I am posting this though I am sure it may have been covered before....

The Beatles mono box is sublime, like having all new Beatles albums. Like listening to the vinyls the way I heard them as a kid.

In the absence of a Stones mono box, is there a catalog of optimum mixes for the albums up to Sticky Fingers or BB? I recall as a kid, that when comparing TSMR, the mono was much better, vocals more up front.

Are the vinyls ( UK or US ? ) truly different mixes ala the Beatles? or are the later vinyls mix downs to mono? In short, is it worth the hunt to track them down. Some of the abkco cd mixes are horrible!!!

Well.... if I can recall our friend "Stones relics" Beggars Banquet mono is oustanding

__________________________

Here are some interesting thoughts about mono and stereo versions of 1960s rock music taken from a website about Bob Dylan's 1960s mono and stereo recordings. The situation with the Rolling Stones is the same.

(quote)

"Mono and Stereo: Some General Points

Stereo was not a new technology [in the 1960s], but its impact at that time was still very much in the classical and audiophile market. For popular music, mono was still very much the standard format. Singles were always mono, and stereo LPs only accounted for about 5% of sales even in the USA. Radio airplay - all AM - would always be from the mono version.

So most artists and producers would devote their attention to getting the mono version of their album right, and would give very little thought to the stereo edition. Note: The stereo version would generally be produced by a different mixing engineer, often with little or no supervision, more or less as a sideline for a small minority market. The artist might not even hear it before it was released.

Because the stereo mixing process was less carefully supervised, stereo versions of album tracks were often edited quite differently from their mono counterparts, with different length endings and different instruments given prominence. And if any overdubbing or splicing was done to get the mono mix to the artist's satisfaction, frequently this would be forgotten or carried out differently on the stereo version.

(...) But the mono versions have been buried for so long that the stereo mixes are accepted without question, and most listeners are unaware of their divergences from the artist's original intention.

Aside from this frequent lack of control over the quality of the stereo mixes, there were other technical issues which compromised the sound of stereo albums.

Stereo disc-cutting heads of the time were prone to distortion when fed with high amplitude bass signals, and in any case most early stereo pickup cartridges couldn't track heavy bass signals without jumping. So when it came to cutting the album, the bass levels had to be limited. Note: Sometimes the stereo mixing engineer would ignore this and produce a "flat" master mix-down tape; in these cases a second-generation "cutting master" would be made with the bass reduced as necessary. More often, though, the adjustment would be made at the mixing stage, and the master mix-down tape itself was used for cutting the lacquered discs (also known as matrixes) from which the manufacturing stampers were cast.

The result of this technical limitation was that the stereo editions of 1960s albums usually sounded much thinner than the mono versions. And if the records had long sides (say over 20 minutes) then even more compromise had to be made: the amplitude of the sound signal had to be limited to avoid one groove cutting into the next. This was more of a problem with the physically more complex stereo groove, because of the added dimension of movement. It meant that the signal had to be compressed so as to limit the dynamic range. (...)

There were other factors which limited the effectiveness of 1960s stereo productions. One was the studio recording equipment itself (...). The other was that stereo was still to some extent treated as a novelty, and lateral separation of instruments was seen as the primary objective. The combined effect of these factors was that the stereo mixes were pretty crude: everything was left, centre or right, with lots of dead space in between. (...)

(...)

So the mono albums are undeniably the definitive original creations; and they deserve more attention than they get (...). It really is a shame that the mono mixes are denied the permanence and the freedom from extraneous noise that a digital edition would give them.

Of course, I won't deny that things have changed over the last 40-odd years, and that the majority of listeners now view mono as inherently inadequate. Properly done, stereo gives you a better sense of space and involvement, and allows you to hear more detail, to follow individual instruments more clearly. (...) It's a pity, though, that for want of attention to the original mono versions the mistakes and oversights made by the 1960s stereo mixing engineers are still with us today. (...)

(...)"

(end of quote)

Complete article here: [www.rdf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk]


I think that the best versions of the Rolling Stones' sixties albums are the original UK DECCA mono pressings.

In the case of "Between The Buttons", you have not truly heard that album, if you have not heard the mono mix.

There are two different UK mono pressings of "Satanic Majesties". The first pressing (without "T2" in the matrix number) is a true mono mix. Subsequent mono pressings (with "T2" in the matrix number) are fold-downs from stereo. Why this was done is unknown. In the US all "Satanic Majesties" mono LPs (on London) have the true mono mix.

The original mono mixes of "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are two of the best-sounding rock LPs of all time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-11 01:51 by MrEcho.

I really love to hear the "Let It Bleed" mono mixes

__________________________

quote:
The original mono mixes of "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are two of the best-sounding rock LPs of all time.

...Except that both albums (with the notable exception of "Sympathy For The Devil") are proved as fold downs.

The original mastering engineers of both LP's has stated this on the Steve Hoffman forum. They also explained that "Sympathy..." was the only dedicated mono mix on those two albums. For the rest they where simply ordered to lay the two stereo channels together.

Some people keep saying that. All I know is they blow the doors off the stereo releases.
On an unrelated note, I never go to the trouble and expense mailing something across the water without some way to trace it....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-11 02:03 by scottkeef.

As far as I know the following dedicated mono mixes are MIA in the digital age:

Aftermath
Between the Buttons
Flowers??? (not sure it exists)
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Sympathy for the Devil
Brown Sugar
Bitch
Sway
Tumbling Dice

Everything else is available somehow, I believe.

I have a Original MONO vinyl of Flowers. Plus all the albums have been booted from LP sources. Brown Sugar,Bitch Mono mixes are on boots, so is the Swat 45 mono edit. I have the mono Tumbling Dice 45. It smokes ANY lp version I've heard.

I have a "Let It Bleed - Mono Mix" on bootleg CD. Bougth many years ago out of curiosity, as lots of folks were raving about the different, punchier sound. Well, the "punch" might have gone missing when transferred to CD, and I just can't spot any significant revelation in sound.

Quote
Blueranger
quote:
The original mono mixes of "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are two of the best-sounding rock LPs of all time.

...Except that both albums (with the notable exception of "Sympathy For The Devil") are proved as fold downs.

The original mastering engineers of both LP's has stated this on the Steve Hoffman forum. They also explained that "Sympathy..." was the only dedicated mono mix on those two albums. For the rest they where simply ordered to lay the two stereo channels together.

But if, say, Beggars Banquet is said to be a fold down only then I wonder why certain tracks do not only show a different mix but also a different "version" of the respective song. I positively recall Stray Cat Blues containing some added Mick Jagger lines near the end, that are mixed out on the stereo Version. I also remember "Factory Girl" being a different version with a different fiddle track or at least the fiddle being placed completely different within the mix.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-11 11:52 by Greenblues.

Yeah I would love to hear The Stones Mono mixes,The Beatles sound brilliant way better than stereo versions.

Keep in mind that you've already heard most mono mixes.

Quote
Greenblues

Quote
Blueranger
quote:
The original mono mixes of "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are two of the best-sounding rock LPs of all time.

...Except that both albums (with the notable exception of "Sympathy For The Devil") are proved as fold downs.

The original mastering engineers of both LP's has stated this on the Steve Hoffman forum. They also explained that "Sympathy..." was the only dedicated mono mix on those two albums. For the rest they where simply ordered to lay the two stereo channels together.

But if, say, Beggars Banquet is said to be a fold down only then I wonder why certain tracks do not only show a different mix but also a different "version" of the respective song. I positively recall Stray Cat Blues containing some added Mick Jagger lines near the end, that are mixed out on the stereo Version. I also remember "Factory Girl" being a different version with a different fiddle track or at least the fiddle being placed completely different within the mix.

Then listen again. It's 100% a folddown. And if you're doing a folddown of the stereo version yourself, you'll come up with the same results.

On the Beatles Mono box you have Rubber Soul included in Stereo for some reason.

Anyway, allows you to do a side-by-side comparison of the songs.

I did that with headphones on...there is no comparison, absolutely gorgeous in MONO. Thin and harsh by comparison, in STEREO.

If ABKCO were looking at yet another way for us to buy the catalogue, this would be it.

Quote
treaclefingers
On the Beatles Mono box you have Rubber Soul included in Stereo for some reason.

That was apparently George Martin's 1987 mix included for completist reasons. One of the others is that way too though I forget which.

Quote
R

Quote
treaclefingers
On the Beatles Mono box you have Rubber Soul included in Stereo for some reason.

That was apparently George Martin's 1987 mix included for completist reasons. One of the others is that way too though I forget which.

Thanks...so that is a different mix/version than the Stereo release of Rubber Soul as part of the stereo box? I'm not a completist as far as Beatles is concerned, so only just curious.

Quote
R

Quote
treaclefingers
On the Beatles Mono box you have Rubber Soul included in Stereo for some reason.

That was apparently George Martin's 1987 mix included for completist reasons. One of the others is that way too though I forget which.

The stereo versions (absolutely awful) included in the mono box set were done by George Martin in 1965, if memory serves. I could be wrong but a quick check in the liner notes will reveal all. I think he may have done stereo mixes then for all preceding albums as stereo was becoming more important and popular at the time. Unlike the Stones, the Beatles were big monophiles and put out very few if any stereo recordings prior to 1966. They always preferred mono - even through to Sgt Peppers and the White Album. Lennon was often quoted in later years saying that the only way to listen to Sgt Peppers was in mono. Abbey Road and Let It Be were the only Beatles albums not to be mixed in mono.

Conversely, The Stones were into stereo from fairly early on. This makes the mono versions of their later Decca and early RSR output much more interesting in my view. It also makes original mono releases from 66-71 much harder to find.

Quote
thelantern

Quote
R

Quote
treaclefingers
On the Beatles Mono box you have Rubber Soul included in Stereo for some reason.

That was apparently George Martin's 1987 mix included for completist reasons. One of the others is that way too though I forget which.

The stereo versions (absolutely awful) included in the mono box set were done by George Martin in 1965, if memory serves. I could be wrong but a quick check in the liner notes will reveal all. I think he may have done stereo mixes then for all preceding albums as stereo was becoming more important and popular at the time. Unlike the Stones, the Beatles were big monophiles and put out very few if any stereo recordings prior to 1966. They always preferred mono - even through to Sgt Peppers and the White Album. Lennon was often quoted in later years saying that the only way to listen to Sgt Peppers was in mono. Abbey Road and Let It Be were the only Beatles albums not to be mixed in mono.

Conversely, The Stones were into stereo from fairly early on. This makes the mono versions of their later Decca and early RSR output much more interesting in my view. It also makes original mono releases from 66-71 much harder to find.

Didn't realize that...thanks!

It also makes for why LET IT BLEED DECCA mono is so pricey in resale. It is the only MONO edition I don't yet have on LP.

It isn't getting any less expensive on EBAY either!

All Beatles albums were released in mono and stereo from the start. When they were releasing them on CD in 1987, George Martin felt the stereo releases should be used from Help on, with mono being used for the early albums. But he felt that the Help and Rubber Soul mixes that they made in 65 were too gimmicky, the instruments too spread out and it didn't sound right in a modern context. So he did a new mix for those 2 albums, and added reverb to Help. When the remasters came out, they decided to keep his 1987 stereo mix for the official stereo box set. They included the 1965 original stereo mix for help and R-soul on the mono discs for those albums so you can hear the original stereo if you want. Personally, I don't hear a huge difference in the 87/65 stereo mixes. There is a little more reverb on help like previously mentioned, but they were recording on 4 track, with instruments sharing tracks, so there's not too much you can do really.
I know that the beatles oversaw the mixes in mono except for Abbey road and Let it Be and engineers did the stereo mixes since they were not the priority. However, I like the stereo better, probably because these remasters were done in the opposite way it seems. The stereo remaster was the priority, it would be what you hear in the radio and the individual discs sold would be the stereo mix. The mono would be in a box set only and really only mattered to hard core fans. They are a straight master transfer, and some people like it that way. Personally, i like the small tweaks that were done to the stereo mixes to make them sound better in a digital format. I always think that the format effects the sound in some way, tape, vinyl impart a sound that is pleasing to most of us. In the digital medium, you need to do a little work to replicate that effect in order to get the sound you're going for.
That's how I see it anyway, sorry for the redundancy.

Matt



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-11 17:42 by neylon79.

I'd reckon there are a lot fewer mono Beggars Banquets and Let It Bleeds doing the rounds than, say, earlier albums like Aftermath as they were probably only produced in relatively small numbers compared to the stereo versions. This definitely makes them far more interesting from a collector's point of view (hence the price for LIB mono unfortunately!).

As regards the overall mono/stereo debate and various re-releases we have seen of late, I think the marketing people have gotten in there and are overplaying things somewhat with their "hear it as it was originally meant to be heard" bit. As an audiophile, I can completely understand the value (and difference) in listening to later Decca and early RSR Stones albums, or all Beatles albums and Dylan albums from 65-68 in mono. There is a difference between them and the mostly stereo versions that I grew up listening to and it is interesting and exciting to hear. However, with particular reference to the Dylan mono boxset, I'm less convinced about the real value (or difference) in having his early acoustic albums in mono. And, I actually prefer the stereo Blonde on Blonde to the mono one anyway. But, hey, that's just me....

Great stuff. I am pretty sure the early albums have a better sound in mono as the "reprocessed stereo" could bot have added anything good.

Has anyone ever listened side by side to say "Englands Newest Hitmakers" in Mono on Decca vs London. The early Beatle albums in the US were remixed by Capitol adding the mystique of Brit imports for years before the Mono box came out. I had never heard of London monkeying around with Stones mixes but it wouldn't surprise me either.

Quote
thelantern
However, with particular reference to the Dylan mono boxset, I'm less convinced about the real value (or difference) in having his early acoustic albums in mono.

There is a huge difference between the mono and stereo versions of the early acoustic Dylan albums – especially "Bob Dylan" and "Freewheelin'" – because on the stereo versions you have the vocals and the harmonica on one side and the guitar on other side with a huge empty space in the middle – totally unnatural. On the mono LPs/CDs it's all in the middle, like it should be when it's played and sung by one person.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-11 22:53 by MrEcho.

Even if "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are fold-downs from stereo, the original mono pressings are still preferable to the stereo pressings, because ...

"... Stereo disc-cutting heads of the time were prone to distortion when fed with high amplitude bass signals, and in any case most early stereo pickup cartridges couldn't track heavy bass signals without jumping. So when it came to cutting the album, the bass levels had to be limited. Note: Sometimes the stereo mixing engineer would ignore this and produce a "flat" master mix-down tape; in these cases a second-generation "cutting master" would be made with the bass reduced as necessary. More often, though, the adjustment would be made at the mixing stage, and the master mix-down tape itself was used for cutting the lacquered discs (also known as matrixes) from which the manufacturing stampers were cast.

The result of this technical limitation was that the stereo editions of 1960s albums usually sounded much thinner than the mono versions. And if the records had long sides (say over 20 minutes) then even more compromise had to be made: the amplitude of the sound signal had to be limited to avoid one groove cutting into the next. This was more of a problem with the physically more complex stereo groove, because of the added dimension of movement. It meant that the signal had to be compressed so as to limit the dynamic range. (...)"

(quoted from my post near the top of this thread)

Quote
normanplace
Great stuff. I am pretty sure the early albums have a better sound in mono as the "reprocessed stereo" could bot have added anything good.

Has anyone ever listened side by side to say "Englands Newest Hitmakers" in Mono on Decca vs London. The early Beatle albums in the US were remixed by Capitol adding the mystique of Brit imports for years before the Mono box came out. I had never heard of London monkeying around with Stones mixes but it wouldn't surprise me either.

They couldn't even get the right version of the songs (Tell Me) or names of songs (Mona/I Need You Baby) right on the first DECCA pressings of RS, and even mispelt side 2 (Stones vs. Stoned) on their second single.

I think ANYTHING is possible, when it comes to the Decca people.

With that said, the thick mono slabs they pressed were pretty incredible in the 60s.

I bought my last Stones-album on Mono 1967, Between the buttons, and it sounds beautiful. From 1968 it was almost impossible to find Mono-recordings from Decca...I would never buy a Mono-box on CD...does it sounds like an LP? I haven't met any people at my age (57) buying this CD-boxes since we know how it should sound when it't real stuff...



2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
I bought my last Stones-album on Mono 1967, Between the buttons, and it sounds beautiful. From 1968 it was almost impossible to find Mono-recordings from Decca...I would never buy a Mono-box on CD...does it sounds like an LP? I haven't met any people at my age (57) buying this CD-boxes since we know how it should sound when it't real stuff...

You are WAY freaking older than me ...with that said, I also own some mono BtB's and you are correct.

I think though, with how ABKCO treated the SACD releases in 2002, we would be in store for a 'best possible' version if they released these in MONO.

Quote
Greenblues


But if, say, Beggars Banquet is said to be a fold down only then I wonder why certain tracks do not only show a different mix but also a different "version" of the respective song. I positively recall Stray Cat Blues containing some added Mick Jagger lines near the end, that are mixed out on the stereo Version. I also remember "Factory Girl" being a different version with a different fiddle track or at least the fiddle being placed completely different within the mix.

Seems to me you are thinking of the alternate mixes which are on RSVP bootlegs etc.

Quote
MrEcho
Even if "Beggars Banquet" and "Let It Bleed" are fold-downs from stereo, the original mono pressings are still preferable to the stereo pressings, because ...

Depends what you want when listening...

Some of the more subtle musical parts of Their Satanic Majesties Request and Beggars Banquet are harder to hear in mono.

I much prefer the stereo versions for this very reason, even if the mono versions have more punch.

Well, fold down or not , the MONO Promo of Sticky Fingers is red-hot just like the MONO 45 of Tumbling Dice

Hey Neylon79 - didn't realise all Beatles albums were released in both mono and stereo from the start. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you as regards the 2009 stereo remasters - I think they sound great and you can definitely hear little nuances that you never heard before.

Mr Echo - I have never really noticed a huge divide between voice/guitar/harmonica etc. on the stereo versions of Dylan's early acoustic stuff. However, you've given me food for thought, so I'll definitely go back and listen to both the mono and stereo versions to compare and enjoy. I do like the mono mix on John Wesley Harding - definitely tougher and chunkier on the bottom end than the stereo.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Stones Mono Box Set covering all their mono releases up to Tumbling Dice if that was possible. I'd be very interested in hearing all the stuff from Aftermath onwards in mono and, hey, they could even release the UK No 2 on CD for the first time as part of it. It would be one way of getting sad 'completists' like me to take the bait!