2. analog
  3. 1037318820

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 nrchy

nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,124 posts
 
Albert is as usual "correct." One of the problems with early stereo recordings was that people didn't know how to do them. The engineers had years of experience with mono and it showed in the recording. Often a stereo mix was done almost as an afterthought.
A similar learning curve was easily observed with the advent of digital recording. They were supposed to sound great, but the fact of the matter was they sounded like #%@*! It took several years for them to sound good, but the newer offereings are much better than those available in the early 80's.
I very much enjoy the few monos I have and wouldn't shy away from buying mono again.
More to discover