To be honest, I always thought the stereo separation was too much on most of their songs. Now I know.
So what idiot decided they should all be split apart into stereo? And why did the beatles go along with it?

leave it to Seinfeld to flip the fuck out over plastic wrap. "plastic wrap in the sleeve? un-be-leivable!"

And at nearly $200, affordable for anybody's pocketbook! Ugh.

Wish he would have compared the same song side by side. Rather than two different songs.

I am more annoyed now than I have been in a long time. Not only was that guy hamming it up, he was doing it in a way that scratched across my proverbial chalkboard whilst making the most annoying sound in the world. This is just a longer version of this video;



I'm not talking about the content (that does sound pretty cool in mono) - I'm talking about the guy in the video. Something about him just makes me hate him. 1/3 through and I wanted to punch him in the back of the head.

yeah, upvoted because its interesting info to have, but this guy is annoying

what a goon

^ lol, deathcow!

And call me fuckin crazy but I prefer stereo.

Stereo songs can easily be converted into mono songs, either through software or by using special headphones made for hearing impaired people. The only reason to buy the mono box would be because you're the type of audio geek who likes to hear slightly different recordings of the same songs. And that's cool. All music fans can appreciate subtle differences between performances of their favorite songs. But if this video's title had read "blown away by slightly different Beatles recording" it wouldn't have gotten any upvotes.

Although it's already been said, this guy is phenomenally annoying.

*rocknroll *geek

Adding video to channels (Geek, Rocknroll) - requested by rasch187.

Ha, I lol'ed at his reaction from 3:50 to ~4:05. But yeah, this is why everyone hates music snobs.

That's what fanaticism does to people. He exaggerates his experience to show us "normies" that he knows the difference between stereo and mono.

Here's how a normal person would react to hearing the difference: "Oh...yea. I do hear a difference. I think I like _________ better"

I smell a paid for advertisement

the difference is that the songs were meant to be in mono. they had no clue with what to do with stereo when they started making stereo version and ended up doing strange things like hard panning drums to the right, guitars to the left etc. so for diehard beatles fans, this is an opportunity to hear the mixes as they were originally intended.

I think he does that once at about the 4:50 mark. He's probably assuming that everyone is used to hearing the stereo versions and will notice the differences like he is. But I agree I would have liked it more if there was more side by side comparisons.>> ^Duckman33:
Wish he would have compared the same song side by side. Rather than two different songs.

How about getting 10 people, letting them listen to stereo and mono versions in headphones sequentially, (randomly ordered) and have them pick the best each time.

Anyone else find that Pink Floyd should be listened to with the color saturation turned up way high?

More useful video on this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0p6tOVlKK8

That dude somehow reminded me of Apple fans.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mono, remaster, beatles, the remasters' to 'mono, remaster, beatles, the remasters, peripetia' - edited by RhesusMonk

With a price tag of $200 they both better be worthwhile; especially for those of us that already own the albums on vinyl. What do you say about that BROOKLYN?

The strangest thing in the whole video is that this annoying fuck somehow found someone to marry him and procreate. Well at least there's hope for us all. If he can get laid anyone can.

I didn't find him annoying at all, he's passionate about music, something I always love to see.

@MrLips: You haven't met his wife.
@deathcow: Listening to mono with headphones always irritates me... makes me cross my eyes. Better test would a bunch of people in a room with good speakers.
@archwaykitten: Collapsing a stereo mix to mono sounds like crap.

As a Beatle fan, I am very glad the mono box came out. It means that I can listen to the mono mixes in quality better than the various bootlegs that are out there. But then again, I also enjoy listening to raw tape of the Beatles screwing around in the studio. There should be no debate. The particular mix doesn't matter for the majority of listeners. The Stereo Box is complete, and that's what people should buy.

That said, I haven't gotten used to either box set for casual listening. Bass and drums are too high.. the 1987 transfers feel much more cozy to me, mediocre sound and all.

Their explanation that "because they recorded in mono, that's how it should be listened to" is bullshit. Everybody knows you record in mono and level in post production. The only good reason to record in stereo would be if you don't have individual mic's/inputs hooked up. Maybe like drums should be recorded in stereo, but that's 'bout it. Your best set up is to mic every single instrument, drum, cymbal, guitar, vocal, etc. on a mono channel and create the mix using that.

>> ^archwaykitten:
Stereo songs can easily be converted into mono songs, either through software or by using special headphones made for hearing impaired people. The only reason to buy the mono box would be because you're the type of audio geek who likes to hear slightly different recordings of the same songs. And that's cool.

Sure you can convert anything, the problem is you're missing the intermixing that was done at the studio to bring out the tones and pitch. The best studio mixers of the day aren't around. It's much like the difference from listening to something played on transistor based or tube based electronics. Tubes will give you a much warmer sound.


The guy is an idiot and annoying. No point denying that. But I've got this stuff on vinyl, and cassette. Compared to the CD release, or even MP3 formats they're not close. Tones and pitches are off, hi's are too hi' lows are shallow or have no depth. They'll pan too early. Mids taste flat.

I'm not anywhere close to an audio geek, tones that sound off drive me up the wall. That's my problem, much like nails across a chalk board.

I'm late to this party, but I really enjoyed having the mono Beatles releases made available. Hard panning and "crazy" mixing on stereo was the fad of the day like Autotune is now or synthesizers were in the 80s. Just another then-new technique to get people to buy more records or new stereo players and receivers. Think about it... without the hard pans it would have been difficult to "show" the difference between the two formats at the time. Marketing works.

The best thing about the mono releases as well is there was no limiting or DRC applied to the final mixes, the modern bane of loudness war infecting remastering of old tracks.

Don't ask where, but I've also listened to a few of the 4 track masters (without anything done to them) and compared to the resulting product that is the 2009 release... they did an absolutely fantastic job. (Hint: unmixed the songs sound like utter dogshit without any work applied to them)

Interesting sift. A real stereo mix (rather than isolated tracks) would be even better. Let some Beatlephile like Jon Brion go at it.

I'm just glad that after it said, "I'm about to get my mind blown" he pulled a guitar out of the bag and not a rifle... I could see this going into the scary/humor zone quickly.

Love the detail in the box sets to replicate the old LP [album] sleeves onto the CDs!