Modern stereo, now that is a different story, if anything it is the mixing and mastering engineer using their bag of tricks to create a sense of space, depth, and placement of the performers on a stage. So in the end it comes down to what illusion do you prefer?
1 Like
One of the changes that occured in mixing during the transition from mono to stereo (Beatles records being a case in point) was care being taken with layering and separation of instruments by Frequency in mono. In stereo, it was suddenly possible to separate spatially, and there was perhaps a tendency in pop music at least, for the midrange to get crowded with stuff like multiple guitars due to the ability to āmoveā them into separate speakers.
In the case of early stereo Beatles records, they didnāt have the tracks to have all of the instruments recorded separately, hence the whole rhythm section to one side, vocals on the other, etc. Also, early stereo records were done hastily after the fact primarily for the burgeoning stereo market in the U.S., and much less time was taken to mix those versions (hours vs. days). Frankly not a lot of options when mixing stereo from a four track with drums and bass on a single track.
So despite the fact that the stereos were mostly what I grew up listening to, and digging the kooky panning, the monos are the ārealā mixes during the first few years of stereo releases.
4 Likes
KOB was recorded with a variety of recording devices. Comparing KOB recording to the Beatles I think is not a very accurate comparison. The Beatles were recorded for mono. Later mixing was intended to accommodate the stereo market (mo money). Mono is what was always intended. I seem to remember, back when the first major Beatles box set reissue was being developed (I could have some particulars wrong based on old memory), they wanted one of the principle engineers from the original recordings involved in the project. I recall he would only agree to put his name on the reissue project if the early stereo versions were NOT included in the box set. Seems most everyone involved in those recordings (including the Beatles themselves) consider the stereo releases an afterthought and bastardization of the recording process.
2 Likes
The Beatles themselves attended the mono mixing sessions, but left when it came to the stereo mixes.
1 Like
Agreed. We got off on to the general topic of mono vs. stereo rather than the thread topic. IIRC, KOB was primarily micāed with a Decca tree - hence the awesome 3 channel SACD version. Donāt recall if everything was just on those three mics or if there were other spot mics. I donāt think there was much (if any) in-studio stereo micing used on the Beatles stuff, at least early on.
1 Like
Highly recommended, mesmerized indeed.
Thank-you for sharing your insights so succinctly, as your explanation sums up my auditory experience with The Beatles.
1 Like
Having primarily grown up in the Stereo Age, it was a revelation to me to read or hear the engineers of the time discuss how mono recordings and mixes were done. In the pre-equalizer days, some of this frequency selection/limiting was done with mic selection.
In other words, often the best mic for a particular instrument had a somewhat limited bandwidth, rather than recording everything with āthe bestā full-bandwidth mics available - as would be chosen for an orchestral recording - which might result in this crowding of frequencies in the mix.
3 Likes
Excellent point. One needs to find a space for each instrument, part of the art and science of recording.
1 Like
ā¦and probably the biggest part of limitation compared to live. At least thatās what I notice the mostā¦that if thereās a solo instrument in a recording, this or the rest isnāt optimally caught (often in classical) or if in jazz the horns are optimized, the piano often suffers.
As soon as every instrument has its own optimization, it rather sounds like āa mixā not like the real āwholeā.
2 Likes
Great write-upās on Mono and 4 track. Some of the best recording I enjoy most were recorded āliveā with simple miking. There is a spacial understanding and placement which seems to emanate from the recording.
I can appreciate youāre sharing.
Often not enjoyable to listen toā¦
mono is the best for Miles Davis albums up to kind of blue; kind of blue in mono is so great frfom hdtracks, but still prefer the cd gold version because i can not stand Coltranes sound, i never liked so much Coltrane style of playing whit Miles, for me almost all his tracks with Miles sound to āhard or hashā or the style he play i dont like, i prefer āsoftā cool laidback sound;
ps. sad i had not listen to many these early albums in mono, for example something else exist not in mono 24 bit or dsd
these old 50ās 3 tracks are not really stereo is like mono in 3 tracks
the mono versions of Beatles early albums are the best
1 Like
The mono LP was released on RSD a couple of years and is still available. I have it and it does sound really good. The price is very reasonable for this version.
https://www.discogs.com/release/5142904-Miles-Davis-Kind-Of-Blue
1 Like
Yes this one is definitely a must have besides the Grundman Stereoā¦and the KG Stereosā¦andā¦ 
1 Like
I presume the newer mono releases have the corrected speed, or were the tracks for the newer release taken from a different recorder than the original off-speed recorder?
Sounds good to my ears, after all keep in mind it is no more than an illusion.