The monetary divide between mono and early stereo issues on the collectable labels - columbia SAX/33SX, hmv ASD/ALP, Decca SXL/LXT, etc. - is immense. I'm an avid collector of these labels, so naturally I did investigate many of the much cheaper mono's before deciding to invest in the stereo issues. In the case of orchestral music my preference for the stereo is unescapable. The mono's usually have the same gorgeous tone colour, but they simply cannot reproduce the special width and depth that make those early stereo's so very special. So unfortunately there's a 'sound' reason for the price differential. Hoever, with most solo and chamber music the situation is very different. Samson Francois playing Chopin sounds just as good in mono for a fraction of the cost. Easy choice.
Why Are Mono LP's So Undervalued By Most Classical Collector/Listeners?
Hi,
I listen to perhaps 30 classical and jazz records a week. It’s part of my job. I get frustrated by how most classical music buyers’ avoid mono pressings and only chase the stereo copies. Some of the mono versions I have heard have spectacular, natural-sounding sonics. Buyers could get these mono versions for a fraction of the cost of the same in stereo. Why is that?
I apologize in advance if this topic has already been covered.
I listen to perhaps 30 classical and jazz records a week. It’s part of my job. I get frustrated by how most classical music buyers’ avoid mono pressings and only chase the stereo copies. Some of the mono versions I have heard have spectacular, natural-sounding sonics. Buyers could get these mono versions for a fraction of the cost of the same in stereo. Why is that?
I apologize in advance if this topic has already been covered.