Too bad the mono editions are not sold as individual discs. I recall reading on stevehoffman.tv (a few years ago that is) that they would be released as double-sets with the stereo and mono version on each disc. How unfortunate that this was not the case.
The price tag on the boxes is way too much for me, and even if I had extra money to dish out I'd definitely want to evaluate the product thurally (listen to it for hours and hours) before deciding if its worth it.
Well, there's always hardcore piracy and public libraries to help me evaluate...
John S Stuart · Member since
Don't get me wrong. I really like the Beatles. I grew up with the Beatles. The Beatles are my first musical memories. So this is NOT a public slanging.
Rather, I am disappointed in myself because I broke the first Golden Rule: Do [b]not[/b] believe the hype!
John S Stuart · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
Has anyone bought the mono box? It's selling out fast and I am undecided. I buy the stereo box anyway for the DVD and commentaries but I think the mono box must be worth having, too...
On CNN we can hear 2 small samples comparing the 1987 versions to the new remasters
"Money" sounds very different because the acoustic guitar is not so prominent anymore but is it better or just different? The difference of the "Dear Prudence" mixes is not so evident as in "Money".[/QUOTE]
Just listened to this link Barb, and I think it is a very good and fair review. I would urge all to listen to it.
They emphisise the positives - while I have highlighted the negatives, but we both agree that buying these products will not shatter your world.
I have no 'investment' other than audio, so I would say for the price, the box sets are far too expensive and not worth it. (Even though I still actually bought them - more money than sense I guess!).
However, on reflection, discriminate purchases of individual albums may be the best way forward.
On reflection, if you have a spare $200 they may make a nice present for someone. Otherwise, the original CD releases stand just as tall as these new remasters.
My problem is that I expected the old original releases to be eclipsed by a gigantic shadow, and in truth, that is not the case.
john bodega · Member since
To be honest I'm really not sure how to feel about this, now having heard some examples! [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I might just look at the cost of getting all the albums .. in whatever form they were before this re-release, and weigh it against getting the new one as cheap as I can. As I've said, I only own the Anthology myself- everything else is stuff I've 'borrowed' from friends or family. So buying the new set only to find it's no big improvement isn't a problem for me.[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard · Member since
John... that 1999 remix is superb. I can only wonder why they stuck with the old stereo mix for the 2009 re-release.
John S Stuart · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
John... that 1999 remix is superb. I can only wonder why they stuck with the old stereo mix for the 2009 re-release.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that.
I do not want to hog this converation.
This is not my 'thread' - I just wish to bounce ideas with like-minded (neutral) audiophiles. So please, please me (no pun intended) and let's get a proper audiophile discussion going.
The dedicated Beatles boards are too biased, as they see these new releases as a Messiahianic return.
Even then, I too agree, that there are some really good 2009 versions, and 'Money' is a really good example of all that is positive with the set (but I have only listened up to 'Pepper' so far).
However - having listened to the 1999 remixes for the last 10 years, I guess I was expecting all tracks to be upto this standard - and clearly they are not.
I have also had the Stereo German bootleg CD's for some time - so the first four new albums (for me) are no great shakes either.
Based on my subjective opinion I would highly recommend the 2009 'Hard Day's Night' & 'Help' discs - that seems to be the best of the new bunch so far.
I now look forward to GH's 'Abbey Road', recommendation and will let you know how I get on once I reach that album.
YourValentine · Member since
I agree that the 1999 mixes sound far superior. Too bad they did not follow that route for the 2009 mixes. I ordered the mono box - at least it's something that was not done before. And I saved so much money I wanted to spend on Queen audio DVDs, GVH3, archive releases....
Yara · Member since
I don't have any of the albums on CD. I had worn out some of my recordings beyond recovery already. So I ended up buying the series. I know I'll whine about not having enough free space in this hellhole here, but I think the fact I hadn't bought any of the releases on CD makes my purchase at least justifiable. It was a win-win situation, I guess. Sooner or later I'd have to update my collection, if for no other reason to be actually able to listen to the music. What better time to do it?
That said, I'm not expecting much from the documentaries. I think Anthology is pretty exhaustive and all the Beatles I need to know about is there. I have the movies. So the main appeal to me was simply being able to listen to the music again.
FriedChicken · Member since
I made some A/B comparisons of the old and the new remasters. And I'm also dissappointed. It all sounds really loud and compressed too much, if you listen to the guitars in Two of Us, it sounds so compressed that you can hardly hear they're guitars. Also if you listen to the drums in the verses they're really flat and have a really granular, gritty quality to them.
I really don't like this heavy compressing, it sounds like a McCartney solo album!
john bodega · Member since
Oh God say it isn't true!!! [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Please tell me they haven't taken the Macca Compressor to the Beatles albums!!![/QUOTE]
YourValentine · Member since
The mono box arrived today, it looks cute with all the album replicas, inner sleeves and even the Sergeant Pepper cut out that used to be in the old LP.
I listened to Sergeant Pepper because I never owned a mono version and I like the sound although I would not say it sounds "better" than the stereo version I am used to, There are some distinct differences in the mix which makes you wonder why it was changed for the stereo version.(I am comparing to the 1987 stereo CDs, I do not play my old LPs anymore). The mono mixes do not sound outdated or "flat" at all.
From the booklet I learned that the first four albums were never mixed into stereo and are therefore also mono on the 1987 CDs which is true - the first 4 CDs are all mono. Funnily, however, I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix - now where does this come from? My "Help" and Rubber Soul" LPs are also stereo, so I assume they are the same as the additional "first stereo" mixes in the mono box. I will need a lot of time to listen and compare but I can listen to the Beatles anytime, for me they are time- and ageless.
*goodco* · Member since
The first four LPs were released as 'stereophonic'.....and various tracks were made into stereo up to 1969 for Capitol Records. Once again..........how are the first four albums as far as 'better' than the crappy '87 CDs?
(appreciate the reviews for those previously mentioned on this thread).
As to 'Sgt Pepper' and 'The Beatles'....the LPs were released in mono, as well as stereo, since stereo was still somewhat of a new concept back in those stone ages. One could go on and on in referencing singles on through the 'Magical Mystery Tour' EP/USA album and all the stereophonic variances. Thus the different mixes, and different versions of so many tracks. Differences also related to releasing songs to the USA before the final mixes were complete for the UK albums.
[url=http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatleslp_date.html]http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatleslp_date.html[/url] is a great website detailing all Beatle and solo releases. Mark Lewisohn's 'The Complete Beatle Recording Sessions', published in 1987, is, more or less, THE bible for accurate reference, and a great read for those interested.
YourValentine · Member since
"Once again..........how are the first four albums as far as 'better' than the crappy '87 CDs?"
I listened to "With The Beatles" last night and I am afraid that you will be disappointed if you expect a complete new sound experience. I hear some instruments and backing vocals clearer than in the 1987 mix but I would not say there is a lightyear of a difference. Maybe it's asking for the impossible to think that you suddenly get a 21st century sound out of the old tapes. But then I did not feel like "standing in the studio" when I listened to the samples on CNN I posted in the link above, either, so my judgement is not worth that much. If you are a hardcore Beatles fan I recommend the mono box for the improvement because there is just no other upgrade but for a casual listener it's probably not worth the money.
***Marial-B*** · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
Funnily, however, I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix.
[/QUOTE]
My dad owns all the capitol LP's and they're on stereo. After that he bought the original 60's LP's, and they were stereo also. When he bought the 1987 CD's, he got mad they weren't on stereo xD.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
I own a vinyl album "With The Beatles " from the 60s which is definitely a stereo mix - now where does this come from?
[/QUOTE]
I'll second what goodco said... it's probably the 1969 re-release.
