Why Mono?

What's so special about a mono recording?

You've got everything piled up, one atop another in the center. I can't think of any stereo recording I like That I think would benefit from being mixed in mono. Am I missing something?

 

others here will go into more detail but for early rock and roll/soul/r&b etc. mono offers an 'up front' punch that many early stereo recordings lack by putting intruments in one channel rather than both, which reduces its impact.

 

I think you may be opening up a can of worms here. But I will give my two cents worth:

I think you are phrasing the question wrong. Maybe there aren't any good stereo mixes that would benefit from being mixed in mono, but there are certainly a lot of bad stereo mixes, a lot of misguided stereo remixes, and a lot of fake stereo mixes that probably sound better, feel better, and are definitely more true to the original intent of the artist.

For example we can argue back and forth about the first few Beatle records being in mono vs. stereo, but the fact is, at least in the case of the first two, that they were not conceived as stereo recordings and any attempts to reengineer them as such sounds awkward (IMHO). Or perhaps a better example is the early Stones records being remixed to fake stereo. They don't sound better in fake stereo, so why monkey around with the mono mix at all.

 

Mono meant sometimes a very simple straight-forward mix. No plate reverb, no out-of-phase tricks that Stereo in its infancy had.

It's in the MIX. Producers mixed for both FM radio and primitive playback. That made lots of people take a strip-down approach to mixing.

This is why 60's mono mixes sound so good too, many of them at least. Mono meant "keep it simple and dry".

 

I think as Lennonfan says, many early stereo mixes are not very good. The mixes are weird and unbalanced, with say, drums on one side and vocals on the other, and it hurts the feel of the music a bit. So the song really sounds better when everything is in the center. "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is a good example of this.

 

It's kind of like black and white v. color. Recordings are the result of a creative process involving many factors including mixing and mastering. If mono is intended the selection of recording hardware, pickup position, performer location, etc., can be very different than if stereo or even multi-channel are intended. You can take a multi track master tape intended for mono listening and mix and master it for stereo but it would not be the same as if the multi track were intended for mono mixing and mastering. The two track extra track on the Richie Valens hybrid put out by Steve is a prime example of a mono session heard in the two track (not intended for stereo) version.

Also, when both were intended by the record company, often mono was king and the artist and producer spent most of their attention (edits, etc) on the mono version, and the stereo mix was left for others to complete (often with no regard to edits and overdubs performed on the mono version). Blond on Blond is a prime example of this.

Richard.

 

I'm not a big mono fan either, but for a couple of reasons, I like mono because:

1) In the early days of stereo, the stereo mix was done more as an afterthought. The mono mix was better. (Listen to Steve's version of Peggy Lee's "Fever" in comparison to the stereo.)

2) People who grew up with radio in the 50s, 60s and 70s heard the mono versions as played on the radio, and the stereo versions are not the same in many cases. Same performance but the mix isn't right.

 

...when mono is done right there is a wide open sound stage!...some of Steve's MONO remasters have this...unfortunately, most mono is squashed and sounds like it coming out of a straw...

 

Wide open? How can that be when the musical information is all presumably in the middle of the spectrum?

 

Rudy and others are right in spite of record label claims that "stereo always sounds better."

 

I believe he means there is still a sense of space and depth with good mono mixes.

I believe I am mostly right when I insist that most who prefer stereo to mono listen more for seperation. Mono is a different animal. Like Bob Lovely and I like to say, the mono mixes have an IMPACT that is more often missing from the stereo mixes. Not only that, I think many stereo lovers forget that there are sometimes elements missing from the stereo mixes that the mono mixes have. This is very true of Motown. The balances are different. They say one can always just remix to stereo, but it isn't that easy. The stereo remixes usually can't capture the sound or feel of the mono mixes. Usually, these remixes are done digitally, and cannot capture the flavor of the mono singles. Members like Motownboy may disagree with me.

If all things were equal, in terms of sound, I'd say go with stereo, but that's not how the real world is, unfortunately.

I also like mono because it allows me to forget the technology and concentrate on the music.

 

The mono mix of Revolution from the Beatles Singles box is a perfect example of a mono mix done right. It's got the impact of a steam roller. When you split those guitars up into different channels, it loses it's aggressiveness. I think it's harder to do a good mono mix than a stereo mix. It's easier to "fill the room" with stereo by panning stuff left and right, but mixing a bunch of stuff in mono and still giving each instrument depth and space, like a lot of Motown stuff, is an art.

 

There is a gentleman on the BSN forum who says it's the opposite, that it's harder to mix to mono. Why? Because great care must be taken to prevent sounds and frequencies from stepping on each other, where as in stereo, you have more places to put things. In mono, you try harder to make space for elements and to egt the right balance.

Mixing engineers, feel free to step in and comment on this. Jamie? Steve? Dsclar?

 

Sure, I get that. That's apparent when you sum the two channels of some mono mixes down to one, or just flip the mono switch on your amplifier. You lose something.

 

No, no. You don't want to listen to mono through two speakers if you don't have to. Listen through one speaker. If you listen to mono through L + R, the tonal balance changes. This is due to something called the "head shadow" effect. I'm not an expert, but I've heard this explained by those who are. Don't take my word for it -- try it and see.

As Grant says, good mono recordings have a sense of space and depth, but it doesn't depend on listening L + R. After all, that's not how they were mastered, and not how they were intended to be heard.

 

I AM saying it's harder to do a good mono mix.......read what I said again. It's EASIER to do a stereo mix.

 

Very interesting. I've been summing to one channel, L+R, but listening to two speakers.

It never occurred to me to cut to just one speaker.

My amp will play just the left, or right, channel. Do you recommend choosing a channel, then listening to just one speaker?

 

No, no, no! Me, I'm talking about listening to one channel of a mono mix on one speaker!

 

I know man! I'm wondering if he's saying that mono mixes were done on one big monitor in the mixing room. I don't see it.

 

...do I see a cut and paste? .

If you don't know. I ain't gonna tell ya...see Grants posting below...He got it immediately.

 

We're so in tune Grant. That was so easy. I knew you'd get it immediately.

 

...then it's not correctly mastered mono...flipping the MONO switch on your amp on a MONO recording changes NOTHING...you must be outta phase or playing a slightly rechanneled track.