[DavidMahler]

I recently received a bootleg of Pepper in mono. The mono mixes sound very different and have a bit more punch. Although mono isn't associated with modern sound, the mono mixes sounded more modern to me (or less dated) than the Stereo mixes. I'm curious, those of you who have heard both versions in its entirety....do you have a definitive preference?

 

[chadbang]

I had no idea there was a mono version. I thought the beatles and George Martin abandoned mono long before Sgt. Peppers. That's interesting. But I always prefer stereo recordings. Like the Pet Sounds stereo mix. I know it's not purist, but I like the extra dimension stereo gives.

 

[scytheavatar]

I haven't heard the mono Sgt Peppers, but I am yet to hear an album that sounds better in mono than in stereo. Nothing annoys me more than taking out my Village Green Preservation Society or Pet Sounds and seeing them put the mono mixes in front of the stereo mixes, as if the mono mixes are more important than the stereo mixes. When the mono mixes are plain unlistenable.

 

[Nocturnal310]

i have one of the song in stereo...
if u hear stereo..u ll never like mono.

very clear separation of channels and the stereo panning is something to crave for.

 

[tintin47]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif i have one of the song in stereo... if u hear stereo..u ll never like mono. very clear separation of channels and the stereo panning is something to crave for.

That is not true in any way. The main drawback of the beatles-type late 60s stereo is that it was sort of new and they took it way too far, into something I call ultra-stereo. Ultra stereo is where many instruments are played only on one channel, and it becomes super distracting and takes a lot away from the music, at least on headphones.

 

[Bunnyears]

I had the original vinyl Sgt. Pepper in mono when it first came out. It was so much cheaper and I didn't have a stereo player at college so I bought it. Then when I got a stereo player, I bought the stereo Sgt. Pepper. Stereo was much better sound, and the psychedelic sound effects were amazing. Nowadays everyone thinks of the sound of Sgt. Pepper as being taken too far, but the idea was to try and mimic the aural distortions of tripping, and other drug use. I can't really judge how well they succeeded in that, but when played over speakers, the album was so different and interesting that there was no doubt in my mind that the soundtrack in stereo belonged with other works of abstract art. They were not trying to reproduce the sound of the concert hall or any other live recording venue. Instead, they made a recording that creates its own space where the ordinary senses become by turns enhanced and obscured and distorted. This could only be fully appreciated with speakers, listening to the album in sequence as put out, one track blending into the next.

On headphones, it's just too confusing and disconcerting -- imo, something that seems like a schizophrenic experience of sound delusions and hallucinations. There are many who love it. I can't. On speakers, however, it's as if the music were refracted through an amazing diamond like prism into its component tracks of vocals and instrumentation, each of which move in, out, and around the soundstage.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I've seen the mono LP at a few record stores, but have passed on it. I much prefer the stereo version. There's a bit of studio trickery and other effects on Sgt. Pepper that I consider part of the package as much as the music itself and the album artwork. It all goes together.

 

[immtbiker]

I bought the mono version when it was released, and then the stereo version.
On headphones I prefer the mono version, and on speakers I like the stereo version.

BTW...I buried Paul....

 

[Headphile808]

I have the Stereo version & have not heard the Mono version. But in general as in the case of Pet Sounds & other various recordings of similar nature, I generally prefer the Stereo over the Mono version. Although I don't own too many recordings that have both, so I don't have a vast experience comparing the two. Would be very curious to hear it though.
Aloha

Headphile808

 

[DavidMahler]

I just want to point out to the people who are voting for the stereo mixes without having heard the mono mixes........the mono mixes are very different mixes. The drums are louder throughout, the vocals are a bit in the back compared to the stereo. I also want to point out that The Beatles and George Martin along with Geoff Emerick mixed the Mono Sgt Pepper for several days........whereas a secondary engineer solely mixed the stereo mixes in just 3 or 4 hours. There is far more attention to the detail of the song in the mono mix and it shows considerably to my ears.

 

[Hanafuda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want to point out to the people who are voting for the stereo mixes without having heard the mono mixes........the mono mixes are very different mixes. The drums are louder throughout, the vocals are a bit in the back compared to the stereo. I also want to point out that The Beatles and George Martin along with Geoff Emerick mixed the Mono Sgt Pepper for several days........whereas a secondary engineer solely mixed the stereo mixes in just 3 or 4 hours. There is far more attention to the detail of the song in the mono mix and it shows considerably to my ears.

IIRC, "She's Leaving Home" is even at a different tempo (alternate take I guess?). I do occasionally listen to the mono version for reference, but the stereo mix is more fun, and almost always the one I listen to.

 

[PRaT]

I so prefer the mono mix but the stereo mix is no slouch. I need them both!

 

[sibelduck]

Paul said the mono mix is where it's at and I agree.

 

[Geruvah]

I say mono because they took the stereo way too far, in my opinion. (I was also the first voter for it and glad to see I'm not alone)

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just want to point out to the people who are voting for the stereo mixes without having heard the mono mixes........the mono mixes are very different mixes. The drums are louder throughout, the vocals are a bit in the back compared to the stereo. I also want to point out that The Beatles and George Martin along with Geoff Emerick mixed the Mono Sgt Pepper for several days........whereas a secondary engineer solely mixed the stereo mixes in just 3 or 4 hours. There is far more attention to the detail of the song in the mono mix and it shows considerably to my ears.

Do you have this right? I never heard that it took more time to make the mono downmix than the stereo version of the recording. I'm sure they worked much harder and longer getting all of the effects they wanted in the stereo edition. I also cannot believe that George Martin cared more about the mono mix than the stereo, as he and John Lennon and Paul McCartney were consciously trying to break boundaries, and explore new territory with the stereo album. Mono was an older technology back then and there were more than sufficient engineers to create good downmixes.

Also, your statement is very self-contradictory: Clearly if you say at one point that the drums are louder and the vocals recessed slightly in the mono mix, I can't see how they can also be said to be more detailed. More detailed if you can't hear them as clearly over the drum tracks? I don't recall any of these problems with my mono LPs. In fact, the mono sounded very conventional as opposed to the Stereo edition which was filled with amazing effects.