Why are there so few mono versions on CD of 1950-60s albums?

[hopkins]

I enjoy listening to mono versions of albums, and am wondering why so few albums that were issued in both mono and stereo LPs are only available in stereo version on CD?

Here is a random example:

https://www.discogs.com/master/442237-Claude-Hopkins-With-Buddy-Tate-Joe-Thomas-Lets-Jam

Issued on CD in stereo:

https://www.discogs.com/release/15061231-Claude-Hopkins-Swing-Time

It is fortunate that this album was even issued on CD, but why in stereo? Is mono deemed inferior?

 

[Stonewall15]

Good question. Releasing two versions would not be economic so the most popular version was released.

Edited January 2, 2024 by Stonewall15
correction

[hopkins]

Some of the mono CDs I have found have been issued in Japan - but these are generally expensive...

Here is an example:

https://www.discogs.com/release/10251913-Lester-Young-The-Jazz-Giants-56

Edited January 3, 2024 by hopkins

[Chuck Nessa]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

Some of the mono CDs I have found have been issued in Japan - but these are generally expensive...

Here is an example:

https://www.discogs.com/release/10251913-Lester-Young-The-Jazz-Giants-56

I believe that one was only recorded in mono - no stereo tapes were made.

[mikeweil]

Many mono tapes probably were dumped as it was generally thought that stereo was superior etc., and the companies wanted to save storage space. Not really logical, as most households still had only mono playback systems until the late sixties or even early seventies.

On the occasion of the SACD reissue of "Hohn Coltrane and Johnny Hartman" Rudy Van Gelder wrote that until that time engineers were instructed to take the most care in mixing to mono - the SACD includes both mixes to proove it, the mono mix sounds better. In view of that it was a rather stupid decision to throw away the mono tapes.

The only LPs I ever regretted selling are some original Atlantic mono pressings. Those I still have sound great when played back with a mono cartridge.

Edited March 8, 2024 by mikeweil

[medjuck]

Not my experience.  Everyone I knew had a cheap stereo by 1965. I remember being at parties where you could dance to either the Beatles vocals or their instruments depending on which side of the room you danced. 

[Rabshakeh]

4 hours ago, medjuck said:

Not my experience.  Everyone I knew had a cheap stereo by 1965. I remember being at parties where you could dance to either the Beatles vocals or their instruments depending on which side of the room you danced. 

Haha!

[hopkins]

6 hours ago, Chuck Nessa said:

I believe that one was only recorded in mono - no stereo tapes were made.

I think you are right about that one. The "Pres & Teddy" recording, made a day later, is available in both mono and stereo.

https://www.discogs.com/master/335897-The-Lester-Young-Teddy-Wilson-Quartet-Pres-And-Teddy

With Audacity, or other software, you can check for mono by adding the inverted left channel to the right one. The track comes across faintly when you do this, so it seems that one channel is simply a little louder than the other. Hard to understand why they would do this, but perhaps it does not really matter.

Edited January 3, 2024 by hopkins

[Steve Gray]

I don't think that's right either, it was recorded in mono so any stereo issues are fake.

 

"Pres and Teddy" was, as it happens, the first jazz LP I bought, in 1961

Edited January 3, 2024 by Steve Gray

[hopkins]

1 hour ago, Steve Gray said:

I don't think that's right either, it was recorded in mono so any stereo issues are fake.

 

"Pres and Teddy" was, as it happens, the first jazz LP I bought, in 1961

Agreed. The level of difference between the two channels is minimal and probably cannot be heard, but it is still there! So it is not "pure mono". I understand that at some point during the processing, some mono tapes may have been fed through stereo equipment and resulted in small channel imbalances.

[T.D.]

I've no problem with mono. If a session was originally recorded in mono, I'd rather hear it that way than in fake stereo.

But in practice I wind up going with what's available at reasonable price.

21 hours ago, Stonewall15 said:

Good question. Releasing two versions would not be economic so the most popular version was released.

Most likely.

Edited January 3, 2024 by T.D.

[JSngry]

[medjuck]

1 hour ago, T.D. said:

I've no problem with mono. If a session was originally recorded in mono, I'd rather hear it that way than in fake stereo.

 

I don't think anyone likes fake stereo, but I usually don't mind issues where they've gone back to the original tracks and done a stereo mix like the one for Pet Sounds.   (Of course if they screw it up that's another matter.)

[Kevin Bresnahan]

19 minutes ago, medjuck said:

I don't think anyone likes fake stereo, but I usually don't mind issues where they've gone back to the original tracks and done a stereo mix like the one for Pet Sounds.   (Of course if they screw it up that's another matter.)

Today, that might be true. But back in the 60's & 70's, a lot of music buyers wouldn't even buy a mono record. So record companies came out with fake stereo, which was considered an improvement over the mono by most buyers. Remember too, that "hi fi" was not really a thing back then, so not many people did the A/B comparisons that we read about regularly today.

[hopkins]

This is a fun read: https://pitchfork.com/features/oped/9492-back-to-mono/

It mentions Brian Wilson's passion for mono, among others.

Edited January 3, 2024 by hopkins

[JSngry]

[Teasing the Korean]

If you have a mono button on your amp, most of the Rudy Van Gelder-produced Blue Note albums will collapse to mono more or less as they sounded on LP.  

[hopkins]

One of the reasons I asked about this is that I have taken a liking to listening to mono recordings through a single speaker. I like the sound, especially on older recordings. I feel it offers more clarity. A single speaker also works well in a small space (my home office, for example). I use an old Altec 755C speaker. These were made in the 1950s. I don't take all this too seriously, it is fun and I enjoy it, but am obviously happy listening to stereo as well.

Stereo was invented by Alan Blumlein in 1931, so way before it came to be used in recording studios.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Blumlein

The article I linked to above explains how Blumlein developed stereo for use in movies, not audio:

"Blumlein’s initial inspiration for the invention of stereo recording was not an audio experience, per se. His biography, The Inventor of Stereo, tells an anecdote about Blumlein going to the cinema with his wife and complaining that the actors’ voices didn’t move with them across the screen. “I’ve got a way to make it follow the person,” he then said to her, in what may have been his eureka moment."

But stereo is already "passé" and the new trend is now "immersive audio" which requires setting up a large number of speakers everywhere in your room, including the ceilings! No thanks...

Edited January 4, 2024 by hopkins

[medjuck]

On 1/3/2024 at 1:12 PM, JSngry said:

The Spector   "Back to Mono" box set is terrific but everything seems a bit compressed to me.  I'd love a well mixed stereo version of The Wall of Sound.  Did he do any stereo releases or was he always mixing for mono car radios?   BTW In the book about The Wrecking Crew there are some funny stories about Phil and Barney Kessel. 

[hopkins]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:17 PM, Teasing the Korean said:

If you have a mono button on your amp, most of the Rudy Van Gelder-produced Blue Note albums will collapse to mono more or less as they sounded on LP.  

I found the equivalent on my digital player (converts on the fly) and I really enjoy listening to a lot of albums that way. I do prefer listening to the mono versions, when they are available. 

Out of curiosity, I recently purchased a few mono LPs that I already had in digital format in stereo.

The mono version of Ellington's "Back to Back", for example, sounds great (played on a single speaker).

Edited March 8, 2024 by hopkins