Mono Version

[ian]

This might be a stupid question, one that shows my youth... but what is the appeal of mono versions of older albums, is it romaticizing or is something really lost in the remastering to stereo?

I'm not talking about the regular complaints about remastering, about how they compress the shit out of records to make them sound like they're on modern fm radio, I mean specifically stereo vs mono of old albums that were originally mono.

Is it just preference to the original version, purism, etc? Sell me on it!

[congolia]

If you are referring to Tom's mention of Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the real selling point is the clearer mix of the album.  I've had  the mono version of Piper for a while and have never gone back to the stereo version.  The music is fuller and lacks the cheap channel panning effects on "Interstellar Overdrive".

As far as mono for 60's era albums.  Stereo was rather new in the 60's and very few people had the equipment to properly reproduce it. I think it was initially considered a bit of a gimmick.  Bands had little interest in the stereo versions of their album mixes. I read that the Beatles never attended any of the their stereo mixes and that the mono versions were their preferred ones.

An album like "Pet Sounds" which is sometimes called Brian Wilson's first solo album, is probably preferred in the mono version because Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear and was physically unable to hear stereo.  I guess the theory is that Wilson could never approve the stereo mix, therefore it is inferior.

I hope that helps. There is a lot of conjecture on my part and I am by no means an expert.  There are dozens of books that explore the subject in more depth, but I thought I would take a stab.

Really though, that mono "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is great, check it out.

[ian]

I was definitely aware of Wilson's deafness and this was my deciding factor in leaning towards the mono mix of Pet Sounds myself. I didn't know quite the extent that bands of the era leaned toward mono mixes, though.

I have Piper with a mono mix on it, I'll have to not ignore it anymore. Thanks for your answer.

[Gilly]

Bah. Stereo sounds better almost every time. If stereo as we know it today was around in the 60's they would have used it. I've heard stereo remasters compared to technicolor but I think it's more like a DVD reissue. They're not adding anything to the music they are just making it sound better using the pieces that were already there. I guess if you want to hear how it sounded when it came out, the mono version is nice to have, but to hear people say that the mono versions sound better seems crazy to me.

[Tom Scharpling]

Bah.

Bah? What are you, Doctor Doom?

The whole point that people are making on this thread is that stereo WASN'T around to the degree that it is now back in 1967, when these records came out. So the artists were recording and mixing their records for mono. So if you have no interest in hearing how the artists thought the music should sound, that's your choice. I'd choose to hear how the band envisioned the album, not some engineer barfing out a stereo mix without any of the principal artists around to supervise.

As for 'using the pieces that were already there', plenty of stuff that is on the mono version of PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN got lost in the stereo mix. So you hear elements that fell out of the recording during the transition. The same goes for the mono mix of THE KINKS ARE THE VILLAGE GREEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY - the mono version seems so much livelier than the stereo version.

There's not much separation on contemporary recordings these days anyway - they often end up a thick, compressed wad of mid-range goo. So if you want that, it's all yours.

Tom.

[bruce]

Along with the previous albums mentioned all that I proudly own in mono. Lets not forget a certain Dylan record called Highway 61 Revisited. Now only if there was a mono version of Blood On The Tracks.

[Dorvid Barnas]

You guys remember Mid-Range Goo, right?  They opened for Puddle of Mudd in '96.

Love,
Jimmy Pardo

[JerryBaloney]

Some people also find that mono has more of a raw punch to it. At least that is why everything Dead Moon does is recorded in mono.

[bookem_dan-o]

And in case nobody knows, The Best Show podcast is intentionally in monaural. The show isn't as funny in stereo, trust me.

[Gilly]

Bah.

The whole point that people are making on this thread is that stereo WASN'T around to the degree that it is now back in 1967, when these records came out. So the artists were recording and mixing their records for mono. So if you have no interest in hearing how the artists thought the music should sound, that's your choice. I'd choose to hear how the band envisioned the album, not some engineer barfing out a stereo mix without any of the principal artists around to supervise.

I can concur that the original recording is very important. How many bands really had that much input in the production process though? Plus, it's not like some two bit record labels put out the stereo re-releases.

I don't know, I've only heard mono/stereo releases of a few bands. As bad as the CD's are (not the music but the mastering), I still think the stereo versions sound better for the Beatles. I think that's due to growing up with the CD's and listening to them so much. Listening to Sgt. Peppers in mono is a drastic change when you've heard the stereo version a thousand times. Pet Sounds sounds 100 times better in stereo to me. That album was made for stereo even though Brian Wilson couldn't hear it. The Kinks stuff sounds better to me in stereo as well.  Phil Spector too....just kidding. Although, has his stuff ever been released in stereo? It would at least be interesting to hear what it would sound like.

By livelier do you mean that when listening you feel like you are in the studio or at a show? I think the importance of that aspect might be the fundamental difference between mono enthusiasts and stereo enthusiasts.   

[furnstein]

My friend gave me a double disc of the complete Beatles A- and B-sides in mono.  They are really, really incredible sounding mixes.  The greatest improvements are heard in Ringo's drums and the lead vocals.  Typically, they would hard pan those instruments in the stereo mixes, which made them lose some of their overall impact.  Plus, I hear a lot of new harmonies and instrumental parts in these mixes.

They really need to do nice double disc reissues of these albums, one version in mono and one in stereo.  The Capitol Albums box sets apparently have really nice mixes, but they need to just do the right thing already.

[bruce]

Those Monkee reissues are released in mono and stereo discs. I know the 'drummer' is in the hate pit. But you cant hate upon Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. that's a great one in mono.

[Tom Scharpling]

Pet Sounds sounds 100 times better in stereo to me. That album was made for stereo even though Brian Wilson couldn't hear it.

We are not going to agree on this. All the best to you and your stereophonic recordings.

Tom.

[John Junk]

Oddessey and Oracle eats it in stereo.  Mono all the way for that one.  Revolver is unlistenable if you have it in stereo and one of your speakers isn't working.  "Tax man" is like bum...............bum..........bum............TAXMAN!  "Got To Get You Into My Life" actually sounds depressing if you can only hear one speaker.

[Gilly]

Same goes for Sgt. Peppers.... I had a pair of headphones go out on one side when I was a kid and I was wondering what was going since all the rest of my music played find out of one ear. Actually, both of those albums really don't sound good at all with headphones if you are listening to the stereo version.

That leads me to another question... Does mono still sound good to you all if you are listening with headphones? That's how I listen to my music 98 percent of the time so maybe I've been turned off because of that? I should give this mono thing another shot.