Smile: stereo or mono?

Mono, of course.

 

Yes! stereo AND mono!

 

Stereo, of course. Why should Brian Wilson's hearing problems impact my listening?

 

Maybe if they had actually finished Smile in 1967 and released it only in mono, I would care what the historically accurate mix was.

 

Mono and stereo actually has pretty little to do with how many ears you have working, unless you're listening on headphones only, all the time. Stereo is about giving frequencies room to be heard. You don't have to be listening with two ears to hear the separation.

I think it's pretty common knowledge that Brian actually only preferred mono because he could control how the public would hear his music. Stereo sounds different on almost every stereo and based on speaker positioning etc...

 

This line gets trotted out over and over every time we have this discussion, but is it really true? No. Sure, I'm sure that there are minute differences introduced by speaker positioning and a listener's equipment in general, but, if you have any sort of working mid-fi or hi-fi amplifier and two working speakers, you are going to hear fundamentally the same stereo mix that any other listener with working stereo equipment is going to hear.

I'm sure that when I watch TV shows on my MacBook, the color saturation is marginally different than it would be if I were watching them on a high-end plasma TV, or even on an el cheapo Vizio flat panel TV, but that's not a reason not to broadcast TV shows in color.

 

Actually you do have to have two ears to hear the separation. This is why humans and all other warm blooded animals have two ears.

 

+2

 

I too, understand the need to have the main "album" in mono for historical reasons, but I really like SMiLE is stereo. There are a number for new fan-created stereo mixes using pieces from the box set. Those mixes will become my "go to" disc when I'm in a SMiLE mood.

 

Sorry my friend. You have just proven to me that you don't know what you're talking about. My right ear is virtually done, which means i can only use and trust my left ear when I listen to, record and produce music.

I don't need 2 ears to hear separation and frequencies coming out of two sources. My 1 ear can tell me which sound is coming from which speaker otherwise how the hell could i mix and master in stereo?

 

i read once that it was more to do with equipment in the 60's that people listened with. There was a greater variance in systems, methods of listening, and little settings you could press to make them sound different. These days, you make a mix in stereo and you're pretty safe that it's gonna be heard close to the same mix you created in the studio.

 

I have two working ears, and I presume you have to have two working ears in order to hear stereo separation. I believe people with one eye lose depth perception for the same reason that people with one ear can't truly hear stereo.

 

Do you want to bet that at some point down the road we get a new stereo version of Smile? It may become the new "Pet Sounds" (as in, let's see how many time we can re-release this and they will buy it)

 

I don't claim to know but audiologists disagree with you. "You won’t be hearing true stereo—as that takes 2 ears—but you will hear everything on both stereo channels combined together into the one earbud." http://hearinglosshelp.com/weblog/hearing-stereo-with-one-ear-2.php

 

I think the mono sounds just fine. The frequency range is wide, it's got dynamics, there's depth and lots of detail. For me, a stereo mix of this release is unnecessary.

 

The way you guys are thinking is for positioning/directional awareness, and the ability to define WHERE a sound is coming from. So if something in a room made a noise, not being able to define exactly where it came from straight away.

It doesn't change the ability to hear the separation and the different parts that a stereo mix delivers. I can tell you instantly what phase and positioning any instrument is in a mix with one good working ear.

 

This makes sense to me: "You can experience stereo partly by simply turning your head and
hearing different sounds from different directions. Even for a person deaf in one ear, stereo is likely to be different from mono (depending on how the recording was made). But a person deaf in one ear would not be well equipped to critique a stereo system."

Thoughts?

 

No you're right. If you're going biologically to the letter, hearing IN stereo needs 2 ears. HEARING STEREO doesn't. Does that make sense. I can fully appreciate and decipher a stereo mix, just as well as when my right ear worked.

 

A band that implores so many amazing layers of vocals and instruments needs to be heard in stereo IMHO.

It's not either or though for this question though- they don't have stero mixes for all the tracks as many other have noted.

 

Hahaha. You know what, unless you're deaf in one ear it's pretty hard to get the point across. I don't need 2 ears to hear every single nuance, vocal part, instrument, cough, bleed through. The seperation has been created by the mix itself but i guess it helps that i have a very trained ear through years of music production. And don't get me wrong, I wish both my ears worked the way they should.
The irony is that it's been years of music along with a genetic weakness that's caused it!

 

Got ya and thanks for the clarification. Glad you can hear the whole mix! Now, and I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot, why did Wilson shun stereo if he were able to actually hear stereo? Or simply hand the controls over to a trusted engineer?

 

Sorry, i'm getting down from my soapbox now! Haha.

It's obviously a point close to my heart. Music is everything to me and I just had to try and get my point across as someone who's gone from hearing perfectly in 2 ears to 1.

I thought Brian genuinely took the mono path following Phil Spector as he said the same thing. Wanted full control over his sound.

 

I can't believe the stereo lovers are actually ahead in the poll at this point.

 

Well to back up what someone said earlier-I just happened to watch "Beautiful Dreamer the Story of Smile" and the film-maker (and I think Bruce Johnston too?) explained that Brian did Mono because he wanted his music to be heard as the way he intended it to, and not change due to people hearing it on different equipment. Nothing to do with his hearing. Could be in response to the Beatles wacky stereo mixes.

 

If it makes you feel better, the mono lovers are ahead in life, because they got the main album in mono.

I voted "mono", but mostly because switching from mono to stereo would be annoying. I want everything in stereo, too, as others have pointed out. I think they made the right decision.