advertisement


Is anyone using a high end mono hifi?

Darth Vader said:
This raises an interesting situation. How many of todays recordings are binaural? In the early days a performance was recorded with a pair of crossed mics for binaural recording. However I have seen recording sessions whereby each singer/instrument has its own mic and presumably its own track before being mixed.

So in the former we have a two mics (as in two ears) that record for left and right speakers but in the latter several single mics (one ear) mixed for effect and squirted out by two speakers.

I think that is why i prefer 'live' recordings overall rather than those entirely studio based. Past jazz studio sessions however seem to have stood time well.

"Recorded sound is an illusion, and stereo doubly so."

Cheers.

DV
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find many recordings like that (single pair of stereo mics in a room) for the last 60 years. Classical may be different, or a small scale folk kind of thing. Which 'live' recordings are you referring to? Even in a live situation all band members will have their own mic and track I expect.

"Recorded sound is an illusion, and stereo doubly so."

Good quote!
 
Klyde said:
Originally mono didn't exist. It's only there because there's stereo. Records that say they are mono must have been made from a stereo master (because the other way around is not possible). In other words: mono is...
Click to expand...

The first line I think I uderstand. I have a lot of records that don't have "mono" on them, that are not stereo records.

For the rest, check your work Navigator.

If my record collection wasn't in such chaos I could quickly pull several records labeled "mono" that haven't seen the dirty side of a stereo master. I even have a few "stereo" records with "fake stereo" made from mono masters.

By the way, "binaural" has been mentioned. I thought that was the "fake head" mic setup. I have a couple of binaural records, but haven't played them for a while. Should give them a try with headphones.
 
JayM481 said:
The first line I think I uderstand. I have a lot of records that don't have "mono" on them, that are not stereo records.

For the rest, check your work Navigator.

If my record collection wasn't in such chaos I could quickly pull several records labeled "mono" that haven't seen the dirty side of a stereo master. I even have a few "stereo" records with "fake stereo" made from mono masters.

By the way, "binaural" has been mentioned. I thought that was the "fake head" mic setup. I have a couple of binaural records, but haven't played them for a while. Should give them a try with headphones.
Click to expand...

Thats 'dummy head' stereo recording and what I heard was very good indeed. The big problem though was that you had to use headphones. But the sound was 3D!

Cheers,

DV
 
I enjoy early mono classical records (mercury decca emi etc) using the mono toggle on a valve pre. I prefer listening to mono on a stereo set up ie 2 tannoys (12 inch silvers which I think were based on mono sound )as I enjoy the spacious aspect as well as enhanced musicality. The balance on some on these early lps are excellent and actually sound 'stereo' rather than the 'bunched in the centre affect' . Going back to stereo records always seems to add a momentary feeling of unease due to a realisation of the 'process'effect. Early Motorhead sound better with the mono toggle on too,( er,more musical than spacious though)
 
JayM481 said:
True, but you also said "records that say mono must have been made from a stereo master," which is not true at all.
Click to expand...

I don't have to be 'right', just looking for how it is/was. If you know better, fill me in please!

I know that from some of my favourite LP's there is a mono and a stereo version. Don't you think they come from the same mastertape?

Regards,

Klyde
 
Klyde said:
I know that from some of my favourite LP's there is a mono and a stereo version. Don't you think they come from the same mastertape?
Click to expand...

No there would be different masters. Mixing in stereo is different to mixing in mono, especially in the old days when they did things like 'drums and bass on the left' 'voice in the middle' 'guitars on the right'
 
I have a mono system. My turntable has a second arm with an Ortofon 2M Mono, through a 300b-XLS valve amp into Harbeth SHL5Plus speakers. So a little old school and the Beatles Mono sound bloody marvellous, as do a lot of my old jazz and classical mono recordings.
 
tedmanzie said:
No there would be different masters. Mixing in stereo is different to mixing in mono, especially in the old days when they did things like 'drums and bass on the left' 'voice in the middle' 'guitars on the right'
Click to expand...

The Beatles spent weeks mixing their mono pressings. Stereo they did in days. They are much less "left centre right" than a loss of 60s stereo recordings.
 
In theory I prefer mono:
A sound source in real life is most times a single source. The sound from it comes with 2 delays to our 2 ears. With a mono reproduction sytem you replicate this. With stereo you get 2 sources with 4 delays to our 2 ears (clear?). This gives a less clear sound. I think this is why some of you prefer mono, me to.

In practice there are not much mono compatible stereo recordings:
when adding the 2 stereo signals together you will loose the out of phase signals. Yes, losing music (yes, I investigated this around 10 years ago with some software).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top