Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherwood 
Moreover, as noted, the mono versions have no limiting. Aside from three albums recorded in stereo (one of which sucks IMO), you're getting the real deal, "cleaned up" as you asked for. Any reason why you'll pass on the monos? After all, the Beatles recorded in mono, and engineers created stereo.
|
you may have a point. I had forgotton about the strangeness of the l/r mixes they had on some earlier albums. I don't listen to their older stuff as much. but yeah, the mono's could *only* be better just for what you state
I really would like cleaned up stuff, but dyn range limits are a no-no with me and I can't see funding that. that's what a purchase is, its an 'ok, I agree and here's my money' vote. I can't do that knowing they mucked around with the dyn range 'for modern trend reasons'. I can't be part of that.
but if the monos are *only* improved, that could be worth something
don't know why they have to split things into false dichotomies, though. it should *not* have to be an either/or thing. if they admit they didn't touch the loudness of the monos, why the heck mess with it on stereo? boggle!
I've played around with 'fixing' music that has flaws (like live DAT tapes before making a clean cd of them) and I would NEVER EVER reduce or compress if its already in a compressed form. and given the fact that no dyn range compression is needed in order to 'contain' a 1960's era master tape on redbook cd, any compression they apply is not only unnecessary, but absurd to even imagine. one step forward and one back is not worth anything to me; its a net zero.
