Mono vs Stereo - I'm just gonna say it...

That right there speaks to my comment about stereo and color being more real. Sometimes it's not about being there. I'm reminded of background music in movies or commercials. They are there to evoke an emotional response, rather than to just "be there", listening to the audio source. And sometimes mono can evoke a different emotional response than stereo. Again, as with black and white, some details are intentionally removed to give it a different "look/feel", in the same way that black and white can, by eliminating color, emphasize textures.

 

Those suggestions make a certain amount of sense, but I still don't think they're truly analogous. Like, without pitched sounds, the music produced would be quite different from most music we listen to around here. The difference between B&W and color -- in terms of delivering the artist's "content" or vision -- is much more subtle. You see all the same "things" in a black & white photograph (i.e. the subject of the photo), they're just presented differently.

Similarly for a small/single arrangement vs. a string section or whatever. The more complex recording literally has more stuff recorded on it, like if you edited a photo to add a figure who wasn't in the original shot (or the hand-tinting example mentioned earlier).

 

Sometimes there is both a mono and stereo mix of an album though.

 

The analogy is that 2D photos present the same image to both of your eyes (like a mono recording presents the same audio signal to both of your ears) whereas 3D photography presents a different image to each eye (as stereo does with your ears).

2D images can simulate depth, too, with the proper use of perspective, or "tromp l'oeil" techniques.

 

I agree with this.
Some stuff needs to be mono, due to the recording equipment, and technology of the day.
Some should be stereo for the same reasons.
I like the perceived depth of stereo, especially in headphones, but it needs to be remembered that mono, and stereo both only cover 1 dimension, ie linear.
5.1 is 2 dimensional.... I believe thx? Or 7.1 is actually 3 dimensional.
I understand using the black and white to colour description, but image is so different to sound in interpretation that I think it falls short somewhat, as some black and white shots are just perfect and capture something that colour can't....
Just thoughts

 

I think the analogy also falls apart a little bit when you consider that there were dedicated mono mixes for some things (Beatles in particular, but also other groups).

Of course, what I say only applies during the times when there were dedicated mono and stereo mixes for things, which definitely did not apply over all time, and (I believe) also varied timewise depending on the type of music.

 

Mono is a overrated. A preferable mix can exist in either medium. I like most mono mixes for the Beatles and Four Seasons but little else.

 

Sometimes I switch to mono when the recording has something way louder on one of the channels, be it guitar, vocals, etc. It helps to even out the sonic landscape.

 

It's difficult to use sixties stuff as an example, because it was an odd crossover point.
Consumers were slow to get stereos, and artists wanted to sell their recordings. By the time we get to the seventies the apprehension about whether stereo would make it or not had disappeared, and there were very few mono releases.
Also recording technology gave more options via multitrack development and would have been almost silly to record on 24 tracks and release a mono album.

 

Agreed. I don't get the obsession with Hendrix in mono that some people have.

 

Not sure why people debate formats. Listen to what you think sounds best and make your own decision, instead of being so influenced by what others think.

 

The best example I know of a stereo recording that sounds absolutely awful is The Mamas & Papas - I Saw Her Again Last Night. One channel seems to go in and out. I don't know what happened there.

Some music that was recorded in the mono era, such as recordings featuring Phil Spector's "wall of sound", exploited the properties of mono by simply throwing everything into the mix. You weren't supposed to be able to pick out individual instruments or individual backing vocalists - it was all just, as the man said, a wall of sound, and I think separating recorded components into channels and presenting it as stereo just sounds wrong.

Then you get something technically advanced like Dire Straits - Love Over Gold, where I can hear every instrument and I cannot imagine listening to it in anything but stereo. So there is no simple answer, but it's certainly not a case of stereo always being an improvement over mono.

 

A year ago if you told me Mono White Album or Mono Pepper was a more enjoyable listen than the stereo, I wouldn't have believed you. Then i got the Mono Box and was converted.

Listen to a good mono recording mixed for it on a nice system and you shouldn't miss the stereo effects. But some days i want the 3D "color" of the stereo Pepper or White Album, and other days I want the punch and power of the mono. Early Jazz is another where the mono works much better. Think of the Coltrane albums where his sax is all the way panned to the right with the bass and drums all on the left side. I can barely tolerate those recordings on stereo now that I've heard the mono's.

 

LOL

(You made me laugh so hard it hurt! thank you)

 

i don't know - mono done right is just as 3 dimensional as stereo.

i think that, for me, it was more a realization that once multi-track recording became prevalent, the ART of mixing live to mono (with instruments well-placed in a sympathetic room) just went out the window. there's some early rock and roll that (imho) is INFINITELY more enveloping than anything the beatles ever did, etc...but that style of recording became rare, as did the performer who could do everything right in one take, etc...

i will say that there's a lot of music where i'm THRILLED to have both stereo AND mono mixes.

smitquest

 

Also, the Dylan Mono Box was a revelation to me for the early acoustic albums. The electric ones i think got it just right in Stereo.

 

I'll take Ansel Adams for the win

 

In cases like that I always prefer the better sounding mix.

 

Exactly my point.

 

Some cameras can produce 3-D images....in color or B&W.

it’s all so messed up.

 

What does that make The Beagles? Static?

 

You can have my 8-track tapes when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

My point in creating this thread was to give some sort of analogy to why both mono and stereo can be appreciated for what each brings to the table.

 

I like stereo and wide panning.

But I do have a lot of vintage classical recordings
that are mono.

Those are great mainly because of the performances.

And they do have a certain atmosphere,
like watching an old black & white monster movie.

However, there is one drawback - you can’t use headphones.

 

Yes, that headphone thing.

 

Why can't you use headphones?