[Rockinghorse Winner[_5_]]

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time
on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic
would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back
then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners,
which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early
60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems.

For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and
George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even
in the studio when the stereo mixes were done.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the
stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time
on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic
would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back
then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners,
which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early
60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems.

For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and
George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even
in the studio when the stereo mixes were done.

Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect"
to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical
recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO.

Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 26, 7:09*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Apr 26, 2:29 pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:20 pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the
stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time
on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic
would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back
then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners,
which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early
60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems.

For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and
George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even
in the studio when the stereo mixes were done.

Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect"
to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical
recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO.

Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example.

Elvis probably sued them. I saw him last week at a flea market buying
socks.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 26, 9:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 26, 7:09*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Apr 26, 2:29 pm, Boon wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:20 pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the
stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time
on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic
would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back
then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners,
which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early
60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems.

For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and
George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even
in the studio when the stereo mixes were done.

Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect"
to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical
recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO.

Yes! The quickly withdrawn early eighties Elvis cds for example.

Elvis probably sued them. I saw him last week at a flea market buying
socks.

That's funny...just a few minutes ago I was telling someone about
Scott Walker's "Jesse" from the album The Drift. Elvis was actually
born a twin, but the other baby was stillborn. Still, they named it
Jesse. Apparently Elvis used to "talk" to Jesse a lot when he was
feeling lonely. Anyway, the Scott Walker song is told from the
viewpoint of Elvis as he's watching 9/11 unfold on his TV. At the end
of the song he screams to Jesse, "I'm the only one left alive! I'm the
only one left alive!" It's a ****ed up, brilliant song.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Apr 26, 6:24*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Apr 26, 2:29*pm, Boon wrote:





On Apr 26, 1:20*pm, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:

I enjoy the original mono recording of an album from the 60's to the stereo
remix. I was wondering why. Things just sound better. I was wondering if
this is due to better soundstaging in the original, or some other reason.
Can mono recordings even be said to *have* a soundstage?

On pop and rock recordings of the time, they generally spent more time
on the mono mixes than the stereo mixes because the target demographic
would most likely play the records on a monaural record player. Back
then, most audiophiles were strictly jazz and classical listeners,
which is why jazz and classical recordings from the late 50s and early
60s sound so wonderful on modern audio systems.

For instance, when Sgt. Pepper was mixed in mono, the Beatles and
George Martin spent a week doing the mixes. The Beatles weren't even
in the studio when the stereo mixes were done.

Did they ever do that "electronically reprocessed for stereo effect"
to change mono recordings into "stereo" on rock LPs? The classical
recordings they did that to sound horrible IMO.

I can remember hearing some back in the 70s, but I haven't seen any in
a really long time. And yes, they sounded dreadful.