Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    
    RE: .-1
    
    	Yea, but will any make it beyond employee purchases?  8^)
    
    							-rjk

    My understanding is that the Beatles CD release will be handled
    much the same as the Springstein box set. The warehouses will get
    their allocation (very, very large) on the 25th. Under penalty of
    losing their distributors contract with Capitol, they will not release
    any of them until after midnight on the 26th. Dealers will then
    have their allocations by opening the following morning.
    
    As I said before, there will be 500,000 of each title produced in
    the first run. There were only 300,000 of the Springstein set. There
    will be plenty discs for all.
    
    --- Neal 

    I betcha Lechmere will also charge at least $17.99 for a single
    disc with about 25 minutes of music.  Wait 'till next month, if
    you want the Beatles CD's at a reasonable price.  At least wait
    until they have one of their usual 20% off sale.  Take a look at
    the discount that are available on the Springsteen set.  $39 ->
    $29!  Everybody is going to be trying to make a quick buck on the
    26th.
    
    
    						-Paul
      

    A local Music and Video chain (MUSIC+) is offering to presell the
    whole set for $49.95 or $12.95 each.
    
    Such a deal!
    
    --- Neal

    BCD has a similar sale. Pre-orders (with a "deposit" of a major
    credit card --- but they won't charge against it until you pick
    up the disks) are $60 ($15 each), *including* MA sales tax and
    UPS shipping, if you don't want to go in to pick them up. I
    don't know if you get any shaved off if you do pick them up
    instead of having them shipped.
    
    I can live with a $15 price.
    
    --- jerry

PC Records in Nashua was taking pre-orders, no $ down, claimed they'd
be selling them at $14.99 each.  Also said plenty for everyone, expect
them the end of Feb.

We'll see...

Anyone know what label they're coming out on?  Boy, I hope they didn't
screw up the original recordings!

Paul

    No matter what the actual label name is, Capitol, EMI America, or
    Parlophone. It will still be an EMI release.
    
    						--- Neal

    Guess what, it was announced today that these Beatles CD's are in
    MONO.

    
    Was at Rock 'N' Mania yesterday, and they have four Beatles CDs
    on the shelf!  The four "soon to be released" CD's!!
    
    Boy was I fooled too.  They were just the jewel cases with advance
    promos of the covers inside.  They (they people working there) said
    that Feb. 26th is the shipping date, but that they could arrive
    on the 26th, 27th, or even the 28th.  Most likely the 27th.  They
    also echoed the feelings that they would have plenty.
    
    								-rjk

	If they're all in mono, then they could probably have fit all
	four on one disc!
	
	Mike

    
    Just got off the phone with Rockin' Mania, and they copnfirmed that
    at leat the first four albums ARE in MONO only.  Apparently Capitol
    felt that for some VERY STUPID reason that the seperation and the
    likes of the original master tapes would sound bad on the CD format,
    so THEY deceided to go mono.
    
    This is RIDICULOUS!  They Mobile Fidelity recordings I have sound
    phenomenal.  They are full of **bleep**!!!
    
    

	
    
    	If they are in mono then be prepared for a second release down
    	the road in STEREO! I can see the $$$$$ strategy behind releasing
    	mono first but it really upsets me because the TRUE stereo versions
    	are great and should sound super on CD, and I want STEREO not
    	MONO. Actually rather than have any of that re-channeled for
    	stereo crap I would prefer mono, but if they use the real stereo
    	masters that won't be the case.
    
    	Mike
    

    Re .12
    
    "TRUE stereo".......  ?????
    
    If by "true stereo" you mean all the vocals in one speaker and
    all the instruments in the other, thanks but I'll take mono.
    
    I consider this to be "dual mono" -- ping-pong stereo of the worst
    kind, with no breadth or sense of space for either channel.
    
    The only reason I can think of for preferring dual mono is
    that the records are familiar -- we grew up with them!
    
    dq

    Record companies don't like recordings that are "too stereo".  The
    problem is that when AM or FM stations play them and (mono) transistor
    radios receive them, out of phase information gets cancelled and
    the result sounds funny.
    
    So, although your CD player may have 70+db of stereo seperation,
    recordings may only have about 10.  30db seperation on an LP is
    more than adaquate!

    
    Re .13
    
    "Dual Mono"..??
    
    What I meant by TRUE stereo is the real thing as opposed to a mono
    master being re-mixed and re-equalized into a simulated stereo. There
    are many such FAKE stereo songs on the Capitol issue Beatle LP's.
    The LP that I find particularly annoying is "Beatles 65". The supposed
    stereo LP is remixed reverb-laden mono and I think its awful and
    not at all what George Martin wanted us to hear. Some of the early
    Beatle tunes that were done in stereo were rather drastic with most
    of the instruments on one side and vocals on the other but it is
    the real thing. I have many Beatle records but my favorites are
    my imports from Japan and Germany. They are clean and un-altered
    True stereo mixes and I love them. I appreciate the mono too but
    prefer the stereo. Like I said, if these CD's are in mono then
    I'm sure we will be seeing the stereo versions down the road.
    
    Mike
    	

    Hmmm...I seem to recall (somewhat vaguely) reading that George Martin's
    original master tapes were all "true stereo", and that was what
    was released for the British market under the Parlophone (sp) label.
    I understand that Capitol did indeed bastardize the recordings into
    "fake stereo" (dual mono). I'll buy the assumption that they're
    releasing the version "we grew up with", but all reports I read
    stated the CD's would be the original British recordings. To me,
    that means they should be in true stereo. Any Beatle historians
    out there willing to set the record straight?
    
    I'm sure that if these CD's are mono, there will be some sort of
    followup with a true stereo version....remember the original release
    of the Rolling Stones stuff, followed up with the "digitally
    remastered" versions?
    
    The temptation to buy these discs anyway is overwhelming...guess
    the smart move is to listen to 'em first and decide whether you
    like 'em or not......
    
                                     Ken

    re .16:
    
    According to the Complete Beatles, the original master tapes were
    indeed two track "true stereo".
    
    re others:
    
    The local CD shop I deal with said they have no official word as
    to whether the set will be mono or stereo, however he has had so
    many recording industry people tell him they are mono that he believes
    this to be the case.
    
    BTW, this CD store (National CD Warehouse) is located three miles
    from Capitol's US headquarters and two miles from WEA (Warner, Elektra,
    Alantic/Asylum). So it is frequented by record company types.
    
    						--- Neal
                 

    
    YES the originals were in steroe, and YES the discs in question will
    be Mono.  I know because one CD store (Rockin' Mania) has some in
    there paws (although they can't sell 'em 'till the 26th) and they
    verified they were indeed MONO!
    

    
    
    I believe most all the songs the Beatles did pre - Sgt Pepper were
    done in both stereo and mono. From what I understand they actually
    recorded the songs two times, one for stereo, one for mono. So there
    are actually stereo master tapes and mono master tapes. For some
    reason Capitol used the mono master for some songs and created
    their own ca-ca stereo with them. I believe this recording of songs
    twice to be true, I have compared some true stereo tunes to the
    mono version and there are in some cases small differences. The vocals
    or instruments were done slightly different. Some true stereo versions
    of Beatle songs are hard to find but do exist. Has anyone else ever
    made this stereo to mono comparison?
    
    Mike
    
    

    Beatles albums up to and including Sgt. Pepper were recorded in
    mono and reprocessed for stereo by placing half the tape tracks
    on one side, half on the other, ie voice on one side and
    instruments on the other, eg "A day in the life"
    
    As far as I know, the White Album was the first 'mixed' stereo
    recording that the Beatles released.

    re .20:
    
    Excuse me,
    
    > "Beatles albums up to and including Sgt. Pepper were recorded in
       mono"
    
    Sgt. Pepper was the first major 'mixed' studio album ever produced. The
    most advanced equipment they had access to was a 4-track deck. The
    tracks were layered by bouncing them back and fourth to a 2-track deck,
    effectively mixing them in stereo as they went along. 
    
    Sgt. Pepper proved to the world that the studio and producer could
    be used effectively as another instrument to create new and different
    effects.
    
    Also, the first albums were 2-track stereo, mixed live.
    
    							--- Neal
    
    P.S.: My source is George Martin (from the video "The Complete
          Beatles") if anyone would know the truth, it would be him.
    

A couple days ago, I heard a morning show on WBCN (Boston) hosted by
the little-known investigative reporter Jeraldo Laquivera.

Reporting:  On Thursday morning, Feb. 12, Charles phoned Capitol
	    Records.  The person to whom he spoke explained that
	    all 3 Beatles and Yoko Ono listened to the stereo masters
	    and the mono masters (and even some other acetates) before
	    agreeing that the CD's should be released in mono -- from
	    "the original [mono] masters".  (The "[mono]" was so that
	    you're not fooled by what's printed on these CD's when they
	    come out.)

Unfortunately, this was all I caught because I was driving to work at
the time.

Did anyone else hear this show -- or anything else about these happenings?

    > ....remember the original release
    > of the Rolling Stones stuff, followed up with the "digitally
    > remastered" versions?
    
    Say what? The "original" Stones CD's were "digitally remastered"
    as well. It's got nothing to do with whether they are stereo or
    mono. I've got all of the early Stones CD's on the London label,
    and the first three (THE ROLLING STONES, 12X5, and OUT OF OUR
    HEADS) are mono (though the first says it's stereo, it actually
    is mono). They all say "digitally remastered" in the upper left
    corner. Are the Abkco ones in stereo?
    
    --- jerry

    I think what we have here is a mixed interpretation of a stereo
    mix!
    
    First, ya got yer real stereo.  This gives a seemingly realistic
    impression of the performance as if you were listening to a live
    band.  Vocals in the center and a natural spread across the sound
    field.  Even if only one person sang lead AND backup vocals AND
    played all the instruments, this is possible using multitrack consoles.
    
    Then, ya got yer "Electronically re-channeled stereo" where they
    took an original mono source and, through filtering and some screwing
    around with phasing, ended up with an essentially mono recording
    but with some slightly diferent sounds coming from each channel
    which is intended to give some spacial expanding to the sound.
    
    Finally, there's yer stereo that was explained several responses
    back, where the various tracks are "bounced".  Roughly this works
    like this (corrections welcomed):  
       1) Lay down your rhythm track as a basis for tempo 
       2) Play this back and, while listening to the rhythm, sing the lead.
       3) Add the lead vocal to the rhythm track on the left channel
          and record the backing vocals while listening to the rhythm
          and lead.
       4) Bounce the backups to the channel already containing the rhythm
          and lead vocal (now all on one channel) and, while listening
          to this, record the remaining instrumentals.
    
    Although the order and what you record may vary, this was the only
    way to do "multichannel" in The Olde Days before 8-, 16-, 24-, 32-,
    or 64-track mixers where you could assign every vocal and instrument
    to its own channel and make the song as dense as you liked.  It
    also resulted in the vocals-on-one-side-and-instruments-on-the-other-
    side effect.
    
    Now, is this real stereo?  Yes, if stereo is different sound on
    each channel.  No, if stereo means a realistic stereo spread.
    
    > R.Michael
    

    Excuse me, but I'm trying to understand something.  Why the heck
    would anyone want a mono/fake stereo CD?  Wouldn't an LP be more
    than adequate for this type of sound reproduction?  They only advantage
    a CD would provide is durability.  All of this Beatles' nonsense
    is pure media hype!  The Beatles' CD's are just another way to make
    the record companies rich!  But, I guess the Beatles' will gladly
    pay for 'em.  Save your money for disks that will take full advantage
    of the digital recording technology.
    
    
    						-Paul
    

    Re:  .25
    
   >>  Excuse me, but I'm trying to understand something.  Why the heck
   >> would anyone want a mono/fake stereo CD?  Wouldn't an LP be more
   >> than adequate for this type of sound reproduction?  They only advantage
   >> a CD would provide is durability.  All of this Beatles' nonsense
     
    Old stereo records used to be labelled "Stereo High Fidelity", because
    stereo is a *completely separate* attribute.
    
    From a mono CD, you can get a near-perfect reproduction of a mono
    master tape.  It won't be stereo, but it can have wide dynamic
    range, excellent frequency response, low distortion, and minimal
    noise -- all of which you giver up on the LP!
    
    One of the most thrilling CD cuts I have heard is Clifford Brown
    playing "Stardust" on a Polygram disc -- it was recorded in the
    1950's in mono, but a great deal of care was taken in making the
    mono master.  Until it came out on CD, nobody outside the studio
    herd it so well!  Sure, it would be nice if they'd had the foresight
    to make a stereo master in 1950, but...
    
    I would MUCH rather have a CD of a mono master, with good frequency
    response and dynamic range, than a CD of a stereo master recorded
    with mediocre sound.
    
   >>  pay for 'em.  Save your money for disks that will take full advantage
   >> of the digital recording technology.
   
    Let me see whether I understand this:
    
    o  I should give up listening to chamber music, solo classical
        guitar, and acoustic folk on CD, because none of them take
        advantage of the dynamic range of the technology.
                    
    o  I should probably invest in CD's of pipe organ accompanied by
        high-hat cymbals, to take advantage of the frequency response.
    
    o  I should give preference to second-rate performances by second-
        tier orchestras -- if "digitally recorded" -- instead of
        first-rate performances by first-tier orchestras that happen
        to have come from analog masters.
    
    Sorry if I'm flaming -- but the technology here is in service of
    the music -- not the other way around!  I expect the MONO Beatle
    CD's to sound significantly better than Capitol's pressings on
    vinyl -- Capitol was never exactly state-of-the-art in disk
    mastering and pressing.  Would Stereo CD's be even better --
    maybe, depending on the type of stereo.  But that doesn't change
    the fact that the Mono CD's will still be a big improvement!
    
    Dave Quimby
     
    
    
    
    

    Re:  .26
    
    Here, here!!!
    
    Finally, someone has stated the obvious.  All the hype about *STEREO*
    versus MONO is not the main reason for purchasing the CDs.  My copies
    of the early Beatles albums just do not have the frequency range
    that must exist in the original tapes.  I agree with anyone who
    states the Capital is not too quality minded with their LPs.  I
    would gladly buy the MONO CDs of the Beatles.  Most of the early
    songs sound better to me in the mono form anyway. 
    
    Me,  I'm just looking forward to hearing *all* of what is on the
    original masters, even if they're mono.
    
    Dale

    Re/ .27:
>
>    Here, here!!!
>
    
    I think what you mean is "Hear, hear!!!", except that you're endorsing
    the Monophonic Beatles CDs, so perhaps it should just be "Hear!!!".

    I have been given the following disk numbers for the Beatles CDs
    which will be available next week :-
    	
    		Hard day's night	:	CDP 7464372
    		Please please me	:	CDP 7464352
    		With the Beatles	:	CDP 7464362
    		Beatles for sale	:	CDP 7464382
    
    Are these the INFAMOUS mono versions or the stereo versions ?
    
    b.t.w. I buy from an English CD Mail Order company, the price is
    #9.99 ($15) including postage.

        thanks.
    

    You know, the first time I heard "I Want to Hold Your Hand", it
    was comming out of my brand new 3 transistor radio. I knew that
    it was the highest quality sound possible because all of my friends
    (both of them) only had 2 transitor models. I hope that the CD's
    I have on order can give me the same thrill that that old radio
    did.
    
    Being an only child and spoiled rotten, I'll buy all of them that
    ever get released. The majority of my CD collection consists of
    music from 1965-1972 complete with distortion hiss and missed notes,
    and I love every one of them because it's like jumping in a time
    machine growing up ( to the extent that I did ) all over again.
    
    tom 

    
	Now instead of three transistors, we have 100,000 transistors compacted
on a VLSI microcomputer chip sitting inside of our compact disc player.
Most HOME stereo equipment now is far better than the STUDIO equipment that
was used to record the Beatles in the early 60's.  But no matter how great
your stereo equipment is now, you're still limited to the quality of the 
original master tape.  And that's it! PERIOD.  A compact disc can't make an old
master sound better.  Capital is simply changing the medium from LP to CD.  I 
can't believe that there will be much change in sound quality, due to the 
limitations of the original master tape.

	I feel Capital and lots of other people are not interested in the
Beatles but purely in MONEY.  The reason it has taken so long to get the
Beatles released was because people were fighting over who would get the money.


						-Paul
 

    Re -1
    
    Don't dismiss those vault tapes just cause they're older than some
    Digital engineers.  The overall sound quality of Mobile Fidelity
    Beatles box released a few years back was an astounding.
    
    Sure there's some hiss, so what.
    
    The clarity and added detail of the percussion and guitar tracks
    was FAR FAR FAR superior to my old capitol and apple pressings.
    Early albums seemed to benefit most (perhaps due the simplicity of
    the arrangements and minimal electronic playfullness).  I only hope
    that the CD's are mastered with the same care the MoFi used.
    
    I've got a few 195x era Miles Davis, Coltrane, and Billie Holliday
    CD's which also put the lie to the old tape is bad tape myth.  The
    soundstage seems better than most newer recordings.  It's possible
    that the simpler studio techniques, minimal microphone set-ups, and
    lack of overdubbing helped to preserve phase and detail information
    that's lost or neglected with current techniques.

    Dave

    re: -1, -2
    
    .33 is absolutely correct, the technology applicable to master
    tapes has been better than we have heard on mainstream vinyl for
    over three decades.
    
    Vinyl problems include technology limitations, financial
    considerations, and attitude:
    
    -  Technology:  the sound on vinyl records has been modified to
        let a "typical" stylus stay in the groove without 
        horrendous distorion.  This limits bass, treble, and
        peak volume, affecting both dynamic range and frequency
        response.  [Even Mobile Fidelity has to make these concessions,
        but their definition of a "typical" stylus is more demanding!]
    
    -  Financial:  a lot of the hiss on most vinyl records is the
        graininess of the vinyl (to say nothing of the ticks and pops].
        Capitol has not been known to go out of their way for quiet
        vinyl.  Again, dynamic range is limited.
    
    -  Attitude:  At any given point in time, you can either make
        vinyl records that capture as much as possible of the original
        master, or you can make "good enough" disks for the great
        central mass of the buying public.  Capitol has been committed
        to the "good enough" mentality -- if the 2-sigma crowd with
        the ceramic cartridges tracking at 3 grams is happy, their
        cash registers are happy.
    
    The WONDERFUL thing about CD's is that, without heroic efforts
    or market-driven tradeoffs, you can duplicate the master tape.
    
    This has not happened before.
    
    All I can say to .31 is, set up an A - B comparison between your
    old Capitol vinyl disc and a new CD of the same material.
    
    If you prefer the sound of the vinyl, or if you feel there is no
    significant difference, then by all means save your money and keep 
    playing the vinyl disks.  Your choice.  De gustibus, non 
    disputandum est.
    
    
    

    Excuse me, reference shoule be to .32 in previous note !
    
>>        All I can say to .31 is, set up an A - B comparison between your
>>    old Capitol vinyl disc and a new CD of the same material.

              Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing:


	- I AGREE that the new Beatles' CD will sound MUCH better then
	  their LP pressed in the 1960's.


	Since then, technology has changed tremendously in the electronic
	industry.  Home stereo units and the LP have greatly improved while
	the quality of the master tape has remained the same.

 
	- I state that the new Beatles's CD will have only a SMALL sound
	  quality IMPROVEMENT over their LP pressed with 1980's equipment.


	I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that 25 year old studio equipment
	in still better than today's high quality LP.  
    
    
    
    					-Paul
    					(Yes, I'm still a CD fan)
    
                                               

Re .32

>	A compact disc can't make an old master sound better.  

But engineers, and today's technology CAN!

>	I feel Capital and lots of other people are not interested in 
>	the Beatles but purely in MONEY.  

You can probably say the same thing about Digital, but there are some 
engineers here that are very interested in doing the proverbial right 
thing no matter what the cost.  And you can be sure the recording 
industries have a few engineers with this kind of integrity.  Can you 
imagine where we'd be if our customers thought this way about us?

						     
							- JP

    I suppose it just a coincidence, yea that's it, that John Lennon
    is on the cover of the February 23rd issue of People magazine.
    
    I even got some 'junk mail' from a local music store advertising
    the Beatles.  By the time the CD is actually released, I think I'll
    be sick of hearing about 'em.
    
    
    						-Paul
    

    
    Strawberries is finally admitting the things are coming out.  No
    word on their posters whether they're in mono or stereo.
    

    DFW    

    
    Something's bothering me.  If (as all these places are saying) there
    are going to be plenty of copies to go around, then why are all
    these places also taking reservations, deposits, wait-lists, pre-sales,
    etc.?
    
    Also, WBCN had the CD's last Thursday (I think it was) and they
    were giving away complete sets (ie: all 4), and they were claiming
    that you could come down to the station that day and pick them up
    THEN and THERE.
    
    Anyone in this forum lucky enough to be a winner, or know a winner,
    or what-not, so that we can get the straight poop, on mono/stereo,
    quality, etc...
    
    								-rjk

    
    The ABC Rock Radio Network's pilot station KLOS got their set on
    Friday and has been playing them over the air all weekend.
    
    They are most definitely MONO! What I heard, some cuts from "Beatles
    for Sale" sounded pretty good, but I still prefer the stereo versions.
    
    Well, Thursdays the day. I'm waiting more for the April release
    of Revolver and Rubber Sole, and most definitely for the June release
    of Sgt. Peppers.
    
    							--- Neal
    

>    Something's bothering me.  If (as all these places are saying) there
>    are going to be plenty of copies to go around, then why are all
>    these places also taking reservations, deposits, wait-lists, pre-sales,
>    etc.?
        
        Most people don't know the volume being produced, and are use to
        CDs being hard to get, so stores can get people to place their
        name down on lists. 
        
        The stores like the lists because a person with a reservation or
        a deposit on a disc is a guaranteed customer.  They will come in
        when the discs are available and probably buy other discs. 
        
        					B.J.

    Ah, but the flyer I got from Stawberries gave you a slight discount
    if you pre-purchased all 4 Beatles discs.
    
    Rich