<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gizmodo Australia &#187; mono</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/mono/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au</link>
	<description>the Gadget Guide &#124; Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:31:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>QOTD: Did You Pick Up The Beatles Box Sets Today?</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/qotd-did-you-pick-up-the-beatles-box-sets-today/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/qotd-did-you-pick-up-the-beatles-box-sets-today/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nick Broughall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[au]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mono]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qotd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stereo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the beatles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=352228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the 9th of September, 2009. 09/09/09. Beatles Day. Not only does The Beatles: Rock Band hit shelves today, but so do the remastered back-catalogue of Beatles albums in both Stereo and Mono.
Each of the box sets aren&#8217;t cheap – you&#8217;re looking at $300-$350 for the stereo set or $400 for the mono collection. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="" src="http://cache-foo-06.gawkerassets.com/gawker/assets/images/4/2009/04/110x82_sgt-pepper.jpg" title="beatles sgt pepper" class="alignleft" width="110" height="82" />It&#8217;s the 9th of September, 2009. 09/09/09. Beatles Day. Not only does <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/06/the-story-of-the-beatles-in-two-minutes/">The Beatles: Rock Band</a> hit shelves today, but so do the remastered back-catalogue of Beatles albums in both <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/beatles-remastered-a-reminder-of-why-it-will-probably-rock/">Stereo and Mono</a>.<span id="more-352228"></span></p>
<p>Each of the box sets aren&#8217;t cheap – you&#8217;re looking at $300-$350 for the stereo set or $400 for the mono collection. The Beatles: Rock Band will set you back $90 or so for just the game, making it a very expensive day for the rabid Beatles fan. </p>
<p>So my question to you: Did you pony up the cash for some Beatlemania today? If so, what did you get? And is it worth it?<br />
<script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8" src="http://static.polldaddy.com/p/1970255.js"></script><noscript><br />
<a href="http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1970255/">Did you pick up one of the Beatles Box Sets or The Beatles: Rock Band game today?</a><span style="font-size:9px;">(<a href="http://answers.polldaddy.com">trends</a>)</span><br />
</noscript></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/qotd-did-you-pick-up-the-beatles-box-sets-today/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beatles Remastered: A Reminder Of Why It Will Probably Rock</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/beatles-remastered-a-reminder-of-why-it-will-probably-rock/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/beatles-remastered-a-reminder-of-why-it-will-probably-rock/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jesus Diaz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beatles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[george martin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mono]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stereo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the beatles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/?p=352208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So tomorrow there won&#8217;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&#8212;especially about the mono version.
Back in April, I got great vinyl rips of the major original mono albums, as mixed by the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/09/500x_Beatles_StereoBox_PackSHot.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/09/500x_500x_Beatles_StereoBox_PackSHot.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>So tomorrow there <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/emi-confirms-no-beatles-in-itunes-store-tomorrow/">won&#8217;t be Beatles</a> in the iTunes, but you will be able to get them <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/entire-beatles-digitally-re-mastered-complete-catalog-includes-all-mono-albums%e2%80%94-yes/">carefully remastered in CD form</a>. If you are a music fan, this is why you should care&mdash;especially about the mono version.<span id="more-352208"></span></p>
<p>Back in April, I got great vinyl rips of the <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/sorry_stereo_but_beatles_in_mono_rocks_a_lot_more-2/">major original mono albums</a>, as mixed by the fab four and George Martin. The difference from my stereo CDs&mdash;which come from copies mixed in no time by audio engineers to eager to play with stereo panning effects&mdash;was beyond belief:</p>
<blockquote><p> Beatles&#8217; record producer and arranger George Martin&mdash;the <i>Fifth Beatle</i>&mdash;once said: &#8220;You&#8217;ve never really heard Sgt Pepper until you&#8217;ve heard it in mono.&#8221; As it turned out after hours of listening tests, it&#8217;s completely true.</p>
<p>The first article I ever got published was an opinion piece on Sgt Pepper&#8217;s Lonely Hearts Club Band. I was 16 at the time and, needless to say, quite naive. I wasn&#8217;t very much into non-Beatles music at that age, mainly because I didn&#8217;t have much access to it. It wasn&#8217;t <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/my_first_album-9/">until the next year</a> that I was able to buy music regularly, having at last my own stereo system. But back then, my music world was <i>all about the Beatles</i>&mdash;and crap 90s radio pop. My dad had Sgt Pepper along with the rest of the Beatles&#8217; records and some compilations of classic rock, from Chuck Berry to bloody Kansas, so that was my music world.</p>
<p>I couldn&#8217;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&mdash;a very good British music magazine&mdash;that the Beatles in mono <i>are</i>&mdash;like George Martin implied&mdash;<i>better</i> than the Beatles in stereo. Apparently, the Beatles didn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;t have a turntable anymore. For some reason, the Beatles company didn&#8217;t have the mono mixes of the Beatles&#8217; albums available either&mdash;they are going to re-release them now, it seems, remastered&mdash;so I got into Torrent to hunt them down. I couldn&#8217;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 <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/listening-test/">Gizmodo&#8217;s audio week.</a></p>
<p>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 <i>my</i> album, I started to listen to its songs in pairs, with my earmuff headphones on.</p>
<p>I was blown away. George Martin was oh so right: The songs <i>do</i> sound different. I was so surprised, that at the beginning I freaked out. &#8220;What? What? How? What the f&#8211;k?&#8221; was in my mind all the time.</p>
<p>When Sgt. Pepper&#8217;s Lonely Hearts Club Band came up, my first impression was that the sound had more thump than the stereo mix. A <i>lot</i> 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&#8217;t.</p>
<p><a rel="lytebox" href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/09/500x_Beatles_MonoBox_PackSHot.jpg"><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/09/500x_500x_Beatles_MonoBox_PackSHot.jpg" alt="" class="center" /></a>Then good old Ringo&mdash;my favourite Beatle&mdash;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: &#8220;These sounds a lot weaker. These sound artificial.&#8221; Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It <i>was</i> artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the &#8220;new thing.&#8221; 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.</p>
<p>I definitely liked the way the mono version sounded&mdash;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&#8217;s Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite&#8230; I just couldn&#8217;t have enough.</p>
<p>But that wasn&#8217;t all. In the mono version you can hear stuff that is <i>not</i> 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&#8217;s Lonely Hearts Club Band: It is full of shouting&mdash;Lennon going bananas at the end, and other bits at the beginning&mdash;that is not in the stereo mix.</p>
<p>Maybe it&#8217;s the novelty of listening to a &#8220;new&#8221; 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&#8217;m dying to get FLAC versions of good vinyl rips&mdash;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&#8217;m keeping in my iPod.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> So yes, I&#8217;m excited about tomorrow. To hear how the new mixes are. I&#8217;m sure the clean mono set will be fantastic, but I&#8217;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&#8217; sound. [<a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/04/sorry_stereo_but_beatles_in_mono_rocks_a_lot_more-2/">Gizmodo</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/09/beatles-remastered-a-reminder-of-why-it-will-probably-rock/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>According Popular Science Magazine, We Should All Drive Humongous Wheels By Now</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/according_to_empopular_scienceem_magazine_we_should_all_drive_humongous_wheels_by_now-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/according_to_empopular_scienceem_magazine_we_should_all_drive_humongous_wheels_by_now-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Herrman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Vehicles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[futurism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magazines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mono]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popsci]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popular science magazine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retromodo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wheels]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/according_to_empopular_scienceem_magazine_we_should_all_drive_humongous_wheels_by_now-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scouring the recently-posted PopSci archives on Google Books, reader Wesley Treat has put together a collection documenting the magazine&#8217;s odd, decades-long obsession with the idea of a personal monowheel.


Just as vague questions of cosmology and consciousness make up just about every other cover of New Scientist today, fantastical futurist gadgets were at one point the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/12/popsciwheel.jpg" style="display:block;" />Scouring the recently-posted <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/browse_the_empopsciem_and_empopmechem_archives_on_google_books_new_magazine_search-2.html">PopSci archives</a> on Google Books, reader Wesley Treat has put together a <a href="http://www.roadsideresort.com/blog/the-future-of-travel-revealed-the-ginormous-wheel">collection</a> documenting the magazine&#8217;s odd, decades-long obsession with the idea of a personal monowheel.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: retromodo, futurism, magazines, monowheel, monowheels, popsci, popular science --><br />
<span id="more-319799"></span>
<p>Just as vague questions of cosmology and consciousness make up just about every other cover of <em>New Scientist</em> today, fantastical futurist gadgets were at one point the safe default for the covers of <em>Popular Science</em> and <em>Popular Mechanics</em>. Like lots of the other cover staples, the monowheel has to some degree <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/monowheel-bike-ben-wilson.php">come to pass</a>, but hardly to the extent that you might have been led to believe it might in 1917. Or 1923. Or 1938. You get the idea. [<a href="http://www.roadsideresort.com/blog/the-future-of-travel-revealed-the-ginormous-wheel">RoadsideResort</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/according_to_empopular_scienceem_magazine_we_should_all_drive_humongous_wheels_by_now-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
