The sonic rightness of a mono system.


Many conventional stereo systems are producing smaller shortened indistinct soundstages that one must sit dead center of while sounding poorly off-axis. So I wondered is the small loudspeaker in stereo the equal to a large one in mono? So I have pursued that line of thought and have come to the conclusion that no a small speaker in stereo is not equal to the large one in mono. I've tried this with some of the most advanced loudspeakers available and they all failed when running up against one large horn in mono. The large loudspeaker just always had a more physical solid presentation the sound stages near the same in size while the stereo always had this tiring artificial sound that the mono system did not. Maybe our brain gets fatigued trying to fill in for what is missing stereo is an artificial technology designed to fool the ear brain system maybe that in itself is the problem. Mono just sounds right. If I had the choice one large horn in mono is what I would select over any 2-way bookshelf no matter what its cost. Nice thing about mono is its ease of entry give it a try you may have all the needed gear stored about. It's also an excuse to buy that cool solo collectable speaker you know the one that is too big to house 2 of. As always YMMV and this is my opinion after much research and we all have a bias I keep that in mind when I do such things but am human and can not fully escape my human limitations.
128x128johnk
Perhaps the key is this -

"Maybe our brain gets fatigued trying to fill in for what is missing stereo is an artificial technology designed to fool the ear brain system maybe that in itself is the problem. Mono just sounds right."

Mono generally feels more relaxing to me whilst stereo often sounds more exciting/busy. I suspect that it's also because stereo rarely sounds as real and densely focussed as mono that many enthusiasts become devoted to endlessly searching for imagery in playback.

It's worth bearing in mind that almost all the sounds that we hear everyday are mono in nature. Trying to listen to two separate sounds at once - outside a live concert - is not only unusual but can also be quite stressful. 

Ultimately a preference for either can come down to a choice of whether you wish to hear the music as it was originally intended (eg mono as in the Beatles output pre White album) or as you might prefer it remaster /remix/ stereo/ 5.1/ 7.1 etc.

Or you may even choose to enjoy all the variants.

I don't find mono listening or sound to be superior or preferable.
It just sounds "stuck in the speaker"...like...well...a speaker.

Mono is like claiming to have the full impact of modern photography in black and white images. I do not care to willingly limit the stimuli that tells my brain that I'm listening to a three dimensional performance.  Of course, certain attributes of a recording can be emphasized in mono, just as black and white photos can emphasize monochromatic elements, but there is also a "deadness" to the images in both.  As usual, YMMV 
I could not live without stereo. To me, some mono recordings sound better than their stereo counterparts - sounding more organic and/or I feel I can hear deeper into the mix, being free of the stereo effect distraction. But only some. Way far more often I prefer the spatial ambiance of the stereo version. Is it fake when not recorded ("intended") in stereo? Sure. But my whole system is a fake anyway, reproducing recorded music while not one musician is in my room. 
I have no qualms about stereo. It doesn't take much, or long, to get to where you're satisfied. After all, it is your room you're dealing with so setting it up should not be a problem.

Having said that, one of the finest, if not the finest, recordings I heard were some mono recordings on a stereo. I know it's a different kettle of fish, but I can see where a mono set up in some smaller digs would work just fine.

All the best,
Nonoise