time you get to Revolver or Sgt. Pepper, the idea that the Beatles weren't having a grand old time with stereo is the stupidest farking thing I've ever heard.

Sgt. Pepper: discount sushi: /listening to Sgt Pepper's in mono right now

And right now you're reading Sgt. Pepper's post. Trippy.

[insert head exploding .gif]

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: patcarew: mp3 is teh suxxors

no idea why people put up with it. Cassette tape is waaay better.

/just bridge L+R if you want mono. how hard can this be?

It's not entirely the same. Very typical of early sixties production is to tweak your EQ for certain instruments in a way that you would probably find less-than-desirable if it were a solo take, so they "fit" better into the mix. Typical of Barry Gordy, Phil Spector. I imagine that starting with "Rubber Soul/Help" and four track Beatles(as opposed to 3), the same applies to their stereo mixes.

Er.. I meant their "mono" tracks.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: Am I really reading an article where the guy is saying he heard more presence in a MONO 192kbit MP3 as opposed to a STEREO 192kbit MP3?????


Yeah buddy, I bet the 192/channel stream sounded better than the 96/channel stream

/farking facepalm
//Pet Sounds probably sounds better b/c Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear.

You make a valid point, but they are also substantially different mixes.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: Am I really reading an article where the guy is saying he heard more presence in a MONO 192kbit MP3 as opposed to a STEREO 192kbit MP3?????


Yeah buddy, I bet the 192/channel stream sounded better than the 96/channel stream

/farking facepalm
//Pet Sounds probably sounds better b/c Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear.

Did you even read the article? Beatles recorded in mono. Studio remixed it to Stereo and they lost some stuff in the process. While yes you are right about the bit streams, that is not the issue in this case.

MindStalker:
Did you even read the article? Beatles recorded in mono. Studio remixed it to Stereo and they lost some stuff in the process. While yes you are right about the bit streams, that is not the issue in this case.

I *assure* you that I am an obsessive freak about the Beatles and their recordings. And I am *extremely* well read on this topic, my obsession with rock (notably Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin) being one of the many reasons for my academic performance as a teenager. Believe me on this one. I won't disagree that their albums up to and including rubber Soul sound better in Mono, but this guy who wrote it doesn't know a goddamned thing about the Beatles in the studio post 1966.

Burn_The_Plows: Unlike most bands, the Beatles re-recorded stuff for the stereo albums. The mono mix of The White Album, for example, is VERY different (and better IMHO) than the stereo mix..

Nope. They used the same masters for both mixes. What was different between the two was that a mix was a performance (I think George Martin said that) in which everyone participated. Each person would take a slider or a knob and they'd be cued by the person in charge. If you screwed up, you did it again.

And nothing could be done the same way twice on those old consoles, as they had no memory.

These are the differences between the mono and stereo mix on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band:

The Beatles were present during the mixing of the album in mono and the LP was originally released as such alongside a stereo mix prepared by Abbey Road engineers led by Geoff Emerick; the Beatles themselves did not attend the mixing of the stereo version. (The mono version is now out of print on vinyl and was not officially released on CD.) The two mixes are fundamentally different. For example, the stereo mix of "She's Leaving Home" was mixed at a slower speed than the original recording and therefore plays at a slower tempo and at a lower pitch than the original recording. Conversely, the mono version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is considerably slower than the stereo version and features much heavier gating and reverb effects. McCartney's yelling voice in the coda section of "Sgt. Pepper (Reprise)" (just before the segue into "A Day in the Life") can plainly be heard in the mono version, but is nearly inaudible in the stereo version. The mono version of the song also features drums that open with much more presence and force, as they are turned well up in the mix. Also in the stereo mix, the famous segue at the end of "Good Morning Good Morning" (the chicken-clucking sound which becomes a guitar noise) is timed differently and a crowd noise tape comes in later during the intro to "Sgt. Pepper (Reprise)".

Other variations between the two mixes include louder laughter at the end of the mono mix of "Within You Without You", as well as a gush of laughter between the coda of the title track and the beginning of "With a Little Help From My Friends", and a colder, echoless ending on the mono version of "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!".

Apparently, they're releasing new remasters of both mixes later this year.

The mono mixes of the Beatles' original albums are better than the stereo.
Just one man's opinion.

makjr33: The mono mixes of the Beatles' original albums are better than the stereo.
Just one man's opinion.

That's an opinion.

The fact is that the stereo and Mono mixes of the Beatles albums up to the White Album ARE different, as they were mixed in two completely different sessions. The Beatles were there for the mono mix. The engineers did the stereo mix by themselves.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: MindStalker:
Did you even read the article? Beatles recorded in mono. Studio remixed it to Stereo and they lost some stuff in the process. While yes you are right about the bit streams, that is not the issue in this case.

I *assure* you that I am an obsessive freak about the Beatles and their recordings. And I am *extremely* well read on this topic, my obsession with rock (notably Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin) being one of the many reasons for my academic performance as a teenager. Believe me on this one. I won't disagree that their albums up to and including rubber Soul sound better in Mono, but this guy who wrote it doesn't know a goddamned thing about the Beatles in the studio post 1966.

The mono and stereo mixes of Beatles albums are substantially different up through and including The White Album. Are you sure it's the author that doesn't know a goddamned thing about The Beatles in the studio post 1966?

Dwight_Yeast: makjr33: The mono mixes of the Beatles' original albums are better than the stereo.
Just one man's opinion.

That's an opinion.

The fact is that the stereo and Mono mixes of the Beatles albums up to the White Album ARE different, as they were mixed in two completely different sessions. The Beatles were there for the mono mix. The engineers did the stereo mix by themselves.

As with Alan Parsons and Pink Floyd, the work Geoff Emerick did for the Beatles cannot be overstated. He was not "just an engineer".

I don't know, I think they'd sound better in Dobly.

mofomisfit:
The mono and stereo mixes of Beatles albums are substantially different up through and including The White Album. Are you sure it's the author that doesn't know a goddamned thing about The Beatles in the studio post 1966?

I reacted as much as I did, because one of the first things the guy talks about is the "richer and fuller" bass. I'm paraphrasing since I'm about to have to jet, here - but anyone who has ever made an MP3 will tell you that one of the first things you get back at a high bit rate is the low-lowmid richness.

That was my point. I just don't think Sgt. Pepper is a valid album to use for this comparrison. Compare Rubber Soul. Compare Help!. Compare "Beatles for Sale" (especially that one).

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: mofomisfit:
The mono and stereo mixes of Beatles albums are substantially different up through and including The White Album. Are you sure it's the author that doesn't know a goddamned thing about The Beatles in the studio post 1966?

I reacted as much as I did, because one of the first things the guy talks about is the "richer and fuller" bass. I'm paraphrasing since I'm about to have to jet, here - but anyone who has ever made an MP3 will tell you that one of the first things you get back at a high bit rate is the low-lowmid richness.

That was my point. I just don't think Sgt. Pepper is a valid album to use for this comparrison. Compare Rubber Soul. Compare Help!. Compare "Beatles for Sale" (especially that one).

Fair enough.

Good for them, if they could pull it off. When I had mono my throat was so swollen that the only sound I could make was "Glluuurghlghlghl."

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: As with Alan Parsons and Pink Floyd, the work Geoff Emerick did for the Beatles cannot be overstated. He was not "just an engineer".

I didn't say he was. He made major contributions and even played on their albums (he's one of the people playing the final piano chord on "A Day in the Life").

But even he could exactly duplicate the mono mix in stereo. The technology didn't exist at that point.

I fyou read Mark Lewishon's book on the Beatles recording sessions, everyone makes it clear that the stereo and mono mixes were two different things.

Keep in mind that radio at the time was only broadcast in mono and you'll start to understand why the one mix was more important than the other (and why someone like Phil Spector, who made his name on radio hits, wouldn't mix anything for stereo).

/loltots

I believe the first Beatles tracks that were recorded/mixed stereo appeared on the German "Horzu" versions of Magical Mystery Tour. If my ears are right, there is mono material and stereo material mixed into I Am The Walrus. They are right though, the electronically simulated "stereo" material is not good at all.

Coincidentally, I've rekindled my love for the Beatles the past few days. I'm trying to focus the playlist on songs I've not worn out before, and I've been having a blast listening.

/Suck it, haters. They're better than you.
//Well, they were. Now some of them stink.
///That was a pun.

HotLonelyTeenageGirl: As with Alan Parsons and Pink Floyd, the work Geoff Emerick did for the Beatles cannot be overstated

One more thing: I think Geoff actually worked with Pink Floyd as well; their first few albums were cut at Abbey Road, remember.

And Parsons worked on Abbey Road

irockalot: I don't know, I think they'd sound better in Dobly.

Especially if you like your music turned up to eleven.

In the eighties I worked for Music Plus and bought the box set of Elvis first 5 albums in original mono and was blown away by how good they sounded.

A groundbreaking album for its time (1960) "See It in Sound" by Esquivel! was not even released till 1998, as the producers (WB records, I think) didn't think anyone would buy it.

Its absolutely amazing what Esquivel accomplished in 1960 in the realm of Stereo.

From the article:

I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial."

Yes, because in real life, we hear the exact same things at the same levels in each ear.

/Prefers Life in Mono

Hell, I have the mono mix LP (I didn't have a stereo when I bought the album). There's no appreciable difference. Anyone claiming otherwise is admiring the emperor's new clothes.

zymurgist: irockalot: I don't know, I think they'd sound better in Dobly.

Especially if you like your music turned up to eleven.

What's the Beatle equivalen of Trekkie? This whole argument reminds me of a Star Trek thread.

I was mildly interested in hearing the mono version, until the author starting yarbling about listening to the difference on MP3 versions. That's like trying to write about 3D movie effects without seeing the movie in 3D. The loss of quality is so huge that you might as well not bother.

notmtwain: What's the Beatle equivalen of Trekkie? This whole argument reminds me of a Star Trek thread.

That would be a "Beatlemaniac", Steve.

RealityChuck: Hell, I have the mono mix LP (I didn't have a stereo when I bought the album). There's no appreciable difference. Anyone claiming otherwise is admiring the emperor's new clothes.

This isn't a negligible difference in quality - the PITCH of some songs is different!

In before wax cylinders.

It's not that Stereo was a fad - but that British Recording studios and companies were very very conservative - Ken Scott talked about being repremanded for moving a Microphone to close to the kick drum head as apposed to the prescribed method of 2 feet away etc...

Interviews with the engineers back up other comments that most of the beatles catalog was mixed mono only to have the psuedo stereo released in the US

NorCalLos: From the article:

I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: "These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial."

Yes, because in real life, we hear the exact same things at the same levels in each ear.

/Prefers Life in Mono

actually we do not hear the exact same things at the same levels in each ear. otherwise you would percieve every sound to be directly exactly infront of you or behind you . roughly speaking .

so. I watched The Wizard of Oz in black and white once.

solokumba: so. I watched The Wizard of Oz in black and white once.

Actually,m it's more like the colorized version of It's a Wonderful Life.