Finally, nearly two months late, I got my mono remasters today.  I
should have gotten them on 9 9 09, but UPS messed up.  The first thing
I did was to pull out Sgt.Pepper and give it a listen.  From the vinyl
days, I always preferred the stereo over the mono.  Granted, I've only
listened to the mono Pepper remaster in the car so far, but I still
prefer the stereo version.  Now I'm listening to the mono remasters in
chronological order on the good stereo, but so far I've only just
gotten started on Please Please Me, so it will be a while before
Pepper rolls by again.  The Please Please Me mono sounds great, but,
then, so did the stereo version.  

I have to say that it still surprises me that some folk are saying
that the remasters are no great improvement on the 87 versions.
Personally, I think those people need better equipment or a hearing
test, but that's just my opinion.  

On Oct 26, 8:41 pm, rwalker <rwal... at (no spam) despammed.com> wrote:

Finally, nearly two months late, I got my mono remasters today.  I
should have gotten them on 9 9 09, but UPS messed up.  The first thing
I did was to pull out Sgt.Pepper and give it a listen.  From the vinyl
days, I always preferred the stereo over the mono.  Granted, I've only
listened to the mono Pepper remaster in the car so far, but I still
prefer the stereo version.  Now I'm listening to the mono remasters in
chronological order on the good stereo, but so far I've only just
gotten started on Please Please Me, so it will be a while before
Pepper rolls by again.  The Please Please Me mono sounds great, but,
then, so did the stereo version.  

I have to say that it still surprises me that some folk are saying
that the remasters are no great improvement on the 87 versions.
Personally, I think those people need better equipment or a hearing
test, but that's just my opinion.  

Well, all I have to say is this: I have a subscription to
Rhapsody, and have for about 4 years. I can listen
to whatever type of music that I like, 24/7.
I hear so many improvements, in the songs,
dating back from the 1940's through the 1970's.
Remastered songs I'm talking about. I've been
so impressed with what can be done with old
recordings these day's. But, I don't hear much
improvement with these Beatles remasters.
They have a fuller sound, and that's all. I was
very impressed with the Love album, and much
of the Lennon solo music that has been
remastered....but that's it. I just say more
power to the people that get off on these
Beatles remasters. I'm seriously happy
for you all...except for the fact that if more
people complained, they might be
remastered right for once. That's my
take, and they also need remixes for
me to be happy with most of the songs.

Jeff

I have to say that it still surprises me that some folk are saying
that the remasters are no great improvement on the 87 versions.
Personally, I think those people need better equipment or a hearing
test, but that's just my opinion.  

On Oct 27, 12:41 pm, rwalker <rwal... at (no spam) despammed.com> wrote:


I have to say that it still surprises me that some folk are saying
that the remasters are no great improvement on the 87 versions.
Personally, I think those people need better equipment or a hearing
test, but that's just my opinion.  

I read on a high-end audio forum a member complaining that the new
remasters were harsh and shrill with no real bottom-end. Said he much
preferred the '87 CDs.
He definitely needs a hearing test. Or a new head. The new remasters
are revelatory in their depth and detail. They really let us
rediscover The Beatles all over again, with the same impact as when
buying the original 45s and LPs. At least, that's how I feel when I
play my mono box set (and the stereo Abbey Road of course).

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:03:06 -0700 (PDT), crazytimes

crazytime... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Did they used to have the mono and stereos all in one bin for the
artist in the record stores?... Did people know or care about the
difference back then?...

In the 60s here (in the US) mono and stereo LPs were in the same bin.
No one cared about the differences between mono and stereo mixes we
discuss so much. A mono LP cost about $3 and a stereo one was $4 to
$4.29.

On Oct 28, 11:16 pm, Jan Philips <youknowwhat.mccra... at (no spam) comcast.net
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:03:06 -0700 (PDT), crazytimes

crazytime... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Did they used to have the mono and stereos all in one bin for the
artist in the record stores?...  Did people know or care about the
difference back then?...

In the 60s here (in the US) mono and stereo LPs were in the same bin.
No one cared about the differences between mono and stereo mixes we
discuss so much.  A mono LP cost about $3 and a stereo one was $4 to
$4.29.

Seems kind of steep with inflation factored in on the inflation
calculator...

 http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

When I started buying the Capitol Lps in 1979-80 (I don't suppose they
ever went out of print thru the 70s?), they were going for $5.99 at my
local NRM...  But that was the low price then...  They were probably
$6.49 and such at other outlets...  Can't recall what I paid for the
Red and the White doubles on colored vinyl, but it probably seemed
like a lot to me at the time...

Right. And for that matter, a lot of people didn't even own stereos
back then, just mono players.

In Australia (and in England) we bought the mono mixes only of the
first few albums as they were never released in stereo. They were
never meant to be heard in anything except mono.