Any advantages/strength of monaural recordings over stereo recordings?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Just wondering. Thanks.

[david johnson]

I do not really know, other than some of them sound great and I would not replace them in my collection.

[Mandryka]

There certainly are advantages  if you listen in mono, through one speaker, I know someone who does that. He has saved money, the hifi takes up less space and he says the sound is more relaxing in a domestic environment.

He has a single quad esl57 and a single quad II power amp, I can't remember his preamp. I tried it once with one speaker and a preamp with a mono playback function. It was not bad, if I were short of money and space I would do it because I'm sure I'd get used to it.

[VonStupp]

For me, I rarely find mono recordings to be reference recordings, mainly because sound quality is important to me (and I understand there are better sounding mono recordings over others). But, when I do listen to historic recordings, ones before the advent of stereophonic technology, there are many I have which I consider reference performances.

In my view, it is important to listen to people leading music in mono, like Hans Knappertsbusch, Bruno Walter, and Hans Rosbaud to name a scant few of conductors only. It's always good to get closer to a primary source in music since musical stylistic tastes change over time.

It is interesting to me to hear musicians from the mono era of recording, ones where political turmoil and wartime atrocities were at their doorstep, sometimes even occurring during the recording sessions. And while we have countless countries and musicians who experience that today, many listeners and performers only come into contact with global strife through a news feed. And when you have an entire orchestra living in political uncertainty with musicians moved forcibly or in fear of their lives, or even the catharsis of those musicians escaping that lifestyle, the musical experience is so much different in those mono recordings.

Today, we are able to assuredly play music that, in its time, was considered unplayable, so stereo recordings have that distinct advantage merely through existing later in time. But being able to play something versus playing through one's life experiences make mono recordings treasurable for me.

I am not sure this is what you were looking for in your question, I am not a particularly die-hard audiophile. But when presented with why I keep and listen to mono recordings, my feelings are more cultural than they are technical.

[j winter]

Personally I often go for mono recordings when listening in the car or some other relatively noisy environment.  In mono the sound tends to be more compressed, quiet passages louder etc., and the reduced dynamic range works well when I likely wouldn't be able to hear the softest passages of a digital recording anyway -- it feels like I'm still hearing everything the recording has to offer, without needing to keep fiddling with the volume controls.  I've had Hermann Scherchen's Beethoven set in my car for ages...

I also find that, at least for me, older historical recordings can inspire more active, almost collaborative listening, and I like that sometimes -- particularly with extremely familiar pieces, the mind tends to imaginatively "fill in the blanks" when, for instance, the woodwinds get drowned out in an older recording...

[Irons]

There certainly are advantages  if you listen in mono, through one speaker, I know someone who does that. He has saved money, the hifi takes up less space and he says the sound is more relaxing in a domestic environment.

He has a single quad esl57 and a single quad II power amp, I can't remember his preamp. I tried it once with one speaker and a preamp with a mono playback function. It was not bad, if I were short of money and space I would do it because I'm sure I'd get used to it.

A mono cartridge in vinyl playback is more effective in my view.

A few years ago I had two identical turntables (Garrard 401) one with a stereo cartridge and the other a mono (Miyajima Spirit). The mono Mercury recordings, for example, often outperformed the stereo issue of the same recording. The biggest jaw-dropping moment was the classic recording of the Ravel PC in G on HMV by Michelangeli. The mono is ridiculously superior to the stereo issue.

The stylus parted company with the cantilever on my Miyajima and the current Pre I now use lacks two phono inputs. But I do miss hearing mono recordings at their splendid best.

[Mandryka]

What I'm increasingly unclear about is the advantages of stereo. Good mono produces a convincing image. Bad stereo doesn't.

A couple of days ago I played a recording and I said to myself that it sounds very good , , , only to find that one of the speakers wasn't working because a wire had come out. I guess I must have noticed something subconsciously because I checked that sound was coming from both - but still, even with half the music, it sounded real good.


Have we all been sold a lie by stereo salesmen?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

The mono Mercury recordings, for example, often outperformed the stereo issue of the same recording.

Hi Irons, how did the former outperform the latter? In terms of clarity, dynamism, realism, abstractness, etc, ?

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

What I'm increasingly unclear about is the advantages of stereo.

The widely-held assumption is that the sound stage spreads wide- piano at left, strings at center, percussions at right; or left hand at left and right hand at right for piano recordings.
Double-edged sword?

[aligreto]

I think that it is very important to differentiate between the techniques of recording and the quality of the two recording processes and the time frames in which they existed, the quality of which has no doubt improved beyond measure since that which was available in mono recording days. Personally I still think that there is merit in an AAD recording over a DDD one but that is personal and also diverging from the subject.

Like all jobs, the best results are achieved by using the best and most appropriate tools for the job.
Those ESL 57 speakers were made to reproduce mono sound very close to its best. They reproduce certain tones and frequencies extremely well. They do what they are designed to do and they do it well. Similarly, the same thing happens with the mono cartridges.

I remember reading, many years ago [I forget where] about the Beatles fighting with their marketing people about whether or not their albums should be issued in mono or stereo. Obviously the music is very different from Classical music but they were musicians who had a very keen ear and concept of how their particular brand of music should sound. They fought long and hard, apparently, against the stereo option and were relative latecomers to the technique. Then look at the sales of their vinyl mono set when it came out years later!

If all mono recordings were given the requisite high level of attention to detail and were played back on suitable equipment I think that a lot of people would hear it differently. Instead, unfortunately, we hear mono recordings that sound flat, confined and boxy. I think that Mandryka may have raised a good question above. It is a question that I have seen raised on a number of occasions.

[Irons]

Hi Irons, how did the former outperform the latter? In terms of clarity, dynamism, realism, abstractness, etc, ?

I agree with Mandryka the mono image between two speakers is stronger then a fragmented stereo presentation. There is no mystery why mono can sound superior, it is down to simplicity of the recording process as opposed to over-miked and editing on vast mixing desks of modern recordings. I quote from the liner notes of a mono Mercury (MMA 11O77). No wonder they sounded good!

A single omni-directional microphone of extreme sensitivity was suspended in the aural focal point of the Great Hall. The Philharmonia Hungarica was seated in a normal concert arrangment, and the microphone was hung above and slightly behind the conductor's podium. After careful tests for instrumental balance and dynamic levels, the position of the microphone remained stationary throughout the entire recording. In this way , control of balance and dynamics was placed solely in the hands of the conductor.... Were recorded on Fairchild tape machines driven by McIntosh amplifiers. The transfer from tape to disc again made use of a Fairchild tape recorder as well as 200-watt McIntosh recording amplifier, these feeding a specially-designed Miller cutting head, operating on a Scully variable pitch, variable depth recording lathe.

Living Presence indeed!

When stereo was first introduced in the 1950's companies used two sound engineer teams, one mono the other stereo. Senior staff were used on the mono recordings as at the time stereo was in its infancy and of less importance.

[71 dB]

Since old recordings tend to be mono and newer recordings tend to be stereo if not multichannel, this question has a strong temporal aspect. Old recordings tended also to be more noisy and more distorted and so on.

Is this about old vs new or is this simply mono vs stereo?

Generally I prefer transparent audio that is free of noise and distortion. That means "not very old" recordings.

When listening to mono sound on a pair of stereo loudspeakers, both speakers radiating the same exact sound causes acoustic comb-filter effect: some frequencies get amplified or canceled depending of the place of the listener. Luckily reverberation makes this less dramatic.

When listening to mono sound on headphones, the result is a very sharp, focused and stable sound. I listen to youtube videos often totally mono because of this. For example, I am watching "Dr. B's" lectures on music theory recorded in a class. The sound is noisy, but forcing it mono removes noise more than speech. Much easier to follow.  All youtubers should always mix speaking mono. Background music etc. can be stereo. Headphones have the problem of excessive spatiality: Ears can be fed with sound too different from each other to make even remotely natural. Mono sound has no such problem.

Stereo/multichannel is "extroverted" sound. Mono is "introverted" sound.

[André]

Mono recordings were at their best in the 1950s. Before that, compression, discolouration and distortion were likely to mar the results. In the german radio studios (SWR, BR, NDR etc) in the 1950s a nice dynamic range, freedom from distortion and sense of space made orchestral recordings sound better (more natural) than many stereophonic ones from the following decades.

Unfortunately the greatest artists of the time, like Furtwängler, Toscanini and Callas were not well recorded. Operatic recordings in particular suffered, especially when a chorus was involved. For those, stereo recordings are substantially better (easier on the ear).

[Mandryka]

One question is whether there's an advantage in converting stereo to mono and playing back through a single speaker. Will that produce a more intimate sound? If so, it may be better for small scale music -- a solo flute, a lute.

[aligreto]

One question is whether there's an advantage in converting stereo to mono and playing back through a single speaker. Will that produce a more intimate sound? If so, it may be better for small scale music -- a solo flute, a lute.

You may well be correct there and I do like your idea. I do own a pair of ESL 63s [which would be ideal in this music] and I could use one as an experiment but, unfortunately due to domestic circumstances at the moment, it is not something that I can do in the short term. However, I will keep your idea in mind and I will definitely try it sometime in the future.

[prémont]

One question is whether there's an advantage in converting stereo to mono and playing back through a single speaker. Will that produce a more intimate sound? If so, it may be better for small scale music -- a solo flute, a lute.

Theoretically an interesting idea. For mono might a more clear sound picture count. But stereo usually has a higher degree of ambience, which results in more "presence". I don't think of recordings with an absurd degree of channel separation, but just well-balanced recordings. And with recordings of small ensembles it may be easier to identify the individual instruments making things like Bach's concerto for two violins BWV 1043 a more exiting listen, since it is easier to follow the canonic interplay of the two violins. Also with his multiple harpsichord concertos using more similar instruments which are difficult to tell from each other in mono sound.

[Holden]

One question is whether there's an advantage in converting stereo to mono and playing back through a single speaker. Will that produce a more intimate sound? If so, it may be better for small scale music -- a solo flute, a lute.

The single instrument approach brings up the question as to how well piano is recorded. I feel that a lot is down to the recording venue. You can hear some notable differences between live and studio recordings. The width of the piano sound is the first thing you notice in many live recordings. It's narrower and has more focus whereas on studio recordings it seems much wider and in many cases unnaturally so.

A lot also depends on the acoustics of the venue and when you see images of the microphone arrangements for piano recordings it makes you wonder - "In a concert would I be sitting that close to the piano?" And if more than a single mike is used you have to ask - "How wide are my ears? Certainly not the width of the microphone placements." Then there is the issue of room acoustics, especially reverberation which is virtually non-existent in a studio but very real in a concert hall or chamber. Add in the fact that you are listening to a piano side on, would you really be hearing the bass notes on your left and the treble on your right. There is a recording I heard recently where somehow this was reversed and it sounded so weird.


This is why I can happily listen to historical piano recordings because regardless of the venue, mono does not really affect the sound, especially if it is well recorded. I picked this up from my Arthur Rubinstein big box set which has some great mono sound from the 1950s.

[Spotted Horses]

I subscribe to HIP, historically informed playback.

Mono recordings were engineered to be played on a single speaker. That's how they sound best. If you play a mono recording on two speakers you introduce several problems. Having an identical sound source at two locations in your room causes interference - some frequencies will add when they reach your ear, others will cancel (the comb effect 71 dB referred to). That's not good. Also, your auditory system (your brain) receives inconsistent timing data, each ear gets direct and delayed sound from the two speakers. A second speaker doesn't help.

A stereo recording has been engineered to sound good with two speakers. If the engineer is skilled it contains imaging cues in the form of volume differences, phase delays, helping to fool your brain into thinking there is distributed audio source. If you combine them onto one speaker those cues are getting mashed together. I have also noticed that frequency response can be distorted if some sources are not in phase in the two speakers, due to microphone configuration or mixing. Best to playback as the engineer intended.

Despite the limitations, mono recordings can be quite satisfying. They don't contain spatial information and invite you to use your imagination. When listening to a mono recording of a great performance I find myself unconsciously reconstructing the sound field that would have produced the mono recording I am hearing.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

I enjoy listening to older recordings.  Don't have any fancy setup for them.  I find myself focusing on the performances and unless the recording was really badly done, most of the time I can zone out of any audio deficiencies and just enjoy the performances.  As an aside, I noticed that I had a bigger issue with recordings from the 1940's than I did with ones from the 1930's (one would have thought that it would have been the other way around).  Perhaps this was more due to trying to optimize the original recording (for modern sensibilities) than the original recording itself?

PD

[Spotted Horses]

A single omni-directional microphone of extreme sensitivity was suspended in the aural focal point of the Great Hall. The Philharmonia Hungarica was seated in a normal concert arrangment, and the microphone was hung above and slightly behind the conductor's podium. After careful tests for instrumental balance and dynamic levels, the position of the microphone remained stationary throughout the entire recording. In this way , control of balance and dynamics was placed solely in the hands of the conductor.... Were recorded on Fairchild tape machines driven by McIntosh amplifiers. The transfer from tape to disc again made use of a Fairchild tape recorder as well as 200-watt McIntosh recording amplifier, these feeding a specially-designed Miller cutting head, operating on a Scully variable pitch, variable depth recording lathe.

Vintage hype!

The Telefunken U47, that hand-made German microphone, was terrible, by any modern standard. Very high self-noise, extremely distorted frequency response with a big boost to the upper midrange, lots of harmonic distortion. I read an article by Fine's son who explained that the positioning wasn't based on the "aural focus point" (which doesn't exist) but the distance at which the proximity effect of a concert hall (the tendency of a microphone to become more sensitive to bass as distance is increased) would cancel the distorted frequency response of the microphone itself to produce a natural tonal balance.

The best thing about those old recordings is they used a minimal technique, so that the sound was mixed by the concert hall, not on a mixing console with someone riding the gain to make it sound "better."