Rhinophonic Wonderment (and why mono sucks)

Postby **lukpac** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:22 pm

Ron wrote:I think this helps explain our difference of opinion. As I live in an apartment, I do most of my *real* [as opposed to background] music listening via headphones. In that environment twin track stereo's a no-go. But providing the mono/stereo mixes are the same, sure, stereo's cool [providing you push the mono button].

That's where we differ then, as I have no problems listening to twin-track mixes under headphones, especially in a case like Stax, where there's a fair amount of leakage going on.

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:46 pm

Well, *that* being the case, then we simply flat out disagree. Which is cool. As long as we both agree that I'm right and you're wrong--just like last year's thread on jewel cases vs. mini-LPs. I was right then, too. Mini-LP cases are waaay cooler than jewel cases. Everybody thinks so. Except you. That's why you're wrong. DEAR GOD I'M GONNA BE SUSPENDED OR WORSE YET BANNED. I'M A CYBER MENACE.

Postby **lukpac** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 10:27 pm

Finally listened to the MP3. Someone thought that sounded good?

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:46 pm

Ron wrote:Well, *that* being the case, then we simply flat out disagree. Which is cool. As long as we both agree that I'm right and you're wrong--just like last year's thread on jewel cases vs. mini-LPs. I was right then, too. Mini-LP cases are waaay cooler than jewel cases. Everybody thinks so. Except you. That's why you're wrong. DEAR GOD I'M GONNA BE SUSPENDED OR WORSE YET BANNED. I'M A CYBER MENACE.

In your dreams! :lol:

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:52 pm

RDK wrote:Luke, there's not much to discuss. You're completely right in this regard. The funny thing is *everyone* seems to feel just like you do except for BI who appears to love mono for mono's sake and the Both Sides Now crowd who hate mono for stereo's sake. I have a hard time even seeing the other side of the issue let alone understanding why Rhino/Inglot does it. I dig the unique mono mixes he puts out (since no one else will), but I would have liked to hear a lot more stereo (if it exists) on the Nuggets box. Sheesh...

ray

One thing stereo lovers never seem to mention are the sonic differences between stereo and mono. FWIW, I love the mono mixes. Besides, I grew up with, and have only memories of those 45s.

There are sonic nuances in the music than cannot be clearly or correctly heard wityh headphones.

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 2:56 pm

lukpac wrote:In retrospect, I'm not even quite sure why I brought it up, as I've heard that it's somewhat of a political issue anyway, and that it's not Bill's decision to make. I'm not sure to what extent that's true, but it adds another dimension to the story. It doesn't seem to explain certain odd situations (Sam & Dave in stereo whilst Otis Redding was in mono in the same reissue series - same studio, same time frame, etc).

Also, just to prove I'm not a total mono hater, here are a few noteworthy mono selections. That's not to say I'd take mono over stereo in all cases (or even most), but...:

- Surrealistic Pillow
- My Generation (give me mono)
- The Who Sell Out
- Satisfaction/Get Off Of My Cloud/Mother's Little Helper
- Up On The Roof

Yes, I realize that's quite a wacky list.

Well, if you are referring to the Sam & Dave "Sweat & Soul" anthology, it is mono.

I thought you liked the stereo "Satisfaction".

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 3:08 pm

Ron wrote:
lukpac wrote:If something is clearly different in mono, fine. Like the intro to Soul Man. But when everything else is the same, picking mono over stereo doesn't seem very smart at all.

Picking mono "doesn't seem very smart at all"? Why? All things being equal [as you say], why pick *stereo*? And we're talking Stax here, right? Two-track Stax stuff *should* get most people clamoring for mono--what with vocals hard right and disembodied horns hard left. The reason the rhythm section's so up front in the mix [which pissed Atlantic off] was that the Stax sound was designed as an ensemble with the vocal and rhythm section as "one piece." Listening to the stereo mix of early Stax stuff, I'm conscious of the individual parts at the expense of the sound as a whole--as "one piece." Additionally, as there are so few instruments, it's not like anything's buried in the mono mix.

Maybe it was a northern/southern thing. Perhaps the southern soul asthetic was to accentuate that rhythm, and the Atlantic guys in NY concentrated a bit more on the melody and song. Kind of a white/black thing. The southern whites just had the feel for it more than the northern ones.

Maybe the records with the heavier rythmic mono mixes were harder to cut, and that's why the Atlantic guys didn't like it.

It is clear to me Atlantic had a preference for stereo when Stax almost defiantly produced mono single mixes.

Postby **lukpac** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 3:19 pm

Grant wrote:Well, if you are referring to the Sam & Dave "Sweat & Soul" anthology, it is mono.

The CD reissues of the individual albums are stereo, except for one song on the first one.

I thought you liked the stereo "Satisfaction".

I do, but I also appreciate the mono as well.

Postby **lukpac** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 3:29 pm

Grant wrote:Maybe it was a northern/southern thing. Perhaps the southern soul asthetic was to accentuate that rhythm, and the Atlantic guys in NY concentrated a bit more on the melody and song. Kind of a white/black thing. The southern whites just had the feel for it more than the northern ones.

I'd hardly say it was a "white/black thing", as Jim Stewart, Steve Cropper, Duck Dunn, Wayne Jackson et al were all white. And there were plenty of blacks in NYC.

Maybe the records with the heavier rythmic mono mixes were harder to cut, and that's why the Atlantic guys didn't like it.

It is clear to me Atlantic had a preference for stereo when Stax almost defiantly produced mono single mixes.

I don't want to sound too harsh, Grant, but you're clearly not paying attention. Many of the Stax releases are essentially identical in mono and stereo, other than one being mono and the other being stereo. And in many cases, the stereo mixes actually seem to have *more* bottom end than the monos. That could perhaps be nothing more than a difference in mastering, but nevertheless, it still disagrees with the notion that the mono mixes were more "heavy".

Can anyone give me a good reason why Try A Little Tenderness has been in mono on most (all?) of the Rhino issues? The EQ on the stereo is thicker, both have the same amount of hiss, and the various levels are basically the same. The vocal is even centered on the stereo.

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:47 pm

lukpac wrote:
Grant wrote:I thought you liked the stereo "Satisfaction".

I do, but I also appreciate the mono as well.

Are we talking about the stereo remix or the original?

Cause the remix was pointless, IMO.

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 4:50 pm

lukpac wrote:Yes, I realize that's quite a wacky list.

I'd add the first two Doors albums to that list.

The white album in mono is also interesting.

Postby **lukpac** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:01 pm

Patrick M wrote:Are we talking about the stereo remix or the original?

Cause the remix was pointless, IMO.

Original.

The SACD version is pretty stupid, to say the least.

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:53 pm

lukpac wrote:
Grant wrote:Maybe it was a northern/southern thing. Perhaps the southern soul asthetic was to accentuate that rhythm, and the Atlantic guys in NY concentrated a bit more on the melody and song. Kind of a white/black thing. The southern whites just had the feel for it more than the northern ones.

That was my point! It isn't a race thing, but a southern one. I *did* mention in so many words that the southern whites did feel the rhythm...

I'd hardly say it was a "white/black thing", as Jim Stewart, Steve Cropper, Duck Dunn, Wayne Jackson et al were all white. And there were plenty of blacks in NYC.

Oh, I know better!

I don't want to sound too harsh, Grant, but you're clearly not paying attention. Many of the Stax releases are essentially identical in mono and stereo, other than one being mono and the other being stereo. And in many cases, the stereo mixes actually seem to have *more* bottom end than the monos. That could perhaps be nothing more than a difference in mastering, but nevertheless, it still disagrees with the notion that the mono mixes were more "heavy".

Your opinion, guy! Oh, and i've been paying attention! You know I will always disagree with you on this issue. Tho they may may be the same mix, there are clearly sonic differences between the stereo and mono that warrant using one mix over the other.

Can anyone give me a good reason why Try A Little Tenderness has been in mono on most (all?) of the Rhino issues? The EQ on the stereo is thicker, both have the same amount of hiss, and the various levels are basically the same. The vocal is even centered on the stereo.

Tsk-tsk!

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:31 pm

lukpac wrote:The SACD version is pretty stupid, to say the least.

What, you don't like simulated fake stereo?

Ryan

Postby **lukpac** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 6:40 pm

Grant wrote:Your opinion, guy! Oh, and i've been paying attention! You know I will always disagree with you on this issue. Tho they may may be the same mix, there are clearly sonic differences between the stereo and mono that warrant using one mix over the other.

But that's the whole problem - in many cases there aren't. And even when there *are* some differences, generally they aren't that drastic. Nor do they always necessarily favor the mono, as Rhino generally goes.

Besides, I think it's pretty fair to say that exclusively using mono over stereo when both could be utilized in different places is a pretty stupid practice. Why couldn't stereo be used on LP reissues and mono used on comps, or vice versa?