Dr. Ebbetts Beatles CD's

Does anyone know about these CD's? I'm trying to get a mono copy of REVOLVER & RUBBER SOUL. The red Jap. mono vinyl is out of my price range.

I saw an auction on eBay, as follows:


EAS 70136


Up for auction is a brand spanking new Dr. Ebbetts CD release - the Japanese Red Vinyl monophonic version of the Beatles' 1966 LP REVOLVER. This CD is soured directly from the coveted 1981 Japanese Red Mono Vinyl Collection, featuring what is now being talked about amongst collectors as the best sounding version of the original MONO REVOLVER LP available. This is an absolute genuine Dr. Ebbetts release, featuring the new full disc Ebbetts printing system, inserts and incredible audio. The clarity and sound here is the best available.

No paper labels, no cheapos. The real Ebbetts. Sharp, beautiful printing all around, top notch graphics. the best sound.

You will be receiving a brand new, never played, still in the original re-sealable sleeve copy of this Ebbetts release.

Is this an authorized CD-R, an Apple pressing, or a bootleg? I've never heard of "Dr. Ebberts"??? BTW, the CD went for $66.00
This is a good explanation of why this silver disc sounds great:


Appears it's been recorded from one of the better LP releases.
My understanding is the Dr Ebbetts versions are mastered from the vinyl albums of the Beatles on Mobile Fidelity. I am starting to question that theory though because Mobile Fidelity produced the British parlophone versions of the Beatles catalogue and not the American version of the Beatles albums, and yet I know that right now there is a so called Dr. Ebbetts version of Beatles VI which is an American Beatles release, being auctioned on EBAY!! I have an Ebbetts mono version of Revolver on CD which I won on EBAY. I would say that the sound is good, not great, but you cannot get a mono version of Revolver in your local store. I also won it at $25, I don't think it is worth more than that.
You all are admitting to a crime here I hope you konw that. If the cd's are not licensed by EMI for release they are BOOTLEGS and are illegal to manufacture, sell, and to purchase. Of course I would hope you knew that already and wouldn't be stupid enough to admit it on a public forum. I'm shocked the moderators would allow the posting of the url to a site that promotes the bootlegging of Beatles albums.
Seems strange that if these are bootlegs, there would be a website listing the "Dr. Ebbett" releases. That's just tempting fate, in this day & age!!!
You all are admitting to a crime here I hope you konw that. If the cd's are not licensed by EMI for release they are BOOTLEGS and are illegal to manufacture, sell, and to purchase.

I did not buy anything, much less these CD's. I responded with a link to a website that had good data.
Hey Arnold relax, if you're a Beatles fan and haven't purchased anything that might be a bootleg, than you should be canonized. :>)
Sorry I over reacted in my post. I just hate to see people get ripped off. Paying for a bootleg is just plain wrong if you ask me. The bootlegger is making tons of money and there are no royalties being paid. That being said, I'm a collector of live Pink Floyd shows. We don't buy or sell, but trade them online in Flac format.
Arnold, I totally agree with you, but it is so hard to resist when it comes to the Beales!
Does anyone know why we can't get official releases of the Beatles catalog that are actually high rez/real mono whatever like the Stones (well Abkco) have done and Dylan has done and the Kinks and numerous others? Do all the fans who actually grew up with the band have to be dead and buried before it happens ????
Arnold_layne, you said,
"I just hate to see people get ripped off."
Well, I guess Sir Paul should have signed a pre-nup when he married a girl young enough to be his daughter!!!! Obviously, not the brains of the "Fab-Four"!
So I always see this Mono discussion on most of the classics, Bottom line what is better playing them in mono?

Mono's are sought for one reason or the other, is it because the soundstage is totally center due to both speakers outputting the same signal continuously, being its not as annoying as the stereo such as beatles with the heavily weighted sound output from one side or the other? I am not really going to ever go get a good Mono cartridge or the albums, just curious.

Many of the mixes are different and it is what the Beatles themselves had a hand in. The Beatles preferred that their work be done in mono and were involved throughout the process. When it came time for the stereo versions, they left George Martin and Geoff Emerick to their own devices. Some of the songs just have a completely different feel and impact in mono. I guess you have to hear them!
Cyclonicman, I do notice 99% of the stereo recordings normally have vocals from only one channel dominantly over the other, sometimes they then open up to the middle and sweep, also like some songs you will have paul in the left channel and then the middle of the song george is singing only recorded to the right, so I figured this was the reason mono would be a little better balance. Thanks
Agree with Cyclonicman.

There is at least one other reason people like mono. With a true mono record and tracking with a true mono cartridge you get less noise and pops than if played with a stereo pickup.

Stereo cartridges pick up from both side and bottom of the grooves, exposing noise the mono cartridge does not see.
The inital time spent on the mono mixes was much greater than the stereo mixes. It's possible the early stereo mixes were more of an experiment and perhaps seen as less important.
Arnold_layne, What is the difference between you giving someone a bootleg in exchange for another bootleg and someone else giving someone money in exchange for a bootleg?

Legally and morally, I think there is no difference. In each case one is giving something of value in order to receive a bootleg and the artist is getting nothing.