Beatles Review – Revolver Remastered CDs

posted by Rob on November 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm | Comments (12)

Revolver was The Beatles’ seventh album, originally released on August 5, 1966. Just like in my other remastered reviews, I’ve listened to the old stereo Revolver CD and the new mono and stereo remastered versions – as well as tracks from Yellow Submarine Songtrack and 1 – several times on my computer through headphones (Sony MDR-CD570) and on my home stereo system through speakers (Yamaha HTR-5540 receiver, Sony CDP-CE375 CD player, and EPI T/E 100 Series II speakers). My CD player is connected to my receiver using a digital cable. My headphones and speakers are able to reproduce clean, strong low frequencies, crisp, clear high frequencies, and an even tone in between. This isn’t the most high-end audiophile equipment ever created, but it’s a nice setup and allows me to study all of the details of the music.

How do the new remastered CDs compare to the original 1987 CD? To me, the ultimate Revolver album consists of tracks from all three versions, plus Yellow Submarine Songtrack. Read on…

The Packaging

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs, front) – click to enlarge

The remastered mono Revolver CD comes in a simple cardboard sleeve inside of a resealable clear plastic sleeve and features the original album artwork on the front and back. The disc itself comes in a plastic sleeve inside the cardboard sleeve. There’s also an Emitex paper sleeve the disc can go in, which I assume is a replica of the original vinyl record sleeve from 1966.

The remastered stereo CD comes in a foldout cardboard sleeve and features the original album artwork on the front and a slightly modified back:

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 mono and stereo remastered CDs, back) – click to enlarge

Inside the stereo foldout sleeve are more photos of the band, plus two pockets: one to hold a booklet featuring linear notes and photos and the other to hold the CD:

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, inside) – click to enlarge

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, inside) – click to enlarge

The disc itself now resembles the original Parlophone record label, as opposed to the 1987 disc’s no-frills treatment. Nice touch!

I like the cardboard sleeves because they introduce less plastic into our environment, but I know that if I handled them on a regular basis, they’d eventually get damaged and fall apart, whereas my plastic jewel cases from the 1980s are still in good shape. I don’t have to worry though because now that the CDs are ripped to my computer, I’ll hardly ever touch the sleeves (or the discs) again. From now on, I’ll listen to the songs on my computer, on my portable MP3 player, or by connecting my MP3 player to my stereo system.

The Remastering

The remastering on this album is very good, but could’ve been even slightly better. There’s some mild brickwall limiting, which is disappointing, but none of the peaks reach 0.0 dB, which is great, especially in today’s world of clipped and distorted music CDs. The highest peaks reach -0.32 dB on the stereo CD and -0.20 dB on the mono CD, which could still introduce distortion on some devices. Even so, this is far better mastering than any CD I’ve bought in the last decade. Here’s the waveform of the 2009 stereo remastered version of “Taxman”:

The Beatles “Taxman” stereo remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

To compare, here’s the waveform from the 2009 mono remastered version of “Taxman”:

The Beatles “Taxman” mono remastered waveform (2009) – click to enlarge

Here’s the waveform from the original Revolver CD, released in stereo in 1987:

The Beatles “Taxman” 1987 stereo waveform – click to enlarge

When I adjust the peaks of the 1987 version to reach 0.0 dB, the average level is -16.76 decibels. That means the 2009 stereo version is missing 2.87 decibels of dynamic range and the 2009 mono version is missing 2.89 decibels compared to the old CD. This is disappointing because I wanted the remastered versions to preserve even more dynamic range than the old version, not less. The difference isn’t really noticeable though.

On average, the mono remastered CD is missing 1 dB of overall dynamic range compared to the Revolver CD from 1987. The stereo remastered CD is missing 1.5 dB. Again, it isn’t really noticeable.

The Songs

Here’s my rundown of the various CD versions of each song:

1. “Taxman”

MONO: The mono version sounds slightly distorted overall and lacks the high frequency clarity of the stereo version. It’s missing 2.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. While it makes more sense for the drums and bass to be centered, this mix sounds messy and cluttered at times. Overall, it sounds lo-fi and old-fashioned, like a dated 1960s recording, whereas the stereo version sounds clear and fresh, like a modern recording.

The cowbell comes in earlier than in the stereo versions.

STEREO: The 2009 remaster features a boost in the low and high frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies, which results in a more even tone compared to the old 1987 version. There’s mild brickwall limiting in the left channel, but the song sounds crisper and fresher now, though technically it’s missing 2.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
59 second MP3 file – 2.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

2. “Eleanor Rigby”

MONO: The mono version is much better than “Taxman,” but still not quite as clear as the stereo version. It’s missing 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The 2009 stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range frequencies. There’s a bit more presence and clarity now. It features nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. The double-tracked vocal at the beginning of the first verse is still in this new remaster, since it was transferred from the original master tape that way. Fixing something like that would’ve required remixing or extensive editing, which this project did not involve.

The 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix is more balanced. Paul’s lead vocal is centered and the strings are panned in stereo. As a result, this version sounds more powerful and modern than the 2009 remaster. I actually prefer the tone of the vocals in the 2009 remaster, but the 1999 remix is the best sounding version overall, even though technically it’s missing 1.8 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

The 1 remaster from 2000 features even more of a boost in the high frequencies and a cut in the mid-range frequencies. It sounds thin and harsh and is the worst sounding version.

- – -

3. “I’m Only Sleeping”

MONO: The mono version lacks the high frequency clarity of the stereo version and is missing 1.1 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The vocals are softer too, and feature a subtle doubling effect. The backwards electric guitar comes in at different points throughout the song, compared to the stereo version. There’s a slightly longer fade out, as well.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies and a slight cut in the mid-range and high frequencies. It features nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. The bass is much stronger now. It might even be too strong.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo remastered 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
49 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

4. “Love You To”

MONO: The mono mix lacks the high frequency clarity found in the stereo version and is missing 1.9 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. It goes on for an extra eight seconds during the outro.

STEREO: A slight low frequency rumble in the background has been removed from the 2009 stereo remaster and there’s been a slight cut in the mid-range and high frequencies, resulting in a more even tone. The song sounds a bit cleaner now. There’s nearly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

The Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix is more balanced and sounds even clearer and more modern than the new stereo remaster. It’s the best sounding version and features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

- – -

5. “Here, There, and Everywhere”

MONO: The mono mix features some slight distortion in spots and is missing 1.3 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, but it’s a very good, clear mix overall. The vocals are balanced better with the music. In the stereo version, the vocals are too loud. After listening to the three CDs, I prefer this mix.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies; the bass drum is a bit stronger now. This version is missing 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, but both versions sound very similar.

- – -

6. “Yellow Submarine”

MONO: The mono mix lacks the high frequency crispness of the stereo version. It sounds dull and lacks presence overall. The mono version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD. In this version, the song starts off with both the acoustic guitar and Ringo’s vocal, whereas the stereo version starts off with only Ringo’s vocal. During the last verse, John Lennon echos the lyric “life of ease,” which is missing in the stereo mix.

STEREO: A faint noise was removed from the left channel at the very beginning of the 2009 stereo remaster. The low and high frequencies have been boosted, resulting in a noticeable increase in presence and crispness overall. The bass drum and snare drum are more powerful. The acoustic guitar and Ringo’s vocal are bright and clear. Despite some mild brickwall limiting throughout and a 1.6 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is a big improvement and the best sounding version.

UPDATE November 19, 2009: For the first time ever, I noticed a tape noise after the verse with the sound effects. In the mono version, the splash of water at the end of that verse fades out quickly. I prefer the longer fade in the stereo version because the splash blends into Ringo’s vocal in the following verse. However, the longer fade also reveals the noise I’m talking about, during the word “live.” Here’s a clip:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
7 second MP3 file – 0.3 MB (right-click to save)

The noise is in the 1987 Revolver CD as well. I can’t believe I never noticed that before! Despite this little noise, I still think the 2009 stereo remaster is the best sounding version.

The Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix features a cut in the mid-range frequencies and lacks the prescence and energy of the remastered version. It sounds a bit muted and dull, as if too much noise reduction were applied, and is missing 3.7 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. For people who absolutely despise the hard panning in the stereo Revolver version, this remix will have to do.

The 1 version sounds like it had too much noise reduction applied and the low frequencies were over-emphasized. As a result, the overall tone sounds strange and the song lacks clarity. This is the worst sounding version and is missing 2.4 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
46 second MP3 file – 1.8 MB (right-click to save)

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
37 second MP3 file – 1.5 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

7. “She Said She Said”

MONO: In the mono mix, whenever John sings, the drums get soft as if the engineers were using side chain compression (ducking) while mixing. This mix sounds too messy and cluttered compared to the stereo version and is missing 1.6 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. There’s a noticeable edit at 1:13 at the end of “I said.”

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies, a cut in the high frequencies, and a 1.6 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. This version doesn’t sound as crisp and clear. For example, the snare drum isn’t quite as audible now. I prefer the brighter 1987 version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
49 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
46 second MP3 file – 1.8 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

8. “Good Day Sunshine”

MONO: The mono mix features some slight distortion in spots, but is a very good, clear mix overall and features roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. I still prefer the stereo mix though. Instead of fading out at the end, the drums stop after four bass drum beats.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies. The song sounds a bit more powerful and clear now, despite a 3.2 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
50 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

9. “And Your Bird Can Sing”

MONO: Like “Taxman” and “She Said She Said,” there’s a bit too much going on in the mono mix, resulting in a slightly cluttered sound overall. This version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low frequencies and a 1.3 dB decrease in dynamic range. Still, it sounds nearly identical to the old 1987 CD.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
53 second MP3 file – 2.0 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

10. “For No One”

MONO: There’s some slight distortion here and there throughout the mono mix, but it sounds good overall despite the 1 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. I like this mix much better than the stereo version.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies and roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The song sounds slightly clearer now, but the extreme stereo panning is annoying to listen to, even for me. In this case, I prefer the mono mix.

- – -

11. “Doctor Robert”

MONO: This is a very good, clear mono mix. I still prefer the stereo version, but this one sounds almost as good. Sometimes the vocals get drowned out by the lead guitar. There’s a 1.9 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies and a slight boost in the high frequencies. Despite a 1.1 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is the best sounding version.

- – -

12. “I Want to Tell You”

MONO: This is another good, clear mono mix. I still prefer the stereo version, but this one sounds almost as good. There’s a 1.7 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low and high frequencies. The song sounds crisper and clearer now and the snare drum is more audible. Despite a 1.3 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, this is the best sounding version.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the 1987 version (first) to the stereo 2009 version (second):

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
50 second MP3 file – 1.9 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

13. “Got to Get You into My Life”

MONO: The mono mix lacks some high frequency clarity compared to the stereo mix, but I enjoy listening to this one more. I’ve always found the stereo mix annoying. This version features roughly the same amount of dynamic range as the old 1987 CD and goes on for an extra nine seconds during the outro.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a slight boost in the low and high frequencies. Despite a 2 dB decrease in dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD, both versions sound nearly identical. The brass and wind instruments in the right channel are too loud and stick out too much. I usually defend the Beatles’ stereo mixes, but in this case I prefer the mono mix.

Here’s an audio clip comparing the mono vs. stereo 2009 remasters:

Listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download:
59 second MP3 file – 2.3 MB (right-click to save)

- – -

14. “Tomorrow Never Knows”

MONO: The mono mix isn’t quite as crisp and powerful as the stereo mix, but it still sounds very good overall. I prefer the wide double-tracked vocal effect in the stereo version. The mono version features an additional 2 dB of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD. The tape loops come in at different times in certain spots in the mono version.

STEREO: The stereo remaster features a boost in the low frequencies, a slight cut in the high frequencies, and roughly the same amount of dynamic range compared to the old 1987 CD.

The Mini-Documentary

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, mini-documentary) – click to enlarge

Included on the stereo remastered Revolver CD is a 3:55 mini-documentary that can be played on a computer. It’s comprised of moving photographs, brief studio chatter, comments from George Martin, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison, and one short film clip near the end. The video can be played in a small window or in a much larger “fullscreen” mode.

Even for a huge Beatles fan like me who is usually fascinated by The Beatles’ studio banter, this documentary is a letdown, devoid of any interesting insight or facts.

Revolver by The Beatles (2009 stereo remastered CD, mini-documentary) – click to enlarge

As with the other stereo Beatles remastered discs, the mini-documentary is a decent inclusion, but I really bought the new CDs to listen to the music.

Closing Comments

Is the 2009 stereo Revolver remaster worth buying if you already own the original 1987 CD? For the most part, yes. Most of the tracks sound a bit clearer, fresher, and more powerful now. The difference isn’t quite as dramatic as I was hoping for, but it’s enough of an improvement to warrant a $12 purchase.

To me, the only song that sounds slightly worse is “She Said She Said,” with its reduced high frequencies. I prefer the crisper, brighter version on the old CD.

I had listened to a crackly, worn mono version of Revolver on vinyl several years ago, but this was the first time I experienced it in high fidelity. After all of the hype I’ve come across regarding the Beatles’ mono albums, I was expecting to be completely blown away by the supposedly more powerful sound and superior mixing. However, I found some of the mono versions to sound old, cluttered, sloppy, and a bit distorted compared to the stereo ones. I know that the Beatles supervised and approved the mono mixes themselves, thus many people feel those mixes are automatically superior, but I disagree.

In terms of sound quality, tone, and overall balance, it sounds as if more care was put into the stereo mixes. The mono mixes sound like the engineers saturated the master tapes to get the loudest sound possible, perhaps at the Beatles’ insistence. The sound is often too dense and sometimes slightly distorted. The stereo mixes usually feature much better sound quality and clarity and the instruments and vocals are usually more balanced with each other.

Of course, there are exceptions. The stereo version of “For No One” is empty due to awkward hard panning and is especially annoying to listen to in headphones. The mono version is much more enjoyable. I also prefer the mono version of “Here, There, and Everywhere,” which features a better balance between the vocals and instruments and sounds stronger. Likewise for “Got to Get You into My Life.” The blaring horns in the stereo version aren’t quite as prominent in the mono mix, which sounds better as a result.

Three songs from Revolver were completely remixed from the original multitrack tapes on the 1999 Yellow Submarine Songtrack CD. The remixed “Yellow Submarine” sounds dull and lacks the energy found in the original stereo version, but “Eleanor Rigby” and “Love You To” sound much better.

The 24-bit remastered versions of “Eleanor Rigby” and “Yellow Submarine” from the 2000 1 greatest hits CD sound awful and should be avoided.

If I could only chose one version of Revolver to listen to, it’d be the remastered stereo CD. That isn’t the case though, so I’ll create my own ultimate version of the album by choosing songs from the various releases:

1. “Taxman” – stereo remaster
2. “Eleanor Rigby” – Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix
3. “I’m Only Sleeping” – stereo remaster
4. “Love You To” – Yellow Submarine Songtrack remix
5. “Here, There, and Everywhere” – mono remaster
6. “Yellow Submarine” – stereo remaster
7. “She Said She Said” – original 1987 CD
8. “Good Day Sunshine” – stereo remaster
9. “And Your Bird Can Sing” – stereo remaster
10. “For No One” – mono remaster
11. “Doctor Robert” – stereo remaster
12. “I Want to Tell You” – stereo remaster
13. “Got to Get You into My Life” – mono remaster
14. “Tomorrow Never Knows” – stereo remaster

As with Abbey Road, the biggest difference between the old and new stereo CDs is loudness. The peaks in the remastered CD are higher than in the 1987 one, so basically, if you turn the volume up a notch or two while playing your old 1987 Revolver CD, it’ll sound somewhat close to the remastered version. Don’t get me wrong, the new stereo CD definitely sounds better overall, but if you can’t afford it or don’t want to buy it, the old CD still holds up pretty well.

(By comparison, the new remastered versions of Please Please Me sound vastly superior to the original 1987 CD.)

Check out my other Beatles remastered CD reviews:

Beatles Review – Please Please Me Remastered CDs
Beatles Review – Abbey Road Remastered CD

Rate this post:
Reward this post with a little PayPal donation:

12 Comments

• 

  By Foxx, November 18, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

  Rob,

  thanx for the in-depth review of Revolver, my favorite. Funny thing is, I listend to all those discs when the boxes came out, in Sept, and the mon mix struck me as the better one, mainly because it sounded (to my ears) as more powerful, al the noise channeled and centered, thus (again: for me) emphasizing The Beatles as a solid rock group. I only listened through headphones, did not want to annoy the wife and kids with playing 3 times the entire catalogue in 1 week or so. I will listen again. I agree with your comments on 1 and YS Songtrack. Hope to read some other reviews, in due time. Thanx.

• 

  By Rob, November 19, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  Foxx, I’ve been forcing myself to listen to the mono mixes during my commute (using headphones) and they’re growing on me, but my brain starts itching for stereo separation after several songs.

  “Taxman” does sound powerful in mono, but I wish the overall sound quality were as clear and distortion-free as the stereo mix. “Doctor Robert,” “I Want to Tell You,” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” sound very good in mono, but then I switch over to the stereo versions and my brain feels satisfied.

• 

  By Wayne, November 19, 2009 @ 10:58 pm

  Hi Rob,

  Another great review! Get ready for the storm! LOL! Can’t say I noticed much difference in the stereo re-master and the original CD release of ‘Revolver’. But, I did notice some minor noises, which were extracted on the re-master.

  When it comes to stereo vs. mono, I can go either way. But admittedly, there are some songs I simply prefer in stereo, ‘Here There and Everywhere’ being one.

  Also, I prefer the mono mixes because they sound to me more laid back on the high end, giving them a warmer feel. My audio system tends to be a bit bright at times anyway. I also suspect the distortions you mentioned may be in both the stereo and mono versions. You may be noticing them more on the monos because they are brought front and center on the monos. I do not listen to mono through my headphones. For me, mono is great for casual listening when I’m tinkering about the house.

  Thanks again for your thoughtful and insightful work. I love your waveform analysis, as well as your own observations and perceptions of the re-masters.

  Wayne

• 

  By Frank, November 24, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

  Another Great review Rob. I don’t agree with some people, who don’t hear a difference between 87 & 09, Revolver the clean up job they did was amazing the album has so much more clarity.

  I agree with you about the 2 different teams that worked on the Mono and Stereo remasters. The Stereo team did a better job even on Please Please me if you listen to the Mono songs on it and compare it to the Mono, The stereo remasters of the Mono songs sound much cleaner and equalized to a more pleasing sound. I’m not one for mono the Beatles had too much going on in their music to limit it to 1 speaker bring on the 5.1.

  Although I’m not blind to the fact that some of their songs sound better and more powerful in mono. I really prefer The Yellow Sub 5.1 I thought they did a great job in the surround sound placement of the instruments. Even Yellow Submarine sounds great in 5.1 but like you I’m not crazy about the 2 channel mix. Did you hear the 5.1? You can listen to it isolated from the soundtrack; I wish they would have done it more like the Love soundtrack.
  Again thanks for the great job of analyzing Revolver I like the way you made your best of from 3 different sources. Maybe in your free time LOL you could do that for the other albums. I’ll be looking forward to the next reviews. Although only 4 people have commented don’t let that deter you from carrying on they might not comment but I bet a lot are reading it.
  I for one really enjoy someone who’s as crazy about Beatles as me reviewing their work.

• 

  By Ruben, December 5, 2009 @ 12:54 am

  Excellent comments on the various Revolver versions Rob. I noticed that the 09 Stereo version(and perhaps the Mono too – I’m not sure) has fixed the tape drop-out at the beginning of “Got to Get you…” You can hear the drop-out on the ’87 (the long, held brass note in the intro). Haven’t checked my vinyl, which I purchased in the early 80s…

• 

  By Modica, December 26, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

  Good job on this post! It’s nice to see somebody who knows what ther’e writing about.

• 

  By Jim, March 30, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

  Did you compare some of these versions to the Love CD versions? For example, how would you compare Eleanor Rigby from YSS to the version on Love? I realize that Love had more aggressive remixing, but what about the sound for the main part of the song? I think the Love CD versions trump even the YSS mixes in terms of sound, which is understandable as they were given more license and it was 7 years later.

• 

  By heth, May 8, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

  Thansk for the reviews. A couple of observations:

  The YSS and Love versions of Elenor Rigby suffer from the multitracks not being lined up quite right. In YSS the vocal lags, and in Love, part of the string quartet lags. I find both of these versions hard to listen to because of these problems.

  Also, is it really fair to say that the mono mix has “lost” dynamic range compared to the 1987 CD’, when the original mono mix may have already had less dynamic range than the original stereo mix to start off with.

• 

  By Andreas, December 11, 2010 @ 11:56 pm

  Yeah, you can’t say that the mono mix has “lost” dynamic range. It’s a totally different mix! Personally, I love the sound of the mono Revolver mix. The compression used on the original production gives the album a unique sound and is far more “explosive” than the stereo mix.

• 

  By Slade Barker, June 30, 2011 @ 10:30 am

  This is a very interesting review to me, a guy who grew up with the mono American 45s & (when I was very, very good) LPs. It is clear that you weren’t around when these records were new & all over the radio & at the beach on transistor radios & so on. It’s absolutely fascinating to hear how a Gen X-er with a great stereo system perceives the differences in the mono & stereo versions. I find your preference for the stereo versions (in most cases) fascinating because I think you’re missing the point by a mile. You are judging the tracks based on “clarity” & how crowded the mix is, & other high-toned stuff that would have made Beatle fans scratch their heads back in the ’60s. I find your preference for the stereo versions (in most cases) fascinating because I think you’re missing the point. You want one era to sound like another era. The problem is that what you hear as flaws or shortcomings are there intentionally & are the actual way that 95% of listeners heard them back then — & loved them for it. NOBODY listening to rock music in the ’60s had a stereo. That was for their classical or jazz parents or Hugh Hefner wannabes trying to impress their dates! Similarly, you complain that the mono versions are too busy & packed full of the maximum sound. What you’re missing here is that this is what the ’60s sounded like! The idea was to grab listeners by the ear. (Think of Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound — 50 musicians recorded in mono, & only mono. Same with Brian Wilson’s Beach Boys records.) Instead, you are judging rock ‘n’ roll by classical music technical standards. That’s the wrong way to hear it. You don’t realize that “Revolver” was mixed to be sound great on half-decent phonographs & really BAD portable record players & low-fi transistor radios. If the mono mixes make your fancy stereo system sound cheap, that’s a GOOD thing! (But not to you, & you of course have a right to your high [fi] standards.) I am almost afraid to hear what you think about the mono versions of what I consider the two acid tests of Beatles sound: “I’m Down,” originally the b-side of a vinyl 45 with “Help!” on the other side, & “Revolution” (the hit single version), also originally on a vinyl 45 (with “Hey Jude” on the other side). The maxed-out tape saturation on “I’m Down” & incredibly slicing guitar-work on “Revolution” were only heard in terribly watered-down stereo mixes, so that no one who wasn’t listening to pop in the ’60s even knows how radical they sounded. (The Rolling Stones had to travel to Chess Records in Chicago to find out how Chess engineers were getting “that” sound: they were letting the needle run way into the red, something that the proper classical-trained engineers the Stones had been working with in London considered a terrible no-no. The Stones learned their lesson, but unfortunately it’s the much-diluted stereo version of “Satisfaction” that you always hear on the radio — with its over-amped acoustic guitars making it sound like a folk song, as a friend of mine noted — rather than the slashing, mono mix with its stabbing electric guitars that scared parents so badly in 1965! (To hear the difference, compare the wimpy stereo version on “40 Licks” or “Hot Rocks” with the much-superior but little-heard mono version on the mono singles collection.)
  I also wonder if you’ve heard Sony’s recently-released mono versions of the early Bob Dylan albums that just came out, which should be a revelation to anyone who has only heard the stereo mix of “Mr. Tambourine Man” or “Blowin’ in the Wind” (which has Bob’s voice way off to one side & his guitar way off to the other as if he were Plastic Man!). The same goes for Collectors’ Choice’s relatively recent reissues of the singles of Paul Revere & the Raiders and/or Jan & Dean that haven’t been heard in their hit mono versions since the 1960s. You could make all the same points about the mono mixes of these records, but THIS IS HOW THEY WERE MEANT TO BE HEARD. I reckon that, after a lot of this kind of listening, your head & ears will be in a whole new place & you will suddenly “get” it. I believe this because you obviously have great ears. But this is a matter of mindset, not “brickwall limiting” & other fancy stuff.
  P.S. Might I make a suggestion when you’re doing A-to-B comparisons? It’s much easier to follow your logic when you feature an excerpt from one version, then start all over with the same excerpt from the other. When you make the comparison by seamlessly going back & forth between the mono & stereo mixes, I get totally confused. I can’t be the only one!

• 

  By Rob, June 30, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

  Hi Slade,

  Thanks for your excellent comment. You’re right, I didn’t grow up in the 1960s and experience the great music from that era as it was being released in real-time. I experienced it a generation later via my parents. I definitely prefer most music from that era to 99.99999% of music from the last 12 years (1999 to today), but my parents *did* grow up during that era and they owned all of the Beatles albums in stereo. Perhaps one reason I’m so stuck on those versions is because they were the only ones I grew up with and got used to hearing. I also liked how my father would move the balance fader all the way to the left or right and point out different things happening in the songs to me (“Listen to Ringo’s drumming on this part!” or “Check out George’s guitar work right here.”).

  I know that those old songs were purposely mixed in mono to sound full, saturated, and sometimes chaotic…but I strongly feel that in hindsight, the majority of the time the stereo versions hold up better. To me, the mono versions often sound dated, which is great for someone like you who grew up with them because they transport you back to that fun, youthful, exciting time…whereas the stereo versions often sound clearer and have higher fidelity, and are sometimes more powerful.

  That said, after listening to both the mono and stereo remasters these past 21 months, I’ve come to the conclusion that I can’t wholly recommend one boxed set over the other. For me, it’s on a song-by-song basis. If I absolutely *had* to chose only one boxed set to buy and listen to for the rest of my life, then yes, I’d choose the stereo set, but in reality I mix and match the different versions to create what I feel like are the ultimate albums.

  I know my posting here and on YouTube has been extremely sporadic this past year and I apologize. I’ve been going through some huge steps in my life – all of them good – and I should be back up and running by winter (more Beatles reviews, more YouTube video lessons, etc.). In the meantime, I hope people keep enjoying my existing content and leaving comments. Thanks again!

• 

  By Jeremy S, September 7, 2011 @ 2:16 pm

  Hey. Just a bit curious about your interpretation of the dynamic range of the mono version. Are you sure that the average level means anything compared to either stereo version? In the stereo versions it looks like one channel is decidedly quieter the way it’s mixed while the mono is almost but obviously not quite a combination of the left and right channels occurring twice, meaning there would be more sound in both channels and thus should be a higher average level of sound…

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

*Name

*Email (not published)

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.