So what sounds then better Mono or Stereo?

Hello music people

Thanks to the Beatles Mono LP reissues & Steve Hoffmann mentioning using Y Cables (the rest of you are not bothering or have dedicated Mono cartridge or Mono switching on their Amp) , I have been listening to pure Mono since 1979 (my Parents Bush valve auto changer ). As promised a solid middle & records have more punch. An absence of screechy surface noise is welcome .

I confess Mono is easier to get on with but what sounds better Mono or Stereo? Like most people Despite hearing Mono from birth to 11 I am used to stereo . I am now 47.

People with genuine Mono experience please reply


Thank You.

 

Stereo is better.

 

I like both.

 

To me, stereo is way better than mono. The "problem" with stereo releases prior to 1969 is the extreme panning, which is great for a musician trying to figure out a song, but not as good for a band's "tightness" feel. But a well-made, clever, thoughtful and realistic stereo mix is the best listening experience (I mean, compared to mono).

P.S.: BTW, I'm also 47.

 

It depends. Some early stereo is downright hilarious. I have a Bobby Darrin song Artificial Flowers his voice starts on the left speaker as the song progresses his voice moves to 10 o'clock then to the middle then to the right speaker. Then it goes in the opposite direction. Ultimate musical Ping-Pong. I also have some Nat King Cole mono albums from the 50's just as good as any stereo record.

 

GOOD stereo is great but bad stereo is often better summed to mono. Good mono is fine for a lot of music.

As big a scuzzbag as Spector was he had a point about mono.

 

What was his point concerning mono?

 

"Back to Mono" was a motto of his.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mono_

 

Only you can decide.

 

Both can be great ( or awful). I know I greatly prefer the Beatles and Dylan in mono. Undecided with other mono albums I have.

 

The better mix sounds better, whether it's mono or stereo.

I have to admit I generally prefer stereo, real stereo, if it's done right, but that didn't really start to happen until the late 1960s or early 1970s.
Prior to that, the mono mixes are usually better.

But, again, it depends on a lot of variables -- too many to just pick one.

 

It isn't a contest - you don't have to choose one or the other as a staple. If your favorite album has a mono and stereo version, listen to both and make up your own mind.

 

Clarity and realism is way better than muddy puke for sound.
The reason the Beatles Mono is praised IMO is it "SOUNDS GOOD". And that has little to do with 'stereo' or mono' It is a result of the particular circumstances of the beatles recording processes. And the way the reissues were done.

So for me, the fact of stereo or mono is not nearly as important as how well each particular recording is done.

But if all things are equal, I would certainly opt for the STEREO recording.

 

Neither is better, either can be great or horrid. I went through a prolonged period of preferring mono, as typically it sounded better to me into the latter period when it was available. About the time they dropped mono they really figured out good stereo mixes. So I prefer the better variant and for most 60's rock/soul that is mono. Not always, but for Stones, Stax, Kinks, Motown and many others it is true. I really don't think Beatles stuff in stereo is bad except first few lps and it ain't that bad. Hit the mono switch.

 

Crap load harder to mix in mono. Much harder. So kudos to the old mixers.

 

Depends on the recording /mix. Later 60s pop/rock onwards generally sound better in stereo and mono mixes died out from this point. There are some fine stereo recordings of jazz/classical from the 50s when mono was the normal mode of listening. Personally I prefer stereo 95% of the time but some earlier recordings such as the first two Beatles albums, mono is clearly better.

 

This is difficult to answer. So many variables.

I listen on headphones. Mono on typical headphones with a typical headphone amp sounds so constrained. So trapped in the headphones. So trapped in your head. Getting the depth and layering in mono doesn't happen well with typical headphone gear. So mono on headphones isn't such a good experience. It happens better on a speaker(s) in a room.

But... there are a few high-end headphones and headphone amps that can make mono on headphones sound magical. It's special gear. Not common. And just because a headphone and/or headphone amp is expensive doesn't mean it will do it. I recently got a new used headphone amp that does it. And I'm rediscovering my few mono recordings. Finally I'm hearing the depth and the sound isn't trapped in my head or trapped in the headphones. Some of the mono mastering and mixing is better than others. Ultimately I still prefer stereo as long as the stereo is natural and not hard panned. Finally I'm able to appreciate the mono. But I don't know if many people are willing to get the type and level of headphone gear to do this. It's kinda expensive and kinda specialized within the headphone world.

 

Some of my mono lp's are just incredible.
The London/Decca lp's from the 50's, which were recorded in mono only will shock you to the floor.

They don't even sound like mono. There's a soundstage, bloom and finesse that I didn't expect and gave me goosebumps.

 

Change the thread title if you wish . To be honest I thought I throw a question out to the forum people and they can have their own response. I was playing Phil Spector the otter day & really enjoying it . Thanks.

 

Having grown up in a B&W TV/mono music household, I really love to hear good stereo. If I find something used in mono, I'll still buy it, but keep looking for a good stereo copy. When you hear well-crafted music in a defined stereo image, it's great ear candy. It's exciting. But, as others have said, it's all about the mix.

 

I don't think there is a definitive answer to this question - or if it is even a valid question. The way I see it, mono and stereo are like two sides of the same coin and to ask which sounds better is like asking which side of the coin carries more value.

 

So which looks better then Color or B&W?

 

Hard to say with these rose colored glasses

 

I dunno - would Raging Bull have been better in color? What about Schindler's List?