The cover of this new Japanese mini-sleeve reissue of The Who's "The Who Sell Out" says stereo, but according to thewho.info, it's the original mono mix:

What fun is that album without the original cover?

I know, but I'm a stickler for mono, baked beans second.

Googa, what about the other mini sleeves they put out recently? My Generation, Direct Hits ... are these all mono mixes?

"My Generation" is mono, with a cool alternative cover.

Thanks, Googa! I'm in too.

I'm still undecided on the "My Generation" mini-sleeve edition, as I've got that album in MCA and Deluxe already:

I'd like the straight mono mixes, the original ones, which this hopefully contains. The deluxe is very nice, especially in SACD, but it felt to me like Talmy put most of his labour into creating the new stereo mixes.

thewho.info says it's the original mono mix, so I've decided to get this one, too.

I know I'll catch hell for this but I don't understand the attraction of mono over stereo. It's like watching a movie in black and white as opposed to color. Everything just seems more open and less condensed in stereo. Come on, let me have it. Anyone else out there who prefers the stereo mixes over mono?

I've been told for twenty years now that "The Who Sell Out" is one of those albums where the mono mix is notably different. So in this case, I'd actually be interested in hearing for myself.

For the most part, however, the differences (such in the recent Monkees reissues) tend to completely escape me.

Steve, I agree with you. I grew up on stereo and perhaps that's why I prefer it. When I heard Pet Sounds in stereo, it was, to borrow your analogy, like going from b&w to color. I thought they did a good job of preserving the original feel of the music.

Stephen, I'm with you too. While some mono mixes can be "interesting" I'd much rather listen to stereo in most cases.

I tend to agree, in general with both Steve and CBK1998, regarding stereo vs. mono. The only exception would be with what I call the terrible "manufactured" stereo mixes.

Baked beans are off.

However, I will cite one exception: The Who's My Generation. When the stereo deluxe edition came out a few years back, I was very excited to be getting it.

But when I listened to the stereo version of the title track, the guitar overdubs and solo was gone. Apparently, those tracks were missing and unavailable to Shel Talmy when he did the stereo remix.

A rare occasion where I prefer the mono.

There are always exceptions that prove the rule.

In the case of many mid '60s recordings, the mono version was definitive. Producers/engineers had not yet perfected the "phantom center channel" mixing technique, instead opting for separation for separation's sake or ridiculous "ping pong" effects. If you do an A-B comparison of stereo-mono, mono often wins out. The stereo versions often sound thin, tinny, and unfocused, while their mono counterparts have more power and punch. While the soundstage is compressed, mono at least sounds natural, unlike some of the wide stereo mixes.

Some examples IMO where mono is vastly superior:

The first three Rascals albums.
The first two Monkees albums.
Help and Rubber Soul by The Beatles (my stereo references are the original 1965 mixes - not the 1987 remixes).

The Who Sell Out, The Beatles Sgt.Pepper, and The Beatles White Album are three examples where the mono and stereo versions differ significantly.

Also, many of the major artists, notably Brian Wilson and The Beatles, worked in mono.

Of course, I enjoy stereo recordings but find many of the tracks released in the '64-'68 era more listenable and enjoyable in mono. I'm an obsessive collector, so I typically buy all versions anyway.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on all of those you mentioned except for the Rascals albums which I haven't heard. To me the stereo just sounds better than mono. Don't hate me because I've got two ears.

I've always liked the wide stereo mix and really enjoy Roy Thomas Baker productions where he does the "ping pong" effect.

That's cool. I was just expressing why I find some mono recordings to be appealing.

Before stereo they would record on four tracks then "bounce them down," i.e. record two or three different tracks down to a blank track, combining all that sound to one track, then they would re-record over the other tracks, turning a possible 4 separate performances into 6-8 or even more, though sound degradation will set in at some point. (The trick is that once you combine several tracks to one and record over the originals you can't re-mix them so that one instrument is louder, so you'd better do it right the first time.)

In the early days of stereo they simply put two of the tracks from a four-track recording on one side and two on the other. So whatever they had bounced down to, say, track 4 ended up on the right, even if it was the tambourine and one voice doing oohs and aahs on a chorus. Since the performers and engineers didn't worry about stereo separation, all they tried to do was get the levels right and weren't so concerned about what instruments were paired up on tracks.

What it boils down to is sometimes you get the drums on the right and the vocals on the left and a very unbalanced sound. So the performers usually prefer it the way they intended it. Your mileage may vary.