Beatles mono VINYL box set (Part #15)

I'd say it's due to less processing in creating the mix.

 

I also hear a "thump" sound between USSR/DP if it's any consolation.

 

There were much more tape to tape overdubbing on WTB. So generation fidelity loss is the biggest factor here. Add that so many instruments in a twin track format make the sound of each less focused as well and you have the main difference to PPM

 

So I think I figured out why With The Beatles was yanked from the US Amazon site:

My parents ordered me 4 of these Mono lp's for my Birthday - one was With The Beatles.

However, they did not receive With The Beatles....they received a badly warped Rubber Soul. So my guess is thier inventory is effed up or something is causing the warehouse to mis-pick the With THe Beatles orders.

JQ

 

Not a comment on the actual music or sound itself but...

How was everyone else's set in terms of White Album ring/impression wear right out of the gate? That is, before anyone had a chance to remove the LPs for safe storage. Obviously, the white cover and stuffed contents inside have always made this title prone to both ring, shelf and dirt wear, but even on brand new, first inspection, my front cover was pretty noticeably indented by the record's impression (with a "carved groove" visible while peeking inside the first inner jacket). To a lesser extent, my front cover of Mono Masters had a bit of impression wear as well. The others were fine for me.

Anyone else have trouble with these or other titles in the set? I'm sure the shoe-horn tight packing inside the box didn't help either while in transit.

 

Ah, case closed then, since Steve Berkowitz and Sean Magee stated we should not compare the CDs to the vinyl. Hope no one is doing this, because they said we shouldn't.

I guess I belong to the group that is interested the best source I can afford, so I will compare, even if "we shouldn't." Guess I'm just naughty, naughty.

Really people. Do you ever read what you've written? Have you ever participated in a thread that compares a stereo mix to a dedicated mono mix to find a consensus on which is better? Are you sorry now that you participated? Apples and oranges, after all...

Sheesh. I find this kind of reasoning self-serving at best and infantile at worst for the simple reason that, like me, there are plenty of people who own both nice CD players and nice turntables and who see little reason to duplicate purchases on different formats when one is superior in SQ to the other. Had I known that an all vinyl box would eventually come out when the mono CD box came out, I would not have spent the mono on it (add to that the highly effective 'limited production' ruse in play at the time that further incentivized me to pull the trigger). I was under the very justifiable impression that the CD box could be the last chance for clean Beatles mono short of spending several thousand dollars on 60s originals.

So yes, they are 'apples and oranges' as far as format goes, but that's irrelevant to the person who wants the best source for the music he or she is after, and the mastering respective to each release on each format will count heavily on which format the music customer selects as 'best.' It may be the only consideration in many cases.

I predict attempts at shutting down comparisons, even across formats will likely be futile in the end. People can and will do it, despite being told 'they shouldn't.'

Think about it: it was there from the beginning with CD mono box, which was touted as sounding 'closer' to the original mono lps than the stereo CD box did to the original stereo lps.

Anyone see a little cognitive dissonance in the argument now that we 'shouldn't compare'? Comparison between original vinyl and CD was the biggest reason I saw in the press for audiophile cache the mono CD box got.

So now we "shouldn't compare" formats? Boy, that sure is convenient.

The fact is many people do compare formats, and all the time (see the bazillion digital vs. analog threads on this forum), even if there are commercial and PR interests in play that prefer we did not.

So if the choice is party-line or common sense, I know which I choose. My budget demands it.

 

That "thud" on BACK IN THE USSR is Ringo's drumming, and is also on my 1980s reissue mono vinyl, so is on the master.

Side 1 of HELP! is "dull" sounding compared to the stereo mix, especially the title track because of all the generation loss that it specifically incurred.

Can't notice anything on THINGS WE SAID TODAY and all I hear on WHEN I GET HOME is a little croaking on John's voice on the word "tonight".

 

As you know, I'm currently needledropping the LPs and there are quite a few where the tape cuts off before the track has totally faded out.

GET BACK was the first I noticed. On the 2 CD versions (GET BACK) there's a forced fade, so I guess that (the cut off before the end of the fade) is how the master tape is.

 

Excellent post EdogawaRampo.

Your experience with and reasons for buying the CD mono box echoes my own.

 

How come there is such LITTLE bass on the first three albums.........AGAIN!
**** MAN! $244 and on AHDN now, where is the bass on the music????
No kick drum hardly any bass guitar. WTF. If this is what the master tapes sound like on the early albums then a Pox on all the bastards.
THERE IS NO REASON IN THE YEAR 2014 THAT THESE SONGS SHOULD BE BASS DEFICIENT. NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
****!
the beave

 

Ringo didn't drum on either USSR or Prudence

 

A mere technicality.

 

Never broke it down that far. Why are there mono cd to mono lp comparisons? That's what we do here.....

 

If it's any help, PPM is a cleaner recording, in part due to Ringo not yet establishing his patented open hi-hat sound which eats up a lot of "space" on the trks, creating a hot "washy" sound. He was still going to the ride cymbal to open the sound up which is less "washy"... Because there was only 2 mikes on the drums, they were able to open them up more without so much cymbal sizzling going on. You can hear the drums , especially the snare, more clearly. Check out BOYS, great live drum sound... On WTB it's open hi-hat time!! And that open hi-hat created a new type of energy to Beatle music. (love it!!!!).

 

I've bought the box on the day of release at HMV in Montreal, like the box but my only complain is for Revolver it sound so dull....

Is there a issue with some of the records? I know it's been under investigation at Amazon.ca

It's a great box box but for Revolver.... I don't know my copy is very so low, no dynamics at all it should be the opposite. Got To Get You In to My Life is very not good on the copy I have.....

I don't know people say's it's a revelation... Maybe I have a bad pressing?

Did anybody have the same issue?

Thanks for the help!

 

Just imagine being a fly on the studio wall on the first runthrough of She Loves You. Ringo recording the first "open hi hat" rock song in history. I wonder what George Martin said in response. If he was for it, or if this was the first time they insisted "no we want it this way". Just like the major sixth chord at the end.

If there ever was an innovative day in rock drumming this was it. I know he played like that live, but on record.....And then for it to be a hit.

 

This was my experience with the new mono White Album LPs as well. And yes, I just chalked it up to that being the inherent White Album experience.

 

The problem with mono is many songs sound flat and lifeless, nothing wrong with your copy.

 

Which songs are you generalizing about? (for example)

 

Not a Beatles expert, but I just picked up Revolver today.

My copy sounds great to me. I think the Y cabling trick makes a big difference to my ears. Maybe try that and it'll sound a little better?

 

No kidding. We compare vinyl to CD here ALL the time, and I don't mean in terms of relative merits, just trying to find out if the record was pressed with a better file than they stuck on the CD. Why we wouldn't compare here is beyond me.

 

Because these records weren't pressed from files?
Or the CDs have the clicks, thumps, and dropouts fixed, and the new albums don't?

Certainly you can compare them and decide which ones sound better to you; but they aren't the same animal.

 

Actually, by the time the soundwaves hit my ear, they are the same animal -- an analog of a musical performance. And some of the sound waves will sound better to me than others. That's why I compare. That's why I seek out the experienced people on this forum, the folks SH refers to as having 'the ears' for their take on individual releases on whatever format. Helps me make informed choices. I appreciate that, because it helps me avoid wasting time and money.

And it is for that reason I don't appreciate people trying to shut down discussions for whatever doctrinaire, buyer's remorse or whatever else agenda that, in the end, has no benefit whatsoever to the end-user, the customer.

 

I think Tommyboy's point was merely that the 2009 mono CDs aren't suddenly awful because the new LPs exist. Do the LPs sound better? Well, I think so, yeah, but I think the CDs are great for what they are. I'm happy to have both.

 

True. They aren't awful at all. And yes, I think the LPs are better, too.

My only real point is that the suggestion we 'should not' compare formats is truly, sorely, and ultimately disingenuous IMO. We all want the best we can get with what we can afford and can sometimes only choose one. That's where the comparisons come in very handy.