Popmarket.....Beatles in Mono Cd boxes 99.99 bux ..think free shipping

[Snood]

https://www.popmarket.com/products/...eatles&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily_Deal

They advertising 200 bux off but Amazon is selling these for 209.99......so still a good 110 bux off Amazons best price and no tax and pretty sure free shipping :yikes

GREAT PRICE@:

 

[jsulzinger]

Already went up to $199.00

 

[Snood]

Holy Crap - the email said 24 hour sale - I got the email at about 4 pm eastern today

It even said 200 bux off - hmmmmmmm

Hope some peeps got them - Snood was about to order another lol - already have it - but at that price was like whaaaaaaa :yikes

here's the text from the email, of course there were all sorts of pretty pictures and all:

$200 off The Beatles Mono CD Box Set for 24 Hours Only!

There's no better way to experience The Beatles than in mono on this special collector's set aimed at enthusiasts that features 10 Beatles studio albums in mono, six of which are making their mono debut on CD.

In addition, Help! and Rubber Soul each come with the original 1965 stereo mix, which have never before been heard on CD.

 

[leevitalone1]

What's mono?

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

 

[seilerbird]

What's mono?

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

It is a 19th century format.

 

[GOS]

Well, seriously though, some of the older Beatles music sounds more punchy in mono. I've noted that with Jefferson Airplane LP I have...

 

[fredblue]

What's mono?

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

Mono? Its like Hawkeye, or something..

:fly:

Get Iron Man, Thor and Captain America 'Involved' and you've got Quad.

:banana: :yikes :teleport:

For 5.1 you need The Hulk obviously, to supply the rumble..



IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME...!!!

:violin

 

[seilerbird]

Well, seriously though, some of the older Beatles music sounds more punchy in mono. I've noted that with Jefferson Airplane LP I have...

Well personally I did not invest thousands of dollars in my surround system to listen to mono. That is like buying a Ferrari and only going 10 miles per hour. Or like marrying Taylor Swift because she is a good cook.

 

[rtbluray]

Well if the Beatles surround sound mixes were definitively better than the mono and stereo mixes, that would be one thing, but right now, they are all about equal IMHO.

 

[milt]

The Beatles Mono mixes through Sgt. Pepper are the definitive versions.
They do sound punchier and the imaging is awesome.
All of the missing and mastering time was spent on the mono mixes as mono was by far the dominant format of the day.
Lots written about The Beatles in the studio but really most don't need to read books to realize that the monos are far better.

I didn't have a dedicated 2-channel system when this box came out and they sound great on my MCH system

 

[himey]

Well personally I did not invest thousands of dollars in my surround system to listen to mono. That is like buying a Ferrari and only going 10 miles per hour. Or like marrying Taylor Swift because she is a good cook.

Back in the day, the majority of time an effort was spent mixing for mono. Stereo was givin the second rate treatment and many were only mono fold downs to stereo, and are not true stereo mixes. Listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn in mono. It sounds fantastic.

 

[timbre4]

Well personally I did not invest thousands of dollars in my surround system to listen to mono. That is like buying a Ferrari and only going 10 miles per hour. Or like marrying Taylor Swift because she is a good cook.

It is general knowledge that the mono mix was the band's and producer George Martin's primary objective with the stereo being only a secondary concern left to the studio engineers to devise as an afterthought. It is what it is.

 

[milt]

Back in the day, the majority of time an effort was spent mixing for mono. Stereo was givin the second rate treatment and many were only mono fold downs to stereo, and are not true stereo mixes. Listen to Piper at the Gates of Dawn in mono. It sounds fantastic.

Never heard of a mono fold down, just stereo fold down.
Seems mono fold down would be more of a fold out @:
The Beatles "stereo" mixes were merely all the vocals in one channel and all the instruments in the other.
Personally, I think they suck and suck badly.
Some like them. To each his own.

Plus people need to remember that back in the day the pop groups were categorized as Vocal Groups.
In the recording process the instruments were really just background with the vocals taking prominance.
Bass especially suffered.

 

[himey]

Never heard of a mono fold down, just stereo fold down.
Seems mono fold down would be more of a fold out @:
The Beatles "stereo" mixes were merely all the vocals in one channel and all the instruments in the other.
Personally, I think they suck and suck badly.
Some like them. To each his own.

Plus people need to remember that back in the day the pop groups were categorized as Vocal Groups.
In the recording process the instruments were really just background with the vocals taking prominance.
Bass especially suffered.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/how-to-tell-a-mono-fold-down-from-a-true-mono-mix.118535/

Early Beatles stereo mixes are pretty much unlistenable. Fold out? Don't quit your day job! Sorry I should have used the term stereo fold down.

 

[timbre4]

That's the way some of us learned them; I always refer to these as "hallway mixes".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[himey]

That's the way some of us learned them; I always refer to these as "hallway mixes".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I only got into mono mixes earlier this year. Many blow stereo mixes away. Some 50s, early 60s recordings just completely blow new compressed stereo recordings away sound quality wise. A real test to playback equipment.

 

[DuncanS]

An interesting thought: much like quite a few of todays surround mixes being of a secondary concern to the stereo. Maybe we need more than 5 channels for us to always get (good) surround mixes!

It is general knowledge that the mono mix was the band's and producer George Martin's primary objective with the stereo being only a secondary concern left to the studio engineers to devise as an afterthought. It is what it is.

 

[himey]

An interesting thought: much like quite a few of todays surround mixes being of a secondary concern to the stereo. Maybe we need more than 5 channels for us to always get (good) surround mixes!

Or maybe 4 is plenty if it is gets the proper treatment.

 

[seilerbird]

Well if the Beatles surround sound mixes were definitively better than the mono and stereo mixes, that would be one thing, but right now, they are all about equal IMHO.

I have plenty of Beatles surround sound mixes that are better than the mono and the stereo mixes. Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Help, Hard Days Night to name a few.

 

[seilerbird]

The Beatles "stereo" mixes were merely all the vocals in one channel and all the instruments in the other.
Personally, I think they suck and suck badly.

That was done that way only on the Please Please Me and With The Beatles albums and you are correct, they sucked. So I remixed them so the bass and vocals were in the center and the instruments were placed hard left and hard right and it sounds very nice to me. Put on your headphones and crap your pants.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_vZF6_ChElTU29qZGU0dVZJdjQ/view?usp=sharing