Stereo or Mono?

[jeffrefrig]

To you recorded music fans, and I'm one, do you prefer your music in stereo or mono. I just heard a guy (Little Steven) comment again how the album he was talking about say something was recorded in mono, "The way (it) was intended to be." I prefer most of my stuff in stereo, especially with head phones. I can't imagine stuff like "Lucky Man" (or any ELP recording), "Hurdy Gurdy Man", "Crimson & Clover", "Are You Experienced?", etc., played in mono except with a transistor radio from the early days. Those songs were just an example; you don't have to like them.
I'm wondering why "they" say mono is better? I've been wondering for quite a while, and was reminded of it a little while ago. Surround sound really brings it out when I'm the only one home.

 

[rwsmith]

If recorded in mono or stereo...

...it should be published in what format it was intended to be.

Many early stereo recordings were 'faked' in some way from mono tracks.

I think a mono recording can have excellent sound if stereo 'staging' is not required. Many of the Beatles earlier recordings sound fine in mono, later in the 60's stereo was used as part of the musical setting and it would have less impact in mono.

In other words, stereo or mono is good, but it needs to stay with the intention it was recorded.

 

[Telecaster]

I agree with the above. I also say that if a song sounds great on a little transistor radio, it’s a great song. But that doesn’t mean mono is the preferred format, just that it’s a test of a recording’s integrity.

 

[TXBryan]

High Fidelity is actually more important than mono vs. stereo according to the Hi-Fi & Laser Beam course I took a bazillion years ago as an undergrad. It counted as three hours of physics credit and it was by-no-means a cake walk course - and it was so cool I actually remember a lot of it. Hi-Fi involves standards of distortion, unwanted noise reduction, accurate frequency response, etc. and both stereo and mono sound systems can be designed with, or without, regard to Hi-Fi standards.

I have a decent Sony boombox that's not that old and it pales by comparison to my Altec Bluetooth speaker I use to listen to satellite radio from my tablet. The Altec is smaller than a deck of playing cards but meets Hi-Fi specs. The Sony is "technically" stereo (even though the speakers are "fixed" closer together than permissible for true stereo standards). The Altec is "mono" and magnitudes of order better audio quality.

Bottom line is a true high fidelity mono system beats a mediocre stereo sound reproduction system. I remain devoted to my component Hi-Fi stereo system for serious listening - including LPs.

 

[Targets Guy]

Makes no difference to me. Most of the music I listen to was recorded before 1950.

 

[jeffrefrig]

Question answered. Thanks. Makes sense now.

 

[RetCapt]

Agree with TXBryan. Sound quality (fidelity) trumps everything. I was interested in high fidelity from the first time I heard such a system during my '50s youth.

Now I have a fairly ultimate stereo system, and the sound equals the loot I have in it. Many people these days have never experienced a really good sound system (not just stereo by virtue of two channels). When I have demonstrated our system, they are amazed because they have never heard a recorded performance sound like they were there at the live performance.

We have a friend whose audio cultural background consists of listening to country and western music on the car AM radio. When she came over here and listened to 'Phantom of th Opera' at concert hall levels, she became an addict, and keeps coming back for more. Her husband, OTOH, is fine with country and western on the AM car radio.

Glad I have my system since I could no longer afford it. My neighbors agree - most of the time.

 

[Chuck24]

Back in high school in the late 60s, one of my best friends had a brother that was a DJ at a prominent Richmond radio station. He would get us 45s that had been sent to the station for promo purposes. The odd thing, rather than an A & B side, it was the same song on both but one was stereo and one was mono. I guess the equipment that the station had dictated which side got played.

 

[AR_Black]

Somewhat related. 3D audio. Can’t experience any of the effects unless listening in Stereo.

Wear headphones and close your eyes. Relax.

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V2VR9KSEh50[/ame]

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3txhT2ncNOU[/ame]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rustyt1953]

Thanks to a bright Brit.

Alan Blumlein - Wikipedia

 

[DWalt]

Anyone else remember when the stereo effect was done by simulcast of AM and FM signals?

 

[riverrat38]

Anyone else remember when the stereo effect was done by simulcast of AM and FM signals?

Yes, but I was disappointed, due to I couldn't get our Magnavox mono FM receiver to work. The AM side was a table top radio. The channels would have had totally different quality.
The record stores had demo records playing, and that was how a lot of us first heard the stereo effect.

73,
Rick

 

[Walter Rego]

I am somewhat of an audiophile and mono recordings sound odd to me. I don't mind the "fake" stereo that was applied to the early Beatles recordings for example. I try and listen to them in the spirit of the times they were released and for me, the attempts to get a stereo effect for the US consumers who were often listening to LP's on a "suitcase stereo" or their parent's combination color TV/AM/FM radio and turntable console in the living room is just fine. That's how I listened to them in the early 60's.

 

[Onomea]

I have a pretty good audio system from the 1990s in the living room of my house in Japan. Because of the layout of the room, my favorite chair is at a right angle to the right speaker, only about four feet away from my right ear. On the amp, I switched the system to play mono. Otherwise I hear that right one channel too strongly. The room is too small to crank up the system.

(If all I cared about was the audio in the room, I'd rearrange everything. But I don't play the audio except in the evenings, and even then not every night, so do not want to arrange the room around it.)

I've also discovered that the room itself where the audio is located can make a huge difference. My US house has a very large living room/great room with cathedral ceilings. Open kitchen adjoining. Setting up the audio speakers on either side of the fireplace at the far end of the room, with the sound cascading off the cathedral ceiling, sounds terrific.

My audio system in Japan is more expensive, better speakers, etc., but my audio in the US, largely because of the room and how it is positioned, I believe, sounds much better.

 

[MRB1]

Remember the reverberators that turned the car radio into "stereo". I think they came out around 1964 era.

 

[venomballistics]

nearly everything is recorded in mono.
it's in the production side where things are made stereo.
Think of your typical video clip of a singer crooning into a single mic. That's mono.
It's when we take that track to mixdown that we place it in a stereo sound stage that it becomes stereo.

 

[venomballistics]

Back in high school in the late 60s, one of my best friends had a brother that was a DJ at a prominent Richmond radio station. He would get us 45s that had been sent to the station for promo purposes. The odd thing, rather than an A & B side, it was the same song on both but one was stereo and one was mono. I guess the equipment that the station had dictated which side got played.

probably correct. there are some studio techniques that will delete instruments when played back in mono. also "track placement" will render a mix unbalanced. In the case of an AM station, where everything goes to mono, it's good for some annoying results

 

[tlawler]

I have an old Carver receiver(but not the tube based one) that has something called “sonic holography”. From wikipedia: It enhances stereo imaging by introducing a delayed and equalized signal from the right channel at the left loudspeaker to cancel the signal from the right loudspeaker at the listener's left ear (and vice versa). It sounds pretty cool and definitely gives the stereo sound more of a 3D effect. I don’t use it that often because it reduces the volume output considerably to produce the effect. I did a little research on Carver for this post and learned that he is still producing his legendary tube based amplifiers! How cool is that?

I was also gifted a vintage Bang & Olufsen receiver and tape deck a couple of years ago that sounded absolutely fantastic until I blew out the power supply(I think). I got a little carried away with the volume and something toasted. I’d like to get it fixed someday.

 

[venomballistics]

Glad I have my system since I could no longer afford it. My neighbors agree - most of the time.

"He doesn't always listen to the 1812 overture, but when he does, so do the neighbors"
I hear ya. Audio has one of my sources of zen for most of my life.
When I couldn't afford the stuff to make it happen, I learned how to build it.

 

[Brian Parrish]

Old Records Sound Great!

I listen to 78 rpm records on a refurbished Philco. AT this moment I am hearing "The Woodpecker Song" by The Glen Miller Orchestra on the Bluebird label. The machine was given to me and I spent $350 or so on the electronics. Records sound excellent on that machine because of the mono Astatic crystal cartridge. They do not sound right on anything else. The remanufactured crystal cartridge was provided by West-Tech Services of Kent, OH. The electronics were done by the famed Dale Laslie, DJL Audio of Greensboro, NC.

I listen to HiFi Lp and 45 rpm mono records on a GE record player (1966) with an original ceramic varco mono cartridge through a PA tube amp. They sound wonderful. The same records through a stereo amp set to the mono setting does not sound as good. Not nearly! I listen to stereo records 45rpm and Lp's on a direct drive TT (1980) with a MM cartridge (EMPIRE) played through a stereo tube set (circa 1960). Sounds pretty good.

The key is to understand how the respective systems are supposed to work. The mono signal reads from side to side and the up/down signal is scratches and surface noise. Use a cart that reads only the information that is on the disc and amplify it using the equalization curve that is appropriate for the era of that disc. I do not use the RIAA curve for records produced before that standard. Use the perfect sized stylus and the correct cartridge! A stereo cart rewired for mono will sound better than a stereo cart, but a true mono cart with the right stylus will be best. Once you produce the right sound from the tonearm, then you can amplify it as you like.

It makes sense to me to use the right equipment because I own a lot of these records. But then again I got all those records because I knew how to play them for maximum sound!

 

[DWalt]

My first “Stereo” portable turntable record player was back in the late 50s. Except to make it stereo, you had to plug in a separate amplifier and speaker to hear the second channel. That separate unit was fairly expensive, so I built my own. It worked, sort of. At that time, 33 LP records in stereo were not too common. Most LPs were mono then. No idea of what happened to that player. I still have several dozen LPs, haven’t played most of them in many years. I have a rather unusual Technics turntable. It is programmable so you can select the tracks you want to play and in what order. Or you can select one track and will keep playing that same track all day. I haven’t used it in a long time either. No idea if it still works or not.

With my poor hearing, Hi-Fi means nothing to me today. Most of my music is now on a USB thumb drive that I play on the truck radio through an FM adaptor.

 

[Chuck24]

I knew it was getting too complicated when they started using styluses and then stylus cartridges. My first recorded player used a needle that didn’t look a whole lot different from half a small finishing nail. BTW, I was the one the guy at the stereo store hated because when he took me in the speaker room, they all sounded the same.

 

[soFlaNative]

Surround sound really brings it out when I'm the only one home.

I recall quadrophonic recordings and equipment from the early - mid 70's. Way past my skill set but I think the tech was there, just too many issues occurred between the artist's recording and the consumers decoders for it to be feasible but it was the precursor to Surround Sound.

 

[DWalt]

I still have a 1920s Victrola as a home decor item. It must have been a very high-end model at that time as it is in a beautifully carved wood cabinet. I also have maybe 50 78 records. The Victrola still works and sounds good with plenty of volume. The only volume control is to close baffles. It uses those needles that look like small finishing nails. It sets right next to my beautiful wooden icebox, probably from the same time period, that I converted into a liquor cabinet.

 

[rwsmith]

I didn't know what hi-fi....

....was, until I was an adult and could get some entry level equipment. 50's, 60's and 70's were transistor radios and 'record players'. I still have many recordings on tape or vinyl from the late 1800s. I can listen right past the shhhhhhh and the tic-tic-tic.

I have Mario Del Monaco and Leonard Warren in box set of "il Pagliacci" and a French recording of 'The Pearl Fishers' I prefer over many modern recordings. I have the Robert Shaw chorus doing 'Carmina Burana' in the 60's on cd, but it is acknowledged as one of the best recordings ever.