My Beatles in Mono box just arrived. Sounds great!

I am still on the fence about whether or not to also buy the stereo box set, or just buy the albums that were actually intended to be in stereo separately. I am a sucker for the Beatles, so will probably get the other box too...

Any thoughts?

I would go for the albums instead, but completism is a mofo...
The gf & I spent our money on the Beatles RockBand PS3 setup (Hofner bass, "Ringo" drums, mic)
It's a fab four frenzy!

Might as well get the box---mono & stereo will make nice bookends.

I'm thinking of getting the stereo set---I'm not sure I understand the point of mono recordings in a stereo world...plus, my favorites are the latter-day tunes anyway and should be heard in stereo.

Yeah.
The Beatles were the c*nts who invented Pop music.
Go listen to the Stones.

I think you owe them at least little gratitude Alice...I mean with all that J-Pop you love so much.

That's so faux-punkish of you, Alice.

I really like the Stones too, at least the first half of their career, but for very different reasons than I like the Beatles.

In any case, one of the Stones' first hits was written by Lennon-McCarney (I Wanna Be Your Man).

All of the albums through and including the White Album were mixed with the mono versions given top priority by the Beatles. The mono and stereo mixes are different, and in some cases radically different, with varying vocal tracks, different song lengths, and different choice of performances. Even on the later Sgt. Pepper and the White Album, there are some real differences between the mono and stereo versions, maybe more so than on any of the other albums, with the mono versions being the ones personally overseen by the group.

May come down in part to how you remember hearing the songs... I think it is also fun to explore the differences.

now that makes me really want to get both!. for now ill settle with my beatles rockband (which im super nerdy excited about). mr t, im jealous you got the set!

Exploring the differences on these sets could take up a bit of your time! I have to wonder if they thought/think that the stereo separation was/is a detractor from the performance...

AM radio was still King in those days, so a lot of studio mixing was done specifically with how the music would sound on the (mono, compressed range) radio in mind. On the other hand, "hi fi" stereo had been around for awhile, and in the late 60s was finally becoming as important to rock fans as it had been to classical and jazz fans since the late 50s. The FM revolution of the early 70s forever re-oriented people to expect stereo music at home.

My ears are stereo-spoiled. I never listen to my mono recordings of Beatles, Kinks, or Beach Boys music, always the stereo mixes. The mono mixes are interesting as historical artifacts but I can't say that I've ever enjoyed them more than the stereo.

The new box set releases are new remasters, so they're not just improved in terms of "quality," but allegedly don't sound quite the same as any prior releases. Good way to get people to buy something they've probably already bought more than once and help keep the legacy alive. I've only read one review thus far (Joel Selvin's) but he was very enthusiastic about the new mixes.

Sometimes remixing for contemporary tech and aesthetics doesn't work so well. The Ryko releases of early Elvis Costello recordings comes to mind. They cranked up the bass at the expense of other aspects, really ruining the sound-ambience of the songs. Subsequent releases sound more like the original LPs, a good thing. Although I like them, the Columbia two-album-per-disc re-releases of Beach Boys albums are controversial for having brought the vocals to the forefront, rather than being more evenly mixed with the instrumentation. In my opinion, that works really well, probably due to the fact that the spectacular harmonies were always a main feature of their music. So anyway, I'm very curious to hear these new Fab Four mixes, but will probably wait for the individual album releases rather than buying the box sets.

When are they gonna do a Velvet Underground Rock Band(although i'm not sure how they would do Mr Cales Viola with electric bass strings ). As they were far more influential to me and the types of music i like.
Plus, i have most Beatles and Stones albums, either on original, or re-issued vinyl. You can pick up everything on already released cd's, for much cheaper than what they're selling the new box set. Although you don't get the little boxset booklet with them.

The Beatles in mono remasters are available only through the box set.

Plus, it looks to me that if you were going to buy all of the new remastered stereo versions, you would actually save a few buck by buying the stereo box set too (based on Amazon's pricing).

I never new that the mono mixes were different, but it makes sense since some of the earlier stereo tracks were kind of gimmicky. As for diff boxsets, though, seems like a lotta cash for subtle differences.
So when they are re-releasing the quadraphonic versions?

Yeah, my son is laughing at me this very moment for buying the mono box, and I just decided to order the stereo box. He is questioning whether or not it is worth the money - although he is definitely also a Beatles fan (I brought him up right).

I guess I am just a sucker for this kind of thing with music that I really love. Other examples where I have gone overboard and buy every new reissue that comes out include David Bowie and Miles Davis - I have multiple multiples of most of the discs by those two artists. If a new version is released, I just buy it. Bam.

Alice, you are giving the beatles too much credit.

And I thought you just did this with Anraku

I have heard rumors about board members hoarding David Bowie CDs in their closets and attics. Thanks a lot for mangling the market and keeping some of us from being able to get what we want, guys. I'll bet this explains the shortage of Yoko CDs on the aftermarket, too. Way to go. RFSO yeah right.

i've heard the stereo mixes are the same ones they used in 87 and the volume is higher

if you got the mono box, probably not worth it

I don't believe that is correct.

