Beatles Remastered: A Reminder Of Why It Will Probably Rock
So tomorrow there won’t be Beatles in the iTunes, but you will be able to get them carefully remastered in CD form. If you are a music fan, this is why you should care—especially about the mono version.
Back in April, I got great vinyl rips of the major original mono albums, as mixed by the fab four and George Martin. The difference from my stereo CDs—which come from copies mixed in no time by audio engineers to eager to play with stereo panning effects—was beyond belief:
Beatles’ record producer and arranger George Martin—the Fifth Beatle—once said: “You’ve never really heard Sgt Pepper until you’ve heard it in mono.” As it turned out after hours of listening tests, it’s completely true.
The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn’t very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn’t have much access to it. It wasn’t until the next year that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was all about the Beatles—and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles’ records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.
I couldn’t stop listening to Sgt Pepper. Non stop, I played it and played it until my ears bleed and then I played it some more. It was the stereo version, not the mono mix, and it has lived with me ever since. Then, a few months ago I read in The Word—a very good British music magazine—that the Beatles in mono are—like George Martin implied—better than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn’t give a damn about the stereo mix, only about the mono. In fact, they cared so little that they passed on the stereo mixing sessions: Once the mono was done, they left the building.
So I started looking for them. Finding the actual mono mix in the market was impossible. Not to talk about the fact that I don’t have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn’t have the mono mixes of the Beatles’ albums available either—they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered—so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn’t find them in the first try. I found a couple of MP3 rips, but I wanted to have FLAC rips of the original vinyls. After some time I gave up, forgetting about the mono Beatles until the Gizmodo’s audio week.
I thought trying it would be interesting for a feature, so I started looking for them again and got 192kbps MP3s, which I compared to the stereo version at the same bit rate. Since Sgt Pepper was my album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.
I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs do sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. “What? What? How? What the f–k?” was in my mind all the time.
When Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A lot more thump, for a lack of a better word. It was like someone was beating me with a hammer. It was kind of noisy, but it filled my head and pushed me in a way the stereo version didn’t.
Then good old Ringo—my favourite Beatle—came up singing With A Little Help From My Friends. Same effect. It felt weird, but so much better. I kept coming back to the stereo versions for comparison and, before I noticed, I was thinking: “These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial.” Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the “new thing.” As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it, like when 3D cinema came out and everything was an excuse to fire arrows and rocks and monsters at the public.
I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded—a lot more, even while I knew the stereo version till the last beat and note. LSD came up: same result. The sound is crisper and nearer. The bass a lot better. Again that special thump, even while this is such a delicate song. Getting Better gets better, and so does the rest, Fixing a Hole, She’s Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite… I just couldn’t have enough.
But that wasn’t all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is not in the stereo version. And not just bits, but quite a lot of things. Instruments, notes, even lyrics. Take the reprise version of Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting—Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning—that is not in the stereo mix.
Maybe it’s the novelty of listening to a “new” take on something that I know by heart, but I doubt it. As an experience, I like it a lot better. So much that I’m dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips—or the remastered mono versions, as soon as they come out. And while your taste may be different, from now on this is the version I’m keeping in my iPod.
So yes, I’m excited about tomorrow. To hear how the new mixes are. I’m sure the clean mono set will be fantastic, but I’m really curious about how they managed the stereo remixes. Hopefully, they have added a new dimension, overriding the artificial panning effects, and creating a stereo mix that could live up to the original Beatles’ sound. [Gizmodo]
- Next Post: Thriller Action Figure Allows Kids to Legally Play with Michael Jackson »
- « Previous Post: Breakfast Wrap: Best Of Tuesday Night
Comments (AU Comments | US Comments)
@fause
You should probably look around online for something called "Dr. Ebbets". Its all the original pressings....in Flac. Including the different versions (British, American and Canadian). I have it....totals a little over 8 gig worth of Flac
jkravny
@mstolfe:
Free
Torrently Yours,
LY
And the mono version is limited to 10,000 copies which sucks more cock than Max the Blue Meanie.
how much will that bundle cost?
mstolfe
I have listened to flac rips from both the mono box set and the stereo box set (I have my sources), and I have to say, mono sounds SOOO much better. I'm not sure how to describe it. The vocals are more crisp, and realistic. Some songs (such as Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) sound TOTALLY different. And to those people who are wondering how I could have possibly already listened to both box sets, if you don't already know, don't ask.
I have been waiting for Mono CDs to come to the States for a long time. I waited too long to preorder it seems, B&N was not able to fulfill my order that I placed August 2nd. I'll have to tough it out in Retail.
