I did a shootout between an early mono UK pressing of 'Sgt. Pepper's', a Japanese 1976 stereo and a UK 1978 stereo version. It was clear that the mono pressing had more reverb in the vocals. Lennon's voice in 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds' almost sounded like it was in a tunnel of sound. The other two were brighter and the Japanese pressing had the edge in clarity.
What about RCA's Living Stereo? They are some of the best recordings out there. I have two albums by Henry Mancini and his Orchestra. "Music from Peter Gunn" and "More Music from Peter Gunn", both from 1959. They sound absolutely incredible. Top-of-the-line. When Columbia introduced stereo in 1958 I believe that most (if not all) the recordings were made at the 30th Street studios. They sound quite good. I have a cartridge/stylus to play mono. Reduces crosstalk. I recall (I don't remember where) that John said if we haven't heard SPLHCB in mono we haven't heard it. Anyways, have a good weekend.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords There is a point for mono when talking about the primitive stereo utilized in the 50's and 60's. Rubber Soul is a great example. I must interject that a lot of kids at the time thought that the goofy...instr. panned left...vocals right thing was "neat"...quite a few pros too because American bands started making those nutty things after hearing Capitol's versions of Beatle records. It drives me nuts and if I don't have a mono copy of that stuff and I'm out in the yard listening on the big stereo I hit the mono button on my Marantz 1060....which I don't think really makes it a mono mix just a mono blend but it's better than weird alien stereo. At least Sgt. Pepper was sort of planned out enough to not be a total waste. The first stereo mix is listenable to me...but of course I grew up with it. The 2017 remix while having some flaws was nice for spreading out the drums. I actually heard stuff that I didn't hear before. Working with 4 tracks is a crazy thing if you are aiming at stereo. So much pre-production and bounding down...I imagine it really would make an engineer nuts. I did it with demos and it's a nightmare.
@@timmy707707 this is really great to read. Wish you could have seen me smiling. I grew up with many of the stereo versions of those albums and it’s really all I know so I tend to prefer them. This was long before I learned about the original mix - which admittedly sounds different to my ears without the right and left differences. I had a four track in the 90s when I dabbled with music and obsessed over when to bounce and when not to. I can’t imagine what it was like for the engineers back then.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Occasionally I pull out my original copies of those Beatle records and listen just for the novelty of it and to show my kids. There is one benefit of "extreme stereo". As a kid learning to play guitar in 71...Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere" has Neil's guitar panned all the way to the right and the band hard panned to the left which made it easy to play along without Neil interrupting.
For "Pet Sounds" - I would pick mono simply because the true stereo mix wasn't available until the early 1990's. Duphonic isn't stereo! I've got the same Elvis record - like you said, one channel is a microsecond out of sync from the other . . . makes me dizzy : )
One of my favorite garage rock bands is Dead moon. This band refused to release their music other than in mono. I can see the charm from a conceptual point of view. But when i found a stereo recording of a radio studio session they once did i wondered what if they hadn’t been so strict. This stereo recording was much more open, wide and overwhelming, it really made their music shine. I’ve seen the band in concert in the past and on stage the stereo aspect is of lesser importance. In a live setting the combination of sound, visual elements and physical excitement is what matters. The band no longer exists, both the drummer and singer passed away a while ago. If you are unfamiliar with their music, you should definitely check it out, great garage stompers!
Your use of Beatles albums highlighted my dilemma between Mono and Stereo. I solved the problem by buying an early mono version of all their albums released in mono and then the latest remastered stereo versions from 2012 onwards. The mono versions take me back to my teens in the 1960s and how I remember them the first time of hearing. The latest remastered copies are more akin to hearing them afresh with modern audio technology. They both have a place in my collection
Wonderful to hear Patrick. I'm not sure myself which I prefer as there are things about each that I like. Imagine having to buy two copies of every record.... I'd go broke.
I remember in the '60s when stereo was really being pushed and forming into what we know it as today. Obviously, it was more than just interesting recording tricks. I sure wouldn't go out of my way to pay extra for mono recordings. If somebody is bragging to me about their 'mono collection' and the purity of its sound, I say 'meh', you're being a snob. You can even buy carts that are specially designed to playback mono. It could be an endless rabbit hole if you want it to be. I have a live Hendix album in mono....just like being there at his concert with no stereo effects. Maybe it's 'purity', but I'd like to hear the same album mixed down in stereo.....bet I'd like it better and play it more often.
Thinking that mono is better _per se_ is an example of audiophile snobbery for me. My opinion is that, in general terms, mono albums released before 1968 are better because of the extreme panning of their stereo counterparts. That was a novelty at the time, and it's great for a musician trying to figure his/her part. But for the sheer pleasure of listening, it's horrible because the band loses its cohesion and sounds just like a bunch of musicians spread across the room. Of course, there are exceptions that have an explanation: Ornette Coleman's "Free Jazz" (1961) features a double jazz quartet, one on the left channel and the other one on the right. This album is meant to be heard in stereo. Same for albums from the "Stereo Action" series by RCA Victor released during the first half of the sixties. But when technology and criteria evolved, allowing for clever and realistic stereo mixes (roughly from 1968), mono lost its reason for existing (save for AM radio). Nothing beats a great stereo mix to me. I have a hard time understanding why Smashing Pumpkins released a mono version of "Adore" in 1998, or why Jack White released a mono mix of The White Stripes' "Elephant" for its 20th anniversary (2023). I can't even think of artistic reasons behind that decision. In short, well-balanced stereo mix > mono mix > hard-panned stereo mix (in my opinion and perception, of course).
Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I just last night listened to Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in its entirety and can't imagine it ever being released in mono. That being said, albums issued in mono originally will typically trump a stereo counterpart mixed in stereo just for the hell of it (or for marketing).
I don't mind either way... both have their value and sound wonderful. What I do want to discuss though is why Americans call it cream? Coffee with cream is revolting... I mean it curdles and lumps and tastes sour... whereas coffee with milk is amazing and the way it should be.
Stereo pressings of sgt pepper are cheaper and easier to find, at least where I live. For now I'll just have to settle for the 2017 remix which I'm told more closely adheres to the mono version, idk both sound great to me.
I was just trying to decide which version of Pet Sounds I wanted from Analogue Records, mono or stereo. I have the SACD version of Pet Sounds in Stereo, so I guess I will go mono here. Also, I have the Jefferson Airplane record on my wish list. The mono version gets rave reviews, not so the stereo version. The early Rolling Stone vinyl records are coming out in mono and I picked up the greatest hits record. Sounds great in mono. That being said, listening to the Kevin Gray's cut of What's Going On in stereo is an unbelievable audio experience. The soundstage is amazing. Let the battle rage on!! joe
Very interesting topic. I have an old Sinatra record in both mono and stereo. The mono version is the original and sounds a bit warmer than the stereo version. I would say that typically the original way something was recorded would be the best way to listen to it. However, I have heard remixes of original recordings that sounded better than the original. So I guess it comes down to personal taste. I recently listened to The Little River Band's 2016 rerecording of The Hits Revisited. These are not just remixes but rearrangements of the original songs. I like some of the new versions better than the original versions. I know that isn't the same thing as mono vs stereo, but the point is sometimes you can make the original music better by tweaking it a bit. Not always, but I keep an open mind. The most important thing is listening to what you like and hearing it on equipment you like as well.
In general I have noticed that with Rock/Pop I prefer mono. With Jazz I prefer Stereo. I guess to me I don't care if you ARE separating or not, but I'm more concerned with WHAT you are separating in the music. So I don't need my lead guitar separated from my rhythm guitar. Power may be lost in the song to me when that happens. However I do like hearing my trumpet separate from the standing bass in a jazz track.
That's a great perspective. I can see how the nuances of jazz would really come into play with a stereo soundscape to breathe in. I might have to swing back around for some recommendations as well (big fan of Mingus).
I enjoy both mono & stereo & research to see how singles were originally released. I favor the format of the original release because it represents the original sound & mix wanted. I am also into new stereo discoveries when they unearth original multi-tracks from the vault. Both mono & stereo versions have their charms so it will always be a personal decision. --- Bill Personal thought & topic suggestion: There are many unheard & alternate recordings in the vaults. I think they should be digitized & used. For example: If a movie is made & involves an alternate world, they could have an unknown song on the radio. Wouldn't it be cool if that buried recording becomes a recent hit? How about in the next "Rocky" movie, Rocky goes into a deli & on the radio is Simon & Garfunkel's song "The Boxer" & it's an alternate version. Those songs from the vaults were recorded long ago so they should be preserved for future generations too. My opinion
I think this is a contrived debate, as on a technical level it's difficult to see any advantage that mono has over what we generally refer to as stereo. True stereo is a live recording made with two microphones, and can only be properly listened to from a single vantage point. Using multiple mics on a single instrument can be problematic because the sound waves can get out of phase and cancel each other out. We could have a very interesting conversation about the relative merits of those two technologies. But no commercial records are made that way. What we call stereo isn't that, but is instead just a recording that has two channels, with all of the source material being mono recordings. So stereo is really just a bunch of mono recordings. Mono can't do anything that stereo can't do. Most of the discussion here is about specific records, where, for whatever reason, the mono and stereo versions had slightly different mixes. But this is really a discussion of the mixes, not of stereo vs mono. With contemporaneously-released stereo/mono, most of the differences are simply mistakes. The She's Leaving Home example given here is a good example of that. As with When I'm Sixty-Four on the same album, the song had been deliberately recorded too-slow and in a lower key, with the intent of speeding up the tape when making the master. And for whatever reason, someone didn't get the message and the record went out playing at the wrong speed. But this has nothing to do with the relative merits of mono and stereo. It's just a mastering engineer at a record company not understanding his or her instructions properly. Many of the 60's stereo songs have more aggressive fade-outs as well, which I believe is because they had to make the stereo grooves wider so the running time was less. There's a reason that mono died out.
Interesting note Rudy van gelder would record a mono version and stereo version in his early blue note recordings they sound different to different people also good mono recordings can sound like they're traveling in stereo great video good discussion
Me personally, mono doesn’t do it for me. I much prefer the openness of stereo. I even tried the Beatles mono box set when it was out due to the rave reviews, it certainly didn’t sound bad or anything but I just found myself reverting back to stereo.
Mono or stereo vs color or bw. By 1972.. Mono was gone. Crazy thing about The Beatles...(Existed only before 1972🙂) Original stereo is NOT part of the new deluxe editions.
Early stereo recordings were not good imo , too much separation to remind us we have 2 ears , I think mono recordings from the 1960s were better.Mono converted to stereo was just awful, phase shifting etc.Modern stereo is fine but I would be quite happy if everything was mono.
When stereo came in, mono became a dirty word. Fake stereo sounds terrible. I have the Seekers' first two albums, originally issued in mono but then done with reverb-like effects to mimic stereo. Reverb "Stereo" gives me a headache. I do have mono recordings, both on vinyl and CD. Some were never messed with, while others were remastered in good taste. For example, a 6-record vinyl set of Glen Miller's best-known recordings on RCA. RCA's engineers did a great job in remastering these recordings (issued in 1968 by Readers Digest). They sound "natural," as if the original 78s sounded this way, with improved bass a spaciousness.
I'm with you on the reverb - it gives me a headache as well. I've listened to a few more mono-recordings from the 60s since making this video and I can hear the difference and why most prefer the original mono pressings. It's another thing I've learned to consider when buying remastered records.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I have a 1935 recording of the first act of Wagner's Die Walkure with Lauritz Melchior and Lotte Lehman. The music is on CD, remastered from the original 78s, and you wouldn't believe how good it sounds. The voices come through loud and clear, and even the orchestra doesn't sound bad for the age of the recording. No reverb or other special effects.
I did a shootout between an early mono UK pressing of 'Sgt. Pepper's', a Japanese 1976 stereo and a UK 1978 stereo version. It was clear that the mono pressing had more reverb in the vocals. Lennon's voice in 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds' almost sounded like it was in a tunnel of sound. The other two were brighter and the Japanese pressing had the edge in clarity.
That’s really cool. Which did you prefer?
What about RCA's Living Stereo? They are some of the best recordings out there. I have two albums by Henry Mancini and his Orchestra. "Music from Peter Gunn" and "More Music from Peter Gunn", both from 1959. They sound absolutely incredible. Top-of-the-line. When Columbia introduced stereo in 1958 I believe that most (if not all) the recordings were made at the 30th Street studios. They sound quite good. I have a cartridge/stylus to play mono. Reduces crosstalk. I recall (I don't remember where) that John said if we haven't heard SPLHCB in mono we haven't heard it. Anyways, have a good weekend.
You as well Stanley! Always great to hear from you.
When I see bands live...I really wish they would play in mono.
Now that’s funny 😆
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords There is a point for mono when talking about the primitive stereo utilized in the 50's and 60's. Rubber Soul is a great example. I must interject that a lot of kids at the time thought that the goofy...instr. panned left...vocals right thing was "neat"...quite a few pros too because American bands started making those nutty things after hearing Capitol's versions of Beatle records. It drives me nuts and if I don't have a mono copy of that stuff and I'm out in the yard listening on the big stereo I hit the mono button on my Marantz 1060....which I don't think really makes it a mono mix just a mono blend but it's better than weird alien stereo. At least Sgt. Pepper was sort of planned out enough to not be a total waste. The first stereo mix is listenable to me...but of course I grew up with it. The 2017 remix while having some flaws was nice for spreading out the drums. I actually heard stuff that I didn't hear before. Working with 4 tracks is a crazy thing if you are aiming at stereo. So much pre-production and bounding down...I imagine it really would make an engineer nuts. I did it with demos and it's a nightmare.
@@timmy707707 this is really great to read. Wish you could have seen me smiling. I grew up with many of the stereo versions of those albums and it’s really all I know so I tend to prefer them. This was long before I learned about the original mix - which admittedly sounds different to my ears without the right and left differences. I had a four track in the 90s when I dabbled with music and obsessed over when to bounce and when not to. I can’t imagine what it was like for the engineers back then.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Occasionally I pull out my original copies of those Beatle records and listen just for the novelty of it and to show my kids. There is one benefit of "extreme stereo". As a kid learning to play guitar in 71...Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere" has Neil's guitar panned all the way to the right and the band hard panned to the left which made it easy to play along without Neil interrupting.
For "Pet Sounds" - I would pick mono simply because the true stereo mix wasn't available until the early 1990's. Duphonic isn't stereo! I've got the same Elvis record - like you said, one channel is a microsecond out of sync from the other . . . makes me dizzy : )
I'm glad to hear it's not just me!
One of my favorite garage rock bands is Dead moon. This band refused to release their music other than in mono. I can see the charm from a conceptual point of view. But when i found a stereo recording of a radio studio session they once did i wondered what if they hadn’t been so strict. This stereo recording was much more open, wide and overwhelming, it really made their music shine. I’ve seen the band in concert in the past and on stage the stereo aspect is of lesser importance. In a live setting the combination of sound, visual elements and physical excitement is what matters. The band no longer exists, both the drummer and singer passed away a while ago. If you are unfamiliar with their music, you should definitely check it out, great garage stompers!
I'm very intrigued! Will definitely check them out.
Your use of Beatles albums highlighted my dilemma between Mono and Stereo. I solved the problem by buying an early mono version of all their albums released in mono and then the latest remastered stereo versions from 2012 onwards. The mono versions take me back to my teens in the 1960s and how I remember them the first time of hearing. The latest remastered copies are more akin to hearing them afresh with modern audio technology. They both have a place in my collection
Wonderful to hear Patrick. I'm not sure myself which I prefer as there are things about each that I like. Imagine having to buy two copies of every record.... I'd go broke.
I remember in the '60s when stereo was really being pushed and forming into what we know it as today. Obviously, it was more than just interesting recording tricks. I sure wouldn't go out of my way to pay extra for mono recordings. If somebody is bragging to me about their 'mono collection' and the purity of its sound, I say 'meh', you're being a snob. You can even buy carts that are specially designed to playback mono. It could be an endless rabbit hole if you want it to be. I have a live Hendix album in mono....just like being there at his concert with no stereo effects. Maybe it's 'purity', but I'd like to hear the same album mixed down in stereo.....bet I'd like it better and play it more often.
I know someone who has different carts for different records or genres. I don't, nor can I imagine I ever will, go down that road.
Thinking that mono is better _per se_ is an example of audiophile snobbery for me. My opinion is that, in general terms, mono albums released before 1968 are better because of the extreme panning of their stereo counterparts. That was a novelty at the time, and it's great for a musician trying to figure his/her part. But for the sheer pleasure of listening, it's horrible because the band loses its cohesion and sounds just like a bunch of musicians spread across the room.
