Beatles mono vinyl box - sound comparison to Parlophone originals only

Haven't heard these recordings on the original Mono issues-have owned quite a few Beatles LPs on various labels in stereo. However, I've been collecting LPs since 1970, have not found better pressings than these and I bought a lot of Japanese pressings in the late 1970's. The level of surface noise on these pressings is the lowest I have encountered from any source and these pressings should only increase in value over time. I have never, in decades of collecting LPs, encountered better pressings than these. Mastering? Pretty good too, but as regards the plastic itself, nothing I've owned in the past touches these pressings.

 

Same here. I'll need to reconfirm on my original Capitol mono but don't recall it being an issue. Sibilance is there but not as bad on the mono CD.

 

Hear hear well said and I agree they are certainly the most silent pressings I've ever heard I just didn't believe it was possible to make them this quiet it certainly sets a new benchmark for vinyl pressings.

 

Here is George Martin talking about the mixes, but sure there were eq's involved too.
I was making a record that was designed to cut through the fog of the players of those days. What I'm saying is that the mixes I did then, when they're heard in the form they were done then were fine; but if you're hearing them as CDs, they should be different in order to be the same.

From this interview with George Martin:
http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm

 

J

Just a couple of things. I didn't say production quality was not high in the 60's at the EMI plant at Hayes. I merely gave my opinion that I think the reissues of this year were done with an even greater concern for quality control than back then. It's just the nature of the beast, so to say, with getting a highly in-demand product to the public quickly. I've had loads of original UK original 60's pressing pass through my hands, eyes and ears, with some being mint copies. These 2014 pressings, as far as I'm concerned are easily as nice, if not nicer than those, visually speaking. The quality of the vinyl is simply stunning, to me anyway.

As far as the jackets. The old jackets, particularly the Garrod & Lofthouse ones, tended to be of a much flimsier card-stock than these, were highly delicate and did not hold up well at all. And those old laminates on the front of the jackets damaged super easily as well. So while I think the original ones, that were babied and well cared for by their owners, look really great, there aren't many of those around because of how fragile they were. And while it would have been really remarkable if they were able to reproduce those laminated covers, purely for nostalgic reasons, practicality won out as that kind of offset printing process used to create those jackets in the 60's is largely a thing of the past with digital printing presses being the industry standard today. Not to mention the costs involved with reproducing the laminates, which if I'm not mistaken, was done primarily to produce a glossy effect and is now obsolete as glossiness is created entirely different today. To me, these jackets, though by no means a perfect recreation of the old jackets, look great as I think they cared enough to give us some of the old packaging procedures to make them very highly reminiscent of the old ones. Considering the jackets of 2012 vinyl set, and those from the 70's and 80's, these jackets are a knock-out. I think they got their priorities straight when it came to producing this new set. Really well done overall.

 

I found this kind of funny. Not sure if Mr Martin was being serious or just having a go:

ALLAN KOZINN: What are the possibilities of a mono "Pepper" and a mono "White Album" coming out on CD?

GEORGE MARTIN: Highly unlikely I'd think. Why, do you like the mono albums?

 

FWIW, I find the decision to go for detail/dynamics over 'warmth' was a good idea. There is a rhythmic integrity coming through these pressings that exceeds what I recall from previous issues. This was particularly noticeable on side two of Rubber Soul, with "What Goes On" having more of a rhythmic 'spine'. "Wait" demonstrates that Ringo could easily pull off a drum roll—or four.

 

They were mostly around for getting the proper mono mixes which included EQ'ing. Then those final mixes, on a reel-to-reel tape (often called a "master") were sent off to a skilled cutting engineer where they may have undergone some EQ'ing and compressing to varying degrees while they were being cut to disc by that engineer.

Until fairly recently, I would have thought the Beatles' attention for their recordings ended after the master was made from the approved mixes. But since having heard George Harrison apparently being involved in recutting the White Album in Hollywood in 1968 for the US release leaves me not really knowing for certain one way or another. It was probably a major coincidence that he happened to be in Los Angeles, at Capitol and heard the US acetate, or whatever it was he heard, decided it was not right, and then sat through the recutting to his satisfaction.

 

What's interesting to me is I don't really find the boosted mids of the originals warm sounding the way that many others here do. They're exciting for sure but I don't hear that as warmth

 

Regarding laminated covers ... they peel over time. They don't handle humidity well.

I'm glad these weren't laminated.

 

Seems the players now are even better at that.

 

I think 'warmth' is more a function of the amps used to drive the lathes than pushed mids. I could be wrong. I do hear 'warmth' on the originals as compared with the modern reissues (I count the 80s JPN and UK as 'modern', but I'm an old dude).

 

I've examined these new mono reissues quite a lot regarding printing. My girlfriend (who knows more than I do about printing) says that it is indeed some kind of lamination on the covers. She can't tell what type, but it's not UV coating either (that one feels more plasticky). Look at the inside of the BEATLES FOR SALE cover, notice how the lamination continues from the back cover to the inside right for one centimetre? That is definitely some foil there, but I don't think it's the easily peelable type.

Also, all of the new covers (except for MONO MASTERS) use the same type of paper – glossy on one side, matte on the other – and exchange those sides accordingly. Notice how the back cover of PPM is glossy on the outside but matte on the inside, and how it's the other way around for all other covers until REVOLVER. MONO MASTERS has the same type of paper, too, only it's a modern white, while the others have a more vintage-type white, less bright, slightly more beige.

 

OK, fair enough. I'm glad they don't have the old style lamination.

 

They could have done both characteristics (warmth and detail) I would think?

 

Call me weird, but I kind of like it when that old-style lamination gets all wrinkly

 

Weird.

 

Right on!

 

Sounds like they did to me.

 

Don't forget, ya a have different rooms and environments your listening in. BIG factor.

 

I CERTAINLY do agree they appear to have done a fantastic job, no question.

 

True. The quietest vinyl ever. Stock Japanese records were very, very quiet and used unrecycled ('virgin') vinyl and the JVC Super Vinyl that MFSL was downright incredible. Mastering on Japanese records? That's another story. But Japanese record companies, at least by the 70s, were using perhaps the quietest vinyl around. Don't know about earlier times though.

 

It might be more helpful not to make those kinds of generalizations as the majority of the 1980s UK albums were pressed from original 1960s tube cuts, including the White Album in the 1982 Box Set, which you've described as dark and disappointing.

 

Hi Chacha,

eBay U.K. before the prices went through the roof. Today, 350 won't be enough to get you an EX copy.

Best,
George