Jump to content

Beatles remasters are here!


Recommended Posts

 

your link just takes you to a viachicago "new post" page. are you trying to force people to post in this thread now? :lol

 

i can't wait to have the white album remastered with the same mixes from the mono version - they are just so much better than the stereo one - it does mean lossing the "i've got blisters on my fingers!" from helter skelter, but you get a much better drum roll instead. it's incredible just how many variations there actually are on this album - on pretty much every single song.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

did DualDisc already obsolve as a format?

 

i liked the Talking Heads DualDiscs.

 

But if there are outtatkes,demos on the Beatles albums and the stereo/mono, then it would probably be pushing it for one CD.

 

i hope they include even the demos they made for songs they gave away for others to record.

 

i heard one of John's give aways on that Lennon radio show that i thought was better than some of the tracks that made the early albums.

 

basically i would like to hear everything Beatles.

 

i would buy a box set of every album - though i guess the early ones would not even have enough stuff for one.

 

but yes, i've always wanted to hear the mono versions since those are the only ones the Beatles had a hand in.

 

........and put that damn Carnival of Light track out for the love of pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who finds nothing at all wrong with the sound on the US CD releases? They certainly sound better than my 40+ year old scatchy albums.

 

And what is all this fuss about Mono versions? All the older releases were already mono, no? And wouldn't a mono version of say Sgt. Pepper, detract from the amazing production value on that album? I mean, the amazing stereo sound was part of the whole deal wasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who finds nothing at all wrong with the sound on the US CD releases? They certainly sound better than my 40+ year old scatchy albums.

 

And what is all this fuss about Mono versions? All the older releases were already mono, no? And wouldn't a mono version of say Sgt. Pepper, detract from the amazing production value on that album? I mean, the amazing stereo sound was part of the whole deal wasn't it?

 

 

Well, I am definitely not an audiophile but I was listening to Magical Mystery Tour on my ipod a few days back and some of level changes definitely caused me to loose some of my hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find it a little vexing to mess with the mix for musicians who are now up in that Yellow Submarine in the Sky. Because basically you (producer) are fundamentally changing someone else's music, but their name stays on it. :hmm

 

That said, I thought the Anthology albums were great bc of the levels-issue mentioned in the last post. Also I enjoyed actually hearing all the musical parts; I find a lot of the great 60s albums a little tough because of the overall muddiness or reverbiness or something that (apparently) was standard back then.

 

So I dunno, mixed bag on some level, but I'm looking forward to hearing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who finds nothing at all wrong with the sound on the US CD releases? They certainly sound better than my 40+ year old scatchy albums.

 

And what is all this fuss about Mono versions? All the older releases were already mono, no? And wouldn't a mono version of say Sgt. Pepper, detract from the amazing production value on that album? I mean, the amazing stereo sound was part of the whole deal wasn't it?

 

they were all in mono originally (apart from abbey road & maybe let it be - don't for sure about that), even sgt pepper - or at least the album the beatles made was mono. the beatles only worked on the mono recordings and then others mixed them for stereo afterwards, but the point is that the versions the beatles actually made entirely themselves were the mono mixes - all the levels of the vocals, backing vocals, instruments were all worked out in mono by them. so if you actually want the albums how they wanted them to sound back when they were released, then you need the mono mixes. some things just work best in mono (ie phil spector, pet sounds, the beatles albums).

 

if you look at that link that analogman posted about the differences in mixes, you'll see the difference - not just in sound levels, but even in the takes they used for both formats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And what is all this fuss about Mono versions? All the older releases were already mono, no? And wouldn't a mono version of say Sgt. Pepper, detract from the amazing production value on that album? I mean, the amazing stereo sound was part of the whole deal wasn't it?

 

Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono originally. Mono is the amazing production value on that album. Just to reiterate what everyone else has said. The Beatles mixed it mono, so mono is the best (or for me only) way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono originally. Mono is the amazing production value on that album. Just to reiterate what everyone else has said. The Beatles mixed it mono, so mono is the best (or for me only) way to go.

 

This is all news to me.

 

So are you saying that they recorded the whole thing in mono and then George Martin changed it all for the release or was it originally released in mono the day it came out and then changed to stereo at some point? I find it hard to believe the guys were not involved in some of those stereo tricks used since it was their names on the release.

 

My Mom claims my Sgt Pepper album was bought the day of release and it is in stereo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is all news to me.

 

So are you saying that they recorded the whole thing in mono and then George Martin changed it all for the release or was it originally released in mono the day it came out and then changed to stereo at some point? I find it hard to believe the guys were not involved in some of those stereo tricks used since it was their names on the release.

 

My Mom claims my Sgt Pepper album was bought the day of release and it is in stereo.

 

It's not the recording, but rather the mixdown for the final product. Artists did not concern themselves with stereo mixes - or were really involved in much of anything past laying down their tracks. They were one of the bands that changed all of that - you should read the book The Complete Beatles Chronicle by Mark Lewisohn.

 

 

Since the introduction of magnetic recording tape in 1949, multitrack recording had been developed. By 1967 all of the Sgt. Pepper tracks could be recorded at Abbey Road using mono, stereo and 4-track recorders. Although 8-track tape recorders were already available in the U.S., the first 8-tracks were not operational in commercial studios in London until late 1967, shortly after Sgt. Pepper was released.

 

Like its predecessors, the recording made extensive use of the technique known as bouncing down (also called multing), in which a number of tracks were recorded across the four tracks of one recorder, which were then mixed and dubbed down onto one track of the master 4-track machine. This enabled the Abbey Road engineers to give the Beatles a virtual multi-track studio.

 

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)".
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the mono definitely needs to be released, as well as, stereo since a lot of people are familiar with these.

 

I don't know if there are instances like this with The Beatles recordings at all, but I know in the case of Pet Sounds is that when they went to make new stereo mixes all the elements couldn't be found. I think in some cases Brian overdubbed new vocals over a track that they'd already done a mix with. They kept the old mix, but now there were new vocals on top.

 

I actually prefer listening to the newer stereo mix of Pet Sounds for most of the songs because you can hear more of the parts - the real negative thing about it is that some of the doubled vocals weren't able to found and those are really missed - so it's not flawless. I guess with the Beatles albums they'll really only have 3 or 4 tracks most of the time because of the bouncing down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be a stupid question, but whats the difference to a legitimate mono release, or converting your stereo cds to mono with software like cool edit?. i've done it by ripping the track as wave files to the computer, and then converting them to mono before burning back to a CD. works good waith early Beatles or Dylan

Link to post
Share on other sites
might be a stupid question, but whats the difference to a legitimate mono release, or converting your stereo cds to mono with software like cool edit?. i've done it by ripping the track as wave files to the computer, and then converting them to mono before burning back to a CD. works good waith early Beatles or Dylan

I'm guessing here, but I would think that a stereo mix would, by its nature, have various elements at different levels than in the mono mix.

 

Because you can separate out the various instruments and voices when using stereo, someone mixing for stereo is likely to introduce variances between the volume levels of the tracks that did not appear in the mono mix. So when you merge the tracks back together into your own homebrew mono mix, it's not likely to sound the same as the official mono mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
might be a stupid question, but whats the difference to a legitimate mono release, or converting your stereo cds to mono with software like cool edit?. i've done it by ripping the track as wave files to the computer, and then converting them to mono before burning back to a CD. works good waith early Beatles or Dylan

 

 

I'm guessing here, but I would think that a stereo mix would, by its nature, have various elements at different levels than in the mono mix.

 

Because you can separate out the various instruments and voices when using stereo, someone mixing for stereo is likely to introduce variances between the volume levels of the tracks that did not appear in the mono mix. So when you merge the tracks back together into your own homebrew mono mix, it's not likely to sound the same as the official mono mix.

 

yeah, depending on the levels and how far things were panned in the first place, you could end up with, for example, the backing vocals acutally being louder than the lead. also, what would happen normally is that everything would be distorted and too loud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 5th Copy of The White Album - the question is: whose was it? :lol

"The musician saw a pile of White Albums on a table and asked for one. John readily agreed, but said 'Don't take No.1 - I want that'. Instead he took No. 5'."

Hmm.

 

It was Peter Ham.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that these will be any good.

 

Let it Be Naked had far too much noise reduction used, causing a hollow clanky sound. the Yellow Submarine also had this problem (though I did like the new stereo mixes.) I hope they go the route of the Dylan and Stones reissues, which left a little hiss. You can't completely remove the hiss from a 40-50 year old recording without damaging overall sound.

 

Dr. Ebbett's, Purple Chick and Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab masters are all readily available for those who want them. I'd recommend those to anyone looking for a great sounding beatles experience. I'll probably pick up the new official remasters due to my beatlephilia, but I'm pretty sure they won't sound better than any of the remasters I mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...