Of course, there are exceptions that have an explanation: Ornette Coleman's "Free Jazz" (1961) features a double jazz quartet, one on the left channel and the other one on the right. This album is meant to be heard in stereo. Same for albums from the "Stereo Action" series by RCA Victor released during the first half of the sixties.
But when technology and criteria evolved, allowing for clever and realistic stereo mixes (roughly from 1968), mono lost its reason for existing (save for AM radio). Nothing beats a great stereo mix to me. I have a hard time understanding why Smashing Pumpkins released a mono version of "Adore" in 1998, or why Jack White released a mono mix of The White Stripes' "Elephant" for its 20th anniversary (2023). I can't even think of artistic reasons behind that decision.
In short, well-balanced stereo mix > mono mix > hard-panned stereo mix (in my opinion and perception, of course).
Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I just last night listened to Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in its entirety and can't imagine it ever being released in mono. That being said, albums issued in mono originally will typically trump a stereo counterpart mixed in stereo just for the hell of it (or for marketing).
I just learned a good deal about mono, and The Beatles, that I did not know.
Thanks!
Welcome!
I don't mind either way... both have their value and sound wonderful. What I do want to discuss though is why Americans call it cream? Coffee with cream is revolting... I mean it curdles and lumps and tastes sour... whereas coffee with milk is amazing and the way it should be.
Made me laugh @kurjan1. I honestly have no idea why we do.
Stereo pressings of sgt pepper are cheaper and easier to find, at least where I live. For now I'll just have to settle for the 2017 remix which I'm told more closely adheres to the mono version, idk both sound great to me.
I was just trying to decide which version of Pet Sounds I wanted from Analogue Records, mono or stereo. I have the SACD version of Pet Sounds in Stereo, so I guess I will go mono here. Also, I have the Jefferson Airplane record on my wish list. The mono version gets rave reviews, not so the stereo version. The early Rolling Stone vinyl records are coming out in mono and I picked up the greatest hits record. Sounds great in mono. That being said, listening to the Kevin Gray's cut of What's Going On in stereo is an unbelievable audio experience. The soundstage is amazing. Let the battle rage on!! joe
And you just reminded me that I want to get Kevin Gray's "What's Going In" pressing.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords 👍
Very interesting topic. I have an old Sinatra record in both mono and stereo. The mono version is the original and sounds a bit warmer than the stereo version. I would say that typically the original way something was recorded would be the best way to listen to it. However, I have heard remixes of original recordings that sounded better than the original. So I guess it comes down to personal taste. I recently listened to The Little River Band's 2016 rerecording of The Hits Revisited. These are not just remixes but rearrangements of the original songs. I like some of the new versions better than the original versions. I know that isn't the same thing as mono vs stereo, but the point is sometimes you can make the original music better by tweaking it a bit. Not always, but I keep an open mind. The most important thing is listening to what you like and hearing it on equipment you like as well.
I couldn't have said it any better Neil. Thank you as always!
In general I have noticed that with Rock/Pop I prefer mono. With Jazz I prefer Stereo. I guess to me I don't care if you ARE separating or not, but I'm more concerned with WHAT you are separating in the music. So I don't need my lead guitar separated from my rhythm guitar. Power may be lost in the song to me when that happens. However I do like hearing my trumpet separate from the standing bass in a jazz track.
That's a great perspective. I can see how the nuances of jazz would really come into play with a stereo soundscape to breathe in. I might have to swing back around for some recommendations as well (big fan of Mingus).
I enjoy both mono & stereo & research to see how singles were originally released. I favor the format of the original release because it represents the original sound & mix wanted. I am also into new stereo discoveries when they unearth original multi-tracks from the vault. Both mono & stereo versions have their charms so it will always be a personal decision. --- Bill
Personal thought & topic suggestion: There are many unheard & alternate recordings in the vaults. I think they should be digitized & used. For example: If a movie is made & involves an alternate world, they could have an unknown song on the radio. Wouldn't it be cool if that buried recording becomes a recent hit? How about in the next "Rocky" movie, Rocky goes into a deli & on the radio is Simon & Garfunkel's song "The Boxer" & it's an alternate version. Those songs from the vaults were recorded long ago so they should be preserved for future generations too. My opinion
That's a cool idea, Bill!
I think this is a contrived debate, as on a technical level it's difficult to see any advantage that mono has over what we generally refer to as stereo. True stereo is a live recording made with two microphones, and can only be properly listened to from a single vantage point. Using multiple mics on a single instrument can be problematic because the sound waves can get out of phase and cancel each other out. We could have a very interesting conversation about the relative merits of those two technologies. But no commercial records are made that way. What we call stereo isn't that, but is instead just a recording that has two channels, with all of the source material being mono recordings. So stereo is really just a bunch of mono recordings. Mono can't do anything that stereo can't do.
Most of the discussion here is about specific records, where, for whatever reason, the mono and stereo versions had slightly different mixes. But this is really a discussion of the mixes, not of stereo vs mono. With contemporaneously-released stereo/mono, most of the differences are simply mistakes. The She's Leaving Home example given here is a good example of that. As with When I'm Sixty-Four on the same album, the song had been deliberately recorded too-slow and in a lower key, with the intent of speeding up the tape when making the master. And for whatever reason, someone didn't get the message and the record went out playing at the wrong speed. But this has nothing to do with the relative merits of mono and stereo. It's just a mastering engineer at a record company not understanding his or her instructions properly. Many of the 60's stereo songs have more aggressive fade-outs as well, which I believe is because they had to make the stereo grooves wider so the running time was less.
There's a reason that mono died out.
1957 Bach guitar recital by John Williams is mono and sounds magnificent.
Interesting note Rudy van gelder would record a mono version and stereo version in his early blue note recordings they sound different to different people also good mono recordings can sound like they're traveling in stereo great video good discussion
Thank you Joseph!
Me personally, mono doesn’t do it for me. I much prefer the openness of stereo. I even tried the Beatles mono box set when it was out due to the rave reviews, it certainly didn’t sound bad or anything but I just found myself reverting back to stereo.
Thanks for weighing in Ryan!
The mono Sgt. Peppers is more raw and aggressive sounding and the stereo sounds more polished with the edges smoothed out. I much prefer the mono!
Thanks for weighing in Hugh!
Mono or stereo vs color or bw. By 1972.. Mono was gone.
Crazy thing about The Beatles...(Existed only before 1972🙂) Original stereo is NOT part of the new deluxe editions.
Early stereo recordings were not good imo , too much separation to remind us we have 2 ears , I think mono recordings from the 1960s were better.Mono converted to stereo was just awful, phase shifting etc.Modern stereo is fine but I would be quite happy if everything was mono.
I do prefer stereo in gerneral, but if a piece of music was originally in mono I would prefer it remain that way over a manipulated stereo version.
What I want to know is do I need a mono stylus to play mono records? Or, will I get a satisfactory result using my stereo stylus?
Yes. You can certainly use your stereo stylus.
When stereo came in, mono became a dirty word. Fake stereo sounds terrible. I have the Seekers' first two albums, originally issued in mono but then done with reverb-like effects to mimic stereo. Reverb "Stereo" gives me a headache. I do have mono recordings, both on vinyl and CD. Some were never messed with, while others were remastered in good taste. For example, a 6-record vinyl set of Glen Miller's best-known recordings on RCA. RCA's engineers did a great job in remastering these recordings (issued in 1968 by Readers Digest). They sound "natural," as if the original 78s sounded this way, with improved bass a spaciousness.
I'm with you on the reverb - it gives me a headache as well. I've listened to a few more mono-recordings from the 60s since making this video and I can hear the difference and why most prefer the original mono pressings. It's another thing I've learned to consider when buying remastered records.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I have a 1935 recording of the first act of Wagner's Die Walkure with Lauritz Melchior and Lotte Lehman. The music is on CD, remastered from the original 78s, and you wouldn't believe how good it sounds. The voices come through loud and clear, and even the orchestra doesn't sound bad for the age of the recording. No reverb or other special effects.
Using headphones I really hate mono.
MONO Sucks !! 😆 There is a reason Stereo is recorded 95% of the time now / mono is dead
Succinct and to the point Jimmy :)