Golden Age of RCA and Mercury.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I just have listened to the mono (1955) and stereo (1960) recordings of Petrushka by Dorati. I think they both are the performance of the revised version. According to Dorati's memoir, Stravinsky revised the score at Dorati's hotel room. The both recordings are excellent and enjoyable while the instruments spread wide between the left and right channels in the stereo recording. Dorati also recorded the work with Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and I like it as well.

[Irons]

I just have listened to the mono (1955) and stereo (1960) recordings of Petrushka by Dorati. I think they both are the performance of the revised version. According to Dorati's memoir, Stravinsky revised the score at Dorati's hotel room. The both recordings are excellent and enjoyable while the instruments spread wide between the left and right channels in the stereo recording. Dorati also recorded the work with Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and I like it as well.

A work perfectly suited to Mercury's upfront dynamic recording technique.

That is one scary clown!

[Irons]

Another Dorati gem.



The first Roumanian Rhapsody by Enesco after a slow start the after-burners kick in! Miracle the LSO keep up, but keep up they do.

My copy is in mono sound.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Another Dorati gem.



The first Roumanian Rhapsody by Enesco after a slow start the after-burners kick in! Miracle the LSO keep up, but keep up they do.

My copy is in mono sound.

Is your record mono edition of the same recording, rather than a different recording in mono? It appears that Dorati recorded some music twice- one in mono and one in stereo- for Mercury. As I previously said, he recorded Petrushka twice for Mercury, followed by the Decca recording. Similarly, Dorati recorded Nutcracker Suite twice for Mercury, followed by a Phillips recording.

Mercury used 35mm tape for recordings. Did RCA Living Stereo did the same?

[Irons]

A mono issue of the same stereo recording. I'm going against received wisdom, as I do not see mono recordings as inferior to stereo, just different. There is a caveat in that mono recordings sound excellent in my setup and may not be as good in others.
For the stereo Petrouchka, Mercury used an array of three Telefunken 201 microphones above conductor. For the mono issue Mercury used a single omni-directional microphone. It follows that although the same performance the sonics will not be identical, not a case of flicking a switch from mono to stereo. Decca used separate recording teams for their mono and stereo recordings.
I learnt a hard lesson many years ago after purchasing a mono issue of Michelangeli's famous recording of Ravel's PC, a fabulous LP. I decided at some cost to buy an early edition of a stereo issue. I then disposed of the original mono LP - big mistake as the later purchase lacked that something special that was so thrilling in the original. A buyer of LPs can occasionally be fortunate in coming across a 'hot' copy that will sound far superior to others be it mono or stereo. I think this occurred with the mono Michelangeli.         

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

A mono issue of the same stereo recording. I'm going against received wisdom, as I do not see mono recordings as inferior to stereo, just different. There is a caveat in that mono recordings sound excellent in my setup and may not be as good in others.
For the stereo Petrouchka, Mercury used an array of three Telefunken 201 microphones above conductor. For the mono issue Mercury used a single omni-directional microphone. It follows that although the same performance the sonics will not be identical, not a case of flicking a switch from mono to stereo. Decca used separate recording teams for their mono and stereo recordings.
I learnt a hard lesson many years ago after purchasing a mono issue of Michelangeli's famous recording of Ravel's PC, a fabulous LP. I decided at some cost to buy an early edition of a stereo issue. I then disposed of the original mono LP - big mistake as the later purchase lacked that something special that was so thrilling in the original. A buyer of LPs can occasionally be fortunate in coming across a 'hot' copy that will sound far superior to others be it mono or stereo. I think this occurred with the mono Michelangeli.         

You said that Walter Legge himself directed mono recording sessions while he let engineers run the stereo recordings. Probably mono take/channel was considered to be the master take at that time. Madam at the classical music cafe in Nara, Japan told me that she liked mono recordings very much. She had two turntables including one with a cartridge for mono recordings. I guess that's the better way to listen to mono recordings. 

[Irons]

You said that Walter Legge himself directed mono recording sessions while he let engineers run the stereo recordings. Probably mono take/channel was considered to be the master take at that time. Madam at the classical music cafe in Nara, Japan told me that she liked mono recordings very much. She had two turntables including one with a cartridge for mono recordings. I guess that's the better way to listen to mono recordings. 

Your friend at Nara and I sing from the same hymn sheet. I also for a period ran a second turntable for mono recordings with a Myajima Spirit mono cartridge, I also have a Audio-Technica AT-MONO3/LP. All very good, but in a domestic setting even with an understanding wife, along with over 6,000 LPs I felt life balance skewed and made the decision to place second TT in mothballs along with a two box valve pre-amp switchable to mono.
Not exactly a mini-system but these days slightly more domestically acceptable. Much to my surprise after thinking my mono ship had sailed, I am finding my mono records are sounding excellent through a conventional two channel system. It is claimed the biggest advantage of a mono cartridge is suppression of surface noise. My stereo cartridge performs well in this respect anyway so in all honesty I do not detect a great difference.