So does that mean if one has a stereo "Strange Days" LP (and a mono switch), we can hear true mono of the title track and "Unhappy Girl" if we engage said switch?
RCA was experimenting with stereo since 1953 and pushed very hard its LIVING STEREO series and the fact that there was compatibility in the sense you could play a stereo record on a mono player... Back To Elvis. RCA was nervous(after EP 2 year absence) and at the same time all-out to record their #1 artist (representing a huge percentage of their TOTAL sales) with the best possible sound which was stereo. It is harder (for me) as a vinyl collector to find a mono Elvis Is Back than a stereo. More stereo LPs were produced because (like Sony today) they pushed that new format and (contrary to Sony Betamax,SACD) were very succesful and other labels (Columbia) followed suit. During the 60s The Beatle's were #1 in inventiveness in the studio and used The Studio as another instrument with the sound ,effects and overdubbing more than Les Paul would have dreamed..but (I think Steve Hoffman posted or I interpreted) the quality of the recordings was not so great and it is incredible to me that as mind boggling what the Fab 4 did with the overdubs already mentioned etc..they and EMI(and othe British invasion labels) were BACKWARDS or BEHIND with the more or less decade old technology of STEREO recording,mixing and playback. My jaw went down and mouth opened in disbelief when I saw The Beatle's in Anthology talking about how "weird" it was to listen with 2 speakers for playback as late as 1968 during The White Album sessions! Most people to this day (unless you are interested in the subject) do not know that the BEST way to hear the Beatles (and would guess other groups ,artists as well) is in MONO!! Sans..Abbey Road and Let It BE. Not with Elvis (to be fair most of 60s Elvis is mediocre movie soundtracks) the Stereo stuff is much better than the equivalent mono including the SINGLES (I's Now Or Never great example imo).For truly the last dedicated mono mixes for Elvis were in 1958.
Stereo was very much a niche market for reel to reel until the very end of the 1950's. Yes, RCA was pushing it's "Living Stereo" LP's, but the mono was still the king specially for Elvis fans. That's exactly what Bill Porter was shooting for a good mono sound (as Steve says from earlier in this thread): That's why I think you could argue that mono was the finished product (and not the two track stereo mix).
I could argue that Bill Porter is human and it is incredible that he remembers as much as he does. But in an interview,letter he talks about "Are You Lonesome Tonight" and is clearly mistaken with info not pertaining to this subject so I only mention this because of the "proof" that you have brought forth from heresay...and if you had gone through the link(s) I posted you would get overall picture that MR. Bill Porter did not think in ones but in twos left and right=depth 3D etc..It was a stereo session for fans that were going to buy it because it was compatible and KNOWING that when they get their first stereo it would be (from the same ole' record) an opening experience of a well recorded stereo record (not ping pong) etc...Sorry us Elvis audiophiles are the worst! Not counting the Sinatraphiles lol!! PS. The mono interest of the suits were for the SINGLES only.
Technically, yes. Artistically, to most of us on this board, no. If only because the album wasn't mixed in stereo for that purpose. However, there are exceptions that "tow the line". Things like the original stereo mix of the Beatles' 'Rubber Soul'. Where there is purposely no center channel information. So, a person with only the ability to play mono records (or just someone who doesn't like extreme wide-stereo) can not only play the album, but will also be hearing a balanced/decent mix (with no center channel 3 db volume boost)...
If the mono fold-down originated from a stereo mix to begin with, I guess you can "Yes" to this question.
None of what you're saying contradicts what I'm saying. Clearly Bill Porter took a lot of care and we have him to thank for these great stereo mixes. However, I think it's really hard to argue that he was thinking about stereo first and foremost. The product that was put out there was at least 90% mono. Also I don't think it's fair to say that Steve's quotes are heresay. I am not telling you what Steve told me. Steve talked to Bill Porter himself and he is telling you what he said. That is not heresay. Furthermore, conversations that Steve had with Bill Porter are likely to be less focused on what an average fan would understand than interviews that Bill Porter may have given.
Yes.......... PS. Elvis did it (or RCA) again in 1973 with Aloha From Hawaii Album Quad..over 6 million sold and impossible (or almost) to think of this album as a vinyl stereo release.
I'm a little late to this discussion but have a question: If I take stereo versions of the Elvis/Bill Porter tracks and switch to mono on my amp, will that create the exact same mix that would be heard on the original mono albums? I'd like to hear some of this stuff in mono but the original LP's go for a good price and I'm on a budget. Thanks! Bob
I'm really confused now but the good news is I found an Elvis Is Back! this summer and I'm playing it now thanks to all this confusing dialogue. The cover says it's RCA Victor LPM-2231 A "New Orthophonic " high fidelity recording. No, don't tell me...I don't want to know if it's mono fold down stereo whatever ...I just want to listen...it sounds great! This Elvis guy is on to something. BTW,my cover has a yellow sticker and at the bottom LPM/LSP - 2231. Is that a dedicated sticker or a fold down made for both mono/stereo covers?
Mix-wise yes, cause Porter did it simultaneously for the stereo to fold down to mono, as he wished it would sound.. But the mono album tracks were mastered in mono, would have a different EQ, I would gather.
Since Steve has kindly re-opened this old thread, someone ought really to add a post, and that'll be me. I agree with some posters that one can only really hope to tell for sure on an individual basis by sourcing the stereo mix. Even this isn't a 100% surefire approach, however. An example is "This Old Heart Of Mine" by the Isley Brothers. The stereo mix, which can be found on many compilation CDs and also on the original stereo TOHOM album isn't the same as the mix found on the original mono single, suggesting that the single was given a dedicated mono mix. Having said that, however, a 21st century CD re-issue of the Isley Brothers' two Motown albums in original mono actually includes TOHOM in stereo but not with the normal stereo mix. Instead, if this different stereo mix is folded down to mono it gives us the single mix that we all know and love. (For me, the telltale sign is the way that the fader for the lead solo sax is handled in the two mixes, especially leading up to the sax break.) Strangely enough, the B-side, "There's No Love Left", is also in stereo on that mono CD reissue with a mix that isn't the same as the stereo album mix. Instead, fold that different stereo mix down and again we get the mono single mix. So back in the mid-60s we have a smash mono Motown single that uses fold-downs of otherwise-unused stereo mixes. Weird! To my knowledge, these were Brian Holland mixes. Additionally, a dedicated mono mix of TOHOM was also created back in late '65 or early '66 by Lawrence T. Horn, but this wasn't released and, instead, it surfaced in the Complete Motown Single 1966 set. Listening to it, I can understand why! I find it rather messy. Also, since Bill Porter appeared to be central to some earlier discussions and disagreements in this thread, here's something about Bill. A few days ago on another forum, Motown legend Bob Olhsson said this about Bill Porter: - "Bill Porter mixed to stereo off the floor because he felt the three-track machines screwed up the low-end too much." Bob says that he learned this when he met Bill in 2005. Not sure that this adds anything useful to the thread's original aim but it's a useful tidbit of info.
This is a slightly different question than the one posed in the thread title, but this seemed like a good place to ask rather than starting a new thread: My client has asked me for mono mixes of the stereo mixes I made from their multitracks. If I fold down the stereo mixes will there be any qualitative difference between folding it down to mono vs. the mix I could create by going back to the multis and keeping the same volume of all tracks but panning them all to 0?
Does your client inderstand this topic well enough to know exactly what he is after? Perhaps you need to check exactly what he wants and why, as the purpose he has for what you are being asked to deliver could well be key to exactly what it is that he is asking of you.
I found this thread and read through hoping to learn just how to discern between a fold-down mono and a dedicated mono mix - when the recording is in front of me. I am currently obsessed with the Seekers and Judith Durham, though some of my other mono recording inquiries relate to Dave Brubeck, Paul Desmond, and others. For Brubeck I have often relied on the "Columbia was union shop, all mono must be dedicated" mantra. If I am understanding correctly, one major way to tell is from the known recording/release history, that is by asking others in the know. This seems to work very well for a band like the Beatles, with its rich documentation and a fan base that includes a sufficient core that is dedicated to these details. I don't get that at all with the Seekers, unfortunately. Another good way is when there is a clear difference of one instrument or another, or length of track, etc. Yes, I agree this works when there are clear differences. Extra verse, longer by 20 seconds, really easy. Or when the mono sounds terrible, with artifacts or strange noises or something. Or when the vocals are inexplicably boosted loud. I have no doubt that some of my favorite artists had their (stereo available) music released in mono form throughout the 1960s due to what the market demanded. That's the why, but I also beable to work out the why. I am sort of after the how-to when there aren't clear differences. Assuming I have the stereo mix in front of me as well, I just like up the tracks and just sort of A/B listen throughout the song, trying to detect differences. It's down to that in the end, yes?
It seems to me you pretty much have all the bases covered. My primary way of knowing gets down to being very familiar with the stereo mix in terms of aspects you mentioned, and then being able to discern the differences in the mono version. But sometimes those differences can be next to none and extremely subtle. That’s when further questioning and research comes into play. I had such reservations about the mono version of The Beatles, Revolution 1; the very first time I heard the mono mix of the album, it was the one song which, to my ears, sounded identical to the stereo version in every way save for the stereo separation; I found out years later it was a fold down.
All of The Seekers' Columbia singles from the 1960s that I own have dedicated mono mixes, and the stereo mixes that I have are clearly dedicated stereo mixes. The difference in sound characteristics between the mono and stereo mixes is quite stark. In the tracks that I have in both mono and stereo, I'm also not aware of any differences other than mixing decisions although I've never really studied them in detail in that way. I hope this helps.
