|
There is going to be a mono reissue of the box set coming out in like March as well, if you wanted to wait for that one and see if the pressing issues aren't as bad there.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
MichiganCubbie posted:There is going to be a mono reissue of the box set coming out in like March as well, if you wanted to wait for that one and see if the pressing issues aren't as bad there. I know the mono masters for the earlier albums sound superior but what's the deal for people who are running their turntable through a stereo set up? I know mono means one channel and stereo is 2 for stereo mixes but I guess I was always kind of confused on the matter. If I play a mono copy of Rubber Soul, am I going to get sound out of only one speaker or am I going to get the same sound out of both speakers? I feel dumb even asking this question. edit: and I'm fairly sure I know the answer. ugh
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
As for the individuals, I know my Abbey Road was about as close to perfect as you could get. So it is possible that the issues are mostly contained to the boxset, or maybe I just got lucky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
I Might Be Adam posted:I know the mono masters for the earlier albums sound superior but what's the deal for people who are running their turntable through a stereo set up? I know mono means one channel and stereo is 2 for stereo mixes but I guess I was always kind of confused on the matter. If I play a mono copy of Rubber Soul, am I going to get sound out of only one speaker or am I going to get the same sound out of both speakers? I feel dumb even asking this question. You get the same sound out of both speakers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:You get the same sound out of both speakers. Unless you are like me, and accidentally left the Pro-Logic circuitry running on your amplifier. Then yes, you will get the music only out of the center speaker, while the pops and clicks will be relegated to the entire surround spectrum. It's an interesting way to hear the Turtles' "Happy Together," though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:You get the same sound out of both speakers. Thats what I thought. Hmmm, maybe the mono re-issue is the way to go. With Amazon's fantastic return policy, I wouldn't worry about getting burned on being stuck with a $300+ collection of shabby records but I'd be afraid to see how many times I'd have to return it before I got a box that wasn't damaged and/or had bad sounding records inside. I remember the 2009 CD remasters sounded incredible so I'd definitely like to have a copy of the vinyl remasters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Yeah I think I'm gonna hold out and see what that mono box is like, I'd prefer to have the mono mixes anyway.Cemetry Gator posted:accidentally left the Pro-Logic circuitry running on your amplifier. Oh, Pro-Logic tsk tsk you need to get yourself a silver face stereo amp 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:you need to get yourself a silver face stereo amp
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:I just realized I don't have any Beatles LPs in my collection which is a drat travesty if you ask me. I've decided to take up what I suspect will be a very expensive and arduous task of collecting my favorite records from their catalogue. There are just way too many reissues and whatnot, so I've come here to ask advice. Here are the albums I am most interested in getting (preferably in mono but I'm not sure what all is released/feasible to acquire): Abbey Road and Let It Be were recorded in stereo. Except for Magical Mystery Tour mono versions of those will be pricey. Especially if they are original British pressings. If you buy US versions of Rubber Soul and Revolver check the tracklisting because early pressings of those don't have the same content as their British counterparts. Also the Mono version of Magicl Mystery Tour exists in two forms. There is a British EP which can be had for a reasonable price. It features only the songs that were used in the movie. The US release contains what is now known as the whole album. The mono version of that can also be had for a reasonable price. Cemetry Gator posted:For the Beatles LPs, the newest issues are stereo, but for the later albums that's pretty meaningless. I have Abbey Road and the White Album, and they both sound really good. It's probably a lot easier to get those than to try and hunt down original pressings. The Beatles Part 1&2 (White Album) was in fact recorded and originally released in mono. It is quite a different sounding album, especially if you grew up on the stereo version. I picked up the mono reissue CDs a while back and they truely are the superior versions. How these hadn't been released in any form for so long is beyond me. Original mono pressing will be a bitch to find, but old stereo pressings are real easy to get cheap. I have all the reissue CDs of all the post Rubber Soul albums and various copies of all that material on vinyl already. I feel no need to buy those new vinyl editions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
It's a weird situation. Like Cemetry Gator said, mono/stereo is pretty meaningless for the later stuff: everything past Revolver was recorded and mastered in stereo, and the last 3 albums were stereo only (though you could make the argument that the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour sound better). As you may or may not be aware- the stereo versions of the 2009 digital remasters (at this point, the "definitive" digital versions of the Beatles catalog) have recently been repressed on vinyl and released in the last few weeks- and by all accounts they sound seriously good. They're also decently priced (~$20-$35 each, more expensive if you buy the box set, which comes with a book). You could make the argument that there's something perverse about buying an analog pressing of a digital copy of a 40+ year old album that was initially a purely analog release (mainly "what's the point?"). At the same time, it's a shiny new package with all of the inserts and artwork that make vinyl fun to collect. Sgt. Pepper comes with the cutouts that are nigh impossible to find affordably nowadays. From what I understand, they used the uncompressed files to press the vinyl (as opposed to the lower bandwidth available to CD- but, believe me, you wouldn't be able to really tell the difference) and ended up "re-remastering" everything to clean out distortion (Read This for an account of the process). The mono remasters will be getting a vinyl release in 2013, so I'd wait until then for the early stuff/Sgt Pepper and MMT. If you want to go for an older pressing, first note that the Beatles catalog was in constant manufacture and distribution on vinyl throughout the '70s, worldwide. While there's something warm and fuzzy about owning a first edition, and certain mono-to-stereo transfers sound less than awesome, you shouldn't pull your hair out or rape your bank account tracking down IP's like they were rare Pokemon. My word of advice is this: Unless it's in very very (very) good shape and/or a rare or valuable edition, an old copy of a Beatles album shouldn't cost more than the reissues that just came out. Hell, a mint copy of a first edition shouldn't cost over a hundo unless Paul McCartney rolled himself a joint on top of the album cover. The Beatles are massively successful and they've sold literally millions of albums. But that doesn't stop people from trying to offload their scratched up '75 copy of the White Album for $60 or (mostly) college students from gladly shelling it out because they've GottaHaveTheFuckingBeatlesOnViny-It'sTheFuckingBeatlesMan,HowCouldYouNot? The first place I'd look is among people you know. Maybe your parents have copies...or your friends' parents...or your parents' friends. A guy I know got great copies of, like, six albums from an ex's parents who were moving overseas. Oftentimes, these will be in better shape than what you can find for sale- and at the very least, you'll be able to see them in person. Ask around and don't hesitate to pay fairly (look on Discogs for an idea). If you don't have a personal connection to exploit, your best bets are Discogs and yard sales. The community around Discogs is pretty spergy, so they largely self-police against price gouging (though you'll invariably see a couple of people try). You should be able to find decent copies of even some mono releases for under $20. The M/VG/G/F...etc condition rating system is a bit on the 'honor code' side and you rarely get a photo so check a seller's ratings. Yard sales are solid options, but these days you'll be hard pressed to find one selling a record collection that hasn't been checked against the most expensive offerings on Discogs/Ebay- particularly if the sellers went out of their way to advertise the records on Craigslist. It's pretty drat difficult to get a decent copy of a non-compilation Beatles album at a used record store. When they're in, they're gone in a flash. If you're lucky enough to find one, a scrupulous record store will charge you fairly. An unscrupulous one won't, because gently caress it- somebody will always buy it. EDIT: Look at that, a bunch of you beat me as I was secretively penning my exhaustive screed at work.  thathonkey posted:Blah... yeah I don't think I'm gonna do a $300 gamble because that would drive me loving crazy. I wonder if the individual reissues, which I assume are the same masters, fare any better? It is way more expensive to buy them individually though, of course. Like I said, not true. The box set should cost less, but it's special edition  so it costs more (to be fair, it comes with a coffee table book). Also, I'm seeing wildly different prices on it. Insound's got it for like $400.
trilobite terror fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:It's a weird situation. Like Cemetry Gator said, mono/stereo is pretty meaningless for the later stuff: everything past Revolver was recorded and mastered in stereo, and the last 3 albums were stereo only (though you could make the argument that the mono mixes of Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour sound better). Untrue. Everything was recorded in mono until Abbey Road. All the stereo versions of the previous albums are "folded down" from the mono mixes. This is why it'sbeen such a big deal to music fans for so long. Also, legend has it that John Lennon hated the stereo mixes of all the mono albums. And righfully so because they sound awful as do many "stereo" pressings of the era. This is why I'm glad that there are really good reissue labels who put out analog mastered mono versions of stuff from the 60s(I'm looking at you Sundazed).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Untrue. Everything was recorded in mono until Abbey Road. All the stereo versions of the previous albums are "folded down" from the mono mixes. This is why it'sbeen such a big deal to music fans for so long. Also, legend has it that John Lennon hated the stereo mixes of all the mono albums. And righfully so because they sound awful as do many "stereo" pressings of the era. This is why I'm glad that there are really good reissue labels who put out analog mastered mono versions of stuff from the 60s(I'm looking at you Sundazed). Wikipedia tells me that Sgt. Pepper was recorded in mono, stereo, and 4-track simultaneously  I'm probably wrong. I'd always heard about John hating the stereo mixes, but I'd assumed it was because of shittier recording quality from the equipment. That said, I did know that existing mono mixes were "folded down" to make stereo versions and I'll concede that the mono versions of the Beatles catalog are superior in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
If you go to discogs and click on the selling section for each release, you can pick up a mono copy of most of them for under $10 shipped. They might be Australian releases, but you can do a bit of research to see if that specific release is held in high regard or not. If you are just looking for some to listen to (instead of just collect) then that might be your best bet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ thanks all for the info on the Beatles LPs. Sorry it didn't even occur to me before I posted that this has probably already been discussed at least once in this thread.iostream.h posted:Black face Pioneer trumps your blinged out fancyness! Good sir, I beg to differ, silver faces are all class on the outside and all beast on the inside. Here is mine -  Never really able to turn it much past quarter volume though or my neighbors will kill me 
thathonkey fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
I used to have a kenny but swapped it for this boss JVC. Fully restored, recapped, etc. Great tuner on it too. Nice not to deal with a separate pre-amp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
I really need to get a white table to put my amp on to take a picture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
I'd like to get a vintage amp, but I have no idea what to look for or how to know if the thing is a piece of poo poo. Right now I have a loving 5.1 Denon that I use for two channel audio (it has a two channel mode and phono in, so I't not using it improperly or anything). The thing is massive and it has 8 million inputs in the back. I feel like using this thing is like smashing ants with a sledge hammer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The best way to get a vintage amp, IME, is just to keep an eye on Craigslist and be patient. Sometimes record stores will have vintage equipment for sale but it tends to be overpriced as hell. I'd recommend seeking out a private seller - save a query that includes these brands: Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui and you can't really go wrong with any of their silver face offerings. Outside of those three I'm sure there are good ones to be found I'm just not familiar with them. If you find one that you want, post it here and I or someone else can help you figure out if it is a good value. You'll be so glad you did it. When you go to buy, make sure the owner has some speakers that you can test it on. You'll want to test the phono stage too if possible (hint - this means you don't need an external pre-amp, so if your turntable has one built in you want to disable it, the switch is normally found under the platter). Give all the nobs a twist and see if they're working etc. Scratchy knobs can usually be fixed easily with some pots cleaner. Also don't worry about bulbs being out - these can be replaced easily too usually. Don't be mislead by low WPC - my Sansui is only like 55 WPC and it is incredibly powerful (ie. turning it much past 3/8th becomes painful for normal listening). Anything 45 WPC and up for a vintage stereo receiver will probably be plenty for home listening. Anyway, my Sansui blows all of my new modern black faces out of the loving water (including a $500 Denon). You will be amazed at how much better a vintage silver face sounds compared to even your Denon 5.1, which I assume by modern standards is a pretty nice receiver. thathonkey fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Nov 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
I've thought about trying to locate a vintage stereo setup but my player is in the living room where my tv and surround sound system is set up so I just run it through my yamaha 5.1 receiver in 2 ch stereo mode. It just seems silly for me to have 2 separate stereo systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Yeah, if you really rely on the 5.1 experience for movies and TV that would be silly (as you'd need a redundant set of speakers), but I don't really, so I ditched my surround sound for a stereo setup and haven't looked back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
there is a lot more useful information and discussion on vintage receivers as well as turntables and full setups in this thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3021252&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=44 usually best to check there rather than here
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Yeah, if you really rely on the 5.1 experience for movies and TV that would be silly (as you'd need a redundant set of speakers), but I don't really, so I ditched my surround sound for a stereo setup and haven't looked back. Yeah once I realized I really didn't give a poo poo about 5.1 setups anymore I sold off all my modern equipment. I haven't missed it at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Yeah, if you really rely on the 5.1 experience for movies and TV that would be silly (as you'd need a redundant set of speakers), but I don't really, so I ditched my surround sound for a stereo setup and haven't looked back. What I did was buy the cheapest, most barebones 5.1 receiver I could get on Newegg with decent reviews (I think it cost me like $140 during a special. You could also grab a retired floor model from BestBuy/buy used) and a $200 Polk Audio HT speaker/sub pack. I live in an apartment so they're more than adequate for movies/games and they don't take up a lot of space. I've also never used them for music. I inherited my 2-channel receiver and TT (though I'll have to give this one back in December and I'll probably replace it with a Pro-Ject), so my only real expenditure as of now has been my fancy music speakers. I have the hi-fi set up far enough away from the TV/couch that it doesn't look too try-hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
I Might Be Adam posted:I've thought about trying to locate a vintage stereo setup but my player is in the living room where my tv and surround sound system is set up so I just run it through my yamaha 5.1 receiver in 2 ch stereo mode. It just seems silly for me to have 2 separate stereo systems. This is exactly what I do. I have a Pioneer VSX-1020-K and it sounds great playing records. Granted, I'm using a TC-750-LC preamp with it as well. I stick to a mix of my old speakers and my dad's old speakers for the surround set-up, though. I believe my fronts are 1970s Pioneers, my surrounds are 1970s Craig speakers, and my backs are 1980s Sonys. The only new ones are a Polk Center and Sub. I know you're supposed to match the center and fronts, but this sounds really good too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
The bottom line is I'm not an audiophile and don't pretend to be. I know the difference between something sounding good and sounding bad. What my ears can't hear is the difference between using some gold-plated audio cable connectors and a proper pre-amp hooked up to a $5000 turntable (thanks MusicDirect catalog) and what my current setup is. If for some reason my 5.1 receiver blows up, I doubt I'll replace it. I really only bought for when I was using a projector. It's only running my turntable at the moment until I get some cables for my new living room arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
I Might Be Adam posted:If for some reason my 5.1 receiver blows up, I doubt I'll replace it. I really only bought for when I was using a projector. It's only running my turntable at the moment until I get some cables for my new living room arrangement. Ah. I've got mine connected to my cable, turntable, xbox, wii, laptop, and blu ray player. It's basically my entertainment center, and I use the same speakers for all of those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
To clear up all the mono/stereo things: From Please, Please Me (which should have never been reissued in stereo, in my humble opinion) to Magical Mystery Tour, the Beatles focused on the mono versions and for the most part, those were the versions that received the most care and attention. That's not to say nobody was concerned with stereo. Rubber Soul has that hard left and hard right mixing style because George Martin was trying to come up with a stereo version that could easily fold down into a mono mix (the album received its own dedicated mono mix anyway). By 1967, stereo was becoming a more important thing. Still, the Beatles focused on the mono mix, and left it up to George Martin to handle Sgt. Peppers in stereo. MMT, in its original incarnation is a bit of an odd duck, since 4 songs are in fake stereo, in some capacity (the latter half of "I am the Walrus," "Penny Lane" (which even in it's stereo mix is pretty much just mono anyway), "Baby, You're a Rich Man," and "All You Need is Love"). But you get a song like "Blue Jay Way," and the mono is missing the backwards vocals. When we get to the White Album, that's the turning point. This was the first time the Beatles handled their stereo mixes, and this is the point where I would say mono became less important. The band didn't bother mixing two songs into mono on that album (Revolution 1 and 9), instead just opting to fold them down from the stereo tapes. "Helter Skelter" is missing the entire ending, including the "I've got blisters on my fingers." They mixed the stereo version a month after mono, and my guess was that they just didn't bother redoing the mono mix to add it back in. Overall, the stereo "White Album" is good, though I do prefer the mono overall. And Lennon hated the stereo mix of "Revolution." And rightfully so. In mono, the song hits hard since it's so highly compressed that there's just no way to cram anything in there. In stereo though, it sounds broken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
I just use a pre-amp and a pair of HR824s - I really can't see doing anything other than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:
Get with the curve, bro. Beatles talk is so over. This is the 5.1 thread now. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sorry for the epic stereo-talk derail but it does go hand in hand with vinyl collecting if you ask me. Also I think it is a bit silly to use studio monitors for home-listening... they're designed for a completely different purpose but whatever floats your boat sir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
synthetik posted:I just use a pre-amp and a pair of HR824s - I really can't see doing anything other than that. I like to listen to NPR a lot and my TV runs through my stereo. I restored a pair of these
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2012 23:28
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Get with the curve, bro. Beatles talk is so over. This is the 5.1 thread now. Hey, I was the one who got us onto the 5.1 talk. I was a pioneer man. Just listening to my music on my Onkyo 7.1 receiver. poo poo makes music sound like butter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
I have a Hafler DH-500 (255 WPC) and I think it would damage my hearing if I turned it up all the way 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:To clear up all the mono/stereo things: I also noticed that the mono version of Your Mother Should Know has this weird compression (?) sound in the middle of the song. I Am the Walrus is also missing some of the background kookyness. Much as I generally prefer the mono mixes MMT is a bit of a mess in some places. And despite the mono Helter Skelter missing the slight return and the famous "I've got blisters on my fingers" there is a different little drum solo at the end. I'm suprised there's this much Beatles talk for once. Usually people here are too cool for school and say they suck. I don't care about hype or anything. The Beatles truely do deserve their reputation as one of the best music acts of all time. Anytime someone explains why that's wrong they usually just sound like a loving rear end in a top hat. And back the receiver talk, for what it's worth my Denon sounds pretty great. It may be a bit of overkill for two channel audio but it's certainly got balls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Not vinyl related, but figured it would be worth mentioning given the Beatles stereo/mono chat. Check out Here There and Everywhere by Geoff Emerick, the Abbey Road sound engineer that worked on those records. It's a great read for sound nerds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Anyone who says the Beatles suck or can't at least appreciate their significance is really not worth listening to. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Overall, the stereo "White Album" is good, though I do prefer the mono overall.   (unfortunately it has a lot of surface noise on the first couple of sides )Also, thank you Australia Post: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Also I think it is a bit silly to use studio monitors for home-listening... they're designed for a completely different purpose but whatever floats your boat sir. There's no right or wrong way really. My music teacher said something a long time ago (I'm fairly sure that he stole it from somewhere now that I think about it) about 'not listening to your equipment, listen to the music." So I try to have as few pieces of equipment between the source and the output. Phono Output > Preamp > Speakers I just prefer the way the monitors sound - having matched (and engineered) amplifiers and drivers sounds good, to me. I guess it's the 'anti-audiophile' extreme - I don't want tons of knick-knacks, do-dads, and bags of rocks attached to my sound system. alg posted:I like to listen to NPR a lot and my TV runs through my stereo. I restored a pair of these I'm pretty sure one of my middleschool buddies had a pair of those that he inherited from his parents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Hydra Head are having a sale of rare vinyl and stuff to help their distro survive instead of dying completely. They're also planning 2013 vinyl reissues of albums by Discordance Axis, Converge and Cave In. Personally, I would implore you to help this distro out as they've not only put out some great vinyl, but some great experimental music as well. The legacy of Isis speaks for itself, but early releases from Torche, The Dillinger Escape Plan and Converge cannot be ignored. Alongside Cave In's discography, and Botch's eponymous We Are the Romans, Hydra Head have been at the forefront of experimental and often extreme music. If you even slightly appreciate what they have released in the past, I implore you to throw some money at them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
CPL593H posted:I also noticed that the mono version of Your Mother Should Know has this weird compression (?) sound in the middle of the song. Yeah, there's heavy use of a phaser on that song. I always assumed it was meant to emulate a radio, sort of that's how you would have heard those songs, and you would have picked it up through a lot of noise. It's applied throughout the whole song, but it's most noticeable during the bridge. It's a really neat trick, though I can see how some people might not like it. It's better than the swapping of stereo channels that the stereo mix uses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2012 03:22
|
|