|
Post by Bongo on Jan 24, 2015 23:47:19 GMT
Curious of what people really listen to when playing the Beatles. Mono or Stereo?
Obviously with the release of the new mono analog LP's, people are blushing over how great these new LPs sound, but for many other members who don't own them, what is your preference. Yes, The Beatles did prefer to record in Mono as that's all they knew back then, as Stereo was still very new. Obviously later in life they did not revert back to mono during their solo careers, since they finally realized that the future was now, and mono was in the past. 2009 CD released both compilations in mono & stereo. I'm wondering which sets sold more, stereo or mono? Myself, without a doubt, I prefer playing The Beatles in Stereo, and just the odd time throwing on a mono just to hear the slight differences, and yes I do own the complete original UK LPS in mono up to the white LP simply because that's how they were released back then. You? ?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Kite on Jan 25, 2015 8:44:34 GMT
Stereo all the way.
|
|
|
Post by mrmustard on Jan 25, 2015 23:08:22 GMT
I honestly have to say both. I like listening to the differences. With the stereo remixes of the earlier Mono albums, The Beatles certainly weren't in attendance and neither was George Martin. It was all an after thought.
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Jan 25, 2015 23:32:53 GMT
I listen to both too. Especially for the early stuff, the mono has quite a bit more boom. For example, The mono of 'Slow Down' is vastly superior to the stereo. The same for 'paperback Writer'. And I like hearing the little differences in mixes especially for Sgt Pepper and the White Album. Just interesting to me. I also dig out the original '65 mixes for HELP! and RUBBER SOUL once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeaniepaul74 on Jan 26, 2015 19:36:12 GMT
What Amadeus said.... Where the poll is concerned though I'm going to go with Mono because that's what I'm listening to most frequently at the moment.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Jan 31, 2015 4:49:44 GMT
I like stereo, but mainly because it's stereo. The soundstage opens up and you can hear more.
The advantage of mono, for the producer, is that you can balance, or mix, the music without worrying about stereo balance. To meet RIAA standards, the two stereo channels had to be more or less balanced, overall. This necessitated either lowering or raising the volume level of an instrument or group of instruments or voice or group of voices.
On the mono version of "Any Time at All," the piano comes out of nowhere, where in the stereo the piano is audible throughout the entire instrumental break. In the mono "Got to Get You into My Life," the guitar gradually eases into the instrumental break where in the stereo it comes in at full volume.
Back in the '60s, for a number of years the MSRP for mono LPs was $3.79 and $4.79 for stereo. In 1967 mono went up to the same price as stereo and then disappeared shortly thereafter. We often bought the mono, even though we had a stereo player, because it was cheaper. On some occasions, the mono was available before the stereo version. So we bought the mono then also. That's how I knew what the mono versions sounded like.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Jan 31, 2015 15:17:50 GMT
I listen to both too. Especially for the early stuff, the mono has quite a bit more boom. For example, The mono of 'Slow Down' is vastly superior to the stereo. The same for 'paperback Writer'. And I like hearing the little differences in mixes especially for Sgt Pepper and the White Album. Just interesting to me. I also dig out the original '65 mixes for HELP! and RUBBER SOUL once in a while. My fav mono is without a doubt the Canadian LP "Beatlemania! With The Beatles!". It is so bass heavy and very clear sounding compared to my Stereo version which is also very clear sounding and nice in it's own right, but the mono version just has something about it that is very powerful. But when it comes to overall listening of The Beatles, I love the separation of the music better. Just imagine if they recorded in surround sound like Pink Floyd did. "A Day In The Life" for example would be even more mind blowing!!!!
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Jan 31, 2015 16:36:05 GMT
Bongo: "'A Day In The Life' for example would be even more mind blowing!!!!"
Yeah, I wish my home theater receiver had a "Dolby Pro Logic" setting on it. "A Day in the Life" would have sounded great. Dolby Pro Logic takes two-channel stereo and extracts a third channel for the rear.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Feb 1, 2015 23:09:50 GMT
Bongo: "'A Day In The Life' for example would be even more mind blowing!!!!" Yeah, I wish my home theater receiver had a "Dolby Pro Logic" setting on it. "A Day in the Life" would have sounded great. Dolby Pro Logic takes two-channel stereo and extracts a third channel for the rear. I have pro logic, but it's not the same as the way Pink Floyd was recorded (in quad), where you would hear the sound individually at each corner speaker. That rear 3rd channel you are talking about doesn't quite do that unfortunately. Almost though. It does however sound better than just 2 speakers. Definitely a far cry from the "mono sound" so many Beatles fans seem to appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Feb 5, 2015 17:51:37 GMT
Jusat for $hits & Giggles, I was playing "A Day In The Life" on my surround sound, and removed the front speakers, so that all I heard was the rear surrounds. It was a little funny sounding, sounding echo-y
I remember I used to do that a lot years ago, but got bored of doing it...
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Feb 5, 2015 20:26:38 GMT
So, Bongo, did you ever take hook up a third speaker to a 2-channel stereo system's B speaker outputs, hooking the positive lead to one channel's positive output and the negative or ground lead to the other channel's positive output? It yields a channel that is not heard normally because of phase cancellation.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Feb 6, 2015 22:57:17 GMT
No I haven't henry. I'm sure it would give great results something like I described above. It is interesting but still does not give you the Quad sound of the 70's. Too bad Apple don't take some tracks a give them the 7.2 or 5.1 channel surround remix or did they do this with The Beatles Love LP? That would be doable and sweet sounding.
|
|
henryj
For A Number Of Things
Posts: 792
|
Post by henryj on Feb 6, 2015 23:37:35 GMT
Bongo, my version of the Love CD has two disks, one a CD and the other an audio-only DVD with surround sound. I haven't listened to the DVD on my home theater system recently.
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Feb 14, 2015 21:44:11 GMT
Love these 2 Videos of Beatles songs in Mono vs Stereo. And I'm still amazed that " I've Got Blisters On My Fingers" was never on the white mono LP!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Mar 5, 2015 14:46:58 GMT
Hello?
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Mar 11, 2015 1:50:13 GMT
Bump!
|
|
|
Post by Amadeus on Mar 11, 2015 10:28:56 GMT
Ouch! Watch it!
Yes. The 'blisters' thing. I think the transition from mono to stereo as being the norm was under way by then and it sounds to me like, whoever assembled the master tapes 'forgot'? the ending of that song?
|
|
|
Post by Bongo on Mar 11, 2015 12:01:33 GMT
Ouch! Watch it! Yes. The 'blisters' thing. I think the transition from mono to stereo as being the norm was under way by then and it sounds to me like, whoever assembled the master tapes 'forgot'? the ending of that song? Ya, but it's missing "The blister" on the mono, which would have been the Beatles doing it, not the crew who usually did the stereo afterwards. So that is weird, but I'm glad someone found it.
|
|