The Beatles Mono verses Stereo

[andrenighthound]

Which releases you like better and why? I have the iTunes versions of some of the Beatles' albums and I notice they are loud! I read that the mono versions are much more dynamic and lower in volume.

I only have stereo versions but I'm a fan of mono mixes and was looking to get the mono versions on cd.

Thoughts or comments?

[castpolymer]

I can take either. If it was recorded in mono, I prefer mono. If it was recorded in stereo, I prefer stereo. This is especially true if I am listening to vinyl. Pretty much a non - answer / stand on the subject and I am sticking to it.

[soul-o]

I think you really need both. The songs were intended to be heard in mono, they were mixed for the BBC and AM radio which broadcast in mono and the Beatles and George Martin usually weren't even there when they did the stereo versions, they left that up to the engineers. Of course, over the years we have become used to the stereo versions and they have a really charming quality- they are classics. BUT- give a good listen to Paperback Writer in mono and you will hear a much more powerful record. Something about mono really toughens up the bass and drums and gives the guitars more of an edge.

If you are looking for a place to start, go for the middle period; Rubber Soul and Revolver and the singles around that time. And then keep in mind that George Harrison said that if you've never heard Sgt. Pepper in mono, you've never heard it properly.

Me- currently saving my pennies for the Kinks mono box set.

[telex76]

I don't remember that there was much difference back in the day.
I had their first albums in mono, and some of my friends had the stereo version.
Of course, most of the stereos we had were just the suitcase type so there wasn't a whole lot of seperation.

The first Beatle recording I ever listened to was at a friends house. He didn't have any needles for his record player so we stuck a straight pin thru a rolled up cone of paper and held it in the grooves. Great listening.
The song was "Love Me Do". It was on the Swan label and I don't know where he got it from. His parents were missionary's with friends all over the world, so no telling.
It was begore they were ever on ED Sullivan.

[vic108]

the mono SPLHCB is ALOT different that the stereo version. I wish they sold it seperately but you have to buy the box set to get it. i was a kid when i stumbled upon the British mono LP (1972) and was smitten by how great it sounded compared...

[TG]

I got the mono set and they're much better than the stereo mixes, which weren't originally done very well. The balance of the instruments is way better...the interaction of the drums and bass is much more apparent...and a few times it was actually a different performance (take) on the stereo version than on the mono. The vocal on Help, for instance.
Bass lines are clearer. Some of the guitar tones I grew up thinking a bit dated and cheesy fit in and make much more sense on the mono mixes and sound good. The guitars on What Goes On sound all right on the mono....hopeless on the stereo version.
Loads of little things like that if you listen.
On a few songs it's a whole new experience.

It's not so apparent on the earlier albums, other than giving you a better sense of what it sounded like in the room there, but when you get to Rubber Soul and beyond there can be a huge difference if you listen carefully.

[Sherpa]

I'd recommend you buy the Beatles Mono box and play it on a decent home stereo - you'll probably be blown away by just how punchy and direct the recording is, yet I swear I hear the instruments' placement in the mono mix.

I realize that part of the reason for developing stereophonic sound was to be able to pan and position much more dynamically, but the care with which the original mono recordings were made yields something quite magical.

Seriously, I've heard both boxed sets, and bought the mono based on what my ears told me. I'd be interested in reading your reaction if you do check it out.

[refin]

The only thing that is weird about the stereo versions (to me) is the extreme panning of vocals and drums....cool if you have to learn the vocals,but a bit annoying at times.
I had the original mono SPLHCB,and remembered it being nice---I must get it again.
Hey-- I can play the CD on my mixer and pan it straight up.

[Telesavalis]

Originally Posted by refin

The only thing that is weird about the stereo versions (to me) is the extreme panning of vocals and drums....cool if you have to learn the vocals,but a bit annoying at times.
I had the original mono SPLHCB,and remembered it being nice---I must get it again.
Hey-- I can play the CD on my mixer and pan it straight up.

+1.
I had always heard that the extreme panning releases were a mistake.

[jwsamuel]

The song that has the most notable difference is Piggies, from the White Album. There are lots of animal noises in the mono version that are not on the stereo version.

Jim

[gtrguru]

I like the instrument placements in the mono recordings. Not a fan of early recordings with music on the left channel, vox on the right channel. Maybe because i didn't grow up in that era.

[José]

Back to mono.

[jefrs]

Early Beatles recordings, even though made in stereo on a fancy state of the art 8-track, had to play well in mono for AM radio and the general lack of stereo players. That does compromise the mix.

[64Strat]

I have the complete stereo set, now I'm going to get the complete mono set. This way I have the best of both, as intended.

[mickmac]

Have the stereo boxset...would like to get the mono myself

[nic'o'caster]

I have both and when I listen to the stereo versions I've got a sense of analytic listening experience that does not help the song. The mono have some magic in them that the stereo versions tend to dilute. A few songs sound better in stereo though. A very interesting experience in fact, if you can afford...

[dwlb]

Originally Posted by jefrs

Early Beatles recordings, even though made in stereo on a fancy state of the art 8-track, had to play well in mono for AM radio and the general lack of stereo players. That does compromise the mix.

Stereo/Mono compatibility, if done correctly, should not compromise the mix at all. Engineers still check mixes for whether they collapse well to mono...or at least, many do, and the rest should.

[Ben Bishop]

George Martin did a lot of classical music before doing the Beatles. Great mono mixes of classical are fine works, and I think he was very responsible for the integrated and balanced sound of the mono mixes. Early stereo was almost a gimmick and they didn't know what we do today about using channels to suggest space and air. Thorens table, Shure cart, Dynaco pre, Leak Point One, corner-loaded Klipsch - it'll still knock your socks off.

[andrenighthound]

Cool guys thanks for everyones info and comments. Now I got to get the mono versions!

[zooropamofo]

I have both the Beatles' box sets, mono and stereo. The mono version is a much more interesting listen. It really gets interesting to note the variances in the Rubber Soul/Revolver/Pepper era, and the White Album in mono has some cool moments too...witness Helter Skelter.