|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.92.183.202
In Reply to: RE: If you're sittin' on the fence? posted by csofan on October 14, 2014 at 14:48:29
Not mono again!I am so tired of the drum kit being set-up on top of the Steinway with the bass player somewhere in the men's WC five metres behind.
For sake of honesty mono should be called "clump of sound".
Edits: 10/15/14Follow Ups:
One was an hour plus long seminar featuring the Beatles mono box. They were using a VPI Classic 4 table with 2 3D arms and the top of the line Miyajima mono and stereo cartridges. The difference was not subtle-with the mono cart, the sound opened up dramatically and had more dynamic impact. Ben Webster's Soultrane was stunning with that same mono cart. It was really pretty revelatory, and I'm thinking seriously now about picking up the new 2M mono to try for myself.
I only buy mono recordings if they have some sentimental value and were never available in stereo. And not many of them.
Though mono jazz can sound pretty good I'll always opt for stereo if available.
Even worse than the "drummer stacked on the Steinway," how about an entire symphony orchestra in that clump of sound?
___
The little old ladies wait in wild anticipation for the meetings of the Double-A-C-ASSN...
I have heard (and have) a LOT of classical that is what I suppose some would call "golden era- phase 1" (right before RCA Stereo Shaded Dogs and what not?).
Hearing that stuff in mono makes me wish that I was there instead- hearing the orchestra or whatever/whoever (Toscanini, Starker, Casadesus). That would have been the real treat. To me though, while I can truly and totally understand the performances, I just feel like I'm missing that 3rd dimension of perception (kinda like waking up with something in an eye- you can't make sense of depth and bump into things you know are there while trying to get to the bathroom mirror).
Maybe THAT is what is missing when I hear mono- I've been a "stereo person" that when I hear mono of almost anything (with RARE exception to some jazz as well), there is an aural cue that is missing and I can't fill in that part of the sound...
Sorry for the ramble! To each their own, I suppose!
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
I agree so far as RCA is concerned. Those early stereo "shaded dogs" are excellent for their time in large part because the stereo effect is so well done. Many other early stereo LPs are very poorly done and you might be better off listening in mono.
RCA and Mercury also did excellent mono LPs in the 1950s. Yes, you are missing something with large orchestral pieces. You get a realistic sound but from a 20th row perspective rather than a 1st row perspective.
Posted about it, too. Rubber Soul , the stereo version just kills it in my opinion.
But, like you, I'm used to hearing those records, most records in fact, in stereo.
By the way, I bought a whole stack of those RCA "Orthophonic" records for a buck each at HalfPrice Books several years ago. Cleaned them and played them once. Yes, the performances were excellent but the sonics were just so unrealistic that I considered them unacceptible. Gave them all away to another Inmate.
Jerry's Records has mint dowel-rod UK-pressed Angel LPs, four bucks each. Some people slobber over those records (in a figurative sense of course) but I won't buy them.
___
The little old ladies wait in wild anticipation for the meetings of the Double-A-C-ASSN...
While I have a few monos (mostly old classical stuff), I GREW UP hearing the Beatles in stereo (yes, I'm calling it that rather than "dual mono" as some people put it) and can't get into the mono thing. Okay, so these mono mixes may have been priority for them back then, but I learned to record (as a very young teen) this way (drums way over on the left, voice on the right, bass somewhere down the middle with a guitar or piano) and to me it just sounds familiar.Today, of course, I still love listening to the older stuff- I still have Beatles "Rock 'n' Roll Music" double vinyl from the 70's in decent shape, and have Sgt Pepper, MMT, and a few others on album (mostly purple label Capitols), but they are in STEREO. I also love RCA Shaded Dogs (incredible) and even Telarc digitally recorded LPs (the 1812 and Shaw's Firebird come to mind because they are my fave), but each of these explored an era/area of sound recording and production that hadn't been done before. That is why the STEREO Beatles matter more to me...
Now if I could only wrap my head around which power amp to get...
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
Edits: 10/15/14
Generally you and I are in agreement, but if you have not heard the new Beatles monos you owe it to yourself to give one a try. You may be very pleasantly surprised. I know I was. I may be in the minority, but I really could not care less about any of their pre Rubber Soul releases. I only bought three of the new mono records ... Rubber Soul, Revolver and Pepper. All three are outstanding. I will probably never play my stereo Rubber Soul or Revolver again. The monos are THAT much better. I find the mono Pepper overall to be a more cohesive mix than the stereo and might give it the edge over the stereo mix, but I'll still play the stereo one too as I enjoy some of the whiz-bang effects added to it.
I have had for decades now a few Beatles albums on Japanese pressings and they are fine pressings indeed, but the stereo is so bad I could cry. On that basis I understand why some people do get excited over the monos. That's how bad those stereo recordings were! Absolutely no effort to even pretend that real people were playing their instrument in some form of real space.
I have some mono Jazz recordings that are lovely to listen to because the quality of the music and the playing takes your attention away from that small aural window. Some mono recordings are less objectionable to me in a way if I get the impression that I am actually sitting in the last row of seats high up in a balcony looking down at a stage so so far away that even in the natural sound of a group playing would be totally bunched up.
The worst are those Beatles recordings where the same instrument sounds hard left one minute and hard right another. What were they doing walking across the studio with their Vox amp tucked under under one arm?
I'm in the same boat as you- Rubber Soul, revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and MMT are my favorite era of Beatles.
That's probably the only reason "Rock 'n' Roll Music is still in my collection- its got most of the songs I consider "hits" and I don't have to pony up for the LPs again.
Regarding mono vs. stereo; yeah, different mixes for sure, and mono was the priority for their mixing back then, with stereo being somewhat of an afterthought. I have heard just about everything from Help onward in mono, courtesy of my old guitar player (he bought he CD box when it came out). Although the mixes are quite good (and in some cases just more or less different), the perspective of "everything in the center" just doesn't play well with my perceptions.
It's an opinion issue, I guess. At least we agree on the same era of their output!
Cheers,
Dman
Analog Junkie
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: