Mono vs. Stereo

I was the one who liked the mono Piper better. But I should add that some of the tracks used in that mono mix are actually different to the ones in the stereo mix. Little differences in guitar performance, etc.

What I'm wondering is whether that was a common method then-- the mono LP not just the same tracks mixed differently, but actually using different material at times?

Total guess, but from the reading I've done I don't think many consumers were arguing the sonic merits of mono in the mid 60s (though some producers definitely were). Stereo was still pretty new and it was seen as a superior format, although also more expensive (you had to buy two speakers etc), and often not practical (AM radio, which dominated, was mono). Seems like the fetishizing of mono's sonics started in the 70s with the growing popularity of hi-fi culture. This is all speculation, love to hear from someone who actually knows that they are talking about.

Until mono LPs were phased out (circa 1969), most albums recorded in stereo were given a dedicated mono mix. Likewise mono singles. There are many who insist vintage mono mixes are punchier, more energetic, and generally superior to their stereo counterparts. Because they were usually done with four tracks, many stereo mixes of the era do sound thin and overly spread out.

Differences between stereo and mono mixes can be easy to pick out, especially on ultra-familiar albums such as Sgt. Pepper.

Yes, but weren't they given a mono mix because that's the hardware many people still had at the time? I wonder if some of the people clamoring for a mono mix did so because they were concerned about sound quality.

punchier, more energetic

This is exactly the benefit I heard in the Piper and Village Green mono CDs.

some people clamor for mono mix because in the very early days of stereo some saw it as a novelty, where the stereo mix was an after-thought. Isn't there some stories about the Beatles feeling this way?

Yes, much more care was given to the mono mix in many cases, because that's what was going to be played on most radio stations and most record players.

Would like to hear mono version of Velvet Underground and Nico. I have a tape of the mono mix of "All Tomorrow's Parties" - the solo is edited so that it's shorter but it sounds really good. You can hear all the instruments pretty well and the double-tracked Nico vocal is really up front and booming.

The Deacon / dan selzer OTM. the emphasis was on the mono mix and the stereo mix was an afterthought, and sometimes the stereo mixes were radically different because the engineers took the opportunity to mess around or do something wacky. it's kind of the same with 5.1 albums today, a lot of them sound terrible and you wouldn't want to think that in 40 years _those_ are the only things that get reissued

it's kind of a crime that the Beatles CDs up to Sgt. Pepper were issued in stereo instead of mono. the definite mixes are the mono ones, the ones I've heard all sound much better, more balanced, more power, the vocals all sit within the mix instead of sitting there all stupid on the right channel while the band plays on the left.

The CDs of the first couple are mono, though, aren't they? Strange - I always liked the stereo mix of Please Please Me. It's really good sounding.

could the inferiority of the stereo to mono mixes of the beatles records have to do with the fact that they used a fake stereo sound in the beginning? the instruments had been put on one channel and the singing on the other. this was just a double mono, no real spatial sound.

some people clamor for mono mix because in the very early days of stereo some saw it as a novelty, where the stereo mix was an after-thought. Isn't there some stories about the Beatles feeling this way?

Exactly. In some cases, the Beatles were there with George Martin supervising the mono mix, while George would later put together the stereo mix without much (if any) of their input. I think this was due, as you said, to the fact that it was seen as more of a novelty -- at the time, the mono mix would the one the overwhelming majority of people would be hearing.

I like mono mixes of some stuff over the stereo because it sounded like the engineers didn't have a good handle on how to properly mix for stereo (or were limited to just spreading out the two or four tracks of sound) often until later in the 60s. One place this stands out for me is the Shangri-La's "Remember." The original single is just drenched in reverb and thick as mud (a good thing), but newer best of compilations like Myrmidons of Melodrama have a stereo mix that just sounds... less than. And VU's "Run Run Run" in mono seems more rumbly and menacing than the stereo mix.

What I'm wondering though (and perhaps I am the only one) is not whether certain records sound better because more attention was given to the mono mix, but whether people were saying then that monaural sound was inherently superior. Some people say analog sounds better than digital, all else being equal. This is the "analog vs. digital" debate mentioned in the thread question. In the mid-60s, were some people (esp. consumers) saying that mono sounded better than stereo, all else being equal? That "stereo was a degradation of sound quality?"

I've never read any such sentiments from engineers who worked during that time. Mainly it was engineering limitations, the compressors / limiters / mixers that were used most often were wired for a mono workflow, so the gear that engineers felt most comfortable with generally produced more confident & meshed mixes

could the inferiority of the stereo to mono mixes of the beatles records have to do with the fact that they used a fake stereo sound in the beginning? the instruments had been put on one channel and the singing on the other. this was just a double mono, no real spatial sound.

There is no "double mono." If you have different things coming from the left and right speakers, and they're positioned properly relative to your ears, that's stereo sound. Hard, obvious stereo separations are not in fashion anymore and don't often sound very realistic, that's true.

"Fake stereo" generally refers to the odious practice of taking a mono mix and putting one e.q.ed version of it in the left channel and a different one in the right. The worst example I know if is the fake stereo on "I Feel Fine" and "She's a Woman" on the U.S. Capitol album Beatles '65.

Rudy Van Gelder talks about mono/stereo here

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=1116

AAJ: How did the invention of stereo effect your approach to recording jazz?

RVG: That was a problem for everyone and not just me. There was no artistic rush to get into stereo from the people I worked for. They had to get into because they had to get into it. As a matter of fact, for quite awhile Alfred and others too had to be making...this is pretty important that you understand this. They had to make two products from the same session. They had to make a mono release in order to have anyone buy it and they had to make a stereo release to make that available to people who were buying stereo. And then of course when the stereo LP came in there was this question of compatibility. Who wants to buy two albums of the same music? You had to make both available and that became very difficult so what happened was everything that was made in Hackensack was mono. Even towards the very end when we were recording two-track we weren't listening in stereo. We were recording in two-track and we were listening in mono because there was only one speaker in Hackensack in the control room and only one speaker in the studio. So how could you listen in stereo when you only have one speaker? And all the judgments, Alfred's judgments, as to mix and balance, and mine too and the musicians too and how they sounded in relationship to each other, and all that during the creative part of those recordings was done in mono. It couldn't be any other way. Towards the end we were running two-track sessions but no one had ever listened to them. So there was no particular attention or attempt at creating a stereo field at that time.

"Fake stereo" generally refers to the odious practice of taking a mono mix and putting one e.q.ed version of it in the left channel and a different one in the right.

Yeah, there are all kinds of ways to artificially create stereo sounds from mono sounds. The important distinction to be aware of is stereo recording vs. stereo mixing. Stereo recording involves capturing a sound with more than one mic, and has the potential to be the most "realistic." Stereo mixing can involve any number of techniques used to produce a stereo mix - i.e., one with different information in the left and right channels, producing the effect of spatial separation of sounds.

i hear tons of stuff made today that might as well be recorded in mono. most people probably wouldn't even notice.

Stereo all the way. Even though the mono version may have been the "official" one in the 60s, stereo always sounds better. With no exception.

Collected works of Phil Spector 1958-69 to thread.

Even though the mono version may have been the "official" one in the 60s, stereo always sounds better. With no exception.

Been listening recently to a whole bunch of Beatles needledrops so I've become acquanted with their original 60's mono and stereo mixes and it varies a lot track to track. Some do work really well as stereo and I would agree with the above comment about the stereo Please Please Me. For the most part though the mono versions as already mentioned have more punch and just hang together better. Sometimes the stereo mixes sound a lot more ragged. Maybe the mono is just better at hiding the mistakes and tape splices that were common then.

There is no question however that the Beatles took much more care over the mono mixes and that they weren't present for the stereo mixes at least until the white album, if not Abbey Road. Pepper's stereo mixes were done solely by Martin and Emerick, for example, in a couple of afternoons.

More care was taken over the mono mixes, because mixing for mono is more difficult.

In stereo, it is easy to have each instrument audible. It can have it's own picture/area in the stereo layout. With mono, it can potentially get swamped by something louder.

Choose one? A good mono mix beats a bad stereo one, of course. A fantastic stereo mix beats a fairly good mono mix. But a fantastic mono mix may well beat a good stereo one.

I hate "punch" and I like detail. Stereo is always superior. Also in the case of Phil Spector. The stereo versions of "Be My Baby" and "Da Doo Ron Ron" sound fantastic. Among other things because they have less of that so-called "punch". Not to mention Motown sound WAY more polished and better in stereo.

And, obviously, George Martin and Geoff Emerick knew much more about production/mixing anyway, so what's the problem about the band members not being involved in the stereo mixes?

It does all depend. Help! sounds a LOT better in mono, it's all a glorious exciting rush as opposed to being a little more pedestrian in stereo. But Pet Sounds gets so much richer and brighter and more complex in stereo that the mono just sounds like mud compared to it.

I always prefer rich and bright and complex to "rush" or "punch" or whatever. Thus, the choice is easy. Stereo makes the music sound less raw and thus better.

I think the punch you speak of is added in Mastering.

I think the punch you speak of is added taken away in Mastering.\

fixed

Wasn't Stereolab's Margarine Eclipse mixed in dual-mono? In other words, each channel was mixed to sound good on it own and then they were combined?

Geir, I think you're taking a very black and white stance. Certainly, anyone might react positively to something being "punchier" in a particular instance. The term merely implies energy and presence - preferable in some instances to a lack thereof. Mono can turn out well with a nice overall mix and instruments and voices very present. What is the point of arbitrarily deciding that two speakers are always better than one?

Tim, this is GEIR.

The stereo versions of "Be My Baby" and "Da Doo Ron Ron" sound fantastic.
Didn't know these existed. Where can I find them?

Geir, as usual, has no idea what he's talking about.

The mono versions of Odessey and Oracle sound strikingly better than the stereo versions.

Is the version in Zombie Heaven the mono or the stereo?

Since when does "less raw" automatically equal "better"?

Even though the mono version may have been the "official" one in the 60s, stereo always sounds better. With no exception.

Absolute statements are always wrong.

Deacon, this is GEIR.

Geir, I think you're taking a very black and white stance.

the roffles never stop

I'm glad, John.

Anyone have any advice on live stereo mixing?

well Tim seriously, on what issue does Geir not take a b&w stance? that's kinda his whole deal

ask geir which part of a black & white cookie is superior:

http://www.zabars.com/on/demandware.static/Sites-Zabars-Site/Sites-Zabars/default/images/max_A11003E.jpg

Seriously, how do I pan instruments in a live stereo mix? Also related is that I have an unpannable effect loop (ending in stereo chorus) on some instruments sometimes.

:(

The mono versions of Odessey and Oracle sound strikingly better than the stereo versions.

Sometimes it's just strikingly different (the brass in "This Will Be Our Year" that just isn't there in the stereo mix).

IMM might have some pointers, Jon.

I'm mixing into two guitar amps.

how do i pan the bass?

turn left amplifier off

I wish I knew more about live mixing actually :/

someone sent me a nice vinyl rip of a mono yesterday and today and it's kind of crazy how much compression they put on the thing -- sounds kind of great.

is the beach boys stereo edition of pet sounds one of those artificial stereo albums, or one of those albums where they revisited the masters and redid it in stereo ?

I can't speak for the latest edition, but a new stereo mix of PS was made in the 90s for the Sessions box, and a further enhanced version was issued alongside the o.g. mono on a standalone CD in 2000.

i kinda liked the stereo pet sounds from the box set. you could definitely get a sense of the richness of the arrangements etc. still prefer the mono, but i didn't think it was some kind of travesty.

just picked up the Piper at the Gates of Dawn mono reissue/remaster from 2017, this is so amazing sounding, just kills the stereo version i had

I keep thinking I should release stuff on my label in mono, for people who listen on their phones. But honestly if you're listening to the kind of music I release on your phone, there's something wrong with you and I don't know if that kind of behavior is to be encouraged.

I wonder if death metal would sound good in mono...

It can't sound any worse

When clock-radios and MTV became a major listening method in the mid-'80s, did studios adjust their mixing agenda to fit these primarily single-speaker environment? How did they reconcile this with the still-significant "Stereo Review" hi-fi demo?

They made the TVs capable of playing in stereo.

I know for some like Phil Spector and Brian Wilson, one channel of sound was part of the aesthetic, but in most cases, I probably prefer the mono mix because there was more thought put into that mix. Either that or the stereo mix was done with less care (missing overdubs, poor levels or balance, etc.) or subjected to some kind of gimmickry (like an enormous amount of echo, something that was done to Sinatra's Capitol albums or Ella Fitzgerald's "songbook" albums when they were mixed to stereo but not so much to the drier mono mixes). This becomes more apparent when I'm listening to a mere fold-down rather than a dedicated mono mix.

I dunno if this is for "controversal music opinion" or not, but the big mono boxes are (in order) The Kinks In Mono >> Rolling Stones In Mono >>>>>>>> The Beatles In Mono.

the Dylan Mono box might be best of all

Don't sleep on the Creedence mono singles box....

i like the mono version of _phallus dei_

basically i just hate fucking hard panning

I know for some like Phil Spector and Brian Wilson, one channel of sound was part of the aesthetic, but in most cases, I probably prefer the mono mix because there was more thought put into that mix. Either that or the stereo mix was done with less care (missing overdubs, poor levels or balance, etc.) or subjected to some kind of gimmickry (like an enormous amount of echo, something that was done to Sinatra's Capitol albums or Ella Fitzgerald's "songbook" albums when they were mixed to stereo but not so much to the drier mono mixes). This becomes more apparent when I'm listening to a mere fold-down rather than a dedicated mono mix.

