Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 17 of 20
Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Davie137 ()
Date: January 19, 2023 15:37

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

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ironbelly ()
Date: January 20, 2023 14:12

No complains yet? Is this The Rolling Stones or The Beatles forum? winking smiley

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 14:29

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

Mine dispatched from Udiscovermusic.ca.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Nikkei ()
Date: January 20, 2023 14:38

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 had the same question a few months back and appreciate you taking the time to explain the details. Listening to Doncha Bother Me you get a proper example of absolute beginner stereo

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Matt1984 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 14:51

So did Amazon UK never get this?

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:13

Quote
Matt1984
So did Amazon UK never get this?

Some very early consumers orders weren't cancelled. It seems they way over sold and orders even a few days after it was first available, LIKE MINE, were cancelled. Amazon spain the same.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:22

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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:35

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. smiling smiley

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 grinning smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-20 15:43 by Spud.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Davie137 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:36

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

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:40

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

Excellent! Will live vicariously through you for the moment. Let us know what your sound assessment is.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 15:46

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!!!

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: bitusa2012 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 16:25

I ordered thru JPC in Germany. Their cost was ridiculously inexpensive considering the bulk and shipping to Australia. Locally I could have got it from AUD599 to AUD680, even quoted AUD800 from a small store here in PERTH.

From a JPC - AUD$522.

I’ve ordered thru them before without trouble. Though shipping takes forever!! Not expecting it for 2 or so months. But I have the black vinyl mono box to play until it hits!!

Rod

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 16:27

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?

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Testify ()
Date: January 20, 2023 16:34

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. smiling smiley

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 grinning smiley
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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 17:21

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?


Well, I won't actually be opening mine anytime soon. I'm waiting on all of that until I get settled into my permanent place. If even then, IDK. I also no longer have a proper stereo system. I just have my 2 CD Changers that I got in D#1, and I'll need to buy all new corresponding equipment - much of which I've been researching for years. I want a digital music player in addition to a turntable, region-free Blu-Ray player, and an Onkyo surround sound receiver. Just gotta find my place!!!

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Matt1984 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 20:18

Received from HMV today. 05650/10000

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 20:40

Quote
Matt1984
Received from HMV today. 05650/10000

Congrats!

I think I'm getting mine next week...so as to not to miss the party I'm listening to a red DECCA original of Between the Buttons. Connection sounds unbelievably good on this scuffed up VG copy.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: jackflash27 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 20:41

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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 20:46

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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: jackflash27 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 20:55

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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 20, 2023 21:53

Interesting that so far the numbers are on the higher side. Wonder where they shipped the first half of them....

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: treaclefingers ()
Date: January 20, 2023 22:22

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.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: jackflash27 ()
Date: January 21, 2023 10:17

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.

Agree, but a 'problem' which can be easily solved by replacing them. Would be unforgivable if the jackets, box, or even the vinyl where of bad quality.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 21, 2023 21:15

Anyone get their's in the mail today? Curious as to where the lower numbers were actually sent (ie, are they coming from Amazon, UDiscover, JPC, etc.)

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: VoodooLounge13 ()
Date: January 23, 2023 03:17

I’ll find out tomorrow myself but for those that have the new box I’m curious, does one have to open it in order to find out the number, or is it on the outside somewhere? I saw a photo of an unopened one online front and back but did not see the number which makes me think I need to open it to know what I got.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: jackflash27 ()
Date: January 23, 2023 07:45

Number is printed/ filled in with pen (?) on bottom of the box. It’s clearly visible through the cellophane. It’s not necessary to open up.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Irix ()
Date: January 23, 2023 10:25

Unboxing of 'The Rolling Stones in Mono' (Color Vinyl) by SuperDeluxeEdition:



[www.YouTube.com] - Serial-# at Pos. 1:19 - [SuperDeluxeEdition.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-01-23 17:30 by Irix.

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: Spud ()
Date: January 23, 2023 12:09

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. smiling smiley

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 grinning smiley
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.

Analogue recording , mastering and to vinyl and vinyl playback are all very flawed process, with many problems and limitations ...


...but , for me, they don't lose as much musical information as the CD format does . [Digital is now very good...but CD isn't good digital]

I suspect we may have to agree to differ on this one winking smiley

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: ash ()
Date: January 23, 2023 12:37

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.

Superb explanation. For any doubters, compare the original single (mono) of Get Off Of My Cloud to the stereo mix on Decembers Children.
If any Stones fans can stomach it, compare the mono Sgt Pepper to stereo Pepper. The mono has all sorts of phasing, ADT (automatic double tracking) etc. not present in stereo. It just sounds far more cohesive and is a completely different listening experience. You can hear the extra care that went into it whereas the stereo is, bang that left , bang that right, no phasing etc..
When the (stereo) cd came out, George Harrison was complaining that they'd used the wrong tape. Lennon too complained about stereo mixes being used in the 70s.
About 3 Fab4 LP's had good stereo mixes but as Mr Echo says, if you want to hear a record as intended by the artist, almost without exception until 1968, you really need the mono. It was the main "market" and the artists frequently had no involvement with the stereo mix.
Here's a good video with Glyn Johns explaining all this with specific Stones detail.
[www.youtube.com]

Re: The Rolling Stones In Mono
Posted by: rayrad ()
Date: January 23, 2023 12:38

mine arrived saturday

in the 5000s

only played the first three records so far

but (to my middle-aged, and frankly gig-damaged, ears) they sound great

very little to no surface noise - punchy - with great separation

i'm no sonic expert

but i did dance around my kitchen...

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...1011121314151617181920Next
Current Page: 17 of 20


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 501
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home