Please explain to me the advantage of listening to certain recordings in mono. First I thought people were trolling but I'm not so convinced anymore. "The artist intended it that way" is not an argument that will sway me.
Pic related. I didn't like this album until I listened to it in stereo and apparently the mono version is far superior.
well it's how it sounded in 1966, mono
>not experiencing a work of art the way an artist intended for it be experienced
kek
but if it sounds worse or was done because stereo wasn't available, why would you listen to mono?
you can listen to whichever version you prefer. I always check out mono first. It's a good way to get a good impression of what it must've been like listening to the album when it was originally released. Then listen to the stereo version, and then just stick with whichever version you prefer.
Personally, I feel like songs like That's Not Me and I Just Wasn't Made For These Times lose a lot of their dynamics in stereo.
Yeah I do know I can listen to whichever version I prefer, I just wanted an explanation as to why many people prefer mono when I think it's pretty clearly inferior in every way, I just wanna understand.
Stereo makes Pet Sounds music a lot more bright and shiny and overstated than the mono version, perhaps that's why you liked it.
Let's Go Away For Awhile is so far ahead of the rest of this album it's not even funny
Stereo objectively is of a higher "quality", but the mono recording makes the whole thing blend into a wall of sound like Brian Wilson intended. I personally listen to the stereo version more often but there is no superior way, really.
George Harrison
>At that time [...] the console was about this big with four faders on it. And there was one speaker right in the middle [...] and that was it. When they invented stereo, I remember thinking 'Why? What do you want two speakers for?', because it ruined the sound from our point of view. You know, we had everything coming out of one speaker; now it had to come out of two speakers. It sounded like ... very ... naked.
Brian Wilson
>I look at sound like a painting, you have a balance and the balance is conceived in your mind. You finish the sound, dub it down, and you’ve stamped out a picture of your balance with the mono dubdown. But in stereo, you leave that dubdown to the listener—to his speaker placement and speaker balance. It just doesn't seem complete to me.
Basically, the sound a lot of those records was carefully layered and mixed for mono.
The resulting stereo remixes can often sound sparse and naked, lacking the "punch" that the original mono mix had. Additionally, if you're listening to an actual stereo mix from the mid-'60s, they're generally very gimmicky (vocals all on one side, instruments on another).
That sounds exactly like what Brian was aiming for...
That makes sense, thanks.
The stereo mix of Pet Sounds is good, but the stereo mixes of Revolver and Sgt Peppers are truly terrible. The hard panning is so distracting. That those are the only versions on Spotify is baffling
You are a god.
This.
Because stereo is just a gimmick.
both the mono and stereo Pet Sounds are essential imo
>Additionally, if you're listening to an actual stereo mix from the mid-'60s, they're generally very gimmicky (vocals all on one side, instruments on another).
The stereo version of Safe as Milk is terrible about this. Everything sounds so subdued and dead, and like you said, vocals are all in the left channel. Why would anyone think that's a good idea?
The mono version has a much fuller and more dynamic sound, which is why it's the only version I listen to.
I tried explaining to a friend how complex Pet Sounds was and how the 40th Stereo version does make it sound better and is a good example of mixing. He then showed me a song where the vocals were just panned to the right and instruments the the left. He is retarded.
Since my original question got answered I might as well ask another. What do you think of this album and their discography in general, mono or stereo?
It's just a different mix that is sometimes preferable for aesthetic reasons or because the stereo mix is bad/distracting.
After 1967 or so it's a non-issue, but many early rock/folk recordings had poor stereo mixes.
Blonde on Blonde is worlds better in mono. Pet Sounds isn't that bad in stereo because a true stereo mix wasn't created until the 90s, but there are earlier pressings in processed fake stereo that should be avoided at all costs.
There's value to both, the stereo version of "Sunday Morning" is clearer and more distinct and sounds more like the latter half of the 60s (which it sort of initiated, in a way), but the mono version has a vintage character to it that makes it sound like a classic pop single. White Light/White Heat's stereo has strange hard panning all over the place, the mono sounds a lot more like a band playing and grooving together, I think it's better all around.
The mono versions are all worthwhile I think
What the fuck is "dubdown"?
Making a copy with a lower channel count.
It's worth noting that Brian Wilson is deaf in one ear
Basically mono is a lot better for casual listening as it will largely sound the same from any listening angle, at least in how the instruments relate to each other. Stereo on the other hand will sound drastically different if you're listening from across the room or off to the side.
I think it's because of when the stereo mixes were made. The Beatles stereo mixes available today are the original stereo mixes made back in the 60s, while Pet Sounds' stereo mix was made in 1996. Since it was a newer mix engineers by then knew that panning everything hard left and right was a load of shite. I just wish the Beatles would get new stereo mixes like the Beach Boys albums.
It takes a lot of effort and cooperation to get any Beatles project off the ground because Paul, Ringo, Yoko Ono, and Olivia Harrison all have to approve and sign off on it. New stereo and 5.1 mixes were made for many of their most famous songs for the "1" Blu-ray, but remixing the whole catalog would be a large and expensive undertaking. They will probably get around to it eventually, but they still haven't put out the Let it Be movie on DVD
Does it make a difference if you listen to the mono version vs. listening to the stereo version with mono-audio turned on?
it's just a meme
Yes, because the stereo and mono versions are entirely different mixes tailored to their formats.
Also folding down a stereo mix results in a noticeable boost in the volume of anything panned to the center
I like the stereo for Pet Sounds and Today! much more than mono.
Mono only sounds bad when they pan all the vocals to one ear like in some shitty Beatles mixes.