My New System... Mono!

madmax

I've been thinking of setting up an all mono audiophile system. I'm guessing that getting rid of the "mix" could be one step closer to audio perfection. I have no real idea what considerations were made back when people did this.

Tubes are an obvious necessity. (because I like tubes). Maybe one of the amps in the closet like a jolida 60W or a Houston 75W or the McAlister which I haven't yet repaired. (needs speaker posts replaced).

Some sort of speaker. Could be bi or tri-amped. Should probably be big and most likely DIY. Active or passive crossover if bi or tri-amped?

Subwoofer or just a real big bass speaker, not sure. I don't think they used to use "subwoofers".

A source. A CD player and a somewhat cheap turntable to start.


Any input is appreciated! If you know how it used to be done that is a plus but any ideas will get me started.

madmax

Shizelbs

Are you talking about using a system that top to bottom uses monoblocks or other components in a dual-mono setup? Or real mono. One speaker / one channel type mono. If thats the case you've lost your mind.

reeltrouble1

Oh no, he is very serious.

Getting sound out of vinyl is a true labor of love, however, when done properly, digital just cannot keep up, afterall, digital is an interpolation of the actual analog wave which vinyl takes sampling to infinity, you just have to battle all sorts of anomalies.

Chuck, I will leave the mono rig to you, I still have nightmares about a transistor radio, the top ten countdown and the beatles doing Twist and Shout. Have fun building it though. The mono Pet Sounds is pretty good as far as digital. Get your groove on with the 78's.

RT1

beardog03

I too am going to go mono when cash permits..

I am also looking for the answers, but have decided on Cary mono`s , a Cary 98 F1 pre and some Sonus Amati`s..the speaks are waaaaaay outta reach, so I`ll just stick with the 9`s until I hit the lotto

RuSsMaN

Chuck, are you doing one speaker, or two?

I've got good mono gear out the wazoo, but it's all vintage.

madmax

I'm talking one channel. It may have several amps for different frequency ranges but true mono. It's planned to be an audiophile quality system as well. From what I understand people used to do this because they would rather put a large amount of $$ into a single channel of higher quality rather than dividing it up into 2 channels. Of course I'll just be moving some components around and maybe building a speaker to try it out, nothing lost.

I just want to see if there is some magic that comes out once you eliminate the mix. I'm sure there may be some tradeoffs there. I'm also pretty sure the room becomes an even more important part of the system. I hope Ken S chimes in on this one.

Earlier today I got to thinking I have one of those old Voice of the Theater speakers downstairs with no drivers that I have been wondering why I ever acquired it. That might be THE speaker cabinent to use. Too bad I sold a great JBL bass driver that would have worked perfectly in it...

My goals: Big sound that fills the room, realism, quality sound without weird ques to throw my brain off.

And yes, I have truely lost my mind.
madmax

shack

madmax wrote:

And yes, I have truely lost my mind.
madmax

That was a given...and the fact that you have waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

RuSsMaN

I ask, because a lot of people just invest in a good mono cartridge, and install a second table in their system, or another arm on their current table if it has the capacity.

I've got a few JBL 12 inch, I might have a JBL 15. The only thing I ever setup true mono was a single corner horn, and used a recapped Bogen 6v6 mono amp, with a Sherwood mono tuna, and a generic Sony CDP with the outputs y'd together. You really have to be back a bit, but right in front of a single speaker setup for it do anything for you.

Now when I brought a second corner horn into the mix, it was really wild how great it imaged with two speakers, even though it was still mono.

AndyGwis

I think I know what you're talking about. Here's a sketch of my "concept" mono audiophile TT system

AndyGwis

Also, isn't this thread in the wrong section? Do we need to petition for a 1-channel forum?

Ricardo

RuSsMaN wrote:

Now when I brought a second corner horn into the mix, it was really wild how great it imaged with two speakers, even though it was still mono.

There...I just can't imagine a good system without the imaging and the soundstage that comes from two speakers....but maybe that's just because I've never heard a one speaker system??

RuSsMaN

Here is my Superbowl XL setup - ran 5.1 one for XLI......

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37383

madmax

AndyGwis wrote:

Also, isn't this thread in the wrong section? Do we need to petition for a 1-channel forum?

That would go over great... I can see Matt in a meeting saying "What we need to do is get these people buying one speaker instead of 5 or 7.

I was hoping Ken would see it here.
madmax

F1nut

The thing about Chuck is that he's always on the cutting edge.

madmax

F1nut wrote:

The thing about Chuck is that he's always on the cutting edge.

Or at least the chopping block.
madmax

ohskigod

great, I build a 2 channel rig, and now Mono will be the "purist" way to go?.......FABULOUS

Go get em Chuck. I'm gonna stay with 5 and 2 channel for now. I'll admit, my interest is piqued though

Dean guitar pla

This may sound stupid but my stepfather was big into the mono only sound. He used a huge modified Lesley cabinet w/ a 15" woofer only. The amp he eventually settled for and we still have it somewhere is an old Carver that looked like a huge cash register. It had something like 12 or 15 tubes??? I think it was called a Silver 7 or something like that. I hated the way it sounded but it was way cool when I plugged my Gibson Les Paul into the system, used to shake the house and really pi$$ my Mom off. My stepdad just laughed, he was pretty cool God rest his soul

I plan to go up to NY to pick the stuff up this summer as it is in storage. I am really after the Nackamichi Dragon cassette deck he had!!! I think the preamp he used was an old Dynaco but I do not remember for sure

There also is a huge reel to reel and other cool gadgets

[Deleted User]

Hello,
I remember when I got my first job selling audio equipment, in 1971, I was convinced I knew everything there was to know about audio. One of my first customers said that he preferred the sound of a monophonic recording. I thought to myself, "This guy is from the stone age, he's crazy, everybody knows that stereo (multi-channel) is the way to go". He was very patient with me and took a pencil and paper and proved that no stereophonic record could possibly have realistic bass information since a stereo phono cartridge would reduce the monophonic bass information by 3dB. He said stereo was a compromise (sound familiar?) solution and that more research should have been done before picking the final parameters.
Everytime I'm listening to a well recorded mono recording and I hear the richness of the bass, how "real" it sounds, I remember him. There is some undefinable "rightness" about a well made monophonic recording, there is less of the wondering if the image is correct. It just "is". I set up a few audio systems with Mitchell Cotter, once, and he began tuning every ststem by using monophonic recordings. He said not to even try working with a stereo recording until you got mono sounding right.
Ken

steveinaz

F1nut wrote:

The thing about Chuck is that he's always on the cutting edge.

Chuck is eccentric, that's what out dig about him. Never afraid to try something off the beaten path.

treitz3

Well, I gotta say...this is definitely off the beaten path.

If it improves the bass, but [as I would imagine...] kills the soundstage imaging, what have you gained?

But if you are off the beaten path, why not try the lower frequencies in mono, and leave the rest in Stereo? I wish you luck in your "off the beaten path project"!

Lsi9

You guys are real audiophiles, good to see the different directions people can go with audio.

Speaking of Mono I was in the coffee shop today before work and I heard Van Morrison's Brown eyed girl on the store's radio, but it sounded different sort of like a remix. I looked for the source and see its one of those small Tivoli radios with one speaker built in. It sounded darn good for what it was doing. Then it dawned on me that the song was not in fact a remix but instead it was just lead vocals, bass and some drum and thats it! The radio was MONO! and apparently playing only one of the two stereo tracks.
I thought that was odd, wouldn't the designer make it so FM at least combined the L/R channels through the one speaker? But now I guess mono should remain mono and if one was to seek a pure mono experience wouldn't it be wiser to seek out mono recordings? I seriously doubt that anything significant would be heard/not heard. I am sure there are people out there(Robert Crumb?) that will only play mono recordings on their mono rigs.

halo

This may seem like a stupid question but I'll put it out there anyway...would a big bad a$$ center channel speaker be "just right" for this application?

treitz3

..................No.

cmy330go

I once played around with mono recordings through two speakers, (but never an entire single channel rig) and was shocked at how good it sounded. I was never certain why it was so pleasing to the ear before, but it would seem Ken's comments just shed a little light on that.

I'm very anxious to hear your thoughts on it.

madmax

treitz3 wrote:

If it improves the bass, but [as I would imagine...] kills the soundstage imaging, what have you gained?

If that is what it turns out to be then it was an overall loss. My hopes are that taking out the stereo mix will produce a more realistic image. If you had a small band playing in the front middle of your room what would they sound like and why? I think their sound would fill the room and sound like stereo is supposed to. Of course there is a little space between instruments. Could it be that you need a speaker the size of the group? Or maybe an omnidirectional speaker to utilize the room acoustics? I'm not sure of the answers here. I can say that just firing up one standard speaker normally placed for stereo (or a pair set to mono) doesn't do much, at least nothing I want to listen to.

There is a bunch of mumbo jumbo out there about the pitfalls of having two seperate speakers and all the stuff done to help eliminate the problems. It mostly seemed reasonable to me as I read through some of it but I don't know much about this area of theory. In any case, I guess I'll figure out something by the time I'm done.

madmax

steveinaz

Exactly Max. People talk like mono would destroy everything--not true, what do you think you're hearing when you listen to live music? If you've ever ducked into a small jazz bar in New Orleans, where many of these bands play minus any amplification/mixers, etc., you're essentially listening to a mono source. Sure there is space between instruments/performers---but a single speaker can capture/recreate this if properly designed.

beardog03

WOW !

you guy`s are making perfect sense !

never thought of it like that before.....or maybe that`s why I want to go to mono blocks...to take out the "stereo" effect

shack

steveinaz wrote:

what do you think you're hearing when you listen to live music? .....If you've ever ducked into a small jazz bar in New Orleans, where many of these bands play minus any amplification/mixers, etc., you're essentially listening to a mono source.

I disagree....it is anything BUT mono. It is multichannel at it's purest. To absolutely, accurately recreate that sound you would have to have a speaker for each instrument. Anything less is a compromise. What you have in mono is the sound that one might hear in any single loacation as recorded by the mike. It may be able to record what the sound is at that location but I'm not convinced a single speaker can totally reproduce what the mike picks up.

steveinaz

I don't know how so? Sure, a speaker per player would be the most accurate representation, but I don't see why a speaker with good soundstaging characteristics couldn't come very close. You're still listening in a specific direction (point source), with 2 ears and reflective cues---these same cues could theoretically be reproduced given the right speaker placement and reflective surfaces, no?

shack

steveinaz wrote:

I don't know how so? Sure, a speaker per player would be the most accurate representation, but I don't see why a speaker with good soundstaging characteristics couldn't come very close. You're still listening in a specific direction (point source), with 2 ears and reflective cues---these same cues could theoretically be reproduced given the right speaker placement and reflective surfaces, no?

A mono recording is multiple sources pinpointed at a single location. Mono reproduction is a single source trying to recreate multiple sources. I'm not saying a single source can't reproduce it adequately...but it is still a compromise. I have no issues with multichannel music as long as all the channels are IN FRONT of the listener. If music was recorded in 3 channel, 4 channel and so forth...I have no problem (my issue with mc music is the use of rear channels for stuff that should be coming from the front). The more the front channels, the more accurately the music is being produced. IMO stereo is better than mono.

madmax

But in stereo, if you had only two trumpets, each on the opposite side of a stage, both playing the same line, wouldn't it end up coming from the center if you played back a recording of it?
madmax