<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: would a monaural portable record player sound a lot different from a stereophonic one?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lance</title>
		<link>http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3120</link>
		<dc:creator>Lance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm#comment-3120</guid>
		<description>It depends on the source material, way back in the 60's mono was actually preferred, stereo was looked at as gimmicky, for instances the Beatles always put out two versions of there albums one stereo and one mono, but the mono one was considered to be better because they recorded in mono and the stereo was produced in the studio from the mono recording artificially.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It depends on the source material, way back in the 60&#8217;s mono was actually preferred, stereo was looked at as gimmicky, for instances the Beatles always put out two versions of there albums one stereo and one mono, but the mono one was considered to be better because they recorded in mono and the stereo was produced in the studio from the mono recording artificially.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lare</title>
		<link>http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3121</link>
		<dc:creator>lare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm#comment-3121</guid>
		<description>an old fashioned mono portable will destroy a modern stereo LP. some time in the mid 70s, they started putting stereo pickup cartriges in mono players to avoid this problem. have a hifi service tech check yours out before playing any records, and have them upgrade the cartridge if necessary. it is a simple job and should not cost much. having a stereo pickup will not change the mono sound if done correctly</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>an old fashioned mono portable will destroy a modern stereo LP. some time in the mid 70s, they started putting stereo pickup cartriges in mono players to avoid this problem. have a hifi service tech check yours out before playing any records, and have them upgrade the cartridge if necessary. it is a simple job and should not cost much. having a stereo pickup will not change the mono sound if done correctly</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: percival.sweetwater</title>
		<link>http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3119</link>
		<dc:creator>percival.sweetwater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antiquerecordplayers.info/would-a-monaural-portable-record-player-sound-a-lot-different-from-a-stereophonic-one.htm#comment-3119</guid>
		<description>If it's recorded in mono, it will sound the same in mono, even if played on stereo equipment.  Stereo material, however, will sound distinctly diferent.  Stereo consists of a phase relationship between the ears that gives depth (direction) to sound.  Combining that depth into a single channel removes any spatial relationship.

Original vinyl discs were mono, in which a stylus (needle) would travel in a groove that consisted of bumps along the bottom that translated into frequency.  When stereo came out, in order to remain compatible with mono, they added bumps to one side of the groove for the second channel's information.  A mono stylus is still only going to pick up the bottom of the groove, (mostly) ignoring the side information.  A small amount of cross-talk will be present, so it's not an entire loss, but still significant.

Most (but by no means ALL) portable turntables were mono, since they were more for convenience than fidelity.  There were larger &#34;portable&#34; systems that were stereo, usually with detachable speakers, which became available in the mid- to late-60s.  By the 1970's, stereo fidelity was a much higher priority than portability and so few portables products were made.  By that time, portability was served by the 8-track tape, smaller and not subject to vibration for the most part.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If it&#8217;s recorded in mono, it will sound the same in mono, even if played on stereo equipment.  Stereo material, however, will sound distinctly diferent.  Stereo consists of a phase relationship between the ears that gives depth (direction) to sound.  Combining that depth into a single channel removes any spatial relationship.</p>
<p>Original vinyl discs were mono, in which a stylus (needle) would travel in a groove that consisted of bumps along the bottom that translated into frequency.  When stereo came out, in order to remain compatible with mono, they added bumps to one side of the groove for the second channel&#8217;s information.  A mono stylus is still only going to pick up the bottom of the groove, (mostly) ignoring the side information.  A small amount of cross-talk will be present, so it&#8217;s not an entire loss, but still significant.</p>
<p>Most (but by no means ALL) portable turntables were mono, since they were more for convenience than fidelity.  There were larger &quot;portable&quot; systems that were stereo, usually with detachable speakers, which became available in the mid- to late-60s.  By the 1970&#8217;s, stereo fidelity was a much higher priority than portability and so few portables products were made.  By that time, portability was served by the 8-track tape, smaller and not subject to vibration for the most part.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

