Talk Vinyl: Mono Replay, Part II
Talk Vinyl: Denon DL-102, Part II
In this article I shall examine a few facets of mono replay. Specifically,
what do we sonically value in mono replay, and are those values present in the majority of mono records?
Same recording, Stereo vs Mono
This
section concentrates on recordings that were originally issued in both
stereo and mono pressings, and seek to compare them. The comparison cannot never be fully valid. A complicating factor is that in most cases we do not know whether the mono version is just a "down-mixed" or "summed" stereo, or a different mix altogether (a good way to know would be to employ one of the full-featured
vintage preamps. Comparing the stereo version played with the selector set to "L+R" one can compare it to the mono version and see if it is the same mix. One day perhaps).
Of course, there are even more
worthwhile recordings only in mono, but for this article that is
besides the point.
Equipment Used:
-Mono:
Thorens TD-309 /
Denon DL-102 /
Canare 2T2S lead out
-Stereo:
Thorens TD-124 /
SME 3009i /
Denon DL-304
-Preamp:
Shindo Monbrison
-Amp:
Wavac MD-811A
-Speakers:
YL 4-way horns
I believe this is a rigorous comparison. The two cartridges belong to the same family and they are fed into the same Shindo MM stage, though the MC is of course stepped up by the internal Lundahl transformers. Indeed, sonically both the stereo and mono replays have the same tonal balance that attests to their neutral character; I can play the stereo on the mono, and vice versa, and get similar sound. Of course, I have yet to do the ultimate in mono replay: Use a single speaker. Maybe one day.
You may want to read
Denon DL-102 Part I.
Tonal "Purity" at Bargain Price?
Classical lovers have it good. Over the years I have amassed a considerable number of Mono LPs, in particular almost all the
mono Living Stereos worth
talking about. The reason is simple: the original stereo shaded dog's
command extremely high prices and are frequently not even of great
quality (many invisibly but certainly damaged by needles), whereas the
mono equivalents can be dirt-cheap. In general, these are worth getting,
particularly if you want it mainly for the soloist. Yes,
Heifetz
likely sounds just as good in a mono pressing (and I have most of them)
than in a stereo one, maybe even better. This should not be surprising -
the violin is small instrument with a focused tone; there is no reason
why mono should not sound just as good, if not better. More often than not,
the mono violin sound is smoother and richer in color. Take the mono
copy of the
Erick Friedman
disc pictured above, the violin sound virtually jumps out in its
intensity, a far cry from the thinness of the CD issue (I have the
original Silver Seal) that is mysteriously coveted by Asian audiophiles.
Yes, I believe mono renders the better violin sound.
What
about the piano? I'd say for the much larger and more complex
instrument mono still does a decent job, but often not necessarily
better than stereo. When it comes to chamber music, it goes without
saying mono does a great job. And then a good mono pressing is also often superior to a
later stereo pressing. More tonal purity on offer.
But
wait, what about the orchestra "behind" the soloist? If you are like
me, you'd want the orchestra in all its splendor. In that bygone era,
the orchestra was no mere accompaniment; unlike today, the conductors
too were all highly skilled in the art of collaboration. In those
magnificent Heifetz concerto performances, for me the orchestra
sometimes is the main course! Here the story gets more complicated.
While some mono discs, like my
UK Heifetz Bruch 1,
have surprisingly resplendent orchestral sound, others don't. When it
comes to purely orchestral performances, no matter how good the mono
replay, one more often than not miss the stereo spread. Read this thread
on that most famous of Living Stereo's (and my favorite), the
incomparable
Boston Pops/Fiedler Gaite Parisienne.
I have all the issues evaluated, though my original stereo pressing is a
later maroon label Victrola. I concur with the opinion expressed by the
person who posted the thread.
Pop/Jazz and the Jump Factor, at a Price
Pop
and Jazz lovers don't have it as good as the classical folks. Jazz
mono's and select pop mono's have always had quite a following, and many
more famous ones and first issues, like Blue Note, command high prices.
Although I don't have a huge collection of jazz and pop mono's I do
have enough to make a statement or two.
Similar to
classical music, in general the smaller combo's work better than large
bands. My several
Verve mono's in general sound as good as their stereo
equivalents (but not necessarily better).
Peter, Paul and Mary In Concert, as well as many of their mono issues, sound excellent.
Likewise, my 6-eye Mono
Brubeck's Time Out sounds better to my ears than the my later "generic" stereo copy. But I am sorry to say that, although as expected it gives a faithful portrayal of the voice(s), my mint copy of Mono
Belafonte at Carnegie Hall does not quite conjure up the magical atmosphere of my tattered stereo copies.
Factors Affecting Mono Replay
Aside from mixes, there are other factors that affect the outcome. I shall treat these under this section, as I believe audiophiles who are newly drawn to mono are mostly pop and jazz inclined.
Gain and Level Some of the best mono-only LPs that I have feature one of my favorite jazz pianist,
Erroll Garner (his LPs are worth nothing, even the seminal
Concert by the Sea). They don't all sound equally good but, true to its name,
Encores in Hi Fi (Columbia) certainly does! What magnificent ensemble and piano tone! What Jump Factor! But wait a minute, does your preamp have sound level meters? Some of mine do (Nagra PLP; EAR 912), and I found
this recording, like many other pop and jazz mono's, was cut at an extraordinarily high level (classical recordingss less prone to be so). It spends most of its time in the red! :-) So, like everything else, level match when you compare.
Gain is something that tests your knowledge of music. I have met many audiophiles who do not have enough gain in their playback, but they prefer that way and swear by the smoothness and "refinement". I have nothing to say to that, but for me, music is all about dynamics, micro and macro, without which there is no possible hope of tricking one into believing it's live. A good example is my Denon DL-304 low output cartridge. Although its 0.18V output is seemingly not much lower than the DL-103's 0.23V (and I have highly efficient speakers), in practical terms it is much harder to match with the phonostage. Improperly matched, the sound is anemic; properly done, it is wholesome. Suffice to say the much healthier 3.0V output of the mono DL-102 has quite an advantageous start with the jump factor!
Overall System Balance Stereo and Mono playback both have their advantages, but a good system should be able to play both well. Failing to do so implies gross imbalance. While Mono playback, as we shall see, can play stereo records in an insightful way, a good stereo system should also play mono well. Unfortunately, most modern systems with their sucked out middle and exaggerated extremes simply cannot do the simple job of playing back midrange dominant mono recordings.
Presence (or Lack of) I believe
the singular most important aspect of mono playback is its directness of utterance (which equates great presence and jump factor). But the system has to be able to deliver that! Again, most modern systems with their sucked out middle and exaggerated extremes simply cannot do the job. If you must have an example, let me say presence and the jump factor is a lot easier to get from a tube (SET or WE) driven efficient horn or wideband system, or Tannoy, than from most over-priced and over-rated sins of modernity, say Burmester (if you object, substitute any number of inefficient speakers, ceramic drivers, ribbon tweeters and the likes, you get the picture).
Recording Quality There is no miracle. Just as in stereo, the better the recording quality, the better the mono replay. Most mono recordings lack air and sound at least a little constricted, and many have a tunneled sound field (on a stereo setup). But late in the mono era, with the advent of stereo and advances in recording quality, sound could be excellent and the sound field is much larger due to more air in the recording (that carries venue information).
Mono Plays Stereo - Anachronism?
Many monophiles like to play their stereo recordings with their mono cartridges. While losing stereo information, what is there to gain?
My view is that, with a good stereo recording, mono playback sounds good too, but not manifestly better. S
ometimes, mono edges out stereo in directness of utterance. An example would be the second track of
Miles' Tutu. A little after the lead in, there is a quieter passage where the various Marcus Miller "instruments" challenge the soloist and each other. With mono playback, their outbursts easily became
taunts, which I am sure is what the music is all about.
Conclusions
I think having a mono replay facility is like having a mirror: it sheds light on the stereo replay and the system in general. Here are my two cents:
- Do you need dedicated analogue mono replay? I'd say it completely depends on whether you already have a sizeable or treasured mono collection. If you do, a mono cartridge is eminently worthwhile for the insight it brings. If you don't, personally I feel there is little reason to do so.
- In any system (your own or others'), if you feel the mono replay has a lot more jump factor or presence compared to the stereo, you need to examine the issue of gain as well as system balance. The MC in use may just be not dynamic enough, mismatched to the phonostage, or the system itself lacks presence.
- If it is jump factor you're looking for, why not try a good MM cartridge? I still remember the jump factor my defunct Goldring 1012 imparts to rock!
- On classical mono's
While there are unquestionably bargains, the most desirable ones are
those with violin soloists. Big orchestral works generally fare less
well.
Sony SCD-XA5400ES I really had not listened to this SACD/CD player much before, though I had set down my initial impression. This time, I decided
to just run it in for 24 hours. The sound opened up further and
revealed much nuance. Just an example. I compared again the original red
book Triloka CD with the current Analogue Productions hybrid SACD/CD of Hugh Masekela's Hope.
Previously I preferred the RBCD, which seemed to have more oomph. This
time, the story is not so simple. While the RBCD still seemed to have a
bit more of the primal rawness (which befits some material here), there is no
question the SACD layer is very close in this regard but a lot more
detailed and nuanced in the vocals and instrumental timber - more analog
if you will. the CD layer of the hybrid disc also comes pretty close to
the SACD. The Living Stereo hybrid SACDs also sound brilliant (Reiner's Spain is just an example; I think they sound better than the earlier RBCDs due to better re-mastering). So, a wonderful SACD player! It is either phased out or being discontinued, but you can still get it.
Posts
