›

Mono vs. Stereo = First/2nd pressing?

mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
edited April 2006 in Strut Central
I'm wondering if the difference b/t mono vs. stereo pressings of the same album also equates to when the albums were pressed? For example, I need a copy of Joe Bataan's "Sweet Soul" and I'm wondering if the mono version came first or the stereo or does it really matter? I'm usually not hella anal but, for example, I'd prefer to cop a gold label Fania LP than cloud label (assuming, of course, the LP in question ever had a gold label release).

  Comments

  • hammertimehammertime 2,389 Posts
    Well it's going to vary by label and release date, but most labels made mono and stereo versions for a few years...meaning you could have a stereo pressing that's actually earlier than a mono one, or vice versa. So there's nothing written in stone that one is necessarily older than another.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Well it's going to vary by label and release date, but most labels made mono and stereo versions for a few years...meaning you could have a stereo pressing that's actually earlier than a mono one, or vice versa. So there's nothing written in stone that one is necessarily older than another.

    Danke - this pretty much answers the query. I know that some collectors have a preference in sound quality but I wasn't sure if pressings were simultaneous.
  • hcrinkhcrink 8,729 Posts
    It's got nothing to do with earlier pressings. The whole thing with Mono vs. Stereo is that you don't want fake rechanneled stereo. It sounds like ass. Some records in the 60's were mixed in both stereo and mono. With these it's just up to personal taste. Sometimes the stereo mix sounds better, sometimes not. But if there is no true stereo mix, you want mono.
  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...
  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...

    It should be noted that even though most labels stopped releasing mono albums in early 1968, Latin recording labels like Fania kept issuing separate mono and stereo records well into 1972...I have no idea why these companies lagged behind like that, but apparently it happened.
  • hcrinkhcrink 8,729 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...

    It should be noted that even though most labels stopped releasing mono albums in early 1968, Latin recording labels like Fania kept issuing separate mono and stereo records well into 1972...I have no idea why these companies lagged behind like that, but apparently it happened.

    I've read that some labels did mono up to the early 70's for radio.
  • SoulOnIceSoulOnIce 13,027 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...

    It should be noted that even though most labels stopped releasing mono albums in early 1968, Latin recording labels like Fania kept issuing separate mono and stereo records well into 1972...I have no idea why these companies lagged behind like that, but apparently it happened.

    Perhaps based on radio play? I know this is why many labels kept making
    mono promo copies long after they went fully stereo for commercial
    releases. Many AM radio stations still broadcast in mono for years
    and years. Shit, WILD AM in Boston was still mono just a few years ago!
    I don't know why Fania pressing huge amounts of mono commercial releases
    would be related to radio, but I'm sure many of the stations that would
    play their material in the early 70's were still mono, so it's a theory.
  • akoako https://soundcloud.com/a-ko 3,413 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...

    It should be noted that even though most labels stopped releasing mono albums in early 1968, Latin recording labels like Fania kept issuing separate mono and stereo records well into 1972...I have no idea why these companies lagged behind like that, but apparently it happened.

    Perhaps based on radio play? I know this is why many labels kept making
    mono promo copies long after they went fully stereo for commercial
    releases. Many AM radio stations still broadcast in mono for years
    and years. Shit, WILD AM in Boston was still mono just a few years ago!
    I don't know why Fania pressing huge amounts of mono commercial releases
    would be related to radio, but I'm sure many of the stations that would
    play their material in the early 70's were still mono, so it's a theory.

    most AM stations still are mono...they tried AM stereo back in the late 80s and it was a total flop.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts

    most AM stations still are mono...they tried AM stereo back in the late 80s and it was a total flop.

    KDAY, baby.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    mono
  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    For most of the stuff we're into, mono was on its way out when the records were originally released. So MOST of the time, if there are mono and stereo versions, the mono is always gonna be an OG... whereas the stereo could get repressed year after year

    Now if you're talking about something that was originally issued in the mid-60s or earlier, mono could've gotten a repress or two as well...

    It should be noted that even though most labels stopped releasing mono albums in early 1968, Latin recording labels like Fania kept issuing separate mono and stereo records well into 1972...I have no idea why these companies lagged behind like that, but apparently it happened.

    I've read that some labels did mono up to the early 70's for radio.

    I know Atlantic did, but I believe Fania's late-period mono records were actually in the stores. Ever see one of those Fania innersleeves from around 1972? Just about all the catalog numbers are designated (S)LP, as if you had a choice between a stereo copy (S) and a mono...and this goes for the post-'68 albums as well. This, at a time when the big labels were investigating quad and here's Fania still putting out mono if you wanted it!
  • bull_oxbull_ox 5,056 Posts
    I know Atlantic did

    Columbia and Decca did, too

    The funny thing is they just slap a sticker on the sleeve that reads 'dj mono copy' or summat, while the sleeve and label usually still have STEREO printed on 'em
  • faux_rillzfaux_rillz 14,343 Posts
    I'm usually not hella anal but, for example, I'd prefer to cop a gold label Fania LP than cloud label (assuming, of course, the LP in question ever had a gold label release).

    Just as an aside: that album was released well after the gold label years.

    Does anybody know what the final gold label release was? Joe Bataan's Riot, maybe?
  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts

    most AM stations still are mono...they tried AM stereo back in the late 80s and it was a total flop.

    most AM stations these days don't play music, period...so i can see why AM stereo failed. you think having talk or sports in stereo would make much difference?
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    I'm usually not hella anal but, for example, I'd prefer to cop a gold label Fania LP than cloud label (assuming, of course, the LP in question ever had a gold label release).

    Just as an aside: that album was released well after the gold label years.


    I know...I was wondering if the Mono or Stereo version of "Sweet Soul" made a diff (besides sound-wise).
  • pickwick33pickwick33 8,946 Posts
    I know Atlantic did

    Columbia and Decca did, too

    The funny thing is they just slap a sticker on the sleeve that reads 'dj mono copy' or summat, while the sleeve and label usually still have STEREO printed on 'em

    yeah...i guess if these mono records are only going out to deejays, no sense in altering the cover to say "stereo"
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Holy crap, speaking of Mono Gold Label Fania:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/Ray-Barretto-Acid-Fa...1QQcmdZViewItem
  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    Jeez. I might let mine go for $400.
  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    Jeez. I might let mine go for $400.

    I know it's Michael McFaddin selling it but even then, I really think people are dropping at least $200 too much. And the auction isn't even done yet.
Sign In or Register to comment.