View Full Version : Does Anyone Prefer the Mono version of Adore to the Stereo?


Spaceboy88
09-23-2014, 02:48 PM
With the reissue, I've revisited the Mono version of Adore which I haven't heard since buying the original vinyl in 1998 and I'm just as underwhelmed now as I was then. A song like "To Sheila" just sound so much better and immersive in stereo, and even more so with the remastered version on the Super Deluxe reissue.

Does anyone here genuinely prefer the mono version, and if so, why?

Slurpee
09-23-2014, 02:49 PM
Yes, I do.

Spaceboy88
09-23-2014, 02:52 PM
Why though? What exactly do you prefer? Any specific songs that the mix is that different/noticeable?

butthurt
09-23-2014, 03:12 PM
I prefer the 5.1 versions

Spaceboy88
09-23-2014, 03:22 PM
So leet.

T&T
09-23-2014, 03:25 PM
the depth in the mono mix makes for a good focused listening. It's like a sepia picture vs a colored one.

JRock
09-23-2014, 05:53 PM
I agree that the Mono version provides a different perspective on the album, a new way to interact with the songs.

dustrock
09-23-2014, 10:33 PM
Hmm. Don't like the mono mix as much, but I agree it does bring some different sounds into the forefront.

House of Bread
09-24-2014, 09:57 AM
I feel like the mono version has aged better than the stereo version. I don't care how stupid that sounds.

Tootles
09-24-2014, 12:05 PM
Sounds stupid.

Raskolnikov
09-24-2014, 12:13 PM
For those of you that have both the new release and the 98 vinyl pressing in mono - how do the two compare? Same stuff, or do you think they remastered the mono as well as stereo?

Excited to throw on some headphones and try the mono out sometime. Really curious, as I really don't think I've ever heard an album that I know as well as Adore in mono.

houseofglass11
09-24-2014, 12:57 PM
Mono emphasizes the wall-of-sound production on Adore. It's cool, but EQ-wise it's a lot darker sounding than the original stereo mix. It ends up sounding like 96khz RealAudio rip.

Cruiser
09-24-2014, 08:13 PM
Haven't listened to the mono yet - but I noticed that For Martha is over a minute shorter!?

17songs
09-24-2014, 08:31 PM
Haven't listened to the mono yet - but I noticed that For Martha is over a minute shorter!?

yes, mono omits the "symphonic" fade outro.

bs1933
09-24-2014, 09:40 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but when I listened to the mono it was really gritty and distorted... It sounded awful to me. I'll have to go back and listen again if everyone is really digging it, but to me it sounded like when we used to trade cassette bootlegs and if you turned the input levels too high and just brickwalled it and the copy was forever sounding like 10 million decibels.

17songs
09-24-2014, 10:32 PM
no, you're right. the original mono lp sounds great, this mix is shit. there's a reason they used to use completely different masters for vinyl vs digital.

CrabbMan
09-25-2014, 07:20 PM
a new way to interact with the songs.

I promise, any interaction going on between you and the recordings are in your head.

Spira|_
09-26-2014, 05:32 PM
I listen to some parts of a few songs in mono and then just skipped all the mono CD.
When I am retired I would give it a try.

Cruiser
09-26-2014, 11:32 PM
I'm listening to the mono version for the first time now. I've never heard the vinyl, so I have no base for comparing the two mono versions, but this one seems interesting to me. I'm only on Annie Dog, so I don't know the full album yet, but here are my thoughts:
- To Sheila has a very different feel to me. I like it - but as someone who has been in love with Adore for 15 years, I still prefer the stereo mix of To Sheila.
- The transition between Perfect and Daphne is pretty much gone - that was always one of my favourite moments on the album. I feel like there's meaning behind having those two songs connected, like they're two sides of a shared experience - the two reactions to/perspectives on a break up
- A lot of it sounds pretty much the same

Am I wrong?