The Beatles Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Alembic Club » Miscellaneous » Archive through December 12, 2010 » The Beatles « Previous Next »

Author Message
glocke
Senior Member
Username: glocke

Post Number: 790
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 2:57 pm:   Edit Post

are now on itunes...but its a compressed format so Im really not interested. But I am in interested in one of the Beatles box sets, but which to get?

Mono or Stereo? Suggestions?
terryc
Senior Member
Username: terryc

Post Number: 1423
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 3:36 pm:   Edit Post

get both glocke..the sound is amazing, all retro mini sleeves as well
Christmas is coming so there is a gift suggestion
jon_jackson
Junior
Username: jon_jackson

Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2008
Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 5:13 pm:   Edit Post

If you can only get one box set, I recommend the mono version. Then, if you want to get a couple of the later versions in real stereo, go for The Beatles (white album) and Abbey Road, as the mixes are different.
-Jon
terryc
Senior Member
Username: terryc

Post Number: 1426
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 4:04 am:   Edit Post

jon..yes I prefer the mono mix but I had to have both!!!
sonicus
Senior Member
Username: sonicus

Post Number: 1396
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 - 9:13 am:   Edit Post

I agree , both is the way to go. I like to compare sonic differences .
I love Paul's playing on "Dear Prudence " ; Counter Point !

(Message edited by sonicus on November 17, 2010)
terryc
Senior Member
Username: terryc

Post Number: 1428
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2010 - 1:27 pm:   Edit Post

Looks like I will have to listen to them now you lot have brought this up.
glocke
Senior Member
Username: glocke

Post Number: 793
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 3:34 pm:   Edit Post

Had the mono box set delivered via amazon on Friday and am listening to the "White Album" as I type this. Amazing...Ive heard it all before of course, but this sounds incredible.
davehouck
Moderator
Username: davehouck

Post Number: 9879
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 5:34 pm:   Edit Post

I just have to ask. What is the difference between the mono and the stereo sets; and why wouldn't the stereo sound significantly better than the mono?
lbpesq
Senior Member
Username: lbpesq

Post Number: 4649
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 8:14 pm:   Edit Post

Weren't the early albums recorded, mixed and issued in mono?

Bill, tgo
jbybj
Advanced Member
Username: jbybj

Post Number: 318
Registered: 6-2006
Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 - 9:44 pm:   Edit Post

Mr. Emmerick talks about this some in his book, Here, There, and Everywhere. The mono mixes were done first, and had the most effort and finesse employed. It was generally assumed that the vast majority of listeners would be doing so in Mono. The stereo mixes were done as somewhat of an afterthought. I am generalizing a bit, but Mr. Emmerick certainly considers the mono versions to be the "better" mixes. When I got the collection for my wife last Christmas, I chose the stereo versions in the USB package. No regrets.
hydrargyrum
Senior Member
Username: hydrargyrum

Post Number: 882
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 - 6:14 am:   Edit Post

I found the following flow chart to be helpful:

The Beatles
lbpesq
Senior Member
Username: lbpesq

Post Number: 4652
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 - 7:31 am:   Edit Post

Kevin:

ROTFLMAO!!!!

However, I believe the original question concerned the actual box sets, not the compressed "virtual" records from itunes.

Bill, tgo
adriaan
Moderator
Username: adriaan

Post Number: 2690
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 - 7:40 am:   Edit Post

As funny as that flow chart is, it doesn't take into account those of us who have no use for anything available via iTunes.
wideload
Intermediate Member
Username: wideload

Post Number: 164
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2010 - 10:19 am:   Edit Post

As an Apple stockholder, I encourage everyone to get both the boxed set from iTunes, and each individual album from iTunes, and anything else you can think of from iTunes, and maybe a few iMacs to play your iTunes collection on, and...
I really would like to retire soon. Helpa brother out??
(Its had to type this with my tongue firmly implanted in cheek!)
jacko
Senior Member
Username: jacko

Post Number: 2795
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 8:06 am:   Edit Post

I'd only be interested if these were coming out on 180gm vinyl.

Graeme
adriaan
Moderator
Username: adriaan

Post Number: 2692
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2010 - 9:06 am:   Edit Post

Are you sure you don't want that in imperial measurements? 180 grams equals 6.349313150924474 ounces, surely that can't be right for analogue sound.
terryc
Senior Member
Username: terryc

Post Number: 1433
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 6:58 am:   Edit Post

jacko..I am telling you that the remastered CD's are brilliant, okay vinyl would be the ultimate but I would be a right collector and never play them.
Is that Deutsche Gramaphone weights?? I always remember they were much heavier than the run of the mill LP's that were sold
jacko
Senior Member
Username: jacko

Post Number: 2801
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 8:01 am:   Edit Post

I believe you Terry. However, I'm unlikely to ever find out as I already have all the Beatles albums and I've never got into the habit of collecting all the different releases. I only started collecting 'Audiophile' LP releases around 6 or 7 years ago when I upgraded my turntable but I'm only buying music I didn't already have. There's something very satisfying about handling one of these heavier LPs. I have Carole King's 'Tapestry' in 200gm vinyl which is about the heaviest in my collection and it sounds superb. I don't know much about the earlier DG releases; I have quite a few of karajan's works from around the late 80's - early 90's when CD was getting very popular and you can tell that the company was starting to focus on the new media as the LP vinyl is very flimsy. Same with YES releases from then e.g. Big generator and Talk.

Graeme
terryc
Senior Member
Username: terryc

Post Number: 1434
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 10:55 am:   Edit Post

jacko..I bet 'Tapestry' sounds as good as you describe and as you say you need a high quality turntable to play those discs.
On the CD note, I remember when my son was very young and I got an LP out and he said 'That's a big CD, how do you get it in the machine!' LOL
benson_murrensun
Advanced Member
Username: benson_murrensun

Post Number: 383
Registered: 5-2007
Posted on Monday, November 29, 2010 - 11:12 am:   Edit Post

I just re-organized my vinyl albums after making a move last year and found my Country Joe And The Fish Live At Fillmore West 1969. It is on two thick, heavy vinyl discs. The sound is OK, but I wouldn't describe it as "audiophile."
It's an awesome jam, with Garcia, Hart, Casady, Kaukonen and others contributing.
And hooray for my old Acoustic Research XA turntable, which has been with me since 1970!
tomhug
Member
Username: tomhug

Post Number: 53
Registered: 7-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 7:36 am:   Edit Post

I posted before when the 2009 remasters came out, and I'll say it again. ANY BASSIST MUST GET THESE VERSIONS!

Paul is mixed way up and the level of detail and definition is nothing short of revolutionary.

I don't care much one way or the other about the iTunes version (although the stats on the Beatles sales figures are quite interesting).

The 24-bit FLAC versions that came in the Apple-shaped USB key are like a doctoral dissertation on what would become rock bass going forward. I know Sir Paul wasn't the only innovator, but after listening to these in full resolution, I realize I didn't give him enough mental credit.
glocke
Senior Member
Username: glocke

Post Number: 797
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 7:57 am:   Edit Post

"I posted before when the 2009 remasters came out, and I'll say it again. ANY BASSIST MUST GET THESE VERSIONS! "

I agree, though when I mention to some other musicians that I consider Paul, James Jamerson, Jack Cassady and Phil Lesh to be four of the greatest bassists to have lived, and my four personal favorites, I get weird looks because I dont have Stanley, Victor, or other slappity slap guys on my list.
tomhug
Member
Username: tomhug

Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2008
Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 11:49 am:   Edit Post

Well you'd get a high-five from me (or maybe a low four!).

I would substitute Entwistle for Casady in my list (and somehow try to sneak John McVie on there, too). Casady would still be high on my overall list though.

One very good low, round note, right in the pocket, beats clickety slappity in my book (with no offense to the many highly talented slappers in the world intended - just not my absolute favorite thing)
bigredbass
Senior Member
Username: bigredbass

Post Number: 1565
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2010 - 12:04 pm:   Edit Post

Paul and Jamerson and Carol Kaye and Duck Dunn made me want to play bass. As much as I can admire Stanley and Victor and the latest NAMM-show Bass Olympics monster, that's not who I am.

I always say the greatest four-minute bass lesson in the world is Carol Kaye's 'Good Vibrations' chart. PROOF that God really may be a woman, if it's not Susan Wickersham !

J o e y

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration