Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners, which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early 60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems. For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even in the studio when the stereo mixes were done. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote: I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
In article
, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote: On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote: I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners, which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early 60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems. For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even in the studio when the stereo mixes were done. Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect" to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO. Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example. Stephen |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
On Apr 26, 7:09*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Apr 26, 2:29 pm, Boon wrote: On Apr 26, 1:20 pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote: I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners, which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early 60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems. For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even in the studio when the stereo mixes were done. Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect" to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO. Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example. Elvis probably sued them. I saw him last week at a flea market buying socks. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
On Apr 26, 9:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Apr 26, 7:09*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Apr 26, 2:29 pm, Boon wrote: On Apr 26, 1:20 pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote: I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners, which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early 60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems. For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even in the studio when the stereo mixes were done. Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect" to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO. Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example. Elvis probably sued them. I saw him last week at a flea market buying socks. That's funny...just a few minutes ago I was telling someone about Scott Walker's "Jesse" from the album The Drift. Elvis was actually born a twin, but the other baby was stillborn. Still, they named it Jesse. Apparently Elvis used to "talk" to Jesse a lot when he was feeling lonely. Anyway, the Scott Walker song is told from the viewpoint of Elvis as he's watching 9/11 unfold on his TV. At the end of the song he screams to Jesse, "I'm the only one left alive! I'm the only one left alive!" It's a ****ed up, brilliant song. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mono Soundstage?
On Apr 26, 6:24*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote: On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote: I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason. Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage? On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners, which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early 60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems. For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even in the studio when the stereo mixes were done. Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect" to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO. I can remember hearing some back in the 70s, but I haven't seen any in a really long time. And yes, they sounded dreadful. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB: Aragon Soundstage | Marketplace | |||
Sound on Soundstage | Pro Audio | |||
Alanis on Soundstage | Pro Audio | |||
Alanis on Soundstage | Pro Audio | |||
Soundstage | Audio Opinions |