I'm a Stereophonist

I'm hardly an audiophile, though I do generally find "lo-fi" as an aesthetic/intentional recording method (via boombox mic or whatever) to be a bit put on. I listen to plenty of recordings released on 78 (or even wax cylinder) and can certainly accept the flaws added by the ravages of time--but I will never romanticise them, as they certainly weren't part of the artists original intent. I've never really bought the contentions that "vinyl sounds better," unless one has a really fantastic hi-fi with heavy, pristine vinyl--all the inevitable dust and pops and hiss, most likely on a middling or worse turntable, are tiring.

So those are my biases, or opinions, or preferences. But I can live with all of them, and I'll defend them. But here's the one that I'm pretty sure is indefensible, but which I can't seem to escape: I'm a habitual binaural lover, I want a wide soundstage--I like my records in stereo. At least--when I know they could've been, as in they were released after 1958 and the invention of the stereophonic commercial record.

So this affects me in the following ways, as examples. I can't get as into most early/mid-70s dub as I'd like: having first heard King Tubby and Augustus Pablo's "King Tubby Meets Rockers Uptown" in all its true stereo glory at age 14--I've been disappointed by what could have been with so many other should-be-great dub cuts. I can't access most Sun Ra as much as I know I would--the tinny monophonic sound just makes me know how much has been lost in translation from live performance. I'm desperate to hear the stereo version of Tom Dissevelt's 'Fantasy in Orbit'. I think people who revere the monophonic version of 'Pet Sounds' are suffering false consciousness. And worst--I won't even consider mixing a track released in mono.

I'm a stereophonist, and I admit that might be wrong. But I just think if God had meant for us to listen in mono--he would've given us one ear.

Is there any help for me and my 'ist ilk?

Thank you for your time.


(and also--can anyone give me a rundown of any/all Sun Ra actually released in stereo?)

Interesting tidbit from Scientific America via Wikipedia: people knew stereo was better for reproduced sound even in 1881:

Clément Ader demonstrated the first two-channel audio system in Paris in 1881, with a series of telephone transmitters connected from the stage of the Paris Opera to a suite of rooms at the Paris Electrical Exhibition, where listeners could hear a live transmission of performances through receivers for each ear. Scientific American reported,

Every one who has been fortunate enough to hear the telephones at the Palais de l'Industrie has remarked that, in listening with both ears at the two telephones, the sound takes a special character of relief and localization which a single receiver cannot produce. . . . This phenomenon is very curious, it approximates to the theory of binauriclar auduition, and has never been applied, we believe, before to produce this remarkable illusion to which may almost be given the name of auditive perspective.​

Click to expand...

zhao said:

for me with things like Ra's "Angels and Demons at Play" it don't matter none if it was recorded with a paper MF cup -- shit is that ill.

i know what you mean but i enjoy 1950s, 30s, and earlier recordings immensely...

what about 8.1 surround sound? have you gotten into that? are you gonna be a "surroundist" soon?

Click to expand...

Ra is "that ill," I just can't help thinking how much more so it could be if it'd been cleanly recorded in a simple but nicely spread stereo staging. I'm not obsessed with shifting pans and whatnot (although they are pretty cool on like stereo Stockhausen or Dockstader electronic stuff from the 50s/60s)--and I am pretty into even stereo fields that are wide but not dispersed, like 60s R&B a la Ray Charles.

Like I said--stuff pre 1958 I don't even think twice--silly as that is. I mean, I don't listen to my Bukka White or Carter Family or Charlie Parker or whatever and wish it were in wide, closely-miked stereo.

And nah, no surround. I'm sure it might be neat, but I've only got two ears and I dig headphones way too much. An effective stereo mix feels three-dimensionally immersive.

Dusty said:

I love stereo. I think many people don't realise just how immersive good stereo projections can be.

Get the best speakers you can afford, a nice quiet room, position yourself in the centre of the two and the same distance away from them as they are from each other (equalateral triangle-type thing). Close your eyes and listen to a good stereo recording. With the right equipment you can pick out where the instruments are in the space in front of you - I have respect for artists that understand stereo and use it to play with the sound subtly. I've been bitten by the hi-fi bug and spent far too much money this year on new kit that should have gone on the mortgage repayments.

Click to expand...

Pair or Etymotics have had to do the trick for me, for now. Once I'm settled in somewhere a bit, maybe. But even then, I doubt I'll ever become a real gearist--I just want clean, even reproduction and my ears aren't good enough to tell the quality of sound beyond a certain point.

Ever listened to Mark Hollis' solo record on your kit? Probably sounds pretty incredible.

mistersloane said:

Do you feel that way about Phil Spector too?

Click to expand...

I love lots of that stuff. But yeah, I love it more when it's in stereo.