Stereo vs. Mono (WFMT-Jim Unrath story)
Jan 9, 2004
> > Dontaitchicago wrote:
> > Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and others would
> > never have written their interlocking "across-the-stage" string passages if
> > they hadn't meant them to be heard just that way: stereophonically.
> Mazzolata wrote:
> Yes, but there's a big difference between live and recorded music
> have CDs that are mono, and CDs that are stereo, and I honestly don't
> really notice the difference when I'm playing them at home.
To each his own. To me, it's instantly noticable most of the time. I recently bought the Yedang/Pipeline CD transfer of Rozhdestvensky's Mahler 10 adagio, and immediately noticed that it was in mono, whereas the LP (which I hadn't heard in maybe 15 or 20 years) had been in stereo, and not even very wide stereo.
Years ago I worked at WFMT (this would have been late '70s/early '80s), and I started at about 5:00AM. Jim Unrath (one of main guys at the station back then, and my direct boss) was arriving as I got there, having just flown in from NY with the reels from the night before's CSO/Carnegie Hall concert, which the station had taped for broadcast. We went to one of the studios and put the tape on one of the machines and began to play it. As the applause began (prior to any music), he looked at me and said "something's odd," and I agreed, and as the first notes of music began, we looked at each other and simultaneously said "Mono!" He reached over and hit the stereo/mono switch on the amp (which had ben left on mono by the previous user), and Ah! Sweet stereo!
Like Don, I adore, and own, many, many mono recordings--the most important thing is the music. But all things being equal, stereo, to my ears, is a huge advantage. It removed one more veil between me and the music.