Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio For Dummies ™
In the Thread: A new 'chic' foolishness about mono systems
Post Subject: Best Mono vs. Best Stereo?Posted by Paul S on: 6/22/2010
fiogf49gjkf0d
Plenty of reasons why a given mono LP might sound better than a given stereo LP at a given time, and I do have some mono LPs I prefer to their stereo counterparts. Still, of my best examples of each, spanning over 60 years, the best of the best stereo just offers "more" than "comparable" mono, IMO, with respect to the "size" and "scale' of the performance, and in terms of voicing, sectional and instrumental interplay, etc. It may be that a system that makes the most of mono does not make the most of stereo, and perhaps vice-versa; but I aim for the stereo. Some listeners are content with mere "spread" from stereo, and some prefer "saturation". I want both from both channels.
As has been mentioned already, many recordings start out with several microphone "channels" and then mix them down into either stereo or mono. How well this is done factors huge in resultant sound potential. For that matter, the recording itself is huge, as are subsequent mastering, molding, stamping, etc., etc., right down to packaging. Also mentioned before (elsewhere?) is the fact that in earlier times there seemed to be fewer known ways to screw up the recordings...
I'd still like to know for sure why some recordings labeled "mono" sound better played back in "stereo".
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site