After just over a week of living with Beatles remasters, my impressions are counter-intuitive, and I question them.
The mono mixes sound better to me, but the mono mastering sounds wrong.
By this, I mean that in comparison, I prefer the "mono" mixing decisions
[what sounds are given greater or lesser volume, and are treated with what effects, and when those decisions are implemented]
I made at the time (with help from the boys, of course; after '65 - '66, you couldn't really shut the fuckers up)over the short-order, couldn't-be-bothered stereo mixes (and trust me, with only four tracks and all of those voices, stereo is nigh impossible).
But the mastering, which was to be the real reason for this new release -- to capture to CD all of the presence and joy of the original master, and to enhance it by smart technology -- sounds off to me on a lot of the mono stuff.
I hear a harsh digital sound.
Which is the counter-intuitive part, since the mastering technology and skill should be the *constant* in the process, and shouldn't be affected by the stereo placement (or lack thereof). I know enough about some mastering decisions to know why there might be noticeable differences. If that's it, I wanna know.
I'm surprisingly coming out with some greater love for the stereo stuff. At least greater than I expected.
I also view A Hard Day's Night differently -- I hear it differently as a collection of songs. It diminishes.