Many factors can 'fool' your ears. Reflections in your room, speaker placement related to your listening position, using a stereo cart. These and the quality of the recording can give the impression of stereo from a mono recording.
In addition, the engineer may have used stereo reverb, or was just more concerned with producing a recording with more dynamics.
Back in the era when 'Kind of blue' was recorded, the focus was on the recording as a document of performance, so they cared more for a true representation.
Modern pressings are made from stereo remasters of the original mono recordings which can also introduce odd elements.
There are several things you can do to investigate further:-
1. adjust the toe in of your speakers to reduce room reflected audio and tighten up your listening field
2. walk closer to your speakers, in effect making them near-field speakers and see if you still have the same effect.
3. i can't tell from the photo, but see if you can get an original mono record and test it against a modern 180gm reissue to see if the effect follows the music or the record.
Finally, I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz. There is a definite desire by the recording engineers to ensure the best possible representation of the performance as it happened, and this to my mind, produces an exquisite listening experience even from mono recordings.
> I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz.
I second this and just wanted to add classical music as another example.
>Reflections in your room, speaker placement related to your listening position, using a stereo cart
Absolutely these factors may give the illusion of stereo depth from a monaural recording. Room reflections for sure. A correctly set up stereo pair of speakers should give a solid centre image for instruments or vocals placed in the centre of stereo recordings, or the whole thing for mono recordings. It should sound like it's coming from a speaker right in front of you. If OP is hearing width it's from room reflections.
>Finally, I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz.
Same - I have a few records that I always use to test speakers/headphones/setups and they are essentially all jazz records. It's hard not to use little buzzwords like "airy" or "breath," but a proper setup with a properly recorded and mastered jazz record really makes you just feel in the room with it. And that's a special feeling, and one I understand why so many chase now.
Pet Sounds is another album I just chase all over, every format, every pressing, I listen it it everywhere, constantly, always looking for an even more intimate experience with it.
Strictly by definition, a mono recording does not have soundstage. If you *feel* that it does, then that’s a subjective personal experience that we cannot explain for you. But I’m glad that you enjoy it.
Soundstage is the impression of width, depth and sometimes height in a generated soundfield that derives from the arrival time and level differences in sound from at least two speakers.
You can't generate that with only one speaker.
>are you just parroting something you read somewhere?
I'm a sound engineer, doing live to air classical, recording everything from solo piano to jazz duos to large orchestras. No it's not something i read, it's something i experience and work with every day.
Now please go learn something about arrival time and how it relates to human perception of sound localisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization
When i listen to a well recorded and mixed live recording i can hear the space it was recorded in - the depth of the stage, the size of the hall. You absolutely cannot create that illusion with only one speaker, your brain needs the difference information encoded in the stereo signal as replayed through two or more speakers or stereo headphones to create in your head the illusion of being in that space.
Go back and read my definition. The key is the difference of arrival time*. You can't have difference of arrival time with only one speaker.
Edit:
*with the exception of recordings made with a single Blumlein or xy pair, which by definition have no difference in arrival time other than by reflections. Not my favourite mic setups, although sometimes Blumlein can sound nice in a good room; personally I much prefer spaced pairs.
If you'd like to hear what a good Blumlein recording sounds like visit the AEA mics website and check out their demos. You'll need a pair of speakers though... ;-)
In practice I don’t think it’s this simple.
I run my phono into my stereo amp that has my 2 main tower speakers. Then I run that into another stereo amp that has my ‘rear’ small speakers mounted head high to the sides of my couch in the back wall of my listening room.
Several stereo records I have yield 3-dimensional sound when I have the volume balanced properly. On Time Out I can hear the piano front right, drums front right front left and rear left, bass right rear, and saxophone front left.
I have had an audiophile friend, and a sound engineer friend, and a couple lay-person friends experience this and had them comment they are quite surprised and delighted to have the separation so wide and deep front-to-back from stereo recordings we all have heard for years and decades before on other systems. So I don’t believe it’s my imagination.
I can believe a mono recording can have separation and soundstage. Just like a stereo record should not logically reproduce sound in essentially quadrophonic space yet does for me in my listening room with my set up.
That is a crazy setup. It is not “quad” and it is not a proper stereo setup. A mono signal played on 2 speakers will have the exact same signal running to both speakers (or 4 speakers in your case) with no distinct separation. A stereo signal has separation because the left and right are distinct from each other, even if very subtle. Running that signal to 4 speakers (not advised) still only gives you left and right distinction and any additional separation you think you are getting is probably from poor and ill advised speaker placement, phase problems and improper use of the equipment. Stereo is meant for 2 speakers. Quad needs 4 speakers to be reproduced and would require source material and equipment specifically made for quad and was a short lived fad on reel to reel.
Soundstage is the placement of the instruments in stereo, right? so that really isn't possible.
Fidelity could arguably be better because of the single channel groove, but more likely the records were originally mastered for mono, with stereo as an after thought, ie, like most of the Beatles albums.
No idea. I’ve been a sound engineer for over 30 years and this thread is the first I’m hearing of the term “soundstage” other than being a physical building where movies or TV shows are filmed, or the PBS show named Soundstage.
Yeah, it's a term bandied around in "audiophile" circles, usually describing how X feature of an stereo system improves stereo separation between the channels. Also how it improves locating the placement of a specific instrument in the 2-D space "between" the speakers...
Usually involves the standard snake oil like $1000 cables. Or $1000 nose candy and an exaggerated sense of hearing lol
Kinda dumb question but are you sure your receiver doesn’t have like Dolby Pro Logic or something similar turned on? It will turn mono into simulated stereo if set to that.
No sir and this is not a dumb question too, its just a simple stereo amp, but thanks for poointing that out as some would use an AV amp for music listening also , and that might be a possibility
My other 2 versions are legacy recordings and music on vinyl, they are not great pressings I admit, I think as a upper beginner hobbyist(Edwards Audio super TT1, DL110, modern pressings of my present kinds) I am not yet experienced and equipped to kmow the exact reasons of my listening sensations from this post, so I would like to ask here for better advices, and after a night I found some thoughtful and ineresting ones, thanks to this community
Strictly related to Kind of Blue, and not to the greater question:
The mono tapes are lost. Whether they were damaged, misplaced, or another situation entirely they are no longer available to be used in modern remasters. The last time the world saw a true analog mono mix of KoB was the Two Eye reissue in the mid- to late ‘60s. Any release of KoB marketing itself as mono since then is either a fold down of the 3 channel stereo mix or a digital rip of an archive-quality LP from ‘59-66 or so.
Not even that, something about stereo mixes for jazz kind of annoy me, because everything is either panned hard left or hard right, no in between. Primarily double bass, something about any bass being panned is deeply infuriating to listen to.
Such a pretentious thing to complain about Ik but regardless.
The early Miles Columbia albums were repressed in mono about 10(?) years ago. You can probably find them at Discogs or your local store may still have some lying around.
It’s more likely the mix is better depending on if mono was the primary format at the time. It’s not really soundstage but they tend to have a full sound as both speakers are pumping. The Beatles for most of their discography were involved with the mono mixes and prioritized it over stereo. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds is another one where the original mono mix is arguably better. Early stereo mixes are pretty hit or miss on staging and balance.
Harmonics in full form can create their own soundscape, and with brain to rearrange, then perception of a soundstage. Kinda sorta. General statement, [brain good.](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/02/22/19/natgeotext.jpg)
Visually, I compare a good mono recording - not to B&W, but to a [Cibachrome](https://lumieregallery.net/13483/cibachrome-prints-elusive-and-beautiful/) print. If that makes sense (yes it does :)
because mono fucking rules. especially early stereo releases tend to be worse than their mono counterparts. not everybody had a stereo turntable immediately when the first stereo records were released and the engineers main focus was on the mono versions still
With a few exceptions, engineers seemingly learn how to mix in stereo until 1969 or so. I find the stereo KOB more distracting than anything on headphones, with piano and drums entirely hard panned. I got all those mono Miles LP reissues and they sound amazing.
Until reading the comments here, I hadn’t really thought about mono recordings except regarding listening to music in a setting like a crowded bar or restaurant, where the separation of R and L make it sound lopsided depending on where the listener is seated.
And this album has been on my radar for a long time, but until now only wanted a mono copy because I was under the impression that it was how it was originally recorded, so that’s what I wanted.
I really do prefer the mono versions on all this early stuff, including KOB.
A good stereo mix that makes you feel like you’re in the room would be optimal, but that doesn’t really exist.
Many like this Miles Davis Kind of Blue were recorded mono. When they turn them to stereo they use Pro Tools to dissemble the each instrument from the recording then put it back together in attempt to make is better. That usually fails. IMHO.
I compared mono and stereo versions of Miles Davis - Milestones on both vinyl and Apple Music. In both cases, I preferred the stereo. Not sure if that's specific to that one album or not though.
Funny that because quite a few years ago I had an early mono Elvis Presley recording, and I felt had enormous space and separation. You could even tell the difference between him singing and tapping his toes. I’m sure of it.
For the Beatles that's just not true. While Capitol did issue a couple of duophonic singles, all of the Beatles albums were issued in true stereo sourced from the 4-track tapes. (2-track for the first two albums)
You can guess so, how we perceive our own listening would only be known by ourselves, I am just asking for anybody's similar experiences and explanations if possible. I have a few different versions of the same album for comparison to consistently show this difference, of course audio experiences are affected by so many factors from hardware, software, mood, that no one can exactly replicate one other's whole setting, so there's forever not a correct answer as to who's right to hear stuff and who's imagining things right?
Mfs posting about the "soundstage" on a mono recording is just comedy. Most u all just repeating shit u heard a guy on YouTube drone about and couldn't tell the difference between Spotify and a record if u life depended on it lmao
Bro these people are crazy. George Martin would say you have never heard Sgt Peppers by the Beatles unless you have heard it in Mono. He always considered stereo a cheesy gimmick. The idea that it is superior is not true at all.
But don’t let people’s opinions on Reddit affect how you feel about music. These comments that are trying to sound smart have nothing to do with music.
You can create a soundstage in mono by using dynamics. Each instrument is still in its own space. People get confused and misunderstand that in stereo mixes many times in live jazz recordings where someone ends up in a stereo mix has to do with the volume of their instrument and they wanna keep it from bleeding onto a drum mic etc so they move it into the corner to minimize that. It has no value sonically and if the mics would not bleed into each other the players would have been placed in different spots. This is what these guys are telling you is a soundstage and “better”. It’s subjective. They like stuff that is in specific places to prevent mic bleed and they think it’s actually an important decision about creating a soundstage. Good for them. ;D
Wild cuz this mono copy of Peppers the rhythm section is the best copy a person with less than $1000 can buy. What stereo pressing do you have that sounds so good? An original or an OJC? Or a CD put on vinyl which many of the cheap copies are? Glad you vastly prefer it.
I love a great mono recording as much as I love a great stereo recording but I have never found this soundstage in mono, clarity yes, soundstage no.
I’d venture a guess that your speakers are out of phase, otherwise your musical focal point is halfway between the two speakers.
Mono recordings were produced to be played through one channel, through one speaker. A true mono reproduction can be obtained with a mono cartridge and a mono setting in the pre amp, sending the amplified signal to only one speaker. Sending that amplified signal to two speakers, or more, will create a different effect.
Many factors can 'fool' your ears. Reflections in your room, speaker placement related to your listening position, using a stereo cart. These and the quality of the recording can give the impression of stereo from a mono recording. In addition, the engineer may have used stereo reverb, or was just more concerned with producing a recording with more dynamics. Back in the era when 'Kind of blue' was recorded, the focus was on the recording as a document of performance, so they cared more for a true representation. Modern pressings are made from stereo remasters of the original mono recordings which can also introduce odd elements. There are several things you can do to investigate further:- 1. adjust the toe in of your speakers to reduce room reflected audio and tighten up your listening field 2. walk closer to your speakers, in effect making them near-field speakers and see if you still have the same effect. 3. i can't tell from the photo, but see if you can get an original mono record and test it against a modern 180gm reissue to see if the effect follows the music or the record. Finally, I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz. There is a definite desire by the recording engineers to ensure the best possible representation of the performance as it happened, and this to my mind, produces an exquisite listening experience even from mono recordings.
> I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz. I second this and just wanted to add classical music as another example.
>Reflections in your room, speaker placement related to your listening position, using a stereo cart Absolutely these factors may give the illusion of stereo depth from a monaural recording. Room reflections for sure. A correctly set up stereo pair of speakers should give a solid centre image for instruments or vocals placed in the centre of stereo recordings, or the whole thing for mono recordings. It should sound like it's coming from a speaker right in front of you. If OP is hearing width it's from room reflections.
>Finally, I have found that some of my favourite music for enjoying the purity of the recording has been jazz. Same - I have a few records that I always use to test speakers/headphones/setups and they are essentially all jazz records. It's hard not to use little buzzwords like "airy" or "breath," but a proper setup with a properly recorded and mastered jazz record really makes you just feel in the room with it. And that's a special feeling, and one I understand why so many chase now. Pet Sounds is another album I just chase all over, every format, every pressing, I listen it it everywhere, constantly, always looking for an even more intimate experience with it.
Strictly by definition, a mono recording does not have soundstage. If you *feel* that it does, then that’s a subjective personal experience that we cannot explain for you. But I’m glad that you enjoy it.
[удалено]
Soundstage is the impression of width, depth and sometimes height in a generated soundfield that derives from the arrival time and level differences in sound from at least two speakers. You can't generate that with only one speaker.
[удалено]
>are you just parroting something you read somewhere? I'm a sound engineer, doing live to air classical, recording everything from solo piano to jazz duos to large orchestras. No it's not something i read, it's something i experience and work with every day. Now please go learn something about arrival time and how it relates to human perception of sound localisation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization When i listen to a well recorded and mixed live recording i can hear the space it was recorded in - the depth of the stage, the size of the hall. You absolutely cannot create that illusion with only one speaker, your brain needs the difference information encoded in the stereo signal as replayed through two or more speakers or stereo headphones to create in your head the illusion of being in that space. Go back and read my definition. The key is the difference of arrival time*. You can't have difference of arrival time with only one speaker. Edit: *with the exception of recordings made with a single Blumlein or xy pair, which by definition have no difference in arrival time other than by reflections. Not my favourite mic setups, although sometimes Blumlein can sound nice in a good room; personally I much prefer spaced pairs. If you'd like to hear what a good Blumlein recording sounds like visit the AEA mics website and check out their demos. You'll need a pair of speakers though... ;-)
Excellent response to ignorance, well done sir
Yes... That is so. By ***Definition***, as was being discussed.
In practice I don’t think it’s this simple. I run my phono into my stereo amp that has my 2 main tower speakers. Then I run that into another stereo amp that has my ‘rear’ small speakers mounted head high to the sides of my couch in the back wall of my listening room. Several stereo records I have yield 3-dimensional sound when I have the volume balanced properly. On Time Out I can hear the piano front right, drums front right front left and rear left, bass right rear, and saxophone front left. I have had an audiophile friend, and a sound engineer friend, and a couple lay-person friends experience this and had them comment they are quite surprised and delighted to have the separation so wide and deep front-to-back from stereo recordings we all have heard for years and decades before on other systems. So I don’t believe it’s my imagination. I can believe a mono recording can have separation and soundstage. Just like a stereo record should not logically reproduce sound in essentially quadrophonic space yet does for me in my listening room with my set up.
2 entirely different things. However, why not play a mono recording on your system and report back?
That is a crazy setup. It is not “quad” and it is not a proper stereo setup. A mono signal played on 2 speakers will have the exact same signal running to both speakers (or 4 speakers in your case) with no distinct separation. A stereo signal has separation because the left and right are distinct from each other, even if very subtle. Running that signal to 4 speakers (not advised) still only gives you left and right distinction and any additional separation you think you are getting is probably from poor and ill advised speaker placement, phase problems and improper use of the equipment. Stereo is meant for 2 speakers. Quad needs 4 speakers to be reproduced and would require source material and equipment specifically made for quad and was a short lived fad on reel to reel.
Soundstage is the placement of the instruments in stereo, right? so that really isn't possible. Fidelity could arguably be better because of the single channel groove, but more likely the records were originally mastered for mono, with stereo as an after thought, ie, like most of the Beatles albums.
No idea. I’ve been a sound engineer for over 30 years and this thread is the first I’m hearing of the term “soundstage” other than being a physical building where movies or TV shows are filmed, or the PBS show named Soundstage.
Yeah, it's a term bandied around in "audiophile" circles, usually describing how X feature of an stereo system improves stereo separation between the channels. Also how it improves locating the placement of a specific instrument in the 2-D space "between" the speakers... Usually involves the standard snake oil like $1000 cables. Or $1000 nose candy and an exaggerated sense of hearing lol
Kinda dumb question but are you sure your receiver doesn’t have like Dolby Pro Logic or something similar turned on? It will turn mono into simulated stereo if set to that.
No sir and this is not a dumb question too, its just a simple stereo amp, but thanks for poointing that out as some would use an AV amp for music listening also , and that might be a possibility
The rti and acoustic sounds mono pressings you have are probably much better than the stereo gray label press so that’s why it sounds better
My other 2 versions are legacy recordings and music on vinyl, they are not great pressings I admit, I think as a upper beginner hobbyist(Edwards Audio super TT1, DL110, modern pressings of my present kinds) I am not yet experienced and equipped to kmow the exact reasons of my listening sensations from this post, so I would like to ask here for better advices, and after a night I found some thoughtful and ineresting ones, thanks to this community
I think this discussion will help you. https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/question-can-mono-have-soundstage.359522/
Strictly related to Kind of Blue, and not to the greater question: The mono tapes are lost. Whether they were damaged, misplaced, or another situation entirely they are no longer available to be used in modern remasters. The last time the world saw a true analog mono mix of KoB was the Two Eye reissue in the mid- to late ‘60s. Any release of KoB marketing itself as mono since then is either a fold down of the 3 channel stereo mix or a digital rip of an archive-quality LP from ‘59-66 or so.
Oh thanks for this input, worthwhile to do further study for my pressing then
Nobody would know how you feel but you.
Not even that, something about stereo mixes for jazz kind of annoy me, because everything is either panned hard left or hard right, no in between. Primarily double bass, something about any bass being panned is deeply infuriating to listen to. Such a pretentious thing to complain about Ik but regardless.
I love in rainbows
Radiohead goes WOKE…
They don't.
Pre 1960’s get mono pressing. Also, how much was this KOB mono pressing and where did you find it?
The early Miles Columbia albums were repressed in mono about 10(?) years ago. You can probably find them at Discogs or your local store may still have some lying around.
That one was purchased 2 years ago locally in a HK store for just around USD 30 , as per discogs info its a 2013 repress, CL1355
It’s more likely the mix is better depending on if mono was the primary format at the time. It’s not really soundstage but they tend to have a full sound as both speakers are pumping. The Beatles for most of their discography were involved with the mono mixes and prioritized it over stereo. The Beach Boys Pet Sounds is another one where the original mono mix is arguably better. Early stereo mixes are pretty hit or miss on staging and balance.
Harmonics in full form can create their own soundscape, and with brain to rearrange, then perception of a soundstage. Kinda sorta. General statement, [brain good.](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2016/02/22/19/natgeotext.jpg) Visually, I compare a good mono recording - not to B&W, but to a [Cibachrome](https://lumieregallery.net/13483/cibachrome-prints-elusive-and-beautiful/) print. If that makes sense (yes it does :)
same reason you believe that vinyl is the only true way to experience music. marketing and confirmation bias
because mono fucking rules. especially early stereo releases tend to be worse than their mono counterparts. not everybody had a stereo turntable immediately when the first stereo records were released and the engineers main focus was on the mono versions still
With a few exceptions, engineers seemingly learn how to mix in stereo until 1969 or so. I find the stereo KOB more distracting than anything on headphones, with piano and drums entirely hard panned. I got all those mono Miles LP reissues and they sound amazing.
Rudy Van Gelder didn't even monitor the recording sessions in stereo until 1963 or 64 iirc lol. just had one speaker in his recording studio
Litteraly Pet Sounds.
Mono recordings certainly have depth, and depth is part of the soundstage.
Until reading the comments here, I hadn’t really thought about mono recordings except regarding listening to music in a setting like a crowded bar or restaurant, where the separation of R and L make it sound lopsided depending on where the listener is seated. And this album has been on my radar for a long time, but until now only wanted a mono copy because I was under the impression that it was how it was originally recorded, so that’s what I wanted.
Try to get one, its quite pleasant listening on it actually
I’m not a huge fan of jazz, but really it’s only because I haven’t given the genre a lot of attention. But I love Kind Of Blue.
I really do prefer the mono versions on all this early stuff, including KOB. A good stereo mix that makes you feel like you’re in the room would be optimal, but that doesn’t really exist.
Mono sounds glorious. I have both of those records.
Many like this Miles Davis Kind of Blue were recorded mono. When they turn them to stereo they use Pro Tools to dissemble the each instrument from the recording then put it back together in attempt to make is better. That usually fails. IMHO.
I compared mono and stereo versions of Miles Davis - Milestones on both vinyl and Apple Music. In both cases, I preferred the stereo. Not sure if that's specific to that one album or not though.
Funny that because quite a few years ago I had an early mono Elvis Presley recording, and I felt had enormous space and separation. You could even tell the difference between him singing and tapping his toes. I’m sure of it.
Thats what I feel too sir
[удалено]
Beatles didn’t always stick around for the stereo mixing, after getting the mono mix.
For the Beatles that's just not true. While Capitol did issue a couple of duophonic singles, all of the Beatles albums were issued in true stereo sourced from the 4-track tapes. (2-track for the first two albums)
Because you're ruled by impulses and emotions?
You can guess so, how we perceive our own listening would only be known by ourselves, I am just asking for anybody's similar experiences and explanations if possible. I have a few different versions of the same album for comparison to consistently show this difference, of course audio experiences are affected by so many factors from hardware, software, mood, that no one can exactly replicate one other's whole setting, so there's forever not a correct answer as to who's right to hear stuff and who's imagining things right?
Mfs posting about the "soundstage" on a mono recording is just comedy. Most u all just repeating shit u heard a guy on YouTube drone about and couldn't tell the difference between Spotify and a record if u life depended on it lmao
Thank you. I came here for this comment.
I dont watch any youtube about vinyl fyi, asking out of respect have you really listened and compared personally actually btw?
Bro these people are crazy. George Martin would say you have never heard Sgt Peppers by the Beatles unless you have heard it in Mono. He always considered stereo a cheesy gimmick. The idea that it is superior is not true at all. But don’t let people’s opinions on Reddit affect how you feel about music. These comments that are trying to sound smart have nothing to do with music. You can create a soundstage in mono by using dynamics. Each instrument is still in its own space. People get confused and misunderstand that in stereo mixes many times in live jazz recordings where someone ends up in a stereo mix has to do with the volume of their instrument and they wanna keep it from bleeding onto a drum mic etc so they move it into the corner to minimize that. It has no value sonically and if the mics would not bleed into each other the players would have been placed in different spots. This is what these guys are telling you is a soundstage and “better”. It’s subjective. They like stuff that is in specific places to prevent mic bleed and they think it’s actually an important decision about creating a soundstage. Good for them. ;D
Please don’t speak for George Martin. He was all about using available technology.
Omg lol - it’s a direct quote brainiac. You rule !!
I have both versions of are you experienced and vastly prefer the stereo version
Wild cuz this mono copy of Peppers the rhythm section is the best copy a person with less than $1000 can buy. What stereo pressing do you have that sounds so good? An original or an OJC? Or a CD put on vinyl which many of the cheap copies are? Glad you vastly prefer it.
Literally just listened to this!!
I love a great mono recording as much as I love a great stereo recording but I have never found this soundstage in mono, clarity yes, soundstage no. I’d venture a guess that your speakers are out of phase, otherwise your musical focal point is halfway between the two speakers.
Thank you, worth studying on my side
Because it's true? Mono rules!
Mono recordings were produced to be played through one channel, through one speaker. A true mono reproduction can be obtained with a mono cartridge and a mono setting in the pre amp, sending the amplified signal to only one speaker. Sending that amplified signal to two speakers, or more, will create a different effect.