Beatles mono vinyl box - sound comparison to Parlophone originals only

Thats the beauty of the internet: being 1,000 miles from an event does not preclude someone else's statement that you were there.

 

Well, some want to know what he thinks about them so this can easily be interpreted as him having heard them

"You've now got the rare mono mixes on vinyl WITHOUT A DIGITAL MIDSTEP. Be happy. Just enjoy the music. I am."

"I am" within the context of that sentence and the whole statement could be read as he has heard them.

No biggy, but its not a huge leap to come to the conclusion.

 

Listening and reviewing have implicitly different meanings however.

 

Well, you gotta listen in order to review..but anyway..

Anymore reviews/comparisons?

 

One thing is for certain. You will not listen to these reissues without enjoying them. It's Quality and it's The Freakin' Beatles! The songbook to our lives!

I met my wife because of The Beatles in College, I survived my childhood and adolescence relating to their music. People had life changing experiences influenced by a Beatles Record played through portable 60's transistor Record players.

I think Steve's statement is a Galaxy away from stating anything other than The Beatles are enjoyable.

Man! Listening to Revolver in MONO on MONO Masters. I think I need an old Console for my next Distortion Pedal! It sounds amazing in MONO.

 

this new Beatles mono release has me thinking about a few things. I have enjoyed it tremendoulsy for a week almost, and it's been great fun listening to these albums again. But can't help but think these 1st pressings of albums have become special to a point where they are almost a piece of art in themselves. But are they really? They are just records made in certain time. The music and "album" is the artistic vision. To me they are just wellmade products, mostly, and ofcourse special and valuable for collectors, but still just products. Some may argue that they are closest to the vision of the creators, but often they are just products made by record comanies and fabricated within a standard system. If Decca had released Beatles records it would have sounded different, but still the same album. And who really knows if the artists behind the music had envisioned a different sound of their records. It raises some questions what is product and what is the actual artistic creation IMO. To me this release is just as much about trying to recreate products, the downside of this can be that you actual don't improve much on the musical side, because you are thinking in terms of products and a certain sound estetic.

 

I thought the mono CDs were lightly eqd as well..

 

You're overrating the 1st pressings

 

Well, then I made myself unclear I was trying to say that the 1st pressings are being overrated. To me it's about making it as musical as possible, sound is a big factor with this, but you also need to look at other aspects. I'm not sure copying 1st pressings is the best way to preserve music, but maybe products.

 

Oh OK. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Oh, ok. Got it.

 

I haven't made any comparisons yet. I just wanted to add that I think there's somewhat of a romanticism with original pressings that as artifacts from the original era of the Beatles, they're extremely desirable for some particularly when they're in great condition. Copies in near mint condition or better are great to own if you've got deep pockets or get lucky and find 'em cheap. But I think it's also pertinent to know that mass production of Beatles records during their heyday was not designed to satisfy audiophiles nor collectors. It was primarily about getting them out quickly to satisfy customer demand for the music. That's not to say that Harry Moss did not do a great job at cutting the tapes and that the originals don't sound great. It's merely the fact that these 2014 analog mono masters were done by Sean Magee with enormous reverence for Harry Moss and the integrity of the tapes, and with an equally great consideration for the quality and care for the pressings and packaging that far exceeded the considerations when these records were manufactured in the 1960's. Often, pressing plant and printers could not keep up with demand so when you factor it the need to satisfy and enormously Beatles starved public, quality control was not exactly priority one. In other words, the energy and love invested in getting these new mono pressings done correctly far exceeded what was happening at the Hayes pressing plant; at Garrod & Lofthouse and Ernest J. Day back in the 60's.

It's enormously satisfying to me that this team of people had this much vision and reverence for product, and cared so much enough to pull all of this together in 2014.

 

?

I agree with what you say, but isn't it amazing that a record made 50 years ago can hold it's own today against modern technology - better cutters - higher quality control etc.

We have not surpassed what they did in the 60's with regards to vinyl / tape / vacuum tubes etc.

I think things back then where made to a very high quality compared to today - and that was standard then.
Now it's almost a super human effort to get a quality product done.

They new their stuff as far as cutting, recording etc.

Hoorah for the Beatles in MONO and us all enjoying them.

 

w

Sorry but first pressings are not overrated IMO and neither is this beautiful box set of new records. They can both stand on their own merits.

 

This is true for the mono LPs, but not necessarily true for the stereo LPs -- especially before '66. Few people had stereophonic set-ups in the UK and those that did were more well to-do and/or audiophile/electronics oriented. You generally didn't find the stereo LPs in the stores; they were special orders. Someone who wanted a stereo version of a Beatles LP had to go out of their way to get one and probably wasn't just a casual listener or fan.

Now the question of whether EMI or the Beatles or George Martin cared is a different one....

 

Did anyone of the Beatles pay any attention to the final eq moves to make the tape ready for pressing or did they focus on the recording and process to make the master tape and sign off there? Do I understand the process to begin with?

 

marc, have you listened to any of the reissues yet? If so, any thoughts, reviews?

 

The original UK .vs 2014 Mono sample comparison clip that I previously posted is from PPM, and I hear what yourself and others are hearing.

Beatledrops COMPARISON SAMPLE CLIP - Beatles 2014 MONO Vinyl vs. Original UK Parlophone Yellow & Black label 1st pressing, -1 -1 matrix

But these new pressings have a clarity that I haven't heard before, and it's very nice indeed. It will take some continued listening to fully appreciate the new set.

OTOH, they don't have as much midrange as the original UK pressings, and aren't quiet as 'gutsy' IMO.

I think they are pressed 'correctly' for today's ears, but one of the things that makes music of the Beatles era sound so good was the appreciation for warm midrange during those times. Some will say it was because of radio, and limited sound systems, but I think it just sounded 'right' to the artists, producers and engineers at the time. And still sounds good to many ears today. Mine included. I won't be parting with my original UK pressings.

 

woooo hang on a mo, the production values in the 60's were very high indeed and only started to slip in the late 60's and for EMI in the 70's. Now I am not talking about originals vs the re-issues what i am saying it was incorrect to suggest production quality wasn't high, like I say that only slipped later on. Of course when you are making a speciality high priced niche market items such as these re-issues then you can make them of high quality, however i would doubt they have produced anything that was superior to the originals ( I am not talking audio that is a different argument ) indeed the fact that these sleeves are not laminated to me makes them decidedly inferior despite the clearly wonderful job that they have done. Also there are reports of warped discs which you would rarely get in the UK in the 60's when they were pressing these in their many hundreds of thousands ( as opposed to tens of thousands ) so to suggest that these re-issues are superior in production quality to the originals imho that is totally wrong. However had the much lower 70's production values existed in the 60's then you might have been more correct.

 

I was at the used record store today, and passed on German Odeon pressing of With the Beatles that I would have bought in a heartbeat last year. It $28 for a "near mint" copy, although the sleeve was not in the best shape. Not going to drop money on used copies of these records any more unless they're in perfect shape and they're affordable. Which I doubt is going to happen. The new mono LPs are good enough for me.

 

I agree that production values were generally high in the 60s. However, the number of those records that didn't get destroyed on cheap turntables, and didn't get left out of their sleeves, and survived the decades without someone writing their name on the cover in magic marker, etc. etc. is not very big. It's not like I can just go out and buy a 60s pressing in brand-new condition for $24 the way I can get one of these new pressings.

 

The % of warped records was no less in the 60s. People just played them on their record players which were not very sensitive and could ride out any subtle warpage

 

I did not buy the whole box set, only 5 titles to fill in what I didn't have. These sound wonderful IMHO, the best $20.00(per title) that I have ever spent. If you want to go and spend big digits on original UK copies then by all means. However, now it is not necessary.

 

of course there is no argument with that but I believe it was being suggested that these are superior in their production values to the originals and that is imho not correct at all

 

in my experience the warping of records mainly explodes with the degradation and thinning of UK vinyl after 1974. I presume these re-issues have been done on older style heavier vinyl thats why the reports of warp discs is surprising me.....