[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay /img/forum/go_quote.gif Speaking of mono a stereo mixes. EMI could have easily put both a stereo and mono mix on each disc because all of these albums are very short. Perhaps they will do just that down the road and charge a little extra. This is all really about money.

I just checked and you are right, most are @35 minutes.......GREAT IDEA no I take that back BRILLIANT IDEA

That would make these remasters priceless to have stereo album followed by mono album on 1 CD.........I think many people including myself would end up likeing mono better with those extreme stereo distortions removed

 

[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just checked and you are right, most are @35 minutes.......GREAT IDEA no I take that back BRILLIANT IDEA That would make these remasters priceless to have stereo album followed by mono album on 1 CD.........I think many people including myself would end up likeing mono better with those extreme stereo distortions removed

But then they knew hardcore fans like JS would buy both complete sets........
so wait a few months then release the combined stereo/mono set

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif follow the money. its all about that and nothing else. not love for fans or any of that fake altruism. if they cared about fans, they would not compress down ANY of the music. instead, they create a fake duality and hope that people will double-buy. stuff like this makes me continue to HATE big music.

Yeah ... utility companies as well ... those guys really get my goat! if they really cared about the fans they'd give away the electricity free.

Personally, I don't think that The Beatles owe me anything at all and I'm more than happy to be regarded as a customer rather than a fan. E.M.I. have made about as much as they could out of the remaster, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Like I said ... buy it/don't buy it. Your money, your choice. Not buying it and then whining about some ideal product that they ought to have released at a price point set by you seems sort of futile.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phreaknupallnite /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe you should have been very specific on what YOU wanted to discuss, I think we came to this thread to discuss the remasters. "I wanted to discuss the remasters." so did we.....

I thought he was crystal clear what he started this thread for -- it was explained in his OP.

And, if there was any confusion, he restated/clarified a couple of times. So I think this criticism is unwarranted.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif you don't want a discussion; you want yes-men who will simply agree with you. if you want that, STATE that. sheesh.

Seriously? I saw no effort on his part to bully people into agreeing with his listening impressions.

 

[linuxworks]

yes, he was bullying people. he sent me a PM (which I didn't even read, btw).

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sordel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like I said ... buy it/don't buy it. Your money, your choice. Not buying it and then whining about some ideal product that they ought to have released at a price point set by you seems sort of futile.

the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I would bet that the music industry does SOME monitoring of forums like this.

what better way to show our feelings than here? not buying is NOT the same. my not buying is not countable (lol). but registering dissatisfaction IS making a vote visible.

it matters and its useful. staying quiet is less useful; it gives no feedback whatsoever. is silence approval? is silence disapproval? silence is JUST silence; if you want to have a say, have your say. its what a free world is about.

look, if this thread is JUST for those happy with the release, it should have been posed as such. I think the OP meant it to be 'happy family, only' comments. such things are not useful as they all just echo each other's common views.

the interesting parts of life are where we don't all agree. life would be SO boring if we all liked the same things.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif they compressed (further) the stereo tracks and forced us to choose non-mono sound or non-compressed sound. and they played marketing games to make us buy the whole set TWICE (not force but clearly they are trying to get people to buy both). that sickens me and does detract from the whole experience of it all. perhaps its an acoustic illusion but the mono tracks I've heard sound like the highs are cancelling or muffled more than stereo. I wonder if its speaker placement or just how they mastered it. but I just cannot listen to the mono and get excited about its sound. single channel source from 2 speakers is WORSE than single channel source from 1 speaker. in every way the mono set makes me feel like I'm going backwards in technology. the fact that the beatles 'wanted' things in mono makes absolutely no difference to me. they weren't gods and they weren't perfect and choosing mono is a huge mistake. I don't attribute 'art' to being in mono anymore than photos are more 'artsy' if they're in black and white. note that I never shoot b/w either; its color all the way for me

I look at it this way. They offered customers choices. That is, we have the choice to buy mono, stereo, or both. Customers' wants are not monolithic. Some will never care about mono, for example. Yes, they could have bundled the mono with the stereo, but there were costs in producing the mono and stereo remasters and they certainly have a right to ask for some amount of profit on that. They could obviously have bundled them together in single packages. And they might very well have charged some amount more for that combined package. But that is taking away consumer choice. Some won't want mono or stereo versions of some of the disks. A bundled approach forces consumers to take both. Sure it would be the best thing if they bundled them and offered that at the, say, stereo disk original price. But that is like grousing that you didn't get something for free.

And the fact that The Beatles "wanted" their records in mono makes a big difference to some people. Of course they are not gods. However, they are artists and the output the artists intended can be argued to be the mono releases. There is no pure position here, obviously. The remasters are arguably not what the artists wanted either. Neither are CD releases if we want to get pedantic. Nevertheless, there is consumer demand for them and that has to be recognized.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, he was bullying people.

Not into agreeing with his listening impressions, which is what I said. You said he didn't want a discussion and just wanted Yes men to agree with him. That is not true.

He wanted a thread dedicated to discussing listening impressions of the remasters. Not a thread about their marketing, prices, availability, or other meta-topics. Any bullying he could be accused of doing was toward getting people to respect his original intent of the thread.

 

[pcf]

The Capitol remaster box sets had stereo/mono on the same disc so it has been done before.
I personally don't mind the separate mono box set mainly because the package is done so well- much much better than the US Capitol remaster boxes. What I don't like though, is the fact that the mono box sets are limited and not available as individual cds. That is the least they could do if they think the mono mixes are so important.
I have only started to listen to a few of these through headphones- Abbey Road stereo; Let it be stereo; White album.. they sound very clear with more bass on a lot of the track than I can remember from other versions. I would like to spend some time this weekend and listen to them with my speaker set up and make a better judgement. So far I am impressed with the clarity and details but some tracks do sound a bit clinical and lack the warmth that I used to get from vinyl (I know, I shouldn't compare them like that..)
I heard the release of the vinyl versions are likely to be pushed back to next year. Does anyone have information about that?

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif look, if this thread is JUST for those happy with the release, it should have been posed as such. I think the OP meant it to be 'happy family, only' comments. such things are not useful as they all just echo each other's common views. the interesting parts of life are where we don't all agree. life would be SO boring if we all liked the same things.

I don't think OP intended this thread to be reserved for people who love the remasters. He did probably intend it, however, to be for people who had actually listened to them and had some comment to make about what they had heard.

 

[DarkAngel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif I look at it this way. They offered customers choices. That is, we have the choice to buy mono, stereo, or both. Customers' wants are not monolithic. Some will never care about mono, for example. Yes, they could have bundled the mono with the stereo, but there were costs in producing the mono and stereo remasters and they certainly have a right to ask for some amount of profit on that. They could obviously have bundled them together in single packages. And they might very well have charged some amount more for that combined package. But that is taking away consumer choice. Some won't want mono or stereo versions of some of the disks. A bundled approach forces consumers to take both. Sure it would be the best thing if they bundled them and offered that at the, say, stereo disk original price. But that is like grousing that you didn't get something for free.

That is all true, but when you buy directors cut/extended version of a DVD movie they almost always include original theatrical release at no additional cost since there is extra empty space on disc.........

Since they were asking full price for these Beatles Remasters and there was enough room on 1CD (no extra packaging costs) they could/should have given the fans both stereo/mono versions

 

[chadbang]

sorry if we derailed the original thread. I just like Markl's musings and wanted to respond - and i did tie it into the beatles at the end!


Anyway, want to talk sound quality?


"Please Please Me" - the best remaster in my book, both in stereo and mono. Very smooth, clean and rich bottom end. Fantastic, if they all sounding this way, I would have bought a boxed set.

"Beatles for Sale" Also excellent, but not quite as good as "Please Please me" Close though.

"Hard Days Night" "Help" I'm sorta disappointed with these. I find them bright sounding and not as full and round. A shame since I love these albums. Funny that the earliest albums sound best to me. Isn't it true they recording the first record in a flurry of a session. Like in one night. That might explain it. "Purest" recordings are the best. Set up a couple mics and do it!

"Revolver" "Rubber Soul" These are both very good sounding.

"Magical Mystery Tour" I've only heard the mono and it's so-so. Again, I think it's a bit thin sounding, which is the opposite of what I'd heard about the mono masters. They were supposed to have rich bass. Overall, I prefer the stereo mixes, except for "Please Please Me" and "Beatles for Sale." I think the stereo helps makes up for the "deficient" sounding discs, that I've mentioned. I also find the vocal slight recessed on many of the mono recordings.

"Sgt. Peppers" Well, it's pretty good in mono, but I wasn't blown away after all the hype.

"Abbey Road" - Haven't gotten there yet.

The White Album - Hated it in mono. Sounded lifeless to me. Some people like it, but they must be listening for a certain "sound" they're accoustomed to. Having grown up with the stereo version, the mono remaster sounds very dull.

That's all I've listened to so far!

 

[Pangaea]

Can anybody who has heard the Stereo Remasters of Let it Be or Past Masters comment on the quality? I picked both up (still on order, thanks Amazon

) on top of the Mono Set as they were not included with said box set. I am interested in how these came out, as the Stereos seem to have the most mixed opinions.

 

[reorx]

Quick question for clarification:

Lets take Help as an example.

a) We have the 1987 stereo mix
b) We have the 2009 stereo remaster
c) We have the 2009 mono remaster
d) We have the 2009 stereo version FOUND in the mono remaster disk

So, is b equal to d?
or is a equal to d?
or are none of the three stereo versions equal?

and to those who have listened to all three stereo mixes, which is the best? (im assuming "a" is out of contention so its a fight between "b" and "d")

Thanks.