Stereo or Mono? Options

[Dude111]

Im curious what you guys prefer??

I have always preferred Mono because everything is combined together and to me sounds the best..

I didnt see any threads discussing it so i thought i'd start one and see where it goes

This post has been edited by Dude111: Aug 29 2012, 20:56

[derty2]

I am not a recording engineer, but I have always assumed that Mono was the only professional recording methodology used in studios all the way until the late 1960s.
Given my taste for authenticity, I expect to only see a Mono recording of things made before 1970 (or so).

However, I recently got a bit confused over this issue. . .
The other day I walked into a record store and casually browsed the Vinyl releases. I saw an audiophile 180g reissue of the album "Kind Of Blue" by Miles Davis (recorded in 1959).
I picked it up, inspected it, and noticed that it was labeled as Stereo !!! I asked the shop assistant how an album from 1959 can be released as Stereo ...and he did not have an informative answer to give me.

If any of you guys reading here have deep knowledge of recording history, technology and distribution, can you shed some light on all of this. Thanks.

I wish record companies and distributors always gave complete notes on the provenance of their releases, rather like the "changelog" you get with a long-standing and respected piece of software (such as foobar2000). Without such info, purchasing music seems like playing an obfuscated game of roulette.

[Porcus]

The other day I walked into a record store and casually browsed the Vinyl releases. I saw an audiophile 180g reissue of the album "Kind Of Blue" by Miles Davis (recorded in 1959).
I picked it up, inspected it, and noticed that it was labeled as Stereo !!! I asked the shop assistant how an album from 1959 can be released as Stereo ...and he did not have an informative answer to give me.

Stereo pressings hit the consumer market in 1958 (edit: Nessuno: was the 1956 recording released in 1956? Anyway, stereo pressings were available to consumers before KoB), and Kind of Blue was released in stereo (and mono).

BTW, once you had LPs marked “Stereo (also playable on mono)”, the reason being that a mono pickup had a fatter stylus which wouldn't fit every stereo LP. It could very well be that some pressings later were marked “Stereo” because they were pressed for a stereo stylus (i.e., “Stereo” meant “Don't play this with a mono pickup”, not that there was actual stereo content) -- examples, anyone?

This post has been edited by Porcus: Aug 30 2012, 10:40

[pdq]

BTW, once you had LPs marked “Stereo (also playable on mono)”, the reason being that a mono pickup had a fatter stylus which wouldn't fit every stereo LP. It could very well be that some pressings later were marked “Stereo” because they were pressed for a stereo stylus (i.e., “Stereo” meant “Don't play this with a mono pickup”, not that there was actual stereo content) -- examples, anyone?

I actually lived through the period of having to look specifically for the stereo or mono version of a record to match your hardware. My recollection was that you should not play a stereo record on some mono players because unlike a mono record, in which needle movement is strictly horizontal, a stereo record involves vertical movement as well, and some mono cartridges would damage the groove because they were not designed to move vertically.

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

BTW, once you had LPs marked “Stereo (also playable on mono)”, the reason being that a mono pickup had a fatter stylus which wouldn't fit every stereo LP. It could very well be that some pressings later were marked “Stereo” because they were pressed for a stereo stylus (i.e., “Stereo” meant “Don't play this with a mono pickup”, not that there was actual stereo content) -- examples, anyone?

I actually lived through the period of having to look specifically for the stereo or mono version of a record to match your hardware. My recollection was that you should not play a stereo record on some mono players because unlike a mono record, in which needle movement is strictly horizontal, a stereo record involves vertical movement as well, and some mono cartridges would damage the groove because they were not designed to move vertically.

All true. The good news is that playing mono records with stereo cartridges produced no such excess wear. If you tied the channels together somewhere down the chain, any false vertical signals were cancelled out.

Stereo/mono switches were ubiquitous in those days for this reason, and also because stereo FM could be noisier than the same signal in mono.

[dc2bluelight]

Stereo/mono switches were ubiquitous in those days for this reason, and also because stereo FM could be noisier than the same signal in mono.

FM Stereo requires 20dB more raw receiver "quieting" to equal noise performance in mono. It's a bandwidth thing, the L-R info is centered around a 38KHz suppressed carrier, and in the FM demodulated baseband noise rises with frequency. L+R (mono) is just plain audio modulation, so the noise issue is far less. The mono switch is still around today, but it's now called "blend", and is often an active, dynamic, non-user-adjustable reduction in stereo separation based on demodulated baseband noise, or dumber, signal strength. Full blend usually offers at least some mid-band stereo, but not much. This is one area where HD radio wins, it maintains full separation right up until the point where it stops working at all.

I mixed some live music to mono for an AM station to broadcast live a few years back. I found the mono mix to be actually more challenging than the stereo mix, giving me respect for those early recording engineers doing mono. And they often did it all with one mic, and no mixing!

[pdq]

It's a bandwidth thing, the L-R info is centered around a 38KHz suppressed carrier...

Not quite correct. The L-R signal is actually single sideband, from 38 kHz down, not centered on 38 kHz. The suppressed 38 kHz carrier is generated by frequency-doubling the 19 kHz pilot signal.

[dc2bluelight]

It's a bandwidth thing, the L-R info is centered around a 38KHz suppressed carrier...

Not quite correct. The L-R signal is actually single sideband, from 38 kHz down, not centered on 38 kHz. The suppressed 38 kHz carrier is generated by frequency-doubling the 19 kHz pilot signal.

Beg to differ, it's still pretty much double sideband suppressed carrier centered at 38KHz, always has been. The SSB (lower sideband) idea is very very recent, and not implemented or standardized yet. The concept was introduced by Frank Foti in 2010, still under test and simulation, though it looks promising. The issues mostly relate to what happens to the demodulated signal when the rf signal subjected to multipath, and how compatible is the whole idea with existing DSB-based stereo demods. If you alienate a guy with, oh lets say, a Marantz 10B, what good have you done? The existing receiver compatibility problem has not had enough attention paid to it for some time, especially with the addition of HD radio. We really don't need another compatibility issue, so testing is needed and being done now.

Until recent decades ssb has been impractical for high fidelity demodulation, and the DSB SC signal was much easier to recover using either a switching multiplexer, as the cheap and dirty way to do it. And no, the carrier isn't technically a simple doubling of the pilot, but it is phase-locked to the pilot, and pilot to subcarrier phase is darn critical.

This post has been edited by dc2bluelight: Aug 31 2012, 06:48

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

It's a bandwidth thing, the L-R info is centered around a 38KHz suppressed carrier...

Not quite correct. The L-R signal is actually single sideband, from 38 kHz down, not centered on 38 kHz. The suppressed 38 kHz carrier is generated by frequency-doubling the 19 kHz pilot signal.

Beg to differ, it's still pretty much double sideband suppressed carrier centered at 38KHz, always has been.

Agreed. FM stereo was designed to be decoded by very simple means. I'm not sure that I ever saw a decoder based on just one tube, but definitely saw many based on two (and some germanium diodes). That's just four sections of gain, which is pretty slim pick ins.

And no, the carrier isn't technically a simple doubling of the pilot, but it is phase-locked to the pilot, and pilot to subcarrier phase is darn critical.

I have seen a number of FM stereo decoders that full-wave rectified the pilot and bandpass filtered the result to create the 38 KHz. I would call that doubling.

[pdq]

And no, the carrier isn't technically a simple doubling of the pilot, but it is phase-locked to the pilot, and pilot to subcarrier phase is darn critical.

I have seen a number of FM stereo decoders that full-wave rectified the pilot and bandpass filtered the result to create the 38 KHz. I would call that doubling.

Agreed. PLL for generating the subcarrier was a relative late comer. I certainly never came across one in the '50s or '60s.

I stand corrected, however, on the SSB vs. DSB issue.