Adore Reissue News

[Shallowed]

The choice between mono/stereo is kind of an aesthetic choice. When given the choice though, 99% of the time it will be a recording from the 50's or 60's, which is when both formats were available. Stereo recording was still in its infancy, so stereo effects, especially panning were used in exaggerated ways to make the difference really obvious. Typically you'd have instruments coming through one channel and vocals coming out the other, or bass and drums on one side and everything else on the other. It's far more suited for listening on speakers than on headphones because of the extreme isolation.

Given the option I prefer mono, because in most cases that's where more time, effort and attention have been given to, and it just sounds more cohesive overall.

[Shallowed]

Speaking of the Adore mono vinyl,

I downloaded a rip of it some time ago, but haven't listened to it much because there's these horrible distortions in it.

http://i.imgur.com/9caz7dN.png

The download didn't come with an information text file so there's not much to identify the rip. But does anyone else have this problem in their rip?

[slunken]

Where did you get it

[redbreegull]

Mono can give a different perspective on tracks, but overall it really is inferior IMO in terms of delivering the most balanced, well-crafted sound. The instruments are much harder to distinguish from one another and there is much less separation and space in the mix. On modern recordings, mono just sounds like a novelty to me. I don't personally think there are any inherent benefits to using it versus the alternative. It's practically one step away from inserting fake radio static or vinyl pops and hisses in a song

[Shallowed]

Probably from here.

[Shallowed]

Most likely this link here,

http://forums.netphoria.org/showpost...9&postcount=22

The "Kel Bazar" rip.

[Shallowed]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

It's practically one step away from inserting fake radio static or vinyl pops and hisses in a song

I disagree, it's just a choice of format that affects the entire approach of the recording and mixing. Fake noises like radio static or vinyl pops would just be an applied effect.

[slunken]

It really doesn't matter. Both can be done well.

[Shallowed]

I'll listen to both but I prefer mono.

[soniclovenoize]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

The choice between mono/stereo is kind of an aesthetic choice. When given the choice though, 99% of the time it will be a recording from the 50's or 60's, which is when both formats were available. Stereo recording was still in its infancy, so stereo effects, especially panning were used in exaggerated ways to make the difference really obvious. Typically you'd have instruments coming through one channel and vocals coming out the other, or bass and drums on one side and everything else on the other. It's far more suited for listening on speakers than on headphones because of the extreme isolation.

Given the option I prefer mono, because in most cases that's where more time, effort and attention have been given to, and it just more cohesive overall.

I would say that engineers back then just simply didn't know better, and that a standard had to evolve over time, in which lower frequencies tended to get panned to the center (because we perceive them centralized anyways). By the early 70s, they had figured it out: kick and snare and vocals in the center; instruments at at 9 and 3, etc. You get the idea.

Also remember that often that's simply how the album was recorded, with a number of instruments bounced onto one track, because they knew the end result would be in mono anyways, and that stereo was simply a novelty. So there was no choice but to have all the bass and drums panned to the left or whathaveyou. In the case of Pet Sounds, the stereo mix had to actually be digitally created by syncing up the vocal multitrack tapes to the instrumental multitrack tapes in ProTools, because Brian Wilson originally bounced the entire instrumental tracks down to one monophonic track!

I was listening to Odyssey and Oracle the other day, and the panning was quite annoying; but I know they recorded it at EMI, and probably was recorded to 4-track. What we here is the only possible stereophonic configuration, more or less.

So anyways, I never liked the mono Adore. The reason Corgan did it was for a more authentic classic vibe, right? ...For this album that was completely modern and futuristic by design? Dumb. Plus, the sonic design of the album lent itself to interesting stereo separation anyways. If anything, Gish should have been the mono-ready album.

Oh well whatever.

[slunken]

I've always found those stereo remastered versions of classic albums to be blasphemous

[slunken]

Cash grab

[Shallowed]

Odessey and Oracle is one of my favourite albums ever. The Zombies' label demanded a stereo mix in addition to their mono mix, which drained the rest of their money and contributed to them breaking up ;_;

[Shallowed]

Originally Posted by slunken

I've always found those stereo remastered versions of classic albums to be blasphemous

Only when there's multiple different remasters. The number of different super deluxe remastered anniversary editions of Velvet Underground & Nico and Pet Sounds is ridiculous.

[soniclovenoize]

Originally Posted by slunken

I've always found those stereo remastered versions of classic albums to be blasphemous

Eh it kinda depends on the album, idk. I like the stereo pet Sounds much better, you can appreciate all the layers of the album much better. Same with all the later Beatles albums. But all those early ones should probably be in mono.

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Odessey and Oracle is one of my favourite albums ever. The Zombies' label demanded a stereo mix in addition to their mono mix, which drained the rest of their money and contributed to them breaking up ;_;

I'll have to track down a mono mix. The stereo mix is very distracting!

[redbreegull]

I listened to some of the Beatles stereo remasters and they were interesting, but the originals are in mono and I would rather hear it the way it was originally intended. However, anything recorded after the development of stereo, I just don't understand why you would want to hear that in a format that makes it harder to hear the individual instruments and makes the sound less dynamic and complex

[Shallowed]

It's not hard to hear individual instruments at all in mono. In fact I like how it all comes together in a single solid sound.

[Banana]

Corgan just said on twitter no more reissues.



https://twitter.com/Billy/status/424267784541851648

[slunken]

Originally Posted by Shallowed

Only when there's multiple different remasters. The number of different super deluxe remastered anniversary editions of Velvet Underground & Nico and Pet Sounds is ridiculous.

I think this is why it's best to stick to the original pressings. Sure it may sound "better" but it's still removed (different) from the original.

Originally Posted by soniclovenoize

Eh it kinda depends on the album, idk. I like the stereo pet Sounds much better, you can appreciate all the layers of the album much better. Same with all the later Beatles albums. But all those early ones should probably be in mono.

I'm too much of a purist. I want to hear exactly what everyone else was hearing the day the record came out. Honestly I know that the upmost care goes into beatles and beach boys remasters but the statute of limitations (if there was one) ran out a long time ago and the main people interested are the ones that have the originals memorized. Nothing wrong with that.

Again, sure it may sound better and certainly different than the originals but if I'm chasing history I want the direct historic sound. I've mentioned it before some some early wax sounds amazing because it wasn't recorded or mixed or mastered very well and I wouldn't trade that for anything.

Howie said it best - it's a way to sell the same record twice or in some cases dozens of times.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

However, anything recorded after the development of stereo, I just don't understand why you would want to hear that in a format that makes it harder to hear the individual instruments and makes the sound less dynamic and complex

I think, in the case of Adore, the sound is actually more dynamic (pushing air) and I can hear competely new things I can't hear in the stereo version. Other subtle sounds are sacrificed on the other hand. It's worth pointing out that it's not simply a mono version but an entirely different mix, which echoes my post above. It's practically a different album of the same material and interesting if you have the original memorized.

[soniclovenoize]

Listening to the first Turtles album.

holy shit all of the vocals are on the left and all of the instruments are on the right.

GOD DAMNIT!!!

[Tuscaloosa]

hearing new things that have never previously been heard

[Venom]

Originally Posted by soniclovenoize

I'll have to track down a mono mix. The stereo mix is very distracting!

The 40th anniversary edition of Odessey And Oracle has both the mono and stereo mixes.

[AveryLoren]

Everyday I Die is a cover right?

[pavementtune]

Originally Posted by AveryLoren

Everyday I Die is a cover right?

[AveryLoren]

Ah yeah, I seem to remember them sound checking this around the Adore era.

[pavementtune]

I don't remember having heard the SP version of this song. Good choice for that era, though, the lyrics are very Corganish.

[AveryLoren]

I think this is the only time it was played.
http://www.spfc.org/tours/date.html?tour_id=558
https://archive.org/details/tsp1997-01-08.sc

[Bremang]

Is Lucky 13 from the greatest hits cd an indication of how clean the rest of the M2 FRIENDS AND ENEMIES OF MODERN MUSIC tracks will sound? Or will william actually make it sound like M1 and mix up the tracklists and make it all sound uniform?

[Bremang]

Originally Posted by Ramdust

https://archive.org/details/Smashing...8-04.fm.flac16

You're welcome.

always been the best version of blank page i've known right there