Beatles Remastered - Stereo and Mono

[HoratioCaine]

As I would imagine most people are aware of by now, the entire Beatles catalog has been remastered for CD, and separate editions featuring original stereo and mono mixes have been issued. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the remasters in the Sgt. Pepper sticky thread, much of it by yours truly. However, since acquiring both sets of remasters (with the exception of the stereo Yellow Submarine album, which doesn't warrant its price tag, imo), I have been doing some careful comparisons between the two, as well as the original CDs from 1987, and taking some substantial notes. Since the Sgt. Pepper thread is about, duh, Sgt. Pepper, I've decided to post my listening notes in its own thread. Feel free to add to the discussion.

I'm posting my notes in instalments, as I write them, from first album to last. First up, the first four albums. More to follow....


Please Please Me
Versions compared: ’87 CD (mono), ’09 mono CD, ’09 stereo CD

The ’09 mono disc sounds a lot better than the ’87 mono disc. The volume isn’t as loud on the ’09 disc (indicating a degree of limiting on the ’87 disc, perhaps?), but the high and low frequencies stand out better, without the overly prominent midrange featured on the ’87 CD, which sounded overblown and distorted at times. The difference between the two can be dramatic on some tracks (e.g., the title track). The stereo remaster sounds great in terms of clarity and frequency response, but the extreme channel separation is annoying coming on the heels of the mono discs’ centered sound image. I wasn’t as bothered by the separation when listening to the stereo disc on its own, but following the mono, the stereo mix really reveals the limitations of its approach.

Winner: ’09 mono.


With The Beatles
Versions compared: ’87 CD (mono), ’09 mono CD, ’09 stereo CD

The ’09 mono disc is another clear winner over the ’87 CD. In this case, bass response is definitely fuller on the mono disc, but the sound is a little less refined than on Please Please Me. The stereo sound borders on being muddy at times, and doesn’t hold an advantage when it comes to revealing more details, either instrumental or textural. One notable exception to this tendency is “Money,” which really shines in stereo.

Winner: ’09 mono, except for “Money,” where stereo has the clear edge.


A Hard Day’s Night
Versions compared: ’87 CD (mono), ’09 mono CD, ’09 stereo CD

No big surprise that the remastered mono CD bests the ’87 CD, for the same basic reasons as in the first two albums. The remastered mono is better balanced in terms of frequency response, is “smoother” and more refined sounding, and is less distorted in the midrange.

For the first time, the stereo mix has a chance of rivaling the mono mix, although which one is “better” is subjective and a matter of personal preference. Unlike the first two albums, the stereo mix of A Hard Day’s Night has centered vocals and generally well placed instruments in the stereo field – although the drums are still oddly relegated to the left channel on most songs. Some of the tracks really shine in stereo: “I Should Have Known Better,” “I’m Happy Just to Dance With You,” “And I Love Her,” “Things We Said Today.” Others are clearly better in mono: the title track, “Tell Me Why,” “Can’t Buy Me Love,” “I’ll Cry Instead.” There are also some curious differences between the mixes on some songs; for instance, the stereo mix of “If I Fell” has (badly) obvious double-tracking on Lennon’s intro vocals, plus McCartney botches the backing vocal on the second “in vain” refrain. (Otherwise, the song sounds great in stereo.) There is also a hint of wow (tape speed variation) in the right-channel guitar of “I’ll be Back.”

On the whole, the mono wins out, if for no other reason than none of the tracks sound bad on the mono disc, even if some of them sound better in stereo. Conversely, some of the tracks just don’t sound good in stereo, making the mono disc more consistently listenable. Also, the mono disc sounds more “authentic,” without some of the idiosyncrasies of the stereo mix that at times almost make the latter sound like a trial run that ultimately was left in the vaults.

Winner: ’09 mono CD, but the stereo is a nice version to have all the same.


Beatles For Sale
Versions compared: ’87 CD (mono), ’09 mono CD, ’09 stereo CD

At this point it almost doesn’t bear mentioning that the remastered mono disc beats the ’87 disc. Nevertheless, it’s a worthy point to make regarding this album, because among the first four discs, Beatles For Sale always fared the worst in its ’87 mastering, sounding muddy and cluttered, lending to the belief that the mix itself was subpar. Not so. All the comments that applied to the first three albums on this point apply here as well, but even more so. At last, Beatles For Sale in mono sounds good on CD.

Having said that, the stereo Beatles For Sale may well be the only release among the first four discs that trumps its mono counterpart. The approach to stereo is the same as in A Hard Day’s Night – centered vocals, realistically placed instruments, except for the drums, which remain to the left (but not egregiously so). While the mono mix is no slouch (especially in the remastered form), the details, textures, bass response and instrument clarity are just plain better in the stereo mix. Unlike the mixed bag of the stereo A Hard Day’s Night, these characteristics apply across the board on the stereo Beatles For Sale. Most revelatory moment: “I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party.”

Winner: ’09 stereo CD, with the ’09 mono CD coming in a very good second.


Next up: the 1965 albums, featuring mono, original stereo and 1986 digital stereo remixes.

 

[The Knize]

<Most revelatory moment: &#8220;I Don&#8217;t Want to Spoil the Party.&#8221;>

Great notes, but you can't drop a terse line like that and not expect a request for an explanation! So tell what was revelatory!

I love that song. Seems like such a hip reference to Brenda Lee, too.

 

[HoratioCaine]

Great notes, but you can't drop a terse line like that and not expect a request for an explanation! So tell what was revelatory!

I love that song. Seems like such a hip reference to Brenda Lee, too.

Maybe it's a personal thing. It's one of my favorite songs on the album, and hearing it in such great sound, in stereo, is one of those moments where I just smile and think how glad I am they did this project. The sound on that song is crystal clear and very present, like the band is in the room with you. The guitar accents in the right channel stand out, whereas they blend in the mono mix. The remastered mono sounds good too, but the stereo beats it, imo.

P.S. Sorry for the typo in the subject line. I tried to correct it, but I can only correct the subject line in the body of the post, not in the index. Oh well.

EDIT: It would seem the typo finally got corrected.

 

[jazzman]

I'm anxiously awaiting the rest of your opinions. If I didn't have a job, I'd have time to compare the 1966-68 mono reissues to the Capitol stereo LPs, which I haven't listened to in a while, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. Based on my memory, though, the new monos are much better.

 

[The Knize]

We are on the same page now. I thought you meant by revelatory that something new was revealed. I agree with what you save about Spoil the Party.

My favorite cut on that album has always been No Reply. It sounds great here. Lennon singing full on, sounding angry, hurt, sad, just like the protagonist of the song. I did not realize that was hand clapping in the middle. Brilliant. How many sad angry songs have hand clapping? Drums on the left and hand cymbals I would say on the right including one clash toward the end that is way off!

The revelation to me is Every Little Thing. Said to be written by PM, clearly sung by JL--with lots of conviction and nuance. “Yes I know I’m a lucky guy” “and I know that she loves me now” “guy” and “now” multi-syllabic and enunciated oddly. And a driving bass line that just owns that cut. Love the chunky, chunk rhythm. This time drums on the left and tympani on the right, with a tasteful electric lead that drops in and out also on the right. This to me is PM and JL is full collaboration, each contributing lots and bringing each others’ game. If PM had sung this it would be some treacly, sweet ballad, of no great moment. The lyrics are pretty simple. If JL had written it, someone would be sleeping in a bathtub or something. There would be some distancing irony. But it’s there anyway. Anyone else hear “Under My Thumb” in this cut?

What a Shakesperian scope cut list on this album. Scholars talk about how Shakespeare takes one point of view in one scene and switches to the other in the next scene. Opens with No Reply—angry, jilted, guy. Next cut I’m a Loser. JL again. No longer angry at her, but disappointed with himself. Next Baby’s In Black, in love but she loves someone else. Then a little out of order, but say Spoil the Party. If I find her I’ll be glad. Then maybe Every Little Thing. The same guy, JL, that was getting no reply and that was a loser, is now absolutely certain that love will never die, and that he will love her forever. Now he’s a lucky guy. And the irony is we are right there with him. And, of course, the closer, everybody’s trying to be my baby. I was a loser before, now everyone wants to get with me. Pretty much a trip from hell to heaven in romantic love.

 

[strat1117]

As I would imagine most people are aware of by now, the entire Beatles catalog has been remastered for CD, and separate editions featuring original stereo and mono mixes have been issued. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the remasters in the Sgt. Pepper sticky thread, much of it by yours truly. However, since acquiring both sets of remasters (with the exception of the stereo Yellow Submarine album, which doesn't warrant its price tag, imo), I have been doing some careful comparisons between the two, as well as the original CDs from 1987, and taking some substantial notes. Since the Sgt. Pepper thread is about, duh, Sgt. Pepper, I've decided to post my listening notes in its own thread. Feel free to add to the discussion.

ahhh .... youth.

I guess you didn't get the vinyl, HC? As you know, the Beatles had been broken up for almost two decades when the CDs were finally released and, if I recall correctly, they were based on who-knows-what-generation copies of the original masters and universally reviled as sonic abominations.

