Questions about mono

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by BKarloff, Sep 16, 2011.

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

    BKarloff Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    UK
    Excuse my ignorance but when listening to mono CDs (Beatles, Dylan etc) what are the differences I should be listening out for. Obviously instruments aren't seperated but I feel I'm missing something when I put these discs on.

    Is the 'greatness' of mono one big myth or are their perceived benefits from listening to a mono mix?

    And finally how can you tell the difference between a dedicated mono mix and a 'folddown' ?

    Cheers
     
    BKarloff, Sep 16, 2011
    #1
  2. MLutthans

    MLutthans That's my spaghetti, Chewbacca! Staff

    Location:
    Marysville, WA, Salina, KS, Los Angeles, CA
    I'll give it a go.

    Keep in mind that just as there are good stereo mixes and bad stereo mixes, so there are good and bad mono mixes. Mono does not equate to "better" (or worse) necessarily.

    If we are talking 1960s rock mixes, in many cases, the mono mixes have better instrumental balance and a smoother tone overall, with more bass. Also, because for a certain time period the mono mixes were the "primary" mixes, more care was given to details within the mix, so they may have a degree of refinement missing in the stereo mix. For instance, on Dylan's BLONDE ON BLONDE album, the stereo mix has some wrong notes and wrong cymbal hits on VISIONS OF JOHANNA. Those were carefully mixed OUT on the mono mix -- a nice touch. Since you mentioned Dylan, on the same album, SOONER OR LATER goes all the way to the finish in mono, but has a fade at the end in stereo, plus there is a missing edit in the stereo version that lets a stray extra bar pop its ugly head in.

    It's not always easy to tell the difference between a dedicated mono mix and a folddown (at least not for me).

    Matt
     
    MLutthans, Sep 16, 2011
    #2
  3. ParloFax

    ParloFax Senior Member

    Location:
    Montreal North Shore, Quebec, CANADA
    My 2 cents over MLutthans' helpful explanations and examples. You mention The Beatles. Sometimes the studio tapes used on dedicated mono mixes are not even the same ones than on the stereo mix. Like the fiddle part on "Don't Pass Me Buy" is not even the same take. Or not the same part of the take anyway. (I don't remember exactly, but you get the point.)

    If you happen to use an old receiver with a stereo/mono switch, or can find one in a thrift shop, you will find it very helpful to make a few playback experiences with it. Like setting the switch to mono and putting on a dedicated stereo LP (or cassette), and simultaneously spinning its dedicated mono CD counterpart, alternating between the two to check all those differences as they happen. The stereo LP or cassette played back with the switch set to mono will be the equivalent of a folddown.
     
    ParloFax, Sep 16, 2011
    #3
  4. action pact

    action pact Music Omnivore

    Location:
    Lexington, Massachusetts
    It also needs to be said that, due to the limitations of 3- and 4-track recording (common prior to about 1968), many stereo mixes from that period do not sound natural.

    Listen to the Beatles' early stereo albums, for example: lead vocals on one side, the main backing track on the other, with an occasional guitar lead or percussion embellishment or vocal overdub popping up elsewhere in the stereo spectrum. It all sounds very disjointed. With the mono mix, there is a lot more cohesion.
     
    action pact, Sep 16, 2011
    #4
  5. Jedey

    Jedey Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hope, Mn USA
    Jedey, Sep 16, 2011
    #5
  6. Drifter

    Drifter AAD survivor

    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, CA
    For the Beatles, play the stereo mix of "Slow Down" followed immediately by the mono mix and report back. :) It's the mix that matters, not whether it's mono or stereo.

    Other tracks to compare stereo to mono: "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "Revolution" & "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)" - way more powerful in mono.
     
    Drifter, Sep 16, 2011
    #6
  7. BKarloff

    BKarloff Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    UK
    Thanks. That sounds obvious but is probably where I've been going wrong. I will do some listening tests over the weekend :righton:
     
    BKarloff, Sep 16, 2011
    #7
  8. 1970

    1970 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oregon USA
    Jedey - that was hilarious.

    - Why would I want to fool my brain?
    - Exactly, Scotty!

    :laugh:

    Thanks for sharing that.
     
    1970, Sep 16, 2011
    #8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine