Don't think so. Those Martin 1986 remixes we were stuck with until 2009 with the Mono Box. Apparently the first CD pressings of Rubber Soul made in Canada had the original mix. But this was back in 1987/1988.
My list for those who don't know the Beatles stereo/ mono / remix catalog: Please Please Me - Mono mix. FYI....The original mono master was compressed twice by accident. With The Beatles - Mono mix. A Hard Day's Night - Mono mix. Beatles For Sale - Stereo Help 1987 remix - stereo Rubber Soul - Mono mix!! Revolver - Stereo mix Sgt. Pepper - Stereo / stereo remix. Magical Mystery Tour - Stereo The White Album - Stereo remix Abbey Road - Stereo Past Masters - Both stereo and mono mixes. Don't touch any U.S. albums. Fake reverb and fake stereo. The only exception would be RUBBER SOUL U.S. stereo. And of course Magical Mystery Tour on 1987/2009 CD.
There was an intended mono and stereo of Pepper back in 1967. Both were released together. The mono mix is NO more Pepper than the bigger selling stereo one. And by 1967 the whole Canadian market was stereo but in the U.K. mono was still king. Pitty Martin didn't know how popular stereo was in other nations. The U.K. record business was behind in technology and would stay that way until the late 80's. More time was spent on the mono mix because it was the first mix. Doesn't mean mono was better but just different. Anyway when Pepper was remixed most of you hated it. And this new mix was made from the same tapes. Ironic.....
Revolver - stereo Sgt. Pepper - stereo Magical Mystery Tour - stereo White Album - stereo Let It Be - stereo Abbey Road - stereo
Huh? Compression is identical on the (simultaneous) stereo and delta mono mixes. See here: Delta Mono - The Beatles at EMI in early 1963
Except that The Beatles themselves indicated that the mono was their preferred version. The reason that they spent more time on the mono is that it was the version they thought would sell more (not releasing that America was already seeing an increase in stereo record players).
Please Please Me: Mono With The Beatles: Mono A Hard Days Night: Stereo (Phones) Mono (Speakers) Beatles For Sale: Stereo Help!: Stereo (1965) Rubber Soul: Mono (1965) Revolver: Mono Sgt. Pepper: Mono Magical Mystery Tour: Stereo Yellow Submarine: Mono or YSS depending on mood White Album: Stereo Let It Be: Stereo (... Naked CD) Abbey Road: Stereo
I think what he might mean is that when the single master was cut it was compressed once and when it was dubbed into the mono album reel it was compressed again
True. No argument there. I am trying very hard not to be so abrasive on line. My fellow engineers on Gearlust say I am ahhhhhh........sometimes abrasive and jumpy. Let me know sir if I offend. Because sometimes I do. Yes, mono was the preferred mix up until at least the White Album. I should have said they spent less time on the stereo mix because all the decisions, edits and such to figure out had already been made going the mono mix. So when they went to mix the stereo version they had already figured the sound they wanted and what to do. As a result - less workon the stereo mix. . So the reason the mono mix took longer was not because it was the preferred version (which we know it was. Agreed) but because they worked on it first. This is what I meant. In 1967 no mono mix of Pepper was available in Canada. This was told to me by a member who went looking for a mono version of Pepper in Toronto back 1967 and couldn't find one. I think The Beatles were just told if their records sold well. I doubt weather they got a mono vs. Stereo sales breakdown in each country. Back in the late 60's things were different. I am not saying it wasn't possible but it didn't matter since most studios did a separate mono and stereo mix anyway. This is of course an argument from popularity fallacy. Just because a mono mix sold more didn't mean it was superior. In fact I experienced this very thing myself back doing a live mix in 1985 only in reverse. Back in 1985 when I was 16 I helped a friend write, record, edit and mix a 1 minute radio commercial as part of school assignment for English Mass Media class. We did a stereo mix. It took us 8 and half hours to do it all. From recording, editing and mixing. My Tascam four track was lent out to my cousin for the month so I could not avail myself of that machine. The 4 track would have made things a million times easier. All the sound effects and music had to be flown in to to the mix live. If we made a mistake in the mix (5 channel Radio Shack mixer.) then we had to start all over again. Just recording the singing around the camp fire effect part took over 2 hours to overdub the vocals and create the fire effect. No library of web effects in them days. The mono mix we did two days later (just in case) took only 2 hours. But the mono mix was given as much love as the stereo mix. In fact I think the mono mix is superior. I can't believe I just admitted that! Oh no. My stereo mix was good but it doesn't grab you like the mono mix. Oh no! Stupid mono mix....... Equipment used (please no laughing): 1. Hitachi 2 head cassette deck (Dolby B) 2. Fisher 2 head Dubbing Deck (Dolby B) 3. Sony Walkman (Dolby B) 4. $120 1983 Dual turntable 5. Sennheiser headphones ($60) 6. Cheap Walkman headphones for assistant. 7. Radio Shack 5 channel mixer. (No eq) 8. Microphone to line input adapters. (3). 9. Realistic reverb unit ($57) noisy as hell? 54 db A weighted when mike inputs used. 10. Ken Tech 1979 Receiver 11. Ridgewood 1980 Reciever (use of phono preamp for music) 12. Various adapters , cables, adapters, and splitters. 13. Cheap Realistic $25 microphones. 14. $3 microphone (yawning effect) He got a good mark on the assignment. I wish I could put both mixes up on here. There is some site where you can post your songs on line. Itnis called, CLASO or CLSO or CPSO. Maybe some member here knows it. You guys would laugh your butts off if you could here the radio commercials did. The commercial was entitled, "Lata Monguisga's Summer Camp For Boys." It is a prime example that you don't need fancy expensive equipment to turn out something good.
Oh no! How could it be compressed twice by accident?.. Or is that just another urban Beatle legend? I rely on you guys to give me the truth here. Great link. Unfortunately one book will contradict another. I don't think it applies in this case. But for example, Sir George Martin said he did no stereo.mixes of PPM and WTHB in 1963. But we know he did.
I think both might be right, technically George didn't do any Stereo Mixing because there's nothing to mix. Its a twin-track recording.
I have read that argument many times, but there's something I don't understand: if the time spent on the mono mix saved time of the stereo because they had figured out what they wanted to do with the sound, then why did the stereo mixes come out so different? Different edits, different relative levels of elements, different effects... Also, if that was the M.O., wouldn't it make more sense to mix in stereo first while figuring out those things? It's easier to go from stereo to mono than the other way around, isn't it?
Ironically I just finished listening to Revolver from the Mono Box for the first time. Reminded me just how great this band was. The mix was increadible, the sound intense. For me, Mono for this album.
For thousands of years (o.k. 52 years!) Beatle fans have searched the far corners of the universe for these answers. Mmmm....Good point. Yes. It just bugs me to no end that the stupid mono mix I did was better. Down to your question (s). Ahhhhhh.......Yea....O.k. mmmm......According to George Martin they didn't think it was important to do both versions the same. But why not mix in another live radio broadcast for the stereo mix of I Am The Walrus instead of the horrible edit taken from the mono mix? Never understood that. It makes the original mix of that song only half stereo in my opinion. For the mono mix they used more compression and Eq on it. Check out the mono mix of BEATLES FOR SALE. The drums on a few tracks have been over compressed. The stereo mix has more life. Apparently according to Steve they didn't bother hooking up all the stuff (compressors and Eq units and what not ) for the stereo mix. Often they just through up the faders, panned and used board EQ. That is why the stereo mix of BEATLES FOR SALE sounds like an audiophile record and the mono mix doesn't. Maybe the stereo mix was a rushed (who cares) mix back in 1964 but it sounds better. To most. Why? Because they did LESS to it. Yes, I went from a stereo mix to a mono mix on my radio 1985 radio ad. But I had no EQ. No external effects. Except for the reverb on my narration. What made it easier was that all the leg work had already had been done. For the mono mix we didn't have to over dub 16 times the line, "99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer. If one of those bottles happen to fall they be 98 bottles of beer on the wall..." it drove my friend crazy. He hated the Indian music and wanted it out. My brother played the stereo mix and was the deciding factor on what went it and what went out. His B&W 202 were flawless. Many arguments over music choices, and mix levels were solved in the first stereo mix. Because it was live we had 30 false starts. We had no mute buttons. All the effects were edited together. If I spoke to fast or slow it would screw up and we had to do the whole thing all over again. Bring the wrong fader up too early and you get hiss or hum or noise. We learned what worked and what didn't work during the attempts of the stereo mix. So when the mono mix came we knew the material like the back of our hand. Of course mixing from a 4 or 8 track is different but you see what I am getting at.
I like the moons of those two but mainly because they’re different. Honestly the stereos were done better, cleaner, and less sloppy. Some of the mono Pepper sounds like demoes.
PPM, With The Beatles (one of my fave Beatles albums, BTW) Rubber Soul and Sgt Pepper -- and most of the Singles -- in MONO. Beatles for Sale -- in STEREO. As for the other albums, I prefer some tracks in Mono and some in Stereo (and some as Tube Cuts and some in Solid State... I guess that's why I have an insane number of Beatles LPs).
