 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Why do some audiophiles prefer the mono over stereo versions of old materials(like from the early '60s)? I see even bootlegs tauting mono mixes/versions of material that we've grown up listening to in stereo, like certain Beatles albums.Would clicking "mono" on the preamp have the same effect. Is it really just the care put into the mastering of the materials and mixing?
I would guess the advantage would be the
single point pick-up. When you are at a live
concert your ears are picking up sound from
a single point in space. Hopefully center stage.
Your ears aren't spread all over the room like
multi-mic techniques. Check out Nimbus Records.
They use a single point pick-up on all their
recordings which places you, in relation to
the music. I like them.
While they use only two mics, which is the simplest and purest form of recording IMO, they are nonetheless stereo and not monaural recordings.
steve
i'd have to disagree. a concert stage can hardly be considered a point source. also, your ears are not picking up a single point in space...you've got two ears in different places, that's two points.
I was saying "single point" as a generalization.
If you want to pick at the details, you will
have fun with this link.
I don't disagree with some of the comments re pop/rock/jazz, especially early stereo vs mono, or classical chamber music, but I simply have never heard a mono recording of large scale orchestral music (or big band jazz for that matter) that even comes close to stereo for conveying an even remotely comparable sense of what it should be like.
Mono for 'real-time' music should be very natural with good recorder/mic - if a single microphone's position can be put in a 'sweet spot' to obtain good balance between various sources and room envelope - it was done with success in the past and would be interesting for the amateur to execute nowOn many stereo albums, flipping to mono will sum certain info out of phase worsening timbre alteration - in the 1950's a lot of albums had full panning via switch with a vocal or even bass to one side
multitrack panned [fake] stereo was really good in the case of a few things like Jimi Hendrix 'Electric Ladyland' - it still can be a useful tool for music which is "assembled" piece-by-piece over time such as better rap examples - probably not so good for assembled 'classical'
5 7 channel doesn't make sense to me for acoustic music (Wendy Carlos would certainly disagree) - useful for steering efects within movie soundtracks
Freddy
Hi suretyguy.My first post was mostly concerned with answering (simply, since I tend to be long-winded) why some folks seem to be going ga-ga over mono versions of recordings also available in stereo--and these ARE mostly in the rock and pop category, a few in jazz. And yes, small ensemble chamber music...LOVE my Hollywood String Quartet original Capitols, for instance.
But most classical IS a bit different, I think. Especially with large forces, or mixed (orchestral & vocal) forces, getting the balance right is hard whether in mono or stereo. A few come close. Early Mercury (try the original mono-only British band classics LP, for example). Some early Capitol, before Angel took over all classical recording. Some--no, not all--of the RCA mono counterparts to the Shaded Dog stereos are pretty darn good, too. But probably the best large-force classical mono I ever heard was on original (UK) Decca of the Pirates of Penzance--exceptional range, clarity, depth and placement of the singers AND the instruments (from the pit). Really astounding. But, as you point out, these seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule.
Happy spinning,
Dirk
Sorry... That message number is not valid.
Another way of putting a lot of what is below is this: MOST (not all) early stereo was truly bad. Engineers either didn't know how to do a realistic stereo spread, or chose to emphasize that this REALLY IS stereo by putting everything hard right-hard left, or maybe they knew that the majority of people who had stereo had little console systems where the speakers were only a foot or two apart.Hole-in-the-middle stereo is very distracting and far less realistic sounding than mono. A mono cartridge may be an advantage, but I do just hit the mono switch on my preamp and get good results.
Having said all that, there were some truly excellent early stereos--Kind of Blue comes to mind, and I don't know why the monos of an album like this are considered (by some) to be better. It may just be that rarity makes them more valuable?
to the stereo is really quite simple.You wrote: Having said all that, there were some truly excellent early stereos--Kind of Blue comes to mind, and I don't know why the monos of an album like this are considered (by some) to be better. It may just be that rarity makes them more valuable?
The fact is that when Columbia was recording this album they did so to two machines - a stereo running at 15 IPS, and a mono running at 30 IPS.
Although I've never had the good fortune to hear the mono version, I am told by several collectors who own copies that the mono has less tape his and greater dynamic range - all as a result of the microphone placement and the faster recording speed of the mono deck. Hope this helps.
...just different.I agree with some of the posters below as far as the intent of a mono mix. Part of the reason mono mixes are so prized now is that as stereo came into vogue, the mono mix became an ugly stepsister. Also, with the Beatles White Album for example, the mono mix featured different takes/overdubs that the stereo version of the "same" LP. (In fact, the mono White Album is several minutes shorter than the stereo version.) I like some of the White album tracks better in stereo, some better in mono, so like I said, it's not necessarily better because it's mono. All depends on the listener.
Michael Fremer reviewed the mono Lyra Helikon (roughly $2000) and cited benefits in the sound. As I remember, he attributed part of the reason to the shape of the mono cart (which switching "mono" switch on preamp/ integrated wouldn't accomplish).Don't think they've archived that article at www.stereophile, sorry.
Bruce
Acoustics Sounds' description of the Lyra Mono cart: "On mono records, the vertical axis of the groove contains no nusical information, but it will frequently have noise in the form of groove damage and dirt. The Helikon Mono has therefore been designed to be completely insensitive to the vertical axis, which works wonders for the S/N ratio without causing any problems."
Hi TA.I certainly don't qualify as an expert, but I can pass along what I've been told. To wit...mono was a proven thing back then. It's what most people had players for, since not everyone rushed out to buy stereo in 1958 and 1959. Also, lots of recording teams and board men knew how to put out good mono even though some were still struggling to put out a superior stereo product. But as I understand it, the BIG reason is that groups if got involved in the mix-downs of their albums at all, they inevitably did so with the mono version, since this was THE broadcast standard--the version that would be heard over radio by their fans and by every potential buyer of singles and albums. Stereo FM wouldn't come along until the late '60s or early '70s, IIRC. So it was vitally important that the mono mix sound right.
This, at least, is the version of the story I've been told. Hope it helps. But, by the way, you should really hear the proof for yourself if you can. Check out early Beatles mono vs. stereo. Or Frank Sinatra on Capitol. Or Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow. Do that and you won't doubt that monos CAN be better.
Dirk
"the BIG reason is that groups if got involved"Make that: "the BIG reason is that IF groups got involved." Geez.
Also, you asked if pushing the "mono" switch would do the same thing? Probably not. The specific albums that audiophiles et al. prefer in mono are ones that have a distinctly different balance, mix and levels than the stereo versions. Now, if you get hold of a mono album and go to play it on your stereo, using the mono switch might be preferred...but then again, maybe not. You'll have to test that for yourself.
Happy spinning,
Dirk
v
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
