There's a lot of contention on /mu/ over whether The Beatles

>>70753684
it's all better in stereo. mono is for plebeians and that's literally an established pre-/mu/ consensus.

It depends how you're listening. On an actual stereo setup the stereo recordings sound better. If you listening through your cans on your laptop than go with mono for the earlier stuff and stereo for the later more nuanced stuff.

Everything before 1965 is better in mono. The songs were simple and you could focus their musical ideas through one channel.

But for me, everything 1965+ is better in stereo and you won't hear everything they wanted you to hear through one channel. Their musical ideas were expanding rapidly during this period and the stereo treatment gives these compositions their deserved depth.

If we're talking about early stuff, then I love the stereo version of Money. The different piano overdub sounds really cool.

>>70753684
i actually prefer hard day's night through to rubber soul in stereo. the stereo mix really gives more breathing room and clarity to the vocal harmonies. a good example of this would be nowhere man, sounds absolutely flat to me in mono.

the stereo mixes for revolver and mmt are absolute shit though.

File: 1480802274075.jpg (13KB, 240x196px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 240x196px

>Listening to normie-core

Everything up to the white album-- Listen in Mono

The White Album to Let it Be -- Listen in Stereo

any questions?

>>70753684
Listening to Eleanor Rigby in stereo on headphones is so fucking weird because the vocals are hardpanned.

I generally prefer/am okay with stereo, though. Wish there was an alternate stereo mix where it was mixed down like modern mixes so there wouldn't be weird panning shenanigans, but at the same time mixed quietly enough that the loudness war shit you might hear on CD isn't there.

>>70754412
Some Revolver and Rubber Soul stereo mixes are badly done but overall those records offer more in stereo. You just can't hear everything otherwise.

>>70753816

>you won't hear everything they wanted you to hear through one channel

Except the band recorded with mono in mind and did the mixes for them. That's how they wanted you to hear it, until the White Album anyways.

>>70753684
no question mono. 90% of the beatles stereo mixes have the drums and or bass hard panned, which fucking sucks and takes all the power and joy out of mccartney and ringo's playing.

>>70754551
But they weren't WRITING songs with mono in mind. You understand? The musical ideas 1965 and onward aren't fully realized through one channel and when you go back and compare them to stereo it's remarkable how much fuller the sound is and how intricately composed it all is.

>>70754601

I get what you're saying but I'll have to disagree. I think their musical ideas come through just fine through a single speaker. Brian Wilson pushed mono to its limits but I don't think The Beatles did.

>>70754804
>Brian Wilson pushed mono to its limits but I don't think The Beatles did.
I will also have to disagree. Upon listening to Sgt Pepper or the White Album for example in both mono and stereo the difference becomes quite clear.

>>70754412
The stereo mix for Flying is a good example of this. For a gem, it's almost unbearable to listen to in stereo.

File: HELPMOON.jpg (134KB, 456x628px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 456x628px

>vocals on If I Needed Someone hardpanned right
>everything else hardpanned left