Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Adrian,

I know what you are talking about and in a way I might concur with it. However, I disagree with it.  There are people who claim that they prefer mono to stereo but upon closer inspection I always witnessed that stereo was not done properly in their cases. In case I have recording from mid 50s and the recordings were available in dual formats – mono and stereo then I always prefer stereo, unless stereo was gone very badly (microphone position etc…)

Here are a few arguments why I feel people feel that Mono is better:

1)  Earlier on, when stereo was dominating, performances were better.
2)  The early stereo was very bad as people so not well know how to use it.
3)  Mono equipment was made with less global feedback
4)  Many of early stereo recordings from begin of 60x were made with early SS electronics that was not good.
5)  Many acoustic systems are phase-screwed and can’t play mono well with both channels.
6)  Many acoustic systems setup that do not play good stereo but rather 2 channels with stereo separation
7)  Many stereo recordings are incorrectly recorded
8)  Early stereo equipment: electronics, cartridges, heads, cutters and so on had a huge crosstalk that made it very bad stereo.

The elimination of stereo pseudo-images I think does free up some mind resourced to look deeper into music. By 2 week of food abstinence would make to enjoy a regular apple with the force that is not available for you when you are not starving. So, I think the right question would be if the perfume is good in mono then what kind benefits we get if we have it in properly made stereo. I feel that offers a LOT of advantages and not only imaging.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site