Beatles advice needed

There are loads of posts on Steve Hoffman's Forum.

The mono CDs, when they were released a few years ago, are remarkably good, as only the Japanese seem to be able to do. They're brilliant facsimiles of the original LPs, but I don't have original mono LPs against which to compare them sonically. As to the sound and presentation, they beat the stereo CDs, released at the same time, easily. 

Whether they're still available, or still coming from Japan, you'll need to check.

The mono CDs have a booklet that delineates the differences between many of the mono vs stereo mixes.

I bought the box set, and if you can find an authentic one, get it.  I have all the stereo CDs as well from years past, and I can't picture why I would listen to them.

Doctor Mark

are you referring to the recently released set that was one of four formats (CD or vinyl, mono or stereo)? The reason for my pedantry is that, I'm by no means a collector but, I want a definitive collection of the albums without making an expensive mistake.

If there's nothing in it SQ-wise I'd prefer CDs to vinyl.

Would welcome being pointed in the right direction.

Thanks for reading

Mick

Because you, presumably, have two speakers.  Try the remastered stereo.

I have a lot of Beatles, vinyl, early CDs, and both the mono and stereo remastered CD sets.  Yes the mixes and some takes are different on the mono vs stereo, but for pure sound quality and dynamics the stereo is generally superior and more fulfilling to hear.  If you happen to have just a single speaker, by all means get the mono for which it was intended.  Otherwise the mono seems a bygone novelty or a "have it all' for hard core collectors.  The mono versions lack dynamics while stereo fills the room.  In the day mono cuts were intended for AM radio.

I agree with joerand, and actually just conducted a listening test. I have both the mono and stereo box sets ripped in FLAC... just listened to some selections from the mono and stereo sets, and in all instances the stereo versions sounded much more engaging to my ears.

To some degree it depends on the abilities of your system and a lot on the listeners personal preferences, there is no right or wrong.  i have the mono CDs which has a few stereo versions as well but misses out on the stereo albums.  Talk about a rip  off, gees it was more expensive than the stereo set and you don't even get all the albums.

The more detailed and dynamic your system is the better the mono versions sound.

Originally I thought the mono CDs sounded only ok and wished I had the stereo.  Having just moved to a valve amp from a solid state (both CJ, I only use a Naim source) I find the greater detail retrieval on the new amps has brought new life to the music.  Valves have also created a bigger sound stage.  You need to find a way to hear the two  versions on you system and decide from there.

There's a crucial aspect not being considered here: Right up until the "white" album, The Beatles and George Martin regarded the mono mixes definitive, they're the mixes they personally labored over.

Stereo, especially in the beginning of their career, was dismissed as a novelty, so when the mono mix was finished, The Beatles and Martin would go home while an assistant engineer would quickly throw together a stereo mix, mostly for the USA market. That's one reason we got those silly "stereo" mixes in which the drums are on one side and almost everything else is on the other. The "white" album was the first to be seriously mixed in stereo in addition to a mono mix; after that, stereo only.

The mono remasters of a few years ago are a revelation: warmer, fuller, punchier, cohesive, organically holistic. And most importantly, they are what the artists intended ... if that sort of thing interests you. (insert emoticon here)

hmmmmm.... I still think on a modern hifi rig, the stereo mixes sound better. I will concede that when I am working out, and wearing headphones, I do find the stereo mixes problematic... however, in my listening room, to my ears, the stereo mixes sound more alive.

I can't feature the stereo mixes because it's not even stereo, it's "split mono" - worse on headphones as pointed out, but bad enough on the system - and yes, I do have 2 speakers.  As Fred pointed out, not only did the Beatles/GM put all their efforts into the mono mixes up until the White Album, but the stereo mixes were obviously done by people who didn't know a damn thing about stereo mixes.

I bought about 3 or 4 of the remastered stereo mixes when they came out...and while they were more dynamic, they still had that maddening "split mono" thing going on - especially noticeable on Revolver & Rubber Soul.  I was so hoping they had eliminated that somehow.  Of course, it's still GREAT music.

And to answer Mick's question - I bought the CD mono box set, but it's a buyer's beware game; rots of Chinese counterfeits out there...I was fortunate that my set ticked all the boxes on authenticity - there is a thread on this forum from when I did it that knowledgeable members responded to, and I also added the research I performed.

I got my mono boxed set from Amazon, and have never even considered its authenticity ... not that I have reason to doubt, but what are the tell-tale signs? Can you dig up that other thread?

Thanks.

A quote from George Harrison concerning stereo;

At that time [...] the console was about this big with four faders on it. And there was one speaker right in the middle [...] and that was it. When they invented stereo, I remember thinking 'Why? What do you want two speakers for?', because it ruined the sound from our point of view. You know, we had everything coming out of one speaker; now it had to come out of two speakers. It sounded like ... very ... naked.

John Lennon questioned the point of stereo when they worked hard as a band to sound like one unit.

This was obviously in the early days.

I am always amazed by the soundstage produced by the original mono LPs. It's sometimes difficult to realise you aren't listening to a stereo version, especially Sgt Pepper.

Steve

Here you go Fred:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/di...22#19447375224165922

You can also search on youtube - there are videos of people showing their bogus box sets.

I performed a bit of an experiment using my daughter the other day. Told her I was going to play a few different versions of Pepper and asked her to describe the differences. I didn't mention some where mono and one was stereo. She's in her early twenties and probably never heard a mono record.

First up was 67 original press. Mono in VG condition but had lots of plays.

Second up was 69 repress. Stereo in near mint condition.

She preferred the second, the instruments where a lot clearer.

Third up was 69 repress. Mono in near mint condition.

Immediately she said, "that's louder" (she thought I'd turned up the volume)

Not much difference in clarity between 2 and 3, but 2 was clearer. She preferred 2.

At this stage she hadn't realised two of the records where mono. It was only when i mentioned the second record sounded more spacious, she said "Ah I know the difference, the second was stereo the others mono".