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

The worst must be being Tone Deaf.

 

when i first heard a "bootleg" of their satanic's majesty request in mono ( and i had no idea that it was ) i was blown away at how much better it sounded. to my ears the beatles also sound fuller in mono.

 

If mono is to stereo, as black and white photography is to color photography, -- what is 5.1 sound ?

 

A Colorized black and white movie ;-)

 

Well, there's certainly a lot of that kind around these days.

 

And I have a bootleg of Satanic Majesty in 5.1 ( by someone known as Area 51) it is an ambitious surround mix that sounds fabulous, This record was made for surround , not mono IMHO.

 

I think comparisons of mono vs. stereo to black & white photography vs. color photography, or two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional constructs are specious and miss the point of channelled soundstage entirely, opting to deprecate through a narrow frame of reference high-fidelity imaging emanating from one position.

Those who wish to express these ideas in terms of one being more versatile than another I feel are limited in perception by means of a single-mindedness that is largely self-imposed.

 

Some of the old mono recordings that were made to be played back in mono as thats all there was, can sound quite good, but other than those I'll stick with 2 channel.

 

It’s not a record, but the (excellent) 2019 film “The Lighthouse” is in black and white, filmed in a 1:19:1 aspect ratio (pretty much a square), and the sound mix is in... mono (all of those choices for this film work perfectly, btw.)

 

mono....it all comes outta one hole

 

mono is a bare-knuckles fistfight. stereo is fake wrestling.

 

Some albums sound better in stereo, some in mono. Early Beatles with widely panned stereo definitely sounds better in mono. Early to mid Kinks sounds best in mono, especially the old Pye pressings. I like Hendrix and Dylan in stereo, but many disagree.

 

It's really a case by case basis. There are terrible 60's stereo mixes (The Beatles twin-track mixes spring to mind) and fantastic 60's Stereo Mixes (Beach Boys also come to mind)

And it's not just hard panning, There are hard-panned stereo mixes that sound exquisite. Take Surfer Girl for example:



A song recorded in the early 60s and mixed in hard-panned stereo even when their main demographic was almost entirely Mono only. Yet: Wow, just wow.

It's an opinion and choice only you can make. Its really about what makes you happy.

 

As I’ve been seeing things about comparing mono, duophonic, and stereo, one thing comes to mind. As many of you probably know a colorized photo can look really good, but we haven’t really had anything close for recordings in the way of being mono to stereo without being weird sounding with duophonic for instance. Well I’ve discovered something that can really only be done (efficiently) digitally that can have great effects, like a colorized photo.
You can actually hear the separation and it sounds good, like an early stereo recording. A website about it has 17 pages of examples and there’s been some CD releases as well. https://www.monotostereo.info/

 

Honestly, I like both for different reasons.

 

The analogy is okay because color is a dimension in photography just like stereo imaging is a dimension in sound reproduction.

But the difference is that photographs never needed to be mixed from the working parts to create a color or black-and-white photomaster. Maybe the accurate analogy is mono single microphone recording versus multitrack or stereo recording.

 

I feel the same way. I like early rock, folk, jazz and such in mono- just the straight scoop. But I've always very much preferred Hendrix in stereo and same with a lot of other rock music. Beyond early rock, stereo is the way to go for me with that kind of music.

 

I must be one of the few that prefers the Rascals in stereo. Especially "Good Lovin'" and "A Girl Like You".

 

Pet Sounds wasn't really Pet Sounds until the stereo mix was released and we heard ALL the Pet Sounds.