Anyway, here is a rather long review (Pitchfork) (here's a link to the article which also includes reviews of each of the individual albums - http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/134 ... x-in-mono/) :

In 1987, the Beatles' albums appeared on compact disc for the first time. Considering how much music had already found its way to CD, the Beatles were very late, so the digital rollout was a big deal. The new issues came out in batches and the excitement steadily built, peaking when Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band came out on June 1, 1987, the 20th anniversary of its original release ("It was 20 years ago today..." was perhaps the greatest record marketing hook of all time.) In the 22 years since, plenty of bands have had their catalogues reissued a few times over (some with ridiculous frequency-- looking at you, Bowie and Costello), either to take advantage of improvements in technology or to repackage the records to sell them again to existing fans. But those 1987 CD versions have been it as far as the original Beatles albums. They've done some special projects-- Let It Be...Naked, two volumes of The Capitol Albums, collecting American versions of their records, the remix album Love-- but if, two months ago, you wanted to buy a copy of A Hard Day's Night, you'd be getting the 1987 remaster, done with 1987 technology, complete with a flimsy, bare-bones CD insert in a jewel case.

This week, Capitol/EMI rectifies the situation. The entire Beatles catalogue has been remastered and the CDs are coming out in new editions. It is perhaps ironic that this is happening as interest in the compact disc format is on the wane, but once again Beatles fans are excited. Are they worth buying again? Over the next three days, we're going to be reviewing all of the Beatles reissues, including the Beatles Rock Band game also coming out this week. But in addition to discussing the music and the records, we wanted to take a moment here to lay out some general thoughts on the sets, with further details relegated to the proper reviews.

First, the configurations. All 12 original albums, from Please Please Me to Let It Be, have been remastered and are being issued in stereo (these are the same tracklistings as have been on CD since the 80s, including the American version of Magical Mystery Tour). In addition, the two Past Masters CDs, which collect singles and tracks that didn't appear on the original albums, have been combined into one 2xCD set. The first four albums are appearing in stereo on CD for the first time. The packaging for all stereo CDs includes the original artwork and liner notes, along with new recording notes and a historical essay. Rather than jewel boxes, the stereo CDs are packaged in sharp-looking and durable foldout cardboard packaging. Each CD contains a short documentary in QuickTime format on the making of the album (these are said to be limited to this initial reissue).

The packaging in general is very well done; the albums feel like they were put together with care and great attention to detail. You hold one in your hand, and it feels important. I've never been a fan of the plastic jewel box, and it's wonderful that they've done away with them here. CDs slide into a little pocket, so there are no spindles to break. The liner notes are succinct and informative, they favor the factual over the hyperbolic, and they cover what should be covered. The documentaries are well done but about what you would expect: four minutes long or so, narrated with interviews with the Beatles and George Martin culled from the Anthology project, with archival photos and film footage. They're certainly nothing revelatory, but a nice intro to the world of the album for anyone unfamiliar with the details. All in all, they did the packages right.

In addition to the individual CDs, the reissues are available in two box set configurations. The Stereo Box collects the stereo versions of all the albums and adds a DVD gathering all the short documentaries in one place. In Mono-- limited, but it's not exactly clear yet how limited-- is more of a specialty item. It presents mono mixes of albums (which are available only in the box set, not for sale individually) from Please Please Me up through The Beatles (aka the White Album). Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, and Let It Be were never mixed for mono, and are not included, but the set does include a 2xCD set called The Mono Masters with mono mixes of most of the singles included on Past Masters (a few of the later ones were never mixed for mono). Each record included with In Mono appears in a mini-LP replica package, accurate all the way down to the original printing on the inner sleeves (yep, you can slide the CDs in them if you want). Two discs, Help! and Rubber Soul, also contain the original stereo mixes on the same disc as the mono mixes (the 1987 CD issues were newly remixed for stereo). The original inserts included with the LPs-- the individual portraits in The Beatles, the cut-outs in Sgt. Pepper's-- are included as well. There are no CD booklets in In Mono; rather, the set contains a separate booklet of liner notes, covering the Mono Masters set in detail, and explaining the differences between the stereo and mono mixes of the proper albums. There are also no mini-documentaries.

Why mono? Two reasons. First, pop music in stereo was still a novelty through most of the 60s. Radio was dominated by single-channel AM, and the young people who bought LPs were far more likely to have a mono record player as a sound source. Given their audience and the technology of the time, for much of the Beatles' run, the band themselves considered the mono mix as the "real" version of the record and devoted more of their attention to it. Mono mixes were prepared first with the involvement of the band, and in some cases, George Martin and EMI engineers completed stereo remixes of the albums later, after the group had left the studio. So mono, first off, presumably hews closer to the intentions of the Beatles themselves. It's what the Beatles had in mind, their vision of the records.

Secondly, since the mono and stereo mixing sessions happened at different times, there are differences between the two versions, not just in the balance of the sound but also in the actual content. Different takes were sometimes used for punching in overdubs, or an alternate vocal take might make its way into the mix. Sometimes tracks were edited differently, and would be shorter or longer, and in some cases the tape ran at a slightly different speed, changing the pitch slightly. Some of the differences are subtle, and some are not. The mono version of "Helter Skelter", to take one example, is a minute shorter, as the "false" ending fadeout is presented as the track's true ending (and it thus omits the closing scream of "I got blisters on my fingers!") The significance of these differences will depend on the level of one's Beatles fandom; of course, those shelling out for the In Mono box will likely enjoy poring over the details.

Comparing stereo and mono versions also offers an opportunity to think about changes in the technology of music listening. In the 60s, far fewer people listened to music on headphones. Music was meant to be heard through the air-- over the radio, in a car, on a jukebox, in a living room. And mono mixes were not designed with headphone listening in mind. It's been pointed out that mono records heard through headphones can sound like they are coming from a single point in the middle of your head, which can feel strange. I find that as the decade wore on and stereo mixes became more sophisticated, the Beatles' albums become less interesting on headphones when they are in mono-- the swirling pans of psychedelic material like "I Am the Walrus" or "Revolution 9" moving around are missed. From roughly Revolver forward, if I'm listening on headphones, I generally prefer the stereo mixes. Over a sound system, though, the mono mixes throughout the catalogue sound absolutely wonderful. The first four albums, however, with their extreme stereo separation sound, sound much better in mono in my opinion, regardless of the playback source.

In any case, the sound of these remasters, mono or stereo, is exceptional. I've always felt that the sound quality of the original 1987 remasters was slightly underrated. The CD issues were well received at the time and were considered state of the art, but as the years wore on and the label never did anything to improve them, resentment set in and people began to focus on their flaws. Fair enough. But whatever you think of the 1987 remasters, these new versions are a marked improvement. In terms of clarity and detail, they are consistently impressive. But they're also successful for showing restraint.

In the last few years, there's been a lot of talk about the "loudness war"-- the tendency to over-compress and master albums too "hot," so that dynamic range is squashed and peak-level sounds are pushed to the point of clipping. Fortunately, that has not happened here. These CD versions are definitely louder across the board, but there's still plenty of breathing room, so that the dynamic sound-- and these records were nothing if not dynamic-- hits the way they should. Interestingly, the mono mixes are uniformly a bit quieter than the stereo mixes, tending to fall somewhere between the original stereo master and the new one.

Listening to the new masters, the differences in sound quality generally manifest in three ways: songs have more "punch," with Paul McCartney's bass (an absolute wonder throughout) and Ringo's drums hitting with more force; the separation is better, so that instruments and (especially) layered vocals have more definition-- when the Beatles are harmonizing, you can more easily pick out the different vocalists, and the voices have more presence; and finally, the sound in general seems just a touch brighter, with various sound effects, cymbals taps, and so on, ringing with more clarity. The differences to my ears are not quite night and day, but they are certainly there, and they are noticeable. And it's satisfying to have these albums, absolutely some of the best-engineered records in the history of pop music, sounding as good as they can.

Excellent review, thanks for posting it Geo. I liked the paragraph about the differences between the mono and stereo mixes.

While we're on this subject if anyone hasn't seen it yet, check out the promo video for the Rock Band release. It's sweet psychedelic eye candy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjfAXCKLcfk&feature=player_embedded

What's sad is the number of people that will rip the set onto their ipods & not be able to hear the difference.
(I love the portability of mp3's and the like, but the file compression & majority of players really dumb down the sound. But then again, most people who heard this stuff for the first time had am transistor radios.)

Biff, you audiophile.

I rip most music to Apple Lossless format. Much larger file sizes than mp3s and definitely not a preferred format if you use non-Apple devices but the sound quality is pretty much indistinguishable from CD to my ears. If one really doesn't care about file sizes you can always rip to .wav for top-quality sound, but that's a bit extreme.

But you're right. I feel badly for people who only know their music from 128kbps mp3s. I cringe when people say there's no difference between low bit rate rips and CDs. They need Q-Tips.

I have ripped everything I own to iTunes using lossless - maybe I should just sell all my cds now? But I can't part with them for some reason.

These days I listen to most music streamed from an external hard drive via an Airport Express to a pair of powered bamboo Audioengines 5 speakers located with me sitting right between them - the sound is really pretty awesome. I can tell the difference between my lossless music and lower quality without much problem.

Anybody looking for a good pair of desktop speakers should check out http://www.audioengineusa.com/a5_home.php

I am sure there are lots of good speakers out there, but I can recommend these without reservation.

Who really uses 128kbps in this day and age? In the early days of napster sure, but...

This is my home setup.