Comments on: Beatles Review – Revolver Remastered CDs http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/ Rob's video guitar lessons and music blog Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:53:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jeremy S http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-280 Jeremy S Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:16:17 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-280 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... 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…

]]> By: Rob http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-244 Rob Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:46:44 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-244 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! :) 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: Slade Barker http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-243 Slade Barker Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:30:56 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-243 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! 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: Andreas http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-242 Andreas Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:56:41 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-242 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. 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: heth http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-241 heth Sat, 08 May 2010 22:21:30 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-241 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. 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: Jim http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-240 Jim Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:44:13 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-240 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. 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: Modica http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-239 Modica Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:50:05 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-239 Good job on this post! It's nice to see somebody who knows what ther'e writing about. Good job on this post! It’s nice to see somebody who knows what ther’e writing about.

]]> By: Ruben http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-238 Ruben Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:54:00 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-238 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... 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: Frank http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-237 Frank Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:25:53 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-237 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. 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: Wayne http://www.goodrob13.com/2009/11/16/beatles-review-revolver-remastered-cds/#comment-236 Wayne Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:58:14 +0000 http://goodrob13.com/?p=1112#comment-236 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 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

]]>