Rhinophonic Wonderment (and why mono sucks)

[lukpac]

What, you don't like simulated fake stereo?

Well, I don't like that either, but the SACD mix *is* true stereo.

[Rspaight]

Hence, "simulated fake" stereo. As in real stereo designed to sound like fake stereo. These are JOKES, boy! LAUGH!

Ryan

[Patrick M]

That's a great .sig.

[Ron]

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.

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

Oh, I'm sure it's very possible that there existed a preference among southerners for strong rhythm [and conversely a northern preference for vocals], but in this case I've always felt the reason was the respect the vocalists had for the Stax rhythm section--that as great as those vocalists were, I think there was an awareness among them that without that incredible groove they might not have had all those hits.

As regards this mono/stereo debate, I think this discussion of the Stax twin-track mixes is instructive. Whereas, as Grant says, there may be subtle differences between the mono/stereo, for the sake of argument let's say the mixes are identical. That being the case, then Luke's argument for the release of the stereo mixes makes sense as pushing the mono button provides a "accurate" mono mix. It's pointless to argue that one is "better" than the other, so in this case I think a preference for one over the other can be accounted for in differences in personality. I wonder if more analytical types might prefer the stereo as it's easier to isolate individual instruments and vocals--the mono mix better serves those who want to snap their fingers and groove to the sound as a "whole." It's tougher for me, at least, to groove to the song in a twin-track mix--too many isolated parts seem to get in the way.

[Rspaight]

That's a great .sig.

Thanks. Almost as good as your avatar.

Hard part's gonna be to find new ones each week. We'll see how long it remains fun...

Ryan

[lukpac]

I'd say that not only do I like the ability to isolate things in stereo, but that for me it's *easier* to "groove to the sound" in stereo. That is, chances are if there are both mono and stereo mixes, more or less "equal", I get more "aural enjoyment" out of the stereo. I think in some respects (for me, anyway), it's easier to get "into" the music with stereo, whereas with mono it's more of a "this music is coming from over there" idea.

[lukpac]

"If the computer says time and time again that they're the same that simply tells me that the computer isn't the end all and be all and isn't as accurate as mine and several other members systems."

Perhaps Dave should think about what he's writing before it says it over and over again.

"If I keep saying it, it *must* be true."

Refresher: The same digital data can sound different depending on how it is written and read. Thus, while two CDs might sound different on one system, they might sound the same on a different (ie, *better*) system, as the data itself is the same. It's kind of like the same words being on two pieces of paper. They are typed on one piece, handwritten on another.

[Rspaight]

What always struck me about that whole thing was the implication that better computer equipment (of the caliber of Dave's ears) would resolve the "difference" between the two versions -- "Are you going to trust my ears or a computer program?"

If they're coming out identical, that's almost by definition the final word, because it's impossible that they'd be identical by random chance. Whatever (if anything) is different has nothing to do with the data.

So my money's on the computer program.

Ryan

[Ron]

Funny signature, Ryan. But "random" quote? I Think Not.

[lukpac]

What always struck me about that whole thing was the implication that better computer equipment (of the caliber of Dave's ears) would resolve the "difference" between the two versions -- "Are you going to trust my ears or a computer program?"

If they're coming out identical, that's almost by definition the final word, because it's impossible that they'd be identical by random chance. Whatever (if anything) is different has nothing to do with the data.

I think that's a good point, one I unfortunately never put forward. It's not improbable that (due to whatever reasons), two things that are identical can be read differently. Yet the probability that two different things could somehow mutate themselves into one and the same (every time) is essentially zero.

[Grant]

It's pointless to argue that one is "better" than the other, so in this case I think a preference for one over the other can be accounted for in differences in personality. I wonder if more analytical types might prefer the stereo as it's easier to isolate individual instruments and vocals--the mono mix better serves those who want to snap their fingers and groove to the sound as a "whole." It's tougher for me, at least, to groove to the song in a twin-track mix--too many isolated parts seem to get in the way.

Well, Ron, I happen to be a very analytical person who is always looking at detail. Sometimes I sit still and critique the sound, and sometimes I groove to the sound. But, man, I do vinyl to CD-R transfers. I am very analytical, and have a high concentration level.

I don't dance.

[Grant]

I'd say that not only do I like the ability to isolate things in stereo, but that for me it's *easier* to "groove to the sound" in stereo. That is, chances are if there are both mono and stereo mixes, more or less "equal", I get more "aural enjoyment" out of the stereo. I think in some respects (for me, anyway), it's easier to get "into" the music with stereo, whereas with mono it's more of a "this music is coming from over there" idea.

I may be an analytical person, but I generally don't like to pick out instruments in a mix. I get off on hearing how things sit together in a mix, or how musicians play as a unit. I tend to go for sonic impact, the feeling that a cohisive musical statement was made. It's why I don't like using headphones. In fact, I like to listen to mono so I can NOT concentrate on the individual elements.

So, Dr. Ron, what can you say about my personality or Luke's?

[Rspaight]

I think that's a good point, one I unfortunately never put forward.

I doubt it would have made any difference.

As far as mono/stereo goes, I tend to prefer a "real" stereo mix first, then mono, then twin-track. I personally find the bigger soundstage and imaging of a good stereo mix more engaging.

Twin-track just sounds fake and gimmicky, especially when it's like the early Dylan records where the vocals are in one channel and the guitar and harmonica in the other. Fifteen-foot arms and lips! I'll take mono over something like that in a heartbeat.

There are exceptions, too. The original stereo mix of "Satisfaction," for example, completely cuts the balls off the poor song. It's interesting to listen to, but I can't imagine "grooving" to it. The new stereo version sounds fake-y. The mono works best for me.

Ryan

[Ron]

So, Dr. Ron, what can you say about my personality or Luke's?

Well, I haven't practiced professionally in quite some time, but Dr. Ron's opinion based on this mono/stereo discussion as well as the hundreds of other posts you two guys have written is that you're both looney as noodles. Besides, my best pal Ryan agrees with me. You simply can't "groove" to twin-track.

[lukpac]

It should be known that 'Dr. Ron' is nothing but a quack. His "schooling" was from Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. By day he's a "doctor", while by night he pushes penis enlargement creams on Japanese infomercials. And on top of all that, the tabloids are reporting that the little boy he was seen "hugging" *wasn't* his nephew.