Btw: just because one doesn't have any intention of purchasing the new mono doesn't automatically make the 2009 version the best. This is a scientific poll, folks. Very scientific.
I voted 2017 so I can justify to my wife all the money I spent on another Beatles release. Just kidding - I did not mess up the poll.
I would like to see more about this as well. I did find an interview with the 2009 remastering team here, where they discuss the process, summarized: tape transfer to digital 24/192 digital fixes, such as for "clicks from mics and faders, tape drop outs, bad edits, mic pops and sibilance" denoising - a total of 5 out of 535 total minutes equalization - digital out to analog mastering equipment (1972 EMI TG mastering console) then back to digital 24/44.1 (to a Sadie Series 5 PCM 8 DAW) limiting - using a Jünger DO1 digital limiter noise shaping - from the limiter to a Prism AD-124 AD converter back to Sadie at 16/44.1 Even though this process was described by Steve Rooke, who handled the stereo remasters, it seems as if he's describing the process for both the stereo and mono remasters. The only step explicitly excluded for the mono process was the limiting. I found this quote interesting: “The purist might ask why we didn’t just transfer the songs straight from the quarter-inch machine straight into Sadie, but we felt that we wanted to address anything that they would have wanted to remove. When I do a recording I don’t want to hear pops all over the vocal – it annoys me. If The Beatles were recorded today I’m sure they would have addressed those same issues." Maybe the "purists" will get their way with the new mono Pepper.
Thanks so much for that @Dinstun. The Beatles may have changed some of these things if the technology were available to them, but it wasn't. So, these albums have their own mojo because of those "clicks from mics and faders, tape drop outs, bad edits, mic pops and sibilance."
I thought the mono also missed out on the conversion back to analog? I really wish I didn't know they did that. So if they also did that for the mono, don't tell me.
Options: Can also be compared to original and/or subsequently vinyl releases [along w/the '87 CD & various tracks on various 'other' ceedees]. So, it's not like: 'if you haven't heard the master tape you don't know nothing bout the SQ/EQ of [title]'. Dynamic Range Database ratings: Album list - Dynamic Range Database #Reference
I'm going to make a matrix with the 2009 mono on the left and the 2017 mono on the right. Then I can listen to the mono in one-ish dimensional stereo and decide. I'm not kidding.
Of course you can compare versions to versions but that doesn't mean that you will thereby know definitively what was done to each of them. You'll just know in the end which one you prefer. And I guarantee - if this new one comes out and the bass and treble on it are more pronounced than the 2009, a buncha people are going to say it was EQ'd and the 2009 is more "flat." They may not be right, but they're gonna say that!
Their already saying "that"! Got that. Got that you posted "definitely" [in original post posted] as well!! People here at SHMF will know more than their "preference" when compared to other issues of a title. That's what you missed bout my post. SHMF posters will know why the releases are different too!! It's from that knowledge & experience, that makes informed choice. Not just: 'like this better than that'. Nothing wrong w/that; just human nature to have a preference. Yet, you're going to see much more informed information bout the SQ of the various releases on SHMF. Shoot! There are even SHMF poster(s) that have heard "The Master Tape". Enjoy the "Magical Mystery Tour" of the 'Beatles' on Steve's 'Corner'!!!
I'm just trying to figure out where it was stated the 2017 mono mix is being released independently of the 2017 stereo remix.
