SRX Vinyl 2019 Blue Note Reissues, total Audiophile P.O.SHIT!!

[montesquieu]

By mid-1958 everything RVG recorded was in stereo. All the mono releases after that point were fold downs.

Don't have time right now to find the references but the fold-down myth has been comprehensively debunked. RVG's early stereo mixes are downright amateurish in comparison to mono. Laughably so, in fact, in comparison to the cohesion of the mono versions.

There is simply nothing to beat mono done well, and if you think the image all collapses to the centre, then you haven't heard it done well.

Walter Legge, probably the finest producer of classical recordings of the entire 20th century, believed stereo was a fad that detracted from the music, and a lot of early stereo bears that judgment out - gimmicky left-right panning is no substitute for the incredible depth and transparency achievable in mono and it took quite a few years before the trick of 3D was properly mastered (and even then, 'done well' wasn't - indeed isn't! - universal).

 

[Skylab]

I don’t see how the “fold-down” has been debunked. We know that RVG ran a separate tape deck recording in mono at 7.5 IPS, in addition to the stereo deck. But the mic setup was the same. So the mono tape deck by definition was getting some mix-down/fold-down/whatever you want to call it.

 

[bazelio]

How would you describe good mono other than a strong center image with superb depth? I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[dminches]

I am not sure what you mean by "debunked" but here is a complete list of what RVG recorded. By 1959 there was no full track recordings. While it is possible that the 2 track recordings were also mono, it doesn't seem as though that was the case since there were stereo releases of those.

I have never been in the Blue Note vault so I can only repeat what those who have been have said.

http://dgmono.com/blue-note-mono-stereo-guide/

https://londonjazzcollector.wordpre...cords-and-the-transition-from-mono-to-stereo/

 

[bonzo75]

How would you describe good mono other than a strong center image with superb depth? I think we're saying the same thing.

Much better coherence in stage, no silly left right games. Audiophiles spend a lifetime trying to position speakers and change cables and electronics to get the seamless, unbroken stage that mono does naturally.

 

[montesquieu]

I don’t see how the “fold-down” has been debunked. We know that RVG ran a separate tape deck recording in mono at 7.5 IPS, in addition to the stereo deck. But the mic setup was the same. So the mono tape deck by definition was getting some mix-down/fold-down/whatever you want to call it.

There's a difference between a mono mix from multiple mics, and a fold-down of the stereo mix. Not the same thing.

EDIT for clarification: this could explain the amaterishness of the stereo mixes since in that era the bulk of the effort would have been on the balance (often dynamic) of the mono mix.

'Fold down' is a pejorative phrase in this context - in the era when there was ONLY a stereo mix, slapping L&R tracks together generated mono. That's absolutely NOT how good mono is recorded.

 

[montesquieu]

Much better coherence in stage, no silly left right games. Audiophiles spend a lifetime trying to position speakers and change cables and electronics to get the seamless, unbroken stage that mono does naturally.

Agree with this. A good mono cartridge will fill the space between the speakers, a decent recording has fantastic back to back depth and psyco-acoustic effects do the rest, with the mind resolving instruments naturally. Good mono is wide, deep and very satisfying.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Much better coherence in stage, no silly left right games. Audiophiles spend a lifetime trying to position speakers and change cables and electronics to get the seamless, unbroken stage that mono does naturally.

I agree. The only thing you missed imho is a very natural tonality, body, and density to acoustic instruments, which is superior on mono. It is quite obvious listening to mono solo (or small scale ensemble) violins / cellos / sax / piano / trumpets.

If I think about all the thousands of LPs I have heard at the General’s now, my favourites are always mono and that is coming from someone with all the best recordings in both mono and stereo. I personally choose mono pressings over stereo now.

 

[microstrip]

Much better coherence in stage, no silly left right games. Audiophiles spend a lifetime trying to position speakers and change cables and electronics to get the seamless, unbroken stage that mono does naturally.

Mono does not create a proper soundstage. Your mind creates it from the information in the recording, and I easily consider that your imaginary recreation seems seamless to you. Perhaps a few listeners will consider that lateral imaging spoils their experience, but in general stereo is considered more enjoyable and rewarding. As always, particularly in psychoacoustics , IMHO and YMMV.

But yes, stereo soundstage is by definition incoherent - there are no standards for sound reproduction.

 

[bonzo75]

Mono does not create a proper soundstage. Your mind creates it from the information in the recording, and I easily consider that your imaginary recreation seems seamless to you. Perhaps a few listeners will consider that lateral imaging spoils their experience, but in general stereo is considered more enjoyable and rewarding. As always, particularly in psychoacoustics , IMHO and YMMV.

But yes, stereo soundstage is by definition incoherent - there are no standards for sound reproduction.

Not really, not to people who listen to the same monos and stereo recordings on the same set ups. So I don't think Bill, general, and I have a don't on their two systems. Montesquieu and I will agree on his system. In general people today have less exposure to mono. I am sure I won't like it on yours if you don't. As always particularly due to your experiences, ymmv

 

[montesquieu]

Mono does not create a proper soundstage. Your mind creates it from the information in the recording, and I easily consider that your imaginary recreation seems seamless to you. Perhaps a few listeners will consider that lateral imaging spoils their experience, but in general stereo is considered more enjoyable and rewarding. As always, particularly in psychoacoustics , IMHO and YMMV.

But yes, stereo soundstage is by definition incoherent - there are no standards for sound reproduction.

Stereo soundstage is also an illusion. Left to right is all some people hear, which is nothing more than a parlour trick. Just as with mono, it takes decent equipment as well as active listening and a degree of imagination/openness to psycho-acoustic phenomena to hear 3D depth.

Well-done mono has enormous charm ... I guess it's normal for people who haven't had much exposure to it to prefer stereo but I really don't see them as an either-or, many mono recordings were made with enormous care by engineers at the top of their game, were pressed on high-quality material and have incredible levels of fidelity encoded on them - though it can take a bit of effort (correct styli of the right thickness, correct equalisation of pre-RIAA curves and so on) to get the best out of them.

But actually this doesn't apply just to LPs, I have 78s cut in the 40s that have room acoustic information as well as a frankly unbelievable amount of expressive detail, though again it's an effort to get this info off. But it can be done, indeed this information is available on some very early recordings ... it's worth digging into the phenomenal work done by Andrew Rose for Pristine Classics - this from 1929! https://www.pristineclassical.com/collections/artist-alfred-cortot/products/pacm001

 

[dminches]

Much better coherence in stage, no silly left right games. Audiophiles spend a lifetime trying to position speakers and change cables and electronics to get the seamless, unbroken stage that mono does naturally.

Ked, it sounds like you have never heard a good stereo recording played back on a pair of speakers that image well. The soundstage in my room is a mile wide and it projects a very good image of how the musicians were situated on the stage or studio.

 

[dminches]

Stereo soundstage is also an illusion. Left to right is all some people hear, which is nothing more than a parlour trick. Just as with mono, it takes decent equipment as well as active listening and a degree of imagination/openness to psycho-acoustic phenomena to hear 3D depth.

Really? Even for live recordings?

I respectfully disagree.

 

[montesquieu]

Really? Even for live recordings?

I respectfully disagree.

It's assembled by the ear and the brain, just as with mono. A fact surely?

Ked, it sounds like you have never heard a good stereo recording played back on a pair of speakers that image well.

Ridiculous comment.

 

[microstrip]

Really? Even for live recordings?

I respectfully disagree.

Yes, it is true. Technically, unless you add phase effects, stereo only pans sound between the speakers. It takes a lot of processing, psychoacoustics and imagination to create the soundstage.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Ked, it sounds like you have never heard a good stereo recording played back on a pair of speakers that image well. The soundstage in my room is a mile wide and it projects a very good image of how the musicians were situated on the stage or studio.

I am not sure there are any audiophiles out there who have heard so many systems playing great stereo recordings as Ked - this is his hobby not listening at home! Hobby is wrong - the guy is hearing 2 to 3 new systems per week lol. He has spent multiple years travelling the planet tracking down the best systems and best recordings. I believe stereo imaging on Mike’s system was a big favourite of his and possibly the best he ever heard.

 

[dminches]

It's assembled by the ear and the brain, just as with mono. A fact surely?



Ridiculous comment.

Well, that's what my room sounds like. It is ridiculous to say that all stereo is fake and an illusion.

 

[dminches]

I am not sure there are any audiophiles out there who have heard so many systems playing great stereo recordings as Ked - this is his hobby not listening at home! Hobby is wrong - the guy is hearing 2 to 3 new systems per week lol. He has spent multiple years travelling the planet tracking down the best systems and best recordings. I believe stereo imaging on Mike’s system was a big favourite of his and possibly the best he ever heard.

I agree. That's why I think it is crazy to say that any stereo is an illusion.

I have heard many stereo recordings which have natural depth and width. I have also heard many mono recordings that also create a very natural sound stage.

 

[dminches]

Yes, it is true. Technically, unless you add phase effects, stereo only pans sound between the speakers. It takes a lot of processing, psychoacoustics and imagination to create the soundstage.

That is not true if the recording is made with microphones which also pick up the characteristics of the room itself.

 

[bonzo75]

I agree. That's why I think it is crazy to say that any stereo is an illusion.

I have heard many stereo recordings which have natural depth and width. I have also heard many mono recordings that also create a very natural sound stage.

No one said stereo is not good. We play both. Obviously. I was replying to Bazelio's question there