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

One Note Samba

 

With mono, everything is in the middle.

When you use speakers, that's not as noticeable.

 

I don't see why this would prevent you from listening on headphones.

 

OK
A versus thread
On a topic that reappears again and again.
Which brings me the thought that a lotta people posting here never heard a 45 (absolutely MONO) from
Motown
Stax
or Chess

 

You can. It just really emphasizes the mono.

 

You are correct.

You can listen to a mono record through headphones.

If I’m listening to a poorly recorded bootleg,
I will often listen with headphones.

But the vintage classical recordings which I was referring to
sound better through speakers.

Sometimes you wouldn’t even suspect that they are mono,
unless you use headphones.

 

When I prefer a mono mix, it's because the stereo mix wasn't done as carefully and didn't receive the artist's input.

Otherwise I avoid mono.

 

Go Cyanotype or go home!

 

Bingo.

 

Mono requires you to think about what instruments really need to be in a mix or an arrangement and can create a third "sound" from all of the instruments, echo, and reverb competing in a narrow soundstage. I've deliberately mixed rock recordings to mono for a messiness and punch that's gone when spread to stereo, and I think the format also works for intimate, sparse performances. The Rolling Stones (on Exile) and John Lennon (on Plastic Ono Band) chose mono (or de facto mono) for recordings in the stereo age.

 

There’s nothing technically “preventing” headphone listening. It just sounds like it’s coming from inside your head and it’s fatiguing

 

I'm not familiar with that recording but I've had a similar experience with Willem van Otterloo's 1951 mono recording of Symphonie Fantastique, at least the 2007 remaster in the Berliner Philharmoniker Rediscovered CD box set (have never heard the original master so can't comment on that). It's absolutely beautiful!

 

I wonder if older people might have a different perspective on mono? When I was
very young, we had a mono hi-fi and listened to mono records, because that’s all
their was. Not long later, some stereo records made their way into our house. It still
took a little while for us to finally get a stereo unit. I remember the difference to be striking!
I think it’s sorta like some of us also grew up with Black and White TVs. To generations
after, the newer forms were the norm. I think innovations like those will always have
a more significant place historically, having experienced the gradual change first hand.

 

I call the terrific mono Bill Haley Decca recordings, as heard on Steve's magnificent From the Original Master Tapes, Hybrid Stereo.

 

The first mono mixes I ever heard--after prolonged exposure to the stereo mixes--which I actually came to appreciate and prefer were on the Dylan mono box about ten years ago. Mono gave his sixties lyrics and delivery a much greater sense to urgency. The best analogy I can think of is that early Dylan isn't some hippie groove meant to be heard while alone in a beanbag chair wearing headphones, but a series of announcements to the masses coming over a P.A. system.

Other than that, the mono mixes I tend to prefer are those I was unaware were in mono at the time--"My Generation", Elvis' '68 Comeback Special, etc. Back when people were freaking out over the Beatles mono box, I was discovering the first four Beatles albums in stereo...and they just sounded kind of weird to me.

 

The only reason I would tout mono is if a certain recording had better sonics in that domain than in stereo.

But all things being equal, it's stereo all the way.

 

The Stray Cats mixed some tracks (like "Rock This Town") to mono in the '80s. I realize it's not a "new" recording, but it was made well after mono was generally phased out. It worked perfectly for that track - I couldn't imagine it any other way. It still makes sense if that's the sound you're after, just as B&W photography makes sense if that's the look you're after.

 

That is a REALLY good analogy. I think I understand exactly what you are saying!

 

Why not have a thread about whether wax cylinders are better or worse than 78s?

Continuing with the photography analogy, the technology has changed over time: silver nitrate came before colour film.

What's actually important is the content, not the medium. Music in mono is just that, same as music recorded in stereo or quad or 5.1. It is what it is.

The Beatles paid attention to the mono mix, so I got the mono recordings. That's just common sense. I'm not looking to get Kate Bush or XTC in mono.

 

I generally prefer stereo to mono for music (unless it was originally recorded mono), but another analogy to consider is surround-sound vs front-stereo for movies.

I actually HATE sound effects coming from the back or sides when I'm watching a movie because I find it distracting and I think detracts from the image on the screen, which should be the primary focus.
I prefer a stereo presentation or stereo + a center channel where all the sound is coming from the direction of the screen.

 

I think that there's a lot of generalizations made by a lot of us about stereo vs mono, especially when it comes to 60s releases. More than a few times, I've heard that so and so released in 1967 is just MILES better in mono and that to enjoy the music you MUST shell out the sometimes several hundred dollars to find an original mono pressing. In reality it comes down to your personal preference. I've found several albums that I don't find the stereo mix bad whatsoever, maybe a little odd at times since engineers at that point were still getting the newness of stereo worked out. I think the whole mono is king for 50s-60s music where there's an option between mono and true stereo is just bogus half the time. Unless the stereo mix is just completely drowned in echo, or there's nothing in the middle of the sound stage, or maybe guitar is hard panned to the left and vocals hard panned to the right, stereo is worth a listen to find out for yourself, on your gear, in your listening room, with your ears. You can't just listen to opinions online and just take it as the unanimous truth. If you're asking yourself if the mono mix is worth paying more for, or if it's even better, sit down and listen to both. Decide for yourself because people on some online forum aren't the ones hearing the music. It's you.

 

I challenge anyone who dislikes mono to find a buddy with a good 78 rig and listen to an original Hank Williams or Big Joe Turner or Fletcher Henderson or (etc.)...
Not only will you not believe your ears, but you also won't mind that it's not stereo.

 

I prefer Wide Stereo over MONO but, I have no problem with mono when no stereo is available...I grew up with AM Radio! mono singles, etc...therefore I cannot dismiss MONO totally!

 

It’s taken me a while to admit this, but I really enjoy mono. Depending on the age of the recording, I prefer mono. I buy a lot of LPs... used 50s/60s Jazz LPs in particular, classical as well. Sometimes it’s difficult to find good quality affordable stereo pressings. In contrast, used mono recordings are more readily available and in better condition at far better prices. For example, I’ve been picking up a number of original impulse! releases. In the local market, I tend to find original mono recordings available, they are almost always clean and Half the price of a stereo pressing. I have nice gear, but in the end I really care about the music itself. I find myself being satisfied with many early recordings in mono. I like the Photography analogy. In the end I think it all depends on the mastering and pressing... but give me the music, ah the music. Jeff