There’s nothing “fake” about the mono sound you get when playing a mono pressing with a stereo cartridge. It’s a true mono signal, although surface noise will be significantly reduced if you use a mono cartridge.
Mono 45 rpm records don't always track very well with an elliptical stylus. These records were meant to be played by a cartridge with a conical stylus. On 45's an elliptical stylus sometimes creates unwanted noise in older records and 7 inch records made from styrene plastic because that type of needle is sharper and goes deeper into the record's grooves and picks up unwanted noise from record wear s at the bottom of the record groove. Therefore as highly regarded as elliptical styli by hi fi enthusiasts older and worn records, even LPs sound much better when played with a high quality stereo cartridge fitted with a conical stylus. This is for those who wonder why some of their records don't play with good sound quality.
@@skipandslide No. A scratch results in mostly vertical movement of the stylus. A mono record only has lateral information (side to side), and a mono cartridge only creates a voltage from lateral movement. It is effectively deaf to vertical motion.
You can use covert your RCA cables into a mono output by using a male-to-female convertor, then to a female-to-male convertor, or if you have a mono button on your receiver
@@xxEzraBxxx That makes no sense to me. IF the record is recorded in MONO, then you're going to get MONO thus converter or button is not needed. IF you have a record in STEREO, and want to hear it in MONO, then you use the MONO button your receiver. I have tested this out myself.
@@videoplusdvd The mono from stereo was done quite often, that is why you see an oscilloscope on top of the console's shelf. During the microphone placement part of recording they checked every combination of mics to assure mono compatibility. They try to keep a 45 degree line with positive slope. This was very important for stereo also. If the slope went to far vertical or horizontal the needle on the cutting lathe would jump out of the groove being cut. This isn't as important now but some old schoolers check for it anyway.
Honestly when I play my 45’s from the 70’s really can’t tell the difference on the mono or stereo maybe it’s my stereo it self but can’t tell the difference..
@@videoplusdvd Many of the fold-downs from the late 60's and throughout the 70's were created through the Haeco-CSG process. Practically all record labels used CSG at some point for their fold downs, but Atlantic, A&M and Warner Bros used it the most.
Piper is mono is incredible. the ending panning of Interstellar Overdrive getting shoved into the single channel makes it sound almost sickeningly psychedelic (in a good way)
One way to demonstrate the difference is to listen on headphones.. From a mono record, the music sounds like it’s in the center of the listener’s head. The music is right down the middle. Play the same piece in stereo, and you hear different voices and instruments in each ear., adding a wide soundstage. Sure, stereo is superior, but I like throwing on my old mono 45’s and listening to them they were meant to be heard then. It works especially well with Phil Spector’s “wall of sound” technique . He made layer on top of layer of thick sound with knowing it would be listened to on little transistor AM radios and single speaker car systems. Listen to a 45 of “Be My Baby” and you get the full effect of mono as he intended it.. Even The Beach Boys mastered their best and early songs in mono. “Don’t Worry Baby” in mono is just more authentic than some of their remixed stereo versions.
Neal Ammerman I’ve read at different times, that many Beatles vinyl collectors prefer the Mono box set pressings over the stereo pressings, and I always scratched my noggin over that, but what you said makes all the sense in the world.
Garry Peak I’ve heard the same thing! I remember how thrilled I was to buy the “Meet The Beatles” LP! It was mono, and I was perfectly happy with that! One of my regrets in life is I gave it away to a friend along with my early Beatles 45’s. There were stereo versions of that album ( generally at $4.98 compared to $3.98 for mono.) I don’t know all the controversies about the stereo mixes, and most purists prefer the mono. It might me that the mixing and balance on the master tapes were just not as good. Maybe someone knows more about that? I know with The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson much preferred the mono mix, even though stereo had become common use for master tapes by 1962, There were stereo recordings made later, but were re-recordings. I have a couple “Best Of..” LP’s of them with what Capitol called “Duophonic “ sound, which I think was a technique of taking the mono masters and doing some channel separation to make fake stereo.. which leads to a process RCA did . They tried to give a stereo effect to old mono recordings. They even did that with 1940’s Glenn Miller songs. No way to make true stereo from mono, but it did give a sort of stereo separation. It worked on some and sounded good, but again.. many preferred the authenticity of how it was recorded originally. I think that’s part of why many prefer mono Beatles snd Beach Boys..Authenticity , without tampering with the intended mix of the original. Like Phil Spector, a lot of this music was mixed with the intent not to be listened to on audiophile component systems, but on tinny transitor radios and low quality AM single speaker car or kitchen table radios. I’d welcome input from others who can give a better technical explanation, though!
Just like Jarret warns us about, don’t get fooled by crappy Crosley suitcase toy record players or cheap Chinese portable radios that call themselves “full stereo!” Yes, as long as they have 2 speakers, with a stereo music source, it is “stereo.” Yet it’s meaningless hype because the stereo effect is negligible with speakers only inches apart. To get a true stereo effect, there needs to be separation. On cheap portable units , it would be far better to have one good quality mono amp /speaker than cheap crappy “stereo” . Jarred reminds us often that “ you deserve better!” The record/tape/CD was recorded with much better quality built in that is missed on junky playback equipment. Music should be enjoyed for the nuances of the performance and not at the quality of listening through a telephone. Even a good boom box produces better quality than a Crosley toy record player that looks like a suitcase.
Neal Ammerman Great. Now I’m going to be forced to track down an Ortofon Mono cartridge and a Beatles mono pressing. Same situation happened to me with Reel To Reel and my bank account has been in mourning ever since Lol.
The first stereo phonographs were introduced in 1958. There were some master tapes recorded in stereo as early as 1954 ( RCA Living Stereo, etc). 45 rpm’s were nearly all in mono but by the late 60’s more were stereo.
Yep, Mercury Living Presence was recording in stereo before 1958 as well. I actually have a Magnavox 185 AA stereo tube amp from 1959 that was part of that stereo revolution. It's in need of restoration but I can't wait to hear how my records sounded like 60 years ago.
5:26 The side to side groove is the sum of both channels and up and down groove is the difference. This was a really clever trick, and it means stereo records are both backwards and forwards compatible and allowed both systems to coexist essentially seamlessly. This is why a stereo record will play on a mono system without any loss of sound information and a mono record will play on a modern system with sound in both channels.
Stereo records are a neat engineering feat. With open reel tape it was straight forward to go from mono to stereo: Add another head, and another amp, use two tracks half the width of the old mono tape format and call it a day (Rinse and repeat for more multi track fun). But getting TWO signals in and out of ONE groove is still impressive even 65 years later!
We have a lot of mono 45's records at home that was released before the 70's here in the Philippines. There is a really big difference in sound compared to stereo pressings. My parents love collecting instrumental music from orchestras back then.
There is also a little snippet of sound at the end of the 2nd side that wasn't included in the stereo versions or subsequent quad releases. I heard it in quad once and what a sound it was. Fantastic
I have both Magica Mystery Tour and Sgt. Pepper in mono and stereo. The mono version of Sgt. Pepper sounds completely different that the stereo version. I guess it was mixed differently. Some of the sounds are much clearer and distinct with mono. I also have the white album in both versions. I have noticed that with the white album, some of the arrangements are completely different too. I enjoy having both versions of these albums.
I know in the 60s, The Beatles mainly focused on the Mono mixing, whereas Stereo at the time was more of an afterthought. I think Sgt Pepper in Mono is king, same with Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn on Mono.
A box with a mono/stereo switch on it also ensures mono sound on 78rpm shellac records (with much reduced crackling) and also on any other mono records.
Most MONO pressings are the most desired by collectors. Usually the masters originated on that format and the quality greatly exceeded the stereo format. When I look for older vinyl, I try to seek out the MONO pressings even though they are hella expensive
The recent Pink Floyd pressings of their first 2 albums are in Mono, and both sound great!! And many say that The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is best heard in MONO.
I really like the way mono records sound thru a stereo cartridge, I don’t detect any crosstalk, or distortion. It definitely has different stuff going on in each channel, but that seems to give the music a pleasant, subtle ambience, and everything sounds super clear. Stereo mixes often have parts that you can tell could, and maybe should be louder, but they aren’t - where mono sounds more even, and life like, ironically, more three dimensional.
I'm 70 years old this December. I was a young bystander to my Dad building his own Heathkit Mono Amp on our dining room table, this was 1957. I was only about 6 or so but I defiantly remember my Dad exclaiming after his successful test of the completed amp "HONEY, THIS DESERVES A CUP OF COFFEE." Dunno why that always stuck in my mind. His preamp was a plug n play Altec Lansing Mono unit, with 4 Altec Lansing speakers, two 15" woofers and two 18" Horns, in home made cabinets (with totally different styles for each cabinet ), who cared before stereo came out. He also had a Altec Lansing tuner but I don't remember much about it. Over the years I grew up watching myself grow up and watching Dad's sound system grow up. Sister wasn't interested and Brother was too young, brother was less than one year old. Over the years he upgraded to Stereo (same speakers) and that system lasted until his death in 2010. His original Altec speakers are here in front of me now running off of a Onkyo A/V amp. Had all 4 speakers rebuilt at Orange County Speaker in Orange County, CA and they sound absolutely incredible still today.
You forgot one thing: mono cartridge is useful only when playing original mono pressings up to late 1960's. Later mono pressings are basically stereo records with monaural recording. Why does it matter? Stereo cartridges have slightly different shape of the stylus than dedicated mono cartridges and original mono vinyls have also different shape of grooves (but same width as stereo grooves), so playing newer mono represses from 1970's and onwards with mono cartridge, may destroy (reshape) the grooves.
Be careful with the mono cartridge, it's for the mono records pressed until late 60s, today's mono records should be played only with stereo cartridge, because they were cut with the stereo cutting stylus, meanwhile mono records pressed until late 60s were cut with mono cutting stylus, which has a different size and shape.
That may put you in some phasing problems when a piece was mastered without a good look at the phase correlation meter. Certain parts of the sound may get cancelled.
What wasn’t mentioned was that pop music records were mixed for mono because that’s the kind of record players most kids had, and popular AM stations also only broadcast mono. Singles were generally mono. Steteo was for the adults to listen to “long-hair” and easy listening on their hi-fi systems
Have to say, having sometimes heard a mono record played through both a mono and stereo system (of equal quality) I don't see any advantage in the extra expense of a mono cartridge...many of the mono records sounded exactly the same through both cartridges, in others I could pick up a very *tiny* amount of cross talk and phasing shift, but if anything it actually (to my ears) *improved* the sound. It made the narrow mono stage just a tiny bit more "open." Of course YMMV. Another point VE didn't mention - if your amplifier has a "mono" switch, you don't need a separate mono cartridge at all... just flick/push that one single control and you are good to go.
@@kissfanmac That wouldn’t work because one speaker for example, plays vocals and guitar, and the other speaker plays drums and bass. If you just unplug one speaker, you would either only hear just the vocals and guitar, or just the drums and bass
LOVE Mono! A lot of times, mono records had a different mix, so it's like listening to another record sometimes. Both formats are good, but I have a soft spot for mono. Especially being a Beatles fan.
Yeah I assumed all mono records were the exact same as their stereo counterparts, just with one channel. Hearing the differences in the Beatles records for the first time was like finding a hidden treasure chest
When you listen to live music, you are a certain distance back from the music, depending on the venue. Your ears are probably about six inches apart. So by the time the sound gets to you, you are hearing pretty much the same sound in both ears. So if music is recorded in a quality fashion by a single microphone, that pretty much gives you what you hear naturally. Stereo tends to exaggerate the sound stage, like you are listening from up close, say for example, fifteen feet from the stage. That being said, when comparing both, most people tend to prefer the “exaggerated soundstage” to the more centered one, for whatever reason. That’s why American audiences when crazy over all the fake stereo with reverb added in the sixties. They thought it sounded better, even though it was far from the actual, natural sound you would hear at a live performance.
It is very important to understand the difference between stereophonic sound and panned mono. Panning the guitar to the left and the piano to the right DOES NOT MAKE IT STEREO.
You can also have switch the phono pre-amp or your amp into mono mode if you could have one, some examples are like Luxman CL38uC, or Aurorasound Vida. They are real expensive because of the signal pathway involves converting 2 channels information in to 1, which is a bit complicated than usual stereo phono preamp
That was an awesome explanation about the mono/stereo characteristics and differences. The one thing I was totally unaware of was the fact that there are dedicated mono cartridges. I didn't know about the possible issues resulting from playing mono records with a stereo cartridge either. Thank you so much for the enlightening video!
I collected a few older big band jazz records. The vendors don't seems do know the difference between mono and stereo. It's happened 4 times now so I gave it up and went back to CDs. Most of the old stereo was clearly marked on the record covers as the record companies were proud of their stereo recordings.
I use a Denon DL-110 stereo cartridge. Frankly mono records sound great. If there is any phase shifting it just adds to the sound stage. The mono mix is very important to the sound. A "fold down" from a stereo is not the same.
I don't inherently prefer mono. Sometimes 1960s stereo recordings implemented hard panning, which is often jarring to the modern listener. In that case mono is often the better choice as it centers the vocals. Stereo is more entertaining. Mono can have more "umpf" and energy. This might come down to the mastering
If anyone wants an interesting trip into stereo/mono look up the original "stereo" mix of The Beatles track I Am The Walrus... what sounds like a radio scanning between stations IS a radio scanning between station added actually during the mixing process live. The Beatles always did the mono mixes first and then they left the studio staff to come up with stereo later... Which is a problem when you mix in something live when doing the mono mix first, so half way through the stereo version abruptly switches to the mono mix... They pan it a little bit at the end, but that was all they could do...
I found an old 45 of "A Hard Day's Night" by The Beatles, a proper 1964 copy from New Zealand. I put it on and even though it was very scratchy, it sounded awesome. So awesome that, even though I've known that song for years, I started to get the impression of how they (The Beatles) made such an impression at the time.
I have several records that I bought in the 1960s that are mono. They’ve always sounded good on my stereo record player. I did not realize getting a mono cartridge would make them sound better. That’s a great tip. I don’t play them much anymore. My turntable is identical to the Audio Technica one you had in the video. A sweet turntable. I have digitized many of my records with it.
My Dad is a collector as well. He is deaf in one ear...so he loves to put on Mono albums with headphones, because he gets it all channeled through his good side.
When The Beatles catalogue was released recently, I bought the mono copies as I don't like the harsh stereo & a VM610MONO cartridge. I managed to find a French mono pressing of Alice Cooper - Killer.
If you look at the grooves very closely, you can tell whether it's mono or stereo. Mono grooves look straight (I mean perfectly circular), while stereo grooves look more crooked. A good example to check this is the Queen song Mustapha (1st song on the album Jazz), whose first half is mono, while the second half is stereo.
There were a few stereo 45’s. as far back as 1958, not as general market or AM radio use, but for jukeboxes and demos. Tommy Edwards famous 1958 “All In The Game” was mixed in mono and stereo. It’s why reissues today can be found in stereo but the 45’s for sale to the public were mono. I have a superb mono original , a stereo 45 re-issue, as well as stereo LP and CD versions. The old mono version still sounds incredibly good!
I've known about mono cartridges for years and wanted one for some time. I'm single i.e no other half but its the price holding me back! Quite expensive to someone currently unemployed.
I have a lot of mono, older LP’s and 45’s . They sound awesome! But one dimensional. Never knew about getting a mono cartridge because they sound good with my stereo cartridge. I am amazed at how good the quality was when recorded if listened to on quality earphones or speakers.
Ive heard the mono Beatles records, they sound great. But at the same time LOVE how the Beatles mixed there stereo records. They are so dramatically mixed with hard pans left and right. Drums slammed to the right, guitars slammed to the left, vocals could be all over the place with backing vocals on the opposite side. It is pretty old fashioned way of mixing, but it feels more lively and fun to me.
My receiver has a mono/stereo button. I have a few Nina Simone albums in mono, not on purpose, just coincidentally. I tried them on both mono and stereo setting with an ortophon om stylus, and the mono records on mono setting did sound better!
I think you are missing is that mono records play every instrument from both speakers. So suppose you are listening to a John Coltrane Solo in mono you are getting it from both speakers rather than primarily from just one speaker. Hence richer fuller sound. Furthermore. a magical convergence can occur when your speakers and room is set up just right …. You get the center of sound emanating from a center “phantom” speaker where both speaker output converges…with a huge rich sound stage. That is the beauty of mono.
I got the Rubber Soul álbum from the beatles in Mono and Stereo and honestly i preffer the Mono version because the mix in Stereo separates the voices in one speaker and the instruments in The other speaker and the Mono version mix all and i think it's better when You don't have to stay all the time in the middle of your speakers to hear the Music well, in this case i think that the mix matters too
I have a mono Sgt Peppers, the original 1967 UK release. I think I see a lot of confusion online about mono versus stereo in terms of mix, like in the Beatles' albums, and how it is NOT just a question of the same information being crushed down to a single channel.
I haven't listened to the video yet, but a word on the early US stereo releases of Beatles albums. It seem that the reason for the bizarre separation of instruments on some songs is due to the fact that the three-track tapes were sent to the American manufacturer without explanation of the fact that they were meant to be remixed down to proper mono and stereo tracks. But instead, they simply put it out almost as it came on the tape. I don't know if this is true, but from what I've heard, it certainly does sound that way.
Jarrett, one important point that you omitted is that while you can use a stereo cartridge to play any record (mono or stereo), it is absolutely not advisable to play your stereo record with a mono cartridge/stylus setup. A mono stylus will damage the grooves of a stereo record!
Well I have lots of mono Lps from the 6Os and they sound great with my 2M red. One thing my mother mentioned is that most of STEREO records were more expensive than MONO thats the reason she bought MONO most of the times and she gave me some of them since she prefers cds now.
Thank you! This was super informative! I end up picking up a good amount of mono records from thrift stores and couldn’t find a straight forward answer on what they are until now!
It all depends on the album and specifically when It was released. As more people had mono setups more care and attention was given to the mono masters on albums released prior to the late 60.
I have “The Rolling Stones, Now” vinyl in mono and I play it on my stereo turntable and I almost promise the average listener doesn’t hear a difference it sounds just fine
Back when stereo records came out, supposedly they could not be played on mono phonographs without replacing the cartridge. By 1967, everyone was promoting the notion that stereo records could be played by any modern, lightweight tone arm without damaging the grooves. I can play stereo LPS on our 1954 vintage Magnavox Collaro phono (which to my knowledge still has its original Sonotone cartridge) with no harm. The catch is, you have to use a sapphire stylus. A diamond stylus can do some damage due to the weight of the tone arm.
Excellent explanation. I myself prefer stereo, not only sound but photographs!! I have a nice collection of 3D stereo film cameras and they are tops. Turning back to music, you forgot to mention classical music and opera. They definitively sound much better in stereo. In opera, singers move from one side to the other and that enhances the sound experience. Also the full symphonic orchestra is much deeper and real in stereo. Listening to Beethoven's 5th. in stereo approaches the experience of going to a concert hall!! By the way, stereo by itself is not new. The first movie made in full stereophonic sound was Walt Disney's FANTASIA and he made it surround sound!!!! All this way back in 1940!! And much earlier than stereo sound recording which dates back only to 1957. By the way, radio can mostly be in stereo through FM. AM stereo is possible but much more complicated and not very practical. Thanks Jerret and greetings from Colombia.
It goes back a lot further that the Disney Movie Mentioned. They would have the Soundtrack In Stereo, then It would be played back In Sinc with the Film, on a Wire recorder (Like the Black Box In a Plane).
I'd be interested in hearing more about what, specifically, is different about mono and stereo cartridges. I know the original LP and 45 spec was for 1.0 mil styli, and that stereo tightened this up to 0.7 mil (part of why a lot of folks told you not to play stereo records on a mono player back in the day, while mono records on a stereo player is/was completely acceptable), but size just seems like it would be an issue limited to the stylus, not the cartridge.
The Beatles (and their producer, Sir George Martin) said that stereo ruined the quality of the sound, and that Mono was far better, however, they had no choice but to change with the times. I tend to agree with that.
You agree that mono sounds better? I’ve always had two speakers in my room so I don’t really know what mono sounds like. I’ve listened to a gramophone once but that’s it haha.
And that is rare for and what with the movement of the performers dancing back and forth across that stage, so for true channel separation, the sound man would have a hard time keeping track of whom was where. Just in case a live performance may come out in stereo, I like to be seated direct center or slightly ahead of center.
The Beatles have always said, if you want to hear their best format, listen to their mono versions. More time was spent producing their mono sound than to the stereo pressings, by a 3-1 margin. Their last two recordings, “Let it Be” and “Abbey Road” were the only two not recorded for mono.
A lot of 45 rpm singles were produced for mono so when they were played on top 40 radio they would sound good on car radios... in the days before cars had surround sound systems. I bought all the Beatles albums up through Revolver in mono (for $2.49 @), then Sgt. Pepper came out and though I have heard there was a mono mix, for some reason all the stores I went to only carried the Stereo version (for a dollar more...).
To really hear mono at its best you should use only one speaker. The phase difference with two speakers playing in the same room will cause anomalies that audibly detract; both in time and amplitude. Yes, this can happen in stereo as well.
Simply put, since we have two ears it would seem logical that two microphones would be necessary to realistically capture a sound source for authentic reproduction. Tom Dowd would record in both Stereo and Mono simultaneously before they even knew how to get Stereo sound onto a record. When Stereo became possible many of the other labels re-issued their catalog in re-channeled Mono to create a fake Stereo, but Atlantic was the only label to issue true Stereo versions of previously issued Mono titles.
As near as I can tell, there's no actual difference to a needle to designate it 'stereo' or 'mono'. It's the cartridge that's mono or stereo. For a dedicated mono cartridge, there should be only one coil or transducer, and it would be wired to drive both channels of a stereo amplifier. I imagine some mono carts have dual coils wired together, either in parallel or series (there is discussion regarding which would be superior). There *WAS* a difference between stereo and mono needles in the early days of stereo sound, however. Early LPs in mono were mastered with 1.0 mil grooves. When stereo came along, the specification for a stereo needle was 0.7 mil. The stereo 0.7 mil stylus was backwards compatible with the old mono records and their slightly larger grooves (the needle simply sat slightly deeper in the groove), but many stereo records had warnings on their jackets that they should not be played on mono equipment (because the older 1.0 mil needles sat slightly higher in the stereo groove, making it more prone to tracking issues, and could technically damage the records!). The solution was newer needles were manufactured according to the stereo 0.7 mil spec, since it was backwards compatible with mono, so unless you're dealing with older mono equipment still rockin' its original (or period-correct NOS) needle, it should not be an issue.
No such thing as a mono stylus. The needle only tracks sound waves from the grooves of the record, then to the cartridge which sends the sound on to the pre-amp which equalizes the sound for improved fidelity and sends it the the main amplifier.
Side note: MONO is also the name of a Japanese instrumental band, and a medical disease...😐
And I oop-
And "monkey" in spanish.
Vinyl Eyezz but do you know what mono means in Japanese?
Song of the Day for your next video: Van Halen - The Seventh Seal!
Zack I don’t....lol 😂
Song of the day: My Sweet Lord - George Harrison
Waahh?
George is the king of slide guitar
Alexthecrazykid i just made a reference to his profile picture and name 😂
J500 L6000 That is true, and “if not for you” is a another great song
@J500 L6000 'Electronic Sound' George Harrison Zapple records lyric sheet included
Song of the day: "One Of These Days" from Meddle by Pink Floyd
i love meddle!
There’s nothing “fake” about the mono sound you get when playing a mono pressing with a stereo cartridge. It’s a true mono signal, although surface noise will be significantly reduced if you use a mono cartridge.
Nice! I just bought my first mono record and was worried about that
Mono 45 rpm records don't always track very well with an elliptical stylus. These records were meant to be played by a cartridge with a conical stylus. On 45's an elliptical stylus sometimes creates unwanted noise in older records and 7 inch records made from styrene plastic because that type of needle is sharper and goes deeper into the record's grooves and picks up unwanted noise from record wear s at the bottom of the record groove. Therefore as highly regarded as elliptical styli by hi fi enthusiasts older and worn records, even LPs sound much better when played with a high quality stereo cartridge fitted with a conical stylus. This is for those who wonder why some of their records don't play with good sound quality.
@@skipandslide No. A scratch results in mostly vertical movement of the stylus. A mono record only has lateral information (side to side), and a mono cartridge only creates a voltage from lateral movement. It is effectively deaf to vertical motion.
You can use covert your RCA cables into a mono output by using a male-to-female convertor, then to a female-to-male convertor, or if you have a mono button on your receiver
@@xxEzraBxxx That makes no sense to me. IF the record is recorded in MONO, then you're going to get MONO thus converter or button is not needed. IF you have a record in STEREO, and want to hear it in MONO, then you use the MONO button your receiver. I have tested this out myself.
My dad worked for CBS and we had 'sample not for sale' promo singles that were delivered to radio stations. One side would be mono, the o the stereo.
Many of the mono versions were fold-downs from stereo, for AM stations, and the stereo ones were for FM.
@@videoplusdvd The mono from stereo was done quite often, that is why you see an oscilloscope on top of the console's shelf. During the microphone placement part of recording they checked every combination of mics to assure mono compatibility. They try to keep a 45 degree line with positive slope. This was very important for stereo also. If the slope went to far vertical or horizontal the needle on the cutting lathe would jump out of the groove being cut. This isn't as important now but some old schoolers check for it anyway.
Honestly when I play my 45’s from the 70’s really can’t tell the difference on the mono or stereo maybe it’s my stereo it self but can’t tell the difference..
@@videoplusdvd Many of the fold-downs from the late 60's and throughout the 70's were created through the Haeco-CSG process. Practically all record labels used CSG at some point for their fold downs, but Atlantic, A&M and Warner Bros used it the most.
All of the early Beatles albums sound amazing in mono. Pet Sounds is another great album to buy in mono.
"Pet Sounds" is a better sounding album in surround sound. ;-)
And Pink Floyd's debut album The Piper at the Gates of Dawn!!
@@killer92173 Piper in mono has several details not present on the stereo mix. However, what is Piper without the exciting panning?
Piper is mono is incredible. the ending panning of Interstellar Overdrive getting shoved into the single channel makes it sound almost sickeningly psychedelic (in a good way)
@n.miller907 Brian said headphones in the dark but that's my second
One way to demonstrate the difference is to listen on headphones.. From a mono record, the music sounds like it’s in the center of the listener’s head. The music is right down the middle. Play the same piece in stereo, and you hear different voices and instruments in each ear., adding a wide soundstage. Sure, stereo is superior, but I like throwing on my old mono 45’s and listening to them they were meant to be heard then. It works especially well with Phil Spector’s “wall of sound” technique . He made layer on top of layer of thick sound with knowing it would be listened to on little transistor AM radios and single speaker car systems. Listen to a 45 of “Be My Baby” and you get the full effect of mono as he intended it.. Even The Beach Boys mastered their best and early songs in mono. “Don’t Worry Baby” in mono is just more authentic than some of their remixed stereo versions.
Neal Ammerman I’ve read at different times, that many Beatles vinyl collectors prefer the Mono box set pressings over the stereo pressings, and I always scratched my noggin over that, but what you said makes all the sense in the world.
Linn sondec
Garry Peak I’ve heard the same thing! I remember how thrilled I was to buy the “Meet The Beatles” LP! It was mono, and I was perfectly happy with that! One of my regrets in life is I gave it away to a friend along with my early Beatles 45’s. There were stereo versions of that album ( generally at $4.98 compared to $3.98 for mono.) I don’t know all the controversies about the stereo mixes, and most purists prefer the mono. It might me that the mixing and balance on the master tapes were just not as good. Maybe someone knows more about that? I know with The Beach Boys, Brian Wilson much preferred the mono mix, even though stereo had become common use for master tapes by 1962, There were stereo recordings made later, but were re-recordings. I have a couple “Best Of..” LP’s of them with what Capitol called “Duophonic “ sound, which I think was a technique of taking the mono masters and doing some channel separation to make fake stereo.. which leads to a process RCA did . They tried to give a stereo effect to old mono recordings. They even did that with 1940’s Glenn Miller songs. No way to make true stereo from mono, but it did give a sort of stereo separation. It worked on some and sounded good, but again.. many preferred the authenticity of how it was recorded originally.
I think that’s part of why many prefer mono Beatles snd Beach Boys..Authenticity , without tampering with the intended mix of the original. Like Phil Spector, a lot of this music was mixed with the intent not to be listened to on audiophile component systems, but on tinny transitor radios and low quality AM single speaker car or kitchen table radios. I’d welcome input from others who can give a better technical explanation, though!
Just like Jarret warns us about, don’t get fooled by crappy Crosley suitcase toy record players or cheap Chinese portable radios that call themselves “full stereo!” Yes, as long as they have 2 speakers, with a stereo music source, it is “stereo.” Yet it’s meaningless hype because the stereo effect is negligible with speakers only inches apart. To get a true stereo effect, there needs to be separation. On cheap portable units , it would be far better to have one good quality mono amp /speaker than cheap crappy “stereo” . Jarred reminds us often that “ you deserve better!” The record/tape/CD was recorded with much better quality built in that is missed on junky playback equipment. Music should be enjoyed for the nuances of the performance and not at the quality of listening through a telephone. Even a good boom box produces better quality than a Crosley toy record player that looks like a suitcase.
Neal Ammerman Great. Now I’m going to be forced to track down an Ortofon Mono cartridge and a Beatles mono pressing. Same situation happened to me with Reel To Reel and my bank account has been in mourning ever since Lol.
The first stereo phonographs were introduced in 1958. There were some master tapes recorded in stereo as early as 1954 ( RCA Living Stereo, etc). 45 rpm’s were nearly all in mono but by the late 60’s more were stereo.
Yep, Mercury Living Presence was recording in stereo before 1958 as well. I actually have a Magnavox 185 AA stereo tube amp from 1959 that was part of that stereo revolution. It's in need of restoration but I can't wait to hear how my records sounded like 60 years ago.
5:26 The side to side groove is the sum of both channels and up and down groove is the difference. This was a really clever trick, and it means stereo records are both backwards and forwards compatible and allowed both systems to coexist essentially seamlessly. This is why a stereo record will play on a mono system without any loss of sound information and a mono record will play on a modern system with sound in both channels.
Stereo records are a neat engineering feat. With open reel tape it was straight forward to go from mono to stereo: Add another head, and another amp, use two tracks half the width of the old mono tape format and call it a day (Rinse and repeat for more multi track fun). But getting TWO signals in and out of ONE groove is still impressive even 65 years later!
We have a lot of mono 45's records at home that was released before the 70's here in the Philippines. There is a really big difference in sound compared to stereo pressings. My parents love collecting instrumental music from orchestras back then.
Song of the day :I want you(she is so heavy)-The Beatles
"Heavyyy, Heavyyyyyy"
My QUADRAPHONIC copy of Tubular Bells has a sticker on the sleeve saying ' A Quadraphonic recording for people with 4 ears'.
Haha 😂 nice 👍
There is also a little snippet of sound at the end of the 2nd side that wasn't included in the stereo versions or subsequent quad releases. I heard it in quad once and what a sound it was. Fantastic
@@jonnorthall8526 Isn't it a go- kart or something?
Here in Argentina mono records were made until the 80's
Song of the day: Wonderful Tonight - Eric Clapton
I have both Magica Mystery Tour and Sgt. Pepper in mono and stereo. The mono version of Sgt. Pepper sounds completely different that the stereo version. I guess it was mixed differently. Some of the sounds are much clearer and distinct with mono. I also have the white album in both versions. I have noticed that with the white album, some of the arrangements are completely different too. I enjoy having both versions of these albums.
I know in the 60s, The Beatles mainly focused on the Mono mixing, whereas Stereo at the time was more of an afterthought. I think Sgt Pepper in Mono is king, same with Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn on Mono.
A box with a mono/stereo switch on it also ensures mono sound on 78rpm shellac records (with much reduced crackling) and also on any other mono records.
Song of the day: modern talking - you’re my heart, you’re my soul
Yes!
Most MONO pressings are the most desired by collectors. Usually the masters originated on that format and the quality greatly exceeded the stereo format. When I look for older vinyl, I try to seek out the MONO pressings even though they are hella expensive
The recent Pink Floyd pressings of their first 2 albums are in Mono, and both sound great!! And many say that The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is best heard in MONO.
I really like the way mono records sound thru a stereo cartridge, I don’t detect any crosstalk, or distortion. It definitely has different stuff going on in each channel, but that seems to give the music a pleasant, subtle ambience, and everything sounds super clear. Stereo mixes often have parts that you can tell could, and maybe should be louder, but they aren’t - where mono sounds more even, and life like, ironically, more three dimensional.
For song of the day; House of the Rising Sun - the animals
Good idea, but I prefer the Frijid Pink version of that song.
@@robsemail that one is good to.
I'm 70 years old this December. I was a young bystander to my Dad building his own Heathkit Mono Amp on our dining room table, this was 1957. I was only about 6 or so but I defiantly remember my Dad exclaiming after his successful test of the completed amp "HONEY, THIS DESERVES A CUP OF COFFEE." Dunno why that always stuck in my mind. His preamp was a plug n play Altec Lansing Mono unit, with 4 Altec Lansing speakers, two 15" woofers and two 18" Horns, in home made cabinets (with totally different styles for each cabinet ), who cared before stereo came out. He also had a Altec Lansing tuner but I don't remember much about it. Over the years I grew up watching myself grow up and watching Dad's sound system grow up. Sister wasn't interested and Brother was too young, brother was less than one year old. Over the years he upgraded to Stereo (same speakers) and that system lasted until his death in 2010. His original Altec speakers are here in front of me now running off of a Onkyo A/V amp. Had all 4 speakers rebuilt at Orange County Speaker in Orange County, CA and they sound absolutely incredible still today.
You forgot one thing: mono cartridge is useful only when playing original mono pressings up to late 1960's. Later mono pressings are basically stereo records with monaural recording. Why does it matter? Stereo cartridges have slightly different shape of the stylus than dedicated mono cartridges and original mono vinyls have also different shape of grooves (but same width as stereo grooves), so playing newer mono represses from 1970's and onwards with mono cartridge, may destroy (reshape) the grooves.
Song of the day: Your love - The Outfield
Song of the day: Like a Hurricane - Neil Young
My song of day suggestion ... Life In A Northern Town.
I'm definitely a pre-80's guy, but that song is brilliant.
Be careful with the mono cartridge, it's for the mono records pressed until late 60s, today's mono records should be played only with stereo cartridge, because they were cut with the stereo cutting stylus, meanwhile mono records pressed until late 60s were cut with mono cutting stylus, which has a different size and shape.
Another great alternative to having a TRUE MONO signal is to buy a vintage audio receiver and have it to set to MONO instead of Stereo
That may put you in some phasing problems when a piece was mastered without a good look at the phase correlation meter. Certain parts of the sound may get cancelled.
Song of the day: Rosanna by Toto
Mono is great for when you are sharing earphones listening a song. You both hear the same thing without missing out on any instruments.
There is a light that never goes out - The Smiths
What wasn’t mentioned was that pop music records were mixed for mono because that’s the kind of record players most kids had, and popular AM stations also only broadcast mono. Singles were generally mono. Steteo was for the adults to listen to “long-hair” and easy listening on their hi-fi systems
Have to say, having sometimes heard a mono record played through both a mono and stereo system (of equal quality) I don't see any advantage in the extra expense of a mono cartridge...many of the mono records sounded exactly the same through both cartridges, in others I could pick up a very *tiny* amount of cross talk and phasing shift, but if anything it actually (to my ears) *improved* the sound. It made the narrow mono stage just a tiny bit more "open." Of course YMMV. Another point VE didn't mention - if your amplifier has a "mono" switch, you don't need a separate mono cartridge at all... just flick/push that one single control and you are good to go.
What if you just unplug one speaker?
KISS Fan Mac yes I wanna that too
@@kissfanmac That wouldn’t work because one speaker for example, plays vocals and guitar, and the other speaker plays drums and bass. If you just unplug one speaker, you would either only hear just the vocals and guitar, or just the drums and bass
LOVE Mono! A lot of times, mono records had a different mix, so it's like listening to another record sometimes. Both formats are good, but I have a soft spot for mono. Especially being a Beatles fan.
Yeah I assumed all mono records were the exact same as their stereo counterparts, just with one channel. Hearing the differences in the Beatles records for the first time was like finding a hidden treasure chest
@@jimmybuckets5863 Enjoy Jimmy!
Song Of The Day: Pneuma by Tool
When you listen to live music, you are a certain distance back from the music, depending on the venue. Your ears are probably about six inches apart. So by the time the sound gets to you, you are hearing pretty much the same sound in both ears. So if music is recorded in a quality fashion by a single microphone, that pretty much gives you what you hear naturally. Stereo tends to exaggerate the sound stage, like you are listening from up close, say for example, fifteen feet from the stage. That being said, when comparing both, most people tend to prefer the “exaggerated soundstage” to the more centered one, for whatever reason. That’s why American audiences when crazy over all the fake stereo with reverb added in the sixties. They thought it sounded better, even though it was far from the actual, natural sound you would hear at a live performance.
Song of the day: Chameleon by Herbie Hancock
Song of the day
The Burger King veggie menu rap-Marty mannering, Issy mano, Ben Mano
It is very important to understand the difference between stereophonic sound and panned mono.
Panning the guitar to the left and the piano to the right DOES NOT MAKE IT STEREO.
You can also have switch the phono pre-amp or your amp into mono mode if you could have one, some examples are like Luxman CL38uC, or Aurorasound Vida. They are real expensive because of the signal pathway involves converting 2 channels information in to 1, which is a bit complicated than usual stereo phono preamp
That was an awesome explanation about the mono/stereo characteristics and differences.
The one thing I was totally unaware of was the fact that there are dedicated mono cartridges. I didn't know about the possible issues resulting from playing mono records with a stereo cartridge either.
Thank you so much for the enlightening video!
I prefer PET SOUNDS in mono :)
I also started to prefer Pet Sounds in mono once I compared the stereo version of Caroline No to the mono version, makes so much of a difference.
I collected a few older big band jazz records. The vendors don't seems do know the difference between mono and stereo. It's happened 4 times now so I gave it up and went back to CDs. Most of the old stereo was clearly marked on the record covers as the record companies were proud of their stereo recordings.
I use a Denon DL-110 stereo cartridge. Frankly mono records sound great. If there is any phase shifting it just adds to the sound stage. The mono mix is very important to the sound. A "fold down" from a stereo is not the same.
Perfect Strangers - Deep Purple
I don't inherently prefer mono. Sometimes 1960s stereo recordings implemented hard panning, which is often jarring to the modern listener. In that case mono is often the better choice as it centers the vocals.
Stereo is more entertaining. Mono can have more "umpf" and energy. This might come down to the mastering
Song of the day: I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times - The Beach Boys
If anyone wants an interesting trip into stereo/mono look up the original "stereo" mix of The Beatles track I Am The Walrus... what sounds like a radio scanning between stations IS a radio scanning between station added actually during the mixing process live. The Beatles always did the mono mixes first and then they left the studio staff to come up with stereo later... Which is a problem when you mix in something live when doing the mono mix first, so half way through the stereo version abruptly switches to the mono mix... They pan it a little bit at the end, but that was all they could do...
I have Miles Davis Kind of blue in mono and stereo vinyl as well. The mono version sounds much much better even if the space is narrower.
I found an old 45 of "A Hard Day's Night" by The Beatles, a proper 1964 copy from New Zealand. I put it on and even though it was very scratchy, it sounded awesome. So awesome that, even though I've known that song for years, I started to get the impression of how they (The Beatles) made such an impression at the time.
I've been wondering about this!
Song of the day:
Audrey - Dave Brubeck Quartet
Cool fact: the song is mono.
I have several records that I bought in the 1960s that are mono. They’ve always sounded good on my stereo record player. I did not realize getting a mono cartridge would make them sound better. That’s a great tip. I don’t play them much anymore. My turntable is identical to the Audio Technica one you had in the video. A sweet turntable. I have digitized many of my records with it.
Song of the day: Steppenwolf - Born To Be Wild
My Dad is a collector as well. He is deaf in one ear...so he loves to put on Mono albums with headphones, because he gets it all channeled through his good side.
My left ear is weaker so I relate to that
Mono mix of Paperback Writer is awesome really loud. Love that echo effect better than stereo version
Song of the day: Feel good Inc. the gorillaz
When The Beatles catalogue was released recently, I bought the mono copies as I don't like the harsh stereo & a VM610MONO cartridge. I managed to find a French mono pressing of Alice Cooper - Killer.
song of the day: mother-danzig
If you look at the grooves very closely, you can tell whether it's mono or stereo. Mono grooves look straight (I mean perfectly circular), while stereo grooves look more crooked. A good example to check this is the Queen song Mustapha (1st song on the album Jazz), whose first half is mono, while the second half is stereo.
There were a few stereo 45’s. as far back as 1958, not as general market or AM radio use, but for jukeboxes and demos. Tommy Edwards famous 1958 “All In The Game” was mixed in mono and stereo. It’s why reissues today can be found in stereo but the 45’s for sale to the public were mono. I have a superb mono original , a stereo 45 re-issue, as well as stereo LP and CD versions. The old mono version still sounds incredibly good!
OK the dedicated Mono Cartridge was news to me. Thanks for that...Now I just have to convince the better half that I need one!
I've known about mono cartridges for years and wanted one for some time. I'm single i.e no other half but its the price holding me back! Quite expensive to someone currently unemployed.
I have a lot of mono, older LP’s and 45’s . They sound awesome! But one dimensional. Never knew about getting a mono cartridge because they sound good with my stereo cartridge. I am amazed at how good the quality was when recorded if listened to on quality earphones or speakers.
You can always use a Y cable and mix the the channels before getting in the amplifier to eliminate unwanted noise and convert stereo image to mono.
Ive heard the mono Beatles records, they sound great. But at the same time LOVE how the Beatles mixed there stereo records. They are so dramatically mixed with hard pans left and right. Drums slammed to the right, guitars slammed to the left, vocals could be all over the place with backing vocals on the opposite side. It is pretty old fashioned way of mixing, but it feels more lively and fun to me.
Song of the day: Roxanne - The Police
That song slaps
My receiver has a mono/stereo button. I have a few Nina Simone albums in mono, not on purpose, just coincidentally. I tried them on both mono and stereo setting with an ortophon om stylus, and the mono records on mono setting did sound better!
Love your voice and how you explain things ! make it very easy to understand !
Song of the day: Sultans of swing - dire straits
So interesting! Always wanted to know the difference! Thanks so much!
I think you are missing is that mono records play every instrument from both speakers. So suppose you are listening to a John Coltrane Solo in mono you are getting it from both speakers rather than primarily from just one speaker. Hence richer fuller sound. Furthermore. a magical convergence can occur when your speakers and room is set up just right …. You get the center of sound emanating from a center “phantom” speaker where both speaker output converges…with a huge rich sound stage. That is the beauty of mono.
I got the Rubber Soul álbum from the beatles in Mono and Stereo and honestly i preffer the Mono version because the mix in Stereo separates the voices in one speaker and the instruments in The other speaker and the Mono version mix all and i think it's better when You don't have to stay all the time in the middle of your speakers to hear the Music well, in this case i think that the mix matters too
I prefer whatever the artist intended
I have a mono Sgt Peppers, the original 1967 UK release. I think I see a lot of confusion online about mono versus stereo in terms of mix, like in the Beatles' albums, and how it is NOT just a question of the same information being crushed down to a single channel.
I haven't listened to the video yet, but a word on the early US stereo releases of Beatles albums. It seem that the reason for the bizarre separation of instruments on some songs is due to the fact that the three-track tapes were sent to the American manufacturer without explanation of the fact that they were meant to be remixed down to proper mono and stereo tracks. But instead, they simply put it out almost as it came on the tape. I don't know if this is true, but from what I've heard, it certainly does sound that way.
Jarrett, one important point that you omitted is that while you can use a stereo cartridge to play any record (mono or stereo), it is absolutely not advisable to play your stereo record with a mono cartridge/stylus setup. A mono stylus will damage the grooves of a stereo record!
Well I have lots of mono Lps from the 6Os and they sound great with my 2M red. One thing my mother mentioned is that most of STEREO records were more expensive than MONO thats the reason she bought MONO most of the times and she gave me some of them since she prefers cds now.
Songs of the day - explanation exelent
Thank you! This was super informative! I end up picking up a good amount of mono records from thrift stores and couldn’t find a straight forward answer on what they are until now!
It all depends on the album and specifically when It was released. As more people had mono setups more care and attention was given to the mono masters on albums released prior to the late 60.
I have “The Rolling Stones, Now” vinyl in mono and I play it on my stereo turntable and I almost promise the average listener doesn’t hear a difference it sounds just fine
Song of the day - Fire & Brimstone by Link Wray! Something I think you’d really enjoy!
SONG OF THE DAY: “Moving in Stereo” by The Cars
Back when stereo records came out, supposedly they could not be played on mono phonographs without replacing the cartridge. By 1967, everyone was promoting the notion that stereo records could be played by any modern, lightweight tone arm without damaging the grooves. I can play stereo LPS on our 1954 vintage Magnavox Collaro phono (which to my knowledge still has its original Sonotone cartridge) with no harm. The catch is, you have to use a sapphire stylus. A diamond stylus can do some damage due to the weight of the tone arm.
to play those records right it has to be done " mono on mono"... I'll be heading out
sicarius68 “I’ll see myself out” lol. And I’m stealing that....
Song of the day-into the gap-Thompson twins
Excellent explanation. I myself prefer stereo, not only sound but photographs!! I have a nice collection of 3D stereo film cameras and they are tops. Turning back to music, you forgot to mention classical music and opera. They definitively sound much better in stereo. In opera, singers move from one side to the other and that enhances the sound experience. Also the full symphonic orchestra is much deeper and real in stereo. Listening to Beethoven's 5th. in stereo approaches the experience of going to a concert hall!! By the way, stereo by itself is not new. The first movie made in full stereophonic sound was Walt Disney's FANTASIA and he made it surround sound!!!! All this way back in 1940!! And much earlier than stereo sound recording which dates back only to 1957. By the way, radio can mostly be in stereo through FM. AM stereo is possible but much more complicated and not very practical. Thanks Jerret and greetings from Colombia.
It goes back a lot further that the Disney Movie Mentioned. They would have the Soundtrack In Stereo, then It would be played back In Sinc with the Film, on a Wire recorder (Like the Black Box In a Plane).
I'd be interested in hearing more about what, specifically, is different about mono and stereo cartridges. I know the original LP and 45 spec was for 1.0 mil styli, and that stereo tightened this up to 0.7 mil (part of why a lot of folks told you not to play stereo records on a mono player back in the day, while mono records on a stereo player is/was completely acceptable), but size just seems like it would be an issue limited to the stylus, not the cartridge.
Song of the day: All Those Years Ago - George Harrison
The Beatles (and their producer, Sir George Martin) said that stereo ruined the
quality of the sound, and that Mono was far better, however, they had no choice
but to change with the times. I tend to agree with that.
You agree that mono sounds better? I’ve always had two speakers in my room so I don’t really know what mono sounds like. I’ve listened to a gramophone once but that’s it haha.
Mono for early Beatles is the best. Hard days night in particular sounds incredible.
I saw BB King live in concert. Lucille came through loud and clear and in stereo.
And that is rare for and what with the movement of the performers dancing back and forth across that stage, so for true channel separation, the sound man would have a hard time keeping track of whom was where. Just in case a live performance may come out in stereo, I like to be seated direct center or slightly ahead of center.
The Beatles have always said, if you want to hear their best format, listen to their mono versions. More time was spent producing their mono sound than to the stereo pressings, by a 3-1 margin. Their last two recordings, “Let it Be” and “Abbey Road” were the only two not recorded for mono.
A lot of 45 rpm singles were produced for mono so when they were played on top 40 radio they would sound good on car radios... in the days before cars had surround sound systems.
I bought all the Beatles albums up through Revolver in mono (for $2.49 @), then Sgt. Pepper came out and though I have heard there was a mono mix, for some reason all the stores I went to only carried the Stereo version (for a dollar more...).
To really hear mono at its best you should use only one speaker. The phase difference with two speakers playing in the same room will cause anomalies that audibly detract; both in time and amplitude. Yes, this can happen in stereo as well.
Now, this is one topic that I already had a pretty good handle on.
Simply put, since we have two ears it would seem logical that two microphones would be necessary to realistically capture a sound source for authentic reproduction. Tom Dowd would record in both Stereo and Mono simultaneously before they even knew how to get Stereo sound onto a record. When Stereo became possible many of the other labels re-issued their catalog in re-channeled Mono to create a fake Stereo, but Atlantic was the only label to issue true Stereo versions of previously issued Mono titles.
Wow, this is very cool man I learned a lot from this
Song of the day: So Fine- ELO
What if I just change the needle by putting a mono stylus in a Stereo cartridge?
As near as I can tell, there's no actual difference to a needle to designate it 'stereo' or 'mono'. It's the cartridge that's mono or stereo. For a dedicated mono cartridge, there should be only one coil or transducer, and it would be wired to drive both channels of a stereo amplifier. I imagine some mono carts have dual coils wired together, either in parallel or series (there is discussion regarding which would be superior).
There *WAS* a difference between stereo and mono needles in the early days of stereo sound, however. Early LPs in mono were mastered with 1.0 mil grooves. When stereo came along, the specification for a stereo needle was 0.7 mil. The stereo 0.7 mil stylus was backwards compatible with the old mono records and their slightly larger grooves (the needle simply sat slightly deeper in the groove), but many stereo records had warnings on their jackets that they should not be played on mono equipment (because the older 1.0 mil needles sat slightly higher in the stereo groove, making it more prone to tracking issues, and could technically damage the records!).
The solution was newer needles were manufactured according to the stereo 0.7 mil spec, since it was backwards compatible with mono, so unless you're dealing with older mono equipment still rockin' its original (or period-correct NOS) needle, it should not be an issue.
No such thing as a mono stylus. The needle only tracks sound waves from the grooves of the record, then to the cartridge which sends the sound on to the pre-amp which equalizes the sound for improved fidelity and sends it the the main amplifier.
@@deanwhite4190 What are you suggesting then. I don’t get it.
this was really helpful! If you are going to only have one record in mono BB King "The Thrill is Gone" is the one!