The Stereo Remastered Beatles

I have the complete Stereo Remasters and the complete Mono Remasters. This is an exercise in making completists pay for the whole catalogue all over again, twice. I predict that in about 5 years' time they will re-release the complete Stereo Remasters and the complete Mono Remasters again, but call them the Redigitizations or the Nu-Compression Masters, or the Version:Normalization 2014, and completists will pay for the whole catalogue all over again, twice.

Originally posted by FMF
I have the complete Stereo Remasters and the complete Mono Remasters. This is an exercise in making completists pay for the whole catalogue all over again, twice. I predict that in about 5 years' time they will re-release the complete Stereo Remasters and the complete Mono Remasters again, but call them the Redigitizations or the Nu-Compression Masters, or the V ...[text shortened]... ion:Normalization 2014, and completists will pay for the whole catalogue all over again, twice.

you're right.

also, the thing about the new video game just shows how the beatles (or what is left of them) are selling out.
but I bought the white album anyway since I lost my original.

why did you buy them if you have yourself recognized this was more about money?

Originally posted by generalissimo
why did you buy them if you have yourself recognized this was more about money?

I downloaded them illegally. Checked them out. Decided I didn't need them. The existing versions on my HD are mp3s of the CDs I bought (about 10 years ago when I was living in Japan) but then gave to my sister in law (who is a Beatles fan, I am more ambivalent about them than her) They will suffice. So I "had" the Stereo Remasters AND the Mono Remasters for about a day or so. And now they're deleted.

As an aside, should I be in line for a lesser punishment than someone who still had them on his or her HD, if I were to be 'caught'?

Originally posted by FMF
I downloaded them illegally. Checked them out. Decided I didn't need them. The existing versions on my HD are mp3s of the CDs I bought (about 10 years ago when I was living in Japan) but then gave to my sister in law (who is a Beatles fan, I am more ambivalent about them than her) They will suffice. So I "had" the Stereo Remasters AND the Mono Remasters for abou ...[text shortened]... ser punishment than someone who still had them on his or her HD, if I were to be 'caught'?

I see. I think what you did was pretty clever, too bad I don't know how to do that.

As an aside, should I be in line for a lesser punishment than someone who still had them on his or her HD, if I were to be 'caught'?

yes, why not?

Originally posted by Seitse
These guys speak sense and you all should listen to them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8246313.stm

"Anyone who says they are influenced by The Beatles, alarm bells start to go off; it means they are going to be completely ordinary. It's about writing this perfectly-crafted music, the classic song - in inverted commas. It's not about being adventurous."

This Keenan guys sounds like he has a bigger problem with modern indie (most of which I agree should only be used to torture dogs.) As for the Beatles themselves we have to remember that early on they were just a distillation and popularization of older authentic music. No more - no less. As for whether you like it - that is just a matter of taste.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
This Keenan guys sounds like he has a bigger problem with modern indie (most of which I agree should only be used to torture dogs.) As for the Beatles themselves we have to remember that early on they were just a distillation and popularization of older authentic music. No more - no less. As for whether you like it - that is just a matter of taste.

Authenticity is the issue. Spot on.

Popularity has nothing to do with groundbreaking, original artistry.

Originally posted by Seitse
Popularity has nothing to do with groundbreaking, original artistry.

Yes it does. There is an inverse relationship.

The issue for me is simply one of balancing equipment and techniques used for recording mono in a stereo soundspace. I'm willing to perhaps allow the notion that drums can sound fuller across a stereo field as you get a sense of the physical space of the kit. However when the Beatles recorded these songs the equipment they used and the setups they recorded in were for mono. This must have directly affected the production process and culminated in the sound which we all know so well (a sound which we expect to hear when we listen to the Beatles - which may well go some way to answering why it doesn't sound right in stereo). Their musical setup was small, 2 guitars, one bass and a kit, that all fills a mono space pretty well as the harmonics lay over each other in a certain way. Re-dubs would have been rare, most takes being done from start to finish as a whole band. When you listen to a modern bands now you'll notice there is a plethera of background noises, instruments and effects which allow for a wider sound space to be filled. They're tighter because of re-dubs and digital processing and they record in setups specifically desigend for stereo recording.

It is my contention that to try and stretch the Beatles' monophonic ball of gorgeousness into a modern stereo space is not only counter productive to the quality of their original sound, but also culturally barren.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
As for whether you like it - that is just a matter of taste.

...and whether or not you have any

Originally posted by darvlay
?

What are you talking about?

Hard to explain in a few sentences for you ADD types but here goes...

Imagine you are watching a war movie with a battle scene on tv. Imagine the camera is on top of a soldier's head so you are seeing the battle from the soldiers point of view. As you watch the tv though, the SOUND is only coming at you from the 2 speakers in the tv so you are only HEARING the battle from in front of you. You can't differentiate sounds that are actually coming from the side or from behind the soldier. You just hear ALL the sounds at the same time and can't tell where they are actually coming from.

Now, picture the same setup except this time you have surround sound with speakers to each side of you and from behind. Now you watch the battle and can hear everything that is going on and can tell exactly where each sound is happening. Your experience of the battle will be much different than the first experience.

This is how I envision the difference between the mono version of the song and the stereo versions of the song. I was trying to figure out if the stereo version of the song made the experience different or not.

Originally posted by uzless
Hard to explain in a few sentences for you ADD types but here goes...

Imagine you are watching a war movie with a battle scene on tv. Imagine the camera is on top of a soldier's head so you are seeing the battle from the soldiers point of view. As you watch the tv though, the SOUND is only coming at you from the 2 speakers in the tv so you are only HEAR trying to figure out if the stereo version of the song made the experience different or not.

That's what you meant when you wrote this:

"Or does it suck because now you can hear the song as it really is and the way it really is is a crapy song?"

?

Originally posted by darvlay
That's what you meant when you wrote this:

"Or does it suck because now you can hear the song as it really is and the way it really is is a crapy song?"

?

Partially, you're leaving out the context and omitting what i wrote previously in an earlier post.

-------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Starrman
Yeah, it's sucky, they should just leave it alone. I've got a remastered version of Across the Universe in stereo and it sucks balls.

Uzless

But WHY does it suck. Does it suck because it doesn't sound right? Or does it suck because now you can hear the song as it really is and the way it really is is a crapy song?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uzless

Makes you wonder if new bands would sound better if they were in mono. Most new bands' songs are recorded in stereo

Or, does it mean that the beatles really aren't that good and that the fact the songs were put into mono made the songs sound better than they were? Does seperating out the instruments into 2 channels expose the songs as weak?

I haven't heard any of the stereo versions myself. This article explains that you can now hear the errors of the instruments with the stereo versions.

http://thestar.com/entertainment/music/article/692701
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One last shot at it.

I'm not in a band and do not profess to understand the recording process but my limited understanding is that most cd's are recorded in stereo..meaning that certain instruments will be delivered to the ear via the left channel (speaker) and other instruments will be delivered to the ear via the right channel (speaker). Typically, the vocal track is delivered via BOTH channels.

The effect is that the listener experiences, say the guitar, in the left ear, the piano in the right ear and hears the vocal track in both ears. For me, the vocal track coming out of both speakers means (with headphones) i hear the vocals in the centre of my head. It seems like the sound is actually inside the middle of my head.

But the other instruments are definitely tilted to one side of the my head or the other, depending on which speaker they are coming out of. In effect, I have 3 listening zones where I hear distinct tracks. (I recognize that you actually have more if you were to go say 90% guitar in the left and 10% in the right, but you get the idea)

However, if the song is mono and each speaker is playing all of the instruments and vocals at the same time, then EVERYTHING sounds like it's in the middle of my head.


I am wondering if this splitting of the instruments to different sides of your head, (or ears) makes the Beatles songs sound different to people, and whether or not its possible to make a crappy sounding stereo song sound better if you made it mono.

Originally posted by uzless
One last shot at it.

I'm not in a band and do not profess to understand the recording process but my limited understanding is that most cd's are recorded in stereo..meaning that certain instruments will be delivered to the ear via the left channel (speaker) and other instruments will be delivered to the ear via the right channel (speaker). Typically, the r or not its possible to make a crappy sounding stereo song sound better if you made it mono.

I follow you completely (and did before) until the very last clause of the last sentence. "Crappy" and "Better" are general subjective terms making it very difficult to answer your question. This is what I was getting at with my last post.

"Or does it suck because now you can hear the song as it really is and the way it really is is a crapy song?"

^
This can't be answered by me. Nor does a mix really determine whether a song is entirely crappy or not, in my subjective opinion.

Your understanding of stereo is a little too simple. You can still record in stereo but have the tracks balanced to each ear as it would be in a mono recording. You can use pan effects on any track to take advantage of the stereo spectrum. And the list of creative possibilities go on and on. There's much much more to stereo recording than just hard-panning of certain instruments to a seperate channel. It offers near limitless sonic possibilities and increased creative expression.

Producers, Engineers and Mixers try several different mixes before settling on whatever mix they or the artist feel is superior. Mono recording offers no such creative expressibility in the stereo spectrum. The difference in stereo mixes may be subtle to an untrained ear but the differences are significant. So yes, assigning different tracks to different areas of the stereo spectrum will make the songs sound different to most people. Whether or not it's possible to make a crappy stereo recording better in mono is subjective and can more accurately be described as a "poor mix" because you would just be taking all the stereo tracks and balancing them. If it sounds better to you, hey congrats! But there's a reason why people record in stereo as opposed to mono...

Originally posted by uzless
One last shot at it.

I'm not in a band and do not profess to understand the recording process but my limited understanding is that most cd's are recorded in stereo..meaning that certain instruments will be delivered to the ear via the left channel (speaker) and other instruments will be delivered to the ear via the right channel (speaker). Typically, the ...[text shortened]... r or not its possible to make a crappy sounding stereo song sound better if you made it mono.

You need to read these books:

"This Is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel Levitin

"Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner