Thanks for watching! 🎶🎧 Do drop your comments and questions below. If you'd like to support the channel, check the video description for many DISCOUNT CODES codes to enjoy money off various products and feed your vinyl habit! (I earn a small commission - no additional cost to you). Thank you for your support!
When I think of early Stereo, I’m thinking 1957-1962. I for one, love the clean separation between the channels. It’s like an eargasam. I’m not a fan of the muddled layered Spector wall of sound. Just my opinion of course.
It depends on the album. Elvis Presley has some early stereo albums that are amazing yet they predate the Beatles 60s stereo recordings, which are notoriously hard panned left and right
1950s RCA Victor Living Stereo releases often sound incredible, they seemed to be ahead of the curve with the process, although the Esquivel lounge pop records have that zany "new toy" approach to panning and placement, but that's part of what makes them fun.
@@soundmatters I don't think Elvis did a true stereo LP until 1960's Elvis Is Back!, but it's a fun album, and original Living Stereo pressings shouldn't be hard to find.
Elvis Golden Records 1 and 2 sound great with their fake stereo. I prefer the mono for the originally... but for a party vibe look for the early stereo
Many of the early Rolling Stones albums sound best in Mono, as the “reprocessed” Stereo versions sound “out of phase” to me. An example of a Jazz LP that sounds better in Mono is Jimmy Smith’s Home Cookin’. The organ has much more punch to it in the center on the Mono than it does on the Stereo version. Anyhow, keep up the great work!
I tell you what I can't stand, it's when they take a old mono mix (let's say a recording from the 30's to 50's) and do some processing on it to make it sound "stereo", some of those are just not listenable on headphones. This was back in the analog days though, with modern Al it can be done a little better but it still has a little way to go. I make music and in the early days I found that it sounded very different if I down-mix everything to mono. So what I do now is monitor in mono, and that way if it sounds good in mono, it's going to sound great when I listen to it in stereo.
Back when stereo was novel and so making stereo must be better, right!? Like any new production tech or method, it always gets overdone in the early days before being applied more tastefully
I have been listening to The Searchers in stereo for the first time. The drumming and the jangling lead guitar stand out a lot more than in mono. So again another tick for stereo. Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders sound better in mono and so do Jan & Dean.
I was a child in the 60s hearing the Beatles in mono on the radio. When it came to buying them in the 70s it was all stereo of course and I didn't know any different. I was sceptical of the mono's but bought them anyway. Oh wow! It was like meeting an old friend, it's mostly just a beat here or a twang there but they're what I grew up with and was astonished how well I remembered them. For me Abbey Road is drowned in stereo production and I'd love to hear a mono mix. Question for you, do you think Phil back to mono Spector would have made a secret mono mix of Let It Be? Thanks always interesting videos. 😊
Stereo was developed with and created primarily for Classical music recording during the mid to late 1950s. With RCA inventing the stereo cutting head to make stereo records possible in 1957, stereo was able to be widely marketed to the public as a new medium for sound reproduction. Some of the greatest stereo Classical records were created during this period and are still regarded as top notch audiophile recordings to this day. The music industry inevitably gave mono about a 10 year transition & span to be ultimately phased out, while consumers gradually upgraded their equipment from HiFi mono to stereo audio systems. Pop records were primarily for the AM and singles market, with mono LPs being pressed and sold in larger quantities in the US until about 1967. A bit later transition for the UK. Most labels and producers focused more on recording in mono up until that point, with stereo being considered a novelty for pop music. With the mixing process of mono and stereo still being done separately at the time, this resulted in the mixing differences we’ve all come to know and love in collecting pop records from the 1960s.
Its why I am tolerant and usually enjoy the new remasters of say the Beatles or Floyd etc as they merely represent how we do recording and production of stereo now - we no longer need stereo games we just want the music…i grew up with the Beatles etc so have the vinyl and the cd’s and now remasters via higher end streaming …amazing
Old man worked for a local distributor here in the Midwest US way back, so I can try to pass on his input on the subject. In 1965, some patents on stereo parts started to expire, so Kinney (Atlantic) and CBS (Columbia, Epic) started pressuring Zenith, Magnavox, Phillps, RCA, etc to make stereo players more affordable, which they did by 1967 and also capital was getting invested into FM radio, which could broadcast in stereo. The record companies then authorized producers to focus on the stereo mixes only, as mono was planned to be phased out by 1970 - sans single edits for AM play. There were a few stragglers in 1968 like Oddesey & Oracle, Steppenwolf's first, Bookends, etc. where the mono cuts were superior to their stereo counterparts, but by The White Album, it started getting fleshed out - producers started getting it together on the stereo cuts. An example of that turning point is Piper and Saucerful by Floyd. Piper mono is work of art; the stereo is last-minute hack piece of sheeyite. Saucerful, which was less than a year after Piper - the mono and stereo are almost identical.
To my ear the beatles 2009 stereo are too bright which makes people think are better (dont get me started on the 1987 remixes of help and rubbersoul). Early stereo mixes sound good for the time... Better to fold them down to mono with headphones! Very clear sound Mono usually sounded dull and compressed.....(for beatles records) but thats the way it should be. They were pressed loud.
Thanks for watching! 🎶🎧 Do drop your comments and questions below. If you'd like to support the channel, check the video description for many DISCOUNT CODES codes to enjoy money off various products and feed your vinyl habit! (I earn a small commission - no additional cost to you). Thank you for your support!
When I think of early Stereo, I’m thinking 1957-1962. I for one, love the clean separation between the channels. It’s like an eargasam. I’m not a fan of the muddled layered Spector wall of sound. Just my opinion of course.
It depends on the album. Elvis Presley has some early stereo albums that are amazing yet they predate the Beatles 60s stereo recordings, which are notoriously hard panned left and right
1950s RCA Victor Living Stereo releases often sound incredible, they seemed to be ahead of the curve with the process, although the Esquivel lounge pop records have that zany "new toy" approach to panning and placement, but that's part of what makes them fun.
Thanks for sharing, Soundlab. Cool. I'm less familiar with the Presley stuff, but will seek a few out for comparison. What record should I start with?
@@soundmatters I don't think Elvis did a true stereo LP until 1960's Elvis Is Back!, but it's a fun album, and original Living Stereo pressings shouldn't be hard to find.
Elvis Golden Records 1 and 2 sound great with their fake stereo. I prefer the mono for the originally... but for a party vibe look for the early stereo
Hound Dog in fake stereo is something else. The drums almost gave me a heart attack
Many of the early Rolling Stones albums sound best in Mono, as the “reprocessed” Stereo versions sound “out of phase” to me. An example of a Jazz LP that sounds better in Mono is Jimmy Smith’s Home Cookin’. The organ has much more punch to it in the center on the Mono than it does on the Stereo version. Anyhow, keep up the great work!
Great examples. Yes, I sometimes find the "punch" is gone in some stereo versions too. Thanks for watching
I tell you what I can't stand, it's when they take a old mono mix (let's say a recording from the 30's to 50's) and do some processing on it to make it sound "stereo", some of those are just not listenable on headphones. This was back in the analog days though, with modern Al it can be done a little better but it still has a little way to go. I make music and in the early days I found that it sounded very different if I down-mix everything to mono. So what I do now is monitor in mono, and that way if it sounds good in mono, it's going to sound great when I listen to it in stereo.
Back when stereo was novel and so making stereo must be better, right!? Like any new production tech or method, it always gets overdone in the early days before being applied more tastefully
You forgot one major difference with Punk Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive in mono and that is Rick Wrights organ being left off.
Some demos would be appreciated- 10 sec. snippets in a future video?
I have been listening to The Searchers in stereo for the first time. The drumming and the jangling lead guitar stand out a lot more than in mono. So again another tick for stereo. Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders sound better in mono and so do Jan & Dean.
I was a child in the 60s hearing the Beatles in mono on the radio. When it came to buying them in the 70s it was all stereo of course and I didn't know any different. I was sceptical of the mono's but bought them anyway. Oh wow! It was like meeting an old friend, it's mostly just a beat here or a twang there but they're what I grew up with and was astonished how well I remembered them. For me Abbey Road is drowned in stereo production and I'd love to hear a mono mix. Question for you, do you think Phil back to mono Spector would have made a secret mono mix of Let It Be? Thanks always interesting videos. 😊
Haha - I wonder... For Phil Spectors own personal listening? Maybe ;)
Stereo was developed with and created primarily for Classical music recording during the mid to late 1950s. With RCA inventing the stereo cutting head to make stereo records possible in 1957, stereo was able to be widely marketed to the public as a new medium for sound reproduction. Some of the greatest stereo Classical records were created during this period and are still regarded as top notch audiophile recordings to this day. The music industry inevitably gave mono about a 10 year transition & span to be ultimately phased out, while consumers gradually upgraded their equipment from HiFi mono to stereo audio systems. Pop records were primarily for the AM and singles market, with mono LPs being pressed and sold in larger quantities in the US until about 1967. A bit later transition for the UK. Most labels and producers focused more on recording in mono up until that point, with stereo being considered a novelty for pop music. With the mixing process of mono and stereo still being done separately at the time, this resulted in the mixing differences we’ve all come to know and love in collecting pop records from the 1960s.
There was a release of a stereo box set of the who and it sounded so bad the matter was taken to parliament.
The Small Faces , Tin Soldier has a stereo and a mono version. I much prefer the mono one.
Moody Blues in Stereo is a win for me. I like Johnny Cash in mono.
Its why I am tolerant and usually enjoy the new remasters of say the Beatles or Floyd etc as they merely represent how we do recording and production of stereo now - we no longer need stereo games we just want the music…i grew up with the Beatles etc so have the vinyl and the cd’s and now remasters via higher end streaming …amazing
Is a strapped output mono cartridge not a true mono cartridge?
i think with alot of early stereo albums, the producers saw it as a cool new toy and abused it to the point of it being unlistenable
Many people feel that way, for sure! Happy listening
Old man worked for a local distributor here in the Midwest US way back, so I can try to pass on his input on the subject. In 1965, some patents on stereo parts started to expire, so Kinney (Atlantic) and CBS (Columbia, Epic) started pressuring Zenith, Magnavox, Phillps, RCA, etc to make stereo players more affordable, which they did by 1967 and also capital was getting invested into FM radio, which could broadcast in stereo. The record companies then authorized producers to focus on the stereo mixes only, as mono was planned to be phased out by 1970 - sans single edits for AM play. There were a few stragglers in 1968 like Oddesey & Oracle, Steppenwolf's first, Bookends, etc. where the mono cuts were superior to their stereo counterparts, but by The White Album, it started getting fleshed out - producers started getting it together on the stereo cuts. An example of that turning point is Piper and Saucerful by Floyd. Piper mono is work of art; the stereo is last-minute hack piece of sheeyite. Saucerful, which was less than a year after Piper - the mono and stereo are almost identical.
To my ear the beatles 2009 stereo are too bright which makes people think are better (dont get me started on the 1987 remixes of help and rubbersoul).
Early stereo mixes sound good for the time... Better to fold them down to mono with headphones! Very clear sound
Mono usually sounded dull and compressed.....(for beatles records)
but thats the way it should be. They were pressed loud.