Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by awolfatthedoor on Sept 3, 2009 18:15:43 GMT -5
Has anyone heard the Beatles remasters that have leaked? It sounds great. Revolver and Sgt. Pep have been really cool to hear remastered. I might know where links exist if people need.
I have heard they sound great but I still refuse to buy these things. I refuse to participate in this blatant money grab. Sony needs to learn how to survive without rereleasing The Beatles catalog.
Post by questionablesanity on Sept 8, 2009 9:55:37 GMT -5
I'm actually going to buy them. I read about it in Rolling stone and got excited. I really got into the Beatles in high school and then traded all of their stuff off. I'm actually getting tired of listening to tinny mp3s and nothing, imo, compares to the audio quality of a cd. I think FLAC is close, but not the same to me. The first time they released them on CD was quite disappointing.
A Thieve's Parade 2/24 Conspirator 2/26 Kevin Smith 3/11 Keller 3/17 Papadosio 3/18 JJ Grey 3/25 Bela Fleck/Edgar Meyer 3/26 Toubab Krewe 3/27 O'Death 4/11 Budos Band 4/22 EOTO 4/28 Summer Camp 5/6-29 All Good
well, the FLAC is lossless - it is all of the information on the CD.
but there is something to owning the physical, pressed, nicely printed, CD. there is a small piece of me that wants to buy they set - but $150 seems a bit steep, even if it is the beatles.
i will be buying the rockband set looking forward to playing rockband where every other song doesnt suck.
im hoping the mono set is available soon - i really want to hear those early classics as originally designed...
so far ive listened to revolver, sgt peppers, and magical mystery. all sound really vibrant and fresh...
Post by itrainmonkeys on Sept 8, 2009 13:13:53 GMT -5
can someone explain to me why they are releasing in mono AND stereo? and what the real difference is between the two?
I'm kinda lost. I understand stereo is for left and right speakers and mono is the same sound coming from both (is that even right?).....but don't know the difference. can anyone break it down for me?
mono is single source sound - so it's the same on every speaker.
the first bunch of albums were all in mono. the stereo mixes of those records weren't even done by the band, they just sort of let the studio guys do it. they were more interested in the mono.
so, basically, the mono versions are the original versions. i forget where it switched from mono to stereo mixes - maybe the white album?
Why mono? Two reasons. First, pop music in stereo was still a novelty through most of the 60s. Radio was dominated by single-channel AM, and the young people who bought LPs were far more likely to have a mono record player as a sound source. Given their audience and the technology of the time, for much of the Beatles' run, the band themselves considered the mono mix as the "real" version of the record and devoted more of their attention to it. Mono mixes were prepared first with the involvement of the band, and in some cases, George Martin and EMI engineers completed stereo remixes of the albums later, after the group had left the studio. So mono, first off, presumably hews closer to the intentions of the Beatles themselves. It's what the Beatles had in mind, their vision of the records.
Secondly, since the mono and stereo mixing sessions happened at different times, there are differences between the two versions, not just in the balance of the sound but also in the actual content. Different takes were sometimes used for punching in overdubs, or an alternate vocal take might make its way into the mix. Sometimes tracks were edited differently, and would be shorter or longer, and in some cases the tape ran at a slightly different speed, changing the pitch slightly. Some of the differences are subtle, and some are not. The mono version of "Helter Skelter", to take one example, is a minute shorter, as the "false" ending fadeout is presented as the track's true ending (and it thus omits the closing scream of "I got blisters on my fingers!") The significance of these differences will depend the level of one's Beatles fandom; of course, those shelling out for the In Mono box will likely enjoy poring over the details.
Last Edit: Sept 8, 2009 14:09:24 GMT -5 by idio - Back to Top
Post by VoiceOfReason on Sept 9, 2009 21:51:39 GMT -5
Anyone pick up any of the stereo individual remasters and have trouble with these "mini documentaries"? My computer doesn't recognize that they even exist on the disc.
A Thieve's Parade 2/24 Conspirator 2/26 Kevin Smith 3/11 Keller 3/17 Papadosio 3/18 JJ Grey 3/25 Bela Fleck/Edgar Meyer 3/26 Toubab Krewe 3/27 O'Death 4/11 Budos Band 4/22 EOTO 4/28 Summer Camp 5/6-29 All Good
More than twenty years ago, as a "poor college student", I had become bored with my Cassettes of the Beatles library and had little money for new cd's. The internet only existed in the conceptual mind of Al Gore(lol). Anyhow, I would alter my conciousness and listen to only one channel at a time, either left or right. One side was typically Paul and Ringo. I must say that this was a cool experience to hear vocal/drums on one side, and harmonies and guitar on the other side.
The point being, although mixed in MONO, the content coming from left channel was always different from that coming from the right side. So the mono is the unique one and for purists. I believe the stereo merely doubles up so that all instruments can be heard in each ear. Possibly a fuller sound, but certainly not as unique as the original. One of the rare instances, in my opinion, where the mono dubs surpass the stereo.
Post by steveternal on Sept 12, 2009 12:33:40 GMT -5
^^^Not quite accurate, red. The band's early records were only mixed in mono (which of course means mixed for one sounding source; stereo means mixed for one left speaker and one right speaker), but I believe with "Help!" the band began releasing both stereo and mono versions of the albums, and even a couple later ones were never released in mono. So to say, first, that mono had different sounds in the left and right channels, and also that the mono is the "original", are both incorrect. Also for the stereo mixes the instruments aren't just "doubled-up", but rather are panned to one side or the other-- incidentally, the stereo mix would sound just like how you are describing the mono mix, so perhaps you just got those backwards?
Woh, now I'm even more confused. I'll certainly defer to your supreme "musicology" to be very generic about your apparent level of expertise. And all I can truly report on is my swiss cheese memory of those listenings. I do remember whole albums that said differing left and right channels occurred on. I don't have the cassettes anymore to refer to the source. I have replaced most on cd, but also haven't listened to many of them in Ions, and certainly haven't isolated any channels since back in the day, so to speak.
I can attest to the fact that these albums I had the experience with were probably not Let it Be or maybe even not Sgt. Pepper or Magical Mystery Tour. So that bodes well with where you are coming from.
My understanding of a mono recording is that the same sound does in fact come out of two separate channels. I would argue that the content of each channel MAY be different and still be considered mono, so long as it does not come across in both channels.
ie-If you only hear the drums on the left, but you hear the guitar only out of the right, can they in fact be stereo when said sound is only being delivered to one channel ?
My understanding of stereo can be divided into stereo and "false stereo", which often occurs when trying to embellish or make a sound fuller, where, in my example, the original drum in the left is doubled up and piped simultaneously to the right and the same with the guitar.
Holy Shamoly-enough typing. I think you may see what I am getting at, but I can also admit that I may have it wrong. And I'm sure there are probably recent pages on the net debating the same scenario.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Sept 15, 2009 22:20:12 GMT -5
The Stereo panning is unbelievably annoying in headphones for some of the should be mono stuff like Past Masters. And you are right it couldn't have been LiB because they only mixed that in stereo. If someone is going to go out and get one of the boxsets I suggest you go out and download both versions and decide which one you like more.
Woh, now I'm even more confused. I'll certainly defer to your supreme "musicology" to be very generic about your apparent level of expertise. And all I can truly report on is my swiss cheese memory of those listenings. I do remember whole albums that said differing left and right channels occurred on. I don't have the cassettes anymore to refer to the source. I have replaced most on cd, but also haven't listened to many of them in Ions, and certainly haven't isolated any channels since back in the day, so to speak.
I can attest to the fact that these albums I had the experience with were probably not Let it Be or maybe even not Sgt. Pepper or Magical Mystery Tour. So that bodes well with where you are coming from.
My understanding of a mono recording is that the same sound does in fact come out of two separate channels. I would argue that the content of each channel MAY be different and still be considered mono, so long as it does not come across in both channels.
ie-If you only hear the drums on the left, but you hear the guitar only out of the right, can they in fact be stereo when said sound is only being delivered to one channel ?
My understanding of stereo can be divided into stereo and "false stereo", which often occurs when trying to embellish or make a sound fuller, where, in my example, the original drum in the left is doubled up and piped simultaneously to the right and the same with the guitar.
Holy Shamoly-enough typing. I think you may see what I am getting at, but I can also admit that I may have it wrong. And I'm sure there are probably recent pages on the net debating the same scenario.
"I've got blisters on my fingahs !!!!!!"
lol, that's quite alright. Actually, Musicology is what I studied in college. Still, I'm no expert on the subject but it sounds like we have an issue with the definition of terms and not so much with different ideas. For instance, when I say channel I mean a single output of audio from a sound source. Mono has one and only one channel... hence "mono". Stereo is designed for two different channels which are generally called right and left, but really given the proper equipment something could be recorded in any number of channels, such as 5.1 Surround. But again a "channel" simply designates one output of recorded sound, regardless of how many speakers it's being played through (you may listen to a mono recording on your headphones but it's still mono because the same audio is sent to both speakers).
And the false stereo you mentioned I believe is called "duophonic", and is just as you said: one takes something already recorded in mono and re-mixes it so that it sounds like it's in stereo. But true stereo must be recorded in stereo, or at least one must use the master tracks to create a stereo recording... I suppose that's how The Beatles released some albums in stereo and mono, and how someone like The Flaming Lips could re-release some of their albums in 5.1 Surround.
Post by awolfatthedoor on Sept 16, 2009 12:08:00 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone is up for this but how about a little lyrical discussion. I was walking back from class listening to All You Need Is Love thinking about it, and I've always found it confusing, but I just can't help but wonder what Lennon was thinking. Anyway...
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love. There's nothing you can do that can't be done. Nothing you can sing that can't be sung. Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game It's easy. There's nothing you can make that can't be made. No one you can save that can't be saved. Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time - It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love, All you need is love, love, love is all you need. Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love. All you need is love, all you need is love, All you need is love, love, love is all you need. There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy.
The verses and the choruses just seem dissonant. The chorus seems like a sigh of relief at realize that all you really need is love. But at the same time the verses seem like an overwhelming depressing realization. "There's nothing you can do that can't be done" and "there's nothing you can make that isn't made" particularly would get me really down if that is what I truly believed. But Lennon seems to take this as a positive. Thoughts?
Last Edit: Sept 16, 2009 12:23:35 GMT -5 by awolfatthedoor - Back to Top
My interpretation would be that he was indicating that letting go of ego is letting go of fear, leaving a vacuum by which to fill your own heart with love.
Woh, now I'm even more confused. I'll certainly defer to your supreme "musicology" to be very generic about your apparent level of expertise. And all I can truly report on is my swiss cheese memory of those listenings. I do remember whole albums that said differing left and right channels occurred on. I don't have the cassettes anymore to refer to the source. I have replaced most on cd, but also haven't listened to many of them in Ions, and certainly haven't isolated any channels since back in the day, so to speak.
I can attest to the fact that these albums I had the experience with were probably not Let it Be or maybe even not Sgt. Pepper or Magical Mystery Tour. So that bodes well with where you are coming from.
My understanding of a mono recording is that the same sound does in fact come out of two separate channels. I would argue that the content of each channel MAY be different and still be considered mono, so long as it does not come across in both channels.
ie-If you only hear the drums on the left, but you hear the guitar only out of the right, can they in fact be stereo when said sound is only being delivered to one channel ?
My understanding of stereo can be divided into stereo and "false stereo", which often occurs when trying to embellish or make a sound fuller, where, in my example, the original drum in the left is doubled up and piped simultaneously to the right and the same with the guitar.
Holy Shamoly-enough typing. I think you may see what I am getting at, but I can also admit that I may have it wrong. And I'm sure there are probably recent pages on the net debating the same scenario.
"I've got blisters on my fingahs !!!!!!"
lol, that's quite alright. Actually, Musicology is what I studied in college. Still, I'm no expert on the subject but it sounds like we have an issue with the definition of terms and not so much with different ideas. For instance, when I say channel I mean a single output of audio from a sound source. Mono has one and only one channel... hence "mono". Stereo is designed for two different channels which are generally called right and left, but really given the proper equipment something could be recorded in any number of channels, such as 5.1 Surround. But again a "channel" simply designates one output of recorded sound, regardless of how many speakers it's being played through (you may listen to a mono recording on your headphones but it's still mono because the same audio is sent to both speakers).
And the false stereo you mentioned I believe is called "duophonic", and is just as you said: one takes something already recorded in mono and re-mixes it so that it sounds like it's in stereo. But true stereo must be recorded in stereo, or at least one must use the master tracks to create a stereo recording... I suppose that's how The Beatles released some albums in stereo and mono, and how someone like The Flaming Lips could re-release some of their albums in 5.1 Surround.
Totally makes sense, kinda. Lines get blurred when stereo playback vs. stereo recording issues get confused. I typically would interchange "channel" for "speaker" as in left or right, but things certainly require distinction given today's technology. My "old school" way of deciding was that if I only heard drums on one side, it was mono recording of the drums. Now when I heard drums on one side and guitars or whatever on the other side, I'd call it stereo playback with tracks split amongst channels. To me, if the drums were recorded in stereo, they would appear in both speakers, unless engineered elsewise. But I totally understand how this way of thinking may involve abuse of terminology and/or hairsplitting.
It just seems really depressing to me to think of that nothing you could ever possibly do would be original, but I think you're right.
Edit: Oh and I love the horns that come right after he sings all you need is love. It feels like a sigh of relief and is kinda reassuring.
I don't necessarily think that he really meant NOTHING as absolute as it might sound in the lyrics. And obviously, the need for water and nourishment are needed as much or more than love.
I guess if he were to have been truly impeccable, he would have said things like "Little we can sing that can't be sung", ad infinitem. But temperance may not be what we should expect from a persona bigger than Jesus ! ;D
And "Love is mostly what we need"... just doesn't have the same ring...