Official press release from ABKCO:



The Rolling Stones in Mono

Posted: Aug 11th 2016

This year, for the first time ever, all mono studio recordings released by The Rolling Stones in the 1960s will be available in one unique historic collection. On September 30 ABKCO Records will make available world wide the vinyl and CD box sets of The Rolling Stones in Mono as well as Standard Digital, Mastered for iTunes and True HD (96k/24 bit, 192k/24 bit and DSD). The collection will contain a total of 186 tracks, 56 of which have never before been heard in mono since the advent of the digital age.

The Rolling Stones in Mono pre-order links:

[abkco.lnk.to] (MonoBoxLP)
[abkco.lnk.to] (MonoBoxCD)

Spanning the era between 1963 and 1969, The Rolling Stones in Mono covers the formative years of “The Greatest Rock & Roll Band in the World.” During this era, most rock and pop recordings were originally recorded in mono, with stereo often an afterthought, dealt with only following the completion of the original (mono) version of a given track. In short, mono reigned and this was, indeed, the case for the Rolling Stones during the period. While typical playback systems of the time were less than sophisticated, the original mono recordings, especially as heard through quality components, were of the highest audio quality and had a powerful and very direct impact. "You felt you were in the room . . . listening to exactly what went down in the studio, no frills, no nothing," Keith Richards wrote in his autobiography, Life. "Rock was a completely new musical form," Mick Jagger explained in a 1995 Rolling Stone interview. "It hadn't been around for ten years when we started doing it . . . You felt like one of the chosen few, one of the only ones in the world who would get to play with this new toy. We had evangelical fervor." Late recording engineer Dave Hassinger explained how he mixed his ’64-’66 work for the Stones in mono, "They always played together at the same time," Hassinger said. "They would run the parts down, work out the changes here and there, nail it down, then start recording."

Rolling Stone senior editor David Fricke, in his 5,000-word essay that accompanies the set, writes, “The Rolling Stones in Mono is the full studio account of that first decade of history and mayhem, newly remastered with unprecedented fidelity and revelatory detail.” His commentaries are included with the vinyl and CD box sets as part of a 4-color deluxe 48 page lie flat book that features numerous rare photos by renowned photographer Terry O’Neill. The 16 LPs or 15 CDs are housed in the original full color album jackets that fit along with the book into a one piece specially crafted box.

The Rolling Stones in Mono was mastered by acclaimed GRAMMY® award winning engineer Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering. For the project he utilized Direct Stream Digital (DSD) transfers from the original master recordings, with a sampling rate of 2,822,400. Lacquer cutting for vinyl was performed at Abbey Road Studios by Alex Wharton and Sean Magee. All vinyl box sets will be numbered and pressed on 180-gram vinyl. The Rolling Stones in Mono project has been overseen by Teri Landi, ABKCO’s Grammy award winning Chief Audio Engineer.

The Rolling Stones In Mono [16 LP vinyl box set; 15 CD box set] (all tracks also available digitally)

1) The Rolling Stones (UK, 1964)
2) 12 X 5 (1964)
3) The Rolling Stones No. 2 (UK, 1965)
4) The Rolling Stones Now! (1965)
5) Out of Our Heads (US, 1965)
6) Out of Our Heads (UK, 1965)
7) December’s Children (And Everybody’s) (1965)
8) Aftermath (UK, 1966)
9) Aftermath (US, 1966)
10) Between the Buttons (UK, 1967)
11) Flowers (1967)
12) Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967)
13) Beggar’s Banquet (1968)
14) Let it Bleed (1969)
15) Stray Cats (a new collection of single A & B sides plus E.P. tracks)


[abkco.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-12 09:50 by Irix.

Can anyone tell if the Digital tracks will be included in the box or have to be purchased separately?

Quote
DrPete

Can anyone tell if the Digital tracks will be included in the box or have to be purchased separately?

[store.udiscovermusic.com] says: "Includes Download Card".

From the ABKCO press release it sounds that the Tracks could be also available in Digital Stores:

"On September 30 ABKCO Records will make available world wide the vinyl and CD box sets of The Rolling Stones in Mono as well as Standard Digital, Mastered for iTunes and True HD (96k/24 bit, 192k/24 bit and DSD)."

Awesome!! Thanks, can cancel cd box and just get vinyl and download card!

I have the SACDs from 2002; should I buy these, or not bother ? Thoughts ?

Quote
Bashlets
I bet US Amazon will not beat the price for the CDs. My invoice states they are giving it to me for like 90 pounds. 15 CDs for approx $125 USA is a steal and I grabbed it. I'm sure they already raised the price lol

Currently $189 on amazon US

Quote
tomcasagranda
I have the SACDs from 2002; should I buy these, or not bother ? Thoughts ?

Do you have Aftermath and the others in mono?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tomcasagranda
I have the SACDs from 2002; should I buy these, or not bother ? Thoughts ?

Do you have Aftermath and the others in mono?

No. So, I ned to be enlightened: what is better 0 SACD or Mono ?I'm confused dot com.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-11-05 19:57 by blueswithafeeling.

Quote
blueswithafeeling

Quote
tomcasagranda

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tomcasagranda
I have the SACDs from 2002; should I buy these, or not bother ? Thoughts ?

Do you have Aftermath and the others in mono?

No. So, I ned to be enlightened: what is better 0 SACD or Mono ?I'm confused dot com.

As so often: a matter of taste. I never understood and will never understand what's so great about a mono recording. It sounds limited to me. I prefer any stereo recording a thousand times. But - as I said - it's only my opinion.

Hell's Teeth; it's the Rolling Stones. I have an enlarged prostate, and a medical procedure to undergo beginning of September relating to it, so will purchase it.

Mono and Stereo: Some General Points

[this is from an article published on www.rdf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk some time ago about Bob Dylan's 1960s mono discs, but the basic facts also apply to The Rolling Stones' 1960s catalogue]

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. (...)

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. (...)

(...)

Quote
blueswithafeeling

Quote
tomcasagranda

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
tomcasagranda
I have the SACDs from 2002; should I buy these, or not bother ? Thoughts ?

Do you have Aftermath and the others in mono?

No. So, I ned to be enlightened: what is better 0 SACD or Mono ?I'm confused dot com.

As so often: a matter of taste. I never understood and will never understand what's so great about a mono recording. It sounds limited to me. I prefer any stereo recording a thousand times. But - as I said - it's only my opinion.

Aftermath in particular benefits highly when in mono.

No thanks I have two ears LOL

Of the 2002 SACD , are these all in stereo or are some in mono?

Quote
DrPete
Of the 2002 SACD , are these all in stereo or are some in mono?

Some are in mono.

From memory, everything including Aftermath and after are in stereo.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Aftermath in particular benefits highly when in mono.

I kinda like the sense of air one gets from the typical 60's stereo separation.

I prefer the early mono mixes. To me they pack a little more punch. I would say everything thru satanic majesties is better in mono. Never heard beggars or bleed but some people in blogs say they sound better even if beggars and bleed are most likely what they call fold downs i.e fake mono

The SACDS( if you have it set up right) are pretty damn impressive too so I'm curious. I bought the mono set but is it essential? Not sure.

Mono for the 60s albums are the way to go. I am looking forward to this, however, the price for the vinyl set is pretty brutal! Any consensus as to if Beggars and Bleed are true mono vs. fold down?

Quote
whitem8
Mono for the 60s albums are the way to go. I am looking forward to this, however, the price for the vinyl set is pretty brutal! Any consensus as to if Beggars and Bleed are true mono vs. fold down?

Both are fold downs with the exception of Sympathy For The Devil, which are a true mono mix.

I am not sure though there is consensus. It seems some sources claim it is a bonafide mono mix.

[forums.stevehoffman.tv]

Lots of back and forth on this on the internet.

white8, I'm pretty sure (can't say exact) that it's true about the fold downs. I have both albums, unfortunately my LIB has a little bit too much surface noise to tell, but definitely I can hear a difference on SFTD from BB. It's a lot more rich sounding. Though my LIB isn't so great I can agree there is a certain "punchiness" to it. Anyhow, it will be cool to have these records in mint condition with complete retro packaging. Hope the stereo mixes aren't far behind.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Aftermath in particular benefits highly when in mono.

I kinda like the sense of air one gets from the typical 60's stereo separation.

Me too, actually, but it's taken to the extreme on Aftermath

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-08-12 12:32 by silkcut1978_.

Strange high prices at Amazon.de, however it seems possible to order the cd-version elsewhere for about E 160,00.Will Amazon lower the prices in the next weeks?

[www.amazon.de]

Not interested . and too expensive. will spend the money on some European gigs in 2017.
jeroen

€ 157,99 on www.jpc.de

[www.jpc.de]

Quote
kait
€ 157,99 on www.jpc.de

[www.jpc.de]

Still, on pre-order on amazon.co.uk a week ago it was cheaper - £80.66 before tax and S&H.

Quote
frankotero
white8, I'm pretty sure (can't say exact) that it's true about the fold downs. I have both albums, unfortunately my LIB has a little bit too much surface noise to tell, but definitely I can hear a difference on SFTD from BB. It's a lot more rich sounding. Though my LIB isn't so great I can agree there is a certain "punchiness" to it. Anyhow, it will be cool to have these records in mint condition with complete retro packaging. Hope the stereo mixes aren't far behind.

I am not sure they will do stereo? They just finished releasing most the 60s stuff on the clear vinyl. Some sounded amazing with great pressings. Let it Bleed, I got two copies and both have a lot of surface noise. But sonically sound great. Beggars sounds superb!