rplace Posted May 2, 2006 Share Posted May 2, 2006 I snagged a good looking copy of the original mono T2458 Pet Sounds a while back. The imaging is fantastic, a really fun LP to listen to. However, my copy is pretty noisy even after a trip through the VPI cleaner. Played with a bad needle is my guess...who knows. I have heard from others that the re-release and 180g versions of the LP are not nearly as good. I often see a double LP set of Pet Sounds along with Carl Wilson & the Passions SO TOUGH. It is an early 70 release I believe. Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the T2458, original release with this? What is your take on it. If anyone out there has a T2458 1966 mono LP they care to get rid of please give me a yell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 With your equipment, why would you want a Mono record? Unless your a die hard Beach Boy collector, what is the point of Mono on such good equipment? I think it's a fair question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 5, 2006 Author Share Posted May 5, 2006 Because it sounds better. Lots of original mono mixes sound better then their stereo counterparts. I am sure somebody here can tell you why. All I know is it sounds better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Because it sounds better. Lots of original mono mixes sound better then their stereo counterparts. I am sure somebody here can tell you why. All I know is it sounds better. Than what is the point of having such nice stereo equipment, if it sounds better, wouldn't single channel HiFi be all you would need?If mono is better, why the need for stereo at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 I'm a huge stereo fan. I also love multi channel music. But in relation to many original mono recordings, I like them too. I lot of these early recordings were mixed with mono in mind, like some of the 60's Beach Boys classics. It's been stated before that Brian Wilson mixed in mono because he is a little deaf in one ear. That's a cop out. The reality is he made an artist choice to do so. He couldn't reproduce that 'wall of sound' in stereo. He also 'thought better' in mono. If you listen to early Beach Boys recordings, all the detail is there. The central image just hangs in the air. It's what Brian Wilson envisaged when he produced his music I reckon good mono recordings sound twice as good when played through two high quality speakers instead of one... P.S. Can you imagine listening to Elvis' original recording of Heartbreak Hotel in stereo? Yuck! Played on a very high quality system, the original mono recording is amazing. Those early engineers knew a thing or two about mixing in one channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Than what is the point of having such nice stereo equipment, if it sounds better, wouldn't single channel HiFi be all you would need?If mono is better, why the need for stereo at all? What is the point!!?? I have mostly stereo recordings on vinyl and CD. So the stereo equipment gets more then it's fair share of work. I have never actually heard a mono recording out of one speaker. I have been a "stereo" guy since the mid 70s. Not being old enough to actually remember mono, before the advent of stereo, I am at a loss here. All I can say is that in many cases with music originally mixed for mono, the mono recordings sound better out of a 2-channel system with the mono switch engaged then a stereo remix played in stereo. Mono recordings, played with 2 speakers still give a multi dimensional feel. Give it a try, you will like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Either oldbuckster's comment was simply a troll, or I totally don't get his point... Asking what's the point of having such nice equipment if you're going to listen to a mono recording is sort of like asking what's the point of having the 60 inch plasma TeeVee with the high res display and the cool DVD with enhanced imaging and the surround sound system if you're going to watch Casablanca. Casablanca's not the only thing I watch, ya know, and it sure looks better on this set than it does on my 13 inch B&W TeeVee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Either oldbuckster's comment was simply a troll, or I totally don't get his point... Asking what's the point of having such nice equipment if you're going to listen to a mono recording is sort of like asking what's the point of having the 60 inch plasma TeeVee with the high res display and the cool DVD with enhanced imaging and the surround sound system if you're going to watch Casablanca. Casablanca's not the only thing I watch, ya know, and it sure looks better on this set than it does on my 13 inch B&W TeeVee. I am with ya Ray. I can't decide which. In the past I have seen many a post from OldBuck that slams vinyl any chance he gets. Things like pops and cracks (yawn). Too much trouble, CDs sound better, etc. I am paraphrasing, but you get the idea. I have avoided suggesting that he listen to a decent set up or properly cleaned LPs...but since they were not threads that I had a real interest in I did not bother. Vinyl is not his thing, fine...leave it at that. This time around I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he actually had a quest for knowledge. Not quite sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Sometimes you really have to be tenacious if you want to teach an "OldBuckster" something new[] I know he likes to get a dig in now and then and what a better buch to take a snip at than the Vinyl-Sauruses or as some refer to us as the "Snap, Crackle and Pop" kidz[] Rich, did you get that remastered copy yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Sometimes you really have to be tenacious if you want to teach an "OldBuckster" something new[] I know he likes to get a dig in now and then and what a better buch to take a snip at than the Vinyl-Sauruses or as some refer to us as the "Snap, Crackle and Pop" kidz[] Rich, did you get that remastered copy yet? Yea, I got the CD with Saturday's mail. Thanks a ton! Have not had a chance to listen to it yet due to preamp problems (see other thread by me if interested). I want to do a side by side with the mono LP. Never enough time, you know how that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Ah yes, I see you dropped some G for one of those Cj's! Hopefully you can get the noise out without a big layout[] Just wanted to make sure it made it there[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Either oldbuckster's comment was simply a troll, or I totally don't get his point... Asking what's the point of having such nice equipment if you're going to listen to a mono recording is sort of like asking what's the point of having the 60 inch plasma TeeVee with the high res display and the cool DVD with enhanced imaging and the surround sound system if you're going to watch Casablanca. Casablanca's not the only thing I watch, ya know, and it sure looks better on this set than it does on my 13 inch B&W TeeVee. I am with ya Ray. I can't decide which. In the past I have seen many a post from OldBuck that slams vinyl any chance he gets. Things like pops and cracks (yawn). Too much trouble, CDs sound better, etc. I am paraphrasing, but you get the idea. I have avoided suggesting that he listen to a decent set up or properly cleaned LPs...but since they were not threads that I had a real interest in I did not bother. Vinyl is not his thing, fine...leave it at that. This time around I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he actually had a quest for knowledge. Not quite sure. I asked a simple question about why mono, that's all. I didn't bash vinyl, I didn't bash turntables, I didn't bash anything. I don't need you to suggest anything to me about vinyl, turntables, I've bought the top of the line Turntables, and cartridges, and owned hundreds of clean new albums, been there, done that. I was just curious as to if you liked the sound of mono, or you might be a collector of vinyl, and mono is worth more. The point about the equipment, if it's mono, it's still mono through two speakers instead of one when played on stereo equipment. If mono sounds better, why spend all that money on stereo equipment, if you just use it to listen to records? Please excuse my quest for knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 I asked a simple question about why mono, that's all. I didn't bash vinyl, I didn't bash turntables, I didn't bash anything. I don't need you to suggest anything to me about vinyl, turntables, I've bought the top of the line Turntables, and cartridges, and owned hundreds of clean new albums, been there, done that. I was just curious as to if you liked the sound of mono, or you might be a collector of vinyl, and mono is worth more. The point about the equipment, if it's mono, it's still mono through two speakers instead of one when played on stereo equipment. If mono sounds better, why spend all that money on stereo equipment, if you just use it to listen to records? Please excuse my quest for knowledge. Sorry, maybe I have you confused with another forum member, if so...my bad! The person I am thinking of never has a nice thing to say about vinyl and it is always the same old tired lines of noise, convenience and sound quality. Those subjects have been beaten to death. Time to move on. As for the mono thing all I can say is give it a try. If you are a music lover, I would think you will find it interesting at the very least. Between mono and stereo I can't say that I like one better across the board. For sure different pressings of the same recording released and re-released over the years can sound drastically different, even if all stereo or all mono. As a general rule I have found if it is an older recording that was originally done in mono I will more often then not like the mono one better. Not saying you will, but I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Who on earth could you be talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 JB, you got me to thinking who in fact was it? My mind must be going. A quick search shows at the very least I am staving off the effects of Alzheimers for a few more months. The OldB's words from various posts. not mineVinyl is a pain in the butt,to short, to noisey, and I am to old to play Disc Jockey. You pay top dollar for an albumn that is warped, won't track, and everytime you play it, you are wearing it down, no matter how light you set the tracking pressure. You will never prove to me that LP's sound better than CD's. The STONES are better than the Beatles:The STONES are better than the Beatles: The STONES are better than the Beatles, OOOPS; sorry the record skips. TIC,TIC,POP, your your your probably right right, TIC,POP,right. Doesn't anyone remember the quality issues with vinyl? Warped discs, holes not centered, surface noise, prices going higher, quality control levels low? The Remastering sounds great to me, and no ticks, and pops like on LP's. GOODBYE LP's. No tics, No pops, just Music the way it should be Guess I am not going to get any answers to the original intent of this post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Dang Rich, I knew I remembered OldBuck not being fond of vinyl but I sure was not going to the PI level[] I like the OldBuckster especially when he comes back at my boy Clarence with a good one. I understood his quest for knowledge but also knew vinyl was a very low priority for him also! Sorry OldBuck, Vinylistas get fired up quick[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rplace Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Tim, its all good![{] [}] No Magnum PI on this end. The new forum search is quite powerful. You just click on a user ID then posts by that person then throw in a "+" and the word(s) you want to search for by that user. Here is one for my ID and one of my favorite bands http://forums.klipsch.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=userid%3a16462+%2b+clash&o=DateDescending Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 JB, you got me to thinking who in fact was it? My mind must be going. A quick search shows at the very least I am staving off the effects of Alzheimers for a few more months. The OldB's words from various posts. not mine Vinyl is a pain in the butt,to short, to noisey, and I am to old to play Disc Jockey. You pay top dollar for an albumn that is warped, won't track, and everytime you play it, you are wearing it down, no matter how light you set the tracking pressure. You will never prove to me that LP's sound better than CD's. The STONES are better than the Beatles: The STONES are better than the Beatles: The STONES are better than the Beatles, OOOPS; sorry the record skips. TIC,TIC,POP, your your your probably right right, TIC,POP,right. Doesn't anyone remember the quality issues with vinyl? Warped discs, holes not centered, surface noise, prices going higher, quality control levels low? The Remastering sounds great to me, and no ticks, and pops like on LP's. GOODBYE LP's. No tics, No pops, just Music the way it should be Guess I am not going to get any answers to the original intent of this post What does all this have to do with the question I asked? I don't like vinyl, you do, so because I don't like vinyl I should not ask a vinyl question? You can dig up all the old qoutes you want, where on this thread did I bash anything? You are entitled to your opinion, I have mine, all I did was ask a simple question about a mono record,Sorry it won't happen again. Guess I'll go back to my cave and chew on a bone or something. Thanks for your answers forum buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 LOL. I believe I was the one who posted these guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Oldbuckster, have you thought about this for an avatar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.