I love how hard he has to try to be polite in replying to this.

When I worked in the hi Fi trade many years ago I came across a customer who had an astonishing mono system. Apart from the biggest record collection going back over many years and some records larger than a now standard 12" discs. He owned a single loudspeaker which was a Tannoy in a hand made Guy Roy Fountain enclosure driven from a mono valve amp. Over the years I knew this man he taught me more about listening to music than I learnt as a sales person. The art of listening is to enjoy the composition and composer rather than the mono stereo debate. When I sit in a bath and enjoy music on my old Mono radio it does not detract from my music pleasure.

One of the first bands that made good use of stereo was queen. Heck they did it better than most bands these days.

Half a decade? More like half a century :-)

I have a bunch of old classical recordings on LP. I liked to go with the ones that used a single pair of mics, or as few as possible. You could “see” each instrument in the orchestra left to right- front to back because everything arrived at the mic as you would hear it. The extreme opposite would be Frank Zappa once saying that he would like to record an orchestra with each instrument being separately mic’d, and he would then place them where he wanted in the mix.

I've been listening to old high-fidelity 33 1/3 and slightly newer stereo / mono recordings on a webcor musical was a decent push-pull amp and my God I can't believe the natural bass , the highs and I'll be even got a blown or a broken right tweter I just cannot believe this record player sounds so enchanting

Great, informative videos. Thumbs up. This might seem like a simple question, but why do modern subs have two ports on the back? Both my Jamo and Klipsch subs have it. Since we only use the LFE port, what's the point of the other one ? Thanks and Regards, Ehsan

Get yourself a good classroom record player with 6" by 9" full range speaker , that will give good sound and it will be mono. I had 1938 General Electric floor standing radio with a full range 15" speaker best sounding AM broadcast and shortwave sound I've heard. And to this day it can't be beat by anything!

Another good debate made clearer, tks Paul!

My onkyo tx sr608 blew a few channels i had one in my Amazon cart someone swooped before i could snag it I need pc input what receivers are comparable to my onkyo that will let my plug into pc input please help been searching all morning

As a professional recording engineer I once carried out an experiment with a 5 piece band and each member had their own microphone.. several for the drummer... and the recordings were handled separately on 5 mono channels ... the drummer mikes were down mixed to one channel .. using an upper limit of 120dB for dynamic range I played each channel back through 5 200watt amps and speakers placed exactly where each band member was ... I tell you what ... I could NOT tell the difference between the live performance and the playback ...! This proved that there IS only one way to properly record AND play back in true audio imaging ( I refuse to call it stereo ... that's old school !!)

I love hearing how you all "picture" the music. The compulsion so many audiophiles have for dimentionality and imaging fascinates me; Imaging isn't anything I really give any special attention. I'm reminded of visual art and how most westerners in the 18th and 19th centuries believed the the more lifelike the resemblance, the better the painting.

Is mono better than stereo? ... No. However, it is true that many early recordings were used to maximize the "separation" of different instruments rather than use the format to construct the image of the performance itself. Many people did not even understand that the purpose of stereo was to construct this image and were just fascinated that different sounds were emitted from the two speakers. Mono IS better than poorly recorded stereo. Early Bob Dylan did not require stereo at all. How far could he be away from his harmonica or guitar? Stereo is more suited to orchestras and concert bands, but can also be effective for groups of five to ten musicians or vocalists. With groups of three or less is unnecessary other than picking up the ambiance of the room they are in. Most modern recording are isolated tracks that are mixed on a console in a studio, so the image is actually created by the mixing engineer.

What a coincidence. Just yesterday (before seeing this vid) I noticed how different the Beatles recordings were. I recently installed a relatively cheap set up with an old Aurex power/pre combo powering a set of mk2 ELAC debut 5's and the matching sub... and the difference is crazy, to the point where what didn't bother before does now! Not that I prefer one or the other, perhaps I don't really have the gear to A-B recordings for preference, still, thought I'd thank you for answering the coincidental issue lol.

Around the time surround sound came out I had this idea to do just the oppisite. Seperate sound using both mono and stereo. More recently I have been considering doing this in a custom build or homemade jam box. Unlike a boombox that has depth, a jam box is tall and flat. My idea would include the basic 4 inch speakers as mid range and the tweets but in the center a single 8 inch sub woofer powered by a seperate amp. This would be the mono working with the stereo to get a dedicated sound from each speaker 5 total. So my answer to this question of mono vs/ stereo is why not do both?

I LOVE well mixed mono. I loathe a lot of early "stereo" panning particularly the early stereo Beatles as mentioned. I have recorded and mixed in & to mono and it's really hard to do well. A well recorded and mixed classic stereo image, (band on stage from the audience perspective though with the usual bass freqs up the middle), is a thing of beauty. A well mixed binaural recording with decent headphones can be wonderful, (trickier to do well though). Many quad recordings are incredible experiences that improve on the stereo while many others aren't. I'm keen on 5.1 music though - too much scope for dicking around. Well explained Paul. Thanks for a rare dose of bias confirmation!

Great presentation. Nice sound man 👨 👍

You're all preoccupied with audio gimmicks. I still use Edison Cylinders on my phonograph like my great, great, great, great grandpappy did before me. And I'll do so until the day I die! Hand cranked wax cylinders forever!!! Lol

I can understand why the one who asked the question think that stereo is just a gimmick if he's using the early Beatles stereo recordings as a reference. I too hated the type of stereo that has the vocals on one channel and the instrumentals on the other. For what I understand, the original intent for what stereo recorded music supposed to be is to mimic what a conductor in an orchestra is listening to. I would recommend him to listen to some of the early stereo recording demo records of orchestra music from the late 1950s. That will sure open his ears up.

Damn. I could listen to this guy all day.

Paul, how about the sounding from a stereo player out to mono device like only 1 channel pre-amp & 1 power amp? Means stereo virtually.

George Martin once said,“You've never really heard Sgt Pepper until you've heard it in mono.” It's been known for some time now that the mono mixes were the only mixes that the Beatles themselves oversaw. Mono was the standard, back then: it was the one the band itself knew, having grown up with it. The only Beatles album that was designed and conceived in stereo was Abbey Road, the last one they made.

Great Explanation ! 👍👍

What is your take on Dolby Atmos to try and simulate 3D sound?

Fix that intermittent shop lamp! :)

Was this recorded in your new building? If so it's sad to see that one of your ceiling lights is intermittent already.

I agree with the caller... It seems I'm way more OCD or something than I originally thought back then as a youth... but bad stereo placement used to drive me nuts in the 70s and/or with Vinyl. So I was good with Mono. Then they started with the whole 5.1 thing.... more OCD frustration. I finally have a technically sound system in an acoustically sorted room and once I got it all right my OCD washed away and all that remains is Stereo music....

why wen i put my radio in stereo i only hear one speaker in mono i hear 2 speaker help please

Back in the late 50's when stereo LP's came on the market (stereo R2R came earlier, like around 1953 but it was super expensive in the day though) so most HiFi enthusiasts still had a mono system as it took literally 2 of everything but the tape deck itself. Stereo LP didn't come until 1958 and all we had at that time was 2, or 3 channel decks to record stereo to for many studios. 4 track came along and it was all many had in the 60's, though some of the earliest 4 track machines were from 1959 or so. During that time, stereo was rather wide with many instruments on one channel or the other and many bands, recording engineers treated stereo as an afterthought as well. It would take until the advent of the 8 track machines and later 16 and 24 track machines before stereo became less of a gimmick as in some cases, a ping, pong effect was used on many a pop album. That was where stereo was often treated as a gimmick. Play a Jazz or classical piece and it was treated more legitimately. to faithfully replicate the stereo image of a 4 piece jazz quartet, or an orchestra. To that end, mono when well done is very good. I use my mono switch and if everything is set up right, it comes out as a phantom source in between my two speakers. But a lot of my older jazz pressings ARE mono, but I have more stereos than mono's in my collections, be it jazz or pop or whatever. The thing is, by the 70's the gimmicky stereo was long past. The wide stereo was prevalent for a good while, especially for pop/rock material to get kids excited for stereo I believe. You just need to listen to good stereo to see what all the fuss is about. I like both in actuality. In the end, it is all about enjoying the music, right?

