Retro-Phile: Mono, Anybody?

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

I was thinking about all the philosphical discussions here about the shortcomings of stereo, what digital has to offer over analog, etc, and the idea came to me: what if I assembled a true mono system? I don't mean just a mono cartridge to playback mono records, but a single speaker system with a big baffle vintage style, and used a single channel all the way through. (It would be vinyl, of course, and tubes). Has anybody here done this? I have no idea what a stereo record would sound like over this kind of rig (I know the little labels on alot of my records tell me that this newfangled 'stereo' format is fully compatible with monophonic. I have a few hundred mono records that I could start with).
This was going to tie into another thread on 'horns' which I will probably start later- I would love to hear those GIP recreations of the WE drivers. Has anyone heard those? I gather they were at a couple of shows in the States a few years ago with a pretty large speaker system.

Phelonious Ponk · Jul 24, 2012

whart said:
I was thinking about all the philosphical discussions here about the shortcomings of stereo, what digital has to offer over analog, etc, and the idea came to me: what if I assembled a true mono system? I don't mean just a mono cartridge to playback mono records, but a single speaker system with a big baffle vintage style, and used a single channel all the way through. (It would be vinyl, of course, and tubes). Has anybody here done this? I have no idea what a stereo record would sound like over this kind of rig (I know the little labels on alot of my records tell me that this newfangled 'stereo' format is fully compatible with monophonic. I have a few hundred mono records that I could start with).
This was going to tie into another thread on 'horns' which I will probably start later- I would love to hear those GIP recreations of the WE drivers. Has anyone heard those? I gather they were at a couple of shows in the States a few years ago with a pretty large speaker system.

Honestly I'm surprised it's not already a subset of the Audiophile hobby, with a voiciferous contingency claiming that it brings you closer to the original event through detail retreival and soundstaging that, while immeasurable by today's instruments, is audibly obvious to anyone with a system sufficiently resolving enough.

Tim

jazdoc · Jul 24, 2012

Whart,

As someone with a dedicated mono front end -- Miyajima Premium BE cartridge > Talea II tonearm > Dedicated mono input at the phono stage, I'm intrigued with the idea of an end to end mono system. I can say with this set up, the overwhelming majority of my 500+ mono recordings sound better (often MUCH better) than with my dedicated stereo set up (Benz LPS cartidge > Telos tonearm > Experience Music phono preamp).

I have both stereo and mono pressings of many LPs from the 50's and 60's and I almost always prefer the mono recording via the mono set up. Visitors are always amazed how good the original Stone's mono Deccas, the Beatles Parlophones and vintage jazz recordings sound with a dedicated mono front end. In fact, the Beatles' recording engineer Geoffrey Emerick details why the early Beatles recording sound so much better in mono than stereo in his book "Here, There, Everywhere".

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

jazdoc said:
Whart,

As someone with a dedicated mono front end -- Miyajima Premium BE cartridge > Talea II tonearm > Dedicated mono input at the phono stage, I'm intrigued with the idea of an end to end mono system. I can say with this set up, the overwhelming majority of my 500+ mono recordings sound better (often MUCH better) than with my dedicated stereo set up (Benz LPS cartidge > Telos tonearm > Experience Music phono preamp).

I have both stereo and mono pressings of many LPs from the 50's and 60's and I almost always prefer the mono recording via the mono set up. Visitors are always amazed how good the original Stone's mono Deccas, the Beatles Parlophones and vintage jazz recordings sound with a dedicated mono front end. In fact, the Beatles' recording engineer Geoffrey Emerick details why the early Beatles recording sound so much better in mono than stereo in his book "Here, There, Everywhere".

Doc:
I don't have a mono cartridge, and i don't even have a 'mono' switch on my linestage, but I was listening to a copy of the Janos Starker Dvorak on an old Mercury mono the other day and the body of the instrument and string tone was just fabulous. I wasn't worried about imaging or soundstage, or any of that other stuff. Think of the money you could save by eliminating one channel!

I'm semi-serious about doing this- have an old pair of Quad II's (should probably be gone over before I get them near a wall plug), an old direct drive turntable that is unused, i think I need a BIG speaker, though. And, then I'll need to find something vintage for phono/EQ/preamp, but wonder if there's much competition in the mono-sphere.
Tim, I'm sure that contingent already exists, like every other one on this planet. (I am informed that there is an 8track tape museum in Tx and it is high on my list, along with the Stonehenge made from old Cadillacs stuck nose first into the dirt).
We could see a new magazine online, "The Monophile" although somehow 'mono' and 'online' seems like an oxymoron.

cjfrbw · Jul 24, 2012

I've tried the MONO thing in the past, but never with a dedicated mono cartridge/arm. The Manley Steelhead had a mono switch that I tried with the stereo system from time to time.

I don't disbelieve the claims that a dedicated setup would sound pretty good.

Comparing mono version of some LP's that I have with the stereo:

Mono is great for vocals and solos.

However, many instrumental performances sound like a solo on a mono record that don't on the stereo version.

Mono does not convey the low key dynamic relations of ensembles, nor to they transmit any reasonable clue to spatial relationships. This alone makes me want the stereo version. A low piano on the left becomes a louder piano in the middle behind the main instrument/vocalist.

I came to the conclusion that synthesized center channel for center fullness would be preferable to mono listening i.e. three channel stereo, or something like Dolby PLII, or better, the Meridian tri-field.

I think mono would sound best on a big sounding horn system with excellent projection and dynamics.

I have a strange hunch that mono is talked about more as a kind of ultra/contra antiquarian fad that requires specialty jewelry/bling. It is something that is listened to just a little but waved around as a form of audiophile chic. If you don't subscribe, you are "out" instead of "in" with the rarified pack. This is annoying.

However, I would grant that there are individuals who sincerely might prefer "one eyed" stereo for a variety of individual or subjective reasons.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

cjfrbw said:
I've tried the MONO thing in the past, but never with a dedicated mono cartridge/arm. The Manley Steelhead had a mono switch that I tried with the stereo system from time to time.

I don't disbelieve the claims that a dedicated setup would sound pretty good.

Comparing mono version of some LP's that I have with the stereo:

Mono is great for vocals and solos.

However, many instrumental performances sound like a solo on a mono record that don't on the stereo version.

Mono does not convey the low key dynamic relations of ensembles, nor to they transmit any reasonable clue to spatial relationships. This alone makes me want the stereo version. A low piano on the left becomes a louder piano in the middle behind the main instrument/vocalist.

I came to the conclusion that synthesized center channel for center fullness would be preferable to mono listening i.e. three channel stereo, or something like Dolby PLII, or better, the Meridian tri-field.

I think mono would sound best on a big sounding horn system with excellent projection and dynamics.

I have a strange hunch that mono is talked about more as a kind of ultra/contra antiquarian fad that requires specialty jewelry/bling. It is something that is listened to just a little but waved around as a form of audiophile chic. If you don't subscribe, you are "out" instead of "in" with the rarified pack. This is annoying.

However, I would grant that there are individuals who sincerely might prefer "one eyed" stereo for a variety of individual or subjective reasons.

Carl: if it is chic, I don't want it. I'm anti-chic. I still think it would be interesting and may try it at some point. The real trick is to get the right speaker. There is apparently a mono preamp around, new, with all sorts of EQ curves, Sentec Eq10?
When I had the Steelhead, I never pushed the Dim button and the Sum button together.

PS: telling me it needs a big horn is not exactly offputting, sorta right where I wanna be. That's why I asked about the GIPs.

U47 · Jul 24, 2012

Mono Mercury LP

The mono(Olympian) pressing of the Bach Cello suites with Starker on Mercury is indeed amazing and considerably rarer than the stereo issue. My audio mentor treasured his Olympian issue of the famous Starker set. It seems to just have more 'energy' than the stereo. I remember playing the stereo LP on the Wilson Wamms at Definitive in Mamaroneck(now long defunct) and having people comment on the 6 foot wide cello

Another great mono Starker is the Kodaly solo sonata on Period, which is of equal quality for performance and sonics to the Bach Mercury.
I'm hoping to hear the new Ikeda mono cartridge this week at Beauty of Sound. Bill also has the Miyajima mono, which is indeed a great cartridge. More folks should experience mono on a great dedicated mono rig with the likes of early Blue Note, early Westminster classical mono LPs. The hype is justified IME.

Rich

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

U47 said:
The mono(Olympian) pressing of the Bach Cello suites with Starker on Mercury is indeed amazing and considerably rarer than the stereo issue. My audio mentor treasured his Olympian issue of the famous Starker set. It seems to just have more 'energy' than the stereo. I remember playing the stereo LP on the Wilson Wamms at Definitive in Mamaroneck(now long defunct) and having people comment on the 6 foot wide cello
Another great mono Starker is the Kodaly solo sonata on Period, which is of equal quality for performance and sonics to the Bach Mercury.
I'm hoping to hear the new Ikeda mono cartridge this week at Beauty of Sound. Bill also has the Miyajima mono, which is indeed a great cartridge. More folks should experience mono on a great dedicated mono rig with the likes of early Blue Note, early Westminster classical mono LPs. The hype is justified IME.

Rich

Thanks. The Kodaly is something I must have, or will buy. I remember hearing the Whamms in that shop- he had Jadis if memory serves, and the room was quite warm.

PS. I just did a quick search. That Kodaly is rare and pricey. Was it reissued?

jazdoc · Jul 24, 2012

I don't disbelieve the claims that a dedicated setup would sound pretty good.

Comparing mono version of some LP's that I have with the stereo:

Mono is great for vocals and solos.

However, many instrumental performances sound like a solo on a mono record that don't on the stereo version.

Mono does not convey the low key dynamic relations of ensembles, nor to they transmit any reasonable clue to spatial relationships. This alone makes me want the stereo version. A low piano on the left becomes a louder piano in the middle behind the main instrument/vocalist.

I came to the conclusion that synthesized center channel for center fullness would be preferable to mono listening i.e. three channel stereo, or something like Dolby PLII, or better, the Meridian tri-field.

I think mono would sound best on a big sounding horn system with excellent projection and dynamics.

Overall, I tend to agree with your assessment. A Mahler symphony seems to lose something in mono. OTOH, mono often shines with small jazz ensembles and early rock LPs.

I would disagree with your observation regarding low key dynamic relationships. Indeed, IME, this is one of the strengths of well-recorded mono. For example, compare the low level details on an original 6-eye pressing of Miles Davis' "Sketches of Spain" versus an original stereo pressing. Same thing for the early Stones' LPs. Pay up for an early unboxed Decca pressing mono pressing (red label) of "Aftermath"; it's truly like hearing these familiar songs for the first time. Obviously mono compresses the right left illusion of stereo but the front to back layering can be startling with a well recorded mono LP.

U47 · Jul 24, 2012

The mono Period Kodaly Starker LP was supposedly issued on sacd in Japan. I just did a quick search and could not find any mention of it. The LP record number is SPL 510.

Rudy at Definitive did indeed have Jadis equipment as well as Wilson, Versa Dynamics and Krell. He was the sales leader for Wilson and Krell back in the 'day'. When David Wilson set up the Wamms, the system was indeed quite impressive. After a famous reviewer got his hands on the EQ it was a different story. Tuesday evening listening sessions were a treat, great tunes on the Versa and pizza from Sal's(Sicilian style). Michael Gindi, Lars and Sam Tellig were frequent Tuesday night regulars.

R

Andre Marc · Jul 24, 2012

whart said:
I was thinking about all the philosphical discussions here about the shortcomings of stereo, what digital has to offer over analog, etc, and the idea came to me: what if I assembled a true mono system? I don't mean just a mono cartridge to playback mono records, but a single speaker system with a big baffle vintage style, and used a single channel all the way through. (It would be vinyl, of course, and tubes). Has anybody here done this? I have no idea what a stereo record would sound like over this kind of rig (I know the little labels on alot of my records tell me that this newfangled 'stereo' format is fully compatible with monophonic. I have a few hundred mono records that I could start with).
This was going to tie into another thread on 'horns' which I will probably start later- I would love to hear those GIP recreations of the WE drivers. Has anyone heard those? I gather they were at a couple of shows in the States a few years ago with a pretty large speaker system.

I may be the odd man out here, but I have never liked the sound of mono.

Quick story: Last year I went to a recital of one of my cousins and it was a chorus, piano, and violin.

The chorus was mostly stage right, the piano and violent mostly stage left.

I heard the chorus distinctly with my right ear and the instruments distinctly more with my left ear.

This convinced me that "stereo" is the way we hear naturally, with our brains filling the gaps.

I have never heard a mono mix of any album I preferred over the stereo mix.

I have several albums with both the mono and stereo mix included...Beatles, Cream, Buffalo Springfield...
The mono mixes sound flat and uninvolved..and boring.

For me the notion that Mono is better is a sentimental flight of fancy of older audiophiles.

Technically it is so sub par in reference to any real listening experience...it is not on my map.

Just my take!

cjfrbw · Jul 24, 2012

I suppose any observation would ultimately be recording specific.

Listening to Miles Davis "Live at the Blackhawk" in mono and stereo, the intensity of Miles horn and/or the solos in the mono version are surely aurally interesting.

However, for my listening preference, that passing interest is more than offset by the relative loudness and spatial offset of the ensemble contributors, which makes the stereo version sound much more like what one might have expected from the original performance, much more subtle, and much more revealing of the way the players intended to be heard in relation to each other. The pancaking of instrumentals in the mono version doesn't cut it for me for that reason, but I can enjoy listening to the mono version.

Mono Ella Fitzgerald sounds great compared to the stereo versions, mainly because the star shines more brightly.

I have heard some rave about mono "Surrealistic Pillow" by Jefferson Airplane. Comparing my mono and stereo version, I can't see it.

Give me a big ass mono horn, with bodacious tubes and dedicated mono rig, I might change my mind, but I don't think so.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

U47 said:
The mono Period Kodaly Starker LP was supposedly issued on sacd in Japan. I just did a quick search and could not find any mention of it. The LP record number is SPL 510.

Rudy at Definitive did indeed have Jadis equipment as well as Wilson, Versa Dynamics and Krell. He was the sales leader for Wilson and Krell back in the 'day'. When David Wilson set up the Wamms, the system was indeed quite impressive. After a famous reviewer got his hands on the EQ it was a different story. Tuesday evening listening sessions were a treat, great tunes on the Versa and pizza from Sal's(Sicilian style). Michael Gindi, Lars and Sam Tellig were frequent Tuesday night regulars.

R

Thank you for looking. I did find a japanese reissue of a stereo recording of Starker performing a solo cello piece by Kodaly, but I doubt it's the same performance. I saw copies of the record you mentioned that sold for 250-300 dollars. I also took a cursory look in on my shelves, I seem to be extremely Kodaly deficient.

I enjoyed Jacquelyn du Pre on EMI and have some others, but that Starker is just killer.
Thanks for chiming in-
I only recall visiting that store once, with my late friend, Chuck Lamonica. The Whamms were set up in what almost seemed like a 'side room' but it was pretty large. I just remember the heat generated by those amps.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

cjfrbw said:
Give me a big ass mono horn, with bodacious tubes and dedicated mono rig, I might change my mind....

Exactly! See, we've got you thinking like a 'monophile' already

I'd be willing to experiment with this. I have quite a few mono records, although frankly, I'm not sure what condition all of them are in- lot's came from an enthusiast's collection, so in my quest to listen to every record I own before I drop, I'm gonna find out.
Big assed horn indeed!

jazdoc · Jul 24, 2012

Andre Marc said:
I may be the odd man out here, but I have never liked the sound of mono.

Quick story: Last year I went to a recital of one of my cousins and it was a chorus, piano, and violin.

The chorus was mostly stage right, the piano and violent mostly stage left.

I heard the chorus distinctly with my right ear and the instruments distinctly more with my left ear.

This convinced me that "stereo" is the way we hear naturally, with our brains filling the gaps.

I have never heard a mono mix of any album I preferred over the stereo mix.

I have several albums with both the mono and stereo mix included...Beatles, Cream, Buffalo Springfield...
The mono mixes sound flat and uninvolved..and boring.

For me the notion that Mono is better is a sentimental flight of fancy of older audiophiles.

Technically it is so sub par in reference to any real listening experience...it is not on my map.

Just my take!

Andre,

I'm not surprised. I have a friend who is classically trained and he does not like mono at all because of the loss of spatial information. I tend to value tone color and texture over spatial information, so I suppose I'm predisposed to enjoy it. Also, exaggerated stereo effects really bother me. Like the drummer with the 14' wingspan which is all too common on jazz recordings.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

Andre Marc said:
I may be the odd man out here, but I have never liked the sound of mono.

Quick story: Last year I went to a recital of one of my cousins and it was a chorus, piano, and violin.

The chorus was mostly stage right, the piano and violent mostly stage left.

I heard the chorus distinctly with my right ear and the instruments distinctly more with my left ear.

This convinced me that "stereo" is the way we hear naturally, with our brains filling the gaps.

I have never heard a mono mix of any album I preferred over the stereo mix.

I have several albums with both the mono and stereo mix included...Beatles, Cream, Buffalo Springfield...
The mono mixes sound flat and uninvolved..and boring.

For me the notion that Mono is better is a sentimental flight of fancy of older audiophiles.

Technically it is so sub par in reference to any real listening experience...it is not on my map.

Just my take!

As I think the Doctor of Jazz mentioned, it might be more compelling on simple music- the lone cello, for example. Just saying, even without a mono rig, that Starker record got to me. And i doubt you are the lone man out on this one, Andre, but we're working on Carl.
Thanks for contributing.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

Speak of the devil. A copy of the Starker/Kodaly on Period just got listed on e-bay at a buy it now price of 499 dollars. I'm not inclined toward conspiracy theories, but I'm going to refer to this as the "Spank" phenomenon.

jazdoc · Jul 24, 2012

whart said:
Speak of the devil. A copy of the Starker/Kodaly on Period just got listed on e-bay at a buy it now price of 499 dollars. I'm not inclined toward conspiracy theories, but I'm going to refer to this as the "Spank" phenomenon.

Interestingly, I recently found my copy of "Jazz Party" in mono and while my aural memory is feeble, it doesn't seem to measure up to Mike's 45 rpm copy at his place. I'll try and remember to bring it over for our next listening session and confirm.

Bill Hart · Jul 24, 2012

jazdoc said:
Interestingly, I recently found my copy of "Jazz Party" in mono and while my aural memory is feeble, it doesn't seem to measure up to Mike's 45 rpm copy at his place. I'll try and remember to bring it over for our next listening session and confirm.

Doc, i would think that record would suffer in mono, it seemed to be ready made as a stereo-spectacular. BTW, the seller of that Kodaly disc also seems to have quite a list of collectible

disco records?
Sort of an odd mix.

jdza · Jul 24, 2012

Listening to mono with a mono cart on a 2 channel system can be an amazing experience but listening to a true mono system with a single speaker is (to me) not at all enjoyable. Getting a single speaker to sound good is really difficult.

Retro-Phile: Mono, Anybody?

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads