|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 20, 2022 16:08:57 GMT -6
To me the entire point of listening in mono is to hear what things are going to sound like in, how shall I say it..? Less then ideal environments by less then critical listeners. Think about someone hearing the song on a tiny $29 bluetooth speaker... or driving around in a shitbox Honda with blown speakers? What are they gonna hear? Oooh... this is kind of a slam dunk point. Didn't really think of that. If it sounds good on a super-high quality mono speaker, that still doesn't help me in the "listening on your phone" or "laptop" or "shitbox Honda" scenario. Good point. I don'rt GIVE a SH*T about "listening on your PHONE"? WHY SHOULD YOU? Phones universally sounnd horrible, They should be ignored as "Music sources" since only a pertson who is utterly deaf or who doesn't reaslly like music AT ALL wounld EVER listen on a stupid phone! |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Dec 20, 2022 16:10:35 GMT -6
Oooh... this is kind of a slam dunk point. Didn't really think of that. If it sounds good on a super-high quality mono speaker, that still doesn't help me in the "listening on your phone" or "laptop" or "shitbox Honda" scenario. Good point. I don'rt GIVE a SH*T about "listening on your PHONE"? WHY SHOULD YOU? Phones universally sounnd horrible, They should be ignored as "Music sources" since only a pertson who is utterly deaf or who doesn't reaslly like music AT ALL wounld EVER listen on a stupid phone! And yet... they do! I don't really stress too much about it. Just using that as an example of mono out in "the wild". A better example would be pretty much every restaurant/bar with a non-pro sound system. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 21, 2022 11:16:16 GMT -6
I don'rt GIVE a SH*T about "listening on your PHONE"? WHY SHOULD YOU? Phones universally sounnd horrible, They should be ignored as "Music sources" since only a pertson who is utterly deaf or who doesn't reaslly like music AT ALL wounld EVER listen on a stupid phone! And yet... they do! I don't really stress too much about it. Just using that as an example of mono out in "the wild". A better example would be pretty much every restaurant/bar with a non-pro sound system. Most every restaurant and bar I've ever been in (in the last 50 years, anyway) has a stereo system - often not set up in a way that makes sense, but stereo nonethless. No commercial establishment that I know of has used mono since the late '60s - except for nightclubs with mono PA systems.
And it drives me up a tree when some bozo with a cell phone starts blasting some horrible crap from it (which has the ability to mangle any type of music into unlistenable crap!)
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Dec 21, 2022 14:22:26 GMT -6
Oooh... this is kind of a slam dunk point. Didn't really think of that. If it sounds good on a super-high quality mono speaker, that still doesn't help me in the "listening on your phone" or "laptop" or "shitbox Honda" scenario. Good point. I don'rt GIVE a SH*T about "listening on your PHONE"? WHY SHOULD YOU? Phones universally sounnd horrible, They should be ignored as "Music sources" since only a pertson who is utterly deaf or who doesn't reaslly like music AT ALL wounld EVER listen on a stupid phone! A lot of the bluetooth speakers I see around (at least the more portable ones) have a single driver. Lots of people are streaming all sorts of stuff over those things, all heard in glorious mono. To me this is the best example of mono playback in the real world. It's actually pretty common at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Dec 21, 2022 14:28:38 GMT -6
I'm also a very LCR mixer. Yes, I'm working on other people's music and my own. When I'm tracking, I'm working to the final sound from the get-go; I try to commit as much as I can and part of what allows me to do that is using the limitation of mono as a clarifying tool.
The first thing I'd say is just listen in mono to records you think sound excellent, ideally from a single speaker. Change the accessibility preferences on your computer and just spend a few days, maybe even weeks, just getting used to the condensed information of records you enjoy. There are some exceptions - a lot of Tchad Blake's stuff is weird in mono - but mostly you're acclimating to what feels right. Kick and snare and vocals sometimes seem "too loud" but that's generally exactly what you want (from a stylized pop-ish mix, I guess). I'd say distorted guitars and pianos are often the most drastic in terms of character change when you fold down in mono so it's good to learn what mono fold-downs do (or don't do!) to certain sources. Also, the levels of your panned information may depend on the pan law of your DAW. But other than that, most great recordings/mixes still shine and lose very little in terms of character.
Generally, mono helps me spot masking frequencies and poor relative balances both level and frequency-wise. Specifically with drums and piano, where you have a whole host of potential phase problems, any holes in the frequency spectrum or a lack of transient clarity really jump out. If you can get it right with 2, 3, 4+ mics on a source without having to pan anything, then moving things around the stereo field is even more lush. The same thing can be true for arrangement - too many instruments playing in middle C vs. C4/C5, too much distracting percussion taking away from the accents, etc. Mono is just a ruthless mistress in that it forces you to distinguish the instruments and parts from each other as vividly as possible. And it reinforces the idea that the instruments all have to work together.
Let's say you're trying to dial in a reverb but you're unsure of how much top end you want, how much you want to hi-pass, and how loud it really should be relative to the dry source. Listening in mono can make those decisions quite obvious and if anything, it may get you to a more compelling, bolder decision. Try dialing in a stereo phaser or flanger in mono and get to a satisfying sound and then go back to stereo and see what happens.
For me, it feels natural to make bolder level choices and bolder EQ decisions in mono. The irony of a great mix is often how unbalanced it is - something has to be the winner and I'd argue that the sign of a professional is actually going far more overboard than the amateur (i.e. kick/snare 12+ db above the piano as opposed to a safer balance). Someone like Rich Costey is incredible at this - if you listen to The Shins - Port of Morrow, a very dense but well-arranged record, you'll hear how little it loses in mono and how strong the choices of levels and timbres/effects are.
I'd say that it's also easier to recognize/manage the envelopes of sounds in mono because now all the attack transients are clustered together - you can hear all the competing micro-rhythms and phrases layered on top of each other. You'll hear which transients are really spiking up and which ones need help. Compressing rhythmically/artistically, as opposed to purely dynamic control, feels more intuitive. And ultimately, if you are limiting your track, you can clearly hear exactly what's happening to the transients that are triggering the limiter and as you limit more and more, how dense ("fat sausage"-y) the track is getting, how much low level detail is being brought up to the surface. I feel like stereo can be vague - as in you know something is wrong but you're not quite sure. Mono can help with that.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think it's just easier to do the job in mono. For me, it makes mixing about the macro context - like the opposite of the solo button in a way. It just forces me to make decisions in a relative sense, as opposed to an individual one. If you made it through all that, thanks for reading. Hope it's a little useful.
This is a great description of the benefits of working in mono. I also find my mind stays fresher for much longer when working like this, likely due to a generally lower volume but also because my ear-mind is focused on something more...focused. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Dec 21, 2022 17:00:11 GMT -6
Guess I'll hang on to my KRK V4.
Hoping it's ghetto enough.
Maybe throwing some gold (plated) chains on it?
I dunno John E.
If Motown double checked Mixes, on their in-house Transistor Radio...
Am guessing checking on cell phones, makes sense too.
If the Reception is strong.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Dec 21, 2022 18:20:19 GMT -6
Mixing in mono doesn’t really do anything for me, personally. I basically check once or twice to make sure none of the critical elements completely disappear. Some of my favorite records have totally wacky phase anomalies when played in mono and it hasn’t made me enjoy them any less (i.e. Vampire Weekend - “Cousins”).
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Dec 21, 2022 18:31:42 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply... Could you expand a little on this please, as I mentioned I just don't work in mono when mixing.. but, always willing to learn... I write and arrange towards the final mix...(maybe this is why I don't feel the need to mix in mono) and... I work mainly in LCR (99%).. (again probably another reason) when you say it clarifies decision making could you give us a little expand on this...? Are you working on other peoples music? cheers Wiz I'm also a very LCR mixer. Yes, I'm working on other people's music and my own. When I'm tracking, I'm working to the final sound from the get-go; I try to commit as much as I can and part of what allows me to do that is using the limitation of mono as a clarifying tool.
