All you "Mono" Lovers, do you listen on 1 speaker or 2?

Well not necessarily. If one wants a true mono experience only one speaker and mono amp should be used. An old Harman Kardon tube mono amp feeding an Altec model 6 fills the room quite well. Filling the room however should not be the goal. It is easy to sit near a mono speaker and hear into the recording. Simply point either ear toward speaker and listen. No worries about speaker tilt, or toe-in, or distance apart, or a sweet spot or balance, or attenuation(L pads), or ... .

 

by what definition, though? if my radio from 1936 has five speakers, it can't be inauthentic to listen through more than one.

 

See what you think and report back ...

 

I guess by the definition of one channel. Like I'm sure your radio has. I doubt it has a 5 channel amp.The Altec I mentioned is actually a three way system, but just one system was used. The Mono sound would be coming from one point or area. Not two Altecs 8 feet apart. Toed in 2" each, sitting equal distances and facing the center, and so on. I interpreted the post as inquiring about listening to mono with 2 channels, regardless of the number of drivers in each channel.

 

When humankind evolves and we develop one solitary hearing receptacle in the middle of our forehead (akin to one ear) , then I think one speaker will suffice.

In other words , since we have 2 ears on the side of our heads, 2 speakers angled just so seems to pipe in those full notes just right, to lovingly hit those sensory pleasure zones...

Whether in mono or stereo.

 

And one ear.

 

No. The more speakers, the more impact.

 

George Harrison thought mono and one speaker were just fine, didn't he?

 

I just listened to Blonde on Blonde mono using one speaker, it sounded 'empty'.

Put both speakers on and the effect was far fuller.

 

What a very interesting question.
I don't think it really matters. Two speakers are really not necessary, but the fact that virtually all music listening devices are intended for at least 2 speakers, it would make sense to listen that way since it doesn't matter.

But if you have an old mono player that has one speaker, why not?

 

Of course I prefer and almost always listen to music with 2 speakers, including the many mono 60's albums and 45s I own. In my bedroom I have an original one speaker Dansette Major Deluxe record player from pre 1963. It's one of the better Dansette models. The sound isn't anything approaching hi-fi but it's surprising how much it fills the room. I never sit next to it or point it towards me when playing it.

 

If the stereo is set up correctly, the sound of mono recordings comes from the area in the middle between the loudspeakers. So in effect you have only one "virtual" speaker.

 

This is correct. With stereo, it's specifically designed for a stereo speaker set up, so using four speakers will really mess up the sound field.

 

A Stereo System should be set up to give an extremely solid center image which could fool you into thinking there is one imaginary center speaker when making mono. Problem is that although you will now have twice as many drivers in play (and thus bigger sound) you have also introduced phase irregularities as you move off axis to one side or the other. That is because the two speaker systems are adding and cancelling specific frequencies as you move off axis.

I take infinite setup pains to keep the center image solid as far off axis as possible with Stereo Speakers. But there is a limit. In my best room you can still hear the imaginary "center" speaker while moving all around the room and even well to the side of the normal seating/listening area. BUT if you turn off Stereo and simply listen to just one speaker you don't have any image blur or phase cancellation affecting frequency response. So one speaker actually is better.

What happens is that I prefer listening in Stereo/Mono to analyze the mix. But I prefer listening in single speaker True Mono to get the "flavor" of the point source effect which only ONE speaker can provide.

 

There is no correct or right/wrong answer here. I greatly prefer two speakers. Many of my mono LPs create a very realistic sounding wide, deep, center image. It's surprised friends who like music but don't know much about stereo and mono.

 

There is more possibility for introducing irregularities when you listen to mono through more than one speaker.

If you play it through a 5.1 system it should automatically play only through center speaker.

 

I tried to play mono recordings on my old 5.1 system through just the center speaker - there was some function that did that. It sounded like crap. Not sure if my current system will do that but I have little interest in trying!

 

I agree. It seems to be a "quieter" mono if it is just one speaker.

 

1 if by land, 2 if by sea.

 

But to what effect? Yeah... technically speaking the single signal path might be 'purer,' but you lose too much musicality and depth / breadth of image.

 

Musicality and breadth and depth of image on mono recordings played through 2 speakers are unintended artifacts. The guys mixing and mastering mono recordings in most cases were not doing so listening to them through 2 speakers. It may sound better to modern ears, much like adding a rear delay channel would. If you want a bigger sound, I would say turn it up.

 

No they're not artifacts at all. The performances have space - they have depth - width etc. Its easy to hear this simply by recording using a good quality single mic as opposed to a cheaper model. This is why mono records of the very same era differ hugely in sound quality based on the studio, label, recording equipment, the expertise of the recording & mixing personnel and so on. Purposely reducing playback system quality or ability has nothing to do with hearing a mono recording correctly.

And mixing for mono recordings was largely with a mind to create a particular sound for car or home radios that, at the time, were generally far from hi-fi. If one wants to go truly purist - 'the way it was meant to be heard' - then sit in a vintage car and crank up the radio, or get a period set up.

 

I prefer 2, thank you for asking.

 

To the extent you only hear them from playing them through 2 speakers, when they were mixed through one speaker, they are artifacts of the playback process you are choosing to use.

I will do it myself some time. They are pleasing artifacts. You get more interesting echoes in your listening room that way. I will also sometime use delayed rear channels on mono recordings if I think it sounds cool. I see them as rather similar.

 

I understand the idea behind listening to mono through one versus two speakers. By the 60's Lps were often billed as compatible mono/stereo. That, added with the recording history we know of (for examples george Martin's experimenting with compatible mixes) pretty much says mono mixes were also being designed to play back through two channel systems. Every component in a chain of a playback system induces artifact(s) or coloring. If we take a 60's stereo mix LP and play it back (presuming we even know what the 'intent' of the mixing engineers) through a compact folding speaker stereo of the day, we could say we're playing it faithfully - and thats cool historically or to listen 'vintage' - but we are still shortchanging ourselves. More modern equipment will wring more of everything out of that old recording. Including musicality (to a limit of course). Same thing with mono. Its not the mix that matters so much as how its presented. Its like vintage cars. I recently sold my 1960 Dodge, my car buddies would tease me why don't I run some authentic bias ply tires on it instead of steel radials? I said because I like the car to stay on all four wheels and not on its top on the mountain roads around here. My experience may not have been 100% authentic, but it was a lot more fun. I wrung more out of that car than the owner in 1960 got to.