Stereo Vs. Mono


I have a nice six eye mono copy of Brubecks "Gone with the Wind" and was always hunting around for a six eye stereo version. I recently got my hands on a very clean copy - it would grade NM visually - gave it a good cleaning only to play it and be disappointed with the amount of background noise. The mono version was far superior in every way. I went and compared a few late 50s early 60s stereo with mono pressings and discovered that the mono always sounded better. Since they were early stereo recordings I guess they hadn't perfected their techniques or something. Any ideas? I am still amazed at how mono can have the depth and soundstage that it does. A few times I have set my ARC Ref Phono to mono and forgotten about it getting well into stereo album before I realize that it's still set to mono.
ntscdan

Showing 1 response by albertporter

Ntscdan, nothing wrong with your observation.

I have a number of mono recordings that are superior to stereo. In fact, there were more than a few early stereo releases recorded in mono format, then "electronically enhanced" to simulate stereo. These are almost always worse than the original mono.

Noise on stereo (or mono) is a separate issue. As for visual grading, an LP can be handled with the utmost care (perfect label and cover, no obvious scratches) and yet be played to death. Quality of sound is determined by groove wear and how good the pressing was in the first place.

I've purchased records in such poor condition, they look as though they won't play at all. Some surprise me with perfect sound and quiet running. Still, I seldom risk buying this condition unless they are priced low and otherwise unavailable.