― birdistheword

with brian wilson i thought it was more that he was literally deaf in one ear

i don't know stereo didn't reach average consumers until the very late 50s and i don't think it was the dominant format until the late 60s so a lot of it was just mono was what the main format was so you made mixes for that format esp with spector and the earlier beach boys stuff

yes my understanding in general is that the stereo mixes were farmed out to underlings, whereas the main engineer and band would work on the mono mixes.

(until some point in 1968)

something re:old shard panned stereo mixes-
i'm glad some apps offer a toggle to mono option. listening to all those david axelrod records with the drums all on one side gets a little taxing+disorienting.

with brian wilson i thought it was more that he was literally deaf in one ear

That's what I thought too, but there's an interview out there (I *think* a print interview from 1965 or 1966) where Wilson says it's a lot more than that. He didn't like stereo because he felt people were much less likely to hear what you mixed - IIRC he specifically didn't like how the balance was determined by where you or the speakers were positioned, and how that could throw everything off. He thought mono was far better in giving him complete control on how his music would be heard. Also, to add some context, there are some relevant interviews were Paul McCartney talks about the Beatles' early experience with stereo - I remember hearing them many years ago on an episode of Breakfast with the Beatles that dealt specifically with mono vs. stereo. One thing McCartney mentions is how he'd be at a party talking to someone about a record that was playing and Paul would be like "there's a great guitar solo on this one!" So they go to the speaker in this crowded room and wait for it, and then of course it doesn't hit the way Paul hoped it would because the record's the stereo mix and the solo's coming out of the speaker on the other side of the room. I kind of feel like a stickler about listening to music with the speakers properly oriented because I'd often see speakers egregiously misplaced whenever I'm at someone else's home, and given how stereo was a novelty back then, I imagine that was even moreso the case back then.

I keep my speakers so close together (they sit right on either side of the receiver, on top of my bookshelves) that they might as well be in mono. I have zero interest in Atmos or any kind of surround sound bullshit.

it's an odd thing, people are either listening essentially in mono, like your setup or a "stereo" Bluetooth speaker where the speakers are like 6 inches apart, or the mood extreme stereo with headphones or earbuds

yeah, you can do cool stuff with stereo and a lot can get lost if you fold a contemporary mix to mono, but in many ways stereo is a novelty, a marketing trick that's long outstayed its welcome and doesn't make any sense when you think about how we listen to music (headphones, clubs, active wifi/bluetooth speakers)

Brian Wilson otm

Stones and CCR mono singles often sound better because the drums and low end are much more present in the mix. They just thump more in mono.

I got the Yardbirds Roger the Engineer reissue that also had the mono mix of the record. That one was interesting but not as good as some I have heard.

are you guys trying to get me to toggle that mono switch to the on position and never look back?

because i'll fucking do it.

dylan mono box=goat also otm

He didn't like stereo because he felt people were much less likely to hear what you mixed - IIRC he specifically didn't like how the balance was determined by where you or the speakers were positioned, and how that could throw everything off. He thought mono was far better in giving him complete control on how his music would be heard.

didn't know that! great info/makes good sense

https://x.com/kingbritt/status/1773682441682583735

mono for the people!

listening to all those david axelrod records with the drums all on one side gets a little taxing+disorienting.

― interstellar anthropologist+music philosopher, (Austin)

i realise we sing from the same hymn sheet re the axe,
but until you posted this i had no idea that the axe productions were ever a mono thing.
i just assumed from the $tateside reissues that i fell hard for,
that the albums were produced in full on stereo at source.

oh no, don't get me wrong they were!

it's just that listening to those hard panned drum stereo mixes on headphones for years, it was a revelation to discover the mono toggle on my ipod touch. there's one in spotify's advanced settings too!

(and tbh idk the technicalities of how an instant stereo->mono button like that works but i DO know that my old carver stereo fron the 70s had one too)

well then.
i am all about the extreme stereo decisions.
also, i have always preferred a stereo edition over a mono version.
Love, Mayall/Clapton, Beach Boys :
the only stuff i have been able to do a A/B test with,
and yeah, i have always preferred the stereo option.
but hey, different strokes and all that ..

i am specifically talking about headphones listening lol. axe loved to put the whole kit LOUD on one side and i'm partially deaf in my left ear, so i don't need any help with that!

SUPER TANGENT TIME:
can you guys tell me about how you can put "hidden" tracks in mono? there's a guy named mike graff whose music idk very well but i had a friend who was a big fan and became really excited when they found out my stereo had a mono button. on one of the various projects graff was involved in, there was a ambient/noise/sound collage on the stereo mix, but a short, otherwise unavailable song in the mono mix. they brought the cd over and we played it and it worked! IT WAS AWESOME LIKE A SOUND DECODER RING!

Probably the "noise" is recorded in stereo in such a way that playing it in mono will cause phase cancellation and make it inaudible, but the "song" is already in mono buried under the stereo noise and is thus revealed.

phase cancellation

this. some songs sound crazy different folded down to mono.

seeing some people itt who would really enjoy messing with crossfeed.

This probably goes without saying, but the big appeal of deploying the mono button when you're playing back a mono record is that it can eliminate all the surface noise since it would presumably be in stereo while the music cut into the grooves would be in true mono.

@ Austin, the way Mike Graff does it is that the "hidden track" is there, and playing, but is obscured by intense guitar noise. The guitar noise is mono, but it plays in the left and right channels in inverse phase. Mono-ing the mix causes the two channels of guitar noise to cancel each other out, leaving only obscured material. It's simple but very cool.

I was told by an engineer who recorded Björk that she enjoys recreating the live setting for her studio vocal performances; that is, singing into a live vocal mic, no headphones, with the studio monitors blaring the track. Usable vocal takes were made by switching the phase on the results, eliminating the track from the vocal recording. I have never tried this myself but apparently it's a thing.

For me there is no question that stereo is superior in every way to mono, and that the superiority of mono recordings over their stereo counterparts on certain 60s recordings is the result of "bad stereo mix technique" rather than any sort of technical superiority. That said, my favourite mixes tend toward being "almost mono", that is, they utilise the benefits of the stereo field but aren't attempting much (if any) trickery. (I think I posted a while back that the most unpleasant thing I've ever had the displeasure of hearing was the 5.1 mix of A Night At The Opera, which I heard in an optimal studio environment (the studio in which it was mixed to 5.1, iirc); it was horrible and unmusical, it felt like I was on a theme park ride.

Being aware of inconsistencies of stereo speaker placement in consumer listening environments is an important thing to keep in mind when making stereo mixes. When a mixer elects to completely separate two different guitar parts into left and right channels (Television "Marquee Moon"), one is making a choice. The result will be interesting if one is listening at home, and can hear Richard's part better over here, and Tom's part better over there, as one moves around the room. The same result may be annoying if one is inert, and their position of listening is close to one speaker and far from another. I don't remember what album I listened to in the past two weeks (it might have been an Albini album, I've been recherching a lot of his stuff) but the guitars were fairly hard-panned and I found it unpleasant to listen to on headphones.

Something I've always appreciated about Gordon Raphael's production on Is This It is the way the mix quickly shifts from "very mono" to "very stereo"-- but usually the "stereo" mix consists of two takes of the same part, one in the left channel and one in the right-- having one speaker close and one far away will not have anything suddenly disappearing. I replicate this approach a lot in my own mix work, I think it sounds fantastic. Sounds great when you build bi-timbral synth programs using this same technique, too, running two identical patches in hard-pan.

The producer/mixer Rusty Santos, he's a big fan of mono. He mixed Panda Bear "Comfy In Nautica"-- that song is mono. (I think. The bulk of it is assertively mono but I think some of those noisy swoops might travel in the field). "Bros" is almost-mono, it sounds to my ears like a mono mix that was slightly stereoized in mastering. Rusty likes the challenge of mono mixing, he feels the constraint forces him to do better work with his signal chain and levels and EQs. He told me that he sometimes delivers mono mixes to clients without telling them they are mono, and they oftentimes get approved and mastered without it ever even being discussed.

Something I learned early on is that stereo can be dangerous... recording a grand piano in stereo is de rigeur, and when you're listening to it on its own, the full spectrum of frequencies all resonating, it's a beautiful thing. But: it's impossible to work with full-range stereo-recorded grand piano within any context aside from "solo piano", it dominates a mix so extremely. Just today, a film director was complaining that he felt that a very-quietly-recorded-piano was dominating the scene for which it was recorded; I told the mixer to mono the piano and it immediately solved the problem.

It's interesting seeing all the mono-enthusiasm in this thread!

Oh and I said I don't like "theme park ride mixing" and generally it's the case, but sometimes the ride is so thrilling that it's impossible to deny. The Knife "Full Of Fire" is the best example of this, I love that mix and it is so silly in the field

I always bring up the dual-mono mixes of Stereolab's Margerine Eclipse on this subject - there are elements in common so most of the drums are centered, but there are very different mixes available to each ear. The record sounds very muscular and detailed so either the mastering engineer is a genius or it's an approach worth checking out.

I’m sure some know this around here, but the rule of thumb I was always told on setting up your speakers to monitor in stereo was to have them as far apart as you will be sitting. So in a room if you are sitting 8 foot back from the speakers, you should have them 8 foot apart. Say if at a desk, you are sitting only 3 foot back then have the speakers 3 foot apart.

Guess I need to get in real close to my laptop screen when I'm listening to anything

Paul would be like "there's a great guitar solo on this one!" So they go to the speaker in this crowded room and wait for it, and then of course it doesn't hit the way Paul hoped it would because the record's the stereo mix and the solo's coming out of the speaker on the other side of the room.

Enjoying the thought of Macca at some swinging mid-60s party, everyone wearing ties and holding highballs, as he gathers everyone around a hi-fi reel-to-reel playing "Taxman" (because, duh, what other solo would he be talking about?). Then everyone having to shuffle over to the other speaker as someone rewinds the tape, squeaky backwards Beatles squibblets filling the air.

he superiority of mono recordings over their stereo counterparts on certain 60s recordings is the result of "bad stereo mix technique" rather than any sort of technical superiority.

totally agree

I think I know what you mean but I would still call good stereo mix technique technically superior

oh what am I doing I need more coffee lol

Poorly worded, I just meant that "mono isn't technically superior to stereo".

But there is something else. The reference to Mike Graff also had me thinking about phasing. Engineers on mono recordings, they had to be far more fastidious about mic placement. Two mics on an instrument, if they're out of phase, and you're working in mono, you're left with aural shit. So you've got all these engineers having to practice excellent mic placement in order to achieve great results. Mono albums had to have great mic placement! But then suddenly, working in stereo, phasing becomes less of an immediately noticeable issue. Techs get lazy, this includes me. Things can be slightly out of phase but you don't notice it as readily, you settle for what you're hearing and work with it; but it could've been recorded better. I don't check my mic placement every time I record something, but I should. Some people were sharing Albini's notes after he died, it reads like he was obsessed with phase-free recording, and castigated engineers who didn't prioritise it in their process.

It's kind of cool listening to that Mike Graff stuff in stereo, when it's perfectly phasing. The sonics take on this awful 2D quality, like they're operating on a diagonal plane, it's such a weird flat thing to listen to.

Listened to Margarine Eclipse today on headphones. It’s interesting, the mix isn’t really dual mono, so much as it treats the centre of the stereo field as others would treat the outer edges— elements with reverbs and room sound on them decay inward rather than outward. It is impressive. I’m going to mono it later when I can.

Funny tho: my first exposure to this album was in a supremely sub-optimal environment (the restaurant where I worked, where the speaker placement was dictated by discretion rather than audio fidelity haha); I remember disliking it! and I listened to Stereolab albums constantly at that place.

The decision to hard-pan the dual-Laetitias is inspired, tho, drawing more attention to the missing key element (Mary) and is a cool method of paying tribute

Spiritualized did a different kind of dual mono thing on Pure Phase. As I understand it, they used the same tracks but did two separate mixes for the left and right channels.

xp agreed re the Mary void. They did talk up the dual-mono in press for the album, not exactly sure why unless for retro chic but it’s cool.
Re the engineering exactitude required, I’ve never understood how two mics could be in phase across a range of frequencies. If you’re catching the same phase of a sound wave because of physical position relationships, they must be way off for other wavelengths?

Spiritualized did a different kind of dual mono thing on Pure Phase. As I understand it, they used the same tracks but did two separate mixes for the left and right channels.

If you want to get into the weeds on this and can deal with a vaping, shirtless, garrulous host then here's a two hour interview with engineer Mads Bjerke who did the Pure Phase mix with Jason.

Spiritualized bit starts at around 48:20

Well, actually it gets going at 56:25. There's a lot of really good stuff in this, I've always wanted to understand what the deal was with the mixing of Pure Phase.