Talk:Monaural sound

Digital Formats
It should be noted that in many computerized sound files, such as MP3 or WAV, mono presents itself in two ways: Either as 2 identical left and right channels (which would be pseudo-stereo), OR as a single channel. Should this be included? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia Section
It's not true that "2001" was Kubrick's only non-monaural soundtrack. Prior to that, "Spartacus" had been released in multi-channel sound. Also, "Eyes Wide Shut" was mixed in Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1 surround.

Not a big deal, but since there's only one bit of trivia on here it may as well be correct.24.161.86.156 02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. I've deleted it as you could have done five years ago. Waerloeg (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Phil Spector popularized a mono recording technique called the wall of sound.

Removed that because it is misleading. The technique may have happened to be recorded in mono, but it was not because it was monophonic, it was simply the overlaying of many layers of sound. Wall of Sound can happily be done in stereo.

People with unilateral hearing loss can only hear in mono.

Removed that because it is a tautologous statement, a bit like saying that someone with one arm cannot be ambidextrous.

Spenny 07:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts required
I've cited myself on a few things. I know that monophonic recordings were released after 1968 mentioned in the original articles. I know they were available in the 1970s as I was a record buying member of the public then, and not before then, but I haven't got a good source. Sgt Pepper pressing information discredits the 1968 date but I haven't got anything definitive. The tone of the article suggested there was a consensus on stopping these recordings, but I think that they more or less petered out as different labels wound up and sold out their stocks. I think the vague 1970s is as good as we can get unless someone knows better.

The bit on "electronically enhanced stereo Ø" (remember that sign) needs some better write up, but might belong in the stereo section.

Spenny 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of article
Why is this article named monaural as opposed to monophonic sound which redirects here and which would match stereophonic sound? Monophonic is what is shortened to mono on amplifiers and though I understand the word monaural from its roots immediately, I had never heard it in common use. I think we should move the article. Any other opinions? —Tox (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so, too. And also monophonic sound, stereophonic sound, and quadraphonic sound articles should be linked somehow. Template or anything.. I found them by searching through web. —sissyneck (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Atrocious grammar
This:

"Some TV/VCR combo decks on the market had stereo TV functionality with "twin speakers", whereas the VCR feature was only mono, which is typical of "consumer-grade VCRs" from decades ago, some of these devices even had front RCA inputs for composite video (yellow), and mono audio (white) in which many of these devices didn't even have a right-channel RCA plug (red) even if it was just for "merging" stereo into mono for mono soundtracks to be recorded onto videotapes, this is odd since one would think that a "right channel" would be included for A/V in on a TV which had MTS stereo TV sound on its tuner."

...is one sentence. It's too bad the functionally illiterate are allowed access to computers. 66.191.43.60 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you fix it? I just did, even though the entire paragraph is non-encyclopdic, imo.  ◦◦derekbd  ◦   ◦my talk◦◦  12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Phil Spector/Brian Wilson
Difficult to comprehend how the article on Mono includes references to The Kinks and Stanley Kubrick but not Phil Spector, arguably the key champion of Mono in the latter half of the 20th Century. Also would probably make sense to include some information about Pet Sounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BROBAFETT (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors in in heading:
Inaccuracies in heading:
 * When the heading says that mono recordings are typically recorded from one microphone, that is simply not the case (at least not in most situations). For most recordings, at those least done  after the 1920s or 1930s, more than one mike has usually been used for recordings involving more than one instrument. In mono, multiple miking is used, just as in stereo, and then mixed down to usually to a two-track tape, but with identical signals on each track (unlike in stereo where they are each different).  The main reason why so many more microphones are used today, than say in the 50s or 60s, is because of the greater amount of channels on the console and tracks on the multi-track tape and tape machine, not because of stereo.  But, usually at least three or four mikes were used, even in the 50s's and 60s, on mono mixes.
 * For instance, the Beatles mixed Sgt. Pepper into both mono and stereo. The mono came from the exact same recording(s) on the exact same multi-track source tape as the stereo (i.e. it used the exact same microphones and the exact same amount of tracks on the same multipack tape), but then got mixed down to a two-track master tape (with each of the two tracks having an identical signal), so when you play it back, the two identical tracks sound like one-channel.  The stereo used the same multi-track source tape, but was then mixed down to a separate two track tape.  The only difference is that on the stereo mix, the different channels coming from the multi-track were panned from left to right, so that when you play the stereo mix, you hear sounds coming from the left, middle, and right.  For the stereo mix, sometimes, the Beatles engineers would even move the pan knobs, so that it would sound as if the voices or instruments were "moving"  from left to right.


 * When playing a mono recording on stereo speakers, there is not a "common" electronic signal (because there are two separate wires), but actually two identical signals, however they are perceived by your ears as a one individual sound.  You will get an "image" in the middle of the speakers in front of you, but you will not hear instruments panned off to the sides.

I have made changes in the wording of the heading to accurately describe how most mono recordings are mixed and head by the listener.


 * When I use the term, "image," what I mean is the illusion of sound (as if coming from a place) that happens in the open space between two (or more) speakers. You will notice that when you wear headphones, you perceive certain sounds as coming from in the middle between the headphones (they usually sound as if they are on "top" of your head).  If you are in a car with speakers on the door, sometimes you will perceive sound as coming from above (i.e. as if form the window), even though there are no speakers there.


 * Whenever you have two speakers and set them up (properly) from two places in front of you (slightly canted towards you), you will perceive certain sounds as coming from the middle of the speakers. The more similar the signal is passing through the two wires to your speakers, the closer to the center you will hear it (assuming that you have set the speakers up properly, have are equal-length/identical wires, and are not deaf in one ear).  The more different the signal is, the further to the side you will hear it.  If you play a mono recording on your stereo, two identical signals will be sent though your speakers, so you will hear an image of sound coming  from one (imaginary) place in between the two speakers.  Whereas, when you play a stereo recoding on the same system, you will hear sounds coming from the left, middle, and right.  Try it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)