tugmoose Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Just got the mono box, love the sound. Gotta give Paul credit: you're in a No. 1 rock band and you record "Till There Was You" - that takes balls! Also got the stereo CDs that weren't in the mono box, and I found the mini-documentary to be quite weak. Link to post Share on other sites
Calexico Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Man, these things have sold like hot cakes. The powere of the "senior dollar" eh? Link to post Share on other sites
LouisvilleGreg Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 The remasters had 8 out of the Top 10 sellers at the biggest local indie store here in town last week. Jay Z was number 1 though. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Sold 2.25 million albums in 5 days. Not bad. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Beatles-sell-225-million-apf-3138157963.html?x=0 Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Revolver in mono is a revelation. It's hard to believe that the best album of all-time could get better. yeah, personally i think that everything before rubber soul is actually ok to be listened to in stereo, because - whilst it has terrible seperation - the way they recorded them meant that it still had a solid sound to them. however, everything after rubber soul, up to and including the white album, just sounds like a broken jigsaw puzzle (if i jigsaw puzzle could sound instead of look) - the mono versions are that puzzle put together. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Sold 2.25 million albums in 5 days. Not bad. http://finance.yahoo...157963.html?x=0 I went to a record store yesterday and the top ten were all Beatles albums, bookended by Jay-Z at #1 and Raekwon at #10.Could be the best top ten ever. Link to post Share on other sites
junkiesmile Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 yeah, personally i think that everything before rubber soul is actually ok to be listened to in stereo, because - whilst it has terrible seperation - the way they recorded them meant that it still had a solid sound to them. however, everything after rubber soul, up to and including the white album, just sounds like a broken jigsaw puzzle (if i jigsaw puzzle could sound instead of look) - the mono versions are that puzzle put together.That's such a relief. I'm so glad we can at least enjoy the first four albums in stereo. I was afraid I completely wasted my money on the stereo box set. Link to post Share on other sites
GtrPlyr Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I sort of see the Stereo versions--especially the Rubber Soul and beyond era--as a good listen for people wanting a clearer picture of all the pieces that went into a Beatles recording. The overdubs and instruments used really standout better on these versions. Of course this is also the reason why the recordings seem jarring and fractured at times. The mono versions assemble all the pieces seamlessly, so as a listening experience these seem more cohesive. Both have their rewards, but it's probably the mono's that I'll return to more as a listener. Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 That's such a relief. I'm so glad we can at least enjoy the first four albums in stereo. I was afraid I completely wasted my money on the stereo box set. i wouldn't say 'enjoy' - 'tolerate' is perhaps a better word. Link to post Share on other sites
lizish Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 i wouldn't say 'enjoy' - 'tolerate' is perhaps a better word. Umm, isn't there that little button on most stereos that says 'Monaural'? Buying the mono box is way to Comic Book Guy. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 Umm, isn't there that little button on most stereos that says 'Monaural'?Not the same thing, as previously noted in this thread (somewhere). Link to post Share on other sites
lizish Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Not the same thing, as previously noted in this thread (somewhere). yeah I know. There's no 'blisters on me fingers' type things, but really, who cares? Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Not the same thing, as previously noted in this thread (somewhere). i think it's previously noted everywhere. does anyone know whether the beatles were present during the mastering of the stereo Tomorrow Never Knows - because it's my understanding that that they, all four of them, were the ones fading in all the different sound effects, and if they didn't do it on the stereo one - that's a bit like the engineer playing bass for Paperback Writer. i wonder how many other overdubs done during the mono mastering that the beatles did themselves, which then were done by other people in the stereo too. there must be a website on this . . . Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 yeah I know. There's no 'blisters on me fingers' type things, but really, who cares? whilst you can turn something into mono by merging the channels - you can't actually make it sound good, for many many reasons. this has also been talked about way back near the start of this thread. also in europe, and japan the mono was the standard - having the stereo version should really be for comic book completists, apart from for americans/canadians - and most of the albums aren't even the tracklists you got in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Have there been any reports of them printing more Mono Box Sets in the US? Are they officially sold out now? Link to post Share on other sites
lizish Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 not going to read back into a 40 page thread and I understand both the differences and appeal of getting something as the artists wanted it, but this whole thing seems meaningless and sorta stupid. It's like the Rock Critics who like to label and classify things 40 years after they happen. The majority of people could not care less about say Captain Beefheart , yet endless articles extolling Van Vliet's worth totally disregard the fact that he just was not listened to at the time and still isn't. Sure, Mono mixes with the non North American track listings may be somebody's wet dream, but that doesn't take away from literally brilliant job that was done on all these re-releases. And really you're talking minuscule listening improvements and differences at best. Besides, if it was an engineer including "I've got blisters on me fingers' and not the Beatles, well that takes a lot of balls, and I really appreciate that and have enjoyed it for decades. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 whilst you can turn something into mono by merging the channels - you can't actually make it sound good, for many many reasons. this has also been talked about way back near the start of this thread. also in europe, and japan the mono was the standard - having the stereo version should really be for comic book completists, apart from for americans/canadians - and most of the albums aren't even the tracklists you got in the first place. Duophonic Duophonic is also a term used to refer to a sound process by which a monaural recording is turned into a kind of "fake stereo" by splitting the signal into two channels, delaying the left and the right channels by means of delay lines and other circuits, desynchronizing the two channels by fractions of a second, and cutting the bass frequencies in one channel with a high-pass filter, then cutting the treble frequencies in the other channel with a low-pass filter. The end result was a synthesized stereo effect, without giving the listener the true directional sound characteristics of real stereo. In some cases, the effect was enhanced with reverb and other technical tricks, sometimes adding stereo echo to mono tracks in an attempt to fool the listener. "Duophonic" was used as a trade name for the process by Capitol Records for re-releases of mono recordings in the mid-to-late 1960s through the 1970s. They employed this technique in order to increase their inventory of Stereo LPs, to satisfy retailer demand for more stereo content (and help promote the sale of stereo receivers and turntables). For nearly ten years, Capitol used the banner "DUOPHONIC-For Stereo Phonographs Only" to differentiate their true stereo LPs from the Duophonic LPs. The process was used for some of their biggest releases, including a variety of albums by The Beach Boys and Frank Sinatra. Over the years however, some Duophonic tapes were confused with true stereo recordings in Capitol Records' vaults, and wound up getting accidentally reissued on CD throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In recent years, Capitol reissued some of The Beatles' Duophonic mixes on The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 and The Capitol Albums, Volume 2, in 2004 and 2006, respectively. Other record companies used similar processing of monophonic material to create a stereo effect, but referred to the process by other names. For example, Columbia Records used the logo, "Electronically Re-channeled for Stereo" on records issued with their particular process. As with Capitol, Columbia's fake stereo issues included albums by major artists, such as Miles Davis ('Round About Midnight-CL 949 mono, reissued in stereo as PC 8649). Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Besides, if it was an engineer including "I've got blisters on me fingers' and not the Beatles, well that takes a lot of balls, and I really appreciate that and have enjoyed it for decades. http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm that website shows all the sloppy mistakes of the stereo versions. that "blisters on my fingers" comment is one of my least favourite additions to the stereo versions - it's funny how people seem to miss it in the mono versions. it extends the song too much, and is self-indulgent. whereas the mono one has that super-fast cut, drum roll, and then quick fade - which sounds very modern. also, if it's supposed to be a proto-punk song, which people claim - the stereo version's got way too much bass to get that harsh treble in your face sound - that is punkish - and the end is too self-indulgent (as i said) to be punk-like. also the extended end takes away from the fact that "long long long" is the quietest song on the album, and "helter skelter" is the loudest - that harsh transition is lost in the stereo version etc, etc, etc... Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted September 23, 2009 Author Share Posted September 23, 2009 yeah I know. There's no 'blisters on me fingers' type things, but really, who cares?It's not about stuff like that. It's a matter of sound quality. Flipping the mono switch on your stereo versions will not sound the same as listening to the mono versions. The mono versions were mixed for mono; the stereo versions were mixed separately for stereo. Merely mashing the left and right channels together via a switch on your audio equipment results in a different and decidedly inferior listening experience to the original mono mixes, which are now available in all their glory. I have no problem acknowledging that buying both the stereo and mono box sets may be, to recycle your phrase, "too Comic Book Guy," but when it comes to the music of The Beatles, I proudly stand guilty as charged. I want to hear that stuff as the band and George Martin intended it, in the highest fidelity possible, but I also want the cleaned-up stereo versions, and while we're on the subject, I want the original 1965 stereo versions of Help! and Rubber Soul, which are tacked onto those discs in the mono box set. And I've been listening to all of them -- mono and stereo -- since I received them. Sometimes you gotta be Comic Book Guy about something. Otherwise you're half-assed about everything. Link to post Share on other sites
cgoodwin22 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm that website shows all the sloppy mistakes of the stereo versions. that "blisters on my fingers" comment is one of my least favourite additions to the stereo versions - it's funny how people seem to miss it in the mono versions. it extends the song too much, and is self-indulgent. whereas the mono one has that super-fast cut, drum roll, and then quick fade - which sounds very modern. also, if it's supposed to be a proto-punk song, which people claim - the stereo version's got way too much bass to get that harsh treble in your face sound - that is punkish - and the end is too self-indulgent (as i said) to be punk-like. also the extended end takes away from the fact that "long long long" is the quietest song on the album, and "helter skelter" is the loudest - that harsh transition is lost in the stereo version etc, etc, etc... oh jesus...gimme a break. who are you? phil spector? Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 oh jesus...gimme a break. who are you? phil spector? yes. so, does that mean i win then? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 also, if it's supposed to be a proto-punk song, which people claim - the stereo version's got way too much bass to get that harsh treble in your face sound - that is punkish - and the end is too self-indulgent (as i said) to be punk-like. also the extended end takes away from the fact that "long long long" is the quietest song on the album, and "helter skelter" is the loudest - that harsh transition is lost in the stereo version etc, etc, etc...What if it's supposed to be a proto-heavy metal song, which some people (including the song writer himself) claim? Then the stereo version's bass seems just about right on. Link to post Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 What if it's supposed to be a proto-heavy metal song, which some people (including the song writer himself) claim? Then the stereo version's bass seems just about right on. then i'd say it's not, and paul mccartney needs to stop jibber jabbering. what is heavy metal about the subject matter or the general sound, other than the fact that it's loud? Link to post Share on other sites
lizish Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 then i'd say it's not, and paul mccartney needs to stop jibber jabbering. what is heavy metal about the subject matter or the general sound, other than the fact that it's loud? I think you may have just gone off the deep end. There are lots of metal songs about losing/gaining control. Also lots of long metal songs - didn't a couple takes of Helter Skelter clock in at 27 minutes? Can't think of a good punk song that did that. no need to post a comic book guy jpeg or anything for your or Crytique's post. it would be too mean. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 then i'd say it's not, and paul mccartney needs to stop jibber jabbering. what is heavy metal about the subject matter or the general sound, other than the fact that it's loud?the distortion, the heavy beats, the riffs, the loudness, the sexual innuendo in the lyrics? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts