what a faggoty question this is

>>60379878
literally why

Stereo

It's not like with Pet Sounds, where elements are missing from the stereo mix, the Stereo mix is superior, and it adds to the ramshackle feel of the album

when would mono ever be considered better than stereo? serious question

>>60379921
is mono only better in instances where elements are missing?

Stereo. Stereo.

>>60379936
usually up until about 1968-69 a lot more care was put by the artist into the mono mix. so usually the mono mixes are better than their rushed stereo counterparts

>>60380000
interesting, I learned something new today. thanks man

>>60380000
this

The beatles stereo is a perfect example: in adittion to the missing elements, the panning is sloppy in many cases, and the mix is poor. only abbey road forward has good stereo, all the rest are mono best

>>60380032
glad I could help bro. actually that wasn't me but it felt good to be appreciated even if it was just pretend ;_;

>>60380069
it was us in conjunction, good job anon

>>60380069
well I think your honesty is admirable, so there's a compliment for you friend

>>60380052
the new stereo masters on the reissued '1' collection fixes all the shitty panning and sound really clear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rblYSKz_VnI

>>60380121
oh wooooow

can they please do that with all their albums

i bet this album was viewed as something like metallica's load/reload when it was released

>>60380586
what do you mean?

>>60381202

i have no idea to be honest