-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Yet more Beatles vinyl...
- Thread starter Wigwam Jones
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Fixed the thread title for ya. 
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
Fixed the thread title for ya.
Thanks, that was a strange typo. Tet? I have no idea what I was thinking.
I assumed the Y and T are next to each other and you just fat-fingered it.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
That must be it. The only other thing that comes to mind is the Tet Offensive, and although I'm certain offensive, Vietnam is a long time ago.
fgb4
Active Member
Ive never really listened to an album in mono, Ive toyed with the mono switch on my amp, but i dont like how it sounds. Now maybe this is because im taking stereo and making it into mono, but is there any inherent benefit to mono? If we can play in stereo, why would you ever want mono?
KeninDC
Hazy Cosmic Jive
With certain Beatles albums, the mono mixes are way better than the stereo mixes with the "hole" in the middle (vocals on one side, instruments on the other).
And I'm no mono fetishist by any means.
Rubber Soul and Revolver are essential in UK mono.
Edit: But I have a soft spot for the US stereo Rubber Soul LP because I heard that first and it is more "folky."
Last edited:
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
Any recording released on vinyl before 1958 is monophonic, even it was recorded with multiple channels. So there's that. Lots of good music was made before 1958. Not The Beatles, of course.
Then, as KeninDC mentioned, sometimes the original mix was just better quality in mono.
And anyone who has ever heard an album 'electronically reprocessed for stereo effect' album has probably wanted to shove icepicks into both ears.
And then you have people who only have hearing in one ear...
Stereo is generally best if it was recorded and mixed in stereo originally, and assuming it was done well, or at least better than any simultaneous mono mix.
And for quite a while in the early to late 60s, albums were released in both mono and stereo mixes.
So it's not that mono is technically superior, but that it can be superior with a given release, depending on circumstances.
Then, as KeninDC mentioned, sometimes the original mix was just better quality in mono.
And anyone who has ever heard an album 'electronically reprocessed for stereo effect' album has probably wanted to shove icepicks into both ears.
And then you have people who only have hearing in one ear...
Stereo is generally best if it was recorded and mixed in stereo originally, and assuming it was done well, or at least better than any simultaneous mono mix.
And for quite a while in the early to late 60s, albums were released in both mono and stereo mixes.
So it's not that mono is technically superior, but that it can be superior with a given release, depending on circumstances.
ggrey
Sonically Insane
And one of those circumstances was that much more time was spent perfecting the mono mixes because that was the main format in the early through mid 60s (The Beatle years). The engineering and production team really spent time on having the mix of different guitars and vocals cut through when played back together on one speaker. If the EQ, volume, reverb, echo weren't perfect (relatively speaking) one instrument can easily cover another up in the final mix. Cannot have that happen in mono…not so critical in stereo, and so they may have spent 3 hours perfecting the mono mix of one song, where the next day they mixed the entire album in less time than that.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
I have discovered a love of certain Big Band recordings. Most of the really good ones were recorded in the days before stereo LPs and were not even recorded on multi-channel tape, so there is truly only a monophonic original master.
I have heard both mono and 'electronically-rechanneled stereo' versions of the same LP and I really strongly prefer the original mono recording in all cases. I can see where the fake stereo would have been acceptable on a lo-fi system of the day, but it's just wrong and bad on a more capable system and for non-background listening.
Recently, I discovered that many studio recordings in certain eras were recorded on both mono and stereo at the same time; in one case of a jazz album I recall reading about, there were four reel-to-reel decks running. Two mono and two stereo. As it turns out, the stereo recording on the master stereo deck was malfunctioning and recorded a bit too fast. The stereo backup was lost over the years. We are left with a bad stereo master and a good mono master. Mono would be my choice here.
Really good mono on a really nice mono system is nothing like pressing the mono button on a stereo, where the soundstage collapses and the stereo imaging disappears. It's a very different experience, at least to me, to listen to original mono recordings on a dedicated mono system with one speaker. But I am no expert, this is merely my opinion and observation.
spartanmanor
Lunatic Member
Also the "Lads" were solely involved in the mono mix as this is what most consumers were buying. The stereo versions when originally released were in a word an after thought.
markshan
Sir Thrift a Lot
For sure. The only thing worse than the duo-phonic Beach Boy stuff was the horrible rechanneled Elvis stuff. I literally can't listen to it.
markshan
Sir Thrift a Lot
I feel that the digital master issue is very over blown. The reissue vinyl sounds great, as long as you get a copy without pressing flaws.
Lbgrrl
Beatles Fan
I have a number of the original mono records and really like the mix better. The mono ones rend to be better because you dont have that awkward voice on one side, music on the other effect of the stereo albums (early stereo--from MMT onward, the stereo is fine). I dunno, I have not been into all these reissues. I love my original issues, with all their wear and tear... they were *there*. But for someone just getting into the Beatles on vinyl, this is an easy way to get everything all at once!