ERRATA CORRIGE: As some of you correctly pointed out, Pet Sounds and Axis Bold as Love or other records, in most cases were recorded in mono but also in a stereo version. So they are not digitally recreated in stereo. That does happen, but with much older records. Plus, it is important to underline that, a monophonic record or mono record is the result of a MONO mix and mastering. The recording process obviouslly employs several mics.
to "properly" listen to mono you need a mono cartridge ,a reciever that has a mono setting and a mono speaker designed for mono listening , listening to mono on 2 seperated speakers will deliver a different soundscape than a true single mono speaker,,,many vintage receivers have 2 or more speaker output sections where one selection would be a stereo set of speakers and the other could be a single mono speaker .. the manual for my vintage reciever shows this setup
This is a very rare subject on RU-vid, so thanks for tackling it. About 5 years ago I started purchasing a lot of older LPs of what one might call "elevator music", many of which were mono. I noticed that those mono albums sounded worse than the stereo albums from the same era. Through research I discovered that stereo cartridges are not optimized for mono recordings, so I bought an Audio Technica AT-MONO3/LP cartridge. The difference in sound quality is remarkable. There is far less noise using the proper cartridge. I bought a 2nd headshell (not a big expense) and can quite easily swap out the cartridges depending on what sort of album I am playing. I am using a Technics SL-D3 turntable and a Harmon-Kardon stereo receiver (with a built-in phono pre-amp) with 2 speakers and I love the sound. Regarding whether or not stereo is better than mono, I am a pragmatist-- if a recording is only available in mono, then mono is better. The alternative is nothing at all.
Stephen, thank you for sharing your experience. I am happy that you agree that mono does have purpose and a history and it is great that you try to reproduce it correctly!
There's a lot to look into just dealing with fold downs. True and compatible stereo and there was on older stereos left plus right and half sum and difference controls etc to deal with some of these problems. Just playing a mono record in mono loses all the noise in the difference channel cutting noise by half and whatever distortion is there. Much common knowledge has been lost about vinyl.
Many of those albums were not "recorded in mono", They were recorded on multi-track equipment (4 track and 8 track machines) and those various tracks were mixed down to a mono signal (due to the fact that most homes had mono players). The stereo version of Axis : Bold as Love is NOT fake stereo. Neither is the version of Pet Sounds you showed (although the original multi-tracks were not mixed into true stereo until the 1990's). It is incorrect to state that all mono records were recorded with 1 microphone. By the 1950's, multiple microphones were flowed through a mixing board where the signal was "balanced" down to mono (or stereo). By the 1960's the professional tape machines gave each of those microphones an individual "track" on the tape, and those tracks were mixed to a mono or stereo signal AFTER they were recorded.
True, obviously you are not going to record a whole band with 1 mic. The final mix is mono, you are right. Nevertheless, at the dawn of mono, most 78s were recorded that way. Yes, the records I showed were not only mono but a lot of them did undergo that process.
I have an extensive collection of Mono records. A mono cartridge. I am amazed by how good they sound. I researched this topic for a long time and decided to go with a quintet mono. Amazing I actually prefer collecting mono recordings now ☺️
I have a lot of mono recordings in my fifty plus years of record collecting. I always listened to them with a stereo cartridge. They sounded fine. Last week, I got a mono cartridge (and head shell). I agree with you. They sound terrific. There were things which a mono cartridge picks up which a stereo cartridge does not. It's like listening to it for the first time. If you want your mono LP's to sound their best, get a mono cartridge.
A word of caution on achieving mono output. Let’s say you want to listen to Sgt Pepper in mono. If you take a stereo recording of that album and use either a mono-switch or y-cables to get mono output to your speakers, this is NOT the same as having the mono record. This is what’s called a fold-down, when you collapse a stereo recording into mono. The mono mix is a dedicated different mix than the stereo mix, having been balanced, leveled, and EQ’d to sound great coming out of one speaker. If you want to truly experience mono as was intended, you need the actual mono recording, not a fold-down. Also, don’t ever play a stereo record with a mono cartridge. You can damage the stylus and the record.