I don't mean to poke fun; I do realize this is a labor of love and a lot of work -- I just couldn't help but laugh at your reference to the "original" CDs.

 

[Thebigspendur]

Yes, and don't forget when you take any analogue source and convert it to digital some engineer is sitting there saying, hmm all that signal won't fit on a CD so what can we trash from the original. Yes there are more dynamics and its clearer and cleaner and louder however that's all window dressing.

 

[Brodirt]

eh...the Beatles are overrated

 

[strat1117]

eh...the Beatles are overrated

 

[HoratioCaine]

I don't mean to poke fun; I do realize this is a labor of love and a lot of work -- I just couldn't help but laugh at your reference to the "original" CDs.

For what it's worth, the remastering engineers did side by side comparisons between their new masters and the '87 CDs, to get an idea of what just what had been improved with their new transfers, what still needed to be improved, and what didn't. For myself, I'm quite interested to see just what the engineers have done since 1987, since the project was aimed not only at making The Beatles recordings sound as good as possible, but specifically to make them sound good on CD, which many (but not all) of the eariler discs failed to do.

Alas, you're right. I was a junior in high school when I first came to appreciate The Beatles. It was 1988, and all my friends (who were themselves techno geeks) were only into CDs, as I was myself. Being the son of an audio engineer who got his training in the '50s and '60s, you might have thought I'd have an appreciation of past formats, but I tended to share Herbert von Karajan's view of technological advancements: compared to the latest development, "all else is gaslight." Vinyl seemed like some relic from the past, and my friends and I never even considered it an option. Honestly, I haven't come much further since then. While I appreciate that vinyl is better than I originally considered, the fact remains that since I never had a vinyl collection to begin with, I have never felt compelled to build one up; I don't even have a turntable. So yeah, my observations are limited to the various CD incarnations of the albums (I have the Capitol boxes, but am leaving them out of the discussion), and they should be considered with that in mind.

 

[HoratioCaine]

Yes, and don't forget when you take any analogue source and convert it to digital some engineer is sitting there saying, hmm all that signal won't fit on a CD so what can we trash from the original. Yes there are more dynamics and its clearer and cleaner and louder however that's all window dressing.

That's a pretty solid argument for the release of the digital transfers on a format like Blu-ray, which uses the same 24-bit, 192 kHz technology as was used in the transfers themselves. Obviously something is lost when dropping it down to the Red Book standard of 16-bit, 44.1 kHz. But what, exactly, is lost? I came across an interesting study (link) that tried to measure whether people could discern between CDs and higher resolution formats like SACD and DVD-A (the study did not include Blu-ray). The study suggests the improvements offered by higher-res audio formats are actually indistinguishable by the human ear, all other things being equal. What usually is not equal is that the higher-res formats typically get superior, audiophile grade mastering, whereas CDs are often relegated to mass-market status, and end up casualties of the loudness wars. In other words, the study suggests that when CDs feature the same high-quality masters as the high-res formats, most people cannot tell the two formats apart. I'm not saying whether this is correct or not. I just think it is an interesting point to ponder when discussing loss of data when transferring from high-res to CD.

As for the signal not fitting on a CD, technically that is correct, but virgin vinyl albums were themselves at least two analogue generations away from the original master mixes, and were thus subject to transfer degradation. Unless we are dealing with an absolutely transparent, non-degrading medium, somebody or something is always choosing what stays and what doesn't. The engineers listened very critically to the tapes they were trying to improve, and no one person had an absolute say; the results were always evaluated by at least four members of the seven-member engineering team, as well as reps from EMI, and ultimately had be to approved by the band members themselves (or their heirs). While individuals can always quibble, I feel pretty confident that with these remasters, we are presented with the best we can have at the time, in this medium (CD).

 

[HoratioCaine]

Note: in order to distinuish my review posts from the discussion posts, I am marking my review posts with a green arrow.

On to 1965....

Help!
Versions compared: ’09 mono CD (also includes original ’65 stereo mix), ’87 stereo CD (digital stereo Martin remix), ’09 stereo CD (digital stereo Martin remix)

So much for straightforward comparisons. Where to begin? First of all, the stereo remaster (with the digital remix George Martin prepared in 1986 for the initial release of the album on CD) offers an improvement over the ’87 disc. Granted, because of the generally high sound quality of Martin’s mix, the ’87 disc was never in much need of assistance. Nevertheless, the ’09 remastering features brighter details, more pronounced bass, and generally punchier sonic impact. (There were a few places where I felt the bass might actually be a little too pronounced on the remaster, such as on “Ticket to Ride,” which seems to be a little less transparent sounding than on the ’87 disc.) The limiting and compression seems to have been used a little more liberally here than on the first four discs, as the loudness on the remastered disc is substantially increased, but not to the point of detrimentally affecting the overall sound. On the contrary, the Abbey Road engineers seem to have used a fair amount of restraint in applying limiting to the catalog as a whole, using it the way a fine chef uses spices – just enough for accent, without overwhelming the main dish. (The mono box features no limiting, compression or noise reduction. Its discs are made from true audiophile masters.)

So how do the mono and ’65 stereo mixes compare? In sonic terms, neither of the mixes has the clarity and punch of either mix of the first four albums. In listening to them, I get some idea of why Martin wanted to do a remix. Generally, each of them has a rather cluttered, slightly dull sound. Having said that, neither mix sounds dreadful, but they are a bit of a comedown from the sonic heights of Beatles For Sale. Comparing either of the original mixes to the later remix is a bit unfair, because Martin’s was a digital remix from the original multitrack tapes; his efforts, perforce, are sonically superior, generally speaking. Conversely, although he evidently tried to stay faithful to the spirit of the original stereo mix, one nevertheless gets a feeling of an “invisible hand” at work in the remix, and as such, despite its sonic improvements, it doesn’t have quite the organic feel of either of the original mixes, especially the mono.

One point worth mentioning: the mono title track is dramatically different from either the ’65 or ’86 stereo mixes, as it features a different lead vocal track, as well as different audio effects (such as the isolated descending guitar arpeggio after the chorus, leading back into the verse). On the mono vocal, Lennon sounds more distressed, emotionally weary, and truly in need of help. On the vocal used in the stereo mix (which was also used in the ’86 mix), he sounds more chipper.

Winner: tough call. The ’09 stereo CD (with the Martin remix) wins in terms of sound, but the mono disc wins for feeling more organic, like what The Beatles intended. For what it’s worth, Martin himself felt the mono master should have been used for the original CD release back in the ’80s. He only asked for a remix because Apple wanted to use the ’65 stereo mix, which he thought was subpar. (I actually don’t think it’s that bad, but I do prefer the mono.)


Rubber Soul
Versions compared: ’09 mono CD (also includes original ’65 stereo mix), ’87 stereo CD (digital stereo Martin remix), ’09 stereo CD (digital stereo Martin remix)

The same factors that complicate comparisons of Help! also complicate comparisons of Rubber Soul, since George Martin also made a digital remix of the album in 1986 in preparation for its initial release on CD. Many of the same notes from my comparisons of Help! apply this time around, as well. The simple part is comparing the ’87 CD to the stereo remaster disc, which both feature Martin’s remix. The ’87 CD already sounded good, thanks to the high quality of Martin’s digital transfer of the multitrack tapes. The remastered disc offers moderate improvements over the earlier version, mainly in the form of increased base response, increased presence, and generally more “punchiness.” It is worth noting, though, that Martin retained the hard-panned stereo approach of the original analog stereo mix, although he softened some of the extreme spacial placements. Thus, while Martin’s remix is more modern sounding than the original stereo mix, it does not sound like truly modern stereo.

The 1965 stereo mix compares more favorably to Martin’s remix than the ’65 stereo mix of Help! compared to its modern counterpart. Indeed, in some places, it is difficult to tell the two Rubber Soul mixes apart. All the same, the sound isn’t quite as polished as the digital version, nor is the bass as pronounced. It is also clear that Martin smoothed out some of the earlier mix’s rough edges, such as the obviously faded out piano fills in “Drive My Car” (also present in the mono mix), or the oddly phased vocals in “The Word.” Generally, Martin’s approach is successful, while simultaneously less heavy handed than in Help!, making the remix my preferred version of the two stereo mixes.

But what about the mono version? While not as polished sounding as the Martin remix (or the remastered mono mixes of the first four albums), it nevertheless compares more favorably than the mono Help! does to that Martin remix. The sound is generally warm and balanced, and nicely present. Standout tracks (sonically speaking) are “Norwegian Wood,” “Girl” and “I’m Looking Through You.” There are a few areas where the recording betrays its age: “You Won’t See Me” and “Think For Yourself” sound a little cluttered; there is a fair amount of distortion on the vocals at the opening of “Michelle.” At the very least, the panning of vocals and instruments isn’t an issue. But where this version excels is in having an indefinable feeling of rightness about it. This goes beyond knowing it’s the version The Beatles intended us to hear. Maybe it’s the centered warmth of the sound, or the lack of panning and reverb used in the stereo versions. Maybe it’s hearing the coughs during the first refrain of “Norwegian Wood,” or the background rustling in the opening of “Michelle.” Maybe it’s the more pronounced acoustic guitar during the “pain would lead to pleasure” verse of “Girl,” or the slightly rougher 12-string lead-in and tighter rhythms in “If I Needed Someone.” Whatever it is, this most muted and acoustic of Beatles albums sounds its most natural and grounded in the mono version. In comparison, the Martin remix sounds just a touch sterile.

Winner: ’09 mono CD, although the ’09 stereo CD with the Marin remix generally beats it sonically, and is perfectly enjoyable in its own right.

Addendum: just for the heck of it, I listened to the two remixed Rubber Soul tracks on Yellow Submarine Songtrack immediately following listening to them in mono. Rather than being amazed at how much better they sounded, they actually struck me as almost vulgar in comparison. What was tastefully contained and constrained in the mono mix seemed blown out of proportion in the more modern remix. Strange how perspectives change, as when I first heard the YS remixes, I thought them to be stellar.

Next up: The Beatles rediscover electricity, then start tripping. 1966 and 1967 are in the pipeline.

 

[dannyg]

I haven't gotten around to the remasters yet. But I have heard the Dr. Ebbets masters which were pretty great but for me the best recordings were the Mobile Fidelity LPs that came out the late 70s.


Abbey Road played over my Grado RS-1 headphones is still an awe-inspiring experience.

 

[Cmaster03]

Love this thread! I will need time to go back and re-read it more closely.

I have been out of the loop for so long, but I'm a confirmed Beatlemaniac. I have all the CD's from the '87 release, as well as a host of bootleg CDs I bought in the 90s and the Anthology, Live at BBC, etc.

I need to look into this for sure, not even clear on whether they are selling these an album at a time or as boxed sets only...

 

[HoratioCaine]

I haven't gotten around to the remasters yet. But I have heard the Dr. Ebbets masters which were pretty great but for me the best recordings were the Mobile Fidelity LPs that came out the late 70s.

Dr. Ebbets (or whatever his actual name is) has said he will no longer be making his "remasters" available for downloading following release of these new remastered sets, because he believes his versions are no longer superior what is commercially available.

I've never heard the Ebbets, but I can say these remasters blow away what downloads I have of the Purple Chick versions.

I need to look into this for sure, not even clear on whether they are selling these an album at a time or as boxed sets only...

The stereo remasters are available separately (as well as in a box, of course), which is how I bought them. The mono albums are only available in a limited edition box set, at least for the time being. As it is, EMI increased their limit on production from 10,000 to 30,000 to accomodate unexpected demand, after the first 10,000 units sold out before they were even released. Whether EMI will release even more units, or eventually release the albums on individual discs, remains to be seen.

 

[Cmaster03]

The stereo remasters are available separately (as well as in a box, of course), which is how I bought them. The mono albums are only available in a limited edition box set, at least for the time being. As it is, EMI increased their limit on production from 10,000 to 30,000 to accomodate unexpected demand, after the first 10,000 units sold out before they were even released. Whether EMI will release even more units, or eventually release the albums on individual discs, remains to be seen.

Thanks, Horatio. Because of your thread, I've been surfing Amazon and getting up to speed. I thought I'd be somewhat immune from Beatles buying "hype" with the Re-masters as I already had just about everything they ever put on tape in some form or other, but who was I kidding?

I now ruefully remember telling my wife that I didin't plan to buy any of the Re-masters as I didn't imagine they'd be much different from the '87 releases I already had.

Must admit, the thought of "new" releases, in possibly refined form, is still exciting stuff for those of us who are Beatles-challenged.

 

[HoratioCaine]

Thanks, Horatio. Because of your thread, I've been surfing Amazon and getting up to speed. I thought I'd be somewhat immune from Beatles buying "hype" with the Re-masters as I already had just about everything they ever put on tape in some form or other, but who was I kidding?

I don't wish to lead you down the primrose path to trouble with your better half. Keep in mind, these are not remixes, so they're not jaw-droppingly different the way the remixes on Yellow Submarine Songtrack were. But the remasters really do sound better than the '87 CDs, at least when listening closely on good equipment. Not revolutionarily so, but noticeably nonetheless. Sorry if this doesn't help your willpower any.

 

[strat1117]

For what it's worth, the remastering engineers did side by side comparisons between their new masters and the '87 CDs, to get an idea of what just what had been improved with their new transfers, what still needed to be improved, and what didn't. For myself, I'm quite interested to see just what the engineers have done since 1987, since the project was aimed not only at making The Beatles recordings sound as good as possible, but specifically to make them sound good on CD, which many (but not all) of the eariler discs failed to do.

Alas, you're right. I was a junior in high school when I first came to appreciate The Beatles. It was 1988, and all my friends (who were themselves techno geeks) were only into CDs, as I was myself. Being the son of an audio engineer who got his training in the '50s and '60s, you might have thought I'd have an appreciation of past formats, but I tended to share Herbert von Karajan's view of technological advancements: compared to the latest development, "all else is gaslight." Vinyl seemed like some relic from the past, and my friends and I never even considered it an option. Honestly, I haven't come much further since then. While I appreciate that vinyl is better than I originally considered, the fact remains that since I never had a vinyl collection to begin with, I have never felt compelled to build one up; I don't even have a turntable. So yeah, my observations are limited to the various CD incarnations of the albums (I have the Capitol boxes, but am leaving them out of the discussion), and they should be considered with that in mind.

FWIW, I am old enough to have bought Abbey Road, Let It Be and the White Album when they were newly released, although I am young enough not to have seen Let It Be in the movie theater because my parents wouldn't let me go. My elder son was born in 1988 (he's about to turn 21), and he is a serious musician (by which I mean that he writes, performs and records his own original music) and a budding audiophile. He and his friends have come full circle, and many of them now consider vinyl to be a "special" way to listen to music. Although few of them even own turntables, he has told me that it is generally accepted that analog is the best sound quality. It's weird how this goes: In 1988 I was busy buying up all the vinyl I could grab for pennies, because people who had bought into digital just couldn't give it away fast enough. Meanwhile, even hardcore digiphiles now acknowledge that the digital recordings of the mid-late 1980's were ear-splittingly bad (just as I am forced to acknowledge that, starting in the late 90's, digital recordings have gotten pretty darn good).

Anyway, although my plan is to get these new Beatles releases only if I can find them on vinyl (word is they sold out FAST), I am certainly enjoying reading this thread.

Keep up the good work!

NSC

 

[HoratioCaine]

On with the show.

Revolver
Versions compared: &#8217;87 CD (stereo), &#8217;09 mono CD, &#8217;09 stereo CD

The sonic improvements of the stereo remaster over the &#8217;87 disc are pretty consistent with what has come before. Bass response is more pronounced; there is more presence, more depth. Judicious use of limiting give the music a little more &#8220;push.&#8221; All songs benefit from this, but some more than others: the peak distortion on Lennon&#8217;s top notes that cause the music the lower in the background of &#8220;She Said She Said&#8221; has been corrected; &#8220;Doctor Robert&#8221; jumps out of the speakers in a way it simply did not on the earlier disc; the bass and drums in &#8220;Tomorrow Never Knows&#8221; are clearer, making it sound a little less disembodied, but more musically compelling.

Even in 1966, the engineers still mixed stereo with the odd panned vocals and instruments, although in the slightly more surreal setting of Revolver&#8217;s forward-looking production, the oddities seem less detrimental. Which leads me to the mono mix. The centered sound definitely gives certain tracks that suffered from the stereo split more muscle; &#8220;Taxman&#8221; is a perfect example of this. (It also makes it clear that George Martin said, &#8220;I gotta have more cowbell!&#8221; to The Beatles long before Bruce Dickinson ever said it to Blue Oyster Cult.) &#8220;Eleanor Rigby&#8221; is clearly superior in mono. Generally the album seems to flow better in mono. Songs seem more like songs and less like experiments in production techniques. The one drawback is that, even though the album has a nice warmth and weight, it lacks some of the brightness and full frequency response of the stereo version. Thus, preference between the two boils down to a choice between centered and grounded versus brighter and more psychedelic. Both choices are equally valid. In general, however, my own preference is toward the mono, simply because I think it serves the songs better.

Winner: &#8217;09 mono CD, but virtually in a dead heat with the &#8217;09 stereo CD


Sgt. Pepper&#8217;s Lonely Heart&#8217;s Club Band
Versions compared: &#8217;87 CD (stereo), &#8217;09 stereo CD, &#8217;09 mono CD

OK, let&#8217;s get the pleasantries out of the way: the &#8217;09 stereo CD beats the pants off the &#8217;87 CD, for all the reasons I&#8217;ve listed regarding previous albums. In the case of Sgt. Pepper, it&#8217;s not even funny. This remastered stereo version sounds great.

Now on to the meat of the matter. How do stereo and mono compare? The legendary reverence with which the album is held by the public is succeeded only by the legendary reverence with which the mono version is held by the faithful. The differences are many, and there is no question that the mono is the definitive version. But historical significance aside, how do the versions really compare? The simplest way I can put it is that it&#8217;s sort of the reverse of listening to Beatles For Sale. In other words, as good as the stereo version is, the mono is that much better. Listening to the small details doesn&#8217;t do it; this album is a gestalt experience. Everything adds up to a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It got to a point where I had to stop going back and forth between the stereo and mono and just listen to the mono; it&#8217;s that commanding. (I had the same experience with the mono Revolver.) Sonically, the stereo version has the edge, with better frequency response and instrumental detail, as well as greater punch in the bass. For all practical purposes, though, the mono Sgt. Pepper sounds great &#8211; very warm and centered, like most of the mono Beatles mixes, and nicely balanced and detailed.

Realistically speaking, both mixes serve the music very well, and I don&#8217;t think anyone can really go wrong with either version. But the mono version does hold a special place among The Beatles&#8217; most exalted recordings.

Winner: &#8217;09 mono CD, with the &#8217;09 stereo CD a close second.


Magical Mystery Tour
Versions compared: &#8217;87 CD (stereo), &#8217;09 stereo CD, &#8217;09 mono CD

I won&#8217;t even waste time discussing the &#8217;87 CD. The &#8217;09 stereo CD is just plain better, significantly so.

With Revolver, we started seeing a trend where stereo started to exceed mono in terms of greater immersion in the sound field of the music, as well as better frequency response and instrumental clarity, even if the mono mixes held their own against them. With Magical Mystery Tour, we see the trend continue, but at this point, the mono mixes are starting to come up short. It&#8217;s not that they&#8217;re bad; far from it. As always, they are high quality, with warmth and a centered solidity. It&#8217;s just that they don&#8217;t really offer anything that the stereo mixes don&#8217;t also offer, and then some. That is no doubt aided by the overly psychedelic nature of the music, with its swirling, Technicolor textures, which just asks for the greater depth of stereo. The same could be said about Sgt. Pepper, except that the mono mix was so ingenious it beat out the stereo for sheer substance. Here, the substance seems to have shifted to the stereos. Ironically, this even applies to &#8220;Strawberry Fields Forever&#8221; and &#8220;Penny Lane,&#8221; which were released prior to Sgt. Pepper. &#8220;Hello Goodbye&#8221; actually sounds distinctly worse in mono, being much thicker and muted sounding than the stereo version. One advantage to mono is on &#8220;I Am the Walrus,&#8221; since the stereo mix still retains the fake stereo application that comes in with the radio overdubs; mono avoids this entirely, for obvious reasons. Also, the mono mix of &#8220;Baby You&#8217;re a Rich Man&#8221; is a more trippy experience, even though it excels in stereo in sonic terms.

Winner: &#8217;09 stereo CD, with honorable mention going to the &#8217;09 mono CD

Next up: The Beatles go white, then yellow. The White Album and Yellow Submarine are next.

 

[HoratioCaine]

In this latest intalment of War and Peace...


The Beatles (The White Album)
Versions compared: &#8217;87 CD (stereo), &#8217;09 stereo CD, &#8217;09 mono CD

So far, I haven&#8217;t commented at all on the music contained on these discs, because what is there to say? It&#8217;s The Beatles. But I was reading the historical notes contained in this album, and I was struck to see that the White Album was released exactly five years to the day after With The Beatles. That sort of progression is remarkable even if it happened over the course of two decades. In five years, it is astounding. In that time, The Beatles went from &#8220;I Want to Hold Your Hand&#8221; to &#8220;Why Don&#8217;t We Do it in the Road?&#8221; and they took everybody with them. Was it the times? The drugs? The chemistry between the band mates? Hard to say, but we don&#8217;t see growth like that today. Hell, these days, it takes U2 nearly five years just to release one album.

The stereo remaster beats the &#8217;87 CD once again. Personally, I&#8217;ve always felt the White Album was one of The Beatles&#8217; less sonically impressive efforts. The songs have always sounded very dense and close, lacking clarity and atmosphere. Because this new disc features a remaster, not a remix, the same denseness and closeness is here, but the improvements are nevertheless substantial, with greater depth of imaging, greater clarity of the higher end, and of course improved bass. Some technical corrections are also obvious &#8211; the pop of the &#8220;p&#8221; of the first &#8220;Dear Prudence&#8221; verse has been eliminated, in addition to some low-frequency rumble near the beginning of that song. Similarly, some vocal pops at the beginning of &#8220;Happiness is a Warm Gun&#8221; have been corrected. (There are no doubt others, but those are the ones that stood out to me.) Personally, I find these to be improvements, although purists may carp.

The White Album marked the first time The Beatles paid as much attention to stereo mixing as to mono. (It would also be the last complete Beatles album that received a dedicated mono mix.) As such, neither mix has a claim to being definitive. Despite that, the differences between the two mixes are as many and as varied as the two Sgt. Pepper mixes. To note just a few: &#8220;Wild Honey Pie&#8221; is actually weirder in mono than in stereo &#8211; and that&#8217;s saying something. The premature fade-up on the vocal prior to the first &#8220;I&#8217;m going down&#8221; on &#8220;Happiness is a Warm Gun&#8221; &#8211; which was a mistake in the stereo mix &#8211; is absent in the mono mix. &#8220;Don&#8217;t Pass Me By&#8221; sounds absurdly sped up in mono. &#8220;Yer Blues&#8221; is even grittier and more suicidal in mono, if that&#8217;s possible. &#8220;Savoy Truffle&#8221; actually rocks in mono, rather than just sounding like an odd sort of jive in stereo.

But honors for most insanely different track in all of Beatledom must go to &#8220;Helter Skelter.&#8221; Paul wrote "Helter Skelter" as an answer to all those who said The Beatles couldn&#8217;t make hard rock like a number of other bands at the time. The stereo version goes a good a distance toward proving The Beatles could still shred, but the mono version positively melts the speaker cones. The backing vocals sound truly anguished, and the guitar arpeggios between &#8220;Helter Skelters&#8221; in the refrain are much more up front. Whereas the stereo track rocked, the mono track sounds truly demented. The one downside &#8211; and it&#8217;s a big one &#8211; is that the false fade of the stereo version is a real fade in the mono, ending the song at that point. Thus, Ringo&#8217;s famous declaration that he has blisters on his fingers only exists in stereo.

The mono mix of the White Album doesn&#8217;t do much to help the thick textures of the stereo mix, but it doesn&#8217;t worsen them, either. At times, the mono sound is less vibrant than the stereo; at other times, it seems more &#8220;grounded&#8221; and natural. It sounds odd, but there is something comforting about the warm, centered sound of the mono; it isn&#8217;t as &#8220;in your face&#8221; as the stereo.

Winner: I know it&#8217;s a copout, but basically it&#8217;s a tie. If I had to choose, I would probably opt for stereo, but not before I ripped a copy of the mono Helter Skelter.


Yellow Submarine
Versions compared: &#8217;87 CD, &#8217;09 Mono Masters CD (EP songs only), &#8217;99 Yellow Sumbarine Songtrack

The Yellow Submarine album was never mixed for mono; all mono releases of that album are from fold-downs of the stereo mixes. Thus, there is no mono Yellow Submarine album in the mono set.

I didn&#8217;t purchase the remastered stereo Yellow Submarine CD. In my opinion, the album never really deserved to be an album in the first place. It only features four songs that weren&#8217;t available prior to the album&#8217;s release, and even those weren&#8217;t recorded specifically for the film. I already have the stereo CD from &#8217;87, and that was hardly worth it. The Yellow Sumbarine Songtrack from 1999 featured dramatically reimagined digital stereo remixes of those four songs, which are vastly superior to the older stereo mixes anyway. At least, that&#8217;s my opinion based on comparing the YSS remixes to my older stereo CD. I don&#8217;t doubt the remastered CD of the original album improves the situation, although there&#8217;s only so much they can do with &#8220;Only a Northern Song,&#8221; which was never mixed for true stereo during The Beatles&#8217; time. The version on the album is a fake stereo &#8220;split&#8221; of the original mono mix, dividing the high and low frequencies between the two channels. That leaves only three &#8220;original&#8221; songs on the album mixed for true stereo, which isn&#8217;t worth the price of entry, in my opinion.

A better idea was releasing those four songs on an EP &#8211; an idea that was considered, then scrapped, but not before dedicated mono mixes were made of those songs. These are featured on the Mono Masters set in the mono box. The mono mix of &#8220;Only a Northern Song&#8221; is infinitely superior to the fake stereo version on the album. Honors are pretty evenly divided between the mono and original stereo &#8220;All Together Now,&#8221; making me think the remastered original stereo might actually surpass the mono. &#8220;Hey Bulldog&#8221; in mono corrects the hard panning that badly enervated the stereo mix. &#8220;It&#8217;s All Too Much&#8221; similarly benefits from the mono mix, and is surprisingly clearer than the stereo.

Winner: &#8217;09 Mono Masters CD, although the digital stereo remixes of the four songs on Yellow Submarine Songtrack are pretty amazing, and well worth seeking out.

Next up: And in the end, they let it be. The last two albums are coming up.