[hardtimes]

Recently I've been listening to a lot of 24/96 rips of MFSL remasters...and I find most of the Beatles catalog and a lot of older jazz to be practically unlistenable b/c of the severe channel separation. After doing as much research as I could on this topic, the consensus seemed to be that that is the result of early stereo recordings, when the assumption was that the two speakers would be placed fairly close to each other. I'm not sure this makes sense to me -- it seems just as likely that engineers would still be getting used to the subtleties and/or it sounded cool to have things coming from different sides of the room -- but regardless, has anyone else had this experience? I love have a sense of the soundstage, but when I'm just getting the rhythm section in my right ear and everything else in the left, it's distracting/jarring...

 

[Anaxilus]

Yes, this is accurate to how the original master were made.  Stereo was a new thing back then and the jury was still out on how to handle the new technology.  The debate between the Beatles on mono and stereo still rages today.  Thats why you can pick your poison.  The consensus is most of their stuff sounds best in original mono while few albums or perhaps a handful of songs sound better in stereo.  Very subjective.  Then you get into mono masters converted to stereo.  Then stereo masters converted to mono then converted back to stereo.  Its a deep, dark and seedy business w/ all this complexity and subjectivity surrounding the Beatle's Masters.  I had to Youtube every master I could to see which songs/albums I preferred on stereo versus mono and purchased accordingly.  Sadly you can't buy the Mono albums separately.  Its a big big debate to preserve the originality of the recordings versus proper modern remastering.  I recommend you check out the Beatles Love album.  It has a slight bit of mashup since it's a threatical Cirque de Soleil production but its as good as it gets.  It was done by Sir George Martin who did 95% of the original Beatles stuff but was largely excluded from the decision process on the new Remasters FWIR.  The mastering on the Love album is ideal Beatles sound in the modern sense w/ respect to stereo mixing and soundstage.
 
Good luck.  

 

[9pintube]

hardtimes, I remember when this "Stereo" effect on the Beatles recordings really became  even more noticeably confusing to me as a young listener.It started with the original USA recording of Sgt Peppers......I walk to the store to buy my new prized release and upon returning home, My mom and I couldn't hear any of the singing, or barely. What the hell I thought! I was playing' it on my dads console HI-FI, not yet a true stereo piece of gear....To our surprise when our family got an extension "Stereo" speaker the music jelled a Little better....But as Anaxilus said above record company's were confused on which way to record, Mono or Stereo because they wanted the best return on their dollars.......Kind of like the sacd vs dvdaudio/ blueray wars we are going through now.........But what was really funky and somewhat cool in the late 60s and throughout the 70's was the way they would "Pan" the sound from left to right back and forth. Listen to any70's Rock album, especially with headphones and you'll see what I'm talking about! ......  You would never hear a live band or group sound like that "Live" unless it was for effects....Unplugged, not a chance....Some of the older guys will know what I'm talking about....As far as your question and disappointment, Just think, That's what I thought 40+ yrs ago, I feel your pain...........Try to find the Mono mixes! I know that's a bitch.....But that's the record companys for you, RIGHT!

 

[ford2]

 
It is not just the Beatles but nearly all early recordings that have been remastered/converted to stereo.The only way I can listen to them is to play them in mono.
 
A lot of the CD transplants are a joke and not worth buying.
 
I have very early Baez recordings on CD that sound nothing like the original vinyl,same for a few other artists.
 
Stay well away from Remastered CD's.

 

[hardtimes]

I actually bought the box set of the mono recordings -- it was a tough call at over $200, but well, well worth it. I always thought the previous CD transfers sounded pretty lifeless, and these sound great. And at $200 it was a helluva lot cheaper than getting a high-end turntable and tracking down original vinyl...
 
I was disappointed because, while the quality of the MFSL remasters is pretty variable, some of them are excellent. I know there was an effort made for the 090909 Beatles re-issues to be as faithful as possible -- and remember hearing about how interesting it was to turn the balance all the way to one side or the other and just hear guitars or vocals -- but i hadn't realized how stark it sounded. On Back in the USSR it's as if your jack isn't quite connected all of the way and them BAM -- sound comes in the other ear. Weird.
 
Overall, though, I'm not hugely surprised about rock re-masters, where it seems that much of the time the record cos assumed listeners were pretty clueless. I'm more surprised about some of the jazz recordings. Coltrane freaks have always been, well, freaks, and I'd have thought something like that would have been the subject of more care. Of course, maybe there's such a premium placed on fidelity to the way the original recording was done that this is what people prefer.

 

[TheWuss]

Sounds like you need to explore crossfeed.
It turns hard-panned stereo into quite a pleasant listening experience.

 

[edstrelow]

What's this doing in the high-end forum?

 

[hardtimes]

 
Quote:

What's this doing in the high-end forum?

 
I wasn't sure where to put it. Is there someplace that would be appropriate? Since it was in reference to 24/96 digital files this seemed like a good choice. Sorry if I got that wrong.
 
 
Quote:

Sounds like you need to explore crossfeed.

 
I should check and see if that's on any of the HP amps you've been advising me about. I know the ibasso d4 doesn't have it. is there a semi-portable one that does?

 

[kwkarth]

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate spot, the music forum.

 

[hardtimes]

kwkarth:

I've moved this thread to a more appropriate spot, the music forum.

 
thanks. i'll know for next-time. i'm not always great at navigating categories...
 
one note on this: I started using Canz3D, which is a $10 crossfeed program (out of development, but still functioning) on my Mac, along with Play instead of iTunes and I have to say, the difference is monumental. I don't know enough about appropriate settings to play around with they're presets -- they have 7 or 8 options -- and on some better mixed recordings it seems that using Canz3D means you lose out on a little bit of upper-end clarity, but for the first time listening to some of those early stereo recordings on headphones is actually enjoyable...

 

[Bostonears]

For some of my music files of old recordings with extreme channel separation, I use Audacity software to create a mono fold-down version (collapsing both channels into one). I did this with the first two Beatles albums from the 9/9/09 stereo releases that have the annoying vocals-on-one-side-instruments-on-the-other-side mix. Months later I had a chance to compare my mono fold-downs to the true mono Beatles releases of the same two albums, and I was hard pressed to tell any difference. Might be a different story for the later Beatles albums, though.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

For some of my music files of old recordings with extreme channel separation, I use Audacity software to create a mono fold-down version (collapsing both channels into one). I did this with the first two Beatles albums from the 9/9/09 stereo releases that have the annoying vocals-on-one-side-instruments-on-the-other-side mix. Months later I had a chance to compare my mono fold-downs to the true mono Beatles releases of the same two albums, and I was hard pressed to tell any difference. Might be a different story for the later Beatles albums, though.

Interesting.  Nice to know buying the Monos might not be necessary.