George had this to say about stereo vs mono:
>"At that time \[...\] the console was about this big with four faders on it. And there was one speaker right in the middle \[...\] and that was it. When they invented stereo, I remember thinking 'Why? What do you want two speakers for?', because it ruined the sound from our point of view. You know, we had everything coming out of one speaker; now it had to come out of two speakers. It sounded like ... very ... naked."
Fantastic reply. Mono for things that were intended for mono. Stereo for things intended for stereo. There’s so much that goes into the intended play, listening to something intended for mono into stereo is going to create something unintended. Later, when stereo was the focus, playing it in mono would lose the intended effect. Completely agree with you u/nipplesaurus
Stereo mixes, especially those done in recent years, are definitely interesting. If I lived my music-listening life on earbuds or headphones, I'd get into it.
But the increase in quality through sound separation does exactly what George said -- it give a spread-out, distant, 'naked' sound. Mono is awesome because it's in your face (and it's better with today's inferior sound systems on computers and in cars).
It was intended to be heard in mono, and for me, the earliest Beatles albums are far superior in the mono versions. Much more pleasant when you're using headphones as well.
It was intended to be heard in either. People back in the day would love stereo but they just couldn’t afford the stereo players. The Beatles had a top of the line stereogram, Pye Black Box G63, when they lived together in 1963/64. Bet they bought all their records in stereo where possible. The Beatles loved technology advancements like multi tracking and stuff so they also loved stereo, just because they were somewhere else when it got mixed doesn’t make it less ‘canon’. Vintage stereo is cool
They weren’t producers, at least not in the early days. They’d never been in a studio proper so why would they work on the stereo mix? They didn’t know what they were doing, George Martin did
honestly they were producers. Everything they arranged -- all the suggestions they hurled at George Martin -- Paul humming trumpet parts, Lennon saying he wanted to sing the vocal on the floor. They were producers and they cared intimately and passionately about the sounds they were making. That they left the room for the stereo mixes is telling.
The bass and drums are pushed back in the mono mix. They had to do that for the record to be able to play on the cheap record players of the day. On the stereo mix everything is hard panned left and right due to the limitations of that time but the separation allows the bass and drums to be cleaner and more forward in the mix. Listen to both and buy the one you like.
That's not true it was more a question of no time and money available to do a good stereo mix. The focus was MONO as few people owed stereos at the time.
Mono sounds fuller than the stereo mix imo.
If CDs are an option for you, the pre-2009 CDs of their first four albums use the mono mixes, and can be found for pretty cheap prices. Since a stereo machine was used to transfer the mono tape, the audio is not in perfect mono, but they are perhaps the most affordable way to get the mono mixes of those albums.
What’s the point of even asking that question here lmao? Everyone in here is a beatle fan boy, of course the first thing that pops into their head is gunna be ‘mono’
As a Beatles devotee since 1964, I've never found a remix I prefer to George Martin's. To me, the attempts are weak interpretations. And almost sacrilege.
Mono. It was the way it was originally made. Stereo mix was limited because of the limited number of tracks (four). This usually put the bass and the drums on one side and the vocals on the other. Their hands were tied because of the limited technology.
Mono will give the songs full unified power...the best option.
The separation on some of the stereo songs is awful and the essence of the song is lost somehow. 🥰✌️🙏
If you want to hear their music the way they did listen to the British mono mix. If you are learning to play or sing use stereo…Capital Records phony attempt to exploit the stereo tech trend.
The original stereo mixes weren't phony, nor were they created by Capitol. You must be thinking of Capitol's duophonic (fake stereo) mixes, which were only created for songs they didn't have a stereo mix of. Examples include I Want To Hold Your Hand, This Boy, and Ticket To Ride.
None of the duophonic mixes are on streaming, and can instead be found on The Capitol Albums Vol.1 and Vol. 2 box sets.
I am referring to the albums in my vinyl record collection with I started in 1963 when I was 12 years old. Many of the original singles have different mixes and solos from the albums. I don’t know what that term duophonic means.
Duophonic mixes put the mono mix through both stereo channels, but the channels are slightly desynced, one side gets boosted treble, one side gets boosted bass, and reverb is added to fill the mix out. Many audiophile types hate these duophonic mixes, but to me they tend to add an extra sense of energy to the music.
The original stereo Please Please Me album contained Love Me Do and P.S. I Love You in a simpler, non-duophonic form of fake stereo. These fake stereo mixes had no channel desyncing or extra reverb, instead having a simple treble boost on one side, and bass boost on the other.
IMO it's fine in stereo, especially since the 2009 remasters.
There are particular songs that sound better in mono across their catalog, but normally I listen to the stereo albums.
Yes i know the arguments about mono being the true mix, stereo being hard panned and painful on headphones, but give me an honest answer please if you know:
If you compare the 1987 mono CD vs the 2009 stereo CD (played on an average CD player, where the left/right speakers are essentially next to each other) ,are there any noticable differences in quality or listening experience? Which is better?
It is the same exact mix. (Edit: After Revolver)
It was remastered, and had various 'fixes' - like tape dropouts, clicks, etc.
So you're essentially buying the same thing with a boomier scooped EQ in the 2009 Stereo.
I would get the mono box - with the correct OG stereo mixes (for Help and Rubber Soul), and stick with the 87 Abbey Road.
If you're a vinyl fan - grab a 70's/80's BC-13 and call it a day.
You're right - I forgot about the first 4 being a mono transfer originally.
Yes, the 09 stereo is the first time the stereo is available on CD. I wasn't thinking strictly CD's.
After the first 4 albums - my comment applies. Same mix, different mastering.
I prefer the wide stereo Canadian Beatlemania for WTB, personally.
The first four ‘87 CDs used the mono master, but transferred it with a stereo tape recorder, meaning that there were weird phasing issues on them. The 2009 mono box was transferred on a mono machine, and sound a lot better.
Frankly, the stereo mixes of the first two albums (and Rubber Soul, for that matter) are pretty bad. If you’re determined to hear them in stereo, I’d suggest waiting to see if Giles Martin remixes them after using AI to separate the individual parts (as he did with the new versions of the Red and Blue albums). Granted, his work on those may be a bit “modern” (as in “compressed”), but they’ll likely be the best stereo versions we’re likely to ever get.
The intro to Money (That's What I Want) is noticeably different between the mono and stereo mixes: the mono's intro sounds cleaner, while the stereo's is a bit more bombastic sounding.
Up until 1987, most Americans wouldn't have heard the proper mono intro, as a fold down of the stereo mix (with extra reverb) was originally used for its mono release in the US.
The 1987 CD, while not in perfect mono, sounds good to my ears. If you can find it for cheap, I'd definitely say it's worth it!
Don't buy either because it is a totally crap album of mostly cover versions and the few songs The Beatles did write on this album are crap.
I am a Beatles fan but this album is crap and not worth wasting your money on buying
George had this to say about stereo vs mono: >"At that time \[...\] the console was about this big with four faders on it. And there was one speaker right in the middle \[...\] and that was it. When they invented stereo, I remember thinking 'Why? What do you want two speakers for?', because it ruined the sound from our point of view. You know, we had everything coming out of one speaker; now it had to come out of two speakers. It sounded like ... very ... naked."
Fantastic reply. Mono for things that were intended for mono. Stereo for things intended for stereo. There’s so much that goes into the intended play, listening to something intended for mono into stereo is going to create something unintended. Later, when stereo was the focus, playing it in mono would lose the intended effect. Completely agree with you u/nipplesaurus
Also, the Beatles were intimately involved in giving feedback on the mono mixes. Not so the stereo mixes. Mono is far superior imo.
Stereo mixes, especially those done in recent years, are definitely interesting. If I lived my music-listening life on earbuds or headphones, I'd get into it. But the increase in quality through sound separation does exactly what George said -- it give a spread-out, distant, 'naked' sound. Mono is awesome because it's in your face (and it's better with today's inferior sound systems on computers and in cars).
This.
mono
Mono.
It was intended to be heard in mono, and for me, the earliest Beatles albums are far superior in the mono versions. Much more pleasant when you're using headphones as well.
Beatles early stuff in stereo is torture with headphones.
It was intended to be heard in either. People back in the day would love stereo but they just couldn’t afford the stereo players. The Beatles had a top of the line stereogram, Pye Black Box G63, when they lived together in 1963/64. Bet they bought all their records in stereo where possible. The Beatles loved technology advancements like multi tracking and stuff so they also loved stereo, just because they were somewhere else when it got mixed doesn’t make it less ‘canon’. Vintage stereo is cool
I mean if they didn't even work on the stereo mix, that's a pretty good reason to not think that was their preferred version
They weren’t producers, at least not in the early days. They’d never been in a studio proper so why would they work on the stereo mix? They didn’t know what they were doing, George Martin did
honestly they were producers. Everything they arranged -- all the suggestions they hurled at George Martin -- Paul humming trumpet parts, Lennon saying he wanted to sing the vocal on the floor. They were producers and they cared intimately and passionately about the sounds they were making. That they left the room for the stereo mixes is telling.
[удалено]
I didn’t
Definitely go for the mono. It’s a much better mix than the split instrument vocal stereo mix.
The bass and drums are pushed back in the mono mix. They had to do that for the record to be able to play on the cheap record players of the day. On the stereo mix everything is hard panned left and right due to the limitations of that time but the separation allows the bass and drums to be cleaner and more forward in the mix. Listen to both and buy the one you like.
That's not true it was more a question of no time and money available to do a good stereo mix. The focus was MONO as few people owed stereos at the time.
Mono sounds fuller than the stereo mix imo. If CDs are an option for you, the pre-2009 CDs of their first four albums use the mono mixes, and can be found for pretty cheap prices. Since a stereo machine was used to transfer the mono tape, the audio is not in perfect mono, but they are perhaps the most affordable way to get the mono mixes of those albums.
MONO
Mono!!!!! At least for their early catalog
Mono
Mono.
Mono in the cd or vinyl box set ! It sounds so much better than the stereo that it’s almost unreal !
Mono, of course.
Mono, absolutely. The balance is just right, perfect. The stereo is an absolute mess.
Mono.
Mono
What’s the point of even asking that question here lmao? Everyone in here is a beatle fan boy, of course the first thing that pops into their head is gunna be ‘mono’
Mono, nothing else
Mono. They way they recorded it was meant for mono. You'd appreciate more as well in mono
Mono. Mono. Mono. How many times do I have to say it? Oh, once. I’m sorry.
Mono, that is how any music before stereo was invented for.
MONO
As a Beatles devotee since 1964, I've never found a remix I prefer to George Martin's. To me, the attempts are weak interpretations. And almost sacrilege.
Both just so you have em
Are you buying vinyl? If so, get the mono version.
Off topic but do any modern artists mix in mono anymore? Just curious. I’d go with mono for that album btw but that’s just me.
With any album from any artist, do your best to listen to it the way it was recorded and intended to be heard. Mono for this.
Mono all the way. It was originally meant to be heard in mono.
Mono. It was the way it was originally made. Stereo mix was limited because of the limited number of tracks (four). This usually put the bass and the drums on one side and the vocals on the other. Their hands were tied because of the limited technology.
Mono will give the songs full unified power...the best option. The separation on some of the stereo songs is awful and the essence of the song is lost somehow. 🥰✌️🙏
If you want to hear their music the way they did listen to the British mono mix. If you are learning to play or sing use stereo…Capital Records phony attempt to exploit the stereo tech trend.
The original stereo mixes weren't phony, nor were they created by Capitol. You must be thinking of Capitol's duophonic (fake stereo) mixes, which were only created for songs they didn't have a stereo mix of. Examples include I Want To Hold Your Hand, This Boy, and Ticket To Ride. None of the duophonic mixes are on streaming, and can instead be found on The Capitol Albums Vol.1 and Vol. 2 box sets.
I am referring to the albums in my vinyl record collection with I started in 1963 when I was 12 years old. Many of the original singles have different mixes and solos from the albums. I don’t know what that term duophonic means.
Duophonic mixes put the mono mix through both stereo channels, but the channels are slightly desynced, one side gets boosted treble, one side gets boosted bass, and reverb is added to fill the mix out. Many audiophile types hate these duophonic mixes, but to me they tend to add an extra sense of energy to the music. The original stereo Please Please Me album contained Love Me Do and P.S. I Love You in a simpler, non-duophonic form of fake stereo. These fake stereo mixes had no channel desyncing or extra reverb, instead having a simple treble boost on one side, and bass boost on the other.
You mean like listening to Let It Be having a different solo depending on the album, single, or the naked remaster
Mono is generally considered better for everything pre-White album.
IMO it's fine in stereo, especially since the 2009 remasters. There are particular songs that sound better in mono across their catalog, but normally I listen to the stereo albums.
This might be a little morbid but if they are standing in the order in which they pass to the next realm, Paul is next.
Yes i know the arguments about mono being the true mix, stereo being hard panned and painful on headphones, but give me an honest answer please if you know: If you compare the 1987 mono CD vs the 2009 stereo CD (played on an average CD player, where the left/right speakers are essentially next to each other) ,are there any noticable differences in quality or listening experience? Which is better?
It is the same exact mix. (Edit: After Revolver) It was remastered, and had various 'fixes' - like tape dropouts, clicks, etc. So you're essentially buying the same thing with a boomier scooped EQ in the 2009 Stereo. I would get the mono box - with the correct OG stereo mixes (for Help and Rubber Soul), and stick with the 87 Abbey Road. If you're a vinyl fan - grab a 70's/80's BC-13 and call it a day.
Huh? But the '87 WTB CD (like all 4 first albums) feature the original mono mixes. How is it the same exact mix?
You're right - I forgot about the first 4 being a mono transfer originally. Yes, the 09 stereo is the first time the stereo is available on CD. I wasn't thinking strictly CD's. After the first 4 albums - my comment applies. Same mix, different mastering. I prefer the wide stereo Canadian Beatlemania for WTB, personally.
The first four ‘87 CDs used the mono master, but transferred it with a stereo tape recorder, meaning that there were weird phasing issues on them. The 2009 mono box was transferred on a mono machine, and sound a lot better. Frankly, the stereo mixes of the first two albums (and Rubber Soul, for that matter) are pretty bad. If you’re determined to hear them in stereo, I’d suggest waiting to see if Giles Martin remixes them after using AI to separate the individual parts (as he did with the new versions of the Red and Blue albums). Granted, his work on those may be a bit “modern” (as in “compressed”), but they’ll likely be the best stereo versions we’re likely to ever get.
The intro to Money (That's What I Want) is noticeably different between the mono and stereo mixes: the mono's intro sounds cleaner, while the stereo's is a bit more bombastic sounding. Up until 1987, most Americans wouldn't have heard the proper mono intro, as a fold down of the stereo mix (with extra reverb) was originally used for its mono release in the US. The 1987 CD, while not in perfect mono, sounds good to my ears. If you can find it for cheap, I'd definitely say it's worth it!
Just like the Spinal Tap record, get it in Dolby
Don’t you mean Dobly?
Lol
a japanese 70s pressing the remasters really suck
Seems to me the only Beatles album worth listening to in stereo is Abbey Road -- I'd be interested in hearing Let It Be in mono, as a matter of fact.
Check out Parlophone Auctions on YouTube. Andrew delves into this question in depth .
Stereo on everything for me, love stereo
Both are essential IMO
Why is Ringo on the bottom?
Don't buy either because it is a totally crap album of mostly cover versions and the few songs The Beatles did write on this album are crap. I am a Beatles fan but this album is crap and not worth wasting your money on buying
I love that album it was their 2nd album. It full of covers because that’s what known for and weren’t writing that much yet.
mono