2. music
  3. 1404249270

"New" Beatles Mono Catalog Release on 180gr Vinyl

It looks like the Mono CD Collection from 5 years ago did well enough that the collection is to be re-scrubbed & re-mastered and released on 180-gram vinyl.

Scheduled release date is 09/09/14. Not sure if the September release date has any significance, but apparently the box set is part of Apple Corps 50th Anniversary marketing campaign.

Here's the link to the Rolling Stone Article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-beatles-in-mono-to-get-lavish-vinyl-release-this-fall-20140616

For vinyl junkies, this looks like a no-brainer.

Personally, I'm on the fence as to whether to pull the trigger, especially given the $375.00 US Suggested Retail for 14 LPs (roughly $26.75 per album).

I have the Mono CD Box and the Limited Edition USB-Rom 24-Bit FLAC Collection (Shipped in its own aluminum Green Apple). I passed on the US-Release CD Box, and the UK Stereo CD & Vinyl Boxes. Still, it IS The Beatles, and adjusted for inflation the pricing is about the same as when I bought the record albums the first time...
courant
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
3,026 posts
 
I listened to Revolver again last night. It really is a superb LP. However, I think it is important to note that since it is mono, it has all of the "deficiencies" of mono. If you reference a great stereo LP against a great mono LP ( like this Beatles reissue), the constriction of the soundstage and the placement of the musicians on the stage is obviously lacking in the mono issue.
On my system, the musicians and all of the 'action' takes place only between the speakers. No left or right stage delineation. ( I am only using a stereo cart, so that may be a factor, although I doubt it).
I hate to say this, BUT IMHO there is a VALID reason why stereo caught on and is generally preferred to this day. Doesn't take anything away from this magnificent set, but just needs to be contemplated.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
My enthusiasm over the Beatles mono masters does not mean that I consider mono to be superior to stereo, per se. I like these Beatles masters because:

1) Against all conventional wisdom, EMI listened to the audiophile contingent (Thanks, Michael Fremer), bucked the digitizing trend, and maintained an all-analog signal chain to remaster and release these recordings.

2) In the original sessions George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and the rest recorded, mixed, and mastered these recordings to be mono, and did the stereo mixes more as an afterthought purely for commercial purposes.

So although I prefer good stereo to mono, when mono has the superior mix and tonal balance, I'll take the mono. When the choice is 44.1 Khz digitized stereo or all-analog mono, again I'll take mono.

My all-time favorites are the 3-mic stereo labors of love from RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence, and the early Columbias (Miles Davis, Bruno Walter & CBS Symph Orch) before they got into close-mic'd multi-track recording.
stevecham
3,340 posts
 
Mono has no deficiencies. It's just a different sonic envelope, but one that is very coherent, and due to spacial events in the frequency domain, utilizes the room acoustic to provide spacial cues. I find it to be every bit as engaging as stereo, in some instances even more so.
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
3,026 posts
 
Great Stereo recording vs. Great Mono recording... I know which I would prefer to listen to--and it isn't the Mono.However, I'm not saying the Mono is bad... All IMHO.
gpgr4blu
1,096 posts
 
The new Beatles mono set is, in a word, fabulous. I will say that I prefer a majority of the Beatles career output in stereo. But when the mono is superior, it is bone chilling. And it is not infrequent. The pressing quality is as good it gets. An absolute must for any Beatle fan with a turntable. Better than the Japanese monos by a country mile.
More to discover