BEATLES new mono box set

Nice catch.

I pre-ordered the mono set from Amazon last month ... at £137

Its back up at £199 (stereo still £157)

Is a vinyl version of the mono box set planned - that would be worth having

I would imagine most vinyl fans have the stereo mixes but not the mono on vinyl

Sorry, but why? It's a bit like using a quill pen instead of a biro.

Jono (expecting a torrent of abuse)

Isn't it more like still using the same biro, but just paying £40 more to use it?

Phil

Because the early albums were recorded in mono and the stereo was crude at best.

Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
Just order from the Beatles site the price does not change.

But it's more expensive still on the Beatles site!

Annoying though it is to have missed out on what appear to have been, intentionally or not, "early-bird bargains", I would point out that Amazon have a pre-order price guarantee in that, should the price go down before the release date they will charge you the lowest price between the date you ordered and the release date.

I'm biting the bullet and ordering now!

Steeve

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

sometimes i wonder what cds would sound like if all those bits had been used on one channel. i don't think multiple channels add overtones or clarify attacks. multiple channels do offer an opportunity to add more signal as the channels are independent. could actually be obscuring overtones and smearing attacks, due to phase differences.

good question, george.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

I gather this is free license to gouge out one of your eyes, yes? (Your eyesight works in much the same way, for depth perception.)

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

quote:

David Dever wrote:
I gather this is free license to gouge out one of your eyes, yes? (Your eyesight works in much the same way, for depth perception.)

Depth is immediately apparent in mono recording in its considerable insignificance, whereas depth is usually overdone in stereo recording compared to real life.

Simply consider how far the front of the stage is and then the distance to the back of the performing group. Calculate the difference and consider it as a proportion of the distance to a good seat in the body of the hall to the front of the group. The general musical practice is to reduce this front to back [and side to side] distance to a miniumum to improve ensemble, balance, and focus. Recording would do well to emulate this real life priority.

The depth will be and is indeed is undetectable in the live concert setting except for performance groups large enough for perhaps Elgar's Gerontius or say Mahler Eight!

Otherwise it is something record producers and engineers play with, but which of itself can only damage the musical balances presented in recording.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

I gather this is free license to gouge out one of your eyes, yes? (Your eyesight works in much the same way, for depth perception.)

I would not go as far as George but I would disagree with your anology as well. It would be like saying Casablanca would be a much better movie if it was shot in colour - it was made for black and white. Some of the Beatles recordings are best listened to in mono.

I agree re: best listened in mono

I have the 2 Capitol box sets - US Beatles albums up to Rubber Soul and with the stereo and mono mix of the album on the same CD

I always listen to the mono mixes - they are much sharper and sound much more like a band playing (due I guess to the very crude stereo separation on the stereo mixes)

quote:

It would be like saying Casablanca would be a much better movie if it was shot in colour - it was made for black and white.

I have Way Out West in colour and I rarely watch in black and white - I'd go for a colour version of Casablanca if they do it - great film: they don't make 'em like that anymore. My view of most modern films doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

£200 for 11 CDs is a bit high even for the Beatles.

Glad that can get CDs of the great EMI classical CDs for about 3 GBP per disc!

I would hppily pay up to a fiver apiece for the Beatles issues, but 200 for 11 discs is simply too much ...

Perhaps they will come down after a while ...

ATB from George

quote:

Perhaps they will come down after a while ...

probably not that much I guess - I don't think Beatles albums have been released at mid price - EMI consider them a premium product

It may be a coincidence but some of the cds I have with a multimedia element (some Bowie and Madness) sound quite poor.

Will the documentary included for a limited time only on the Beatles cds effect the sound quality.

Does this extra material make the cd harder to read?

Apart from the price this may make me wait awhile to buy these cds.


SJB

Very good point!

And in case anyone doubts my interest, I would definately like to get the mono set, but for the money, it really is too much.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
Can anyone tell what stereo does that is connected to music, rather than sonic gimickery?

ATB from George

Tis true that too many (mainly Pop) producers manipulate stereo to embellish their recordings but if done properly aka The Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Sessions" (a simple crossed mic to DAT live recording done in a Toronto church) then surely stereo is superior?

The fact that mono is more accurate for early Beatle recordings doesn't make mono
inherently superior to stereo in all cases IMHO

quote:

Originally posted by Jet Johnson:
The fact that mono is more accurate for early Beatle recordings doesn't make mono
inherently superior to stereo in all cases IMHO

Right. The whole point of this mono vs stereo business is one of artistic merit and not sound quality per say. The Beatles and their producer sometimes spent months of work on the mono mixes, the stereo efforts, by contrast, were a mere after thought. The engineers did a two week rush job on many of them, and the band themselves may never have even heard the stereo mixes.

By the way, here is an early critique of the stereo mixes by the guitarist of The Who.

I can't see any reason to get the stereo box. I've heard the sound quality of the remasters and for me they sound a little lifeless compared even to the original mediocre cd's. However, an original mono Lp in mint condition would be about the same price as the entire cd mono set. The mono set is worth it, in my opinion, if you're a Beatles fan

Noyes

better keep your head down at the BBQ


SJB

quote:

Originally posted by Sloop John B:
better keep your head down at the BBQ


SJB

Fat chance of that!

I can't remember now isn't munch involved in one of the dawn duels? If so he might be able to keep a low profile, if he loses.

Stu

Is a mono box set in vinyl due to come out?

Gregg

I would like to know too Gregg. I have not heard anything about a vinyl version.

Regards
Matt