I've only heard a single speaker mono system once, and the system was quite unfamiliar to me. The sound was 'different' than I experience with my two speaker set up but assigning differences to single speaker (versus stereo speakers) versus significant upstream system differences seems a fool's errand.
What is it about Mono that gives some 'philes an orgasm? How diff/better than Stereo?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Agreed. However, there are few of us; myself included, willing to make the investment to have separate mono and stereo systems. I do have a mono cartridge, dedicated tonearm wired for mono and dedicated mono input at my phono stage. I am certainly too lazy to switch all of the other connections and move around equipment to accommodate a single speaker system every time I want to play a mono recording. It's all a compromise, even with a stereo system as Larry alluded.
I listen to mono recordings through my regular stereo set up - much too difficult to rearrange speakers. However, I do use a mono cartridge (Miyajima Zero mono) which is easy to change with my VPI TT and arm (just switch arm wands).
An interesting curiosity about Decca classical records from about 1954 to 1958-9, which I learned when interviewing some of the old Decca engineers for my book (Decca:Supreme Stereophonic Legacy). During that period, Decca began recording in stereo, but did not release any of the stereo recordings until 1958 (when they got the playback technology to work properly). During that time they had an A team and B team both do the recordings, one in mono and the other in stereo. They worked in separate booths and each made their own choices for edits and takes. So the mono version of a record was different from the stereo version, even though the same artists and pieces were being recorded. Of course, the best engineer (Kenneth 'Wilkie' Wilkinson) led the mono "A" team, since that was the record which was going to be released first and make the most money. An example of this is Espana (Decca SXL2020 stereo, LXT5333 mono) which was recorded in 1956 and has become one of the most sought after and expensive stereo records from that era. The mono was done by Wilkie and because monos are now not sought after, it can be picked up for a relative song.
Larry
An interesting curiosity about Decca classical records from about 1954 to 1958-9, which I learned when interviewing some of the old Decca engineers for my book (Decca:Supreme Stereophonic Legacy). During that period, Decca began recording in stereo, but did not release any of the stereo recordings until 1958 (when they got the playback technology to work properly). During that time they had an A team and B team both do the recordings, one in mono and the other in stereo. They worked in separate booths and each made their own choices for edits and takes. So the mono version of a record was different from the stereo version, even though the same artists and pieces were being recorded. Of course, the best engineer (Kenneth 'Wilkie' Wilkinson) led the mono "A" team, since that was the record which was going to be released first and make the most money. An example of this is Espana (Decca SXL2020 stereo, LXT5333 mono) which was recorded in 1956 and has become one of the most sought after and expensive stereo records from that era. The mono was done by Wilkie and because monos are now not sought after, it can be picked up for a relative song.
Larry
From wiki:
Monaural or monophonic sound reproduction (often shortened to mono) is intended to be heard as if it were a single channel of sound perceived as coming from one position (unlike stereo, which uses two channels to convey the impression of sound coming from different places from left, middle, and right). In mono, only one loudspeaker is necessary, but, when played through multiple loudspeakers or headphones, identical signals are fed through each of the wires into each speaker, resulting in the perception of a one-channel sound, which "images" in one sonic space between the speakers (provided that the speakers are set up in a proper symmetrical critical-listening placement). Monaural recordings, like stereo, customarily use multiple microphones, fed into multiple channels on a recording console, but each channel is "panned" to be in the center. In the final stage, the various center-panned signal paths are usually mixed down to two identical tracks, which because they are identical, are perceived upon playback as representing a single unified signal in a single place in the soundstage. In some cases the multitrack source is mixed down to a one track tape becoming one signal. In the mastering stage, particularly in the days of mono records, the one-track or two-track mono master tape was then transferred to a one-track lathe intended to be used in the pressing of a monophonic record. However, today monaural recordings are usually mastered to be played on stereo and multi-track formats, yet retain their center-panned mono soundstage characteristics when played back.
Monaural sound has been replaced by stereo sound in most entertainment applications. However, it remains the standard for radiotelephone communications, telephone networks, and audio induction loops for use with hearing aids. A few FM radio stations, particularly talk radio shows, choose to broadcast in monaural, as a monaural signal has a slight advantage in signal strength over a stereophonic signal of the same power.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaural
_______________
• With mono sound, all you need is one speaker: https://www.cnet.com/news/with-mono-sound-all-you-need-is-one-speaker/
Monaural or monophonic sound reproduction (often shortened to mono) is intended to be heard as if it were a single channel of sound perceived as coming from one position (unlike stereo, which uses two channels to convey the impression of sound coming from different places from left, middle, and right). In mono, only one loudspeaker is necessary, but, when played through multiple loudspeakers or headphones, identical signals are fed through each of the wires into each speaker, resulting in the perception of a one-channel sound, which "images" in one sonic space between the speakers (provided that the speakers are set up in a proper symmetrical critical-listening placement). Monaural recordings, like stereo, customarily use multiple microphones, fed into multiple channels on a recording console, but each channel is "panned" to be in the center. In the final stage, the various center-panned signal paths are usually mixed down to two identical tracks, which because they are identical, are perceived upon playback as representing a single unified signal in a single place in the soundstage. In some cases the multitrack source is mixed down to a one track tape becoming one signal. In the mastering stage, particularly in the days of mono records, the one-track or two-track mono master tape was then transferred to a one-track lathe intended to be used in the pressing of a monophonic record. However, today monaural recordings are usually mastered to be played on stereo and multi-track formats, yet retain their center-panned mono soundstage characteristics when played back.
Monaural sound has been replaced by stereo sound in most entertainment applications. However, it remains the standard for radiotelephone communications, telephone networks, and audio induction loops for use with hearing aids. A few FM radio stations, particularly talk radio shows, choose to broadcast in monaural, as a monaural signal has a slight advantage in signal strength over a stereophonic signal of the same power.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaural
_______________
• With mono sound, all you need is one speaker: https://www.cnet.com/news/with-mono-sound-all-you-need-is-one-speaker/
Last edited:
I've no current experience of mono playback but I'm interested in correct this when I can.
One of the questions that this discussion has brought to my mind is - how effective is mono at providing the auditory cues necessary for our psychoacoustic mechanisms to create a realistic illusion?
I can well believe that well recorded mono through a good playback system may well provide the vast majority of these cues with the result that nothing is felt to be lacking.
In fact it may well be that stereo can result in an artificial, unrealistic sound as it requires any more options to get right at recording, editing & playback stages for a realistic illusion - many more chances to mess it up.
Has anybody got experience of the same recording in well recorded mono & well recorded stereo?
Is soundstage depth or layering evident in mono or does this dissappear? I ask this because I suspect that a lot of soundstage depth (not width) might be created by cues which are not related to stereo, directional signals but rather with other aspects withing a well reproduced signal which allow our Auditory Scene Analysis mechanism to create the auditory scene without too much difficulty
Related to this is a recent discussion I was reading about pops & clicks on vinyl reproduction & the question was asked "why accurate reproduction of pops & clicks is important" The answer given was that "it means that they are perceived as separate to the music & thus easier to ignore" - to my thinking this is a case of ASA in action, separating the signal into whatever layers are in the signal - foreground, background, central, peripheral, etc
One of the questions that this discussion has brought to my mind is - how effective is mono at providing the auditory cues necessary for our psychoacoustic mechanisms to create a realistic illusion?
I can well believe that well recorded mono through a good playback system may well provide the vast majority of these cues with the result that nothing is felt to be lacking.
In fact it may well be that stereo can result in an artificial, unrealistic sound as it requires any more options to get right at recording, editing & playback stages for a realistic illusion - many more chances to mess it up.
Has anybody got experience of the same recording in well recorded mono & well recorded stereo?
Is soundstage depth or layering evident in mono or does this dissappear? I ask this because I suspect that a lot of soundstage depth (not width) might be created by cues which are not related to stereo, directional signals but rather with other aspects withing a well reproduced signal which allow our Auditory Scene Analysis mechanism to create the auditory scene without too much difficulty
Related to this is a recent discussion I was reading about pops & clicks on vinyl reproduction & the question was asked "why accurate reproduction of pops & clicks is important" The answer given was that "it means that they are perceived as separate to the music & thus easier to ignore" - to my thinking this is a case of ASA in action, separating the signal into whatever layers are in the signal - foreground, background, central, peripheral, etc
I think people who enjoy mono either don't care about the spatial cues, or "turn them off". Instead, they are drawn in by the purity of sound coming at them from one (center/ between the speakers) location. As I am just trying to figure out mono, I could be very wrong.
Great review of Stones in mono by Fremer:
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/rolling-stones-mono-box-set-reviewed#Jd8vtJppMCrEySQU.97
He really went beyond the call of duty in this great write-up
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/rolling-stones-mono-box-set-reviewed#Jd8vtJppMCrEySQU.97
He really went beyond the call of duty in this great write-up
I enjoy listening to mono not sitting in front of the speakers, more than stereo. What I mean is I can get up and do things while hearing the mono, and get as much out of it as I do sitting down for it, typically. With stereo it's not as gratifying; sitting down and listening is better.
I think a lot of it has to do with whether one prefers the format of records as their primary listening. Aside from the greater effort and budgets which would've been dedicated to recording -in particular- the Classical and Soundtrack genrés in the analog era (mainly during the Sixties...when "stereo" became a culturally-ingrained byword), the results of trying to record -what has now passed into history as- "Classic Rock" in stereo wound up being so unnaturally lopsided and hollowed-out in presentation, that: the mass-market disposability factor of Pop (back then) didn't translate well beyond the way a 45 sounded played over a transistor radio.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
Members online
- Geoffkait
- SCAudiophile
- flowcharts
- mtakeda
- alexx
- moby2004
- kyoya78
- daytona600
- WLP3
- wbass
- TooCool4
- Long Live Analog
- Another Johnson
- Backpacker
- cdka
- dminches
- RaChiK
- Young Skywalker
- Rollsngrooves
- Nathanu
- MTS
- jazzdude99
- PYP
- unboxed
- HeavyD
- Argonaut
- cfl839
- fbhifi
- Opabin
- No Regrets
- audioquad
- brad225
- mlhotts
- Walnut Horns
- Gryffles
- Mike Lavigne
- kswanson27
- cminer
- Pokey77
- KrellFan1
- Avidlistener
- Nascimento
- vinyl_mike
- audio.bill
- Barry2013
- MRIguy
- baocrazy78
- pk_LA
- metaldetektor
- MPW
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |