Is Mono Really Better?

Ever listened to Sgt. Pepper and thought, "This sounds a bit off?" It's the great Mono vs Stereo debate! Did stereo give the Beatles a bad haircut? Or does Mono drop a better beat?

Written & Produced by Rick Coste

[brucevair-turnbull]

I did a shootout between an early mono UK pressing of 'Sgt. Pepper's', a Japanese 1976 stereo and a UK 1978 stereo version. It was clear that the mono pressing had more reverb in the vocals. Lennon's voice in 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds' almost sounded like it was in a tunnel of sound. The other two were brighter and the Japanese pressing had the edge in clarity.

[NothingLikeVinyl]

Thinking that mono is better _per se_ is an example of audiophile snobbery for me. My opinion is that, in general terms, mono albums released before 1968 are better because of the extreme panning of their stereo counterparts. That was a novelty at the time, and it's great for a musician trying to figure his/her part. But for the sheer pleasure of listening, it's horrible because the band loses its cohesion and sounds just like a bunch of musicians spread across the room.

Of course, there are exceptions that have an explanation: Ornette Coleman's "Free Jazz" (1961) features a double jazz quartet, one on the left channel and the other one on the right. This album is meant to be heard in stereo. Same for albums from the "Stereo Action" series by RCA Victor released during the first half of the sixties.

But when technology and criteria evolved, allowing for clever and realistic stereo mixes (roughly from 1968), mono lost its reason for existing (save for AM radio). Nothing beats a great stereo mix to me. I have a hard time understanding why Smashing Pumpkins released a mono version of "Adore" in 1998, or why Jack White released a mono mix of The White Stripes' "Elephant" for its 20th anniversary (2023). I can't even think of artistic reasons behind that decision.

In short, well-balanced stereo mix > mono mix > hard-panned stereo mix (in my opinion and perception, of course).

[sgtpepper]

Pet Sounds was released in Mono and "Duophonic (fake) stereo" initially . Not released in true stereo until 1997.

[stanleycostello]

What about RCA's Living Stereo? They are some of the best recordings out there. I have two albums by Henry Mancini and his Orchestra. "Music from Peter Gunn" and "More Music from Peter Gunn", both from 1959. They sound absolutely incredible. Top-of-the-line. When Columbia introduced stereo in 1958 I believe that most (if not all) the recordings were made at the 30th Street studios. They sound quite good. I have a cartridge/stylus to play mono. Reduces crosstalk. I recall (I don't remember where) that John said if we haven't heard SPLHCB in mono we haven't heard it. Anyways, have a good weekend.

[timmy]

When I see bands live...I really wish they would play in mono.

[bubble-and-scrape]

One of my favorite garage rock bands is Dead moon. This band refused to release their music other than in mono. I can see the charm from a conceptual point of view. But when i found a stereo recording of a radio studio session they once did i wondered what if they hadn’t been so strict. This stereo recording was much more open, wide and overwhelming, it really made their music shine. I’ve seen the band in concert in the past and on stage the stereo aspect is of lesser importance. In a live setting the combination of sound, visual elements and physical excitement is what matters. The band no longer exists, both the drummer and singer passed away a while ago. If you are unfamiliar with their music, you should definitely check it out, great garage stompers!

[patrickroberts]

Your use of Beatles albums highlighted my dilemma between Mono and Stereo. I solved the problem by buying an early mono version of all their albums released in mono and then the latest remastered stereo versions from 2012 onwards. The mono versions take me back to my teens in the 1960s and how I remember them the first time of hearing. The latest remastered copies are more akin to hearing them afresh with modern audio technology. They both have a place in my collection

[mrhoffame]

In general I have noticed that with Rock/Pop I prefer mono. With Jazz I prefer Stereo. I guess to me I don't care if you ARE separating or not, but I'm more concerned with WHAT you are separating in the music. So I don't need my lead guitar separated from my rhythm guitar. Power may be lost in the song to me when that happens. However I do like hearing my trumpet separate from the standing bass in a jazz track.

[willzimjohn]

Producers like Brian Wilson and Phil Spector preferred mono because they were in control of the final listening experience. The sound of a stereo record can be altered by the placement of the speakers, balance and where the listener was sitting in relation to the two speakers. A person on one side of a room would hear something different than a person on the other side listening to the same record at the same time. Ever sit in a bar and your table was next to one speaker and you don't hear the guitar very well? Doesn't happen with mono. As for power, just listen to "I Can See For Miles" mono vs stereo. No comparison.

[hughjaynis]

The mono Sgt. Peppers is more raw and aggressive sounding and the stereo sounds more polished with the edges smoothed out. I much prefer the mono!

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I think this is a contrived debate, as on a technical level it's difficult to see any advantage that mono has over what we generally refer to as stereo. True stereo is a live recording made with two microphones, and can only be properly listened to from a single vantage point. Using multiple mics on a single instrument can be problematic because the sound waves can get out of phase and cancel each other out. We could have a very interesting conversation about the relative merits of those two technologies. But no commercial records are made that way. What we call stereo isn't that, but is instead just a recording that has two channels, with all of the source material being mono recordings. So stereo is really just a bunch of mono recordings. Mono can't do anything that stereo can't do.

Most of the discussion here is about specific records, where, for whatever reason, the mono and stereo versions had slightly different mixes. But this is really a discussion of the mixes, not of stereo vs mono. With contemporaneously-released stereo/mono, most of the differences are simply mistakes. The She's Leaving Home example given here is a good example of that. As with When I'm Sixty-Four on the same album, the song had been deliberately recorded too-slow and in a lower key, with the intent of speeding up the tape when making the master. And for whatever reason, someone didn't get the message and the record went out playing at the wrong speed. But this has nothing to do with the relative merits of mono and stereo. It's just a mastering engineer at a record company not understanding his or her instructions properly. Many of the 60's stereo songs have more aggressive fade-outs as well, which I believe is because they had to make the stereo grooves wider so the running time was less.

There's a reason that mono died out.

[kurjan]

I don't mind either way... both have their value and sound wonderful. What I do want to discuss though is why Americans call it cream? Coffee with cream is revolting... I mean it curdles and lumps and tastes sour... whereas coffee with milk is amazing and the way it should be.

[rayc]

For "Pet Sounds" - I would pick mono simply because the true stereo mix wasn't available until the early 1990's. Duphonic isn't stereo! I've got the same Elvis record - like you said, one channel is a microsecond out of sync from the other . . . makes me dizzy : )

[neilfisher]

Very interesting topic. I have an old Sinatra record in both mono and stereo. The mono version is the original and sounds a bit warmer than the stereo version. I would say that typically the original way something was recorded would be the best way to listen to it. However, I have heard remixes of original recordings that sounded better than the original. So I guess it comes down to personal taste. I recently listened to The Little River Band's 2016 rerecording of The Hits Revisited. These are not just remixes but rearrangements of the original songs. I like some of the new versions better than the original versions. I know that isn't the same thing as mono vs stereo, but the point is sometimes you can make the original music better by tweaking it a bit. Not always, but I keep an open mind. The most important thing is listening to what you like and hearing it on equipment you like as well.

[scottlowell]

1957 Bach guitar recital by John Williams is mono and sounds magnificent.

[NoEggu]

I just learned a good deal about mono, and The Beatles, that I did not know.
Thanks!

[jmsafree]

I was just trying to decide which version of Pet Sounds I wanted from Analogue Records, mono or stereo. I have the SACD version of Pet Sounds in Stereo, so I guess I will go mono here. Also, I have the Jefferson Airplane record on my wish list. The mono version gets rave reviews, not so the stereo version. The early Rolling Stone vinyl records are coming out in mono and I picked up the greatest hits record. Sounds great in mono. That being said, listening to the Kevin Gray's cut of What's Going On in stereo is an unbelievable audio experience. The soundstage is amazing. Let the battle rage on!! joe

[TheReal]

I remember in the '60s when stereo was really being pushed and forming into what we know it as today. Obviously, it was more than just interesting recording tricks. I sure wouldn't go out of my way to pay extra for mono recordings. If somebody is bragging to me about their 'mono collection' and the purity of its sound, I say 'meh', you're being a snob. You can even buy carts that are specially designed to playback mono. It could be an endless rabbit hole if you want it to be. I have a live Hendix album in mono....just like being there at his concert with no stereo effects. Maybe it's 'purity', but I'd like to hear the same album mixed down in I'd like it better and play it more often.

[sommigame]

Stereo pressings of sgt pepper are cheaper and easier to find, at least where I live. For now I'll just have to settle for the 2017 remix which I'm told more closely adheres to the mono version, idk both sound great to me.

[ryanrichardson]

Me personally, mono doesn’t do it for me. I much prefer the openness of stereo. I even tried the Beatles mono box set when it was out due to the rave reviews, it certainly didn’t sound bad or anything but I just found myself reverting back to stereo.