mono better than stereo?

woodsyi · « **on:** 23 Nov 2004, 01:34 pm »

I just picked up a 12 disc set of 10" LP's from the 50's(?) It is a set of 100 Jazz artists by RCA. I don't see any date of pressing but the notes say that most of the recordings are from the 30's and 40's and the latest date mentioned in biographical information is 1951. Oh, and they were one sale for $.99 a disc. They are in near mint condition and I am really impressed by the sound. I don't remember Ken Burns CDs sounding as good as this. Was there a time when mono was the High Fidelity sound and Stereo was a new and second best (due to implementation) format?

Dan Driscoll · « **Reply #1 on:** 23 Nov 2004, 07:42 pm »

"Mono" does not mean low fidelity. As you've found out, high quality mono recordings are very good, the equal or even better than many stereo recordings. The best recorded album in my music collection is Sonny Rollins' masterpiece, Saxophone Colossus, recorded in 1956, in mono. My copy is a mono re-issue on 200 gram vinyl and the sound quality is absolutely incredible. I'm not a huge Sonny Rollins fan, but I listen to this album regularly, simply because it sounds so good.

woodsyi · « **Reply #2 on:** 23 Nov 2004, 08:29 pm »

The sound, indeed, is very good. I also have the Collosus album (180) which I like quite a bit. If the original recordings were done with a single recording microphone, I would imagine the best we can get out of it would also be monoaural. Aside from multiple microphones and mixing process, are pressing techniques much more advanced now compared to the 40's and 50's? Are reissued records better than the original pressing? I recently obtained a lot of records in from that era (~2000). I am still sorting, culling, cleaning and archiving them. So far I have over 500 to dump. Some are just duplicates or from artists that I have no need for. Once I go through them all, I will list some to see if anybody wants them for just the cost of shipping. Hint (all Neil Diamonds and Barbara Streisands)

coffeedj · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Dec 2004, 01:00 am »

I also have found that many of my old mono recordings are absolutely superb. My favorite recording is a mono Columbia Masterworks 1953 in a Bulgarian recital hall with S. Richter playing the original Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition". Every time I hear that recording I want to stand up and cheer--the audience excitement comes through palpalably.

Inscrutable · « **Reply #4 on:** 7 Dec 2004, 10:40 am »

Not to take it marginally off-topic, but I'm curious if anyone has experience with dedicated mono cartridges? Wondering how significant a difference it makes.

Brian Clark · « **Reply #5 on:** 7 Dec 2004, 01:32 pm »

Quote from: Inscrutable

Not to take it marginally off-topic, but I'm curious if anyone has experience with dedicated mono cartridges?

I use a Denon DL-102 which is a true mono reproducer (only one coil wagging) but is also vertically compliant so no danger of inadvertenly chewing up a stereo pressing.

Surface noise is significantly lower since vertical movement produces negligible output. Also I notice bass is "sturdier" (probably due to complete lack of phasing problems on mono masters) and overall tonality is so very satisfying. I love those '50s recordings.

The 102 has a 0.7 mil spherical stylus since it was designed for mono playback of stereo records in Japanese broadcasting studios in the late '50s before they re-equipped for stereo broadcasting (using the Denon DL-103).

Dedicated mono (i.e. horizontally compliant only) cartridges, like the Ortofon CG 25 Dia, use 1 mil spherical styli. I would love to be able to compare and hear what a difference stylus size makes, riding in a different part of the groove.

I wholeheartedly recommend use of a mono cart for mono records, you will be pleasantly surprised at the difference!

Brian.