It's all concentrated in one basic main speaker that's my love for it I still like stereo but there's something about a good old High Fidelity tube amplifier

When I produce music (which i really must upload some day) I prefer to have most, if not all instruments panned in the center and then use effects to widen the sound-stage, such as reverb, flanges, stuff like that. That way it would sound as good in mono. Things such as an orchestra any kind of acoustic band sounds good if recorded with stereo microphones but when I hear music where instruments are hard panned to the left or right, it just sounds un-balanced. Speaking of unbalanced one thing I can't stand is mono recordings that have been processed to sound like stereo. It might sound okay through speakers, but though headphones it un-listenable.

Hi ,, I've spent my whole day on line/ KZfaq for some answers,,& I'm still stumped..what I do know is I like my high end played on quilty paper tweeters ,& midbas.in my home,,car,, truck.i like to be in the canter of the music,,I do like the fade from front to back,,side to side,,if I have to choose I would pick clearity of my music over the voulum of it,,I listen to jazz,, classical,, big band,,& rock,dubstep,yep dubstep,some of that imageing is a real treat,, it's all over the spesturm,Paul.w

If anything, stereo is a must just for halving distortion by distributing the sound on twice the number of speakers. Any level of possible spatial awareness is added bonus on top.

are you also referring to FM radio broadcast ?......

Stereo is very often a gimmick. The most are mono recordings with an artificial soundstage (panning, echo and reverb). True stereo recordings are rare. Then they are a recreation of a true soundstage in 3D, with Direction, Depth and Dimension. Recorded with two or just some microphones. You also have “stereo” recordings, which are multiple true stereo recordings on top of each other, where the instruments are placed through each other, and some instruments (mostly the solo artist or singer) are too big. And even with a true stereo recording, there is something wrong, as Paul said. The sound propagation or sound field is disturbed. In a live event there is no sweet spot, a 3D sound image everywhere. I think that’s why a recording never sounds (as) live.

Fact is, if guitars, drums, piano, etc. have been recorded with at least 2 mics to 2 separate channels, then you can hear the playback as if you were there when it was played live. You can't do it with a mono recording. A reverb effect (convolution included) added to a mono recording can create some 3D space artificially, but it's not as realistic, although it can sound pretty good. In my opinion, stereo music just sounds more pleasant, especially when softer and quieter background sounds (synths, guitars, voices) are as wide as possible, without messing up the stereo image.

I can run an arpeggio across the stereo field to attract attention to it, using our instinctive sound tracking reaction. Conversely, I can scatter that same arpeggio around the stereo field to make it less obvious.

I love a good mono mix and recoding.

Neath in South Wales is in the uk. Hope you don’t think it’s in Australia. I live about 30 miles from there.😏

Depends on the artist and the recording. Miles Davis' Bags Groove is a really good mono recording and most folks way older than me swear that Louis Prima and Count Basie sound best in mono, which I also agree.

The height/depth/width thing is only relevant to reproducing sources where you were up close, however in many live scenarios (that your trying to reproduce) you are often way back from the performers, so the difference between where the performers are is all but zero. With a large orchestra there is a bit more scope for width, however a guitar and 2 singers, with maybe a drummer, from 20 plus meters back there is basically zero width.

Just changed my audio on my android via Accessibility settings for when I watch lowfi stuffs on KZfaq with earphones so I don't make my ears left right balance worsening overtime 😅👍

I can see preferring the Beatles in mono because their stereo is so cheesy. The 50th anniversary Sgt. Pepper remix is a big improvement of the stereo in my opinion. But life ain't all Beatles. There's so much good stereo out there, as in damn near anything that wasn't recorded in the 60's. Even a lot of 60's stuff is pretty good in stereo. I recently bought the Analogue Productions SACD of Jimi Hendrix's "Axis: Bold as Love" album, which has both stereo and mono mixes, and to me the stereo is far superior to the mono.

A perfect stereo recording would be with one pair of microphones distanced exactly as far apart as the speakers it was going to be playing back on, in a room with very good acoustics.

I think done properly, and this is really hard to do, a single channel recording, single microphone, played back by carefully selected components will beat a Stereo every time.

Beatles were recorded in "LCR", and yes, it maybe considered a goofy way to interpret "stereo".

I would love mono on fm broadcast because its a mixed stereo sound in one so stereo imaging isnt cancelled out

Either mono or stereo can be better depending on the details. I would never give one an edge over the other without qualifying the statement. If you get a chance, listen to any Water Lily Acoustics recording. Kavi Alexander uses minimal mic techniques and top-level equipment including custom electronics by Tim de Paravicini. The sound quality is beyond description and the sense of space is impeccable.

I remember when I was building a budget home theater. When it came to my first piece of audio equipment. I went with the home theater receiver first. Next I was going to start buying my speakers. However my budget only allowed me to purchase one speaker at a time. I decided my first speaker was going to be the center speaker. My receiver that I had allowed me to ajust each individual channel or even go as far as turning off each individual channel. So for the longest time all my sound was in mono. Crazy thing was that my source Blu-ray player upscaled all the audio to dts master audio. But my receiver played dts master audio in mono since I only had that channel turned on at the time. I was surprised at how good mono sounded. My next speaker was the powered subwoofer. That added alot to the mix and brought everything to life. I certainly believe mono can sound good. But its hard to beat a true stereo sound if that's how the artist intended it to be. Pretty much if the artist created a mono recording. Then listen to it on a mono system. If the artist created a stereo recording. Listen to it on a stereo etc. Sorry for the long comment. Hope it makes some kind of sense. Thanks for reading.

I once bought a cassette from a singer that I like to listen to for my Nakamichi DR2. when I let it play it turned out to be a mono recording. I was disappointed. just do stereo.

Mono Ortofon or GE cartridge mounted in a mono arm, playing through a mono preamp and basic to a G 610 or K horn playing a mono disc. A stereo LP is a compromise regarding information in the groove. But, the 1st amp I ever built was a Williamson 20/20... so I am a stereo fan who gets goose bumps when I hear a good mono set up. But, I suppose the haters here have never experienced a good mono set up, and think their cheeseball Pro-Ject turntable playing through a Class D amp is hifi.

Yes, if you are recording and reproducing a solo voice or a solo small instruments. No, in all other cases! And of course, as Paul says, mono means one speaker. And stereo - again as he says- is not equal to two-channel. Stereo (from the Greek word for a solid, 3-D object) is the representation of sound in space. Those funny pop/rock two channel recordings with the instruments to the extreme left or right are not really stereophonic, because they do not give you a 3-D image. As for a mono source -it just cannot create 3D sound; what people perceive, is a creation of their minds.

Why struggle creating a 3D audio image with only 2 speakers? Don’t we have Dolby Surround for that!?

Stereo means solid soundstage....which separates the instruments and vocals as the Producer intended

i think you hit it at 5:00 in. Every instrument needs its own drivers and own musical track. That's the right way to get the sound stage to actually be perceived as different instruments in space. No need to use computers to watch your head position so it can control time delays. Need to get to a midi like recording format. I used tascam 238 8 audio recording channels played back using separate amps and speakers, marshall 4x12 and ampeg 8x10 ect . Love the idea. Can you imagine the wall off sound which would be needed for all 25 channels.

Going back some years ago I had the opportunity to listen to a mono system consisting of a single 5in Vifa midrange speaker ( considered the best of it's kind in the world at the time ) mounted open air on a flat particle board about 2ftx3ftx1in with wool padding on both sides. Speaker was mounted at an uneven location on the board. It was driven by a single ended, single channel I think 2A3 tube amp. Hi end turntable, tube preamp and cartridge. Source was a 78rpm record circa mid 1930's. Recording was of a female child's voice singing. Stand back about 6 feet or so, close eyes and you'd swear that kid was right there in front of you.

sgt.pepper is great in mono , same for pet sounds , even piper at the gates of dawn. nothing wrong with mono.

I had a AM radio in my AMC Gremlin that came from the factory with no carpet. I thought it sounded fine.

stereo does not originally mean 2 speakers : the greek root word means "solid" like in 3-dimensional .

I like this guy

Call me silly if you like. In the case of the Beatles being delivered in stereo and you want to go back to its original intended state, isn't it better to have tracks isolated to separate tracks so that it can breathe and have high resolution without competing for space? In that instance, it might be better just to put the two speakers together that were originally made for stereo and have it put together in the center. It would be monolike with higher resolution, just saying (or asking based upon a theory in my head.)

You don’t need a mono system to enjoy HiFi records. All you need is a good mono cartridge. Listened to a great 1955 recording of The Weavers at Carnegie Hall last night.

Why can't you play a mono source and use just one of your speakers centered ?

Only thing about stereo if one speaker is not working you miss out on half a song and mono broadcast to so what fm broadcast do mix the left and right together so pocket mono radio hear the left and right on one speaker like beatles this is why fm mono is better than normal mono

sounds like vr for audio

while I agree that mono can not compete with stereo for imaging that is only because I understand triangulation, the same is true that stereo can not give a true auditory image in comparison to real life. Stereo imaging is two points that are typically in the same vertical plane so in an auditory sense we have two reference points which is 2d, not 3d

Time traveller from 1966?

what! are we going backward in technology. i think he can listen in one ear. what's the point of 11.2 surround speaker?

I would imagine that it's going to take some technology akin to Star Trek's holodeck to finally get that truly immersive experience... But until that day we will have to make do with what is available now. 😐 (sigh)

Mavrinsky, leningrad phil, mono, dg tchaikovsky symphonies 5&6🐳

I used to be all in stereo, then i started listening to stuff like Steely Dan and Dire straights in DTS NeuralX, wow. Listening to stereo even with excellent soundstage isnt quite the same anymore. No offense to those that live and die by it, just the times are a changing constantly. It is also quite the experiance to watch the music around you in VR as you hear it coming in from all around you. But thats just me :P

To me the Best sound is play the way its wheres was recorded

We hear in stereo that’s why we have two eras,, let’s all save up and bye him a Cristal radio and a eyer pease or better still send him back in time he mite be happy then. ( Stereo the work of the smoke and mirrors ) give me a good stereo setup and good recording every time

Many full orchestra are recorded with just 4 mics, usually ribbons. left, right and center audience and center conductor. The L & R are rarely hard panned. A lot of modern pop stuff has hard panning and some automation that can make one feel a little woozy. Good engineers mix in mono and then carefully pan. Avoids phase issues etc.

To see in 3D you need 2 EYES . Same for Sound !

Paul has learned a lot in 5 years.

I'll stay with mono sound because all is present and in stereo one sound fades while the other sticks around and in top of that it sounds a bit distorted so not a fan of stereo although I don't hate it but definitely not preferred

once you go stereo, you'll never go back!

anyone else searching this cause they want the full experience of your laptop/pc's volume

This dispute is largely a result of an artificially created hype. If you listen to Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out in stereo US you won't want the mono versions anymore. Many Beatles albums sound better in stereo. And if you don't like wide panning, there's an equalizer for that.

I think mono is for people with 1 ear right ? Why we have 2?

Quad was a gimmick, stereo is not. To properly listen to mono you need a mono cartridge but not a mono system. Just feed the cartridge to one channel of your stereo and listen through that speaker. The only way I know to do that with digital is to us a splitter in reverse, or in my case using a computer as my digital source, set the computer output for mono. You've all seen the old 78 rpm records, they sound absolutely fantastic, when properly equalized, through one speaker. I say when properly equalized, the RIAA curve we use now was not standardized until the mid 1950's. Before then each record company had their own equalization curve. This is why tone controls were first put on preamplifiers, to "re-equalize" for different recording curves. If you don't want to play 78s from the '40s, tone controls are unnecessary. And, yes, these equalization curves are necessary to make a playable record. All the Beatles records, except for the last two (I think), were recorded in mono, and should be listened to in mono. Those "stereo" abominations with the voices on one side and instruments were just a scheme to sell more records that were now supposedly in stereo.

Mono vs Stereo is a massive topic and it basically revolves around mastering and sound engineering. With a mono recording you usually have a band in a room with 1 mic. It is a pain in the butt to do because everything has to be positioned and recorded perfectly because you can't edit the audio the same way. What you record is what you get. But when a mono recording is done right, you get room details and a certain harmony/naturalness to the music that you simply can't achieve with stereo. The problem with stereo is that you are taking multiple instruments as separate tracks and then you try to throw those individual tracks together to make a cohesive harmony with 3d spacing. It can be done, but its hardly a perfect process and mistakes are often made. However, when stereo is done really really well, it offers a really unique listening experience.

Personally I don’t want to say either one is bad, A good stereo recording and a good mono recording both kick ass. Toss that Yorx receiver in the garbage and get a good system

Comparing mono to stereo is like comparing 2D to 3D. Stereo gives spacial information mono simply cannot.To me, there's no comparison. There are bad stereo mixes; but when I hear harmonies coming from 5 different places or the same note sung or chord played in 2 or 3 places, I love it.Bass or drums through only left or right is poor recording, and headphones really make it sound bad.

A cheap way for true Mono is to move 1 speaker to the middle and disconnect the other. The Beatles Mono mixes were mixed and should be played on 1 speaker. I prefer the Stereo mixes but not all.

Ok, lets clear the air here............. First off, ANY recording made through a mixer CAN NOT create a TRUE stereo image (with height/width/depth and REAL room acoustics). What it does do, is create a stereo SOUNDSTAGE, and the two should not be confused... Stereo image can only be made with a stereo pair of mics and with NO mixing what ever.... THAT folks, is 'true stereo'... Not lots of 'mono' channels be it multi miked over an orchestra or jazz group or inputs to a mixing console in a studio and 'assembled' into a two channel 'mix down' with artificial reverb.....

I think old Hi-Fi can be

i perfer a stereo and make my sound input mono with a good eq

You've been doing this nearly half a decade wow almost 5 years I think you meant century

it takes 2 eyes set apart to judge depth.therefore it cant be done with one speaker..

If you get mono more than once you can go stereo! The best is the original recording. Mono-blocks are better.

stereo isn't a gimmick, at least not to gamers where acoustic location is vital and not possible in mono systems.

Yeah, mono is better than stereo in terms of sound stage solidness. Reason behind, mono system has no comb filtering/interference. Whenever same sound source is sent to more than one speaker (driver) there will be comb filtering. But one needs mono recording from beginning to eliminate comb filtering, mixing a pair of stereo mics on the mixer will introduce comb filtering.

Contrary to popular belief, clams are not happy.

Clam is missing a note right, blame the classical crowd who are bi-sectional for stereo.

stereo>mono

Proper stoner,,,!!! Yo im a stoner & yo dudes i could listen to this man all day long,!!! Yo hè smokes Some weed deffo,!!!!

No

mono is only for hifi/HD...stereo doesnt work in particular in HD