The Mono vs. Stereo Edition

On alternative recordings, timeline blips, and Blonde on Blonde.

David Katznelson (DK) is a Grammy-nominated music producer, and 35+ year music industry veteran. He’s a former Warner Brothers Vice President, the current CEO of Reboot and Reboot Studios, and publisher of The Signal. A record collector, father of two, reader of physical books, and watcher of horror movies, David lives with his family atop a mountain in San Anselmo. 

David here. During the dawn of the stereophonic sound, record companies had to please two distinct audiences—the old school mono hi-fi owners, and the new school owners of the two-speaker stereo system. 

The first stereo releases came out in the late fifties, but all through the late 60s, record companies would pay to produce two separate mixes of each record they were releasing: one stereo, for the early adopters, and one mono.  

Both mixing styles come with their own challenges as to where to best place each instrument, and how to use sonic EQ and other effects to properly arrange the recorded tracks in order to best serve the song.  The result was often two drastically different mixes of a record, something the record companies rarely highlighted. Their goal was to appeal to the widest audience possible with each release. Often the artwork for the mono mix and the stereo mix looked identical, with just a small change to a lower corner that said mono or stereo, or as often was the case, stereo or just a blank space (which was inferred to mean “not stereo”.)

Why is this interesting? 

There are releases where the mono and stereo mixes are noticeably different.  Some, perhaps where the mono mixes are, subjectively, better….more driving, more rocking.  

Think about sitting in front of one speaker and then between two speakers: the former, a mono mix, is pushing sound in your direction from one speaker; there is but one audio path where the sound information can live and be processed. In the world of stereo, between the two speakers there are more spatial opportunities for all the sounds that make up a recording: a guitar can be placed nearer to the right, the bass and vocals somewhere in the middle. The sound engineer has more to work with given the opportunity to use sounds in different positions to balance out the recordings.  On the other hand, the mono mixes can seem more “live,” with the drums and vocals and guitars pushed through a single channel. It can sound punchier, with more drive.  The mono pressing of Pink Floyd’s debut release ‘The Piper at the Gates Of Dawn’ is something of legend, where the band seems to come more alive, more dangerous and more direct, seemingly right in front of the listener, instead of the more detail-oriented, manicured stereo mix. (As this guy attests to…) 

Another example: The Everly Brothers’ WB classic ‘Two Yanks In England’ is a record I initially listened to years ago and put away… but then more recently I was introduced to the mono mix, which features a rawer guitar sound that drives the whole record towards a more exciting, darker, groovier place. ‘Something Else’ by the Kinks’ mono mix brings out the live combustive sound they had in those early days, in a much more immediate way than its stereo cousin. Jimi Hendrix’s ‘Are You Experienced’ in mono is like you are sitting next to Hendrix’s amp for the entire record. And if you want heavier than that, ‘Vincebus Eruptum’, Blue Cheer’s first record, considered a prototype for the heavy metal music to come, crashes much more forcefully in mono, with thick-as-a-brick guitar mayhem and end-of-the-universe huge snare and kick sounds that are far mightier than in stereo.

Many artists in those early days of stereo liked the mono sound better than the stereo sound. Bob Dylan provided one stereo mix for ‘Blonde on Blonde’, but three mono mixes which appeared in different international pressings. Some songs feature a mono mix with a longer fade-out, some with a greater focus on the guitar or keyboard. (And yes, even after falling in love with ‘Blonde On Blonde’ so many years ago, finding the mono mixes from Canada and Europe, which also feature different photos in the gatefold, offers an all-new listening experience. ) The Canadian mono version, which is rumored to be the earliest mix of the record, famously (among record collectors) features a vocal take of ‘Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands’ where Dylan noticeably slips up on a lyric during the fourth verse.

The deep dive into collecting both mono and stereo mixes can be addictive, and costly: some mono mixes (especially in the jazz arena) go for thousands of dollars.  Take warning, though, that some record companies penny pinched during the early stereo era by doing what is called a “fold down”mix: taking a stereo mix and just converting it to mono by mechanically squashing the mix. The results can be inferior mono mixes where the main vocals are buried, the mid-range focus turns the sound into mush, and the power of the record is lost. And beware releases where the record company states (usually on the cover of the album) that the original mix, usually done before the advent of stereo, has been “Electrically Enhanced.” This just means that the original mix has been run through a stereo mixing board to simulate a stereo sound that more often than not just sounds weird. This has been done to a lot of jazz recordings from the late 50s and early sixties. BUYER BEWARE.

In the case of mixes-before-the-stereo-era….embrace the mono.  If you choose to buy a reissue of a great record from the past, one great trick is to look and see which remastering engineer worked on the reissue (the person who is restoring and enhancing the old tapes and old mixes of the record you are buying).  Names like Jessica Thompson, Michael Graves, John Baldwin and Steve Rosenthal are gold standards: folks who painstakingly use modern technology to bring out the best fidelity of those original mixes.  

Because of the experimental nature of many late sixties recordings… think Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band… there are instances where both the stereo and mono mixes are worth owning. In some cases the stereo mix is superior. Steve Hoffman’s on-line forum is always a great resource to read up on almost any record that came out during the era of stereo and mono. Just go to his website and search for the record in question.  

I recently bought a mono copy of one of my favorites, Steppenwolf’s second record (which is called, appropriately, ‘The Second’), and while it was rare, and pricey, it in no way sounded better than the stereo version. Same with the second Iron Butterfly record ‘Heavy’. Alternatively, The Who’s ‘The Who Sell Out’ is so very different in mono, where ‘Mary Anne with the Shaky Hand’ has a completely different shaky effect on the vocal in the chorus. For that record, it really is great to have both versions.

I could go on and on and on.

In the end, the mono and stereo reality that happened for a few years in the late 60s and early 70s offers new worlds of opportunity to celebrate and enjoy classic beloved music. New experiences with old friends. Falling in love all over again. (DK)