Quote
rayrad

but thanks to all here who provided alternative options

More alternatives - [iorr.org] - (plus following pages).

[hmv.com]

It occasionally appears on HMV but doesn’t take long to say ‘sold out’ again.

Quote
rayrad
properly annoyed about amazon.co.uk...

but thanks to all here who provided alternative options

just secured a copy at recordstore.co.uk

Amazon.co.uk was the worst as it turned out. They held out the longest before cancelling, leading us to believe that maybe they were going to honour the sale. Why wait otherwise, they could have cancelled when Amazon Spain cancelled.

Now they look like *ssholes and offer 5 pounds as a 'gesture'. Offer something real, or don't offer anything, that just looks chintzy.

Unboxing of the new In Mono vinyl box.
[www.youtube.com]
PS. You can get my copy if you will. I do not plan to purchase one.

variaworld.nl

349,90 and until 8th January 10% discount with code varia1

315 is not bad at all.

Quote
jackflash27
variaworld.nl

349,90 and until 8th January 10% discount with code varia1

315 is not bad at all.

meanwhile at amazon.ca, an already overpriced box (relative to everywhere else) at $555 goes up to $621!

[m.youtube.com]

Confirmed in this video, limited again to 10,000.

I have deleted it, the video was already there before



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-05 16:04 by mick64.

We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jackflash27
variaworld.nl

349,90 and until 8th January 10% discount with code varia1

315 is not bad at all.

meanwhile at amazon.ca, an already overpriced box (relative to everywhere else) at $555 goes up to $621!

...and now $699 on amazon.ca

Interesting pricing strategy. I wonder if they're holding their stock until it sells out so they'll be able to realize the additional margin? I got it for almost half this price on udiscovermusic.ca after Christmas.

Quote
VoodooLounge13
We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

We a three days away from tons of moans about poor packaging, delayed delivery, bent corners, warped records, surface noise etc.

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

We a three days away from tons of moans about poor packaging, delayed delivery, bent corners, warped records, surface noise etc.

but but but...what about all the pretty colours?!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

We a three days away from tons of moans about poor packaging, delayed delivery, bent corners, warped records, surface noise etc.

but but but...what about all the pretty colours?!

Pretty colours were already discussed to death in unboxing videos. Like this one
video: [www.youtube.com]
We need something new

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

We a three days away from tons of moans about poor packaging, delayed delivery, bent corners, warped records, surface noise etc.

but but but...what about all the pretty colours?!

Yes, yes, yes. I'm all about the pretty colours!!! I'll unboxed while listening to She's a Rainbow on repeat!!! LMFAO

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
VoodooLounge13
We are just 3 days away from this release!! Can't wait to hear everyone's reviews of the set!!! Very excited!!

We a three days away from tons of moans about poor packaging, delayed delivery, bent corners, warped records, surface noise etc.

but but but...what about all the pretty colours?!

Pretty colours were already discussed to death in unboxing videos. Like this one
video: [www.youtube.com]
We need something new

I've already watched that video and he does a great job with it, except where he says they've "improved" this collection, by making it in coloured vinyl.

I don't think you can say the set is 'improved' simply because it's aesthetically pleasing to a certain percentage of people. Some people hate it because it's not in black vinyl.

I've already got it in black vinyl so I'm looking forward to seeing the new version for sure.

Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Because the early Rolling Stones meant to sound that way. Keith said.
And in this case it is not about mono but about colored vinyl

Quote
wiredallnight

Why should I buy vinyl records in mono?

Mono sounds better via headphones than the 1960s ping-pong stereo. And the mono isn't that bad: while in stereo it's staggered to left & right, in mono it's staggered into the depth.

Quote
Irix
... in mono it's staggered into the depth.

Oooooo, I like that expression. "Staggered into the depth".

Quote
RobberBride

Quote
Irix
... in mono it's staggered into the depth.

Oooooo, I like that expression. "Staggered into the depth".

It's actually a great name for the new album, Staggered Into the Depth.

Staggered by 18 years and multiple recording sessions to get to the depths of their creative genius!!!

Let’s hope it does arrive in decent packaging. Wasn’t the 2016 box set in a cardboard box but placed inside polystyrene? If my courier leaves it on the door step in this weather (U.K) I won’t be best pleased

Quote
Davie137
Let’s hope it does arrive in decent packaging. Wasn’t the 2016 box set in a cardboard box but placed inside polystyrene? If my courier leaves it on the door step in this weather (U.K) I won’t be best pleased

I've had that happen recently with an order from the UK, the new Louis Armstrong Christmas album. Ruined it. Got a replacement but what a waste.

Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Great post. I agree. To my ears The Stones and The Beatles in mono sound better. It is personal, I appreciate. But to me, the mono sounds like they’re all standing right in front of me playing as a single unit. The stereo records sound like they’re somewhat in separate rooms. I prefer my band to be in front of me. As one.

But yours is a great reasoned post. Thanks

Rod

Quote
bitusa2012

Quote
MrEcho

Quote
wiredallnight
Why should I buy vinyl records in mono? It's like buying a VHS cassette in black & white.

Stereo for consumer use was first introduced in 1958. In the late 1950s and in the 1960s most LPs were usually released in separate mono and stereo versions. Singles were always in mono up until the late 1960s. In the late 1950s stereo LPs had a market share of well under 20% in the US. Even in 1966 over 60% of all LPs sold in the US were still mono. Radio was always in mono. As a consequence musicians and producers concentrated on getting the mono versions of their records right and regarded those as the primary products. The stereo versions were seen as novelties for a niche market. The stereo mixes were often made without personal supervision by artists and producers and therefore differed from the carefully constructed mono mixes authorized by the artists. Complicated overdubs and edits that were made on the mono mixes often were not recreated for the stereo versions.

When stereo became the new worldwide industry standard by 1970 (1968 in the US, 1969 in the UK), the mono versions of old records were no longer repressed and the stereo versions were accepted as the "standard" versions (especially by younger consumers, who did not know the mono versions).

In addition to a lack of artistic supervision early stereo mixes also suffered from the shortcomings of stereo technology in the 1960s. When cutting stereo lacquers loud bass notes tended to distort. Furthermore stereo pick-ups of the period often had problems tracking the grooves of loud bass notes and skipped. For those reasons the bass was usually dialed back in the stereo masters, which resulted in a rather "thin" bass sound on early stereo mixes. In comparison the mono mixes have much more bass and simply sound much heavier and rocking. Furthermore early stereo mixes were made in a way that overstated the stereo effect: the elements of the music were placed far apart in the stereo soundscape. Far to the left, far to the right and in the center. You do not hear a band, but separate elements that often distract from the overall effect.

Some mono versions are so-called fold-downs, which means that instead of creating two separate mixes the music was mixed in stereo and than the two channels were combined or folded down for the mono LPs. But even then engineers were always monitoring the mix in mono to make sure the mono worked. And again the bass was usually reduced in the stereo master for the reasons pointed out above. Furthermore you have to remember that the art of mixing mono sound had been perfected over a long period of time, while stereo was still a new thing in 1960s pop music. Consequently a carefully made fold-down from the period is still preferable to a crude stereo mix.

If you want to hear the sound that musicians of the late 1950s and the 1960s wanted their audience to hear, you need to listen to the mono mixes.

Great post. I agree. To my ears The Stones and The Beatles in mono sound better. It is personal, I appreciate. But to me, the mono sounds like they’re all standing right in front of me playing as a single unit. The stereo records sound like they’re somewhat in separate rooms. I prefer my band to be in front of me. As one.

But yours is a great reasoned post. Thanks

I'll second that notion...great post indeed. And the mono versions in this box set, which will be similar if not the same as the 2016 box set, are fantastic.

I must admit I was rather taken aback at how good the Abkco remasters sounded in mono vs the older CD versions I’d had of all those early albums. I’d say that MrEcho does a fantastic job of explaining the differences in sound.

Mr Echo does indeed explain the history wonderfully...

... The only caveat I would add is that the Stones 60's output in Stereo [certainly from Aftermath onwards ] did not suffer too badly from the "novelty Stereo" issue of the day.
The low end was Ok and the stereo images reasonably natural when compared to woeful sound of many 60's Stereo releases.

I've always appreciated the qualities of the mono mixes but have never felt the need to acquire them . [Though I do own and occasionally spin a couple of original mono pressings]

With good quality playback equipment it's usually a case of different, not better or worse.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-19 12:20 by Spud.

Quote
Spud
Mr Echo does indeed explain the history wonderfully...

... The only caveat I would add is that the Stones 60's output in Stereo [certainly from Aftermath onwards ] did not suffer too badly from the "novelty Stereo" issue of the day.
The low end was Ok and the stereo images reasonably natural when compared to woeful sound of many 60's Stereo releases.

I've always appreciated the qualities of the mono mixes but have never felt the need to acquire them . [Though I do own and occasionally spin a couple of original mono pressings]

With good quality playback equipment it's usually a case of different, not better or worse.

Sure, Aftermath on West German CD [London 820 050-2] is not that 'novelty stereo' as The Hollies - 20 Golden Greats [EMI CDP 7 46238 2] or early records of that other, lesser known, beat band from Liverpool. But still - it is WIDE.

I've got a mono button on my amplifier

Once I was incredibly sick and the doctors couldn't figure out what was ailing me. For a time, they thought it was Mono.