Play it. If there's one thing you have to do over the holiday period, it's to grab a good bottle of vino, sit down and run through some of the albums in the set. I'll give you my listening suggestions in a bit.
On the topic of what is "better" or more "accurate" in the never ending saga of The Beatles in Mono vs Stereo, I'm going to put out there some of my opinions. You can spend days reading reviews and critique of the recently released Beatles in Mono vinyl box set. For the record / LOL /, I don't own it. Just the CD set. People make statements such as "You haven't heard the Beatles until you hear them in mono", or more recently, heard them in mono on LP. You'll also find countless attributions that up until 'Let it Be' and 'Abbey Road', all that the four members in the group only really cared about was the mono productions and stereo was just a post-production afterthought. I call BS on that as an absolute but whatever. Something else you'll hear (read) is that the mono recordings are more genuine, pure and "as originally intended", artistically. Perhaps to some degree but just reflect back on your own personal fascination with the way stereo LPs sounded during the transition period smack dab in the middle of the sixties. There's no way these artists weren't intrigued with the possibilities of sound placement at a whole new level. But whatever, it makes for spirited discussion & debate and I'm all for that.
Here's my take on mono - having spent countless hours, listening with different frames of mind - and on things not talked about much:
Simply listen to Sgt Peppers. There are quite a few really rough edit points that sound almost sloppy across the album. Don't get me wrong, I love the differences but from a purely engineering point of view, hasty or rushed production techniques come to mind. Point in fact, listen to the transition from 'Good Morning, Good Morning' into the 'Sgt Peppers Reprise' and then the next transition into 'A Day in the Life' on the mono disc. Do it with headphones for the fullest effect. Then do the same thing with the stereo version. Tell me which sampling sounds polished and which sounds almost hacked together. The phasing in of the sound effect loops, crowd applause, studio noise like extra live mic'd vocal stuff and simply the cut-in points of stuff you may have grown - we've all have grown - accustomed to, can sound abrupt at times in mono and like mistakes. I'm not picking sides, so don't get me wrong, I like listening to different versions of what has been less circulated or late at coming out of the vaults. And not all of the mono material presented in these box sets are rough by any stretch, just some of it. But to say that the mono versions are the definitive versions is kind of baseless. And here's why. When an artist or artists hire a producer, who in turn hires engineers to record, mix and master for final release, there's no denying that those extra individuals are putting their "spin" on the artistic output. If the Beatles were more like those artists that do it all in the studio, something that is way more prevalent now days, then we would certainly have a better indication as to what really mattered in terms of the final configurations of the material. But they weren't. They had George Martin and a string of engineers from master tape sound board influencers to the guys that knew how to apply RIAA standards to optimize pressings for mass production. So in this regard, the Beatles were more than just four dudes and their recordings demonstrate that.
OK, so, what's the fuss? No fuss. Mono was made for single speaker, in dash AM radios and suitcase sized portable record players. These playback platforms hide all kinds of sloppy sh!t.
Us audio kooks shouldn't have any big arguments about the capability of those playback systems being less than optimal, less than "high" fidelity. Sort of reminds me of the discussions surrounding mp3's - but I won't go there...
Needless to say, the mono versions of Beatle albums were the first delivered in-masse, to stores and pushed through the airways to millions of screaming teenage girls. Stereo probably only mattered to a subset of beatnik types dabbling in the emerging pot culture, mind expansion and those other folks already owning a color television & two-channel hifi. Those were folks in the minority to be sure. Translated = quick, convenient and mainstream meant high-volume mono.
I'm not entirely sure I made my point with all these words but to boil-it-down, the "you haven't heard the Beatles until you've heard them in mono" is a crock IMHO and should be rephrased, "you haven't heard the Beatles in mono ... until you have heard this version of their mono albums, after this go-around of mix-mastering by some new group of people, played back on modern day equipment that reveals EVERYTHING !" The key in this is the "this version" part. Some dudes, all these decades later, make engineering decisions on what sounds best based upon current belief structures and capabilities. Both of which (beliefs and equipment) didn't exist back during the 60's. Uncontrolled revisionist history in pursuit of protecting the IP, making some more money for the Beatle estates and justifying it all by claiming the original, most accurate sound reproduction has been found and delivered ... ThiS tImE
!?!
Chew on that aspect for a while ...
So, to get back on a more productive & constructive path, here are some recommended listening highlights:
Check out 'Rubber Soul'. Lots of folks like that album because it marked a change, perhaps the first departure from that teenie bop, cookie cut formula of song output that preceded it.
On this album in mono, the recordings sound coffee shop-ish in presentation. Varying vocal parts sound "simple mic'd" and forward. I never understood the Dylan references
attributed to this album until I heard it in mono with floor standing speakers. All the acoustic tracks present a, sitting up close in a coffee shop sound, if that makes any sense.
I guess you might need to take in a live act at a local coffee shop to get the full gist of this analogy.
Then there is Sgt Peppers. I covered the most glaring production differences already but as far as the overall sonic quality, again, the vocals can be haunting at times. A completely
different experience IMHO. And the clarity of all the instruments and sounds take on a different character when they are layered on top of one another instead of having discreetly positioned
points in the stereo sound field. There's a faster pitch on 'She's Leaving Home' that subtly but noticeably transforms the song and the eastern Indian flare inside 'Within You Without You' has punch instead of that mystical space captured in stereo.
Last but not least, The White Album. Chock full of different takes, this album is worthy of repeated, successive listening's. Everyone has uniquely different listening environments and shaped ears, but in my audio den, this album takes on an almost stereo-like delivery simply because the clarity is amazing. The various sounds that make up any given track take on a life of their own, rebel and are like - "screw this, I'm not staying in the middle... " and then push out at varying angles albeit not very far. No I wasn't high at the time. There's a strange sound stage to this particular album that defies explanation - in mono. 'Revolution 9', 'Everybody's Got Something to Hide' and 'Yer Blues' have new life. 'Rev' 9' in particular doesn't have all the distracting left/right/left motion effect, now there's just gain & decay pulsations of various sound loops. Not really a song but rather some Yoko Ono influenced avant-garde sound experiment, I actually enjoy it now because of this mono presentation. All the acoustical tracks have a strange three dimensional space thing going on, with 'in the room with you" sounding presence on some to a greater degree than others, but nonetheless there on all of them. I defer back to a comment I made elsewhere and ask - "Is there really mono? When you have two ears?"
So there you have it. Held some stuff back not to spoil all the fun. The Beatles in Mono is worth a listen, and if you don't own much of their stuff and are a vinyl head, there's a case to be made that you could simply buy the mono box set and then add 'Abbey Road' and 'Let in Be' in stereo to complete the basic "album oriented" catalog. There's actually just enough room in the box to do this, if you take out the gap-filling foam pad.
What's better, Mono CD or Mono Vinyl ?
I'll save that rant for another day ...
Cheers
On the topic of what is "better" or more "accurate" in the never ending saga of The Beatles in Mono vs Stereo, I'm going to put out there some of my opinions. You can spend days reading reviews and critique of the recently released Beatles in Mono vinyl box set. For the record / LOL /, I don't own it. Just the CD set. People make statements such as "You haven't heard the Beatles until you hear them in mono", or more recently, heard them in mono on LP. You'll also find countless attributions that up until 'Let it Be' and 'Abbey Road', all that the four members in the group only really cared about was the mono productions and stereo was just a post-production afterthought. I call BS on that as an absolute but whatever. Something else you'll hear (read) is that the mono recordings are more genuine, pure and "as originally intended", artistically. Perhaps to some degree but just reflect back on your own personal fascination with the way stereo LPs sounded during the transition period smack dab in the middle of the sixties. There's no way these artists weren't intrigued with the possibilities of sound placement at a whole new level. But whatever, it makes for spirited discussion & debate and I'm all for that.
Here's my take on mono - having spent countless hours, listening with different frames of mind - and on things not talked about much:
Simply listen to Sgt Peppers. There are quite a few really rough edit points that sound almost sloppy across the album. Don't get me wrong, I love the differences but from a purely engineering point of view, hasty or rushed production techniques come to mind. Point in fact, listen to the transition from 'Good Morning, Good Morning' into the 'Sgt Peppers Reprise' and then the next transition into 'A Day in the Life' on the mono disc. Do it with headphones for the fullest effect. Then do the same thing with the stereo version. Tell me which sampling sounds polished and which sounds almost hacked together. The phasing in of the sound effect loops, crowd applause, studio noise like extra live mic'd vocal stuff and simply the cut-in points of stuff you may have grown - we've all have grown - accustomed to, can sound abrupt at times in mono and like mistakes. I'm not picking sides, so don't get me wrong, I like listening to different versions of what has been less circulated or late at coming out of the vaults. And not all of the mono material presented in these box sets are rough by any stretch, just some of it. But to say that the mono versions are the definitive versions is kind of baseless. And here's why. When an artist or artists hire a producer, who in turn hires engineers to record, mix and master for final release, there's no denying that those extra individuals are putting their "spin" on the artistic output. If the Beatles were more like those artists that do it all in the studio, something that is way more prevalent now days, then we would certainly have a better indication as to what really mattered in terms of the final configurations of the material. But they weren't. They had George Martin and a string of engineers from master tape sound board influencers to the guys that knew how to apply RIAA standards to optimize pressings for mass production. So in this regard, the Beatles were more than just four dudes and their recordings demonstrate that.
OK, so, what's the fuss? No fuss. Mono was made for single speaker, in dash AM radios and suitcase sized portable record players. These playback platforms hide all kinds of sloppy sh!t.
Us audio kooks shouldn't have any big arguments about the capability of those playback systems being less than optimal, less than "high" fidelity. Sort of reminds me of the discussions surrounding mp3's - but I won't go there...
Needless to say, the mono versions of Beatle albums were the first delivered in-masse, to stores and pushed through the airways to millions of screaming teenage girls. Stereo probably only mattered to a subset of beatnik types dabbling in the emerging pot culture, mind expansion and those other folks already owning a color television & two-channel hifi. Those were folks in the minority to be sure. Translated = quick, convenient and mainstream meant high-volume mono.I'm not entirely sure I made my point with all these words but to boil-it-down, the "you haven't heard the Beatles until you've heard them in mono" is a crock IMHO and should be rephrased, "you haven't heard the Beatles in mono ... until you have heard this version of their mono albums, after this go-around of mix-mastering by some new group of people, played back on modern day equipment that reveals EVERYTHING !" The key in this is the "this version" part. Some dudes, all these decades later, make engineering decisions on what sounds best based upon current belief structures and capabilities. Both of which (beliefs and equipment) didn't exist back during the 60's. Uncontrolled revisionist history in pursuit of protecting the IP, making some more money for the Beatle estates and justifying it all by claiming the original, most accurate sound reproduction has been found and delivered ... ThiS tImE
!?!Chew on that aspect for a while ...
So, to get back on a more productive & constructive path, here are some recommended listening highlights:
Check out 'Rubber Soul'. Lots of folks like that album because it marked a change, perhaps the first departure from that teenie bop, cookie cut formula of song output that preceded it.
On this album in mono, the recordings sound coffee shop-ish in presentation. Varying vocal parts sound "simple mic'd" and forward. I never understood the Dylan references
attributed to this album until I heard it in mono with floor standing speakers. All the acoustic tracks present a, sitting up close in a coffee shop sound, if that makes any sense.
I guess you might need to take in a live act at a local coffee shop to get the full gist of this analogy.
Then there is Sgt Peppers. I covered the most glaring production differences already but as far as the overall sonic quality, again, the vocals can be haunting at times. A completely
different experience IMHO. And the clarity of all the instruments and sounds take on a different character when they are layered on top of one another instead of having discreetly positioned
points in the stereo sound field. There's a faster pitch on 'She's Leaving Home' that subtly but noticeably transforms the song and the eastern Indian flare inside 'Within You Without You' has punch instead of that mystical space captured in stereo.
Last but not least, The White Album. Chock full of different takes, this album is worthy of repeated, successive listening's. Everyone has uniquely different listening environments and shaped ears, but in my audio den, this album takes on an almost stereo-like delivery simply because the clarity is amazing. The various sounds that make up any given track take on a life of their own, rebel and are like - "screw this, I'm not staying in the middle... " and then push out at varying angles albeit not very far. No I wasn't high at the time. There's a strange sound stage to this particular album that defies explanation - in mono. 'Revolution 9', 'Everybody's Got Something to Hide' and 'Yer Blues' have new life. 'Rev' 9' in particular doesn't have all the distracting left/right/left motion effect, now there's just gain & decay pulsations of various sound loops. Not really a song but rather some Yoko Ono influenced avant-garde sound experiment, I actually enjoy it now because of this mono presentation. All the acoustical tracks have a strange three dimensional space thing going on, with 'in the room with you" sounding presence on some to a greater degree than others, but nonetheless there on all of them. I defer back to a comment I made elsewhere and ask - "Is there really mono? When you have two ears?"
So there you have it. Held some stuff back not to spoil all the fun. The Beatles in Mono is worth a listen, and if you don't own much of their stuff and are a vinyl head, there's a case to be made that you could simply buy the mono box set and then add 'Abbey Road' and 'Let in Be' in stereo to complete the basic "album oriented" catalog. There's actually just enough room in the box to do this, if you take out the gap-filling foam pad.
What's better, Mono CD or Mono Vinyl ?
I'll save that rant for another day ...
Cheers
Last edited:
