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 marakanetz

marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
In all logical sence the small band is best to listen in mono. I also tend to collect different versions of the same album if it's possible.
I have Jacques Loussier trio "Plays Bach" Vol 1. in Mono and Stereo versions.
In Mono there is almost no compromise in soundstage and far more natural superior reproduction. The time comes to have enough mono records, I'll probably have a dedicated mono-cartridge and turntable able to accommodate two tonearms.
More to discover