For the most part not much IMO. Stereo done correctly, whether in original recording or not, sounds better to me nearly all of the time because of the spatial and dimensional aspect of the sounds which stereo provides. Which sounds more life like. Sometimes stereo can be annoying, even if recorded in stereo, such as music with only two sources, for example guitar out of one channel and voice out of the other. Or John Coltrane blowing down the house from only one speaker and the band (or parts of it) from the other. I wish those recordings were mono, or at least the lead player's solo. With stereo, I prefer the lead singer/player/soloist emanate from both speakers, creating a center image as if mono.
I have the Beatles on mono and stereo. I do prefer their more quiet material in mono because I feel I can get deeper into the music, but their more raucous material in stereo. When it comes to R & R, stereo is the only way to go IMO. Purity be damned. |
I only own a few mono records. When I listen to them I rarely, if ever, even notice they are mono, or think about it. I just enjoy the music..... |
There is a lot of old great classical recordings and jazz that are only in mono. What I like about mono is you tend to concentrate on the music than on the sound
Alan |
What contribution, if any, does a mono cartridge make? I have neither the money nor the desire to purchase a mono cartridge. But just wondering.
|
rockyboy -If I recall correctly, a true mono cartridge picks up only horizontal modulations and (unlike a stereo cart.) ignores the vertical modulations. On a 50's/early 60's pressed mono record this results in less surface noise.
I've got quite a few mono LP's from that era (mostly classical and jazz) and I can attest that when these records are played on a true mono cartridge, surface noise is, in fact, lessened. Such was the case with a Lyra Helikon mono cartridge (which crapped out on me way too soon) and my current Ortofon Cadenza Mono cart. |
There are a couple of other reasons for stereo/mono differences. 1- Brian Wilson mixed The Beach Boys albums to mono because A- he is deaf in one ear, and B- he loved Phil Spector’s music, which was always produced in mono only. 2- Before the late 1960’s, when Rock ’n’ Roll finally became considered adult music, records were mixed to sound good on radios and jukeboxes. Many hours were spent on the mono mix, the stereo mix often left to an assistant engineer to do in a quicky session. Stereo LP’s were pressed only so the record companies could charge a dollar more per disc. When I started buying LP’s, the mono versions sold for $2.99, the stereo $3.99. |
Appreciate all the comments. Very interesting. Out of state right now, but when I return home I will give another listen to my mono material.
|
One of the main things that I aspire to in this hobby, besides loving the music, is to attempt to reproduce it as it was recorded. IMO, that's the best we can do regardless of the format, or the care or knowledge of the engineers. It is what it is. So, if you love the music and it's only in mono, what's our job? Sure, you can stay away from mono recordings, but you may be missing out.
As mentioned above, much music is only recorded in mono, and a couple of years ago I wound up with my accountant's vinyl collection, mostly mono. I'm getting close to finishing off my final system except for tweaking, because I'm getting up there in age and it's time to unwind.
My plans are to cap off my system by adding a second arm with a mono cartridge. When I upgrade my phono stage, I'll also be adding a true mono circuit. I'm doing this, because it's important to me.
Kenny |
Very nice.
Your upgrade path, 2nd arm and mono cartridge and a phono stage with a mono circuit, really gets to the root of my original question. After the upgrade, how will the SQ or listening experience compare to playing one of your mono lps on my VPI Classic 3/Soundsmith Zephyr MkII? Wish I could hear a mono lp on your system both before and after the upgrade. Enjoy the music! |
If the original is mono then it is what the artist and producer made at that time. You are hearing the music as others first heard it 50 years ago. For example, a lot of Beatles was only Mono until they went back and remixed several years after.
Like a neutral audio setup vs a euphonic one - some are not interested in accuracy or originality of the recording but others want to hear the music as faithfully as it appeared on the first recording issued. |
Lots of great responses rockyboy. The only way you'll ever know is to someday try it for yourself. It will be a point of finances in the end as to if you're willing to spend the money necessary to go this route over improving what you already have or buying more music.
|
I'm retired and must prioritize my purchases very carefully. Right now in my life, mono capability is not something I lust after. But I knew there were audiophiles out there who cherished their mono recordings and I wondered why. Now I know. Upgrading my DAC is at the top of my priority list. Upgrading my Soundsmith Zephyr is probably next. And losing 30lbs is third.
|
Thanks, rockyboy,
A true mono stylus is made for classic mono records, and the same applies for a stereo stylus and stereo recordings. The contact areas and how those contact areas are configured in the grooves of both formats are different. So, a mono stylus in a mono record groove will have better sound than a stereo stylus in the same mono groove. The bottom line, using a stereo cartridge to play true mono records is a compromise.
I wound up with about 700 mono records from my accountant, plus others that I've collected over time. Those recordings deserve to shine. For me, this is the way of the audiophile. Oh brother, did I really say that? - LOL
I did,
Kenny
|
rockyboy,
Since I'm an all analog guy, I can't compare the DAC over a cartridge, but I do get the priority of a new cartridge over losing weight. Ha ha!
|
Truth be told - I kinda wish I was one or the other. My life would be simpler. But I had a lot of cds and lps and I lusted after both capabilities. Not sure which I would sell if I had to chose. This is a scary hobby. I have to keep repeating...it's not about the hardware, it's about the music. Pray for me. : ) |
For the sake of the music, I do miss some of my CDs that I ripped to files, as my system rack has been missing two shelves where my DAC and music server were once sitting. I grew weary of the digital fuss. Dropouts, system updates, and sync problems, in the name of convenience were driving me nuts. So, I'm in the process of moving my digital gear to be set up as a second system in another room. When it's working, I can listen to music not available as vinyl.
Kenny |
Kenny - Convenience of music files on a server is undeniable. With my humble Bryston BDP-1/BDA-1 combo, I have not encountered the problems you cited. May I ask what digital equipment you have? |
rocky, I started buying LPs about the same time as the introduction of stereo pressings, around 1958. As mentioned, mono LPs cost less than their stereo versions then, so as a teenager on a budget I could buy more records at the cheaper price. Also, I didn’t have a stereo cartridge and many records then warned against playing stereo LPs with a mono stylus due to the groove width.
There was also an issue with stereo mastering. Many/most of the early stereo recordings were panned hard left and right, leaving a "hole in the middle". I can only believe that was done to emphasize the stereo effect.
Over time some music lovers, particularly jazz fans, continued to prefer mono recordings. Not only did that eliminate the hole in the middle but direct comparisons showed more extended bass content in the monos. For these reasons seasoned collectors continue to favor original mono releases and that is reflected by original mono jazz LP prices. And yes, mono LPs from the late ’40s (’48 being the release of commercial LPs) through the late ’60s were cut with only laterally so playback should be quieter with a mono cartridge than stereo (which picks up laterally and vertically to sense the 45 degree stereo cutting).
Now with the resurgence in vinyl interest over the past 10-15 years the reissue record industry boomed. And several classic older recordings are now redone in their original mono format. But what I believe is important is that mono cutter heads may no longer be available, so new mono LPs are cut with stereo heads. This means that modern profile stereo styli are fine with them for playback.
So what does all this mean to you? I think it depends on your objectives and how deeply you might want to explore mono. If you only buy a few new reissued mono LPs then your stereo cartridge will be fine. A mono switch on your phono stage or preamp should help lower noise. But if your mono LPs were from the late ’60s or earlier, or you buy some original releases, then you have several options to optimize their playback, starting with a mono cartridge. But that can be extended to selecting tip size and even EQ. Contrary to some belief, the RIAA curve was not universally adopted by all record labels in 1955/6. But those are details beyond your basic question.
|
Sorry. Have to take a time out from this discussion. Family emergency
|
I have hundreds of mono LP's. Jazz collectors seem to have a lot of them. So many of these mono records have superior sound, so superior that when listening I often ask myself ... "who needs stereo?"
Audio Technica makes the OC-9 MKIII cartridge. Its a stereo cartridge that plays mono records superbly. If you can afford it, the AT ART-9 is even better ... a LOT better.
Frank |
oregonpapa wrote: "So many of these mono records have superior sound, so superior that when listening I often ask myself ... "who needs stereo?"
I agree completely. When I listen to a well recorded mono LP, about a minute in I am completely into the music - mono vs. stereo is the last thing on my mind. |
|
Thanks for the tips, Frank. I've got the Brubeck, and it is a great record. |
For one thing with mono, you're not splitting the resolution between two channels, which
over all makes mono recordings much denser. Also as mentioned, many early recordings were only recorded in mono or if a record was recorded in both mono and in stereo at the same time, often the mono recording is preferable. For example, Jefferson Airplane's 'Surrealistic Pillow', the stereo version of this record has special effects added to the recording to make it sound psychedelic but the mono does not. I prefer the mono as it sounds more folk-ish. My digital front end is my higher end source and I'm still building on it so I bought a relatively inexpensive mono cartridge, the Audio Technica-AT 33 mono MC cartridge; http://www.ebay.com/itm/AT-33MONO-Audio-Technica-MC-Type-Moving-Coil-Monaural-Cartridge-10ohm-F-S-wT...This is a very good sounding mono cartridge for the money and it is a true mono cartridge, so it's possible to play stereo records with it if one chooses. |
Thanks thanks guys for the education. I’m back home now and will give my 3 mono lps another listen tonight, albeit with a stereo cartridge.
|
I get the final word on this subject -
just listened to my digital recordings of The Beach Boys/Pet Sounds and Cream/Disraeli Gears. Hands down, the stereo tracks are more sonically appealing ....to my ears.
|
Actually, no; you're not getting the final word. I'm mad for mono. Love it. It's way punchier and sounds more live. Live music is in mono gents. It's not stereo. Ok fine yee naysayers, do this: play James Hunter - People Gonna Talk. All his stuff is mono I believe. Anyhoo, this release is mind blowing good in both content and production. Report back here after spinning on your Victrola.
|
