Vinyl Asylum

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

Return to Vinyl Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Is Mono The New Stereo?

71.209.151.143
Posted on September 21, 2014 at 07:24:23
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005
 A couple of days ago the was a thread about the new Beatles mono re-issues. It was a feeding frenzy. And it seemed like people were buying them up and not at a cheap price either. I don't see the attraction to mono. The LPs I have in mono are dull and lifeless compared to the stereo version. Thoughts......

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
It's a fad., posted on September 21, 2014 at 07:47:06
Doug G.
Audiophile

Posts: 925
Location: Upper Midwest
Joined: September 21, 2005
 nt

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 07:58:10
BillyBenBilly
Audiophile

Posts: 1425
Location: New Mexico
Joined: July 31, 2003
 As I understand the situation with the Beatles re-issues in mono, the Beatles actually took great pains in mixing the mono versions and the stereo versions were often slapped together and/or mixed by others. I think Mr Fremer discusses this at length on his website, AnalogPlanet. Many of us want to hear the Beatles as they, themselves, intended. We are also audiophiles, after all, and also want wonderful sound at a reasonable price. Hence, all the excitement about the new Beatles mono re-issues.

In the 50's and 60's most jazz and rock was recorded primarily in mono and when issued in stereo, the instruments/voices were paned hard left and right. I have a lot of jazz LPs where the mono just plain sounds way better than the stereo. The color, impact, image density and naturalness of the mono just sounds better. Also, check out the Beach Boys stereo or duophonic LPs and compare them to the monos. I have and , to my ear and taste, the monos are much preferable. This is the case for many groups of that time period. They were recorded, mixed, and were intended to be played in mono. When stereo first came along, LPs were issued in that format as a second thought. By the late 1960's, stereo had caught on, artists, producers and engineers were then thinking predominantly in terms of stereo and had more experience with it. It tended to sound very good in many cases. Early to mid-late Beatles, I think, need to be heard in mono (I do like the stereo versions of the later Beatles, though). Now, many of us can afford to hear them in mono, the form the Beatles intended themselves to be heard in. The early Parlophone mono Beatles Lps have gotten prohibitively expensive and the $20 mono re-issues are a godsend and a revelation.

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:05:25
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 I think it has more to do with the Beatles and the time in which they were recorded. Some of their recordings were designed for mono because the stereo mix is very unconventional with vocals on one side and instruments on the other or some combination like that. However, certain Beatles recordings were intended to be in stereo for psychedelic reasons and when you take that away, it detracts from the intended effect of the music.

I have both mono and stereo versions of all the Beatles recordings and like you, I prefer stereo. I nearly always prefer stereo over mono unless it's electronically reprocessed stereo.

Based on what I've read here, the major attraction to these new mono Beatles recordings is their fidelity. I get the impression they were equalized in such a way as to bring out more bass and improve detail, which makes them sound much better. My mono recordings don't have much bass whereas my stereo versions have very nice deep bass. That is a big part of why I like my stereo versions better. However, even when using the mono switch on my preamp, I still like stereo better. Perhaps it all boils down to personal preference and mastering.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:09:23
big muck
Audiophile

Posts: 162
Joined: December 31, 2000
 The early Beatles releases were recorded in mono and later reprocessed in a very poor rendition of stereo, instruments on one channel and vocals on the other. With the mono it is centered as it should be. Less processing = better music. I have the the Rolling Stones "12 X 5" in an original mono pressing and a later stereo pressing which is processed much more sanely than the Beatles material. No contest on this one though, the mono has better clarity and energy.

 

So is The Beatles, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:32:58
Penguin
Audiophile

Posts: 7116
Location: Delaware
Joined: August 5, 2001
 but it lasted for over 50 years.

dee
;-D

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.

quote by Kurt Vonnegut

 

RE: "Everything that is old is new again", posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:45:10
BCR
Audiophile

Posts: 2446
Location: connecticut
Joined: April 7, 2009
 I've been waiting for over forty years for the return of Quad. Do you remember that fiasco?

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 08:50:20
bluemooze
Audiophile

Posts: 269
Location: New Jersey
Joined: November 18, 2009
 If you don't bother to listen to the new Beatles albums, then what's the point of starting a thread about them?

 

RE: Is trolling The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 09:34:29
Frank_Locke



Lol

 

RE: Is trolling The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 09:59:39
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Beauty!


 

RE: "Everything that is old is new again", posted on September 21, 2014 at 10:20:56
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23900
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since: January 29, 2004
 I think you must be living in a vacuum. It is now called 5.1 because it includes a center channel and subwoofer. Where have you been hiding?

 

What's the attraction?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 10:46:23
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2012
 The attraction is that some mono releases are just very good. The Bob Dylan Original Mono Recordings, Another Self Portrait vol. 10, and the current Beatles are the most involving and satisfying versions of that music I've heard. Other great monos are Pet Sounds, and If You Believe Your Eyes and Ears. Of all of these, the Beatles set is the most surprising; it really is a revelation, and has been drawing me into many songs of theirs I was never a big fan of.

I don't think it's a fad. There are many mono tapes from the 50's and 60's that may prove to be good candidates for better-than-ever-done-before releases, so I expect this to be pretty long lasting. It is certainly helped by Columbia/Legacy having Steve Berkowitz prowl their vaults looking for treasures that were either never released, or done badly the first time around.

What I do hope is a fad is the lavish packaging and sky-high pricing, but would be greatly surprised if my hopes come true.

WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 10:57:33
risabet
Audiophile

Posts: 3197
Location: SoCal
Joined: January 10, 2005
 Some of the most vivid sound I have heard has been mono. There is something about well reproduced mono that has a life and immediacy that stereo version of the same recording oft times lack. This has always been with true mono cartridges and mono phono preamps. I have been unable to reproduce mono with this level of involvement in my own system which lacks a mono switch which is necessary for proper reproduction with a stereo cartridge. I'll be trying a stereo to mono cable and seeing is that works as well. My two cents.



Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.

Adam Smith

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?........no, posted on September 21, 2014 at 11:54:04
user510
 ....These threads have been about The Beatles. As others have noted The Beatles were personally involved in the production and engineering of the mono versions of their recordings. But allowed the engineers to channel the stereo versions while they were away doing other stuff. (Especially those previous to The white Album when the recording equipment was more primitive at Abbey Road Studios than in other studios around the world.)

For more info on The Beatles here are a couple of book titles worth the read:
"The Beatles, The Biography" by Bob Spitz isbn 0-316-80352-9

This is an overview of their recording and performing career as a group that offers individual biographies as well as notes on their recording sessions. Well worth the read.

"Here, There and Everywhere, My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles"
by Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey isbn 1-592-40179-1

This book is useful in that it offers Emerick's perspective and his account on the recording sessions with The Beatles that he engineered.

Both books will also reveal which recording decks were used on what albums. EMI was a bit behind the curve for a time on equipment. For example a tour of a US recording studio at the same era would have turned up far more advanced recording equipment. Both books will document what recording equipment was used on which albums. If you read the above two you can get a pretty good idea of how The Beatles worked in and out of the recording studio.

-Steve

 

It's not that at all, posted on September 21, 2014 at 11:54:19
Paully
Audiophile

Posts: 5909
Location: West Virginia
Joined: February 15, 2004
 There are multiple albums by the Beatles where the stereo version just don't sound as good as the mono version because of how the stereo was put together. Not everyone feels that way, but quite a few do. So no, mono is not the new stereo but for some albums from the infancy of stereo, the mono version just sounds better in comparison. Toss in a brand spanking new record with no previous play, scratches, and groove damage in all analog, well I'm surprised they didn't sell out day one.

 

It was a fiasco only to those unsuccessful at keeping it. nt, posted on September 21, 2014 at 12:31:53
Doug G.
Audiophile

Posts: 925
Location: Upper Midwest
Joined: September 21, 2005
 nt

 

RE: "Everything that is old is new again", posted on September 21, 2014 at 12:38:37
BCR
Audiophile

Posts: 2446
Location: connecticut
Joined: April 7, 2009
 On vinyl? Wow ,I was not aware of that!

 

You need to hear some High Fidelity Mono recordings. It'll open your ears..., posted on September 21, 2014 at 13:58:37
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31879
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 start with this (for example):




That said, I've had the choice of collecting original Beatles UK LPs in either mono or stereo over the years
(and have a SWELL collection!) and have chosen stereo.

So, there ARE no hard and fast rules.

If mono is sounding dull and lifeless though, something is amiss with your system.




"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 14:38:23
jdiamantis
Audiophile

Posts: 111
Location: No. Virginia
Joined: December 16, 2002
 In part, it seems to be a fad for the hipsters. What other body of popular work could have possibly created such a buzz?

Some of us have been quietly enjoying monophonic recordings for a long time whether it's the only copy of the work available, or the recording is better served that way. I also think that those of us who were exposed to "mono" playback in the 50s and 60s are not as "put off" by it as those who weren't. Some of the comments here and other threads illustrate this.

Some newcomers will get it, and enjoy the Beatles Mono Box and other mono finds from that era. For others, it will be a temporary diversion.

Having said that, I'm pleased that "all envolved" with the Beatles Mono Box have done such a great job with it. They gave the hardcore fans what they wanted: all analog recordings, minimal audio processing/manipulation, and great disc quality control, for the most part.

It's a shame the same couldn't be said of the Stereo Box.

jD

 

RE: So is The Beatles, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:01:42
kyle
Audiophile

Posts: 1839
Location: London Ontario
Joined: September 29, 1999
 Buying yet another set of Beatles albums is fad. I've got a bunch of different pressings and versions etc. but it's still mid sixties nostalgia for the most part and not my favourites.
There were many other bands at that time that still have more personal relevance for me and seem to get more airplay than the Beatles. That could be because of the schmaltz factor or because they're overplayed. It could also be because the musical style is dated and many have a hard time relating to the "Originators" and "Fore Runners" labels that get assigned to the first band to popularize (not originate) a style.

 

So?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:16:14
Penguin
Audiophile

Posts: 7116
Location: Delaware
Joined: August 5, 2001
 You do agree it is a fad, just a long lasting one :)

dee
;-D

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.

quote by Kurt Vonnegut

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:20:12
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005
Who said I don't listen to them? I was just fascinated that there was so much about there mono recordings....

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:34:07
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005
Thanks to all that responded to this thread. It was very educational. My first thoughts the mono thing was just a fad and another vehicle to get more record sales. I see now that the whole recording process in mono was intentional......

 

RE: So?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:34:35
Frinky
Audiophile

Posts: 59
Location: Eugene, OR
Joined: July 15, 2005
 I look forward to hearing how the groovy opening "Number nine", "Number nine" sounds in mono thru headphones.....

Quick, more dope!

 

RE: Is Mono The New Stereo?, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:37:38
bluemooze
Audiophile

Posts: 269
Location: New Jersey
Joined: November 18, 2009
 Well I apologize then. The way your original post was worded led be to believe you didn't listen to them...

You wrote "... And it seemed like people were buying them up and not at a cheap price either." but you didn't mention that you bought them also.

And you wrote "... I don't see the attraction to mono." which also led me to think that had not bought/listened to them.

And finally you wrote "... The LPs I have in mono are dull and lifeless compared to the stereo version" which really made me think that you hadn't listened to them, but if this is your opinion based on having heard them, then I respect it completely. Everyone is entitled to their likes/dislikes.

 

Now now, sometimes the mono presentation is simply more "sensible," for lack of better word. nt, posted on September 21, 2014 at 17:40:16
jdaniel@jps.net
 .

 

RE: It's a fad., posted on September 21, 2014 at 19:22:20
Doug G.
Audiophile

Posts: 925
Location: Upper Midwest
Joined: September 21, 2005
 I didn't mean mono is a fad. I meant insisting mono is always better than stereo is a fad. Some people do that and it's silly.

Doug

 

Page processed in 0.043 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]