Listening to Stereo recordings in Mono

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by P2CH, May 11, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. P2CH

    P2CH Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    Pardon me if I've posted a thread on an already discussed topic. And I didn't want to place this question into a Beatles discussion, but, it sort of came to mind because of the Beatles recordings.

    I happened to get into web searches pertaining to (many of) the Beatle releases mainly associated with the stereo and mono versions. You all know there are many, likely more than I would ever know about.

    We know that playing a mono cut record sounds best when the two channels are tied together. But too, there are times (I find) when older versions of other stereo recordings can also benefit from this method too.

    I've read that in the process of cutting an actual mono recording, there are EQ and mixing variables that take place which a 2 channel recording doesn't use. I also read, and realize, that listening to mono through a two speaker system can cause false imaging (for lack of a better term) to take place. And I've read there's certain ways people deal with those things.

    My question though, do any of you play back any stereo cut recordings in the mono mode? Using the Beatles as a baseline, due to their earlier method of extreme panning, do any of you tie the 2 channels together to achieve a more true case recording environment?

    Again, if I've posted something covered before, you can just include the link for me.
     
  2. Jeremy B.

    Jeremy B. Forum Resident

    Location:
    NYC
    I feel like for any recording with a stereo mix so terrible I'd feel compelled to do this, there is a dedicated mono alternative I'll listen to instead.

    Not sure if it counts but the Sundazed-released fold-down of the third VU album sounds really nice.
     
  3. Fender Relic

    Fender Relic Forum Resident

    Location:
    PennsylBama
    Funny you should mention this because yesterday I was going thru various Rubber Soul copies and I started with mono US original with mono button in on my Marantz 2235B. Next I put on a US stereo original and forgot to release the mono button and I was sitting there reading the SHF thinking....hmmm...this stereo kinda sounds better. So, when I went to flip sides I noticed the button still in so popped it back out and relistened to the first few cuts of side 1 again and liked it better with the mono button in. Maybe that's weird but I want to try it again with some other LP's just to hear the dif.
     
    Rickchick likes this.
  4. Maggie

    Maggie like a walking, talking art show

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    A fair amount of early "stereo" was actually two-track mono, intended to be folded down to mono. This is especially the case for stereo recordings such as those on the Contemporary label, which have no information in the center. These arguably sound better folded down to mono. They were never intended to be listened to on discrete stereo speakers positioned far apart. Recordings like Art Pepper's Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section sound bizarre in stereo. The rhythm section is on the right, Pepper is on the left, and there is nothing in the middle.

    A lot of Rudy Van Gelder's recordings from the '58-'65 period on various labels were in stereo (i.e. two-track), but monitored in mono. The mono versions were not mixes, per se, but fold-downs of the on-the-fly stereo mix. I often fold these down myself from the stereo CDs.
     
    2xUeL likes this.
  5. P2CH

    P2CH Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    I'm not familiar with Art Pepper but I'm sure when the recording industry achieved the ability to record multiple tracks and then have stereo representation, they probably had a multitude of ideas. Or otherwise, they might not have known quite what to do with it?

    When I played The Beatles Something New (stereo) in mono, it sounded like the guitar work was being thrown into my face. It was hard to take. But the overall presentation sounded fuller and less erratic?

    I just bought a new copy of Please Please Me in Mono and I'm very interested in hearing how it sounds. I've read that it was still cut with a stereo cutter but I'm sure it's as close to the original as possible. Umm, other than coming from digitized media?

    And, though digitized media may be another topic, I found that putting analog data into a digital domain sounds very good. Of course this could open up a huge debate which I don't intend to do and I'm certain it's all been discussed in depth before.
     
  6. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    It is nice to get the opinions of all our friendly forum residents here but keep in mind they are just opinions. Differences in sound quality are very subjective based on tastes. Their are no perfect systems and one persons minor compromise is another persons deal breaker.

    Test these questions yourself. Listen with your own two ears on your own system and decide wht YOU like better. The questions should be about HOW you can test these assumptions not just what the people here prefer.

    I would like to know what is the best program to turn a stereo music file into a mono one? Is this a simple process or is their some tweeking involved?

    Have you seen the other thread on this forum about mono sounding better on two speakers vs a single one? I can get the link if you haven't seen it. Definitely not a consensus on the subject...
     
  7. driverdrummer

    driverdrummer Forum Resident

    Location:
    Irmo, SC
    I accidentally ripped Santana IV in Mono. Strange listening experience!! Choo Choo and Love Makes the World Go Round sounded like techno and the ending of Anywhere You Want To Go sounded just like the end of Def Leppard-Rock of Ages.
     
  8. BryanA-HTX

    BryanA-HTX Crazy Doctor

    Location:
    Houston, TX
    No. Unless it's the early Beatles I never saw the appeal of listening to recordings in mono (I also grew up in the 90s so forgive me if I'm a bit out of touch).
     
  9. Drifter

    Drifter AAD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    It's all about the mix. For example: some stereo mixes are missing important vocal or instrumental overdubs, are poorly balanced, or fade prematurely. They may sometimes even be a different take.
     
  10. qwerty

    qwerty A resident of the SH_Forums.

    Combining stereo to mono will give a different levels within the mix compared to the original stereo or a dedicated mono mix. Information which is common to the l+r channels (which appears in the centre of the stereo soundstage) will be louder when combined to mono. It appears that the guitars in The Beatles Something New stereo are mixed to the centre, and so would sound louder. So some stereo>mono mixes might sound horrible. Other stereo>mono mixes might improve the origianl mix, give a different perspective on the music, or just suit your preferences.
     
  11. kelhard

    kelhard Forum Resident

    Thought the new Beatles mono reissues (ie: the mono box) were cut with a mono cutting head. I could be wrong.
     
  12. sotosound

    sotosound Forum Resident

    Some 1970s stereo singles sound better to me in mono.

    One example is "No Regrets" by The Walker Brothers.

    Another example is "I Wanna Get Next To You" by Rose Royce.

    My unverified belief is that such singles had to pander to stereo lovers on the one hand but also had to sound great on mono radio, which was prevalent back then.

    Therefore in such mixes, the lead vocal can sound a bit recessed in stereo and only really comes into proper focus when the mono button is pressed.

    We can also end up with loads of distortion when listening in stereo because the tracks were mixed with radio-friendly and not hi fi friendly levels and EQ. Switching to mono can then end up like listening to a good mono mix.

    Further examples of this are most mid-70s stereo singles by Hot Chocolate. There's no attempt at a hi fi sound. It's distortion and mono-like EQ all the way.
     
  13. ShockControl

    ShockControl Bon Vivant and Raconteur!

    Location:
    Lotus Land
    While that was the technique Van Gelder used, I don't think they truly qualify as "fold downs." He apparently monitored the sessions in mono, and the balances and levels were based on mono listening. So I would argue that the mono recordings were not so much folds, but that the stereo albums represented a single stage in producing the mono masters. I agree with the you that most of these mixes sound better in mono; the bass and piano come into focus. I also hit the mono button when playing stereo versions of the LPs or CDs.
     
    2xUeL and Maggie like this.
  14. Keith V

    Keith V Forum Resident

    Location:
    Secaucus, NJ
  15. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    Merrie England
    But all the guitars on the stereo 'Something New' are either left or right, so they should be quieter when folded to mono.
     
    2xUeL likes this.
  16. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    I've recently gotten into the habit of listening to stereo CD's and SACD's in various Dolby or DTS surround modes, but I don't like hearing stereo folded to mono. It always sounds too congested. If I want to hear something in mono, I get a dedicated mono mix. I LOVE real mono mixes but fold downs of any kind are usually a disappointment.
     
  17. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I think I like mono more than stereo, especially given that a lot of music that I like was made when people didn't know what to do with stereo. I listen almost exclusively through headphones, I should mention. The other day I scored a DCC Fresh Cream and I like it a lot but the stereo is so wonky that I get a headache. Folding down to mono does lose a lot given the extreme stereo originally but at least it doesn't hurt my tiny brain... o_O
     
  18. qwerty

    qwerty A resident of the SH_Forums.

    Thanks for the clarification, I'm not familiar with Something New. Given what you describe, I'm wondering if there is something else occurring on the mix. For example, if the info mixed to the "centre" is slightly out of phase in one channel, when combined to mono the phase cancellation will reduce the volume of this info, in the same manner that OOPS works.
     
  19. Hubert jan

    Hubert jan Forum Resident

    Listen to mono records on one loudspeaker in mono, (left/right summed) as it is intended to be listened to.
    Listen to stereo on 2 loudspeakers in stereo.

    Everything else almost always disappointing because of phase canceling effects. Only your ears are reliable concerning this.
     
  20. john lennonist

    john lennonist There ONCE was a NOTE, PURE and EASY...

    I can't remember exactly what he said, but an SHF'er once explained to me what type of a Stereo mix (i.e. the way the elements were separated or something) sometime summed to Mono very well.

    I do know that I have a German Stereo LP version of The Who's "Circles" (a fave song of mine) that sounds a shipload better when it's summed to Mono.


    Obviously a lot / most Stereo summed to Mono sounds like crap, but the above proves to me that it isn't always the case

    .
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2016
  21. Hubert jan

    Hubert jan Forum Resident

    So you used your ears, that's right.

    "Real Stereo" recordings are not fitted to be summed to mono because they are very manipulated: added reverb, dynamic compression left/right extremes to avoid ping-pong effect, overall compression from the microphones on, all kinds of out of phase echo/reverb effects and so on, sound for sound's sake. Summed to mono sometimes can sound better, for me many times because I am allergic to reverb, compression, phase differences between left/right, echo effects. For me real mono recordings from the mono tube day's and also 78's are the real thing on 1 Magnepan loudspeaker or 1 full range open baffle loudspeaker. But perhaps it is because I grew up like that.
     
  22. 2xUeL

    2xUeL Forum Philosopher

    Location:
    Albany, NY
    A lot of people would never, ever even dream of listening to a stereo record in mono. Without necessarily understanding the issue, some of them might worry that they were going to alter the sound in some undesirable way--whether it sounds good or not. There's three scenarios I can think of that I'd like to comment on:

    1. The stereo version of the album is really a left-right, perfectly balanced two-channel presentation of a mono mix, a la Rudy Van Gelder. A lot of Blue Note fans are terrified of the notion of summing a stereo Blue Note record to mono. Aside from differences in processing that would have arisen in the respective mono and stereo mastering stages, summing a stereo Blue Note to mono will give you the exact same balance of the instruments as a mono copy. Lots of collectors will cry blasphemy but I do it all the time.

    2. The mono version of the music is readily available a la The Beatles. I personally would never sum a stereo Beatles record to mono because the authentic mono versions are so easy to get. The same can't be said for classic Blue Note.

    3. The record was never released in stereo but the panning is extreme and ridiculous, a la Grand Funk Railroad, in which case who cares? Sum it mono if it rocks harder. :D
     
    Tippy, sjaca and Maggie like this.
  23. MarilynsPickle

    MarilynsPickle Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I've only folded things to mono just so I can add bonus parts to songs. For instance, Paul Revere & The Raiders' song "Happening '68"--the middle of the song is longer on the stereo version and the end of the song is longer on the mono version, so I made the longest version by mixing the middle part to mono and adding it to the mono version.
     
  24. P2CH

    P2CH Well-Known Member Thread Starter

    So, it seems, in may instances it can be a crap shoot in terms of a mix sounding better or not so much better running in mono. I believe there are also phase issues going on here too, as was previously mentioned.

    After listening to my new Mono copy of PPM, it still sounded stereo'ish. I don't have an actual dedicated Mono switch on this system and I was feeling too lazy to connect my switch box. I thought that, being the LP is in mono, it would sound more mono though, even running in stereo. I can appreciate surface noise being reduced in mono, but the LP is brand new so I didn't feel the need for it.

    Maybe that will stop the type of sound I'm getting but still, likely having two separate speakers (MMG) will still make for a phase differential-like sound. And my Outlaw processor might be causing some of that as well? For some reason, I feel like it wants to make something else of things all the time. Being it's more a digital rather than an analog signal path. I also wonder if Magnapan speakers are too fast for some of these types of recordings. They reveal almost too much information at times.

    I will give another listen on my other system today. It's a straight up Luxman - SAE - Altec Model 19 system. It probably has a mono switch too. I don't think it will have the phasing issues.

    In response to kelhard, I just found the following: Beatles remastering team answer your vinyl mono box questions | superdeluxeedition »

    Question: Were the tapes played back on a reel to reel deck fitted with a mono playback head or a stereo playback head? Were the LPs cut on a cutting lathe that used a mono cutter head or a mono cutter head?

    > Sean Magee: Mono playback head yes…Mono cutter no. I have a modified SX74 head which I know better than my own family, borrowing a head would, for me, been a handicap.
     
  25. belushipower

    belushipower Forum Resident

    I do it all the time. Flick the switch and play stereo records into my huge wooden mono speaker box. It's the stuff that wasn't meant to be played through this 60+ year old speaker (like Duran Duran, Simple Minds, Janelle Monae) that sound very refreshing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine