The Beatles Stereo vs. Mono

Hi Sneaky,

I've got vinyl sets of both and I prefer mono - sounds more live and authentic. When you go to a gig and see music played live you don't hear a split of sound, so its more authentic. Early recordings that were made stereo were messing around with new tech - listen to 'Taxman' in stereo and Paul is in the left speaker only, listen in mono and the band rock as one.

ATB Pete

+1 for the Mono box.

Also, keep in mind for these particular sets that the Stereo box was produced from a digital master (same as the 24-bit/44.1kHz USB Beatles box, from various reports), while the Mono box was produced from analog masters (after there was a bit of an uproar over the digital sourcing for the stereo box).  The AAA Mono set simply sounds better.

However, also note that the Mono box does not contain any of the albums that were originally mixed to stereo, so you will have to acquire Abbey Road and Let It Be separately (and I would urge you to seek out an earlier analog pressing of these albums and pass on the recently pressed digital-sourced releases).  It should not be hard to find fairly clean pressings of both those albums for a modest outlay.

+2 for the mono box. As stated above it just sounds better.

Plus, for all the great things they did, the stereo recordings are just mastered & mixed lousy.  With a very hard left/right separation on some (many) cuts.  The Beatles themselves were uninterested in the stereo mastering process; once the mono was done they were out of the studio for all intents and the stereo stuff was almost done as an afterthought, and whoever did it just didn't get what stereo was really about and how to use it.

Can anyone talk technical about the groove and information in it?  How does this work with the needle if there are two channels of music.

If its mono is it two channels of the same music split into a stereo system?

Hi Sneaky check this out ... basically less distortion in cutting mono grooves and deeper less complex groove

http://www.vinylrecorder.com/stereo.html

cheers Pete

Just did a search for you - on stereo the inner groove of an LP is the left channel and the outer groove is the right channel - in mono both channels are the same so you get more definition and louder sound.

So with a stereo system you are actually hearing two channels playing the same thing.

ATB Pete

If you're looking for an investment buy original mono records, who knows how much the box sets will be worth in 20 years time.

IMO the mono are better than stereo.

As Pete said, they are a deeper groove, therefore they are harder to damage, even a ropey looking mono record will play without any problems.

Aha, this is what I was curious about...guess I could have searched it, but also though maybe I could learn more from the folks on here.

You'll be lucky.

I can't get my head round the fact stereo is produced without 2 needles.

you just did!

Cheers Pete

Same...it must happen super duper fast...that needle is a-hummin'

It's slightly different to that. The needle vibrates in two directions. Think up-and-down and side-to-side, but any two non-parallel vectors can define the same movement pattern. Anyway, think of the side to side as being the total signal (left plus right) and the up and down is the difference. The way the coils are oriented and wired in the cartridge mimic the orientation of the cutting lathe and decode the stereo signal.

I get the vertical and horizontal modulations between the two grooves to produce stereo. The separation of signals from opposing sides of a single stylus is more what amazes me. It's not perfect though. Listening to early Beatles stereo LPs via HPs with balance all to one side will show there is some bleed-over across the stylus of the channel separated vocals versus the instrument side. Still, this is minimal (and is the case with any stereo stylus) and does not disrupt the overall sound when played with balance at the top.

If you want to get the 'true Beatles mono experience', buy the mono set and then play them with only one speaker connected. Left or right? You choose.

+1 on both those recos...

BTW - going to see Macca tonight in Columbia, SC.

I delayed in getting the monos and only bought 3 mid period and then the Mono Masters which is 3 LPs spanning their whole career with some 45s that didn't make it on to albums. I used to have a bunch of 45s, long gone in many moves thanks to mom.  New monos are more lively than my stereo ones.

 Then within 2 months I bought a Herron tube preamp that has a mono button which mixes it perfectly from my DVXX2. I also have the Herron pre for Palmer TT. WOW!  Now they really sing, I can hear subtle things in the background and there is much more punch in bass and drums and sharp upper range with the HL5's. I know they sometimes doubled their vocals and have to pay attention to that, but the difference between Paul and John singing gets that little extra separation when they were doing harmony.

*mouth watering*

True only up until the white album, which was the first to be mixed in earnest by the Beatles, George Martin, and Ken Scott, rather than passed off to a second engineer for a quick, down and dirty faux-stereo (some instruments on one side or another, no real sense of stereo space) mix for the burgeoning American stereo market. They mixed the white album in mono and stereo, and then only stereo for subsequent albums. Albeit, not that many albums after that.

Yes Fred - I should have delineated the time line on that - thanks!  The effects I describe are most noticeable on RS, Revolver Sgt Pepper and MMT.  Really a shame because so much great music there.

Ironic that they mixed the White Album when half of the time they weren't even involved on many of the cuts as a foursome...

Indeed.

Btw, and just for the sake of clarity, mixing is what we're talking about here, not mastering ... balancing the levels of multiple tracks (4, 8, 24 or more), adding effects, EQ, etc. and bouncing all down to either a mono or stereo mix. Mastering is the further tonal and volume tweaking of the final bounced mix, resulting in a production master.

Fred,

Good point of clarity regarding mastering. The Capitol Records masterers were always at a disadvantage having to use copies of the master tapes (sent across the pond) whereas the EMI masterers worked from the original master tapes. FWIW - I think Wally Traugott ("Wally" in the dead wax) mastered stereo LPs with very good SQ during the Capitol orange label era.

I've been doing some googling regarding the fact that the Beatles themselves worked on the stereo mixes of the White Album. Beatles Bible, Beatles Recording Sessions, and numerous others, but I've yet to come across a source stating that the Beatles mixed the stereo for the White Album. What is your source for this information?

Personal email from Ken Scott, recording engineer on much of the white album as well as many other Beatles sessions. What he told me is repeated in this interview: http://tinyurl.com/nathn7k

Fred,

Thanks for your response. I followed your link and found some very informative reading. Good stuff in the sub-links as well!

Cool that you're on a personal email level with Ken Scott

He's a cool guy.

I don't have any problem with all the Beatles' 63-68 work in stereo, but the mono box is just a fabulous thing in itself - the sound is superb, the pressings and covers are immaculate, and for anyone who's cobbled together a collection of Beatles' LPs over many years, new, secondhand, borrowed, gifted and found, it's great to have it all brand new.