I don't ever remember there being any issue with playing mono records on stereo phonographs, but apparently there was at one time a recommendation NOT to do the reverse. In other words, NOT to play a stereo record on a mono record player because it would ruin the record, or something like that. But I am not old enough to remember those days, so I don't really know this information for sure, firsthand, myself.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Stereo songs with main vocals on one channel only
- Thread starter stevations
- Start date
True; playing mono records on a stereo player was never an issue (in fact they sound dandy); this was just a con-man trying to confuse buyers into thinking they were getting stereo LPS cheap. Also right about the warnings back in the early days about not playing stereo discs on a mono player, because mono cartridges of that time could not properly track the two-sided stereo grooves and would simply plow through them, damaging the record. It was possible to install a stereo cartridge into some mono players (a practice the record companies advised); though many of the tone arms around then were such heavy blunderbusses I wonder how much good it really did...
Last edited:
It was the old crystal phono cartridges that would tear up stereo records. Those were designed with a tracking force of as high as 12 grams and were too stiff to respond to vertical movement, thus the vertically modulated L-R information on stereo records would get torn up. The newer ceramic cartridges in mono record players had a slightly lower tracking force ("only" 6 grams) and had some "give" in the up-and-down direction to allow them to ride over the L-R information without damaging it.
And as for adding stereo reverb to mono recordings, I did that with an acoustically recorded Victrola 78 from 1917 with surprisingly good results:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChpbkY7Ddk
The reverb helps to make up for the lack of sensitivity of the acoustic recording -- it fill in the gaps of the low-level detail that the horn and needle on the disc cutter simply couldn't capture. That's what allowed me to get away with a relatively high amount of stereo reverb effect. If you try to do the same thing with an already-detailed hi-fi mono recording, you end up with that overblown "singing in the bathroom" effect that plagued the "Electronic Stereo" Frank Sinatra LPs.
And as for adding stereo reverb to mono recordings, I did that with an acoustically recorded Victrola 78 from 1917 with surprisingly good results:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChpbkY7Ddk
The reverb helps to make up for the lack of sensitivity of the acoustic recording -- it fill in the gaps of the low-level detail that the horn and needle on the disc cutter simply couldn't capture. That's what allowed me to get away with a relatively high amount of stereo reverb effect. If you try to do the same thing with an already-detailed hi-fi mono recording, you end up with that overblown "singing in the bathroom" effect that plagued the "Electronic Stereo" Frank Sinatra LPs.
P
Pat3
Guest
I have a few of those fake stereo records, mostly christmas and various oldies etc. Most of them sound like they are basically mono with more treble on one channel and more bass on the other channel. I have a fake stereo of Bing Crosbys christmas album. It sounds OK but my mono vinyl of the same album sounds much warmer to the ears. If you listen to the ending of the song "I am the Walrus" by the Beatles, when they sing "Sitting in my English Garden" the song suddenly switches from true stereo into fake stereo with bass on one channel and the treble on the other. I'm not sure why they did that, I guess for some special effect. But on the most part I prefer to to hear a song the way it was originally recorded or intended. The early split track recordings of the Beatles were meant to be heard on AM radio or mono record players and thats the way they sound best, in the original mono.
For anyone that's interested, DoctorKmix posted 5 new remixes over the weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DoctorKmix
George Martin always said that he recorded the first two Beatles albums with the extreme vocal/instrumental separation in order to create better mono mixes. He even tried to do the same thing on "Rubber Soul". Both of the first two albums were recorded on two-track machines (they started using four-track with "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in late 1963), so doing a decent stereo record would have been quite difficult. But back then, the Abbey Road producers really weren't concerned with stereo, as mono was the standard of the day. Martin realized that by putting the vocals on one channel and the instrumentation on the other, he could more effectively mix the vocals into the song. He has said that he never intended the two-track recordings to be heard in their stereo form, which is why the original CD releases of their early albums were available only in mono.
I'm sure many other producers of the day had the same idea, which is probably the reason for vocal/instrument separation.
On a side note, unfortunately, multitrack stems of the Beatles' pre-1964 material no longer exist, as Abbey Road policy then was to reuse tape. Some songs, such as "Love Me Do" and "She Loves You" only exist in their mono master form. Therefore, there is no way to do a clean remix to make these songs true stereo, and even if there was, the parties involved would probably never allow it, as they prefer to keep the original mixes, save for special projects like "Love", the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" and "Rock Band".
I'm sure many other producers of the day had the same idea, which is probably the reason for vocal/instrument separation.
On a side note, unfortunately, multitrack stems of the Beatles' pre-1964 material no longer exist, as Abbey Road policy then was to reuse tape. Some songs, such as "Love Me Do" and "She Loves You" only exist in their mono master form. Therefore, there is no way to do a clean remix to make these songs true stereo, and even if there was, the parties involved would probably never allow it, as they prefer to keep the original mixes, save for special projects like "Love", the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" and "Rock Band".
Last edited:
On most older phono cartridges, the diamond "LP" needle was used for both stereo and mono; the other needle was usually synthetic sapphire and was used for 78 rpm discs. Ceramic refers to the type of cartridge then used in most players other than audiophile components (not necessarily low-end players; it was also used in many expensive consoles and those huge stereo-radio-TV combos.) It replaced the crystal cartridges of the mono era, and was itself replaced in higher-end equipment by magnetic cartridges.
Not sure how this thread turned from a discussion of record vocals to all this tech-talk...well, at least nobody's dragged Duck Dynasty or the pros and cons of Obamacare into it. (YET...)
If I am reading this thread right, then I would probably be better off getting the 1987 mono CDs of the Beatles first two albums, Please Please Me and With the Beatles, than the 2009 remixes of both. Otherwise, I would probably be better off buying the '09 remixes of the remainder of their catalog. At least for those of us second-generation Beatles fans, we never really had to deal with all those ripoff American LPs designed to stretch a certain number of songs over more albums.
Over the years there have been countless attempts at making a stereo version of "She Loves You". This latest attempt involves overdubbing newly recorded instruments over the mono track, and then making up a hoax video showing it being played from a fake "long lost master tape":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-YtTE68ljo
Or you could track down the 2009 "Mono" box set, which features all of their mono releases (up to the White Album) completely remastered. And the mono versions of their albums are mixed differently. "Sgt. Pepper", for example, sounds notably different and has a bit more punch that is missing from the stereo release. But that's one of those debatable issues among the purists.
Another option would be the Capitol Records box sets, which feature both mono and stereo versions of those infamous American releases. Or, if you don't mind going the bit torrent route, there are quite a few downloadable versions of some of their original vinyl, in every available mix and format that have been around for years and got rave reviews from fans prior to the release of the 2009 remasters.
Keep in mind that the 1987 mono CDs have been much-derided for their weak sound quality. The remasters do sound so, so much better. And "A Hard Day's Night" and "Beatles For Sale" do not have the extreme two-track separation that "Please Please Me" and "With The Beatles" have. Nonetheless, you could probably find them pretty easily in second-hand stores, as these versions are now obviously out of print.
Re-reading your comment reminded me of the early stereo era where whole labels were set up around making gimmicky stereo albums. The first was Audio Fidelity, who made their mark with an LP of train sounds crossing your living room. The most successful was probably Enoch Light's Command Records, whose "Persuasive Percussion" (and endless sequels) was used by hi-fi dealers to demonstrate stereo to prospective customers. Time Records was another similar label.
Every company had a trade mark to imply their stereo was stereo-er than anyone else's...Besides Stereo Action, RCA Victor had Living Stereo; Columbia had 360 Degree Sound, Liberty had Visual Sound Stereo, Mercury Perfect Presence Sound, ABC-Paramount Full Color Fidelity, Warner Bros. Vitaphonic Stereo, Epic Full Radial Stereo, Dot Ultra-Stereo, United Artists Wall-To-Wall Stereo, London FFSS (Full Frequency Stereophonic Sound.) Capitol, unfortunately, had FDS. That's Full Dimensional Stereo; let's keep this clean, guys. But they did have to give that one up.
On smaller labels I've seen everything from Studio Stereo to (on a gospel label) Sacred Stereo. Thou shalt change thine needle religiously to protect thy records...
Don't forget "Phase 4 Stereo" -- despite the name, it was just plain 2-channel stereo, not any kind of quadraphonic / 4-channel recording method.
Right you are! That was London too, their entry in the ping-pong stereo derby. It was a long time until I learned the meaning of the abbreviation "i.m. 20 c.r." that went with it: "Individually monitored 20 channel recording." In other words, 20 channels, each with its own VU meter.
RCA Victor really went overboard on techno-spinach trademarks..."Dynagroove" recording, "Gruve-Gard" (records with raised edges to help prevent discs scuffing against each other on a changer,) and anti-static "Miracle Surface" containing "Agent 317-X" (who I think used to hang out with Maxwell Smart and "99.")
It is interesting to note that certain ideas never caught on, yet you can give them a different name, and they become successful. For example, "quadrophonic" never really took hold, but call it "surround sound," and it becomes popular. My guess is that "quadrophonic" implied four big bulky speakers hanging in each corner of your room (or just sitting on the floor in each corner of the room), while "surround sound" just seems much less intrusive. It may be because the speakers themselves are much smaller these days.
Dynagroove was RCA's method of pre-distorting the audio on the LP in an attempt to cancel out the distortions inherent in consumer-grade turntables with ceramic cartridges typical of the day. Ordinary listeners never noticed the difference, and audiophiles complained loudly that it degraded the quality of their high-end phono cartridges which did not suffer from the problems that the Dynagroove method was trying to cancel out.
Right again. It's been at least 40 years since RCA made a Dynagroove record...in fact RCA itself doesn't really exist any more...and those guys are still kvetching about it on their forum pages. Give it up, already! But I did find one great quote at one of those sites.
"The only person who needs to be satisfied how their audio system sounds is YOU."
I have many old Allied, Radio Shack and Lafayette catalogs with quad equipment. I asked someone what ever happened to quad and they said there was some audio problems when radio stations transmitted quad. I forget the exact answer but I think it caused the regular stereo listening some problems and most people were listening in stereo, not quad. I remember my older brother setting up speakers all over the living room for some late night network quad broadcast which used the tv audio as the center channel and the fm broadcasting for the other speakers.
This is pretty way-out but irresistible. RCA (them again) in the early 60's actually made console stereos that included a plate reverb! Sort of DIY fake-stereo. Here's a You Tube clip showing one "in action." Wish the audio quality was better so the effect was more evident...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32OU48Xw2-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32OU48Xw2-8
- Status