If I can't purchase it from a store, I will have NO problem with downloading flac rips.
Lizard_King
Maybe I'm too young (41), but I just don't get the Beatles, or any of the member's solo stuff. Sure, there are a few good songs throughout their collection, but it still baffles me. The music's not written that well, the lyrics are mediocre, and the recordings, even for the time are far from the best of the period.
@Cam/ron: They likely ditched the Mono switch for an iPod hook-up.
Twanzio
My stereo receiver from the earliest 80's has a "mono" switch, I wonder how many current models have them.
Cam/ron
Why go through all that trouble and then not release it on DVD-A or SACD? Then it might actually be worth the hundreds of $$ they're asking. Otherwise, they offer no reason for me to not just download it in FLAC.
Chris Churchill
Having heard both the remastered mono and stereo box sets (the entire damn thing) am I less of a fan to say I personally enjoyed the stereo mixes better?
Yoko Ono says the Beatles are coming to Apple tomorrow; the story has been pulled from its source and even Google capitulated by removing the cache.....
[9to5mac.com]
klrobinson999
Good Info! I'm not an audiophile at all and I always thought stereo was automatically better. I'll have to check these out.
electronymous
@laffmakr: No, because its still the same lesser stereo mix, just mashed together into one channel.
fizzlefist
Can't I just take my stereo CDs and press the "Mono" button on my amp?
laffmakr
@OMG! Ponies!: That # isn't accurate, there are more than 10,000 being produced. If you REALLY want one, just be on the lookout for the next month or two.
Matt0505
@OMG! Ponies!: Are you, er... blueish? You don't LOOK blueish.
Justin Williams
@MikeK: Mono 5.1 SACD FTW!
Lizard_King
@Matt0505: I hope this is true... missed the preorder.
Lizard_King
Apparently the remasters are tastefully done and offer a palpable improvement. Pitchfork posted a review of the box-set that even got all nerdy with some waveform comparisons. Verdict: louder, clearer, with dynamic range preserved - thank you.
@OMG! Ponies!: I'm actually excited to see what all the hubub is about the mono versions of the tracks. I'm planning on getting the remastered Sgt. Pepper's in stereo, but I'll see if I can "aquire" the mono one to see if it's really as good as they say.
@Chris Churchill: Easy answer: stereo SACD offers absolutely no benefit over CD. There was a very nice study conducted that showed that no "golden-eared" listeners could tell the difference between an SACD source, and the same SACD source passed through a 16-bit/44.1kHz A/D-D/A.
What matters on SACD is the attention to detail and quality of the masters, which are typically much more carefully done. But, once that careful mastering has been performed, a standard CD can reproduce it indistinguishably.
Of course, if you meant surround, then that's a different story, but I would question the benefit of introducing surround to this particular set of recordings.
[theaudiocritic.com]
Got my stereo box set on Friday. Been pumping it non-stop all weekend. There is a noticeable difference in these masters over the old, namely the tracks have a little more ass and they are as clean and clear as could be given the tape they were recorded on. The mix is not noticeably changed, though. if the vocals were in the right channel, they are still over there where the group and Martin originally had them.
It's really true. John Lennon's voice is out of phase for all of LSD. Revolver was like listening to a whole new album. The backwards guitar solo in "I'm Only Sleeping" starts two measures sooner. I haven't gotten through them all but it's stunning the differences.
Scott Ricketts
My earphones must have some precognition, or something, because the left one just died. I'm stuck with one channel now. _<;
Reil: Ignore this
That the Beatles cared more about the mono mixes than the stereo ones isn't surprising. It's similar to the way artists care about stereo mixes these days and don't spend much time on the surround mix, and why early 5.1 sounds as goofy and exaggerated as early stereo.
But the world is in stereo. We have two ears. Once engineers realized the second speaker wasn't just where you put the tambourine, creating stereo soundfields made reproduced music come alive.
The mono mixes may be historically important, but I'm betting the stereo remixes will sound way better.
Totally can't wait. I bought/found all their albums on vinyl (including Sgt. Pepper cutout medals and chevrons inside the album sleeve!). I bought all their CD's, and now I'm going to get these box sets. I can't believe they held out on what the Beatles themselves wanted to put out for so long. Well, held out on those of us who weren't able to get them in vinyl on their original releases, that is!
ZombieFlanders
@MikeK:
It's easy to generate all sorts of results in studies, even nice ones.
My experience is that people can distinguish between 16 and 24 bit resolution, although the difference is less noticeable between 44.1 and 96 kHz. And of course, a better converter at a lower resolution can sound better than a crappy converter at a higher resolution.
@Matt0505: Here's hoping. I may have to go to a certain bay frequented by pirates to tide me over until my actual copies arrive. It's not like I'm not buying the remasters and mono versions.
The new stereo CDs are just remastered, not remixed. NY Times says they sound better than the 1987 stereo CDs because EMI used better A-D converters and took more time (four years?!).
Reading the beyond-obsessive Beatles fans on Amazon forums, some maintain that the bestest knobs-at-11 sound would be to make new stereo mixes of the albums. This sounds like sacrilege, but George and Giles Martin have done it for the Yellow Submarine soundtrack, One album, and Love album. EMI could even consider 5.1 surround mixes on Blu-ray.
No doubt for some Beatles anniversary EMI will go for it. Meanwhile I bet fans will remix the Rock Band tracks as they did with Metallica. When people love songs this much, some will go to extreme lengths to get the "master tape" sound.
@unstable23:
Here are two links, in fact they work for all of your questions.
* [lmgtfy.com]
* [justfuckinggoogleit.com]
Somewhere upstairs, I pulled out of the attic some original copies of the White album, Abbey Road and so on that one of the previous owners of the house left behind. I haven't looked to see if they're mono or stereo.
Anyone know how to unwarp vinyl that's been left in an attic for a generation?
unstable23
@frigg: but the world is in colour, yet they made black and white movies.
should we just watch the colourized versions?
bluebottle
@frigg: I realize that we have two ears and all, but can you make a stereo mix from a mono original that is superior to the mono mix?
ludwigk
@lucky_you: heheheh. yes it is!
Yannick Wolfe-Mercier
I've got them. They're incredible, in both Stereo and Mono.
telepheedian
@golferal - Now with more Segway!: Worst. Troll. Post. Ever.
I'm 42 and I've known that the Beatles were the greatest band of all time since I was about 11 years old. What's your excuse?
Stick to your Jack Johnson and Nickleback albums, pal. We're talking about MUSIC here.
Alf Shot The FUD
Been looking forward to this for some time. I have the most of US mono releases on vinyl. The UK mono Revolver is amazing. There are subtle differences sonically that do not translate into stereo. Differences in tone and speed and color that the mono mix delivers simply can't be duplicated on the stereo mix.
nunyafishness
@ludwigk: I would think so, as long as you have the individual tracks for each of the instruments. You can alter the "position" of each instrument (slightly) to give the music more of a 3D feel.
bkchosun
@Reil: Ignore this: HAHAHAHAHAHA. thats awesome
cinejoe
I was around 10 when they came on the scene, and I knew they were something special even then. Still remember them on the Sullivan show on black and white TV. Both their lyrics and the complexity and beauty of their music is first rate. I am so pleased that my nephews and nieces are re-discovering them. Truly timeless.
What's the diff between the Stereo and the Mono? Why Mono more expensive? Please advise. Thanks
taeka22
@Alf Shot The FUD: I'm 25, was not even born before they broke up, and realize they are not only the greatest band ever but the most important band ever. Most of my favorite music would fall outside that of the typical Beatles fan, but I heard them for the first time when my parents decided to swap the Eagles for the Beatles on a family road trip in 1993. It was Help!, and at that time I was all Nirvana, Ozzy, and Metallica. Then I stole all their CDs from my parents, copied them to tapes and would spend countless nights falling asleep to them. I nearly shit myself when I found out that "I got my mind set on you" (a personal favorite in my younger days) guy was a freaking Beatle. At them same time I find The Beatles depressing, because in my generation, in my lifetime (outside of Michael Jackson) we will NEVER have a band like the Beatles again.
It's been awhile since I listened to the entire discography of US released albums but I listened to every track of the the box set without skipping a single track. I have MAYBE one other band that I can do that with (Radiohead) and I have to be in the right mindset to do that.
@Cam/ron: my onkyo 506 has an option for all channel mono for any input under the music sound field button, I think I will have to try that tomorrow with my vinal rips.
Judd Sandage
@pexy: I heard that Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles catalog back in the 90's. Paul got shut out by one of his biggest fans. When Apple corps finally lost the rights to the music, Michael Jackson stepped in with the winning bid to own them.
I won't mind getting hold of the FLAC via torrent if they've released limited versions. Paul's got enough cash hasn't he?
@joetato: Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog back in the mid-1980s. It's why MJ and Paul McCartney had a falling out and they never collaborated again after "The Girl Is Mine" and "Say Say Say."