Paul McCartney's Reissue of Ram is coming out in a Mono version

johnnyboy70

Active Member
Not sure if this is big news but this is one of my favorite solo McCartney records. Ram is to be reissued this Tuesday. I just found out he's releasing it in a limited # mono vinyl as well. These were released to the AM stations back in the seventies I believe.
 
Register to hide this ad
i pre-ordered the STEREO/remastered cd weeks ago. why would anyone want a MONO version of anything in any format? 2 ears = 2 channels...
 
i pre-ordered the STEREO/remastered cd weeks ago. why would anyone want a MONO version of anything in any format? 2 ears = 2 channels...

I assume it's the same as the 1971 promotional Lp.

Paul McCartney’s follow-up to his McCartney album was an album accredited to not only himself but also his wife Linda. Ram was released in the U.S. on May 17, 1971 and sported the hit single Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey. As a promotional strategy, Paul decided to make separate mono mixes of each track on the album, designed specifically for AM radio airplay and send out a promotional album in very limited quantities to radio stations that were not broadcasting in stereo. As with some earlier Beatles mono albums, these were not simple fold downs of the stereo tracks but actually were unique mixes that in some cases differed considerably from their stereo commercially released counterparts.

I hate to be an old geezer relating old collector war stories to the youn'uns :boring:,but some of you may recall,in the early to mid 90s,going to sales where radio stations were liquidating their vinyl for a dollar or two a record.I was at one such sale,where I made a few nice scores,like a test pressing of A Christmas Gift To You From Philles Records signed by Ronnie Spector.At that very same sale,I saw a guy who was one of the banes of my existence,a couple of tables away score a copy of this very record.I knew what he was going to do with it.He was a buyer for Rockaway Records,and sure enough,it popped up a few months later in one of their Goldmine ads.It was either $3000 or $3500,something like that.
 
just to clarify: i'm not a youngster. i'm 58 and watching the beatles on ed sullivan in 1964 literally changed my life. having said that: 2 ears = 2 channels...
 
For "some" records, the mix for mono is different enough to be a whole other listening experience. I have heard people say that "in some cases" the mono mix is the best, on certain records....and as far as 2 ears, well a mono record plays thru both channels, so you get a wide sound space, just not with separate info on both channels.
 
i pre-ordered the STEREO/remastered cd weeks ago. why would anyone want a MONO version of anything in any format? 2 ears = 2 channels...

just to clarify: i'm not a youngster. i'm 58 and watching the beatles on ed sullivan in 1964 literally changed my life. having said that: 2 ears = 2 channels...

Your old age is showing, you're starting to repeat yourself. :smoke:
 
Just to clarify.. was this album mixed in stereo or mono? I know for exemple that all bluenote after 1958 I think were mastered in stereo and then put to mono for the mono version of an album. Sometimes, like the doors first , the album was recorded in both stereo and mono ( differenet versions) Am I making sense?
 
For "some" records, the mix for mono is different enough to be a whole other listening experience. I have heard people say that "in some cases" the mono mix is the best, on certain records....and as far as 2 ears, well a mono record plays thru both channels, so you get a wide sound space, just not with separate info on both channels.

You might of answered my question in your reply. That is---
Why would some prefer a mono record when there is stereo. Isn't that like taking a step backwards?
Interested to know ----but let's PLEASE not start a war.
 
Just to clarify.. was this album mixed in stereo or mono? I know for exemple that all bluenote after 1958 I think were mastered in stereo and then put to mono for the mono version of an album. Sometimes, like the doors first , the album was recorded in both stereo and mono ( differenet versions) Am I making sense?

Most albums were issued in mono and stereo until 1967-68, and usually with dedicated mixes. Blue Notes were recorded direct to stereo, so no post-recording mixing was required for either mono or stereo. The mono pressings are merely fold-downs of the stereo.

IIRC "Ram" received a dedicated mono mix, which was only issued on very rare promo copies (presumably for AM radio). I think the mono mix was only available on UK promos too.
 
Most albums were issued in mono and stereo until 1967-68, and usually with dedicated mixes. Blue Notes were recorded direct to stereo, so no post-recording mixing was required for either mono or stereo. The mono pressings are merely fold-downs of the stereo.

IIRC "Ram" received a dedicated mono mix, which was only issued on very rare promo copies (presumably for AM radio). I think the mono mix was only available on UK promos too.

thanks!!
Now for the mono stereo question ..it really depends:Can`t generalize here. I do NOT like at all the Beatles stereo with vocals on the right and instrumenst on the left and I prefer the doors first in mono that has more presence than my stereo version IMHO. Bluenote? I find the stereo RVGs are wonderful ( take Jackie Mcleans new soil..wow). Where is gets more conflictual is with a new 200g version in mono of Axis bold of love -Hendrix i just pick up. I know Jimi is meant to be heard in stereo but this mono mix is awesome!
 
Mono can be fascinating to us vinyl lovers. Not only is there a very special experience in listening to a mono Sinatra LP from the Nelson Riddle era, there are cool differences in mono and stereo LPs from the 60's. The whole mono/stereo question is difficult to put your finger on. If you go to a concert and listen to someone sing and play guitar through one microphone then that is mono experience. Does that make it less interesting? It sometimes makes it more interesting to me, because the sound is more natural to my ears.
 
The RAM LP did not fold down to mono very well. So, there was a special mix done for AM radio station/FM mono radio station use. It has been a sought after and very pricey collectible item highly coveted by Beatle collectors. This is why it is being reissued.
 
thanks!!
Now for the mono stereo question ..it really depends:Can`t generalize here. I do NOT like at all the Beatles stereo with vocals on the right and instrumenst on the left and I prefer the doors first in mono that has more presence than my stereo version IMHO. Bluenote? I find the stereo RVGs are wonderful ( take Jackie Mcleans new soil..wow). Where is gets more conflictual is with a new 200g version in mono of Axis bold of love -Hendrix i just pick up. I know Jimi is meant to be heard in stereo but this mono mix is awesome!

Keep in mind that most stereo recordings from around 1958-1966 were recorded on 2, 3, or 4-track equipment. With so few recording tracks, getting a natural stereo soundstage was not very easy; often the entire rhythm section was captured on a single track, and then panned to one side!

Stereo was also very much still a novelty in the '60s, especially for pop records, so the engineers and producers dedicated the most care to producing a solid mono mix, and quite often tossed off a stereo mix as an afterthought. This is why so many audiophiles tend to prefer the mono mixes of 1960s recordings; they often sound more 'cohesive' than the original stereo mixes.

By 1971, when "Ram" was recorded (probably on 8 tracks?), mono was basically a dead format, which makes the mono mix all the more fascinating.
 
Back
Top Bottom