|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.209.151.143
A couple of days ago the was a thread about the new Beatles mono re-issues. It was a feeding frenzy. And it seemed like people were buying them up and not at a cheap price either. I don't see the attraction to mono. The LPs I have in mono are dull and lifeless compared to the stereo version. Thoughts......
Follow Ups:
.
Thanks to all that responded to this thread. It was very educational. My first thoughts the mono thing was just a fad and another vehicle to get more record sales. I see now that the whole recording process in mono was intentional......
In part, it seems to be a fad for the hipsters. What other body of popular work could have possibly created such a buzz?
Some of us have been quietly enjoying monophonic recordings for a long time whether it's the only copy of the work available, or the recording is better served that way. I also think that those of us who were exposed to "mono" playback in the 50s and 60s are not as "put off" by it as those who weren't. Some of the comments here and other threads illustrate this.
Some newcomers will get it, and enjoy the Beatles Mono Box and other mono finds from that era. For others, it will be a temporary diversion.
Having said that, I'm pleased that "all envolved" with the Beatles Mono Box have done such a great job with it. They gave the hardcore fans what they wanted: all analog recordings, minimal audio processing/manipulation, and great disc quality control, for the most part.
It's a shame the same couldn't be said of the Stereo Box.
jD
start with this (for example):
That said, I've had the choice of collecting original Beatles UK LPs in either mono or stereo over the years
(and have a SWELL collection!) and have chosen stereo.
So, there ARE no hard and fast rules.
If mono is sounding dull and lifeless though, something is amiss with your system.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" - Michael McClure
There are multiple albums by the Beatles where the stereo version just don't sound as good as the mono version because of how the stereo was put together. Not everyone feels that way, but quite a few do. So no, mono is not the new stereo but for some albums from the infancy of stereo, the mono version just sounds better in comparison. Toss in a brand spanking new record with no previous play, scratches, and groove damage in all analog, well I'm surprised they didn't sell out day one.
....These threads have been about The Beatles. As others have noted The Beatles were personally involved in the production and engineering of the mono versions of their recordings. But allowed the engineers to channel the stereo versions while they were away doing other stuff. (Especially those previous to The white Album when the recording equipment was more primitive at Abbey Road Studios than in other studios around the world.)For more info on The Beatles here are a couple of book titles worth the read:
"The Beatles, The Biography" by Bob Spitz isbn 0-316-80352-9This is an overview of their recording and performing career as a group that offers individual biographies as well as notes on their recording sessions. Well worth the read.
"Here, There and Everywhere, My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles"
by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey isbn 1-592-40179-1This book is useful in that it offers Emerick's perspective and his account on the recording sessions with The Beatles that he engineered.
Both books will also reveal which recording decks were used on what albums. EMI was a bit behind the curve for a time on equipment. For example a tour of a US recording studio at the same era would have turned up far more advanced recording equipment. Both books will document what recording equipment was used on which albums. If you read the above two you can get a pretty good idea of how The Beatles worked in and out of the recording studio.
-Steve
Edits: 09/21/14
Some of the most vivid sound I have heard has been mono. There is something about well reproduced mono that has a life and immediacy that stereo version of the same recording oft times lack. This has always been with true mono cartridges and mono phono preamps. I have been unable to reproduce mono with this level of involvement in my own system which lacks a mono switch which is necessary for proper reproduction with a stereo cartridge. I'll be trying a stereo to mono cable and seeing is that works as well. My two cents.
By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.
Galileo Galilei
Edits: 09/21/14
The attraction is that some mono releases are just very good. The Bob Dylan Original Mono Recordings, Another Self Portrait vol. 10, and the current Beatles are the most involving and satisfying versions of that music I've heard. Other great monos are Pet Sounds, and If You Believe Your Eyes and Ears. Of all of these, the Beatles set is the most surprising; it really is a revelation, and has been drawing me into many songs of theirs I was never a big fan of.
I don't think it's a fad. There are many mono tapes from the 50's and 60's that may prove to be good candidates for better-than-ever-done-before releases, so I expect this to be pretty long lasting. It is certainly helped by Columbia/Legacy having Steve Berkowitz prowl their vaults looking for treasures that were either never released, or done badly the first time around.
What I do hope is a fad is the lavish packaging and sky-high pricing, but would be greatly surprised if my hopes come true.
WW
"A man need merely light the filaments of his receiving set and the world's greatest artists will perform for him." Alfred N. Goldsmith, RCA, 1922
Lol
Beauty!
Dodging bullets is the next best thing to not having to.
If you don't bother to listen to the new Beatles albums, then what's the point of starting a thread about them?
Who said I don't listen to them? I was just fascinated that there was so much about there mono recordings....
Well I apologize then. The way your original post was worded led be to believe you didn't listen to them...
You wrote "... And it seemed like people were buying them up and not at a cheap price either." but you didn't mention that you bought them also.
And you wrote "... I don't see the attraction to mono." which also led me to think that had not bought/listened to them.
And finally you wrote "... The LPs I have in mono are dull and lifeless compared to the stereo version" which really made me think that you hadn't listened to them, but if this is your opinion based on having heard them, then I respect it completely. Everyone is entitled to their likes/dislikes.
I've been waiting for over forty years for the return of Quad. Do you remember that fiasco?
nt
I think you must be living in a vacuum. It is now called 5.1 because it includes a center channel and subwoofer. Where have you been hiding?
On vinyl? Wow ,I was not aware of that!
The early Beatles releases were recorded in mono and later reprocessed in a very poor rendition of stereo, instruments on one channel and vocals on the other. With the mono it is centered as it should be. Less processing = better music. I have the the Rolling Stones "12 X 5" in an original mono pressing and a later stereo pressing which is processed much more sanely than the Beatles material. No contest on this one though, the mono has better clarity and energy.
I think it has more to do with the Beatles and the time in which they were recorded. Some of their recordings were designed for mono because the stereo mix is very unconventional with vocals on one side and instruments on the other or some combination like that. However, certain Beatles recordings were intended to be in stereo for psychedelic reasons and when you take that away, it detracts from the intended effect of the music.
I have both mono and stereo versions of all the Beatles recordings and like you, I prefer stereo. I nearly always prefer stereo over mono unless it's electronically reprocessed stereo.
Based on what I've read here, the major attraction to these new mono Beatles recordings is their fidelity. I get the impression they were equalized in such a way as to bring out more bass and improve detail, which makes them sound much better. My mono recordings don't have much bass whereas my stereo versions have very nice deep bass. That is a big part of why I like my stereo versions better. However, even when using the mono switch on my preamp, I still like stereo better. Perhaps it all boils down to personal preference and mastering.
Best regards,
John Elison
As I understand the situation with the Beatles re-issues in mono, the Beatles actually took great pains in mixing the mono versions and the stereo versions were often slapped together and/or mixed by others. I think Mr Fremer discusses this at length on his website, AnalogPlanet. Many of us want to hear the Beatles as they, themselves, intended. We are also audiophiles, after all, and also want wonderful sound at a reasonable price. Hence, all the excitement about the new Beatles mono re-issues.In the 50's and 60's most jazz and rock was recorded primarily in mono and when issued in stereo, the instruments/voices were paned hard left and right. I have a lot of jazz LPs where the mono just plain sounds way better than the stereo. The color, impact, image density and naturalness of the mono just sounds better. Also, check out the Beach Boys stereo or duophonic LPs and compare them to the monos. I have and , to my ear and taste, the monos are much preferable. This is the case for many groups of that time period. They were recorded, mixed, and were intended to be played in mono. When stereo first came along, LPs were issued in that format as a second thought. By the late 1960's, stereo had caught on, artists, producers and engineers were then thinking predominantly in terms of stereo and had more experience with it. It tended to sound very good in many cases. Early to mid-late Beatles, I think, need to be heard in mono (I do like the stereo versions of the later Beatles, though). Now, many of us can afford to hear them in mono, the form the Beatles intended themselves to be heard in. The early Parlophone mono Beatles Lps have gotten prohibitively expensive and the $20 mono re-issues are a godsend and a revelation.
Edits: 09/21/14 09/21/14
nt
I didn't mean mono is a fad. I meant insisting mono is always better than stereo is a fad. Some people do that and it's silly.
Doug
but it lasted for over 50 years.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Buying yet another set of Beatles albums is fad. I've got a bunch of different pressings and versions etc. but it's still mid sixties nostalgia for the most part and not my favourites.
There were many other bands at that time that still have more personal relevance for me and seem to get more airplay than the Beatles. That could be because of the schmaltz factor or because they're overplayed. It could also be because the musical style is dated and many have a hard time relating to the "Originators" and "Fore Runners" labels that get assigned to the first band to popularize (not originate) a style.
You do agree it is a fad, just a long lasting one :)
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
quote by Kurt Vonnegut
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: