Quote
Davie137
Anyone had an email to say there’s has been dispatched today?

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.

Quote
Matt1984
So did Amazon UK never get this?

Quote
Testify
While I love that they released this great collection in mono, I would never buy vinyl.
Today vinyl makes sense for collecting purposes, plus vinyl is nice because it comes in a nice big package, but from a strictly audio quality point of view, I prefer the cd.
However listening to these songs in mono is really great, even if in some cases the stereo re-mix was good, in most cases it wasn't, so the mono version is better.

Quote
Davie137
Mine arrived a few hrs ago, decent cardboard packaging and the box set was encased in polystyrene, number 5368/10000

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I received an email overnight that mine has dispatched and will arrive on Monday!!! I saw on the Stones app that someone actually had theirs and was listening to it yesterday!!!

Quote
Spud

Quote
Testify
While I love that they released this great collection in mono, I would never buy vinyl.
Today vinyl makes sense for collecting purposes, plus vinyl is nice because it comes in a nice big package, but from a strictly audio quality point of view, I prefer the cd.
However listening to these songs in mono is really great, even if in some cases the stereo re-mix was good, in most cases it wasn't, so the mono version is better.

The original mono mixes of earlier 60s releases do indeed have a certain "rightness" about them, for the reasons discussed in previous posts .

That said, many people who think that CD is better than vinyl have not been exposed to a decent quality record deck !

It's arguable that we have now reached the point where the highest resolution Digital files are now our best source for music playback ...

...but CD was never an adequate medium for the rewarding reproduction of music .
With a decent quality turntable, Vinyl was, and remains, better.

edited to add that, ironically, CD sound quality seems to have improved in recent times as it slowly becomes a niche medium, perceived by many to be obselete. Just like vinyl

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
VoodooLounge13
I received an email overnight that mine has dispatched and will arrive on Monday!!! I saw on the Stones app that someone actually had theirs and was listening to it yesterday!!!

Yes on some forums people have already received and posted pictures. I also read that it was available on Tuesday or Wednesday in a Toronto retail store, so someone obviously 'jumped the gun'. In a week we'll all have it, and either laud it as "the second coming", or be trashing how "bad coloured vinyl always sounds".

Or maybe arguments on both sides?

Quote
Matt1984
Received from HMV today. 05650/10000

Quote
jackflash27
Mine came today (local Dutch seller), number somewhere deep in the 8000 range. The box is in perfect condition as far as I can see through the seal.

Just saw the Michael45 review video: [www.youtube.com]
Interesting video, I find the guy quite amusing. His accent is hilarious. On the serious side, he seems to know what he's talking about. His analysis of the comparison between the 2016 box set and the current one, is quite superficial though. Conclusion (SPOILER ALERT) is that the 2016 set is slightly better: less surface noise. But the colored set is still very good and recommendable.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jackflash27
Mine came today (local Dutch seller), number somewhere deep in the 8000 range. The box is in perfect condition as far as I can see through the seal.

Just saw the Michael45 review video: [www.youtube.com]
Interesting video, I find the guy quite amusing. His accent is hilarious. On the serious side, he seems to know what he's talking about. His analysis of the comparison between the 2016 box set and the current one, is quite superficial though. Conclusion (SPOILER ALERT) is that the 2016 set is slightly better: less surface noise. But the colored set is still very good and recommendable.

M45 is taking a bit of heat on the stevehoffman forums...I say wait until you listen and make your own assessment.

Quote
jackflash27

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jackflash27
Mine came today (local Dutch seller), number somewhere deep in the 8000 range. The box is in perfect condition as far as I can see through the seal.

Just saw the Michael45 review video: [www.youtube.com]
Interesting video, I find the guy quite amusing. His accent is hilarious. On the serious side, he seems to know what he's talking about. His analysis of the comparison between the 2016 box set and the current one, is quite superficial though. Conclusion (SPOILER ALERT) is that the 2016 set is slightly better: less surface noise. But the colored set is still very good and recommendable.

M45 is taking a bit of heat on the stevehoffman forums...I say wait until you listen and make your own assessment.

Yes, I noticed the reactions on stevhoffman. I always make my own judgements. Also I think his conclusion is a bit exaggerated by forum posters. Most other reviewers don't mention huge differences. This seems realistic as the source is probably exactly the same. Maybe the colored vinyl has something influence, but can't imagine this is huge.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jackflash27

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jackflash27
Mine came today (local Dutch seller), number somewhere deep in the 8000 range. The box is in perfect condition as far as I can see through the seal.

Just saw the Michael45 review video: [www.youtube.com]
Interesting video, I find the guy quite amusing. His accent is hilarious. On the serious side, he seems to know what he's talking about. His analysis of the comparison between the 2016 box set and the current one, is quite superficial though. Conclusion (SPOILER ALERT) is that the 2016 set is slightly better: less surface noise. But the colored set is still very good and recommendable.

M45 is taking a bit of heat on the stevehoffman forums...I say wait until you listen and make your own assessment.

Yes, I noticed the reactions on stevhoffman. I always make my own judgements. Also I think his conclusion is a bit exaggerated by forum posters. Most other reviewers don't mention huge differences. This seems realistic as the source is probably exactly the same. Maybe the colored vinyl has something influence, but can't imagine this is huge.

His one point of contention, which I happen to agree with, is...what the hell is wrong with them using paper sleeves? It's mind boggling to think that for something so anticipated and 'high end' they couldn't have included poly-lined paper inners.

The person who made that decision should be fired, it's ridiculous.

Quote
Testify

Quote
Spud

Quote
Testify
While I love that they released this great collection in mono, I would never buy vinyl.
Today vinyl makes sense for collecting purposes, plus vinyl is nice because it comes in a nice big package, but from a strictly audio quality point of view, I prefer the cd.
However listening to these songs in mono is really great, even if in some cases the stereo re-mix was good, in most cases it wasn't, so the mono version is better.

The original mono mixes of earlier 60s releases do indeed have a certain "rightness" about them, for the reasons discussed in previous posts .

That said, many people who think that CD is better than vinyl have not been exposed to a decent quality record deck !

It's arguable that we have now reached the point where the highest resolution Digital files are now our best source for music playback ...

...but CD was never an adequate medium for the rewarding reproduction of music .
With a decent quality turntable, Vinyl was, and remains, better.

edited to add that, ironically, CD sound quality seems to have improved in recent times as it slowly becomes a niche medium, perceived by many to be obselete. Just like vinyl

Not only did I use a decent turntable, but I also made the vinyls working for a company in the sector (which no longer exists today).
I know the whole process of making a vinyl and unless you get really lucky and got the master (which is highly unlikely) the quality can't be better than a cd.
However I like that vinyl nostalgics exist...it makes me think of the old days.

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.