Am I totally nuts or just a bit off?


A few weeks ago I came across about a hundred old mono pop jazz albums from the fifties in storage I had forgotten about.
Had some extended(3am extended) listening sessions using a Shure M78 S(sperical) tracking a little over 2 gms on my trusty Sony PS-X7 .

Sure seemed to me that mono was way cool especially in the LOW listening fatigue factor. Going on a Goodwill road trip next week-LOL,

Tell me again, why was stereo invented?
schubert

Showing 1 response by johnnyb53

It's true that stereo playback can approach re-creating the spatial characteristics of the recording event. And as much as I like that sensation, tonal accuracy and balance is more important. I'd rather hear voices and instruments sounding real before I care about who sat where or how big the recording venue was.

Mono-mastered LPs have an inherent advantage for tonal balance and traceability because the mastering cutter and the playback stylus don't have to split duties between two channels. From what I've read, some early stereo records had trouble achieving the rich tonal balance of their mono counterparts.

In America most of the Capitol pressings of Sgt. Pepper were in stereo because the US market had already switched. At EMI, however, the engineers spent much more time on the mono mixdown than the stereo one. I finally chased down a Capitol mono pressing w/o breaking the bank, and it has none of that thin brittle sound I often associated with that record.

Right now I'm listening to Acoustic Sounds' 45 rpm re-master of the 1957 Nat King Cole record, "After Midnight" on Capitol in glorious mono. It is one of the gems of my record library.

For any of you wondering if those 45 rpm Acoustic Sounds re-masters are worth it, the answers are Yes! and HELL, YES!