While researching and philosophizing what my recording rig should be I came across some articles on the comeback that mono recording is making. Probably the biggest area is in bluegrass; you get four or five players to stand round a mic, and the switching of whoever is closest to the mic becomes part of the performance.

Also I can imagine that you ramp up the cost (and quality?) of the microphone and preamp, but unfortunately most standalone AD converters are stereo, so you can't save every where -- and mostly you will use a pair of amplifier channels and loudspeakers on playback.

Are there any monaural zealots out there? Or is this just for Bluegrass hillbillies and Scottish record producers?





http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep04/articles/aberfeldy.htm

http://www.crownaudio.com/mic_web/onemic2.htm

I've done drums mono. You just walk around with one ear cupped until you find a spot in the room with a good balanced sound of the kit.

As far as mono on small instrumental ensembles such as Bluegrass bands... Yes, it works if the band has a balance to how they interact in the room (or the stage) as the case may be.

I formerly did tons of mono experimenting with dubbing on a two track tape machine. I'd put everything into the box through one mic. When you only got one mic and one track it sure makes you think about placements.

For what its worth, some of the early classical recordings ( i can't remember who) were in mono (even after stereo had come) and they were considered totally pristine.

The problem (to me) would be, who is listening? To the average person stereo is going to sound more "there"
than mono. I have some 60's albums that are in mono...mixed so good ect. it really didnt make a difference.

Jay

I don't want to come across as cheeky, I seem to recall (because I'm so old) that there was a transition to stereo in the sixties, and folks like my Dad were adding stereo multiplexers to FM tuners.

Obviously by the late sixties it would be unusual to find a mono record, unless your talking about Folkways field recordings and other historical stuff.

My little musing, or thought, is that while we may have two ears, therefore we should dish out sound for the left and right, it's amazing the phase coherence you experience from singleton sources: one voice, one guitar amp, one drum. I don't think I get that sensation from multi-tracked recordings. Is it just me?

PS: while some insiders say that additional tracks were recorded on the historic ambiasonic recording by the Cowboy Junkies: The Trinity Sessions...I thought that recording had amazing or very clear sound -- but obviously it's not mono.

If you truly want to be serious about mono, then the king of it all is Brian Wilson. Get the mono version of Pet Sounds. He mixed to mono due to bad hearing in one ear.

If you want to record mono, then experiment with one mic tracking and then mix with everything straight down the middle.

Binaural recording is also something worthy of experimentation. There are different binaural recording techniques so don't believe that what I'm about to say is the one and only binaural technique. A few years ago it was trendy to put together a small digital recording rig where you made recordings of environmental sounds through tiny mics attached to headphones worn by the engineer. Popular themes were walking down busy city streets or going into underground train stations. To get the effect, you'd have to wear headphones on playback. Pearl Jam release a record called "Binaural" which used binaural recording techniques on certain tracks.

aside from mono vocals and bass guitars, there are no hardfast rules here...I like the ease of mono tracking, but have kicked myself in the butt one time too many when I found I wanted a binaural set of tracks to work with, instead of relying on effects or track cloning...

The hardest part is keeping the talent to set still once the mics are set, though...

One of my latest tricks is monaural stereo, or stereophonic monaural. Basically it's the XY technique, but instead of arranging the mics at 90 degrees I go for an angle of 45 to 60 degrees, and of course, the microphone heads are on top of each other to satisfy the dream (or mild delusion) that the recording would be acceptable for broadcast. The idea of doubling a monaural track sounds reasonable, but if you already have the second mic, and a second track...why not use it

But, I guess at least with mono you can address the mic on axis, and hopefully maximize the quality.

There is a "safety" in Monural recordings these days because there really is no such animal. We listen with 2 ears (hopefully!), and most sound systems have 2 speakers. Therefore, even a prefectly recorded mono recording will be PERCEIVED in stereo. Each speaker will put out the same mono signal. But because they are separated by a distance, the time-alignment is non-existent for mono, and one speaker will be heard after the other, thus heard in stereo, UNLESS you are listening from the one and only "sweet spot." So, no worries, right?

Good on you Tiff for reminding me of this old thread. On my utility-grade stereo that I use for listening to the FM radio broadcasts from the CBC, I have positioned my English LS3/5a loudspeakers together -- so even if the stereo reception is very good, I can experience a mono-sounding listening experience. I think it's very good-- can't say I miss the stereo effect.

The other thing -- I don't moan for not having a stereo guitar amp, so in theory I shouldn't moan if I were to record in mono and stop putting stereo on a pedestal.

Also, since a microphone is basically (with exceptions no doubt) designed to be addressed on axis -- I would imagine the frequency response would be better on axis than at 45 degrees off axis (the norm for XY stereo mic setup).