The mono and stereo mixes of Sgt Pepper are different, not just a fold down. There are different sounds and different effects, even some different speeds. On the originals, The Beatles did the mono mix and the engineers did the stereo.
One reason why earlier albums sound better in mono than their stereo counterparts, is due to the greater effort being put into the mono mix, as it was the more common format at that time. Oftentimes the stereo mixes would be made by assistant engineers during off hours. So they are not exactly fakes. There’s a nice video around called Glyn Johns on mono.
I do enjoy hearing many of the 60's tracks in both stereo and mono mixes as it gives a different perspective on hearing how the instruments and musicians are laid out in the mix. For me, I usually enjoy the mono mix versions more as they yield a focused, "center stage" perspective of the music when I am centered in between the speakers and sitting back about 8 feet from the speakers, with the speakers set up at equal heights and angle placement. I use a cardboard template that I cut for the slight angle on the left and right speakers in their placement. First I adjusted the left speaker with the cardboard cutout and than I flipped the cardboard over to give the right speaker the correct angle that is equal to the left only inverted. You can see a photo on my channel photos for better "visual" explanation. Thanks again for your awesome videos on audio and I look forward to watching more as time allows!!...Have a great weekend from Lloyd.
I forgot to mention that I also enjoy the more powerful feeling and sounding impact of mono when all the musicians and instruments are present at the same time in both channels. Thanks again and I never get bored of these topics...Lloyd.
A few years ago I did a lot of ebaying getting a variety of variable reluctance mono cartridges to use with vintage jazz and classical mono records such as Decca lxt releases. These were mainly General Electric VR models some of which had been salvaged from old juke boxes and were hence easier to attach to standard headshells. They use a very different approach to producing current via a magnet and the technology was fantastic for mono but near impossible to adapt to stereo. I mainly use a VR2 model on my vinyl as the higher pressure required from older models can harm the vinyl. This was a very popular model at the height of mono and was used by Decca to quality check their records. I used 1mm old stock stylus. Some of my records sounded jaw dropping for example Maria Callas and Sarah Vaughans vibrato was reproduced with an accuracy and responsiveness I had never encountered before. Transients from plucked instruments such as harpsichord, harp and guitar were also uncanny. since then this is my go to cartridge for small group classical and jazz as my miyajima kotetu handles large orchestra and volumes better as the VR can get overloaded at large volume peaks. But it is a great value cartridge for revealing what mono can achieve.
I have some DC5 45's on the old yellow Epic that punch up great,too!Try "Any Way You Want It"!!Keep the volume down,it blasts in at the start with a force!!Great example of what mono's about.The excitement it conveys to the listener is phenomenal!!The 45's were also mixed louder because of AM being the predominant music signal in the '50's and '60's.Sound quality on AM stations werent and arent good so record labels would overcompensate on the record pressings,so the sound would come across better to the listener of the AM stations that played the Top 40 hits of the day.
I do have a 'Mono' Record player made in the UK by a company called "Goodsell", it is in a real wood case using an 'Garrard' idler drive turntable with an "Elac" Mono pickup (also flip over for 78s) and an "Elac"? single speaker and Mono solid state amplifier. It was built for use in Schools etc for Music studies so very durable compared to consumer units of the late 1960s period. It also radiates the sound out of the rear of the unit and best used close to a wall to enhance and widen the Mono soundstage. This is definately the way to enjoy Mono records (Vinyl and 78s) at their best!.
i collect Connie Francis now onto my 45th year[1971]. i have become sort of a aficionado on her. Mono/Stereo Albums of her 80 releases [1958-1970] in USA alone count as her starter collection...as she is an Italian American .Now some of her mono equivalents of her albums feature mono takes not featured on her stereo equivalents.For instance on her 1st mono/stereo LP THE EXCITING CF MGM E/SE 3761. The track THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER YOU on the mono release is a different take than the stereo counterpart...i still can't see the difference, because it's so minor. but on other lp's there are differing mono stereo takes issued on the lp's. The only thing that is that when MGM and i think other labels in the 1960's they started issuing Electronic stereo instead of the true stereo[while i think that they had the true stereo tracks..i just don't know why they didn't issue the true stereo tracks then] Who's Sorry Now? was never recorded in stereo as it was recorded in 2nd October 1957..a few months before MGM introduced stereo in 1958.
Many recordings are better to stereo. One can determine that by listening to the actual recording, instead of the superficiality of listening to the two channels. Mono dominated the market into the late 1960s. Early "Beatles" are not stereo; they are two-track pre-mixed mono. The ultimate goal was radio play, which was MONO.
I think a more proper phrase would be to talk about albums being *mixed* in mono/stereo rather than *recorded* in mono/stereo. They were recorded on multi-track tapes, and whether the end up being mono or stereo is a result of how they are mixed, not recorded. As you said, mono was the gold standard until the 60’s. As stereo became more popular, labels started releasing records in both mono and stereo. But it wasn’t like anyone said, “ok, we have to record this both ways now.” Rather, the same original multi-track recordings (with some exceptions) were mixed into either one-channel (mono) or two channels (stereo). The Beatles, as you mentioned, are a great example of this. To be clear, all of their UK albums were released in both mono and stereo throughout the 60’s until Abbey Road and Let It Be, which were stereo-only. It’s just that because up until the White Album, mono out-sold stereo. The mono *mix* was the one that the Beatles were in the room for and approved. Those same multi-track recordings were *mixed* to stereo as a relative afterthought until stereo overtook mono.
The fact is that, because most of the people in the 50s and 60s had mono turntables, record companies paid more attention to monophonic mixes of the outcoming records. They paid more attention to quality of Mono than the stereo mixes, which were for the much lesser stereo system owners. About singles ..... as i read in an inner sleeve of a record, singles were all in mono until 1968
I wasn't aware that you need a proper cartridge for mono records. I own Here's little Richard and magical mystery tour reissue in mono and both sounds awesome with my rega bias 2. What would happen in your system if you use the stereo cartridge for a mono record?
Mono Is a fantastic format I love 60s music and imo it sounds alot better in mono not to mention it is worth getting mono copies of records you already own in stereo because it's like hearing it for the first time again the effects and mixing are usually alot different compared to their stereo counterpart
original UK 60,s mono singles in playable condition and not worn out or damage by the sixties record players and a blunt stylus can sound stunning with massive dynamic range with a powerful sound quality . if you can find them in that condition most are not and suffer with distortion . you need a time machine ...
I've tried the Y connectors but there is no sound. I have a Pro-ject Debut Carbon turntable linked to a Marantz PM6005 amp. Someone suggested I might need a signal boost by adding a pre-amp. A good idea, or any suggestions where I might have gone wrong.
If you are picking up the signal directly from the cartrdige, meaning there is no preamp built un the turntable (which is a good thing) then yes, you need a phono preamp to bring the signal to line level.
@@anadialog Thanks for the swift response. Now to find a suitable phono pre-amp! Not sure whether I can justify the cost of a mono cartridge at the moment but you never know.
Thanjs for that. I’m thinking if getting a mono cartridge finally, for my mono records. I also have a lot od cds that are mono eg the beatles in mono. What are peoples thoughts on a mono cd compared to a mono vinyl?
Those are just simply "Y" cables that merge the stereo single in one channel. Considering that mist of us have a stereo setup, you need to send the obtained mono signal to both speakers, that is why you need another "Y" cable on the other side...
I have a second tone arm with a mono cartridge (Ortofon Cadenza white), my stereo tone arm cost twice as my mono arm but the mono sounds still way better. If you have mono records, get a mono cartridge, it sounds better, period, no discussion here, everybody can hear it, everybody would agree. So many people talk about something they never checked out by themselves, that is the problem. If you try it, you will agree...or you have no ears :-)
Im late but I need to ask this. If I play one of my few mono records on my standard stereo cartridge, will it harm any of those or just not sound all that great?
Never late! All my videos keep ongoing and I try to answer useful questions. You can use a stereo cartridge, no problem, you will just have more noise.
Bluenote, Impulse and some of Columbia best jazz and most highly collectible is mono. The Beatles box set sounds much better in mono than stereo, I now have both and prefer the mono. I must look for that rolling stone box set in mono. For me and for now, I’m just using the mono switch on my preamp and phono preamp. Now you have sent me on that quest to find that darn Rolling Stone album in Mono, darn it. Keep up the good work and I love the channel and the work that you are doing.
Mah-No, pronounced like the kissing disease, lol. Your video sounds monaural as I can hear your voice and the background music equally through each side of my headphones. One thing I do like about mono (my stereo has a mono switch) is when I find a weaker FM station where the stereo indicator fades in and out, or where it makes background noise from being a weak signal I can depress the mono switch and it clears up the sound fairly eliminating most of the static and keeping the sound level stable. I've often wondered why they produced things like boom boxes in stereo since the speakers are so close together that the stereo is nigh impossible to distinguish which is why for table radios in my house I have simple single speaker radios.
Is it right, that in the 1970's mono records were made like a stereo record, but without any stereo separation? 18 micrometer as normal stereo records?
I have several of the Beatles mono albums but have been unable to play them due to my rather primitive (outdated) equipment. My budget doesn't allow me to upgrade at the time. I did buy a Pyle mini phono pre-amp as my receiver doesn't have a photo input. So I can play stereo albums fine. How would the y-connector set up with with the pre-amp? Would I need 4 y-connectors instead of 2? Thanks for any input.
Hi there, it's a little annoying because you have to do it everytime you want to hear a mono record. Better a preamp with a mono switch, an external mono/stereo switch or a monk cartridge as explained in the video. For the Y cables you need 2. You attach it immediately after the preamp, connect the Y cable to the outputs of the preamp and then again immediately to another Y cable. At this point you need a female to make Y cable or, as I showed in the drawing a female to female connector in order to joint two normal Y Male cables...I hope this is clear...!
Hello, I need help but maybe I already have my answer. If I alternate mono or stereo cartridge of differente brands for the same turntable with a S arm, I have to change VTA, rotate counterweight and more, isn't it ?
Yes, if there considerable difference in the height of the cart you should adjust VTA. The tracking force is very important and it will change significantly from one cart to another. You should also check the allignment but you have a detachable headshell you just need to do that the first time.
@@anadialog thanks a lot. To avoid these settings, I'll with choose the Grado ME+ for mono and keep the Gold for the stereo. I learn better with your videos 👍, you're essential for hifi equipments and music
The recent Who mono reissues capture the energy of the band in a way stereo fails. When played in on a stereo setup surprising you get all the 3D depth layering like stereo. Like most things in Hi-Fi though you need a decent mono cartridge such as the Miyajima Zero for example.
Hi there! Just out of curiosity: are the later reissues of e.g. Beatles mono records engraved correctly as "mono in the old way" or are they using the same "stereo engravement" with the exception of having identical left and right signals? To me there must be a diffrence whether the engravement system makes use of both horisontal and vertical tracks or just use the horisontal. I guess that is why a mono record played using a mono cartridge sounds so much better than by using a stereo; it doesn't pick up any exisiting "vertical noise". Thanks, Janne
Of they are mono they should have used a mono head for cutting. Beatles I am sure they were faithfull to the original pressings others may have used the trick that you described but is not true mono, more like a forgery.
13:25 Arnt the Stereo / Mono switch boxes the same idea as Y connector cables and Mono switches on an amp? Are the other methods not as much of additional steps for the signal?
Y cables merge sound naturally but its just too long and difficult to do everytime...switches are switches at every stage. Both are not recommended...better a mono cart!
Thanks for the info! I had no idea that a lot of the Rolling Stones was in mono. Just got myself the Mono boxset. I have a few mono records already, mostly early Bob Dylan.
Apparently, The Beatles' albums were originally remixed into stereo by some random employee working at the studio they used at the time. He wasn't an expert mastering engineer. I was blown away when I was told this.
True, Ingot mixed up. As I have claimed in my recent video they recorded both stereo and mono but the stereo side A was lost and redone in a rush, while mono is the original production done properly. At least that is the story out there...
In his book "All You Need is Ears," George Martin wrote how "The Beatles" were puzzled, when they first began intentionally recording in stereo, about there being two speakers.
I prefer Beatles in stereo. Many of the recordings made in mono sound lousier when electronically altered to pseudo stereo. I have no problems playing mono LP's using stereo cartridges. If a mono LP sounds bad with a stereo cartridge, it's a lousy recording or bad pressing.
No, that way you would be losing half of the sound. Stereo means different sounds coming from the two channels. Mono is when the whole sound is reproduced identically on both channels.
I use the double Y rca solution.. until I can get my second TT set up fo mono. FYI.. the double Y rca option takes care of the noise problem caused by the stereo cartridge
Great video as always! So I understand that I just have to buy a mono cartridge with another headshell, but shall I do something more to the system? I know a second system would be perfect, but if I just change the cartridge will work, I´ll get that step.
I´m sorry! Let me ask you something more...so if I have to switch the cart from stereo to mono...do I have to adjust the tracking force everytime I switch?
I'm Italian so that is why I have a different pronunciation. In any case, its Latin, which was developed in Italy, and the true correct pronunciation is Mo-no. FYI.
I generally prefer mono, but i think Axis was recorded with stereo in mind. I have both versions, and the stereo sounds incredible. EXP has to be heard in stereo to be appreciated.
True, but you know they lost side A and redone it one night. If you haven't, check the Axis video I did a few weeks ago: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-70xiFq_BiEE.html I saw your precedent comment, sorry about that, it's my Italian background so I mispronounce a lot of words.
I just play my mono records on my regular stereo setup, and they sound great. Does it really get that much better if you play them through a dedicated mono rig?
Hi Artamus, well the noise generated by the stereo cart in mono grooves is rather strong. If you get a decent quality mono cart, yes, the results will be much better! Not night to day changes but definitely a different experience with a richer tone and crisp sounds.
ana[dia]log Thanks for the advice. Honestly I don’t think I hear any more noise on mono records than I do on stereo ones. I did notice that some of them, the mono reissue of the Beatles Revolver, for instance, actually still sound kinda like stereo, but more subtle, without the hard panning on the actual stereo version. (I have both) I also have an original 1965 pressing of Major Lance’s greatest hits, and the fidelity is awesome, and very mono sounding. I do have two good turntables, a mint condition vintage 1978 Pioneer PL-540, and a new Audio Technica LP-5, l’ll consider installing a mono cart on one of them. Thanks again. 🙂👍
Cinema already had 5.1 stereo at the end of the fifties with 70mm Todd-AO format. Dolby Surround arrived in the seventies, because this was a much cheaper system on 35mm film compared with 5.1 om 70mm film.
5.1 a Common standard in the 50's? No way! Silver screens would still be shaking with the bass from 1 pair of VOTT's well into the 80's in many movie theatres. Quite often in Mono, too, not that many people noticed...
just bought Bose S1 pro going to buy audio technica (AT-LP 120X USB) direct drive turntable and mono cartridge ( VM610 ) and head shell ( AT-HS 6). play both channels in BOSE speaker. ( one speaker mono )
Nice that mono gets the attention it deserves and nice of you to make a video about it but it aint that simple. 78rpm mono is not the same as later vinyl mono 33rpm. Totally different "typology" 78 has only lateral cut while later is diagonally cut like stereo but same signal on both "channel". For a really good reproduction of 78 you need a true mono, only lateral movement of needle, only two pin cartridge. For later recordings, like the Beatles, a stereo cartridge with diagonal movement, four pin, left and right connected together type of cartridge. A new expensive wider tip stylus for 78 coarse groove does still not sound good if the cartridge is not a true mono. A true mono cartridge like the General Electric from 1952 will any day outperform newer fancy, expensive fake-mono cartridges. But 78's has a much higher dynamic range and energy and must therefore have the cartridge in a very stable and heavy tone arm. Newer flimsy lightweight arms and players doesn't work for 78 (compliance problem), you get sound but not near what it can be. Thanks for the clip, I will follow your channel.
As you have seen I made a whole video on how to playback 78s correctly. For others interested, here is a link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_aybfww2nIg.html
Sorry, but I love stereo! Mono sounds boring and two dimensional! But that being said, I rather have mono than "fake" stereo! But nothing beats "true stereo! Mono is like" black and white" in the audio world, and stereo is like "technicolor"!
Hi again, well, it depends....if you need great soundstage and depth you are probably right but for other more 'simple' types of music, with just a few instruments, mono can rival and perhaps outstand stereo...the fact is that we are not exploring the true potential of mono. We are always using a stereo-converted set-up in most cases. Take the 'Axis bold as Love' album of good old Jimi...the mono stereo blows the stereo version out of the water, probably because it IS a mono recording. I would love to hear a true modern mono recording AAA production and compare it to the same stereo version...
made the Beatles new releases of their records because I heard recordings where one musical instrument is on the right speaker another musical instrument is on the left speaker. I've heard that in the Beatles studio they record with 17 audio channels which they then used to mix the sound
Hi there, all record speed can be mono (or stereo): 78, 33, 45 and the other velocities...we can add that all 78's are mono (except new productions obviously).
If I remember correctly Pet Sounds in Stereo is not electronically rechanneled but real Stereo from a Stereo mixdown of the tracks. I have Ella & Louis in mono and a Verve fake Stereo edition and it's a mess. When I was young and foolish and lived in Florence I used to have an equipment I built from a Nuova Elettronica kit to create this fake stereo sound from mono sources but I used it only a few times with horrible results. I usually read my Mono records with Stereo cartridges and simply let the preamp add the channels with the mono-stereo switch. Tracks gather dynamics and noise fall down to unaudible levels. I'm not so keen on using some device and long cables between cartridges and phono preamps or between equipments in general. Capacitance goes up to the roof and sound suffers.
Yes, could be. I just meant that this was done several times unfortunately. If you use a good MC mono cartridge you don't have to pay attention to capacitance. With MM, yes.
Last week I've heard mono records on a serious sound system. Thorens turntable and 1970's JBL studio monitors. It totally blew me away!!! Peggy Lee was in the same room, Apache by the Shadows never sounded so good. I nearly bought an expensive cartridge but decided to check my collection first. Don't have too many mono LP's.... But, what a great sound!!
@@anadialog I thuoght the same for a long time until last week. I have some mono records but played them the wrong way. I never used the mono switch on my vintage amps either. That makes a big difference indeed. Like I said, it totally blew me away. My mono Miles Davis LP's (Jazz Track and Milestones) sounds so much better now. Thanks for the reply and upload!!
there is another quest you could revise in a video...Some stereo pressings of MGM product have a label which states '45/45 ' on the middle right hand side.This it means that the vinyl is pressed in a 45d groove angle. Now does that mean that only those pressings are pressed on a 45/45 degree angle? or every vinyl groove is pressed that way, only the label sais it...I find that 45/45 has a better sound reproduction than the ordinary stereo labeled ones. this pressing started in 1959 to 1963..the last CF album to have this 45/45 label is THE VERY BEST OF CONNIE FRANCIS MGM SE 4167 issued in Sept 1963.
Apart from live music, the real life experience, nobody wants stereo if you think of, I want to listen all the music same way from all speakers. :-D Long live Mono. But stereo and Dolby, 3D sound is a great revolution. Also Mono records are better.
Listening in Depth from even as far back as 1958 was recorded in stereo, and only in stereo. That certainly wasn't an afterthought, quite the opposite. It was the primary intention of the record that it would be in stereo to demonstrate the marvellous sound stereo imparts on the ears. It's almost like being at the venue where it was recorded, surface noise and distortion excepted.
stereo is good when the recording in stereo mono is good when left in mono those fake stereo recording sound terrible i have some Atlantic records the 45s were great in mono but when they started releasing the LPs the second pressing in stereo you hear the difference the same with Motown
They used the worst way to turn it into "stereo". They added some reverb on the left channel, some echo on right channel, you can't get the original sound. When I want to make a recording sounds stereo, I would first ensure, that it sounds played in mono the same as before. Then I would filter the instruments, trying to make it separately, add some reverb, trying to imitate the original reverb. I would use this as difference signal and the original as center signal.
I have a few like that. If played in mono it sounds like there are two of everything. Another way was to divide different band of frequencies between the two channels. Sometimes, a lot of low end on one side and high end on the other, or variations on that theme.
Mono, schmono. I have the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds on CD, stereo and mono. I could be happy with either one. I also have The Rolling Stones Singles in 45rpm, 1963-1966. All are in mono because just about all 45s were in mono. Does it sound better than the stereo versions on their albums? Not to my ears. Again, I could be happy with either one. I also have old opera recordings from the 1950s in mono. The voices sound full and focused but the recordings lack what stereo delivers, a sense of depth and space, and better imaging. Calling stereo mixes a "fake" is a stretch. After all, the music is the same, even though mono was the original mix in pre-1968 pop recordings. The real fake is recording engineers using gimmicks like reverb in an effort to create some sort of stereo ambiance. With few exceptions (like RCA's release of Glen Miller recordings), the result sounds awful. All that said, this mono craze is interesting. When stereo came in, mono became a dirty word. Stereo was the proverbial "latest and greatest," and record companies began to discontinue mono mixes after around 1968. Abbey Road, for example, never had a mono mix.
Well in most cases I do agree with you but, not this time. I know in the 60's you could chosse between a mono and stereo version of the record. I the bought the Sgt Pepper album allready in stereo. As you allso might know, it was recorded with a Studer J37 4 channel machine. I even do own the album Öut off the schadows" recorded in stereo back in 1962. Most off the records back then had a collour code Blue and an other one. Here a link about the history about the Studer machines. Hope you will enjoy it. Ohh and BTW, the Shadows did allso recorded with Studer tape machines. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DDj7k4R4hoM.html As Allway's keep on doing the good work.
isnt stereo a fake. im sure i read stereo isnt what we think it is. in engineering side its advised to eq in mono then switch back to fake stereo. theres alot of trickery involved in both mono and stereo. dont be fooled mono is incredably versatile and images better to my ears. but both have a equal role to play in two channel stereo. we have had the ability to create wonderfull depth and spacial width with mono for a very long time. search "the has effect" for one example of how mono can be used for kool stereo trickery. now as for listening to the end product i dont mind either if theyve been set up correctly the phantom image will be in the middle on both. some people say they prefer a mono cart feeding into a stereo system. (tech when you have the same signal on left and right (stereo buss) as long as the channels are hard panned left n right the image will be in the middle and no phasey artifacts. maybe something for the scientist minded to do a true mono set up verses mono in two channels. lastly, a stereo cart feeding a mono switch will already have picked up the distortion at the needle so although its a work around it cant be taken seriously as the noise is in there before the mono convertion. guess it depends on if you hear the distortion.
Thank you for your reflections Scott! I agree in particular when you say that mono can create depth. True mono should be on a single specific loudspeaker but the phantom center effect does seem very present and natural.
To me the stereo effect is easiest to notice wearing headphones or when using speakers placed across a rom from each other. In a stereo recording for example California Dreamin' by The Mamas & The Papas I can hear the instruments and the male voices in the right channel and the female voices and drums in the left channel. With eyes closed it makes me feel as though I were sitting center stage being able to hear right and left individually whereas with mono it sounds as though they were all crowding around the same mic right in front of me.
Actually you are noticing its limitations since stereo is designed for speakers and not headphones. Binaural recordings wouod be the best for headphones: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wAFXElyM-TM.html
Isnt' all recorded music "fake"? Both mono and stereo are the result of a mixing engineer's judgement. Even mono with a single mic depends on where the mic is placed. I'm grateful to have acess to a facimile of a live performance. I'm not including "reprocessed for stereo" in my humble opinion. That is better left in mono.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)