Ask Ralph : # 6 - Mono & Stereo Versions

'Ask Ralph' thread series :

# 1 - How A Track Was Mixed
# 2 - How A Track Was Edited
# 3 - What is 'EQ' - ?
# 4 - What Is 'Compression' - ?
# 5 - Mixing A Hit

- and -

# 6 - Mono & Stereo Versions

Am I correct in my understanding that all 60s Motown recordings were made first in mono versions?

A large number of Hitsville recordings were then released as singles or on albums in mono versions only, while many remained in the vaults. A smaller selection were recorded and released as stereo versions.

What was the criteria for creating a stereo version - for example, was it simply that the particular track was scheduled for release on an album?

I'm not Ralph, but when a choice was made to prepare an album, stereo mixes were made using the same multitracks, but were done by a night engineer, usually not the primary ones that did the mono mix. Stereo mixes were almost always secondary.

It sounds a bit bizarre, but I read in an interview With Mike McClean that Gordy bought the house next door, and set up a little studio in it where the stereo mixes were done. Here's the bizarre part: there were supposed to be cables literally running between the two houses. As this pertains to stereo mixes, i'd like to know how true this is, and how long this was done.

West,
Motown did not have stereo mixing capabilities in the 60s. It wasn't until Tera Shirma came along with stereo that records would begin to come out in stereo from them, on the Rare Earth label. We made a good deal of money at TS mixing for them. Finally Motown caught up[[thanks to Mike McLean) and all albums were mixed in stereo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralpht

West,
Motown did not have stereo mixing capabilities in the 60s. It wasn't until Tera Shirma came along with stereo that records would begin to come out in stereo from them, on the Rare Earth label. We made a good deal of money at TS mixing for them. Finally Motown caught up[[thanks to Mike McLean) and all albums were mixed in stereo.

---

Are you sure about that? I'm fairly positive I have some early stereo Motown released records [[pre-1966).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralpht

West,
Motown did not have stereo mixing capabilities in the 60s. It wasn't until Tera Shirma came along with stereo that records would begin to come out in stereo from them, on the Rare Earth label. We made a good deal of money at TS mixing for them. Finally Motown caught up[[thanks to Mike McLean) and all albums were mixed in stereo.

---

Hold on, Ralph! I know you were around back then, and not to be argumentative, but, how do you explain all those Motown true stereo mixes from 1964 and 1965? And, they're all on CD and vinyl! We all have the original true stereo mixes in our collections!

Three-track was the U.S. industry standard in the early 60s, and Motown had it and used it. The industry moved on to four-track, then eight-track. Motown had eight-track capability in 1965 and used it! If fact, Motown went straight from three-track to eight-track. They didn't mess with four-track. The producers wanted flexibility. Even before then, Motown made the most of three-track technology. Remember Harry Weinger's notes on how The Temptations' "My Girl" was created in late 1964? He specifically states that two copies were made of the three-track tapes. That's so they could do a lot of bouncing and overdubs. There is a stereo and a mono mix of that song, just as there are stereo and mono mixes of the vast majority of songs during the beginning of their golden era.

We know H-D-H wanted to remix previous stereo mixes in 1967, and did. Perhaps they used Terra Shima, as other producers did in addition to Motown studios, but Motown indeed produce and release stereo before you founded Terra Shima.

What I read about Gordy buying the house next door and running cables from the multi-track to the other house sounds silly, but that's what I read in that article. Perhaps someone can find Mike Mclean so he can clear this all up.

You might be thinking of Stax Records down in Memphis. They didn't get stereo until 1966. Before then, they were all mono. Jerry Wexler had to send Tom Dowd down there to install an eight-track board and head-stack because he felt Stax was backward at a time when the industry was moving to all stereo.

You guys are probably right. Maybe Motown was using Tera Shirma because a fire destroyed the next door building which housed the 8 track mixing facility.

I've been thinking this over and you guys may have nailed it on the stereo question. I think there was three track stereo capabilities in the mid 60s or so. By stereo standards, this wasn't very good compared to the more complex stereo mixing that was coming. Mike McLean was just in town but we missed getting together because of an illness. I'll have to give him a call to discuss this.

A lot of Motown recordings done in 1965 sounded pretty bad [[to me, anyway), stereo and mono. This is perhaps because the engineers kept working on the equipment during the downtime, and it is was a very active time in studio A. By late 1966, things sounded a lot better, most likely because they had finally got the eight-track together, and they recovered from the fire. If I recall reading it correctly, that fire was caused by an Altec speaker! Back in those days, mono mixes were monitored on a single speaker.

I remember Russ using a raggedy car speaker that he set on top of the console to listen to a mix, since much music was listened to on car radios. He said if he could make it sound good on that old speaker it would sound great on a good system.

Soulster. Yes, once eight track came along[[thanks again Mike) they were able to spread the sound out across a wider field, rather than hard right, middle, hard left three track stereo mixing. I can well understand why HDH wanted to remix much of the three track releases.

That's right, Ralph! Using car speakers, or TV speakers in the 80s, was a good idea. The same idea is used today when engineers check mixes with [[gulp!) iPods! I guess it depends on what audience you're going for.

The thing about H-D-H remixing some things [[mostly Supremes songs) is that I thought they did a better job the first time around. But, then, i've never been a big fan of remixing. I don't need for the sound to be updated and spit-polished. And, it is rare that one can recreate a mix that is sonically faithful to the original. The remix engineer always has to add his or her personal stamp on the sound, and the gear isn't the same, despite what can be done with DSP. Having said that, there are a few scant cases where I almost prefer the remix.

Thanks to you all for your informative input.

I've heard tracks which, to my ears, have a 'wide' sound which I would normally associate with stereo, but actually have the same signal from both speakers.

Would they be what I have heard described as 'stereo fold-downs' - ?

Soul, I agree with you regarding remixing. No matter how good one might think of a particular mix, it wasn't unusual to think..."If I had only..." and take another shot at it, only to lose whatever it was that made you like the mix in the first place. It becomes a slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westgrandboulevard

Would they be what I have heard described as 'stereo fold-downs' - ?

---

No, just good mono.

When one folds over a stereo mix, you get a 2 db rise in the midrange, so it won't sound the same as with a proper dedicated mono mix. Let's not forget about the differences within stereo and mono mixes, like different instrumentation, levels, and sonics. That is why you can't just put out all stereo and push a mono button and have mono.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ralpht

Soul, I agree with you regarding remixing. No matter how good one might think of a particular mix, it wasn't unusual to think..."If I had only..." and take another shot at it, only to lose whatever it was that made you like the mix in the first place. It becomes a slippery slope.

---

Well, the modern-day remixes aren't done on the original equipment so they just don't have the magic that they lended to the original sound. Also, most remix engineers can't resist making their own interpretation of a mix [[should the piano be louder, center the vocal here, ect). And, what if there is a quat mix? Are they using that for a reference, or are they using the mono hit mix? Are they putting things that were never in the mix before in their remix?

Secondary question on the same topic. Could it be that mono mixes were considered more important in the "early" years because Motown dealt mostly in 45's? It wasn't until the rise of Stereo FM in the late 60's that stereo mixes became truly important, I would think....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Morgan

Secondary question on the same topic. Could it be that mono mixes were considered more important in the "early" years because Motown dealt mostly in 45's? It wasn't until the rise of Stereo FM in the late 60's that stereo mixes became truly important, I would think....

---

That's correct...for pop/rock music. The move to stereo took a little longer for soul music. Mono 45s were still still commonly commercially available as late as 1973. Atlantic pushed for stereo as 1967, and stopped issuing mono albums in 1968. That's also when they, along with A&M Records, started issuing the horrid CSG 45s. CBS Records did a mix of mono and stereo 45s, and, Motown and Stax still issued mono 45s, while the albums were stereo.