A question about old jazz records, mono vs. stereo

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Beatlelennon65, Aug 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beatlelennon65

    Beatlelennon65 Active Member Thread Starter

    Back in the 60's when the mono/stereo format war was going on, some albums had unique mono mixes and some were fold downs. Did most of the old Columbia jazz records have different mono mixes when both stereo and mono were available? Case in point:Monk Straight, No Chaser. This album was released in mono and stereo. Is there any point in hunting down a good needle drop of the mono version of this album? Are there any jazz albums that have unique mono mixes?
    Thanks
    R
     
  2. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Those Columbia jazz albums were recorded and mixed live on the spot. The mono tape machine and the 3-track machine were running at the same time. The mono version will sound just like the 3-track tape. The STEREO version was made from a 2-track "reduction" of the 3-track and this is where it gets weird. The cutting master usually had MORE echo and EQ added during the mixing stage, making it much brighter than the actual 3-track or mono tape. So, nothing's ever easy...
     
    quicksilverbudie and B-Luna like this.
  3. Doug Sclar

    Doug Sclar Forum Legend

    Location:
    The OC
    Well I just watched the Tom Dowd film, and they were mentioning how they were recording jazz in stereo well before there were any stereo records. When stereo records started, most labels started reissuing with forms of fake stereo, as they had only mono catalogs. But Atlantic had been recording in both stereo and mono for years so had to do less of that.

    So I guess that early Atlantic stuff, like Coltrane, would possibly have both mixes.
     
  4. Beatlelennon65

    Beatlelennon65 Active Member Thread Starter

    Steve- I just knew you would have the answer AND YET cause me to have more questions. :)
    For those of us that arent up on our 3 track tape machines, why was a 3 track machine used? I know this has been answered before too, but how do you do a reduction from a 3 track to a two track? The music was mixed live, then the tracks were reduced to 2 tracks for stereo, this way they could mix onto 3 tracks and separate the instruments and then reduce it to 2 tracks and have more freedom for instrument placement? Then they wanted to add echo onto that? Why?
    So the mono mix would be different, but for strange reasons that I had not thought of.
    Weird.
     
  5. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    The mono mix and stereo mix (at Columbia, other studios were very different) used a split feed, the mono was mixed on the spot. The three track was mixed on the spot as well. In other words, if you turn the left, center and right channels up to "0", the album was mixed, the compression, EQ and echo right on there. They used three track tape because they wanted a hard right, left and center. The reduction mix to two track was done by feeding the three-track into the mixing console and dubbing to two track tape. The center channel was split between the right and left therefore giving a phantom center, just like all stereo records have. Columbia tweeked the stereo mixes to be brighter than the monos which is why in recent years the mastering engineers have been bypassing the two track reduction mix and going back to the clean three-track to do CD and DSD mastering. Later Columbia went Four-track and then eight/sixteen, etc. Only the three track tapes and SOME of the four track tapes are "mixed" when the levels are turned to match 0.

    See?

    OTHER studios pre 1958 or so used separate stereo and mono tape machines WITH SEPARATE MICROPHONES AND CONSOLES to get the mono and the binaural tapes. These stereo and monos sound very different from each other. Atlantic did this as well as Capitol, as did Riverside, etc. The stereo mix was distant using only two or three microphones, the mono version used more mics and had a tighter sound. It was only later that they thought of a split feed with just ONE mixing console feeding both tape machines. They didn't much care about the stereo stuff, they thought it was a novelty that would not last and gave more attention to the mono versions.
     
    quicksilverbudie and 2xUeL like this.
  6. AudioGirl

    AudioGirl Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Why did the engineers want to cut records from a dub of the 3 channel tape? Wasn't the point of using 3 channels in the first place simply to have a hard center (like a Tootsie Pop)? Why did they bother to remix the songs with a phantom center? That is like filming a movie on film and then dumping down to video and bumping back to film for the release print. It just seems silly to me. Was there a good reason for doing that?
     
  7. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Beats me.

    Only Decca/Coral actually cut records with the three-track tape in the 1950's, everyone else used 1/4" dubs (marked "Master").

    Silly but true.
     
    chewy likes this.
  8. RDK

    RDK Active Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Very interesting, Steve - thanks for the info!
     
  9. Parkertown

    Parkertown Tawny Port

    Great info; thanks Steve.

    It explains why all of the Miles Davis Columbia boxed sets/reissues are remixes...
     
  10. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    And it explains why I usually bypass the two-track master and go back to the three-track when I do projects like Peggy Lee and Nat "King" Cole.

    BUT, in some cases (mainly RCA-Victor LIVING STEREO classical titles) part of the magic occurred when the two-track mix was made. That and the cutting of the record completed the process, making the Living Stereo LP's amazing sounding (sometimes). When the two-track is bypassed the three-track work-part is revealed as cold and unlovely in the naked light. It needs coaxing to get back the "breath". I don't think the current crop of RCA reissues have that.

    Sorry for the digression.
     
    quicksilverbudie likes this.
  11. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I now see why you were a little cautious on the RCA SACD announcement when some forum members were lashing out and pre-ordering all 10. You suggested to wait until we heard a sample.
     
  12. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Well, I only heard a bit of one of them and it sounded, well, er, "detailed" but it sounded nothing like my LP. Could be a good or bad thing. It's how they are mastered, what machine they were played back on, tubes in the system, etc...
     
  13. Beatlelennon65

    Beatlelennon65 Active Member Thread Starter

    Thanks Steve, that explanation makes more sense to me. It's hard to believe the way they did things back then. Of course, it's hard to believe the way they do things now.
     
  14. RJL2424

    RJL2424 Forum Resident

    I've noticed this with my "3-eye"/"6-eye" pressings of Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue and Sketches of Spain and Dave Brubeck's Time Out. In many cases, the original stereo pressings (to my ears) either sounded overbright or otherwise "off" when compared against the original mono pressings.
     
  15. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    That's the reason. The stereo reduction mixes incorporated a severe top end boost. This is the main reason why these Columbia original stereo mixes are bypassed today. Sometimes the original monos were indeed the best sounding.

    Of course, to be fair, on the systems of the day I guess the "boost" was needed to compensate for lackluster Columbia phonographs but to build it right in to the master tapes was not the smartest thing to do. It could have been done in mastering without compromising the actual master tapes.
     
  16. RJL2424

    RJL2424 Forum Resident

    :bigeek:
    That still doesn't explain why many current Sony/Legacy remixed/remastered reissues of those Columbia jazz albums on CD sound even brighter than the original Columbia stereo LPs. I guess the botched job boils down to the (re)mastering.
     
  17. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Guess they still like top end boost; maybe it's a curse that's built in to the building or something, like the movie The Sonyville Horror... :)
     
  18. RJL2424

    RJL2424 Forum Resident

    Or the movie Nightmare On Madison Avenue... :eek:
     
  19. RJL2424

    RJL2424 Forum Resident

    Which brings us back to that Thelonious Monk Straight, No Chaser LP. That album was recorded in late 1966; by that time, Columbia's studios had begun using eight-track tape on a regular basis. And during that era, Columbia decided to economize by simply using a single eight-track machine, and then make separate mono and stereo mixes from that eight-track (and there is where things can get wacky). A far cry from the late '50s and early '60s!

    The LP itself was issued in mid-1967, just one year before Columbia phased out most mono LPs.
     
  20. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    How did Rudy Van Gelder and Blue Note Records record?

    I know they did mono up to around 1958 or so; then it seems like everything went to stereo.
    Was there later mono stuff just a fold-down of the live-mixed stereo?
     
  21. Another Side

    Another Side Senior Member

    Location:
    San Francisco

    That's exactly right. They mixed straight to two track, and the mono was a fold down, but this was more like what Columbia was doing with the three-track. In other words they would record onto two track, and the two track when set at 0 would sound the same as the mono. The funny thing is, Van Gelder only had one speaker in his Hackensack control room. He never gave stereo any thought even towards the end of his active period.

    Here's an interesting interview with RVG: RVG interview
     
  22. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Wow, this old thread is getting action today. Wonder why?
     
  23. pbuzby

    pbuzby Senior Member

    Location:
    Chicago, IL, US
  24. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Thank you.
     
  25. cjp123

    cjp123 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Really reviving an old thread here, but a question that I think Steve can probably answer--when did Columiba records stop using the 3 track recorder and move to 4 track?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine