Beatles "Pepper" Mono CD: 2009 or 2017?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by gss, May 22, 2017.

  1. gss

    gss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    New Jersey
    As folks begin to explore their 50th anniversary "Pepper" products, it's probably an appropriate time to put aside the stereo re-mix hubbub and ask: which recent MONO release is your favorite and why?

    As I understand it, and I could be wrong - please correct me if I am, but the 2017 is a flat transfer of the mono tapes, while the 2009 was somewhat "corrected." Other than format, was the 2014 vinyl mono release unique in any way?

    I am, however, omitting the 2014 vinyl mono release from this poll to avoid a format war. Let's talk about comparisons and favorites between 2009 and 2017 CD versions.
    bhazen likes this.
  2. fallbreaks

    fallbreaks Forum Resident

    Has anyone heard the 2017 mono yet?
  3. nicotinecaffeine

    nicotinecaffeine Forum Resident

    Trenton, OH
    Preemptive strike for later usage, I'm guessing.
    audiomixer likes this.
  4. marmalade166

    marmalade166 Forum Resident

    Aberdeen, Scotland
    A few people have, I'm still waiting for my copy tho
  5. slane

    slane Forum Resident


    It's actually called a 'direct transfer' (whatever that means) rather than a 'flat transfer'. Sounds good, but the 2009 actually sounds 'flatter' to me in terms of EQ (less top and bottom, more mid). But it could be that the 2009 was just EQ'd that way, and that the 2017 is how it sounds directly off tape.
  6. Onder

    Onder Forum Resident

    I agree with your description. More bass and treble compared to the 2009.
    It's subtle and done very tastefully (if anything has actually been done to it at all). I think I might even prefer the 2017 mono!

    Mainspark, rxcory and slane like this.
  7. Keith V

    Keith V Forum Resident

    Jersey City, NJ
    I'd like to know too.
    I have the mono box but I'm just getting the 2 CD set of Pepper. (I've got the documentary on VHS and I don't have 5.1 set up so I can't justify getting twice the outtakes at 5 times the price).

    It's an exciting week nonetheless.
  8. OobuJoobu

    OobuJoobu Forum Resident

    Leeds, UK
    So, let me try and get this right: The 2017 CD version we're getting this week is, in theory, more authentic to what was released in 1967 than the 2009 mono CD version.

    Could someone confirm that for me please, for the purposes of the mammoth file tagging job that will be kicking off on Friday morning!

    drbryant, IronWaffle and Randoms like this.
  9. Randoms

    Randoms Aerie Faerie Nonsense

    I believe that's a definite maybe, but I'm unsure about that.
  10. gss

    gss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    New Jersey
    This is one of the reasons I started this thread. Let's see!
    Keith V, Randoms and OobuJoobu like this.
  11. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident

    I voted 2009 because I'm not about to drop 120 or more dollars to find out about the 2017.
  12. Sordel

    Sordel Forum Resident

    Midlands, UK
    I won't be voting, for much the same reason. I'll be interested to see what people who've heard both feel, but the 2009 mono is my go-to and I struggle to believe that I need any better.
  13. Flaming Torch

    Flaming Torch Forum Resident

    Thanks for your review. I am glad now that I did put in an order. Is the direct transfer mono also on the blu-ray and dvd?
    I will vote when I have the 2017.
  14. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    That's something I don't think we're going to know definitively. The 2009 was famously produced without compression and limiting, but some members here have said that they think that there was some EQing in the 2009, and other members have claimed that there was some digital editing in at least some of the Mono Box albums, removing non-musical noises such as lip-smacking and such from the recordings. I don't know if this has been alleged to have been done to Pepper but in Revolver in particular.

    Now, the minute that the 2017 drops and some people hear more bass or treble on the 2017 vs. the 2009, they're gonna say that the 2017 was EQed and the 2009 is "more flat." But unless you've heard the master tapes you're not going to know definitively.
  15. mrgroove01

    mrgroove01 Forum Resident

    Los Angeles, CA
    While I'd like to hear the 2017 asap, my budget won't allow me at present. I have the 2009 CD box and the 2014 mono vinyl box and those will just have to hold me over till I can purchase the new box, whenever that is. If this thread's still open, I'll vote my opinion then.
  16. gss

    gss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    New Jersey
    Obviously, I realize the majority of people won't be able to weigh in on this before Friday, but it sounds like some products have already leaked out. If you can make the comparison now, great.

    Otherwise, we'll still be here after Friday!
  17. Daven23

    Daven23 Well-Known Member

    Hyde Park NY USA
    I'm one of the few here who has simple ears. I have the 1987 US CD and I'm satisfied with it. I also have the original Vinyl, a Apple early 70s re press and a Mexican Import Original.
    I love this album but I can't justify re buying it again. I will likely do with this release as I did with the 2009s. Hold off and then when I come across them here and there at thrifts I slowly accumulate them.
  18. Basically, everything is EQ'd during mastering - in this case, the 2014 mono vinyl was simply done better than the 2009 CD, which sounds claustrophobic to my ears by comparison. I consider the 2014 mono vinyl definitive, and really have little use for an additional mono CD version now.
  19. Daven23

    Daven23 Well-Known Member

    Hyde Park NY USA
    I've seen a few different videos online here in the Vinyl community of people defending the price of this. I personally don't get it. Over 100 dollars for this is way too expensive.
  20. mikrt17

    mikrt17 Life has surface noise.

    You can always compare it to an original UK first pressing because that's what the Beatles wanted you to hear
    MarkTheShark, andybeau and dkmonroe like this.
  21. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Well, I can't, but maybe you can. :laugh:
    mikrt17 and Keith V like this.
  22. majorlance

    majorlance Forum Resident

    Collingswood, NJ
    My $.02:

    2009 mono CD > 1987 stereo CD > 2009 stereo CD.

    2017 mono? Not worth $120 to me to find out.
  23. Dinstun

    Dinstun Forum Resident

    I would say that neither CD is authentic to the 1967 release.

    The mono album master was intended to be mastered "flat". Geoff Emerick included the instructions "Please Transfer Flat" on the box. But the mastering department rebelled and Harry Moss ended up making minor changes when the album was cut, with Emerick present. It is my understanding that the 2009 was not a flat transfer, and there were some "fixes" applied, although I do not know details of this. So the 2017 may be the first time the "transfer flat" instructions were followed, but this then would not match the 1967 mastering.

    For the 2014 mastering, I believe Sean Magee (mostly?) followed the original changes as documented by Harry Moss in 1967, so that would be the only "authentic" option of the recent releases.

    Well, not exactly. It was Geoff Emerick at the board, and Harry Moss cutting the lacquer. The Beatles weren't really involved at that point.
    xj32, crispi, mikrt17 and 1 other person like this.
  24. gss

    gss Forum Resident Thread Starter

    New Jersey
    I keep hearing this, but no one seems to ever offer any substantial evidence to support this claim.
    Dean R likes this.
  25. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    I'm assuming it's better.

Share This Page