We used to LOVE the OLD STEREO BEATLES albums, because the 'stereo' mix would put nearly ALL of the vocals on one channel, so if you dialed the BALANCE all the way to one side then you'd have a PERFECT musical base for KARAOKE!
I really prefer the mono version of "Under My Thumb". Listening with headphones, the stereo mix has more space to it but the mono mix is much more punchy and the bass line comes out stronger. I think it comes down to preference and an aesthetic choice that you commit to when tracking. Some bands/songs/records might sound more detailed with stereo separation. Others might sound more full and lively in mono. It might be best (at least in my mind) to not think of mono as antiquated, but instead an option for the toolkit.
As Johns makes clear, MONO was the NORM, and that was the intended outcome from the beginning of the recording process. George Martin was limited to two-track -- which was UNMIXED MONO -- and was blown away when visiting Capital Rcords in New York and saw they had THREE-track MONO. I'd rather hear mono than hear the fake "stereo" imposed on mono recordings during the early 1960s. And what WAS that fake "stereo"? It was the MONO track played through two channel, with one of them at a millisecond "delay" -- i.e. the mono track identical but very slightly out of sync.
I also don't think many stereo recordings were mixed with the intention of listening to them on headphones. In a room the separation is less evident and jarring.
@@aaronzlanders that's certainly true, and stereo systems weren't quite what they are today back then so the physical separation of the speakers might not have been as wide as today. But my choice as a consumer buying music to listen to on headphones and modern speaker systems is to opt for mono versions of songs initially tracked and mixed in mono. Just sounds a bit more natural and punchy to me. More than anything, I guess I'm also trying to say that mono gets looked down upon as being antiquated but I think there's still a place for it, even in modern production. I'm working on some music currently that I think feels and sounds better in mono because the instrumentation is sparse and minimal, so everything right down the center feels more punchy and direct. Things like jazz trios often sound really great in mono because the balance of frequencies isn't all over the place in the stereo field. All bass in one ear and mostly midrange/treble in the other can feel really disorienting. That can be an aesthetic all on its own too, though especially in like psychedelic music
***** I don't know about you but I hear sounds Binaurally thats why I enjoy stereo maybe I'll throw away one speaker and puncher one of my ear drums ~ It's been 26 years since I last had a drink thanks for inquiring about my old drinking habit ~
Rock Singer, What am I missing, I hear mono with both ears. It almost sounds widescreen, in a subtle way mind you. The bass on Under my Thumb is so rumbly. Ps I don’t drink anymore either and don’t miss that insanity. Rock on.
Yeah I noticed that too but I don't know if it had been played back in mono first and then stereo would I have liked stereo better? Early Stones were terrific at any rate.
2:54. This was the first record I ever bought. It was mono. I remember the label said London on it and it was red. The stereo version had a blue label. It cost more but I didn't buy it because we didn't have a stereo record player. Loaned it out to somebody years later and never got it back. I suppose it's worth a fortune now. By the time I replaced it, I had a stereo so I bought the stereo version. The label said Decca. I remember listening to it on my stereo and swore that something had happened to the tweeter on the left channel (or was it the right?). I took my speakers apart and found that absolutely nothing was coming out of the tweeter on one side. It wasn't until I put another stereo album on that I realized that what Mr. Johns had done. He had to make a stereo record out of a mono recording so he put the high frequencies into one channel and the low frequencies into the other. That's why it said "simulated stereo" on the album cover and that's why I thought one of my tweeters had blown.
Exactly. When "The Beatles" hit big, EMI released the UNMIXED MONO recordings as "stereo" -- all the music on on channel, all the vocals on the other -- and Geoerge Martin was pissed: not only was he not told that was happening, but he said the unmixed recordings sounded like SHIT, with the "hole in the middle". Those in the know swear by mono when that is as it was intended to be.
Your story gave me a good laugh & brought back some fond memories, because I had almost exactly the same type of experience. Many of those early "simulated stereo' recordings simply did some frequency separation and sent half to each channel, as you said. Occasionally, it also seemed that they'd add a few milliseconds of delay to one of the channels to give a psudeo-sense a wider audio 'space'. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it just sounded oddly 'off' a bit.
For one it has more punch, more energy. The demand that recordings made only in mono be "remixed" and released in "stereo" is made by musical morons who don't know how to listen, and falsely believe they are "sophisticated" because they are able to toss around jargon they don't understand. Before "The Beatles" walked into Abbey Road, George Martin had visited Capitol Records in the US, and was blown away by their then state-of-the-art THREE-track MONO equipment. Much ignorance would evaporate if the morons would read his book "All You Need is Ears". But, no, they'd rather imagine that his being there, and they not, means they know more than he.
@@jnagarya519 Gotta disagree with this. There are certain songs that do sound way better in stereo than mono. Specifically songs by Phil Spector because of his wall of sound. Some of his songs CAN be mono, but stereo works best because of its ability to pan the dozens of instruments in the studio. Also, with all of the experimentation with layering, stereo is the only way to accurately mix a song to hear everything in a balanced way.
I love those goofy stereo mixes with vocals on one side and the band on the other. It's a nice change of pace from (for instance) the vocals, bass and drums in the center, two guitars panned left and right, etc. The Stones' 'Let It Bleed' has the drums panned hard left and an acoustic guitar panned hard right to balance the drums. Only in a recording studio...
Pretty sure that would be because back then it was aimed really at listening through speakers rather than headphones (which were big and uncomfortable), so when early stereo pop records appeared they were a bit of a novelty and they wanted the maximum stereo impact and it was normal to have one sound come from the left, another from the right - in fact some early stereo pop records had the instruments on one channel and the vocals on the other. Stereo got more sophisticated when it became normal for pop music in the 70s and took over from mono.
I was a kid when all that came out....and no one I knew had a stereo. We all had a mono sound system. And an LP used to cost 1,98 $ then, in mono. If you wanted the stereo version ( that really wasn't stereo as he explained in the clip ) you paid and extra dollar. And that was a lot of money then, for something that you couldn't really appreciate since we didn't have the equipment to listen to it. When the first Jimi Hendrix album came out, I used to listen to it in mono, on a Garrard turntable, hooked to a 4 inch speaker. The hash made it sound much better.
I think Brian was really important. He was a great guitar player for the time. He is considered the first person in Britain to play slide guitar. It's a sad story.
When a recording has been made in proper (not “re-channelled”) Stereo, and the Stereo mix has been done properly and not rushed, then Stereo can sound fantastic. However, if a recording was originally done in Mono but is also issued in fake Stereo, then the Mono version will sound better (eg: early Stones). Also, even if a recording was done with real Stereo capability but the Stereo mix was rushed while the Mono mix had the appropriate amount of time and care devoted to it, then the Mono mix will sound better (eg: Sgt Pepper). The recent Stereo re-mix of Sgt Pepper has had more time taken over it and some would argue that it is better than the original ‘60’s Stereo mix - the original Mono mix has always sounded great. The Stones Let it Bleed sounds better in Stereo as the Mono version was just a fold down from the Stereo mix. So it is not a case of all Stereo bad and all Mono good (or vice versa). Some recordings sound great in Stereo and some recordings sound great in Mono (and some original Mono recordings that have been electronically “re-channelled” for Stereo sound inferior to the true Mono versions).
You are 1000% correct. It’s refreshing to see a comment from someone else who knows what mono and stereo actually means and how it relates to recordings. Job well done.
The original stereo mix of Sgt. Pepper is simply a product of its time. Saying it was rushed is a disservice to George Martin and co. It's the best they could have done with the tracks available. The 2017 remix uses the pre-bounce tapes which would have been impossible without digital technology in 1967.
@@wmhhealth2018 Didn't know he (Jones) was into the recording processes that much. I figured he played and chose instruments for the songs. I didn't know the early days from 62-68 that he had that much input to the mixing board. Very impressive to know....I figured it was the producer that rules the roost, like Glyn John's was alluding to.
I grew up as a kid in the 50s and 60s listening to mono recordings on the radio and on vinyl. I started listening to stereo recordings starting in the 70s but didn't think much of it at the time. Later, as my listening tastes became more refined, as a developing bass player, I discovered that I prefered mono recordings to stereo, greater clarity and detail in the music with mono.
Back in the early to late 60's, most all rock music was produced mixed to be played back in mono for AM radio stations with heavy compression & limiting. Also for home single speaker phonographs. As Glyn alludes too, stereo systems & hi-fi set ups (they were in their infancy then) were mostly classical listeners and audiophiles back then were mostly older guys who wanted Jazz & classical music on these systems. This mono 45 record single (or LP/EP) was usually called the "hot mix" in that it sounded great on the tiny AM transistor radios of the time & was similar to the large "Wall of Sound" that Phil Spector was producing as well. If someone, or a FM Stereo station wanted (But usually was not available) a true "Stereo" version of a song or LP/EP, then some record companies remastered & reissued it in a "Psuedo Stereo" sound , which sounded awful, as it used EQ adjustments and other processing tricks to give the allusion of a stereo recording, which it initially was NOT. Beatles at Abby Road Studios recorded much of their early stuff on 3 track tape machines, it wasn't really stereo, they put vocals on one side, some instruments on left and others on right side to GIVE the illusion of a stereo recording or session. It wasn't until true multi-track tape & recording consoles allowed for a "true" stereo recording in that individual channels could be pan potted, EQ'd, compressed & effects added on a left to right sound stage. It is interesting to note, that even given the availability of a true stereo recording during these early days, like "Under My Thumb", when listening to both mono or stereo (correct stereo recording) versions, many prefer the mono version. Why is that? The initial recording was meant for a mono experience and it achieved that fact with full sound in the recording process, irregardless if it had been recorded in stereo during these early days. Fast forward to the recording of Beatles White Album, a true stereo recording, but now the music is becoming more complex in sound with many layers and textures to it and the stereo version of it sounds more appealing.
How unimportant was stereo to the Top 40 market back then? Prior to the very late 1960s, most recording labels only ever released mono 45s. And many younger pop/rock fans primarily bought 45s, not LPs. Thus, they mainly used monophonic systems. They mostly listened to mono AM radio stations. The Beatles didn’t release a stereo 45 until the Ballad of John & Yoko in ‘69. They knew what mix the majority of their target audience was listening to, & it wasn’t stereo.
My thoughts on mono/stereo: -If a song was originally recorded and released in mono, then it should stay in mono. I'm referring especially to the fake stereo releases that came out in the early '60s. That does not include songs that were recorded in multitracks and happened to be mixed in mono first, but obviously recorded with stereo in mind. I had a mono release of the "Magical Mystery Tour" album which was an abomination, so it works both ways. -I've always considered a recording to represent what the band sounded like if they were actually playing the song. I've never seen a band all plug into one amp with one speaker. So, mono is simply a facsimile bound by the technology of a particular time. -A true mono aficionado would utilize a playback system that output to only one speaker. No left or right. One speaker. -A lot, but not all, of the mono enthusiasts simply have a crappy playback system. It's easy for a song to sound "punchier" if all the speakers carry the same load, especially if the song is mixed to do so. All that being said, there's nothing wrong with mono if that was all that technology allowed at a particular time. But stereo is a true representation of sound. Imagine what life might be like if we heard everything in mono only. Mono was the actual sound illusion, not stereo.
Fair enough, although to your last point, it's intriguing to hear the songs as they were intended to be recorded, regardless of whether the sound quality is better or more representative of the moment in stereo. Imho.
@@JackFirneno Thanks for replying. I agree, and that was mostly what I was offering in my first point. But I will say that it's also intriguing to hear today's technology showing what it might have actually sounded like, band-wise (as opposed to using modern tech to enhance mono recordings, which was shown here). I thought most of the 5.1 mixes of The Beatles Anthology DVDs were fabulous, although they were certainly never originally intended to be so. One the other hand, I have other DVD audio discs that make me cringe regarding the sound field. At this point in time, anyone can only guess at what the original intentions were...and that goes for mono as well...IMHO.
"That does not include songs that were recorded in multitracks and happened to be mixed in mono first, but obviously recorded with stereo in mind." Except that stereo WASN'T in mind, for the reasons Glyn Johns explains. As for the absurd fiction you posit: you can't possibly accept 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound because you only have two ears. And, no: a band's recordings, unless live, are not intended to sound live as if outside the studio. In studio musicians can capture nuances that are lost not only live, but on listeners who don't know how to listen, and blind themselves with pre-existing expectations.
@@jnagarya519 Yet, Johns also mentions recording with stereo in mind, and mentioning how difficult the final mix was (for him, anyway). Expanded Dolby mixes simply reinforce a 3-D sound-field. The cool thing about having two ears is being able place sound objects in different locations; it's more than a simplified left-or-right matter. A 360 sound environment is something that was utilized from the mid '60s onward. As far as a live/not-live sound...I've never heard a real-life performance in mono. When engineers/producers became more competent, almost every band I know of took advantage of the studio to create music that required a lot of work to recreate when on tour. Some could and some couldn't. And of course, one might confused by the fact that so many songs today are created without actual musicians, so no "live" sound actually exists. But, anyway, if a person has ever been in a band and played an instrument, they would know that almost all songs are created and practiced live, and the live sound, augmented or not, is the foundation.
I think Mono can sound fantastic. Phil Spector's work and Brian Wilson's are particularly good examples. Pet Sounds is a particular favourite mono album of mine. There was a period in the 60's when bands would do Mono and Stereo versions. The Beatles did a lot in both and they are very often completely different recordings altogether.
That's because the early "Beatles" "stereo" recordings were PRE-MIXED MONO. The first LP they consciously recorded in stereo was "Help!" And it was George Martin's first stereo recording. He states that it is a "mess". And that's why those who know how to LISTEN to music say the MONO is better. Educate yourself: read Martin's "All You Need is Ears".
The best place to hear a classical concert is usually about halfway or two thirds towards the rear of the auditorium, where there is no discernible stereo effect at all, but each instrument can be heard clearly. The different timbre of the various instruments enable you to differentiate them, not their geographic location. May be that’s also why the Stones and just about everyone else sound better and with more in mono.
Seeing Brian Jones smiling at 1:45 warmed my heart...R I P the talented, visionary, multi-instrument genius who gave the early Stones and edge Jagger could only mimic until that fateful day in Summer, 1969 in a swimming pool in the English countryside.
Mick and Keith evolved as musicians and took the Stones to new avenues, Brian unfortunately wasn't designed for it. But he was the founding member (and leader) of the band, and also played a variety of instruments on those earlier records...not just guitar.
"The Beatles" were the first to use "non-rock and roll" instruments on their recordings. "The Rolling Stones" FOLLOWED them, including the bizarre flop "Flower Power" "Satanic Majesties Request" effort to replicate "Sgt. Pepper's".
@@jnagarya519Not The Beatles…..The guy calling the shots for them and creating the music Sir George Martin. You honestly think they came up with the idea to use orchestras? Martin was working with recording and producing orchestra music before he called shots for the Beatles
@@flyingburritobro68 George Martin was also the producer of "The Goons," of which "The Beatles" were big fans. Martin made suggestions. "The Beatles" either agreed or did not. And that included "The Beatles" themselves recognizing the value of adding orchestral elements to some songs. NONE of that was new in popular music including prior "rock and roll" music -- check out Phil Spector as but one example. "The Beatles" were obvious fans of Spector's production from his recordings during the early 1960s, which is why they John and George viewed it as an opportunity to work with him post-"Beatles". There's no denying Martin's contributions. But Martin also said: at the beginning "The Beatles" were the "pupils"; at the end Martin was the "pupil". And one can follow that evolution -- if one first learns how to LISTEN -- between beginning and end of "The Beatles'" increasing control from the beginning.
This is an awesome thing to have explained, I just learnt that mono is underated and will be using MONO in my own recordings from now on... Thank you so much for sharing!
Albi Collier please don't, it's unnatural! we hear stereo, we have two ears not one! Don't go back in time, give your recordings life! Stereo is color, mono is Gray!
Da Hawk That is called a painting. In the mid 60's the tape used typically had anywhere between 2 or 4 tracks, this meant that multiple elements had to be mixed in the same channel when the stereo was mixed and it was disjointed. Mono was the dominant format until 68 in the UK, so they recorded and mixed in mono first. By the 70's stereo was king and mono was no longer mixed at all. But it is all subjective and if you prefer stereo than more power to you, I prefer mono for the early to mid 60's rock myself. At the end of the day just enjoy the music how you want to! Have a good day.
@@aboutsoundandvision - No, and your reminder to take a step back and enjoy everything as much as you can is timely. Mono, Stereo, all of 'em are choices that should be in an artist's toolkit. And remember both "keep it simple stupid" and "refresh your memory often(to see what 'tools' you have to work with)" to stay on top of what's available and what will work. In the statement "the pen is over the blank page, and you are God," is the origin story of many posers and pinheads. I saw a video clip of a famous foreign actor who was asked about all the craziness; and he said, "I think that there can be such a thing as too much freedom." I agree with him, and I respectfully decline to name him. Fortune passes everywhere.
@@billyboy6028 ; I don't agree at all, but I understand ya' suspicion of the Eagles. If "Life in the Fast Lane" ain't good rock'n'roll - musically and lyrically - then ya' hard to please.
It's stunning how little most people know or understand about this all. People think they can just magically extract stuff out with digital technology. There are tricks but ...NO....You cannot just isolate stuff on one track from other stuff on the same track. ...unless you have an individual sound that appears on two tracks, one isolated then the other mixed...then you can kinda try to cancel the sound on two of three tracks by phase flipping it , so that that sound runs into it's own wave on the other track output.
Abbey Road used high tech filters to create Rock Band Beatles but even with that when you isolate drum tracks in the earlier stuff there is annoying frequencies present which is a byproduct of the digital process. Its like using the term deconstruction out of context. Its all over youtube isolated this and that and when you listen its not.
It was around 65 and 66 that the Underground Radio stations started to become popular. At the time AM radio was what most everyone had and there were very few FM radios in the general population. The FCC didn't pay a lot of attention to FM so we started getting some very creative programming, It was all live programing and the DJs had free rain. Most of all it was broadcast in Stereo and the sound was amazing. I was in Huntington Beach and we had KPPC. Today it is a Christian station but back in the 60s it was underground!!
I suspect a bit of digital trickery was used to make the short stereo clip as out of phase and thin sounding as possible in order to make mono sound fuller and more satisfying. Normally there wouldn't be that much difference on a phone speaker.
Similar to the PR put out when the CD Mono Box Set of The Beatles was released. And yes, I bought it, pre-ordered no less. Partly also because my Ex took all her LPs, and I had no physical media of them. Ripped the whole box to mp3 because my very old ears can hardly tell the difference. :-)
We had all their singles, ep's, albums in mono when we were growing up. At that age all we wanted to do was crank it. Whether it be Bach, Mozart, Hendrix, there's an ethereal satisfaction when we allow music to consume us. That's why live music is so important. There's no entity in the universe able to silence the creation of music, because it's a part of who we are.
There is something that nobody mentions when talking about new mono disc pressings and that is that some engineers say that mono cutter heads no longer exist. So all mono mixes are cut for vinyl with a Stereo cutter head. Can that influence the sound?
Glyn Johns produced Who Next. Impossible to think mono could sound better as things fly from speaker to speaker on that masterpiece. The mid sixties recordings and the earliest stereo recordings probably sound better in mono. After that stereo was perfected. Did someone say Dark Side of the moon? That album got stereos upgraded as it is perfection.
Da Hawk any band before around 66-67 when they started recording on more tracks sounds way more powerful in mono. And you hear mono with both ears wtf!!!!
I remember buying simulated stereo records in the 1960's. They had bass frequencies on one channel and treble frequencies on the other. They sounded terrible with headphones, and not too good otherwise. And they cost more because they were "stereo"!
Perhaps that's because back then, the producers thought it would be fun to have independent channels (left or right). Rather than creating a natural soundstage. ie drums on the left or right - I ask you... lol Pull all the instruments together and you have an immediate impact.
@@chrisguygeezer The FACILITIES weren't available -- as Johns expressly says: POP was recorded in MONO, PERIOD. There was no alternative. Read George Martin's "All You Needis Ears" and he'll 'splain the evolution of recording technology, AND THE UK MARKET. Pop singles were MONO because the goal was AIRPLAY on MONO AM radio.
@@jnagarya519 In the early to mid 60's, they only had 2 track machines, 8 track recording didn't become widespread until 68-69. Abbey Road was the only Beatles album recorded in 8 track.
All mono versions heard so far (post-1965) apparently just use familiar stereo. TSMR + LIB sound better in stereo. Worth buying later albums? No point buying altogether because have early stuff in both formats. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Mono means the Audio is coming from only 1 single channel/source. i.e. 1 speaker. You still pan instruments within that field, in fact that is how you take advantage of a proper mono mix. That way no instrument is occupying the same field of space at any given time. The sole reason mono recordings are revered is because A LOT of time and energy went into thinking about the mix by the artists/engineers/producers. Having to work within certain confines is how creativity can flourish. It’ll make you think differently in order to achieve what you desire. Stereo allows one to not be so careful about how tracks are laid out. That’s why The Beatles didn’t involve themselves in the stereo mixing process. And why John said “you haven’t heard sgt pepper until you’ve heard it in mono”. Most people don’t realize you have to have a special stylus to listen to a mono record in true mono, or a preamp in the receiver (or the Y cable trick). A mono record is cut differently. It has a different, wider groove. And when you feed a mono record into a receiver that splits it into stereo, it’s not a true mono output. I’ve been sitting on the Beatles in mono box set since 2014 and have yet to hear them in true mono. I’m waiting for the day.
If you're waiting for the day you get a "proper" mono cart, stop waiting. New mono recordings are cut with modern cutting heads. Will a good mono cart be better? Yes, but the big benefit is when playing old mono pressings. So stop waiting, life is short, you could be dead next week and some other jerk-off is going to break the seal on that box set. God I should have bought that Beatles box. At least I bought over half of it a-la-cart. I like the Stones Mono box better anyway, at least I have that.
Transistor radios were huge & a technological breakthrough in portability if for no other reason, but you have to be the epitome of an audiophile to own a mono box set
Glyn is/was my old school chum and when we left school he got a job at IBC studios and I had formed a rock band called The Presidents. At weekends Glyn would invite us up to the studio and try out his new skills and the combination got us signed to Decca Records. Here is a link to one of the tracks we recorded with Glyn at the controls which was passed to Decca but somehow got lost BUT was found in LA in 2018 and released that June - so here one hears one of his earliest productions mimed with the original line up which I managed to get together. Please share the link - @
Yes, the bass is obviously punched up on the mono version, which could easily be done in stereo as well. Kiddies, download Audacity and try it yourselves.
Bet Deram/Decca started getting pretty crafty about it all with the MOODY BLUES....It is stereo but not hard isolated and instead really spread across two fields but in a relatable way somehow. Some form of everything is in both speakers...and not just through a reverb plate set opposite., but it is two different channels...Carrying slightly differing mixes....Really forward thinking.
Sometimes it sounds terrible. Sometimes it's awesome. Like I heard a mix like that of Credence - Suzie Q on the radio one day and I got really into it.
Interesting . I'm not sure what the problem was but some LPs on different systems only played half the music ,or deleted on a stereo LP one track . When quad or discreet four channel came in that could've messed things up . I'm not sure but very few bands recorded in Four cannel or Quad. The Who's Quadrophonia wasn't. They gave up in the studio. I'd heard that " Their Satanic" was . Maybe Zeppelin and Pink Floyd also. I listened to a very high end system years ago and it was amazing.,and it would've worked fine for home theater. You only have two ears but Quad gave direction and separation that allowed you to turn to a corner of the room and increase the volume of whatever part you wanted to concentrate on .
As he explains, you can’t do a proper stereo mix without enough tracks to record to. Until about 1968 there was only four track recording which isn’t really enough tracks to create a good stereo mix. The old mono stuff sounds great. George Harrison said you should only listen to Sgt. Pepper in mono because that’s how it was originally intended to be heard. He thought the stereo mix was crap.
The early Beatles, Kinks, Stones, etc., were -- as he says -- INTENDED to be MONO. Popular music singles were mixed according to the END: MONO AM RADIO play. All the bullshit demands of "fans" for stereo releases of those early recordnigs are from people who don't know what they're talking about. Hopefully they'll all finally sit down and shut up.
I think they did other tricks for AM radio like the bass on lets spend the night together overloads the radio speaker sounds too clean on a stereo hi fi
I couldn't disagree with you more. A quality stereo recording is preferable any day over its mono counterpart. Johns and fellow numbskull Andrew Loog Oldham didn't know what they were doing when it came to recording in a good quality stereo, and as a result, the Stones early stereo sounds flat and awful.
J Nagarya: But there ARE multitracks that exist of The Kinks, The Animals...but the owners have no intention of remixing them to stereo, only because they wouldn't sound correct mixed that way and don't want to spend the money to do so. A lot of songs DO sound OK mixed to stereo.
The comparison in this video isn't fair... they goosed up bass and the mono is way more compressed. Had the stereo been presented in those same frequencies, then it would be up to personal preference (the way it was originally released vs better separation) . But it's done in such a way that nobody would say they prefer stereo. If you compare Sgt. Pepper 2017 stereo (remixed by Giles Martin) vs 1967 mono, then it'd make more sense.
You like the mono better because it’s a weird old fashioned stereo mix with the drums on one side. Put the drums and vocals and bass in the center, pan the guitars off-center and the stereo mix would be just as “punchy” as the mono plus it would have more realistic space. Stereo is far better than mono assuming it’s a good mix and decent playback system.
Anything done in the 60's that was recorded in mono is going to sound better especially after remastering with modern software. If you're a 4 or 5 piece rock back today looking for that vintage sound you should try a mix in mono.
I am guessing that when they originally tracked the songs, they must have printed drums, bass, rhythm guitar to one channel on the recorder? They must have had to do that with a lot of instruments. I can't think of any other reason why they didn't go back and remix the songs for stereo rather than create fake stereo.
Panning a mono signal anywhere out of center reduces its signal to the ears. The mono version has the sound as they heard it, equal volumes in each ear which dramatically changes the sound characteristics the ear hears. When attempting to utilize a left and right speaker configuration on mono signals, there is a degradation in the amount of recorded sound that makes it to the two track stereo master. The entire dynamic of the instruments changes when you pan somehing. The musical style lends itself to mono, if, that's how it was recorded. Soon after folks recorded in Stereo and the signal thing was no longer an issue. I like both mixes equally. A new recording changed from Stereo to mono would never sound better.
As a professional recording engineer we can debate all day… and everyday what ‘in stereo’ means. Your ears ‘hear’ ‘in stereo’. If you walk into a club gig sound comes to both ears from the whole room- you dont hear drums in one ear and guitar in the other. Your ears hear ‘in stereo’ everything. So what is stereo? When you mic a piano, do you put a left ear mic on the low strings and a right ear mic on the high keys? Is that stereo? Or do you put one mic on the piano in center, one mic 5 feet away to the left for the left ear and one 10 feet to the right for the right ear? Is that stereo? We could do this for days. Keep this in mind: when 24 track machines came about- some engineers looked at it as a 12 track ‘stereo’ recorder.
But there's also a lot of more low end on that "under my thumb" in mono - that's not necessarily because of the stereo, but sounds like an oversight to me. But he's right - the mono versions are far better. The same goes for most of The Beatles stuff (not that I'm an expert regarding them and their material)
I always loved the Stones, but hearing these earlier versions in mono reinforces my believe that this is the greatest rock and roll band there ever was.
If you like a band going in circles for more than 40 years. You bought the fake image: "The Rolling Stones" put on "working class" image, but were -- especially Brian Jones and Jagger -- middle-/upper class.
@Piet Paaltjens Yes: they should hire morons such as you who know nothing about recording, and IGNORE the facts when you don't like them. Glynn Johns and George Martin were there -- you were not. But tell us: why were such as the early "Beach Boys" released in fake "stereo" if they could instead have been released in actual stereo? Because they were recorded in MONO, which was the MARKET.
Most people are so programmed to say that mono mixes are “punchy” and more “focused”. That’s the go-to mantra for mono heads. Reality is in surround-sound though. Take a walk through the forest, or down a busy street in the city….and the world is most-definitely not in mono. It’s all a matter of taste. Personally speaking, music in stereo is much more fun and realistic. Never once when I was at my own band practice did I ever think: “Man….I wish the entire band was coming out of this one spot in the room.”
Just like The Beatles recordings up and through 1967, the Stones & their production team intended the public to hear their recordings in mono; ‘nuff said; and all that work is readily available in mono so why do all the classic Rock stations and even Sirius XM play the inferior sounding stereo mixes? God bless iPods
My classic rock station once played the mono mix of "Revolution" by The Beatles and acted as though it could never happen again (to be fair, they played it off a vinyl copy). I thought it was ridiculous since _The Beatles in Mono_ can still be purchased for a price the station can afford.
The extreme stereo tracks could have been mixed more toward center to enhance the spatial effect of the music. That is what stereo is best at. The hard left or right mixing was done more to illustrate the "new" stereo effect better. Mainly so manufacturers could sell more stereo gear, back then. Monaural music without some stereo reverb is boring.
Part of this has to do not with technology, but with the fact that the stereo versions were an afterthought in the first few years. The production team and the artist would sweat the mono mix, then might even depart and leave the creation of the stereo to the engineer on his own, at a point when his or her ears (and brain) were probably pretty tired. At least this is my understanding. Also, of course, a mono mix can be, generally, cut louder onto vinyl and play back louder when pressed--cutting down on the ratio of music to surface noise.
Since the 1980s, and particularly, the original CD releases of the first 4 Beatles UK albums -- all in mono only -- there has been a very successful retelling of history regarding mono vs. stereo. It is true that, like ice cream, where everyone has their favorite flavor, preferring the sound of mono or stereo is a highly personal thing. I "get" the arguments on both sides. Personally, I prefer stereo. Always have. I find it sounds more "open" -- even the "hard stereo" of the 60s. I find you can hear more detail in stereo. You can pick out more instruments and individual vocals and so on. To me, to put it in visual terms, mono is black and white. Stereo is color. Mono is often muddier. It sounds more compressed. The mantra since the 80s has been that back in the day, the 60s, all the effort was put into the mono mixes, that the stereo mixes were afterthoughts. I believe this may have been true in the UK and Europe. It was not true in America. One began seeing stereo albums as a regular thing around 1959. By 1963, stereo was legitimately king in America. There's the legend of Phil Spector only liking mono. Most of his iconic records had stereo mixes in their day, and they were beautiful! But, on CD? Good luck finding those mixes! Same for Brian Wilson. He preferred mono (due to hearing loss in one ear), yet 7 of his pre-Friends albums were issued with true stereo formats available. Stereo was so popular in America that when a true stereo mix of an album did not exist, some labels (like Capitol) created the Duophonic (fake stereo) format. Lastly, in the video, the reason Under My Thumb sounds better in mono is that the comparison was manipulated that way. Like OJ Simpson putting on the glove in his trial. Compare the *original 1966 mixes* against each other.
Spector's "mono" recordings were actually three channels voice , guitars in the center , drums on the right and overlapped voices/ bass on left mixed to one channel to give the echo chamber overall prominence. Thus, wall of sound. Basically, very simple, but he was this first.
MONO was the standard "sound". Try this experiment: Listen to the mono version of "The Young Rascals" "Good Lovin'". Then the stereo. Both begin with "1-2-3-4!" -- but in the stereo it is panned left-right-left-right -- that was how gimmicky stereo was in 1965. And it took the steam all out of the recording.
I love Glyn Johns - he was terrific in Peter Jackson's docu-series _The Beatles: Get Back_ .
I thought he was right up Paul's ass the whole time, soon as George Martin turns up Glyn is right in Pauls face
The youngest guy in the room ☆
He was the best dressed. Looked like a male fashion model.
he was slow to get the equipment working
Finally watched it myself. Glyn is a legend.
Listening to this on headphones and the background music perfectly matching what he's describing was a great bit of editing. Marvelous!
Agreed!
That last bit about how it was intended to be heard, and hearing “Under My Thumb” both ways is 🤯 The Mono is epically more impactful!
This guy is a legend
As is Andrew Loog Oldham (is that a real neam?). As is George Martin.
J Nagarya. That Andrew guy knew how to sell the Stones. He had nothing to do with the sound.
Didn't He do Zep 1?
@@garyaustin8595 He was Director of Engineering, Jimmy Page of course was Producer of the greatest blues-rock record ever recorded!
Yeah, a legendary twit
We used to LOVE the OLD STEREO BEATLES albums, because the 'stereo' mix would put nearly ALL of the vocals on one channel, so if you dialed the BALANCE all the way to one side then you'd have a PERFECT musical base for KARAOKE!
thats cool, thanks for sharing, that's one thing I like about stereo, changing up the balance so you can hear vocals only or instruments only lol
I really prefer the mono version of "Under My Thumb". Listening with headphones, the stereo mix has more space to it but the mono mix is much more punchy and the bass line comes out stronger.
I think it comes down to preference and an aesthetic choice that you commit to when tracking. Some bands/songs/records might sound more detailed with stereo separation. Others might sound more full and lively in mono. It might be best (at least in my mind) to not think of mono as antiquated, but instead an option for the toolkit.
As Johns makes clear, MONO was the NORM, and that was the intended outcome from the beginning of the recording process. George Martin was limited to two-track -- which was UNMIXED MONO -- and was blown away when visiting Capital Rcords in New York and saw they had THREE-track MONO.
I'd rather hear mono than hear the fake "stereo" imposed on mono recordings during the early 1960s. And what WAS that fake "stereo"? It was the MONO track played through two channel, with one of them at a millisecond "delay" -- i.e. the mono track identical but very slightly out of sync.
J Nagarya Well it was 18-60 ms. 1-2 ms delay is for phase alignment like a BBE Sonic Maximizer.
Yes. The mono version is a lot beefier.
I also don't think many stereo recordings were mixed with the intention of listening to them on headphones. In a room the separation is less evident and jarring.
@@aaronzlanders that's certainly true, and stereo systems weren't quite what they are today back then so the physical separation of the speakers might not have been as wide as today.
But my choice as a consumer buying music to listen to on headphones and modern speaker systems is to opt for mono versions of songs initially tracked and mixed in mono. Just sounds a bit more natural and punchy to me.
More than anything, I guess I'm also trying to say that mono gets looked down upon as being antiquated but I think there's still a place for it, even in modern production. I'm working on some music currently that I think feels and sounds better in mono because the instrumentation is sparse and minimal, so everything right down the center feels more punchy and direct. Things like jazz trios often sound really great in mono because the balance of frequencies isn't all over the place in the stereo field. All bass in one ear and mostly midrange/treble in the other can feel really disorienting. That can be an aesthetic all on its own too, though especially in like psychedelic music
Real cool interview and
accompanying photo montage.
When I see the name Glyn Johns
on a cd/album cover,
I know it's been done
by the Master.
Mono version of Under My Thumb sounds better IMO.
You don't hear the hand clapping clearer ?
***** I don't know about you but I hear sounds Binaurally thats why I enjoy stereo maybe I'll throw away one speaker and puncher one of my ear drums ~ It's been 26 years since I last had a drink thanks for inquiring about my old drinking habit ~
I agree. Hearing an instrument only in one ear is a little odd. If you were in the room, you'd be hearing it in both ears.
Rock Singer, What am I missing, I hear mono with both ears. It almost sounds widescreen, in a subtle way mind you. The bass on Under my Thumb is so rumbly. Ps I don’t drink anymore either and don’t miss that insanity. Rock on.
Yeah I noticed that too but I don't know if it had been played back in mono first and then stereo would I have liked stereo better? Early Stones were terrific at any rate.
2:54. This was the first record I ever bought. It was mono. I remember the label said London on it and it was red. The stereo version had a blue label. It cost more but I didn't buy it because we didn't have a stereo record player. Loaned it out to somebody years later and never got it back. I suppose it's worth a fortune now. By the time I replaced it, I had a stereo so I bought the stereo version. The label said Decca. I remember listening to it on my stereo and swore that something had happened to the tweeter on the left channel (or was it the right?). I took my speakers apart and found that absolutely nothing was coming out of the tweeter on one side. It wasn't until I put another stereo album on that I realized that what Mr. Johns had done. He had to make a stereo record out of a mono recording so he put the high frequencies into one channel and the low frequencies into the other. That's why it said "simulated stereo" on the album cover and that's why I thought one of my tweeters had blown.
Exactly. When "The Beatles" hit big, EMI released the UNMIXED MONO recordings as "stereo" -- all the music on on channel, all the vocals on the other -- and Geoerge Martin was pissed: not only was he not told that was happening, but he said the unmixed recordings sounded like SHIT, with the "hole in the middle".
Those in the know swear by mono when that is as it was intended to be.
Your story gave me a good laugh & brought back some fond memories, because I had almost exactly the same type of experience. Many of those early "simulated stereo' recordings simply did some frequency separation and sent half to each channel, as you said. Occasionally, it also seemed that they'd add a few milliseconds of delay to one of the channels to give a psudeo-sense a wider audio 'space'. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it just sounded oddly 'off' a bit.
Yes: fake "stereo".
@@omi_god Yeah -- screw the intent of the artist. Your fee-fees are more important.
@@omi_god Almost complete. But I'm working on it.
As much as I love stereo, Mono has a certain aesthetic to it which is unbeatable.
For one it has more punch, more energy.
The demand that recordings made only in mono be "remixed" and released in "stereo" is made by musical morons who don't know how to listen, and falsely believe they are "sophisticated" because they are able to toss around jargon they don't understand.
Before "The Beatles" walked into Abbey Road, George Martin had visited Capitol Records in the US, and was blown away by their then state-of-the-art THREE-track MONO equipment.
Much ignorance would evaporate if the morons would read his book "All You Need is Ears". But, no, they'd rather imagine that his being there, and they not, means they know more than he.
@@jnagarya519 You sound like that bud!
The Punch & Energy cannot be beat. Listen to Mono Paperback Writer and then the stereo. 👊🏻
@@jnagarya519 Gotta disagree with this. There are certain songs that do sound way better in stereo than mono. Specifically songs by Phil Spector because of his wall of sound. Some of his songs CAN be mono, but stereo works best because of its ability to pan the dozens of instruments in the studio. Also, with all of the experimentation with layering, stereo is the only way to accurately mix a song to hear everything in a balanced way.
@@Briansmusic- Have you anything to offer other than personal attack?
I love those goofy stereo mixes with vocals on one side and the band on the other. It's a nice change of pace from (for instance) the vocals, bass and drums in the center, two guitars panned left and right, etc. The Stones' 'Let It Bleed' has the drums panned hard left and an acoustic guitar panned hard right to balance the drums. Only in a recording studio...
Pretty sure that would be because back then it was aimed really at listening through speakers rather than headphones (which were big and uncomfortable), so when early stereo pop records appeared they were a bit of a novelty and they wanted the maximum stereo impact and it was normal to have one sound come from the left, another from the right - in fact some early stereo pop records had the instruments on one channel and the vocals on the other. Stereo got more sophisticated when it became normal for pop music in the 70s and took over from mono.
Or how they use to emulate stereo by having the reverb panned opposite the guitar track to give the impression of a stereo spread.
The Doors stereo records are fun due to Bruce Botnik production.
I’ve adopted his drum micing technique in my own recording. Cool to see him in Get Back
I was a kid when all that came out....and no one I knew had a stereo. We all had a mono sound system. And an LP used to cost 1,98 $ then, in mono. If you wanted the stereo version ( that really wasn't stereo as he explained in the clip ) you paid and extra dollar. And that was a lot of money then, for something that you couldn't really appreciate since we didn't have the equipment to listen to it. When the first Jimi Hendrix album came out, I used to listen to it in mono, on a Garrard turntable, hooked to a 4 inch speaker. The hash made it sound much better.
loved early Stones!
I think Brian was really important. He was a great guitar player for the time. He is considered the first person in Britain to play slide guitar. It's a sad story.
When a recording has been made in proper (not “re-channelled”) Stereo, and the Stereo mix has been done properly and not rushed, then Stereo can sound fantastic. However, if a recording was originally done in Mono but is also issued in fake Stereo, then the Mono version will sound better (eg: early Stones). Also, even if a recording was done with real Stereo capability but the Stereo mix was rushed while the Mono mix had the appropriate amount of time and care devoted to it, then the Mono mix will sound better (eg: Sgt Pepper). The recent Stereo re-mix of Sgt Pepper has had more time taken over it and some would argue that it is better than the original ‘60’s Stereo mix - the original Mono mix has always sounded great. The Stones Let it Bleed sounds better in Stereo as the Mono version was just a fold down from the Stereo mix. So it is not a case of all Stereo bad and all Mono good (or vice versa). Some recordings sound great in Stereo and some recordings sound great in Mono (and some original Mono recordings that have been electronically “re-channelled” for Stereo sound inferior to the true Mono versions).
Could you have meant the Stones' Let It Bleed?
EPA18 - yes, have edited original comment to correct, thanks.
@Piet Paaltjens We read your ignorance the first time you posted it.
You are 1000% correct. It’s refreshing to see a comment from someone else who knows what mono and stereo actually means and how it relates to recordings. Job well done.
The original stereo mix of Sgt. Pepper is simply a product of its time. Saying it was rushed is a disservice to George Martin and co. It's the best they could have done with the tracks available. The 2017 remix uses the pre-bounce tapes which would have been impossible without digital technology in 1967.
Listening in headphones- Kudos to whomever sound-edited this video.
Thx 4 explaining this. Rollins Stones is my favorite group to listen to of all time :-)
I like the early Stones sound very much.
Brian Jones had a great deal to do with that
My choice is 67 to 72
@@wmhhealth2018 Didn't know he (Jones) was into the recording processes that much. I figured he played and chose instruments for the songs. I didn't know the early days from 62-68 that he had that much input to the mixing board. Very impressive to know....I figured it was the producer that rules the roost, like Glyn John's was alluding to.
Great to experience Glyn Johns’ humor over the challenge of changing mono mixes to stereo.
I love Mono recordings and Glyn Johns.
I grew up as a kid in the 50s and 60s listening to mono recordings on the radio and on vinyl. I started listening to stereo recordings starting in the 70s but didn't think much of it at the time. Later, as my listening tastes became more refined, as a developing bass player, I discovered that I prefered mono recordings to stereo, greater clarity and detail in the music with mono.
Exactly right.
George Martin details how "The Beatles," when he began recording them in stereo, didn't "get" the "two speakers".
Back in the early to late 60's, most all rock music was produced mixed to be played back in mono for AM radio stations with heavy compression & limiting. Also for home single speaker phonographs. As Glyn alludes too, stereo systems & hi-fi set ups (they were in their infancy then) were mostly classical listeners and audiophiles back then were mostly older guys who wanted Jazz & classical music on these systems. This mono 45 record single (or LP/EP) was usually called the "hot mix" in that it sounded great on the tiny AM transistor radios of the time & was similar to the large "Wall of Sound" that Phil Spector was producing as well. If someone, or a FM Stereo station wanted (But usually was not available) a true "Stereo" version of a song or LP/EP, then some record companies remastered & reissued it in a "Psuedo Stereo" sound , which sounded awful, as it used EQ adjustments and other processing tricks to give the allusion of a stereo recording, which it initially was NOT. Beatles at Abby Road Studios recorded much of their early stuff on 3 track tape machines, it wasn't really stereo, they put vocals on one side, some instruments on left and others on right side to GIVE the illusion of a stereo recording or session. It wasn't until true multi-track tape & recording consoles allowed for a "true" stereo recording in that individual channels could be pan potted, EQ'd, compressed & effects added on a left to right sound stage. It is interesting to note, that even given the availability of a true stereo recording during these early days, like "Under My Thumb", when listening to both mono or stereo (correct stereo recording) versions, many prefer the mono version. Why is that? The initial recording was meant for a mono experience and it achieved that fact with full sound in the recording process, irregardless if it had been recorded in stereo during these early days. Fast forward to the recording of Beatles White Album, a true stereo recording, but now the music is becoming more complex in sound with many layers and textures to it and the stereo version of it sounds more appealing.
There were transistor AM table radios with excellent sound. Only those who weren't alive then talk about "tiny AM transistor radios".
Neat explanation 👍
How unimportant was stereo to the Top 40 market back then? Prior to the very late 1960s, most recording labels only ever released mono 45s. And many younger pop/rock fans primarily bought 45s, not LPs. Thus, they mainly used monophonic systems. They mostly listened to mono AM radio stations. The Beatles didn’t release a stereo 45 until the Ballad of John & Yoko in ‘69. They knew what mix the majority of their target audience was listening to, & it wasn’t stereo.
My thoughts on mono/stereo:
-If a song was originally recorded and released in mono, then it should stay in mono. I'm referring especially to the fake stereo releases that came out in the early '60s. That does not include songs that were recorded in multitracks and happened to be mixed in mono first, but obviously recorded with stereo in mind. I had a mono release of the "Magical Mystery Tour" album which was an abomination, so it works both ways.
-I've always considered a recording to represent what the band sounded like if they were actually playing the song. I've never seen a band all plug into one amp with one speaker. So, mono is simply a facsimile bound by the technology of a particular time.
-A true mono aficionado would utilize a playback system that output to only one speaker. No left or right. One speaker.
-A lot, but not all, of the mono enthusiasts simply have a crappy playback system. It's easy for a song to sound "punchier" if all the speakers carry the same load, especially if the song is mixed to do so.
All that being said, there's nothing wrong with mono if that was all that technology allowed at a particular time. But stereo is a true representation of sound. Imagine what life might be like if we heard everything in mono only. Mono was the actual sound illusion, not stereo.
Fair enough, although to your last point, it's intriguing to hear the songs as they were intended to be recorded, regardless of whether the sound quality is better or more representative of the moment in stereo. Imho.
@@JackFirneno Thanks for replying. I agree, and that was mostly what I was offering in my first point.
But I will say that it's also intriguing to hear today's technology showing what it might have actually sounded like, band-wise (as opposed to using modern tech to enhance mono recordings, which was shown here).
I thought most of the 5.1 mixes of The Beatles Anthology DVDs were fabulous, although they were certainly never originally intended to be so. One the other hand, I have other DVD audio discs that make me cringe regarding the sound field. At this point in time, anyone can only guess at what the original intentions were...and that goes for mono as well...IMHO.
no shit.. they remastered all of elvis.. into fake stereo ! some tasteless asshole probably bought an expensive new house behind that jive !
"That does not include songs that were recorded in multitracks and happened to be mixed in mono first, but obviously recorded with stereo in mind."
Except that stereo WASN'T in mind, for the reasons Glyn Johns explains.
As for the absurd fiction you posit: you can't possibly accept 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound because you only have two ears.
And, no: a band's recordings, unless live, are not intended to sound live as if outside the studio. In studio musicians can capture nuances that are lost not only live, but on listeners who don't know how to listen, and blind themselves with pre-existing expectations.
@@jnagarya519 Yet, Johns also mentions recording with stereo in mind, and mentioning how difficult the final mix was (for him, anyway).
Expanded Dolby mixes simply reinforce a 3-D sound-field. The cool thing about having two ears is being able place sound objects in different locations; it's more than a simplified left-or-right matter. A 360 sound environment is something that was utilized from the mid '60s onward.
As far as a live/not-live sound...I've never heard a real-life performance in mono. When engineers/producers became more competent, almost every band I know of took advantage of the studio to create music that required a lot of work to recreate when on tour. Some could and some couldn't. And of course, one might confused by the fact that so many songs today are created without actual musicians, so no "live" sound actually exists. But, anyway, if a person has ever been in a band and played an instrument, they would know that almost all songs are created and practiced live, and the live sound, augmented or not, is the foundation.
Glyn Johns had the cool 60s fashions in Get Back, which I LOVE. That movie is a time capsule.
I think Mono can sound fantastic. Phil Spector's work and Brian Wilson's are particularly good examples. Pet Sounds is a particular favourite mono album of mine. There was a period in the 60's when bands would do Mono and Stereo versions. The Beatles did a lot in both and they are very often completely different recordings altogether.
That's because the early "Beatles" "stereo" recordings were PRE-MIXED MONO. The first LP they consciously recorded in stereo was "Help!" And it was George Martin's first stereo recording. He states that it is a "mess". And that's why those who know how to LISTEN to music say the MONO is better.
Educate yourself: read Martin's "All You Need is Ears".
@@jnagarya519 I've read 'All you need is ears' and 'It was 20 years ago today'. I've always found the work of record producers fascinating.
for years as a kid we had a broken stereo that the left channel blew out so I really appreciated mono recordings
LEGEND...
The best place to hear a classical concert is usually about halfway or two thirds towards the rear of the auditorium, where there is no discernible stereo effect at all, but each instrument can be heard clearly. The different timbre of the various instruments enable you to differentiate them, not their geographic location. May be that’s also why the Stones and just about everyone else sound better and with more in mono.
Seeing Brian Jones smiling at 1:45 warmed my heart...R I P the talented, visionary, multi-instrument genius who gave the early Stones and edge Jagger could only mimic until that fateful day in Summer, 1969 in a swimming pool in the English countryside.
Mick and Keith evolved as musicians and took the Stones to new avenues, Brian unfortunately wasn't designed for it. But he was the founding member (and leader) of the band, and also played a variety of instruments on those earlier records...not just guitar.
"The Beatles" were the first to use "non-rock and roll" instruments on their recordings. "The Rolling Stones" FOLLOWED them, including the bizarre flop "Flower Power" "Satanic Majesties Request" effort to replicate "Sgt. Pepper's".
@@jnagarya519Not The Beatles…..The guy calling the shots for them and creating the music Sir George Martin. You honestly think they came up with the idea to use orchestras? Martin was working with recording and producing orchestra music before he called shots for the Beatles
@@flyingburritobro68 George Martin was also the producer of "The Goons," of which "The Beatles" were big fans.
Martin made suggestions. "The Beatles" either agreed or did not. And that included "The Beatles" themselves recognizing the value of adding orchestral elements to some songs. NONE of that was new in popular music including prior "rock and roll" music -- check out Phil Spector as but one example. "The Beatles" were obvious fans of Spector's production from his recordings during the early 1960s, which is why they John and George viewed it as an opportunity to work with him post-"Beatles".
There's no denying Martin's contributions. But Martin also said: at the beginning "The Beatles" were the "pupils"; at the end Martin was the "pupil". And one can follow that evolution -- if one first learns how to LISTEN -- between beginning and end of "The Beatles'" increasing control from the beginning.
Brian Jones looking fly @1:45 as usual.
This is an awesome thing to have explained, I just learnt that mono is underated and will be using MONO in my own recordings from now on... Thank you so much for sharing!
Albi Collier please don't, it's unnatural! we hear stereo, we have two ears not one! Don't go back in time, give your recordings life! Stereo is color, mono is Gray!
It is like a sculptor saying that they're going to do all their work onto a flat wall. 2D is much richer than 3D, right?
Analog Guy Analog tape is unnatural, cars are unnatural, TVs are unnatural, computers are unnatural. Are those things bad?
Da Hawk That is called a painting. In the mid 60's the tape used typically had anywhere between 2 or 4 tracks, this meant that multiple elements had to be mixed in the same channel when the stereo was mixed and it was disjointed. Mono was the dominant format until 68 in the UK, so they recorded and mixed in mono first. By the 70's stereo was king and mono was no longer mixed at all. But it is all subjective and if you prefer stereo than more power to you, I prefer mono for the early to mid 60's rock myself. At the end of the day just enjoy the music how you want to! Have a good day.
@@aboutsoundandvision - No, and your reminder to take a step back and enjoy everything as much as you can is timely. Mono, Stereo, all of 'em are choices that should be in an artist's toolkit. And remember both "keep it simple stupid" and "refresh your memory often(to see what 'tools' you have to work with)" to stay on top of what's available and what will work.
In the statement "the pen is over the blank page, and you are God," is the origin story of many posers and pinheads. I saw a video clip of a famous foreign actor who was asked about all the craziness; and he said, "I think that there can be such a thing as too much freedom." I agree with him, and I respectfully decline to name him. Fortune passes everywhere.
Enjoyed this little promo would love to see him chat more about his work in the studio. Part of documentary? You could only hope
His take on the Eagles "Desperado" album he produced is hilarious. Basically it was "you guys suck as a rock band" of course he would be correct.
@@billyboy6028 ; I don't agree at all, but I understand ya' suspicion of the Eagles. If "Life in the Fast Lane" ain't good rock'n'roll - musically and lyrically - then ya' hard to please.
It's stunning how little most people know or understand about this all. People think they can just magically extract stuff out with digital technology. There are tricks but ...NO....You cannot just isolate stuff on one track from other stuff on the same track. ...unless you have an individual sound that appears on two tracks, one isolated then the other mixed...then you can kinda try to cancel the sound on two of three tracks by phase flipping it , so that that sound runs into it's own wave on the other track output.
Abbey Road used high tech filters to create Rock Band Beatles but even with that when you isolate drum tracks in the earlier stuff there is annoying frequencies present which is a byproduct of the digital process. Its like using the term deconstruction out of context. Its all over youtube isolated this and that and when you listen its not.
It was around 65 and 66 that the Underground Radio stations started to become popular. At the time AM radio was what most everyone had and there were very few FM radios in the general population. The FCC didn't pay a lot of attention to FM so we started getting some very creative programming, It was all live programing and the DJs had free rain. Most of all it was broadcast in Stereo and the sound was amazing.
I was in Huntington Beach and we had KPPC. Today it is a Christian station but back in the 60s it was underground!!
free reign*
Legend. Love this dude
"...the way it was intended to be. " Amen.
I suspect a bit of digital trickery was used to make the short stereo clip as out of phase and thin sounding as possible in order to make mono sound fuller and more satisfying. Normally there wouldn't be that much difference on a phone speaker.
Similar to the PR put out when the CD Mono Box Set of The Beatles was released. And yes, I bought it, pre-ordered no less.
Partly also because my Ex took all her LPs, and I had no physical media of them.
Ripped the whole box to mp3 because my very old ears can hardly tell the difference. :-)
We had all their singles, ep's, albums in mono when we were growing up.
At that age all we wanted to do was crank it. Whether it be Bach, Mozart, Hendrix, there's an ethereal satisfaction when we allow music to consume us.
That's why live music is so important.
There's no entity in the universe able to silence the creation of music, because it's a part of who we are.
There is something that nobody mentions when talking about new mono disc pressings and that is that some engineers say that mono cutter heads no longer exist. So all mono mixes are cut for vinyl with a Stereo cutter head. Can that influence the sound?
Voices seem to sound stronger and fuller in mono. That includes opera recordings as well as pop.
The best classicals recording are clearly with only on micro well-placed.
Glyn Johns produced Who Next. Impossible to think mono could sound better as things fly from speaker to speaker on that masterpiece. The mid sixties recordings and the earliest stereo recordings probably sound better in mono. After that stereo was perfected. Did someone say Dark Side of the moon? That album got stereos upgraded as it is perfection.
"Darkside" basically introduced us to "QUADRAPHONIC" TTFN!!....🎼🕶
The only artist who preferred mono is Van Gogh.
Da Hawk any band before around 66-67 when they started recording on more tracks sounds way more powerful in mono. And you hear mono with both ears wtf!!!!
I remember buying simulated stereo records in the 1960's. They had bass frequencies on one channel and treble frequencies on the other. They sounded terrible with headphones, and not too good otherwise. And they cost more because they were "stereo"!
AM mono radio was pretty much all there was, except for maybe some stereo jazz stations in larger markets ...
What a difference between the stereo and mono version. The mono sounds much livelier to me.
Perhaps that's because back then, the producers thought it would be fun to have independent channels (left or right). Rather than creating a natural soundstage. ie drums on the left or right - I ask you... lol Pull all the instruments together and you have an immediate impact.
bareknuckles2u mono sounds dull! If you could see Music, stereo would be color, mono would be Gray!
@@vinylcity1599 You haven't learned to LISTEN and HEAR yet.
@@chrisguygeezer The FACILITIES weren't available -- as Johns expressly says: POP was recorded in MONO, PERIOD. There was no alternative. Read George Martin's "All You Needis Ears" and he'll 'splain the evolution of recording technology, AND THE UK MARKET. Pop singles were MONO because the goal was AIRPLAY on MONO AM radio.
@@jnagarya519 In the early to mid 60's, they only had 2 track machines, 8 track recording didn't become widespread until 68-69. Abbey Road was the only Beatles album recorded in 8 track.
I’m a proud owener of the amazing Japanese version of the set
Very interesting. I did home recording and the stereo effect was always a conundrum.
@nimrodian There`s more than one way of doing it. Every song is different.
All mono versions heard so far (post-1965) apparently just use familiar stereo. TSMR + LIB sound better in stereo. Worth buying later albums? No point buying altogether because have early stuff in both formats. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Mono means the Audio is coming from only 1 single channel/source. i.e. 1 speaker. You still pan instruments within that field, in fact that is how you take advantage of a proper mono mix. That way no instrument is occupying the same field of space at any given time.
The sole reason mono recordings are revered is because A LOT of time and energy went into thinking about the mix by the artists/engineers/producers. Having to work within certain confines is how creativity can flourish. It’ll make you think differently in order to achieve what you desire.
Stereo allows one to not be so careful about how tracks are laid out. That’s why The Beatles didn’t involve themselves in the stereo mixing process. And why John said “you haven’t heard sgt pepper until you’ve heard it in mono”.
Most people don’t realize you have to have a special stylus to listen to a mono record in true mono, or a preamp in the receiver (or the Y cable trick).
A mono record is cut differently. It has a different, wider groove. And when you feed a mono record into a receiver that splits it into stereo, it’s not a true mono output.
I’ve been sitting on the Beatles in mono box set since 2014 and have yet to hear them in true mono.
I’m waiting for the day.
If you're waiting for the day you get a "proper" mono cart, stop waiting. New mono recordings are cut with modern cutting heads. Will a good mono cart be better? Yes, but the big benefit is when playing old mono pressings. So stop waiting, life is short, you could be dead next week and some other jerk-off is going to break the seal on that box set. God I should have bought that Beatles box. At least I bought over half of it a-la-cart. I like the Stones Mono box better anyway, at least I have that.
Anyone know why some mono mixes of “Heart Of Stone” starts in stereo and quickly switches to mono?
I suppose combining the left and right channel wouldn't work? I had a stereo that had a mono switch. Not anymore.
Transistor radios were huge & a technological breakthrough in portability if for no other reason, but you have to be the epitome of an audiophile to own a mono box set
Fantastic!!!!
Back to mono. l always mix in mono. l was raised in mono 1963 on. stereo sukxz
Stereo doesn't suck, but it is overrated.
what a legend!
Legend.
Glyn is/was my old school chum and when we left school he got a job at IBC studios and I had formed a rock band called The Presidents. At weekends Glyn would invite us up to the studio and try out his new skills and the combination got us signed to Decca Records. Here is a link to one of the tracks we recorded with Glyn at the controls which was passed to Decca but somehow got lost BUT was found in LA in 2018 and released that June - so here one hears one of his earliest productions mimed with the original line up which I managed to get together. Please share the link - @
Was your link deleted? Would love to hear it.
where is the link?
tease
That's a good one...the song is so very hard to hear....
Under public address type sound, ( am radio) it sounds good at a distance
The reason the mono version of Under My Thumb sounds better here is because here it's about twice the apparent loudness of the stereo version.
It isn't the volume that's different; it's the COHERENCE; and mono gives it PUNCH, INTENSITY.
Yes, the bass is obviously punched up on the mono version, which could easily be done in stereo as well. Kiddies, download Audacity and try it yourselves.
Bet Deram/Decca started getting pretty crafty about it all with the MOODY BLUES....It is stereo but not hard isolated and instead really spread across two fields but in a relatable way somehow. Some form of everything is in both speakers...and not just through a reverb plate set opposite., but it is two different channels...Carrying slightly differing mixes....Really forward thinking.
Exactly. Check out "The Best Way To Travel" (1968)...an amazing use of stereo technology.
Wasn't it recored in mono for car radios and people with radios which were both mono back then and quite prevalent?
I was always quite fond of the goofy, hard panned early stereo sound.
Sometimes it sounds terrible. Sometimes it's awesome. Like I heard a mix like that of Credence - Suzie Q on the radio one day and I got really into it.
how stoned do you have to be ? ( how stoned can you get ?)
@@captlarry-3525Just ask Bob Dylan.
Esquivel comes to mind
I havent had a stereo device working in here in 35 years. I have it in my car.. and turn it off ! Most jazz was well recorded..and not faked.
Interesting . I'm not sure what the problem was but some LPs on different systems only played half the music ,or deleted on a stereo LP one track . When quad or discreet four channel came in that could've messed things up . I'm not sure but very few bands recorded in Four cannel or Quad. The Who's Quadrophonia wasn't. They gave up in the studio. I'd heard that " Their Satanic" was . Maybe Zeppelin and Pink Floyd also. I listened to a very high end system years ago and it was amazing.,and it would've worked fine for home theater. You only have two ears but Quad gave direction and separation that allowed you to turn to a corner of the room and increase the volume of whatever part you wanted to concentrate on .
As he explains, you can’t do a proper stereo mix without enough tracks to record to. Until about 1968 there was only four track recording which isn’t really enough tracks to create a good stereo mix. The old mono stuff sounds great. George Harrison said you should only listen to Sgt. Pepper in mono because that’s how it was originally intended to be heard. He thought the stereo mix was crap.
The early Beatles, Kinks, Stones, etc., were -- as he says -- INTENDED to be MONO.
Popular music singles were mixed according to the END: MONO AM RADIO play.
All the bullshit demands of "fans" for stereo releases of those early recordnigs are from people who don't know what they're talking about.
Hopefully they'll all finally sit down and shut up.
I think they did other tricks for AM radio like the bass on lets spend the night together overloads the radio speaker sounds too clean on a stereo hi fi
If something was Stereo remixed it was intended. Did it happen by accident? That said I love the mono more.
@nimrodian With the president you people elected I wouldn't be telling anybody that they don't know what their talking about!!
I couldn't disagree with you more. A quality stereo recording is preferable any day over its mono counterpart. Johns and fellow numbskull Andrew Loog Oldham didn't know what they were doing when it came to recording in a good quality stereo, and as a result, the Stones early stereo sounds flat and awful.
J Nagarya: But there ARE multitracks that exist of The Kinks, The Animals...but the owners have no intention of remixing them to stereo, only because they wouldn't sound correct mixed that way and don't want to spend the money to do so. A lot of songs DO sound OK mixed to stereo.
Interesting!
The comparison in this video isn't fair... they goosed up bass and the mono is way more compressed. Had the stereo been presented in those same frequencies, then it would be up to personal preference (the way it was originally released vs better separation) . But it's done in such a way that nobody would say they prefer stereo. If you compare Sgt. Pepper 2017 stereo (remixed by Giles Martin) vs 1967 mono, then it'd make more sense.
1:57 That's why The Beatles new stereo remixes sound more like the mono mixes. Dream on ABKCO
So what was the first true Stones album in stereo?
When do you ever go to a gig and hear the drums in one ear?
When you're deaf in the other ear;)
You hear the same thing in both ears though
He's absolutely right. I'm still embarrassed about the day I crossed paths with Mr. Johns at Sunset Sounds while he was working on Band of Horses.
I'm watching this video on my phone without anything plugged in, the mono comparison just popped. So yeah, mono still has a niche.
Exactly, I agree mono is the way Rock and Roll + the Blues was meant to be recorded 💯 😎
Rocklove ArtyThan ☆♡☆
You like the mono better because it’s a weird old fashioned stereo mix with the drums on one side.
Put the drums and vocals and bass in the center, pan the guitars off-center and the stereo mix would be just as “punchy” as the mono plus it would have more realistic space.
Stereo is far better than mono assuming it’s a good mix and decent playback system.
I remember when music players had a mono /stereo button
Anything done in the 60's that was recorded in mono is going to sound better especially after remastering with modern software. If you're a 4 or 5 piece rock back today looking for that vintage sound you should try a mix in mono.
Check out what Les Paul has to say about mono and stereo.
I am guessing that when they originally tracked the songs, they must have printed drums, bass, rhythm guitar to one channel on the recorder? They must have had to do that with a lot of instruments. I can't think of any other reason why they didn't go back and remix the songs for stereo rather than create fake stereo.
If you’re a guitarist, bassist, or other musician, you want to hear the isolated parts in order to learn them better, hear them more clearly.
That wasn't the goal of the nusicians or the record companies. If you wanted that, there was sheet music.
@@jnagarya519
Sheet music is notoriously innaccurate.
Glyn, why do some of the mono recordings sound better? Some of those early stereo mixes werent that good imho.
Panning a mono signal anywhere out of center reduces its signal to the ears. The mono version has the sound as they heard it, equal volumes in each ear which dramatically changes the sound characteristics the ear hears. When attempting to utilize a left and right speaker configuration on mono signals, there is a degradation in the amount of recorded sound that makes it to the two track stereo master. The entire dynamic of the instruments changes when you pan somehing. The musical style lends itself to mono, if, that's how it was recorded. Soon after folks recorded in Stereo and the signal thing was no longer an issue. I like both mixes equally. A new recording changed from Stereo to mono would never sound better.
1:47 is he okay????
As a professional recording engineer we can debate all day… and everyday what ‘in stereo’ means. Your ears ‘hear’ ‘in stereo’.
If you walk into a club gig sound comes to both ears from the whole room- you dont hear drums in one ear and guitar in the other. Your ears hear ‘in stereo’ everything. So what is stereo? When you mic a piano, do you put a left ear mic on the low strings and a right ear mic on the high keys? Is that stereo? Or do you put one mic on the piano in center, one mic 5 feet away to the left for the left ear and one 10 feet to the right for the right ear? Is that stereo? We could do this for days.
Keep this in mind: when 24 track machines came about- some engineers looked at it as a 12 track ‘stereo’ recorder.
But there's also a lot of more low end on that "under my thumb" in mono - that's not necessarily because of the stereo, but sounds like an oversight to me. But he's right - the mono versions are far better. The same goes for most of The Beatles stuff (not that I'm an expert regarding them and their material)
I always loved the Stones, but hearing these earlier versions in mono reinforces my believe that this is the greatest rock and roll band there ever was.
If you like a band going in circles for more than 40 years.
You bought the fake image: "The Rolling Stones" put on "working class" image, but were -- especially Brian Jones and Jagger -- middle-/upper class.
Other than the Kings of EMI.
Quad is the bomb. Everything else is just limited by the technology in the time it was recorded in.
Jack Deckard
Quad reel to reel
Quad is burried by 5/7.2.
And mono has its place, especially when ine hears how efforts to make it "stereo" are butchery.
Jack Deckard: Quad SACD !
Damn box so beautiful, already weight it in my hands, but wallet still too thin
@Piet Paaltjens You have uneducated ears.
@Piet Paaltjens Yes: they should hire morons such as you who know nothing about recording, and IGNORE the facts when you don't like them.
Glynn Johns and George Martin were there -- you were not.
But tell us: why were such as the early "Beach Boys" released in fake "stereo" if they could instead have been released in actual stereo? Because they were recorded in MONO, which was the MARKET.
Most people are so programmed to say that mono mixes are “punchy” and more “focused”. That’s the go-to mantra for mono heads. Reality is in surround-sound though. Take a walk through the forest, or down a busy street in the city….and the world is most-definitely not in mono. It’s all a matter of taste. Personally speaking, music in stereo is much more fun and realistic. Never once when I was at my own band practice did I ever think: “Man….I wish the entire band was coming out of this one spot in the room.”
I remember going to see your band once and praying the sound coming out any area of the room.
Just like The Beatles recordings up and through 1967, the Stones & their production team intended the public to hear their recordings in mono; ‘nuff said; and all that work is readily available in mono so why do all the classic Rock stations and even Sirius XM play the inferior sounding stereo mixes? God bless iPods
My classic rock station once played the mono mix of "Revolution" by The Beatles and acted as though it could never happen again (to be fair, they played it off a vinyl copy). I thought it was ridiculous since _The Beatles in Mono_ can still be purchased for a price the station can afford.
I’m convinced. Anyone want to buy half a set of speakers?
Nothing wrong with Mono ...or Hi-Fi .... pretty cool actually !
I’m pretty sure that a lot of those old mono recordings have a much richer and buttery sound quality.
The collection of mono singles by Steppenwolf is very good also.
(:
Unfortunately this box set is digital master not analog you might as well buy the CDs!
I'm waiting for the 'Glyn Jones on fashion' video
The extreme stereo tracks could have been mixed more toward center to enhance the spatial effect of the music. That is what stereo is best at. The hard left or right mixing was done more to illustrate the "new" stereo effect better. Mainly so manufacturers could sell more stereo gear, back then. Monaural music without some stereo reverb is boring.
Yes, mono or stereo depends of what the musicians are waiting for they music.
Part of this has to do not with technology, but with the fact that the stereo versions were an afterthought in the first few years. The production team and the artist would sweat the mono mix, then might even depart and leave the creation of the stereo to the engineer on his own, at a point when his or her ears (and brain) were probably pretty tired. At least this is my understanding. Also, of course, a mono mix can be, generally, cut louder onto vinyl and play back louder when pressed--cutting down on the ratio of music to surface noise.
Since the 1980s, and particularly, the original CD releases of the first 4 Beatles UK albums -- all in mono only -- there has been a very successful retelling of history regarding mono vs. stereo. It is true that, like ice cream, where everyone has their favorite flavor, preferring the sound of mono or stereo is a highly personal thing. I "get" the arguments on both sides. Personally, I prefer stereo. Always have. I find it sounds more "open" -- even the "hard stereo" of the 60s. I find you can hear more detail in stereo. You can pick out more instruments and individual vocals and so on. To me, to put it in visual terms, mono is black and white. Stereo is color. Mono is often muddier. It sounds more compressed. The mantra since the 80s has been that back in the day, the 60s, all the effort was put into the mono mixes, that the stereo mixes were afterthoughts. I believe this may have been true in the UK and Europe. It was not true in America. One began seeing stereo albums as a regular thing around 1959. By 1963, stereo was legitimately king in America. There's the legend of Phil Spector only liking mono. Most of his iconic records had stereo mixes in their day, and they were beautiful! But, on CD? Good luck finding those mixes! Same for Brian Wilson. He preferred mono (due to hearing loss in one ear), yet 7 of his pre-Friends albums were issued with true stereo formats available. Stereo was so popular in America that when a true stereo mix of an album did not exist, some labels (like Capitol) created the Duophonic (fake stereo) format. Lastly, in the video, the reason Under My Thumb sounds better in mono is that the comparison was manipulated that way. Like OJ Simpson putting on the glove in his trial. Compare the *original 1966 mixes* against each other.
wow .... like OJ ? ....omg, ok, ok .... hmmm . . . . still thinkin'
Spector's "mono" recordings were actually three channels voice , guitars in the center , drums on the right and overlapped voices/ bass on left mixed to one channel to give the echo chamber overall prominence. Thus, wall of sound. Basically, very simple, but he was this first.
I love the acoustic guitar rhythm in mono. Same with the Beatles records. Unique sound.
MONO was the standard "sound". Try this experiment:
Listen to the mono version of "The Young Rascals" "Good Lovin'". Then the stereo. Both begin with "1-2-3-4!" -- but in the stereo it is panned left-right-left-right -- that was how gimmicky stereo was in 1965. And it took the steam all out of the recording.
@@jnagarya519 That is why drugs were essential.
@@jeffreykamberos7524 The issue of drugs is blown all out of proportion. They are biggest as an issue with those who don't know anything about them.
@@jnagarya519 I agree. That's why I make jokes.
@@jeffreykamberos7524 How is it "funny" to misrepresent the reality and ignore the predictable consequences?