So what sounds then better Mono or Stereo?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by The Good Guy, Sep 21, 2014.

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

    ManFromCouv Employee #3541

    This is one of those topics that gets a stick taken to it every 6 months whether it needs it or not. :sigh:
     
  2. The FRiNgE

    The FRiNgE Forum Resident

    I much prefer to watch and listen to "The Munsters" in black and white and in mono!

    I think always an interesting topic, since both Mono and Stereo can sound great. I grew up with both. The early top 40 from the 50's and 60's are wonderful in mono. My father had an RCA orthophonic SHF-4 "hifi set" that produced big sound, a 6v6 tube amp with a pair of 12 inch AlNiCo full range and a pair of 2.5 inch tweeters. My best friend next door inherited a Wards Airline portable stereo in a suitcase, a decent machine for a mass produced consumer level record player. It had also tube amps, two six inch full range extendable speakers and a single 8 inch woofer in the main cabinet. The changer was Voice of Music. I did not know all of this at that time (but do now

    I enjoyed both. The RCA sounded bigger in mono due to its robust amplifier and speaker system, the Airline more extended on the upper end, more detailed. The complaint about stereo after its introduction was that it sounded thin, lacked body. This was largely true due to the sensationalized "Ping-Pong" stereo effect to impress the listener like a sideshow. It was a joke. However, The Beatles may have been the first popular vocal group to sound good in wide stereo. I loved listening to the Beatles in Stereo at my fiend's house (I was still a kid) Of course to me, stereo was only an effect I liked, since in the early days of Stereo, it was promoted as a new dimension in sound. Never do I remember at the time, any mention of the recreation a halographic image which requires more serious listening at a designated seated position. A new technology at that time, would never fly if it imposed any kind of inconvenience. The stereo advertisements often pictured a person seated off axis, somewhere off to the side with head turned, the ads conveyed that "new" is better, and that "new" saved time, was more convenient, and made our lives easier.

    So, stereo in its early days was just "sound coming from everywhere". My father sometimes strung wires across the living room for "stereo effect" ignoring his wife's complaints.. so we would be hearing vocals coming from the television speaker, a more midrange sound, and extended high range from the Grundig radio, since it contained extended range tweeters, and lots of bass from the RCA SHF-4. He would call his wife in the room, and exclaim, "listen to this". She agreed just for the sake of agreement, leave the room, and just wished he'd clean up the mess. So the consumer's idea as promoted in the early days, more channels means more sound. No person in their right mind.. at the consumer level, would have ever purchased a stereo, if that meant being chained down to a chair to experience the stereo effect.

    Again, the result didn't always live up to the claim. It wasn't until the 70's that stereo finally came into full acceptance, and also that a more serious audio contingent had begun to infiltrate the public sector. It still remains that most people have no idea what stereo is supposed to do, except that there are two channels, and by adding more channels, 5.1 or 7.1 with a sub, just produces a bigger sound. (I get theater, but ask any non-hi enthusiast to explain what it's supposed to do)

    Going back to mono, all of the problems with stereo and multi-channel go away. One speaker in the room isn't fussy with the seated position, nor imaging, nor channel balance. Mono does image, but mostly front to back in the time domain. The room adds the spacious effect, and to a lesser degree reverberation in the recording. There is no phase degradation by different time arrivals from two different speakers in two different locations. I still enjoy mono, it's simple and wonderful. Many mono mixes sound "better" than stereo, a more robust, vivacious and exciting presentation.

    The bottom line for me, I prefer the better mix, but usually c stereo.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2014
  3. avanti1960

    avanti1960 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago metro, USA
    I wish I liked mono. I would only need one speaker, one interconnect cable and it would instantly double my watts per channel.
    But seriously mono avoids phase and placement issues that can make stereo more difficult to get right.
    Where it misses big time is replicating a live performance.
    Mono works in a nostalgic, juke box, big old speaker in the middle of the dashboard kind of way.
     
    The FRiNgE likes this.
  4. Deryl Johnson

    Deryl Johnson Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Western New York
    I'm wrong and I know it. I trust Your judgement.
     
  5. Bolero

    Bolero Senior Member

    Location:
    North America
    most live music PA's are mono, so if you see a live band chances are it's in mono

    however studio recordings, done live, with multi mics & channels can be mixed really well in stereo
     
  6. Snashforce

    Snashforce Living Stereo

    Location:
    NC
    Yes - Brian Wilson liked a mono mix for the same reason; no turn of the balance knob by the home listener or oddly placed speakers could alter the song's sound.
     
    The FRiNgE likes this.
  7. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    Most recording engineers fell into that mix style on stereo records as well after 1968. The music almost mono with just acoustic guitars in stereo or B/G vocals or something. All the "important" stuff in the mix had to be mono. Funny none of you ever complain about that..
     
  8. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    Yes. Once "stereo" was no longer a novelty or premium, mixing engineers were free to exercise subtlety in the stereo soundstage. It's too bad that it took the death of mono for that to come to pass, but there it is.
     
  9. fogalu

    fogalu There is only one Beethoven

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    He may have been influenced by the fact that he was deaf in one ear.
     
    goodiesguy, nm_west and BuddhaBob like this.
  10. fogalu

    fogalu There is only one Beethoven

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    Back in 1967 I bought the mono "Sgt Pepper" and a year later, I got the stereo bug and my first decent turntable. I invited a few of my friends around to hear the stereo Pepper and we all raved about it. We hadn't 20 or 40 years of exposure behind us, so we didn't notice the differences in the mix - and, if we did, we put it down to the superior stereo. I foolishly gave away my mono Pepper.
    A few years ago, I was telling one of these friends that I was considering buying the Beatles Mono CD box and he burst out laughing. "Weren't you the guy who couldn't wait to get the stereo version back in the sixties?" I really couldn't explain to him why I wanted to hear the albums the way they were first presented to me.
    Anyway, I like both Peppers.
     
  11. Raunchnroll

    Raunchnroll Senior Member

    Location:
    Seattle
    I found the mix that sounds best is dependent on whether one has had a cup of coffee beforehand.
     
  12. Burt

    Burt Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kirkwood, MO
    The mono vs. stereo argument was fought a long time ago and stereo won, for better or worse.

    Most real world music listening is effectively monophonic: you are in a venue and there is a band playing at a distance. Only in exceptional situations is the audience presented with a difference between the left and right ears hear. It's everything but music that we use our differential hearing for, for the most part.

    Stereo was initially marketed not so much for music but with special effects records. Ping-pong, anyone?

    But it is here and it does offer the producers of pop music (and a few limited circumstances of live acoustical performances) possibilities they didn't otherwise have, and at best it works really well.

    That said, a good mono record is still a good record.
     
    The FRiNgE likes this.
  13. Depends on what you're listening to. I have a mint box of Arturo Toscanini conducting the NY Philharmonic in the nine Beethoven Symphonies recorded in early 1950. To me, they sound far better than the nine symphonies recorded in stereo by Deutsche Gramophone in the 1990s. I also have a dedicated mono stylus I use when I'm listening to mono so that may enter into the sonic picture as well
     
  14. Paul Saldana

    Paul Saldana jazz vinyl addict

    Location:
    SE USA (TN-GA-FL)
    A lot of the post-1975 DG recordings sound kind of tinny, so it wouldn't surprise me if eq/excessive brightness is a factor here. Beethoven is all about the cello, IMO.
     
  15. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Psilocybin.
     
  16. Robin L

    Robin L Musical Omnivore

    Location:
    Fresno, California
    And the sound of the Toscanini cycle has little relation to the actual sound of an orchestra.
     
  17. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    Yeah, why assume that Brian Wilson had an intelligent reason for insisting on the mono mix when you can just blame it on his one bad ear?
     
  18. fogalu

    fogalu There is only one Beethoven

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    Well, you can't rule it out as one of the reasons for his preference. Maybe he would have released "Pet Sounds" in stereo if he was in a position to do so. After all, he was trying to compete with the Beatles and they were issuing their recordings in both mono and stereo. Capitol did issue an electronically channelled version of "Pet Sounds" in the 60s, and Brian didn't seem to have a problem nor did he seem to object when a "proper" stereo mix was released in 1996.
     
  19. Paul Saldana

    Paul Saldana jazz vinyl addict

    Location:
    SE USA (TN-GA-FL)
    I see what you did there. I think his fascination with the Spector sound was as big an influence as his hearing problem.
     
    dkmonroe likes this.
  20. dividebytube

    dividebytube Forum Resident

    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Our local high school has a really nice auditorium where they hold choir concerts, among many other things. Even sitting off to the right and some forty feet from a group of 12 vocalists - who were standing in a semi-circle - I could pick out different locations of the performers.

    And listening to Neil Young - Tonight's the Night - on a good stereo setup gives a sense that you are in the room with the musicians. I just don't get that same effect with mono.

    But I've heard some great 50s recording done in mono - they have stunning bandwidth and a sort of depth that just seems impossible considering the mono source. Of course there is nothing left/right, but there is a layering to the instruments. Very odd since it doesn't seem to make any sense.
     
  21. dkmonroe

    dkmonroe A completely self-taught idiot

    Location:
    Atlanta
    I think it's very silly to presume that his deafness was a genuine factor in his decision. Surely he is aware that most people have two functional ears. And I don't believe that he insisted on mono for subsequent Beach Boys albums that he was involved with. Why isn't there a mono mix of Smile? Did Wilson's bum ear get better?
     
  22. fogalu

    fogalu There is only one Beethoven

    Location:
    Killarney, Ireland
    All I'm suggesting is that he was unable to hear his work in stereo and make a choice and that could be one of the reasons he opted for mono. It's not a big deal. :)
     
  23. Doug G.

    Doug G. Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin, MN USA
    Many of you are confusing music production with music reproduction again.

    Doug
     
  24. I'd venture to say that most "classic rock" and popular music to this day was/is essentially mono, with just the drums mixed to stereo--and as you said, b/v's and rhythm and acoustic guitars spread out a bit to the sides. Bass, lead vocals, keys, lead guitar always seem to be dead center. Press a mono button on your amp (if you have one) and chances are you'll hear little difference.
     
  25. Ah ha! And this was the type of post I was looking for.

    I, too, am a headphone listener. My HP amp is an SPL Auditor, and after many years of headphone listening I haven't heard a better combo for analytical listening with my Senn HD800s.

    Now, of course, I listen for pleasure, as well. In fact, that's the name of the game; but I like for my choice of music and format to pass both the analytical and pleasure test.

    The Beatles in mono, for cans? Forget about it! It's hollow and aenemic, which, in itself, is an exercise of analytics, where one can tell George Martin's methodolgy very well. They are not a very pleasureable listen, though, unlike my Sinatra mono, Axis: Bold as Love mono and Macca's RAM in mono (just to name a few).

    I guess the sole reason I'm even posting on this topic is because of all the praise for mono, and surely these cats must be listening via speakers.

    I think I'm done now. There is both good and bad mono on cans. But it's all subjective to why you're listening in the first place.

    EDIT: I should state here that I have no problem with hard panned stereo stuff, after years and years of being used to it. Plus, with the right headphone, amp, DAC combination, a larger than 180 degree effect can be achieved (illusion or not). The brain becomes trained in a certain way, and I quite like to be able to shift my attention from ear to ear and focus on a particular thing without all of the sounds coming at me in one great rush.

    Of course a part of the trained-brain, in this case, allows one to listen to the music as a whole, as well as right & left, depending on the attention one puts to it. None of my listening is passive.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine