 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any of you guys prefer LP mono over stereo? I think I remember that being a minor point of contention among some vinyl audiophiles during the days when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.
Some Beatles fans are all about the mono because the mixes are different. If I'm not mistaken, that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to The Beatles, I think the reason a lot of people stick with the original mono is because it is, well, the original sound — the 'original intention', so to speak.
To a lot of people 'stereo-ising' those recordings was as evil as colouring old black-and-white films. The argument, "They'd have made Citizen Kane in colour if colour had been available then," doesn't wash.
There's also an argument by purists that the Beatles themselves were involved in the mono mix, so it's "their" mix, whereas all subsequent stereo mixes were "other people's" mix.
And, the band themselves originally endorsed mono. I think either George or John was quoted as saying, "Why does anybody need a second speaker?"
I have to say, when it comes to The Beatles, I prefer to play the original mono. It seems more authentic. That's the sound they were trying to create in the studio.
When it comes to film scores, titles like Goldfinger were issued in mono and stereo at the same time and there's no similar case to make that these recordings were made with the intention of being mono.
(Now, someone will point out that most Beatles albums were also simultaneously issued in mono and stereo, but the difference is that this 'original' stereo was a truly awful case of instruments in one channel, voices in the other. No stereo mix. No spread. Just one tape channel down one speaker, the other tape channel down the other. It was ugly. It was only much later when a true "stereo mix" appeared.)
I think stereo sounds better, don't you?
That said, in the same way that black-and-white has artistic characteristics of its own, so does mono. And when something's 'intended' for mono, then it's intended for mono.
In short, the answer isn't one or the other but, I'm afraid, the unhelpful "it depends". For Beatles, yes. For film scores, generally no. Except sometimes there is a better mono source. The mono source on "The Wrong Box" sounds better than the stereo vinyl transfer, in my opinion.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PS, no I'm not aware of a mono issue of OHMSS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 4, 2014 - 5:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
Any of you guys prefer LP mono over stereo? I think I remember that being a minor point of contention among some vinyl audiophiles during the days when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.
I think that in general, early stereo (1955-1970) was pretty hit or miss when it came to jazz and pop music. There tend to be just too many balance and placement issues. (I would broadly categorize film music with pop for the purposes of this discussion).
Classical stereo was generally good to great from the beginning, because it's hard to achieve bad stereo by placing two killer mics in a first-rate hall. Jazz was very dodgy: Compare a Blue Note stereo session to an Atlantic stereo session for a good example.
There was a learning curve with stereo, and the recordings of the era I describe reflect many of the mistakes that producers and engineers made through trial and error. A lot of generally accepted principles that are taken for granted now were unknown back then.
So, aside from classical recordings, I generally seek out mono whenever possible.
As to LPs specifically, aside from mix issues, a clean mono LP played back in mono will produce a more focused sound with a stronger overall signal, in my opinion.
As to Bond in particular, I think the US stereo pressings sound a tad shrill to my ears. I like the sound of the US mono UA LPs, Thunderball in Particular. The sonics on my German stereo pressing of Goldfinger, though, are really nice, surpassing the CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to film scores, titles like Goldfinger were issued in mono and stereo at the same time and there's no similar case to make that these recordings were made with the intention of being mono.
But the main purpose for which these scores were recorded was to be mixed into the film, which would have been mono.
Either way, a well-done mono mix can sound punchier and cleaner than an indifferent or bad stereo mix. And there were a lot of the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the mono vs. stereo discussion is a very complicated one: for instance, some of the early Capitol stereo sessions CAN'T sound as good as their mono counterparts since the live-to-mono mix has been picked up by many close-up mircrophones whereas the stereo mix was created from no more than three tracks. To make things more complicated some of the stereo releases (sometimes released a few years after the mono release) used takes not originally intended for release. The focus clearly was on mono.
On the other hand, classical stereo recordings of this era are real killers (Living Stereo, Decca, Mercury Living Presence, Phase Four).
I'd really judge case by case as far as soundtracks are concerned since each one (particularly international productions) seems to have its own production history. Some will sound beautifully in stereo (the Bond soundtracks from "From Russia With Love" onwards come to mind, "The Apartment", etc.) while others will sound plain awful (particularly when they were recorded in mono and "enhanced" for stereo - like "Some Like It Hot" or "Dr. No"). Some 1960s movies also seem to be having issues with dubbing the music (like "What's New Pussycat?")...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OHMSS is the first Bond score to be issued in stereo only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
