Beatles Remasters: Mono vs. Stereo Debate Thread

Do the monos have the quicktime movies?

Barrelchief, as of now, mono versions are only available by purchasing the boxed set. Originally limited to 10,000 sets in the USA, now supposedly issuing 50,000 mono boxed sets.

Barrelchief, as of now, mono versions are only available by purchasing the boxed set. Originally limited to 10,000 sets in the USA, now supposedly issuing 50,000 mono boxed sets.

Given that the MONOS seem to be in hot demand and are generally regarded as "better" - what is the chance that the public reaction might cause Recording Labels to actually sit up and take notice???

Here we have a contest between the latest and greatest stereo brick wall limited compression "loud" mastering techniques (state of the art for 2009 and done extremely well - i.e. just the "right" amount of compression according to modern standards) and the old tube based mastering consoles and mono recordings of the 60's??

Would it not be funny if Record Labels discover that people prefer the more natural uncompressed sound of the older material - even in MONO!!!

It would be a revelation, a massive eye opener to the industry if 60's MONO is competitive and judged by many to be BETTER sounding than modern "State of the Art" loud hot compression!

In my last post I should really say more natural LESScompressed sound of the older material - because they were already using tubes and analog tape recorders to perform audio compression - even in those days!

Shadorne, I would think it would have to be a band or artist that could appeal to a large enough fan base. Maybe it might encourage some of the newer artists to put out both stereo and mono versions of their work. My opinion is that the recording industry may raise an eyebrow regarding the Beatles Mono sets, but they won't take any action.