Classical music in mono

I'm with hvbias on the Schnabel Beethoven, the Naxos discs that were done by Mark Obert-Thorn are very satisfying.

 

I'll have to listen to that one. I'm curious, actually!

 

Some good old RIAS recordings (for broadcasting purpose) from the 50's are available from Audite label.
They have glorious monaural sound from West Berlin. Many of them have better sonics than the DG from the same years IMO.

https://www.audite.de/en/list.html

 

Pretty much anything produced for EMI by Walter Legge sounds good (I make a possible exception in the case of the Karajan Ariadne Auf Naxos, which sounds a bit too dry for my tastes). Legge was a 'mono diehard' who didn't believe that stereo would ever catch on and continued making mono recordings even after stereo had been established as the norm. He did come round, though, and his post-1957 stereo recordings are equally good.

 

What I've heard from audite has been excellent, although I got the complete RIAS Furtwängler set and while the frequency response sounds great for the time, to my ear there's issues with sharp attacks breaking up. I don't know if this is an issue with the tapes or in the processing, but I notice it most on the Beethoven 5th from 1947, especially towards the end. Does anyone have this and have any idea what's going on?
https://www.audite.de/en/product/13...urtwaengler_the_complete_rias_recordings.html

 

I have lots of mono classical LPs in my collection. The old Deccas( among others) are pretty amazing. If you want to explore some of these for yourself-Decca issued a mono box a couple of years ago as part of their Decca Sound series of boxes.

 

His production of Beethoven 9 with Klemperer and the Philharmonia is a bit uncharacteristically dull on the recent Klemperer Beethoven megabox, is that just a bit of a dull recording? I've never heard it on any other disc so I'm not really sure if that's "just how it is".

I agree though, later stereo recordings like the 60s Mahler 2 are exquisite - and back on topic, even the mono LP of this recording sounds great!

(Back off topic, that Mahler 2 has a little recording quirk in the 5th movement which I noticed while listening in headphones. When the off stage band is clattering away they're in a great wide distant stereo, but one of their intrusions drops back to mono. It makes me amazingly curious as to what happened during the session to make only one of their little bits mono, while the rest are in wonderful stereo. I wonder if any of the techs from the early 60s are still around and would know?)

 

Yes, those 50s mono Deccas are great, and they still stand up today.

 

I find a lot of opera is preferable in mono where both exists, as the 1960s stereo versions were often too wide for me, with a distracting "hole in the middle" of the sound. Decca stuff for example, and EMI.

 

To my ears many recordings from what some people call "The Golden Age of Recording" (1950s-early 1960s) have an atmosphere that modern and contemporary recordings - though technically more advanced, of course - often don't have. Most of the EMI (HMV, Columbia) and Decca LPs from that era that I've heard sound glorious. Same goes for Philips in their heyday.

 

Solo violin or piano can be nice in MONO>

sean

 

I've not listened to the Klemperer Philharmonia 9 for many years, so can't really comment. I've heard other people express the opinion that it's dull. I'm a Klemperer fan, though, and like even his most 'controversial' recordings.

Legge effectively 'left the business' around 1964 and tried to disband the Philharmonia Orchestra (which he had founded).

The Klemperer Mahler 2 suffered from a botched release on CD in 1990. Apparently, the issue has been cleared up on the most recent remastering (which I have as part of EMI's 2011 centenary box set).

 

By dull, do you mean a lack of high frequencies, or dull because it is played sooooooo slow?

 

I do believe I have the same performance on Music & Arts, but even if it is, the mastering may be different on the Audite. For what it's worth, yes, there were a lot of overloads/distortion especially during orchestral fortissimos. It happened quite often on live recordings - especially with Furtwängler. Listen to his wartime recordings. Of course, the processing may exacerbate that in an attempt to increase any high frequencies in order to make things clearer - if that was done at all.

 

Hi (to the thread starter).

I have read through the posts above, and I am not sure whether some of them directly respond to your question.

Below is a generalization with exceptions (and they are merely one person's opinions) but I hope they will be helpful to you.

1. Some early stereo Classical LP's were reissues a year or more after the original release in mono. With some exceptions, these do not sound as good as the original mono LP. Many EMI and Westminster recordings from the late 50's (say, 1957-1960) which were originally released in mono and later reissued in stereo do not sound as good as the original mono LP. (Also, contrary to what some people here and many Classical LP collectors in general think, early EMI stereo recordings are not very good compared to UK Decca, US RCA and US Mercury stereo recordings from the same era (i.e., late 50's to early 60's), in terms of the sound stage, distortion, etc.)

2. In instances where the stereo and mono Classical LP was issued at the same time (from the late 50's and early 60's), more often than not, the stereo is generally more preferable due to the sound stage.

3. For a solo (or solo with accompaniment, such as the piano) Classical recording from the 50's and 60's, mono is just as good as the stereo.

4. In general, US Mercury and Westminster mono LP's from the mid to late 50's sound excellent.

I hope you will find the above useful in determining whether or not to buy a Classical mono LP for $1 at a thrift shop.

 

Hi, regarding your point number 2, just out of curiosity, do you have any EMI titles that were released simultaneously during the late 50's where the stereo sounded better?

 

Once more vote for EMI mono, which often sounds terrific even on the US-made Angel pressings. Some of the early mono Nonesuch albums sound wonderful too.

 

I have some great performances that are not available in stereo. Wanda Landowska's 1949 recordings of Scarlatti sonatas comes instantly to mind.

 

I would suggest, as a rule of thumb, that it's classical orchestral music that doesn't have much appeal in mono - though there are exceptions, such as works with a notable conductor like (for instance) Beecham at the helm (where, in many cases, there could be no stereo option). Works with a solo instrumentalist, however, can be very engaging in mono.

 

Furtwangler and Toscanini were two of the greatest conductors of the 20th century: but the first only recorded in mono and the second made a single stereo recording (supposedly). So, for these very important conductors, it's mono or nothing.

 

The EMI recordings are very nice, but avoid the Angel Records US pressed version, their mastering, plating, and pressing is very inferior to the UK EMI original LP discs plated and pressed in Hayes, Middlesex, mastered by Abbey Road. Exceptions are US originated recordings (usually good), Digital, and later reissues like the Eminence line pressed in Germany. Don't judge EMI Classical on LP on the back of Angel muddy, noisy, and rumbly dreck. Angel was mastered to American Capitol's likes. And Capitol Classics were very fine recordings.

 

Yes I primarily listen to the recent disc which squashes about 80 and a half minutes onto one CD but I don't think it's a mastering error, more something that happened on the original session. It's at 1:21 on Track 8, instead of the offstage brass being towards the right and percussion to the left, everything is straight down the middle. It only affects the offstage band, not the main orchestra, and it's only for that particular interjection by the offstage band the rest are fine. It just piques my curiousity as to whether it was accidental, a microphone dropping out or deliberate!

Aside from that, it's an amazing performance and recording, with a little hiss in the quietest sections which I am glad nobody has tried to remove, it still has all its air.

heh, I mean a lack of top end. I do like Klemperer, but yes, I understand.

I'll have to post a little audio clip, it's not what I'd think of as typical overload distortions and not fortissimos as such but more sharp sforzandos from "silence" like the big orchestral chords at the very end of Beethoven's 5th.
As for the wartime recordings, I've got a copy of this disc, Beethoven 5 recorded in 1943 and it's ok, but I seem to to recall that it's one of the better recordings. There must either be a lot of tapes of this performance around or a bit of misinformation as I've heard quite a few masterings which say they are this recording, some which are very good and some which are not.

 

Strange. I don't recall it lacking more top end than the other symphonies...

 

Hi. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, I am not a big fan of early EMI Classical stereo LP's from the late 50's to very early 60's. With that said, there are exceptions.

One of the exceptions is Beethoven Violin Concerto conducted by Cluytens with Oistrakh on the violin. On that recording, the stereo sounds just as clear and full as the original mono and has better sound stage due to it being true stereo. I can't remember but I think that was a 1959 release.

On the flip side is Oistrakh doing Brahms Violin Concerto from around 1961, which does not sound very natural on the stereo. It sounds like a two-mic recording that was really intended to be mixed down to a mono release. The sound stage is similar to that of a stereo reissue of a mono-original recording (such as some of the Westminster LP's, such as Morini Tchaikovsky violin concerto. Both the original stereo LP of Oistrakh Brahms on EMI and Morini Tchaikovsky on Westminster fetch a high price in the market but both sound awful, in my opinion.

 

Ah ok, thanks for your reply. I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you said that ALL simultaneous releases (EMI) were better in stereo. Nice critique of the Oistrakh, by the way.