Why Aren’t All Simple Solo Vocals Recorded in Mono?

[Ron Resnick]

A high-end audio reviewer friend of KeithR, Jeff_T and mine introduced me tonight to the wonder of mono recordings. He played a female vocal with simple acoustic accompaniment (Julie London). He had the same song recorded in both mono and stereo versions.

The stereo version sounded like an audio system conjuring up and recreating the sound of a venue and the voice of a recording. The mono version sounded like an audio system beaming a live singer into the room.

The latter is hyperbole, of course, but the mono version sounded simpler, more real, and more in-the-room present. The mono version more effectively suspended disbelief than did the stereo version.

Then he played a big symphony orchestra recording. Here the mono version didn’t work for me at all.

The entire recording sounded like a miniature version of an orchestra being projected from a television set between the speakers. It sounded like we were listening to midgets in a diorama, rather than full-size musicians on an orchestra stage. The sound was constricted and the performance seemed to be emanating from a box.

When our ears listen to a live single performer singing and playing a guitar we have two sound receptors (our ears) acquiring sound from a single source (a mono performer). Why did anybody ever think that a girl with guitar performance is going to sound better if you record it in two channels rather than if you record it with one channel in the way we actually hear it live?

Why did anybody ever think that a two channel recording of a single vocal performer sounds better than a recording of that performer in mono?

Isn’t recording a single vocal performer in mono more consonant with how we would experience such a performance live?

 

[bonzo75]

Most of what we end up listening at the General's is mono. Some mono labels actually had better recording quality than the better known Decca EMI Columbia etc. But the old mono recordings are tougher to source in good quality and mono does not work in all set ups. Ideally set up for mono and then over lay with stereo.

 

[RogerD]

When a stereo system is setup correctly, the phantom center image can be amazing and you don't lose any of the L & R either. Everything sounds just like where the microphones were originally placed. I listen to Julie London all the time....she does sound great. But some prefer mono...I don't.

 

[Blackmorec]

I would guess that most solo performances are indeed recorder in mono....i.e a single microphone producing a single track on a tape machine. The problem is, we never listen to mono recordings in mono....we always listen to them in stereo i.e the single track is replayed at identical amplitude from 2 loudspeakers, creating a central image. To play a mono recording in genuine mono would require an entirely different set-up with a single, central loudspeaker, mono cartridge, etc otherwise its just a fudge.
You don’t mention anything about the recording medium or playback mechanism but I imagine what you were actually comparing was the difference between a mono recording and a very early stereo recording. In my system early stereo recording may sound wonderful but they also sound a bit dated and somewhat primitive, with a soundfield that is more left, centre and right vs a more coherent, natural acoustic

 

[cjfrbw]

You can kind of get the best of both worlds by using a surround program that utilizes the central channel, if you have a surround program and a center channel to do it with. Dolby Pro Logic, surprisingly enough, does a very good job of anchoring the vocals if they are central and giving that 'mono' effect without entirely removing spatial cues from the stereo. The Pro Logic rear central channel that that they used to have also helps. Meridian also had a center speaker program that reputedly was extremely effective with vocals, although I personally have never heard it.

Also, ambient multi channel synthesized reproduction in general has an advantage in producing great vocals, even with a ghosted center channel.

However, I would generally not want to tread on the sacred turf of the mono aficionado. They are a fierce and loyal lot.

 

[Folsom]

We have two ears, how could one mic ever sound “natural”?

 

[Blue58]

Vocals are not recorded in mono and we do not hear a voice in mono. When someone sings we hear the voice and the room/place acoustics and this is what is recorded and to do that properly we need stereo.
Don’t get confused with a one mic recording which is almost always a stereo mic. We also need to record how the voice changes with head movements and head to mic distance.
If you recorded a voice in an anechoic room with a mono mic it would sound very peculiar when played back either mono or stereo.
I’m starting to think these posts are just to generate clicks.....oops I fell for this one.???

 

[kodomo]

No, they are not recorded with stereo microphones. Maybe sometimes but would be few. They are recorded in mono but generally send to a stereo reverb.

 

[Blue58]

No, they are not recorded with stereo microphones. Maybe sometimes but would be few. They are recorded in mono but generally send to a stereo reverb.

I stand corrected, thank you Kodomo.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You can kind of get the best of both worlds by using a surround program that utilizes the central channel, if you have a surround program and a center channel to do it with.

Almost there. The solution is to record and playback in discrete multichannel with a dedicated center channel.

 

[Alrainbow]

For me as i have a stereo setup it seems it lacks ambience of its a mono playback in my setup
While it makes sense in theory it lacks in practice

 

[Ron Resnick]

We have two ears, how could one mic ever sound “natural”?

A good question. Maybe the same way our two ears perceive a single vocalist or a single instrument as sounding natural?

Should the recording system (one mic or two mics) follow the number of ears (2) or the number of music sources (here, 1)?

It seems that stereo recording and stereo playback is needed to generate a sense of sonic depth and the illusion of a wide soundstage.

 

[microstrip]

Most of what we end up listening at the General's is mono. Some mono labels actually had better recording quality than the better known Decca EMI Columbia etc. But the old mono recordings are tougher to source in good quality and mono does not work in all set ups. Ideally set up for mono and then over lay with stereo.

What do you mean exactly by "better recording quality"? Can you point us a few of these "better recordings" that support your preference?

IMHO we can not compare mono recordings to stereo - the same way we can not compare stereo to surround sound.

 

[microstrip]

We have two ears, how could one mic ever sound “natural”?

Some people will tell us that an old shellac played in an HMV gramophone sounds more natural than any top stereo high-end. And it is not possible to rebate such claim. But if we dig the subject we find that some gramophone lovers found that oak gramophone horns sound more natural than the brass ones ...

 

[Folsom]

A good question. Maybe the same way our two ears perceive a single vocalist or a single instrument as sounding natural?

Should the recording system (one mic or two mics) follow the number of ears (2) or the number of music sources (here, 1)?

It seems that stereo recording and stereo playback is needed to generate a sense of sonic depth and the illusion of a wide soundstage.

Well, I was told there are more mic developments that mimic the human head. I suspect our brains sum sound better, and perhaps a little differently, than mixing/stereo effect gear.

 

[NorthStar]

 

[Blackmorec]

We have two ears, how could one mic ever sound “natural”?

A single vocalist is a point source. A single microphone records that point source. Reproducing that recording from a single speaker produces a further point source. The only unnatural thing is when we reproduce the point source recording from 2 loudspeakers. Our brain still treats the signals from the 2 loudspeakers as if it were a point source, by recombining the nerve impulses from both ears to give the illusion that the voice comes from a single point in space. By varying the amplitude and phase of the sound from each loudspeaker, we effect the amplitude and phase reaching each ear, allowing us to manipulate the perceived location of the sound.
The most natural recording of a vocalist would be made by a single microphone and reproduced via a single loudspeaker.

 

[Folsom]

I’m not a point source mic.

 

[microstrip]

A single vocalist is a point source. A single microphone records that point source. Reproducing that recording from a single speaker produces a further point source. The only unnatural thing is when we reproduce the point source recording from 2 loudspeakers. Our brain still treats the signals from the 2 loudspeakers as if it were a point source, by recombining the nerve impulses from both ears to give the illusion that the voice comes from a single point in space. By varying the amplitude and phase of the sound from each loudspeaker, we effect the amplitude and phase reaching each ear, allowing us to manipulate the perceived location of the sound.
The most natural recording of a vocalist would be made by a single microphone and reproduced via a single loudspeaker.

Although a single vocalist is a point source, unless he is singing in an anechoic chamber in real life we will not be listening to just the point source - you will be listening to all the reflections of his voice in the boundaries that create the atmosphere of the event. The points where these reflections occur have a defined localization, a mono system will not show it.

Also IMHO, if the ears get exactly the same signal from one or from two speakers I can not see how the brain can distinguish if they were produced by one or two speakers, except for the change of frequency response created by the different speaker placement.

 

[bonzo75]

A good question. Maybe the same way our two ears perceive a single vocalist or a single instrument as sounding natural?

Should the recording system (one mic or two mics) follow the number of ears (2) or the number of music sources (here, 1)?

It seems that stereo recording and stereo playback is needed to generate a sense of sonic depth and the illusion of a wide soundstage.

Mono you will often find more coherent, instead of separated stage, and more depth. Just seamless and speakers disappear easily. Very few people have access to good monos. Most mono recordings in the modern era are done in stereo and then copied to mono. The mono recordings to get are from the mono era. But very few will be in good condition