This is what I wrote about the first press mono about five years ago..."Initially a mono mix was made - loud, dynamic and somewhat chaotic, yet clear with good separation (pure joy to my ears - totally unique). But after the stereo was done for some reason Decca decided to withdraw the first mono version and replace it with a reduction of the stereo mix. The mono variations exist with the same label and cover, but can be distinguished by the stamped matrix numbers. The real mono has ARL 8126-1P/ARL 8127-1P (second side sometimes have P1), while the reduction has the number: ARL-8126-T2-2K/ARL-8127-T2-2K. Stereo: ZAL-8126-T2-5K/ZAL-8127-T2-5K. ('T2' stands for 'take two' and indicates a second mix). Easy also to tell from the beginning of 'Lantern' - on the true mono the bell tolls three times, while on the stereo or fold down the bell tolls twice. As I understand all US monos have the earliest of the two variations (London NP-2). Early UK had laminated f/o cover with 3D pic and red/white inner. First press also had ridged label as shown here" (end of quote). Against that background I'm now checking this 1st press stereo. Had both formats at the time, but made an early desicion mono was the one for me as it had the power while I thought stereo sounded measly in comparison. Listening today on an up-to-date equipment I have to admit the two-channel has its advantages. The mono is an obvious drum and bass mix, starting already on "Sing This All Together" where the prominent bass drum sets the path, it's loud and intrusive. The stereo on the other hand has less well done meat, but a little more gravy. At parts vocals, guitars and effects comes through somewhat clearer, bringing it closer and I guess making it easier to connect for some listeners. For a sixties mix, made from four-channel recordings, it's really captivating. So...mono for the hard hitting power or stereo for the details? Glad I don't have to choose anymore. (RÅ*) (MÅW*) (CPYC*)
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar