Monomaniac: Mono versus Stereo
Chad Kassem of Acoustic Sounds doesn’t mess around. About once a month Fed-Ex drops off a clunky brown package that almost requires the skills of a swordsman to open. But the effort is worth it: inside are gleaming 45 rpm reissues of legendary Blue Note LPs. My most recent shipment included “Along Came John,” featuring jazz organist John Patton, whose records really swing.
Inside the LP Kassem has included a flyer explaining that numerous fans of his reissue series have inquired why Acoustic Sounds isn’t releasing them in mono rather than stereo. The answer is that after 1958, according to Acoustic Sounds, recording engineer Rudy van Gelder, one of the greats in the field (my other pick would be Lester Koenig of the Contemporary label), recorded the albums in stereo, then mixed them down to mono.
But which version actually sounds superior, mono or stereo?
I vote for mono. The original Blue Notes that I own—and, alas, I don’t possess them all—sound better, to my ear, in mono than stereo. I don’t know if this is because van Gelder always intended for the recordings to be heard in mono or whether it’s simply because mono has better bass authority than stereo. When Neil Gader of the Absolute Sound visited me recently, we even listened to “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” in mono—and on one speaker. Neil loved it. A look of distress crossed his face when I switched to another disc.
I realize that this may sound like one more step backwards into the vinyl abyss. First LPs, then mono records. What’s next you may be wondering—78 recordings and cactus cartridges? Well, I haven’t gone that far. At least not yet. But my Continuum turntable does have the ability to spin discs at 78 rpm and all it would take is a phone call to order a special cartridge. An acquaintance of mine at the French embassy in Washington listens solely to 78s, foraging for them on weekends. I guess you could call him a monomaniac. But my guess is that if you take a moment to listen to monos using one of the many new cartridges available for specialized playback, you might well become one as well.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I agree with you. You haven't heard "Sergeant Pepper's" until you hear the original Parlaphone (sp) in mono.
Unfortunately, the collectors know this, too, and have driven the price up on these beauties to insane levels.
Can you recommend some "high-value" mono cartridges? Thanks!
My opinion: Early stereo (not as early as Alan Blumlein's experiments, who understood - and to whom we vinylistas owe very much) wasn't very good - hard panned left and right, somewhat distant center (if there was a distinct center), and thus these recordings can be more distracting than entertaining. Mono recordings of the same material can be much more enjoyable simply because the recording/playback artifice is less evident, so the music captures our attention more fully.
Chris
The Signal Collection, LLC
North American Distributors
of Connoisseur-Grade Hi-Fi
Well The Beatles cared more about the mono mixes because that's how most kids in the UK listened. They were involved as was Geoff Emmerick and they took their time doing it. Stereo? They left the premises and left the mix to strangers. They didn't care.
The same was true of Dylan. The mono mix of "Blonde on Blonde" was his baby. He left for the stereo mix.
But the Blue Notes was a different story since they were two track recordings to begin with. A great deal of mythology suggests they were "meant" to be heard in mono but in fact, there were no real mono mixes. The mono versions were "fold downs" from the two track 'stereo' tapes.
The tape boxes seem to suggest that "stereo" was how they were meant to be heard...unlike with the early Beatles two track recordings, done that way to separate the voices on one track and instruments on the other so they could be effectively blended for the final mono mix.....which is how they were intended to be heard and which is why Martin did not allow the first CD issues to include the "stereo" versions. They will be included in the new CD reissues by popular demand.
But really, it's whatever you like! Too much "purism" is poisonous....
Jim--Grado and Lyra offer mono cartridges that are several hundred dollars. It can get stratospheric--the Koetsu Coralstone for 15K, which Michael Fremer discusses at length n the current Stereophile. But my guess is that the AirTight Supreme, which is forthcoming in mono, would probably be more than competitive. But I haven't heard either, so this is just speculation.
Michael is right about the Blue Notes, but I can't escape the nagging feeling that the original monos, for simply sound more alive, more present, more forceful, than the reissued stereo versions. I wonder if it's because the tapes have aged. Further conjecture on my part, of course.
Thank you for submitting this cool story - Trackback from Dotbot.
MTS Converter
It's a 100% FREE MTS Converter||Convert MTS to DVD
Iam highly agree with you.By the way share a good tool I found to convert mts video recorder by HD camera
MTS Converter
Why doesn't somebody do Beatles vinyl reissues in mono? (I'm not aware anyone has). I think a lot of us would snap them up given the high-prices for the originals, and the disappointing stereo originals and reissuses.
Coming out this Sept. not on vinyl, but sadly on CD, 24/192 remastered versions of the entire Beatles catalog, including mono versions up through the "white album". Strange to go through all the trouble and then down-covert!? But, if the mono versions are truly like the original vinyl mono mixes, it will be fun! I bought my first 45 of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" when I was three. Looks I'll be buying their entire catalog again, and then maybe again when the 24/192 become available. Heaven knows they need the cash more than I do.
Norman Varney
A/V RoomService, Ltd.
The difference you are hearing with the mono folddowns is center build - up. In early stereo it was imperative that the bass be centered (mono) or the stylus would fly out of the groove. So when a stereo mix folds to mono - since the center (L+R) information is boosted compared to the sides ((L, R, L-R) by 3db - that would change the mix balances and favor the centered instruments, thereby presenting a punchier bassier balance. Typically soloists are centered so they would be hotter as well. Also in general the inphase information would be favored and any phasey loose mic crosstalk would be diminished, at least with regard to the centered instrumentation. Finally if the echo chamber were panned to the center that would be stronger as well.
Refering to the Beatles mono mixes, they are not fold-downs from stereo mixes. They are from seperate mono mixing sessions, resulting in often very different musical recordings. You can not only hear differences of track levels, but sometimes you hear completely different tracks of vocals, instruments, solos, effects, etc. This is what makes them fun and sought after. According to Lewisohn's book "The Beatles Recording Sessions", the mono mixes were always the priority for the Beatles up through the "white album". As mentioned earlier, the Beatles were usually only present for the mono mixes. The white album is probably the most noticeably different of all their albums.
BTW, Grado Labs makes nice monophonic phono cartridges.
Norman Varney
A/V RoomService, Ltd.