Remastered Beatles - stereo, mono or both? - Page 2

DreadPirateRoberts · 09-10-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Mono is more "authentic", it's how the albums were originally released.

Do you know if the "masters" were stereo or mono? was "stereoization" done after the fact?

mousepod · 09-10-2009, 11:46 AM

The early releases were legitimately mixed in stereo, not the horrible "electronic stereo" fakes.

Gemini Cricket · 09-10-2009, 12:06 PM

Well, if you get mono it's probably because you kissed someone infected.

innerSpaceman · 09-10-2009, 12:44 PM

Please someone stop me before i buy this.

Or rather, please someone give this a good comparative listen and tell me seriously if there's any reason to bother.

On the other hand, I'm the kind of rapid Beatles fan that knows all about the mono mixes and have enjoyed hearing some now and again, but I've no desire to buy the set of (imo) inferior and no less or more authentic recordings, even if it weren't more expensive.

Gemini Cricket · 09-10-2009, 12:51 PM

iSm, I say buy them both.

innerSpaceman · 09-10-2009, 01:06 PM

hmmm, maybe i'll do just that.

But I guess I'm actually the type of "rapid" Beatles fan who just types really quickly without spellchecking, and not the rabid type that might fall for this insane bit of marketing ploy. Um, the originals were not recorded well enough to even sound good on CD, much less "remastered." Um, why? 1960s, my friends. You cannot make this stuff sound good, otherwise it would not sound authentic.

Moonliner · 09-10-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, why? 1960s, my friends. You cannot make this stuff sound good, otherwise it would not sound authentic.

My thought exactly. Well said.

I'm perfectly happy with the versions I already have.

Alex · 09-10-2009, 01:27 PM

Well, I similarly demand that when old Technicolor movies are transferred to DVD\Blu-Ray that they maintain the imperfect alignment between the color strips. All the extra clarity is wrong.

Moonliner · 09-10-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Well, I similarly demand that when old Technicolor movies are transferred to DVD\Blu-Ray that they maintain the imperfect alignment between the color strips. All the extra clarity is wrong.

I may have to call my old Pysch professor, I think there is a paper in this....

For movies: Better clarity/sound is better. No matter how old the movie (with the notable exception of colorization)

For music: I tend perfer it in whatever quality I first heard it. They way people tend to like their first James Bond or Dr. Who. Clean it up too much and it just sounds wrong.

Or is that just me?

lindyhop · 09-10-2009, 08:33 PM

I'm tempted by the mono versions because most of what I originally owned was mono. A mono lp was $2.99 and stereo was $3.99 and that made a big difference to me. But the mono boxed set is a limited edition, isn't it? So it could be gone before you make up your mind.

I wonder if with the stereo versions, is the sound still split between the two speakers? They would have something like vocals in one speaker and instruments in the other. We listened to these records like we were deciphering ancient texts.

I have vinyl boxed sets from god knows when up on a shelf in my closet. They've probably melted by now.

09-10-2009, 11:46 AM	#2
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	The early releases were legitimately mixed in stereo, not the horrible "electronic stereo" fakes. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 12:06 PM	#3
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Well, if you get mono it's probably because you kissed someone infected.
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 12:44 PM	#4
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Please someone stop me before i buy this. Or rather, please someone give this a good comparative listen and tell me seriously if there's any reason to bother. On the other hand, I'm the kind of rapid Beatles fan that knows all about the mono mixes and have enjoyed hearing some now and again, but I've no desire to buy the set of (imo) inferior and no less or more authentic recordings, even if it weren't more expensive. Last edited by innerSpaceman : 09-10-2009 at 12:50 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 12:51 PM	#5
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	iSm, I say buy them both.
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 01:06 PM	#6
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	hmmm, maybe i'll do just that. But I guess I'm actually the type of "rapid" Beatles fan who just types really quickly without spellchecking, and not the rabid type that might fall for this insane bit of marketing ploy. Um, the originals were not recorded well enough to even sound good on CD, much less "remastered." Um, why? 1960s, my friends. You cannot make this stuff sound good, otherwise it would not sound authentic.
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 01:27 PM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, I similarly demand that when old Technicolor movies are transferred to DVD\Blu-Ray that they maintain the imperfect alignment between the color strips. All the extra clarity is wrong.
	Submit to Quotes

09-10-2009, 08:33 PM	#10
lindyhop Swing Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Long Beach Posts: 997	I'm tempted by the mono versions because most of what I originally owned was mono. A mono lp was $2.99 and stereo was $3.99 and that made a big difference to me. But the mono boxed set is a limited edition, isn't it? So it could be gone before you make up your mind. I wonder if with the stereo versions, is the sound still split between the two speakers? They would have something like vocals in one speaker and instruments in the other. We listened to these records like we were deciphering ancient texts. I have vinyl boxed sets from god knows when up on a shelf in my closet. They've probably melted by now. __________________ Hyperbole is the best thing ever!
	Submit to Quotes