Horrible early stereo mix

This reminds me of something a college friend said in the 70's. He was from Mexico City and he said that the city had installed a new stereo music system on the metro buses. But when he finally heard it he realized they were sending one channel to the north/south buses and the other channel to the east/west.

Now THAT could be off-putting.

I've always noticed that on Dinah Washington recordings going back to my childhood, Mom was a huge fan and I came on board because, well I had little choice at the time. Her voice is always far left and sounds separate from the rest of the mix. For her recordings, mono would definitely sound better. I too appreciate the recordings for what they are. In the case of Dinah, her interpretations and voice make the shortcomings of the recordings a moot point to me.

I don't have a problem with those recordings. I kind of like the separated sound and I appreciate the recordings for what they are. Many early jazz recordings are that way also and there is something special about how natural those recordings sound.

Many early masters are 3 or 4 track which make it impossible to do what you want. It wasn't until 8 track and 16 track came along which allowed placing each instrument on a separate track that allowed for placement of a track anywhere in the stereo plane
Alan

The early Beatles' stereo mix is tricky to correct. The original 4-tracks are long gone. They were never intended to be mixed in stereo--George Martin has said he made the stereo mix as an aid to a quicker, easier mono mix. The U.S. wanted stereo and that's what they got (plus added reverb).

I did make personal cassettes of the early LP's in which I panned everything a bit more to the center so it's not so extreme sounding. I suppose they could do that, but it's far from the ideal solution. With the proper software you could do it yourself.

Personally, I'd rather hear the much-maligned stereo mix than the mono.

Mono switch on preamp?

Why not buying mono versions after all?