That's a great question, metaldams. Unfortunately, the answer is not so simple. As you have seen, I like to explain all the details, so everything is clear (hopefully), and makes sense. In this case, I'm not sure how clear or accurate the answer will be (from me, at least), but I will give you a short answer, and a longer one.
Short answer: It was driven by the studio suits bowing to the almighty dollar. And despite what one may think from that statement, it wasn't necessarily in favor of stereo. I haven't done in-depth research on all jazz artists, but I have dug very deep into this aspect of Sinatra's recordings (who was basically a jazz singer, though the general public calls it "easy listening", a term I despise!
), and a bit of Ellington and Basie.
Long answer:Starting around 1957, the big studios started recording LPs (on tape, as they had been since around 1950, give or take a year depending on the label) in both stereo and mono. (Not just strictly jazz.) I'm not a big Miles Davis fan, but for artists like Sinatra, Basie, and Ellington, I can comment. But I am pretty sure Miles was the same -- I don't think the artists really cared because the same takes were recorded. So the artists didn't have to do more work -- the recording engineers did. There was the occasional mishap, with usually the newer stereo machine not having the tape heads aligned properly, or running at the wrong speed. Also, this was new technology for the engineers, so mess-ups were to be expected. So in those cases the artists did have to do another take.I have never read much about it being a big deal from the artists, except in one session at Capitol Nat King Cole said, during some mishaps requiring another take, "There is way to much technology in this session!" Sometimes different takes were issued on the mono version from the stereo version. Needless to say, these are still being discovered today as fanatic collectors do side-by-side comparisons. "Hey, this is a completely different take!"
Many audiophiles prefer the mono mixes of albums. Not sure the year the studios stopped recording in mono. Could be around 1968 though. I'd have to research it. The Steve Hoffman forum is an excellent resource for things like that. I have read many posts there, but have never joined. Hoffman himself remasters all genres for CD (and other digital formats).
Why do audiophiles prefer mono for the era when stereo first started through perhaps the next 10 years? I will attempt to articulate my understanding, but I am relying strictly on memory. (I know that this wasn't really your exact question, but it needs to be explained to fully understand the driving forces back then up until today.)
For stereo, in the early days, they used a total of 2 mics, one left, one right. (For the most part that's how it was setup.) There were many other mics present, but for the mono mix. The studios themselves considered the mono mix more important, I think basically for the reason that not that many people had stereo equipment in those early days. So they focused on getting the mono mix to sound great. The recording engineers were experts (in theory!) in setting up the mic placement to capture all the instruments in the best balance possible. That being said, different studios, and engineers, had different styles on how to do this. Some made it sound like you were in the audience at a live performance. Some made it sound like you were sitting with the band on stage with them. And of course there were setups somewhere in between.
One of the most famous jazz recording engineers was Rudy Van Gelder, in Hackensack New Jersey, who actually recorded in the living room of his parents' house for Blue Note Records.(He recorded Miles.) Later, he setup a studio in Englewood Cliffs, NJ. If a photographer was sent to his studio to take photos of the artists, he would actually move the mics around so as not to give away his technique! Charles Mingus famously stopped recording with Van Gelder because he said he ruined the sound of his bass. Rudy not only recorded, but did the mastering and cutting for the actual LPs. (Technically, the master metal parts used to stamp the LPs. I doubt he produced each and every LP. Again, I am going by memory without doing more research.) He later remastered most of his Blue Note recordings for CD. He stated that he preferred digital, since he said it was nearly impossible to get LPs to sound good -- he obviously recorded on tape, just like everyone else.
So, the mono mixes were mixed right on the spot. Only one track tape. There was no way to alter the mix after the live recording. For stereo, they had 2 tracks, recorded from each microphone, to later mix to the released LP. (I'm nowhere near an expert on this, but my layman's understanding is that it involves doing things like adjusting the volume levels on each track, sometimes altering them during different parts of the music, as well as doing some compression of different frequencies -- mostly high ones. This is not to be confused with digital compression, which is compressing the data to save space -- usually lossy, but sometimes lossless. Also, applying the appropriate equalization.) Legend has it, at least for Sinatra, that they would remix/remaster several times while the album was already released to the public, so you might buy the album today, and next month your friend might buy the album from the next set of pressings, and it would sound different. Even LPs from the same pressing could sound different as the master grooves wore out and they had to make a new stamper from the tapes. At least in the case of Capitol recording Sinatra, the west coast pressings were usually made from the original master tapes, while the east coast pressed from dubs of the masters. Who knows what the mid-west and other areas got?! That's why collectors go crazy looking at codes in the deadwax to get a "preferred" pressing. I have heard that a badly pressed west coast pressing doesn't sound as good as a good pressed east coast pressing. At some point, I'm not sure when, they (not just Capitol) used 3 mics and 3 track tape for stereo, which had to be mixed down to 2 tracks for the LP, and even later on CD. So until this day, they are still remixing from multi-tack tapes for digital releases!
In the case of Sinatra, the Capitol pre-stereo mono LPs had slight reverb added live via echo chambers at the studio. (Later done for stereo as well.) So what was recorded on tape had the reverb, which can never be removed, in theory. Actually, Capitol later re-released mono-only Sinatra LPs in duo-phonic -- aka fake stereo. Columbia called it "electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo." Every studio came up with a different name. In short, they all sucked. Even when Capitol issued some mono Sinatra in the 60s, without fake stereo, they sometimes added extra reverb! The only way to hear these Sinatras are the from LPs or CDs made from the original "dry" tapes. The added live "reverb" is barely noticeable, and you feel like you are there with Sinatra in the room. I played a song from a CD and the LP for my wife, who knows nothing about this technology, and even she could hear the difference. The CD sounded like Sinatra was singing into a tin can!
Your statement about AM radio driving mono is interesting, and I had never thought about that. You are probably right (not that I'm doubting you
), and that fits right into my statement about the drivers being the almighty dollar. It would have to sound great in mono to get people to buy either the 45 single or the complete album. (Both would have been available in both stereo and mono.) Without googling right now, I'm not sure how far back FM radio goes.
So, it's a 2-sided coin actually. Get the mono version to sound great, since most people would buy the mono, and that was what they would hear on radio and probably juke boxes, too. Then as more people got stereos, re-issue mono albums in fake-stereo, and/or added reverb to make them sound "better." You gotta replace your old mono recording of Sinatra's IN THE WEE SMALL HOURS with the stereo version now that you have a stereo system, right. We've done such a great job we will fool you into thinking it was actually recorded in stereo! $$$$$$$$$
Back to my statement about the artists, I have no proof whether or not they cared about or preferred mono to stereo, or vice-versa. I've only heard that Mingus didn't like Van Gelder's recordings, regardless of stereo or mono. (He didn't make the distinction.)
Personally, if it was recorded in mono, I want to hear it in mono. Fake stereo can be somewhat mitigated by placing your speakers close together. Don't, however, sum to mono using a double-Y cable! You will get a jumble-sounding mess. (Fake stereo is supposedly achieved by re-channeling different frequencies to either your left or right speaker. There were supposedly other methods used depending upon the label, but the consensus on the Steve Hoffman forum is that they all sucked, just in a different way.)
Avoid added reverb -- this was/is just a marketing ploy to make the recording sound fuller, whether it be stereo or mono.
I would like to add a few other points, though it is unrelated to metaldams question. I will limit this to pre-digital recordings that were originally recorded on tape.
Since they were recorded on tape, they will naturally sound best on tape. They can never sound better than the master tape that was rolling in the machine while the artists were playing. I have never listened to reel-to-reel tape (except briefly when very young, just to play around with, not to listen to commercial recordings), but I have read that it has made a huge comeback, and the audiophiles say this beats the pants off any other format, be it digital, vinyl, or whatever. I can't comment on how much is lost by dubbing to a tape for the consumer from the master tape, but those people say it's great, and also costs in the neighborhood of $400 per album!
I think digital beats the pants off all other formats after reel-to-reel, particularly HD, although I think CDs sound great. There is a caveat, however, and that's why I still collect vinyl, even if I have a CD. If the re-mastering engineer simply plays back the best master tapes still surviving, and only applies some judicious EQ, (which is what Steve Hoffman does -- "tape hiss is your friend", he says), the results are phenomenal. That's why so may early CDs from the 80s sound great -- little to no noise reduction was used. (I'm not even sure they had the digital technology for NR at first anyway.)
But the "powers that be" insist that the general public does not want to hear extraneous noise, be it a tape glitch or tape hiss or whatever. (78s on CD is a whole other ball of wax!) So that's when I often turn to vinyl, until a better digital version becomes available. And in the past, and even to some extent today, there are albums only available on vinyl that were never released on CD.
Think about it, a vinyl LP is made roughly as follows: use the best available master tape (which would have been the session tape), while playing it, have a disc cutter make a stamper, then use that stamper to make the released LPs. For every LP stamped, there is wear on the stamper. So each successive LP pressed will be, in theory, of lesser quality. (Not sure how many times it would take to be audibly noticeable.) So an LP is a 3rd generation copy: tape->disc stamper->disc. There may even be another step in there -- I'm no expert.
Digital: tape->digital copy. You would think that there was no way a reel-to-reel release tape could be better than this. I guess the audiophiles shelling out $400 an album can't be wrong, right?
At the end of the day, IMHO, you really need audiophile equipment (costing tens of thousands of dollars), to hear the difference. One thing I can tell you though, you will hear the difference between an original "dry" recording (regardless of the media it is on), from one that has been fake-stereod, reverbed, and NR'd to death, on the most inexpensive equipment.
In the words of Billy Joel, "Don't waste your money on a new set of speakers. You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers."
