Your favorite mono recordings

[Irons]

A favourite for many years. Issued in the UK in the mid 1960's on the cheap as chips Music For Pleasure label.



Not before or since came across Vladimir Golschmann and his Orchestra but this is impressive with great musicality.

Originally issued in the US on Capitol, no idea when - around mid 1950's I would guess.

[prémont]

On the other hand I prefer string quartet recordings in mono as they sound more natural.

Agree very much. String quartets are to a large extent classical or romantic music.

For piano solo and music with the main emphasis upon harmonies (classical and romantic music) mono may maybe be better to create an integrated soundpicture of the music. 

[prémont]

Not before or since came across Vladimir Golschmann and his Orchestra but this is impressive with great musicality.

He was the conductor of the studio recordings of some of Glenn Goulds Bach piano concertos.

[Atriod]

This has likely displaced Casals as my favorite performance of his arrangement.

[Cato]

This has likely displaced Casals as my favorite performance of his arrangement.

Oh, you have brought back so many memories! Emmanuel Feuermann!  He was a legend: died around age 40, but had played with Artur Rubinstein and Jascha Heifetz (e.g. the above with Eugene Ormandy conducting The Philadelphia Orchestra.

Some restored CD's are available ( a company called "Biddulph" (Sic!) was recommended), but can be expensive.  YouTube is a great boon in such cases.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Enjoying the album, especially Szymanowski No. 4. Dynamic sound.

[Florestan]

I don't think the choice between mono and stereo is that simple. For polyphonic music (particularly renaissance- and baroque music) stereo may be preferable because it enables one to separate the individual voices better.

Stereo may also be preferable for organ music because it conveys a better picture of the acoustics of the venue. This matters because organs are closely connected acoustically to the room they are built for.

For piano solo and music with the main emphasis upon harmonies (classical and romantic music) mono may maybe be better to create an integrated soundpicture of the music. 

I disagree completely. Irrespective of era and genre, stereo makes for a far more exciting and satisfying listening experience than mono. After all, there is a reason why stereo superseded mono (Walter Legge's idiosyncrasies notwithstanding).

With all due respect, to claim that the mono sound is better than the stereo one for a Haydn string quartet (or a Mozart piano concerto, a Beethoven piano trio, a Chopin ballade, a Brahms sextet, a Mahler synphony etc) is nonsense. In all these works, the polyphony of individual voivces is just as esential as in any Renaissance or Baroque piece.

Saying that mono is better than stereo is like saying that a tube, black-and-white TV set is better than a HD LED colour one.

[Irons]

I disagree completely. Irrespective of era and genre, stereo makes for a far more exciting and satisfying listening experience than mono. After all, there is a reason why stereo superseded mono (Walter Legge's idiosyncrasies notwithstanding).

With all due respect, to claim that the mono sound is better than the stereo one for a Haydn string quartet (or a Mozart piano concerto, a Beethoven piano trio, a Chopin ballade, a Brahms sextet, a Mahler synphony etc) is nonsense. In all these works, the polyphony of individual voivces is just as esential as in any Renaissance or Baroque piece.

Saying that mono is better than stereo is like saying that a tube, black-and-white TV set is better than a HD LED colour one.

Your argument holds true if comparing a modern digital stereo recording compared to a 1950's vintage mono analogue recording, i.e. your TV example. But we are not doing that. Some of us and I am sure you are one, wish to hear great artists and recordings of the past in the best sound possible. It is the case that very often the best way to hear this music is the way intended, mono sound. Decca tried and failed to market great mono recordings in "electrically processed stereo" the results were a disaster. I do not wish to hear a pianist of today in mono but Rubinstein I might. 

[Florestan]

Your argument holds true if comparing a modern digital stereo recording compared to a 1950's vintage mono analogue recording, i.e. your TV example. But we are not doing that. Some of us and I am sure you are one, wish to hear great artists and recordings of the past in the best sound possible. It is the case that very often the best way to hear this music is the way intended, mono sound. Decca tried and failed to market great mono recordings in "electrically processed stereo" the results were a disaster. I do not wish to hear a pianist of today in mono but Rubinstein I might. 

I don't disagree with that. For many great musicians of the past, mono is indeed the only way to hear them, and I have no problem with that. All I'm saying is that mono is an obsolete technology which shows its age and limitations and which is definitely not better than stereo, no matter what music is recorded or by whom. And I'm talking about genuine stereo, not about failed attempts at turning mono into pseudo-stereo. To stick with your example, it's great to hear Rubinstein playing Chopin in mono but it's greater still to hear him playing Chopin in stereo.

[Scion7]

from Bistritz vaults, deep beneath the earth

[Spotted Horses]

Your argument holds true if comparing a modern digital stereo recording compared to a 1950's vintage mono analogue recording, i.e. your TV example. But we are not doing that. Some of us and I am sure you are one, wish to hear great artists and recordings of the past in the best sound possible. It is the case that very often the best way to hear this music is the way intended, mono sound. Decca tried and failed to market great mono recordings in "electrically processed stereo" the results were a disaster. I do not wish to hear a pianist of today in mono but Rubinstein I might. 

You're really muddying the waters bring up "electronically processed stereo."

Old mono recordings can have the advantage that the technology didn't allow engineers much leeway to ruin the recording by ham-handed manipulation. This is how the Budapest Quartet was recorded (for their Beethoven cycle I believe).



It is a wonderful document of their performance. But if you replaced that single archaic microphone with a stereo x-y pair (and suitable rearrangement of the performers) you would get something which, speaking for myself, sounds truer to the performance.

Of course it is possible to make horrible recordings. I generally don't like modern recordings made with a forest of microphones. But I will always find competently engineered stereo preferable to mono.

[Spotted Horses]

For piano solo and music with the main emphasis upon harmonies (classical and romantic music) mono may maybe be better to create an integrated soundpicture of the music. 

Creating an integrated sound picture? Isn't that what the brain is for?

[Irons]

You're really muddying the waters bring up "electronically processed stereo."

Old mono recordings can have the advantage that the technology didn't allow engineers much leeway to ruin the recording by ham-handed manipulation. This is how the Budapest Quartet was recorded (for their Beethoven cycle I believe).



It is a wonderful document of their performance. But if you replaced that single archaic microphone with a stereo x-y pair (and suitable rearrangement of the performers) you would get something which, speaking for myself, sounds truer to the performance.

Of course it is possible to make horrible recordings. I generally don't like modern recordings made with a forest of microphones. But I will always find competently engineered stereo preferable to mono.

Your example is a good one. The Budapest Quartet were to make a second (third?) recording of Beethoven Quartets in stereo. The general consensus is that the performances are inferior to the mono set of the early 1950's. So what does one do? Performance or sonics, you can't have both. You make a point "if" stereo technology available in 1951 the recordings would be superior, I agree. That is a pretty big if though.

 

 

 

[Spotted Horses]

Your example is a good one. The Budapest Quartet were to make a second (third?) recording of Beethoven Quartets in stereo. The general consensus is that the performances are inferior to the mono set of the early 1950's. So what does one do? Performance or sonics, you can't have both. You make a point "if" stereo technology available in 1951 the recordings would be superior, I agree. That is a pretty big if though

Based on very sparse listening, I also think the mono set is better, not because it's mono, I think.

There is another effect, which is that the producers and performers were aware of the limitations of the technology and modified their performance, sometimes in ways which I find beneficial. Nowadays, it seems like producing the widest possible dynamic range is an explicit goal in recordings. In some recordings, if I set the volume so that climaxes are below the pain threshold the quietest passages can be basically inaudible to me. I am literally sitting there asking myself, "have the started playing yet?" In the old recordings producers would not allow the music to disappear into the tape hiss, and there was a limit to how quiet a pianissimo could be. I'm thinking here of the second movement in Beethoven's string quartet No 1, where the Budapest performance is utterly captivating because the statement of the music is more full-throated than you would hear on a modern recording. And I am reluctant to any recording of Vaughan-Williams Symphony No 6 recorded after 1960.

[Irons]

Based on very sparse listening, I also think the mono set is better, not because it's mono, I think.

There is another effect, which is that the producers and performers were aware of the limitations of the technology and modified their performance, sometimes in ways which I find beneficial. Nowadays, it seems like producing the widest possible dynamic range is an explicit goal in recordings. In some recordings, if I set the volume so that climaxes are below the pain threshold the quietest passages can be basically inaudible to me. I am literally sitting there asking myself, "have the started playing yet?" In the old recordings producers would not allow the music to disappear into the tape hiss, and there was a limit to how quiet a pianissimo could be. I'm thinking here of the second movement in Beethoven's string quartet No 1, where the Budapest performance is utterly captivating because the statement of the music is more full-throated than you would hear on a modern recording. And I am reluctant to any recording of Vaughan-Williams Symphony No 6 recorded after 1960.

Agreed. I am not arguing mono to be superior to stereo, that would be silly. The point of this thread to be mono recordings should not be dismissed because they are mono! There are many recordings by great artists in their prime in fabulous sound that due to vintage happen to be in mono sound. There is a point around the late 1950's with stereo in it's infancy where, RCA and Mercury excluded, mono format to be superior to stereo. I recall early digital to be awful, so awful, it took twenty years for me to come around to the fact that digital had potential to be good. New technology takes time, it is not instant.   

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Warner Classics are far from the first to fall into the trap in assuming that stereo always superior to mono. For marketing purposes it probably is as most of the buying public think the same way.



The Hindemith recordings are a case in point. Volume 1 recorded November 1956 when Legge was in full control before purely technical and commercial developments in the classical industry began to dictate the way forward. Legge queried the wisdom of stereo separating out strands which he and his engineers had taken such pains to integrate into the mono sound picture. Stereo was not only an afterthought for him but he actively discouraged it. A stubborn man.

At the same time across the Atlantic two brilliant sound engineers, Lewis Layton at RCA and Bob Fine at Mercury embraced the stereo format, realizing the protentional. Between them they made some of the finest recordings which stand up to this day.       

Irons, thank you for the names of the RCA and Mercury engineers. For those who are interested, some relevant articles/discussions are below.



Lewis Layton at RCA.

https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/music-reviews/living-stereo-lewis-layton/


Bob Fine at Mercury

https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/music-reviews/bob-fine-hdtt/

https://www.preservationsound.com/2013/11/bob-fines-recording-truck-1951-1966/

https://tapeop.com/tutorials/90/wilma-cozart-fine-c-robert-fine/

[prémont]

Creating an integrated sound picture? Isn't that what the brain is for?

Yes, but the brain may have a hard time in the case of much mixing or microphones which are placed too close to the musical instrument(s). Both situations are frequently met in stereo recordings.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

The cover says mono, but some of the works are in stereo sound. Did the producer think that a mono recording would appear to be more valuable and sell more? Overall, both the stereo and mono tracks sound wonderful. I just don't like the cover with the tilted original cover.

[atardecer]

Nowadays, it seems like producing the widest possible dynamic range is an explicit goal in recordings. In some recordings, if I set the volume so that climaxes are below the pain threshold the quietest passages can be basically inaudible to me. I am literally sitting there asking myself, "have the started playing yet?" In the old recordings producers would not allow the music to disappear into the tape hiss, and there was a limit to how quiet a pianissimo could be.

I agree, I'm not a fan of the excessive dynamic contrasts I hear in many modern recordings.

Personally I prefer when composers use dynamic contrast less in general but I digress.

[Atriod]

Nowadays, it seems like producing the widest possible dynamic range is an explicit goal in recordings.

I absolutely love massive dynamic range. With the weak Yen/strong USD I've been buying tons of symphony recordings from Japan on Exton, Fontec, Denon, etc and the dynamic range on some of these recordings is just bone crushing. Like DR numbers as high as 20 in some movements. I wrongly put these down to "audiophile music," the Japanese have recorded some incredible interpretations and seem to have a real love of romantic era music.

Dynamic range is emotion, Inbal's Mahler cycle on Exton is now up there with my absolute favorites, aside from his hyper romantic approach to Mahler the dynamic range takes these recordings to another level. I was just listening to Battistoni conduct Tchaikovsky Symphony 5 and I never heard a more moving account of that symphony (Eschenbach gets close) and the dynamic range definitely played a part along with Battistoni's very passionate interpretation. Danielle Gatti's modern day Mravinsky style interpretations of 4-6 easily go to head to head with Mravinsky, it would have been a real shame if they reduced the dynamic range on these.

For another extreme I was listening to Monteux's 1930s recording of Symphonie Fantastique and the dynamic range is so limited that it's just not that enjoyable though you can sort of make out that it's a fine performance (

).