Why Does Mono Sound Bad To Me?

It sounds bad to you because it's bad for you. Stereo or Surround Sound all the way!

 

Ahh, gotcha. I'm now going to go on a Beatles marathon listening to all the differences I think. I'm a gigantic Beatles fan (like I assume most of us are) and I didn't know about any of those differences.
By the way, can anybody explain the differences between I Am the Walrus stereo and mono? Apparently there was a big mistake in the stereo version but I can't tell any difference when listening to 2009 remasters of both versions.

 

There are a couple of guys around here who have mono-only rigs, but I cannot recall the names.

It took years of tweaking before my rig got to the point that mono or stereo does not make a major difference. Mono used to sound a lot worse, not any more.

 

All you have to do is listen and compare!

There are at least three versions of "I Am The Walrus". As far as I know, the U.S. Capitol mono single version does not exist on CD. The way you tell it is that the keyboard intro starts off with one and a half bars, or six beats, instead of the usual one bar, or four beats. There is also another extra four beats of instrumentation before John sings "Yellow-matter custard...". The drums are momentarily faded down the first and second time he sings "I'm crying.".

The drums faded down during the "I'm crying" part is also in the British mono mix. Other than that, there is little difference between that and the stereo mix. I do feel that the "Juba-jubas" sung by John are louder in the mono mix, and the "Stick it up your jumpa." part sung by the background singers is a bit more buried in the mono mix.

 

Looks like I'll give it another listen. For some reason, it's the only mono Beatles anything I have stored on my iPad somehow.

 

Well, you responded to me, I assume there was a reason.

The point is that the discussion seems to be full of a lot of projection from the anti-mono side. The narrative always is that this board is mono-crazy and the mono people are fanatical and stubborn and unyielding and would rather have everything mixed to mono. And it's the exact opposite of the truth. The truth is, there's a fair amount of people who want the best mix regardless of how many channels involved, and often prefer mono mixes for some albums and think they are better than the existing stereo mixes, and on the other hand there's a fair amount of people who hate mono and think it's an inferior way to present music. And the latter call the former narrow-minded and unyielding, and compare their enthusiasm about some mono mixes to sexual fetishes and religious cults.

 

If you have a good setup, both stereo and mono can sound great. It all depends on the mix and the mastering.

I have many LPs in both formats. Some are better in stereo, some in mono. An easy example is Rubber Soul remastered. Because of the horrible (IMO) stereo mix, the mono is more enjoyable. Using the same album, Rubber Soul in mono is a great example of how good the mono format can sound with regard to clarity and detail. A reverse example (again IMO) is Sgt. Pepper. I have a German pressing from the early 80's which is my best sounding stereo copy of this album. I find it better sounding than the mono, although I like the mono quite a bit.

 

Here's a funny (to me) anecdote about early Beatles ping-pong stereo. My stepfather was a Beatles fanatic who clearly grew up with the stereo versions of the Beatles albums. He had a receiver - can't remember the brand - that allowed for adjusting the treble and bass separately for the right and left channel. He had it set such that one channel was bass heavy and the other was treble heavy. I asked him why (even at 12 years old I knew this was weird). He said he was trying to reproduce the effect of the early Beatles albums where the bass and vocals are in one channel, and the drums and guitar are in the other. So... believe it or not... there are people out there who really like those early stereo recordings! I kind of see them for what they are, and because I also was exposed to the stereo versions growing up, I will still listen to them every once in a while... but I'm finally sold on the mono versions (not so much for Pepper or the White Album... but it's cool to have both versions).

 

I like the ping pong stereo effects of the early Beatles records. I guess it was perceived as a gimmick then, but what's wrong with gimmicks?

I'm not a Beatles fan though, because I was a baby during their heyday. I appreciate them for what they are, but when I was a teenager they were considered oldies already. Some of our teachers praised the Beatles because they were the heroes of their youth. Someone in my class also had the red and blue albums which I borrowed, and they are all in stereo except two or three songs on the first side I think. That was a letdown actually, because I used to think that any pop music ought to be in stereo. Only later did I learn that in the beginning that wasn't the case. We had a hardcore Elvis fan in our class, who owned some box set of all his recordings or something, which I also borrowed.

 

THose early stereo versions weren't gimmicks. They were never supposed to have been issued as such. Those recordings were only created to create mono. The only reason they were ever issued is because there was a small stereo market.

 

I generally listen to mono only when stereo is not available. I can count on the fingers of one hand where the stereo mix is so lousy I can't tolerate it.

 

Interesting! When I have the chance, I'll do some reading on this.
I did own a Capitol mono pressing, "A Day in the Life" especially sounded cluttered and undefined in mono. Other tracks such as "Fixing a Hole" presented nicely in mono... and differently. But I would still say I prefer stereo, just far more engaging.

 

. . . a soft "smooching" sound when you first contract it?

 

Mono Beatles until about 1965, by late 1966, the mono pressings are harder to find, (ie: Revolver and Rubber Soul and later) fewer of them pressed. (is this accurate?) Conjecture has it, George Martin remained faithful to producing mono masters, as he preferred mono. In the early years of stereo, many people preferred the full sound of mono, were slow to transition to stereo. This was largely due to recording convention that Martin adhered to, and that wide stereo did not produce as much bass as mono did, overall a less rounded presentation.

 

I'm fine with mono but I don't generally sit around listening to headphones. I have been doing a lot of mono needledrops lately, and check them out with headphones and do agree with the OP that it is a bit weird.

 

Being a student on guitar at age 12, I turned the balance to the left to hear the guitars, bass and drums, just a hint of vocal reverberation. This was to aid in figuring out the chords to the songs, and singing along with the Beatles. I immediately liked how the left channel was resplendent in lush reverb, very pleasant sounding. The right channel vocals are more treble. sometimes rather harsh treble, absent from the left channel. When mixed, everything sounds great.

 

Suzi Bogguss has an album of traditional folk songs recorded binaurally.
Free mp3 downloads, or you can buy the CD:

Binaural Recordings

 

Interesting how this topic has skewed from the original question about headphone listening. We quickly start discussing stereo/mono recordings and how they are done, what's best or worst.

Mono can sound good on one speaker - if you aren't trying to capture the experience of being in a concert hall. Keep the recording intimate and it is good.

If I record a solo violinist in a anechoically treated studio, and then play back the performance on my single speaker in my living room, the experience should be that there is a violinist playing in my living room. This doesn't quite work, because speakers are unidirectional vs the real omnidirectional violin illuminating my living room with sound. (cue Bose)

With initial stereo recordings, we start to see similar engineering thought, but in stereo: put some close-mic'd instruments on one speaker, the vocals on another. You've got two sets of musicians in your living room. Then it evolves, adding panning to put the artist or instrument somewhere between the speakers.

Classical recordings in stereo are a bit different, and also show a progression in techniques; obviously we are capturing the recording hall characteristics too. Engineers must question where to place a pair of microphones - where the listener's ears are, a few seats apart, as far apart as listener's speakers might be, or way up in the air? Mix several together?

In the 70's and through the 80's we start to see the evolution and standardization of studio capture and mixdown. Vocals from the center, but with mono and then stereo reverb to add the "listening hall". Multitrack drums individually captured with snare and bass at center, others in various pan position, with overhead stereo mics adding ambience (and real stereo). Guitar amp located in a separate reverb room.

The latter recordings become more acceptable for headphone listening, because they start to incorporate the stereo ambience and environment needed. They do not include the phase timing that is needed to accurately place instruments in a sound field, so the music can still feel like it's coming from different positions on the top of your head. The stereo mix is mostly turning the pan knob, not changing the performance position between two microphones. Recordings still include cymbals panned hard right, for example, something impossible for your ears to hear naturally.

Much of the music on the radio now has never been through a microphone. Fruity Loops, digital synthesis, and Pro Tools. Stereo is rich, but has little to do with positioning.

General recordings simply aren't made for realistic headphone listening. It is possible to make binaural head mic recordings, and still use multitrack techniques, punch-ins, editing and processing the recording. A recording made for headphones tends to be too "distant" when listening through speakers though, not as in-your-face and immediate as what the sound mastering engineers would want to dial in, and not something that would get radio play. It's not done.

Early clean stereo, like Beatles (where the balance knob can give you karaoke), allows hobbyists to use computer audio techniques to make a new headphone recording - put virtual speakers in a virtual room and simulate re-recording at each ear. The same can be done with mono too, and the experience enhanced with different "virtual speakers" that reproduce different frequency responses. This must be more sophisticated than the "concert hall" button on your receiver, though.

 

Real instruments are not omnidirectional, as any musician will tell you.

 

...making the speaker do an even less optimal job at "putting the musician in the room" (if that's what mono is going to be good at); when they put down the guitar and pick up the trumpet, the directionality of the instrument changes, but your speaker doesn't.

Recorded music is usually made to take you to the music hall, instead bring the musicians to you - an easier task for a pair of speakers.

 

I still prefer the White album in stereo, the mono sounds flat and dull. My exception is the Stones early albums, 64 to 66. They sound a million times better in mono then stereo and also my 60's garage nuggets groups.

 

NO, I agree with you 200%, mono is a dead and flat as a hammer. It's the reason I never purchased the Beatles Mono Albums, I did not want to listen to dead, flat mono. I sent the Stereo batch back as the pressings were so bad, and obviously found out they were not sourced from the master tapes, but rather the Stereo Digital archives, so I ended up with the stereo CD's as those mono albums just had no life, so I certainly agree with you, mono under 99% of the circumstances is just no good for me personally.

 

Beatles mono is dull flat and has no life?
Are you guys playing these things on a toaster ???