# What's your favorite remastering of the Beatles' catalog?



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

There currently exist not one, not two but three remasterings of their entire catalog. As any American with sufficient exposure to the outside world would know, Capitol Records was a money-grubbing corporation who released Beatles' albums fragmented up until the release of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Clubs Band in 1967.

I. The Beatles in Mono






​
As Beatles intended their albums up until they became increasingly interested in stereo technology during the recording of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Clubs Band - thanks to its increased capabilities than mono.

II. The Beatles in Stereo






​
The manner in which they were mixed by producers, post-production/approval by Beatles up until Yellow Submarine where they abandoned mono mixes and used Stereo mixes, hence, The Beatles in Mono only including albums up until Yellow Submarine.

III. The U. S. Albums






​
The box set dedicated and intended specifically for the nostalgic Americans who wanted to hear those horribly miss-mashed and weird sounding albums with their awkward remixes [Thanks to the mastering process]and what-nots again.

For me, personally: I enjoy Beatles in Mono up until Rubber Soul. After that, its a split. Before that, they sound horrid in Stereo due to the L/R problem and flat delivery. There's not the "sparkle and burst" that Mono has. Also, increasing differences between Stereo and Mono. "Helter Skelter" being an example. White Album being the clearest example. More details found in this particularly helpful post.

How about you?
*
Additional Helpful Links for the Newbie:

Differences between Beatles' U. S. and U. K. albums releases.

Beatles: Mono vs Stereo

Discussion on the differences between Beatles' Mono and Stereo mixes

Five Songs Which Sound Different in Mono and Stereo*

P.S. For more information on the boxed sets, click on their names.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Mono was better for the group up until and including Rubber Soul as that format suited the punchy directness of much of the material. 

1966 was the 'cusp' year where many of the tracks still sounded better in mono - the more swirly material like 'Tomorrow Never Knows' from Revolver and the 'Rain' b-side are exceptions. 

During the group's later period their ambitious use of overdubs and multi-tracking was made for stereo as a mono mix would make much of the material sound too compressed. However, Let It Be would sound fine in mono as it's a fairly bare-bones kind of record anyway.

I completely agree that most of the original stereo transfers on the pre-Pepper albums sounded terrible (the separation on Revolver was especially wretched), but the jury's still out in some quarters as to whether the later re-masters are as good as what was expected or hoped for.

However, I'm NOT buying them again! :lol:


----------



## AksharBadBoy (Jul 9, 2015)

woah.. you spent too much time on researching this, dude.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

I for one am glad he did - it's nice when someone else does the initial spadework.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Different remasterings, or different mixes? I bought all of the 2009 stereo re-issues except for Sgt Pepper.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Different remasterings, or different mixes? I bought all of the 2009 stereo re-issues except for Sgt Pepper.


The stereo mixes up until Yellow Submarine are all remixes of the mono masters into stereo.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> I for one am glad he did - it's nice when someone else does the initial spadework.


Thank you so much. I won't deny this compliment with humility. It took me at least half an hour. And that was on top of my initial days when I went gaga with Beatlemania. Thank you.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

This is my favorite version


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> This is my favorite version


I assume you are either a Satanist or just unaware of something called as "Beatles in Mono". Bro! Get yourself some sweet Mono-loving for the early albums.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Lord Lance said:


> I assume you are either a Satanist or just unaware of something called as "Beatles in Mono". Bro! Get yourself some sweet Mono-loving for the early albums.


Dude, I already know about all version of the Beatles.  Satanist? Ummm, okay. 

You are condemned to 10 hours of Taylor Swift in FLAC accordingly.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> Dude, I already know about all version of the Beatles.  Satanist? Ummm, okay.
> 
> You are condemned to 10 hours of Taylor Swift in FLAC accordingly.


FLAC or 64KBps MP3, she is equally industrially churned garbage. Rain or shine, Swift ain't worth a dime!

See, this is why I expressly hate iTunes. That is why you cannot rely on it exclusively. The Stereo remixes up until at least '65 aren't worth it. Perhaps a few good ones off Help! For Magical Mystery Tour, absolutely not.

Flat, panned, awful mixing, L/R problem and just that _oomph_. I know you were alive when The Beatles became a sensation and you're deep into their "Versions". But, bro, just download the Beatles in Mono. Alternatively, _I can acquire it for you._


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Lord Lance said:


> FLAC or 64KBps MP3, she is equally industrially churned garbage. Rain or shine, Swift ain't worth a dime!
> 
> See, this is why I expressly hate iTunes. That is why you cannot rely on it exclusively. The Stereo remixes up until at least '65 aren't worth it. Perhaps a few good ones off Help! For Magical Mystery Tour, absolutely not.
> 
> Flat, panned, awful mixing, L/R problem and just that _oomph_. I know you were alive when The Beatles became a sensation and you're deep into their "Versions". But, bro, just download the Beatles in Mono. Alternatively, _I can acquire it for you._


Sorry dude but I'm sticking to iTunes for this one.

Flat? Hmmm... don't think so. Only Flatland is flat.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> Sorry dude but I'm sticking to iTunes for this one.
> 
> Flat? Hmmm... don't think so. Only Flatland is flat.


Well, you won't hear the best variant then. Stereo is alright, but mono is much better. Plus, you can't judge without having tried it. And, I thought you were all about trying and exploring and expanding?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Lord Lance said:


> Well, you won't hear the best variant then. Stereo is alright, but mono is much better. Plus, you can't judge without having tried it. And, I thought you were all about trying and exploring and expanding?


There is no such thing as best. In this case we need both mono and stereo.

Also mono versions at the time were designed for radio play because of the limitations of the 45 format. Knowing the history of how the Beatles is important. A scholarly approach is needed.

More explanation here: http://www.showbiz411.com/2015/01/11/exclusive-paul-mccartney-reboots-beatles-catalog-for-neil-youngs-pono-music-player

Also the stereo versions are considered the final versions by your man buddy. Mono is important mostly for historical version.

And yes I do explore but never blindly. After all, when the blind leads the blind, then they plunge like lemmings.










Research your Beatles studio session notes. Those are crucial. You can't go by personal preferences strictly without looking at the historical context and circumstances.

https://www.ponomusic.com/0D51500001aUaex


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> There is no such thing as best. In this case we need both mono and stereo.
> 
> Also mono versions at the time were designed for radio play because of the limitations of the 45 format. Knowing the history of how the Beatles is important. A scholarly approach is needed.
> 
> ...


I have done more than my fair share of research, friend. I say best much like anyone else: Subjectively. Perhaps, I should incorporate that into my signature. Honestly, why anyone would _enjoy _the panning, flat sound or L/R output baffles me. I think this is a just another case of you stubbornly defending iTunes. Stereo may be considered final but that doesn't make them better. That's plain fallacious.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> There is no such thing as best. In this case we need both mono and stereo.
> 
> Also mono versions at the time were designed for radio play because of the limitations of the 45 format. Knowing the history of how the Beatles is important. A scholarly approach is needed.
> 
> ...


I have done more than my fair share of research, friend. I say best much like anyone else: Subjectively. Perhaps, I should incorporate that into my signature. Honestly, why anyone would _enjoy _the panning, flat sound or L/R output baffles me. I think this is a just another case of you stubbornly defending iTunes. Stereo may be considered final but that doesn't make them better. That's plain fallacious.

I think you are the white sheep in your example. Since most people stick to Beatles in Stereo.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Lord Lance said:


> I have done more than my fair share of research, friend. I say best much like anyone else: Subjectively. Perhaps, I should incorporate that into my signature. Honestly, why anyone would _enjoy _the panning, flat sound or L/R output baffles me. I think this is a just another case of you stubbornly defending iTunes. Stereo may be considered final but that doesn't make them better. That's plain fallacious.
> 
> I think you are the white sheep in your example. Since most people stick to Beatles in Stereo.


Sorry but both versions are valid. The stereo mixes are the final scholarly mixes as done for by the Beatles.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/422657/the-beatles-mono-vs-stereo

"Flattening out the stereo is not the same as the mono. The mono recordings are completely different mixes, optimized for mono.

Honestly, I think the general consensus of the stereo set being the one to get is wrong. I think the mono set is much better, but you would have to supplement it with the stereo versions of Magical Mystery Tour on.

By the way, it appears that most third party sales of Beatles boxes on eBay and Amazon marketplace are bootlegs. The only way to tell is to look at fine details in the typography and the kind of sleeve used in the jackets."

Mono is good but stereo is a must for the latter works. Then again, I remember that you aren't a fan of The White Album or Abbey Road.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2015)

I can't say I have a favourite. I'm listening to the 2009 stereo "And I Love Her". It's great. I don't have a mono version to compare with - and when I first heard it (back when it was first released in '64) we just had a Dansette.

Trying the mono "I Saw Her Standing There" (older mix) - it is punchy and fresh, but with no stereo version in my collection to compare, I can't tell whether it could be bettered.

I think that some songs fare better than others, irrespective of the period from which they come.



> L/R output


I'm not sure what you mean - are you referring to the mix where some instruments come through only one channel? I have no problem with that.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

Albert7 said:


> Then again, I remember that you aren't a fan of The White Album or Abbey Road.


Hmmmm.... Making **** up your *** again... Have any sources or reference or citations for this? _At all?

_Look, Stereo is fine from Help! It isn't so bad in Help! But before that it really feels disappointing compared to mono. If it doesn't for you, that's fine. I can accept that. Stick with what you like. It's the music that matters. Feels like we are trivializing masterful compositions now. Peace and Love, bro. V


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I can't say I have a favourite. I'm listening to the 2009 stereo "And I Love Her". It's great. I don't have a mono version to compare with - and when I first heard it (back when it was first released in '64) we just had a Dansette.
> 
> Trying the mono "I Saw Her Standing There" (older mix) - it is punchy and fresh, but with no stereo version in my collection to compare, I can't tell whether it could be bettered.
> 
> ...


Not precisely. Stereo mixes that I've heard have vocals from one channel and instruments from others. The problem is compounded when other effects are employed. For me, at least.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I can't say I have a favourite. I'm listening to the 2009 stereo "And I Love Her". It's great. I don't have a mono version to compare with - and when I first heard it (back when it was first released in '64) we just had a Dansette.
> 
> Trying the mono "I Saw Her Standing There" (older mix) - it is punchy and fresh, but with no stereo version in my collection to compare, I can't tell whether it could be bettered.
> 
> ...


The current stereo mixes have corrected the earlier issues to add more balance to the whole albums.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

My current preference -- the latest mono renderings on 180 gram vinyl, especially when heard via a quality sound system with a dedicated mono cartridge such as the Ortofon 2M Mono Phono Cartridge.







plus






equals Beatles Nirvana.

I say this having heard a number of manifestations of the Beatles' catalogue on all sorts of media including LP record, cassette tape, and CD. (I have not ventured into downloads yet.)

For years my "go to" source for Beatles music for my at home listening sessions was from the 1978 Blue Box set of Parlophone LPs:









These are stereo discs that have stood me in good stead for many years.

But I have added other copies of Beatles music to my collection, including both the LP and CD versions of The Beatles Stereo Box Set from 2009, and the white CD box of the Beatles in Mono Set (a highly recommended collection, that features both the mono tracks and the 1965 stereo mix of a couple of the albums). Actually, upon receiving that set of mono CDs, I stopped listening to any of the stereo sets, even though I went on to add the CD box set of "The Beatles: The U.S. Albums" to my collection.

But being a vinyl fan, I find I prefer the sound of the new Mono Masters via black disc. Still, I have so much Beatles stuff in so many formats and in various pressings (including several of the original releases on LP from "back in the day") that it can all get rather confusing. And though there are differences from set to set and from pressing to pressing ... I generally find that when I'm listening to The Beatles I am enjoying myself listening to the music.

And I recall enjoying the music via a small transistor radio in the 1960s, the first way I ever heard the Beatles. My current rig will certainly play the music to a higher level of aesthetic clarity and depth, but I've enjoyed this music in all sorts of venues.

Good music will allow that kind of experience.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

I own both mono and stereo boxsets. I can't tell you which one is better. I think like what others have already mentioned, it really depends on which album you're listening to.

I am a little concerned at the fact that Amazon is selling bootleg versions though. I bought mine at HMV which is probably the only place left in Toronto that I don't worry about bootlegs when I buy NEW CDs. That's unless they got scammed themselves.


----------