The first thing I'd say is just listen in mono to records you think sound excellent, ideally from a single speaker. Change the accessibility preferences on your computer and just spend a few days, maybe even weeks, just getting used to the condensed information of records you enjoy. There are some exceptions - a lot of Tchad Blake's stuff is weird in mono - but mostly you're acclimating to what feels right. Kick and snare and vocals sometimes seem "too loud" but that's generally exactly what you want (from a stylized pop-ish mix, I guess). I'd say distorted guitars and pianos are often the most drastic in terms of character change when you fold down in mono so it's good to learn what mono fold-downs do (or don't do!) to certain sources. Also, the levels of your panned information may depend on the pan law of your DAW. But other than that, most great recordings/mixes still shine and lose very little in terms of character.
Generally, mono helps me spot masking frequencies and poor relative balances both level and frequency-wise. Specifically with drums and piano, where you have a whole host of potential phase problems, any holes in the frequency spectrum or a lack of transient clarity really jump out. If you can get it right with 2, 3, 4+ mics on a source without having to pan anything, then moving things around the stereo field is even more lush. The same thing can be true for arrangement - too many instruments playing in middle C vs. C4/C5, too much distracting percussion taking away from the accents, etc. Mono is just a ruthless mistress in that it forces you to distinguish the instruments and parts from each other as vividly as possible. And it reinforces the idea that the instruments all have to work together.
Let's say you're trying to dial in a reverb but you're unsure of how much top end you want, how much you want to hi-pass, and how loud it really should be relative to the dry source. Listening in mono can make those decisions quite obvious and if anything, it may get you to a more compelling, bolder decision. Try dialing in a stereo phaser or flanger in mono and get to a satisfying sound and then go back to stereo and see what happens.
For me, it feels natural to make bolder level choices and bolder EQ decisions in mono. The irony of a great mix is often how unbalanced it is - something has to be the winner and I'd argue that the sign of a professional is actually going far more overboard than the amateur (i.e. kick/snare 12+ db above the piano as opposed to a safer balance). Someone like Rich Costey is incredible at this - if you listen to The Shins - Port of Morrow, a very dense but well-arranged record, you'll hear how little it loses in mono and how strong the choices of levels and timbres/effects are.
I'd say that it's also easier to recognize/manage the envelopes of sounds in mono because now all the attack transients are clustered together - you can hear all the competing micro-rhythms and phrases layered on top of each other. You'll hear which transients are really spiking up and which ones need help. Compressing rhythmically/artistically, as opposed to purely dynamic control, feels more intuitive. And ultimately, if you are limiting your track, you can clearly hear exactly what's happening to the transients that are triggering the limiter and as you limit more and more, how dense ("fat sausage"-y) the track is getting, how much low level detail is being brought up to the surface. I feel like stereo can be vague - as in you know something is wrong but you're not quite sure. Mono can help with that.
Anyway, all of this is to say that I think it's just easier to do the job in mono. For me, it makes mixing about the macro context - like the opposite of the solo button in a way. It just forces me to make decisions in a relative sense, as opposed to an individual one. If you made it through all that, thanks for reading. Hope it's a little useful.
I can totally see this working. Maybe I should be mixing in mono more. I also mix 100% LRC (HiHat up the middle, Toms hard panned). I have a mono switch I check with on my Imperium 2400 (monitor controller). Pretty simple setup honestly. Maybe I should be starting the mix in mono from the start if I'm already working that way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 17:06:49 GMT -6
Fostex 6301 the god
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 23, 2022 13:10:57 GMT -6
I don'rt GIVE a SH*T about "listening on your PHONE"? WHY SHOULD YOU? Phones universally sounnd horrible, They should be ignored as "Music sources" since only a pertson who is utterly deaf or who doesn't reaslly like music AT ALL wounld EVER listen on a stupid phone! A lot of the bluetooth speakers I see around (at least the more portable ones) have a single driver. Lots of people are streaming all sorts of stuff over those things, all heard in glorious mono. To me this is the best example of mono playback in the real world. It's actually pretty common at this point. You arer joking, right? You don't monitor over Bluetooth, it doesn't meet the standard. Why would you want a "monitor" that degrades the audio?
I have no interest in what "people" listen to. They use all kinds of horrible sounding things.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 23, 2022 13:21:13 GMT -6
Guess I'll hang on to my KRK V4. Hoping it's ghetto enough. Maybe throwing some gold (plated) chains on it? I dunno John E. If Motown double checked Mixes, on their in-house Transistor Radio... Am guessing checking on cell phones, makes sense too. If the Reception is strong. Chris
Invest in a damn Auratone. Or the KRK. There are decent small monitors available, no reason to use junk
Don't use a phone.
BTW, cell phones make no sense at all. Telephone standards specify a limited bandwidth response. And reception on a cell is not consistant.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Dec 24, 2022 11:07:53 GMT -6
A lot of the bluetooth speakers I see around (at least the more portable ones) have a single driver. Lots of people are streaming all sorts of stuff over those things, all heard in glorious mono. To me this is the best example of mono playback in the real world. It's actually pretty common at this point. You arer joking, right? You don't monitor over Bluetooth, it doesn't meet the standard. Why would you want a "monitor" that degrades the audio?
I have no interest in what "people" listen to. They use all kinds of horrible sounding things.
No, I don't mix through a Bluetooth speaker. Mono checking is done through an Auratone. My point was that there's still a lot of music being heard in mono out in the real world, Bluetooth speakers being a main one these days, so I don't feel the "everyone's on headphones/ stereo's been the standard for decades now" is a good one when some mixers actually want to make sure a mix is holding up in mono (I don't believe that was your argument, just clarifying what I'd meant). |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 24, 2022 11:38:45 GMT -6
You arer joking, right? You don't monitor over Bluetooth, it doesn't meet the standard. Why would you want a "monitor" that degrades the audio?
I have no interest in what "people" listen to. They use all kinds of horrible sounding things.
No, I don't mix through a Bluetooth speaker. Mono checking is done through an Auratone. My point was that there's still a lot of music being heard in mono out in the real world, Bluetooth speakers being a main one these days, so I don't feel the "everyone's on headphones/ stereo's been the standard for decades now" is a good one when some mixers actually want to make sure a mix is holding up in mono (I don't believe that was your argument, just clarifying what I'd meant). Well, you should ALWAYS check your mix in mono. That way weird things don't happen., like having the lead guitar solo totally disappear (as happened on the first Dicators album)
People not doing mono checks is, IMO, largely a result of the old studio system breaking down causing a decline in engineers who have been properly taught good practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2022 15:44:56 GMT -6
People not doing mono checks is, IMO, largely a result of the old studio system breaking down causing a decline in engineers who have been properly taught good practice.
Or people with better monitors than they had in the 1950's.. Yeah dude. Those old horns kinda suck. Old Tannoys start distorting when? 4khz? Auratone and Fostex 6301 together are a great combo. And they’re still made unlike the NS10. They use better drivers than the cheap crap and honestly tons of expensive monitors and they won’t play back mixes with weird balances unlike the expansive high headroom, high detail monitors with great drivers. You will not be lulled into accepting that is just “how it is” because you can hear everything and it’s played back cleanly But honestly, for 200-400 bucks you can get: JBL LSR 305 mk II without the rattling faceplate or blows instantly tweeter of the mk I and a cabinet that forces you to clean the low mids and horn flare that will tear your head off with synths and deaf people air boosts. KRK Rokit 5 G4 with in your face mids, pleasantly dark tweeter, and cabinetry that forces you to cut the box like some lauded expensive bass limited small British monitors but with the sound your clients are hearing on their own And they’re dirt cheap, available everywhere, force you to work and they translate. Less good are: Kali LP6 is less reactive and more hifi. 1khz dip or something. Must be the crossover. The tweeter isn’t as translatable because it’s pretty much the same acidic Chinese button dome as the JBL but won’t force you to fix issues because the waveguide won’t tear your head off. NHT Supers weird bumps and you need a beast amp. Fostex PM series have hifi crossover upper mid dips. Yamaha HS series. They have the classic Yamaha midrange but the always active limiters in the plate amps means that nothing translates dynamically unless you have hyper aggressive two bus processing worked out. I’ve worked with producers who use hs8 because it’s a standard and has low end and the mixes always slammed or needs major compression and the slammed mixes are easier to translate but still slammed. The bigger models of cheap disposable crap not the Yamahas all have even more resonant cabinets and horrible crossovers. I haven’t heard the Kali IN-5 or the new Palmer monitors that B&H has now. Yes I’m recommending small Rokits and the JBLs used in ghetto editing suites but these translate better than many more expensive monitors and monitors loved by losers on the internet for measuring with a flat line at 70db that have aggressive limiters on the woofers to try to get bass out of them with aggressive boosts in the crossovers. You will never be able to translate the low mids on those vs the shit monitors that try to replay the transients and resonances and proximity effect boosts but distorted. How nice they sound doesn’t matter, it’s about translation and a 200 dollar pair of JBLs or 400 dollar pair of KRKs show more problems than 1500 dollar Neumanns and 8000 dollar Genelecs and you can buy them anywhere and won’t fear breaking and replacing them. Why would you want something that’s actually mono and shitty? |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Dec 25, 2022 21:58:32 GMT -6
I find it strange that monitors are sold primarily as singles, like the only people out there are buying just one. And you never see “matched pair” in the title. Wouldn’t we want a perfectly matched pair? It makes me wonder: maybe 2 monitors in 99% of rooms create such an acoustic non linear mess that it just doesn’t matter? That’s the benefit of a single, it’s just 1 speaker vs space… compare that to speaker vs space vs a 2nd phase shifted and reflected speaker vs space. I have been in many situations where the monitors are cheapies and cloudy, and I wish for just a single low distortion HiFi detailed thing to shape on. So I vote: I can definitely work that way, all panning in headphones and a $400 pair of cheapo monitors. Horrible idea if you ever want to re-sell it maybe.. “here’s 1 speaker” Monitors are primarily sold in singles because surround is usually set up with an odd number of channels. Sorry but most manufacturers who sold them as pairs lost sale’s because trying to sell the extra as a back up didn’t work and video rules the universe. Matched pair, well like mics define “ matched pair”, you want to run each cabinet through a chamber and warehouse them till you find one that matches? Or you do what most do you set an over all QC standard and range for each component, measure these components electronically, discard what doesn’t meet the standards and do a Quick QC of the final product against a known standard and exceptable +- package and sell as singles. One other thing to consider if you’re going to put a single golden monitor in front of you in near field is this: are the drivers going to sum? If you are seriously going to go down this route think true point source. Oh and as far as then using something cheaper to get an idea of soundstage because we all know your not going to mix everything true mono, those standards and +- are going to be loser as you spend less and phase, freq response differences are going to effect soundstage. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Dec 25, 2022 21:58:42 GMT -6
I find it strange that monitors are sold primarily as singles, like the only people out there are buying just one. And you never see “matched pair” in the title. Wouldn’t we want a perfectly matched pair? It makes me wonder: maybe 2 monitors in 99% of rooms create such an acoustic non linear mess that it just doesn’t matter? That’s the benefit of a single, it’s just 1 speaker vs space… compare that to speaker vs space vs a 2nd phase shifted and reflected speaker vs space. I have been in many situations where the monitors are cheapies and cloudy, and I wish for just a single low distortion HiFi detailed thing to shape on. So I vote: I can definitely work that way, all panning in headphones and a $400 pair of cheapo monitors. Horrible idea if you ever want to re-sell it maybe.. “here’s 1 speaker” Monitors are primarily sold in singles because surround is usually set up with an odd number of channels. Sorry but most manufacturers who sold them as pairs lost sale’s because trying to sell the extra as a back up didn’t work and video rules the universe. Matched pair, well like mics define “ matched pair”, you want to run each cabinet through a chamber and warehouse them till you find one that matches? Or you do what most do you set an over all QC standard and range for each component, measure these components electronically, discard what doesn’t meet the standards and do a Quick QC of the final product against a known standard and exceptable +- package and sell as singles. One other thing to consider if you’re going to put a single golden monitor in front of you in near field is this: are the drivers going to sum? If you are seriously going to go down this route think true point source. Oh and as far as then using something cheaper to get an idea of soundstage because we all know your not going to mix everything true mono, those standards and +- are going to be loser as you spend less and phase, freq response differences are going to effect soundstage. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 26, 2022 11:23:14 GMT -6
That makes sense, I didn't really think how surround guys slowly add them 1 at a time, or maybe different cheaper models, and eventually upgrade the cheaper model. Manufacturers offering the exact same models for years allows them to do it, as long as the path is there. I guess I wondered why a studio monitor manufacturer wouldn't measure and match a couple together and upcharge as the definitive reference? But you help me realize the extra matching fee cost and profit is already in the MSRP price of things anyway, freakin' expensive! And could backfire on converting the surround bread and butter sales, where guys aren't matched and might feel concerned about it. Just not worth it, better to say they are all made exactly the same. (and DSP anyway)
So then.. since they are close enough, can add more as you go, is it ok to get just one.. see if its worth getting a second later? I know the break in period would be different. Eventually they'd average to sound perfect together though? Haha I'm not really being super serious.. just brainstorming. Though the cost of entry of 1 is way easier, so who knows.
(edit: something I never wrote but meant to- my instinct is that a used pair is probably smarter way to save than a single)
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 28, 2022 14:20:51 GMT -6
Or people with better monitors than they had in the 1950's.. Yeah dude. Those old horns kinda suck. Old Tannoys start distorting when? 4khz? Auratone and Fostex 6301 together are a great combo. And they’re still made unlike the NS10. They use better drivers than the cheap crap and honestly tons of expensive monitors and they won’t play back mixes with weird balances unlike the expansive high headroom, high detail monitors with great drivers. You will not be lulled into accepting that is just “how it is” because you can hear everything and it’s played back cleanly But honestly, for 200-400 bucks you can get: JBL LSR 305 mk II without the rattling faceplate or blows instantly tweeter of the mk I and a cabinet that forces you to clean the low mids and horn flare that will tear your head off with synths and deaf people air boosts. KRK Rokit 5 G4 with in your face mids, pleasantly dark tweeter, and cabinetry that forces you to cut the box like some lauded expensive bass limited small British monitors but with the sound your clients are hearing on their own And they’re dirt cheap, available everywhere, force you to work and they translate. Less good are: Kali LP6 is less reactive and more hifi. 1khz dip or something. Must be the crossover. The tweeter isn’t as translatable because it’s pretty much the same acidic Chinese button dome as the JBL but won’t force you to fix issues because the waveguide won’t tear your head off. NHT Supers weird bumps and you need a beast amp. Fostex PM series have hifi crossover upper mid dips. Yamaha HS series. They have the classic Yamaha midrange but the always active limiters in the plate amps means that nothing translates dynamically unless you have hyper aggressive two bus processing worked out. I’ve worked with producers who use hs8 because it’s a standard and has low end and the mixes always slammed or needs major compression and the slammed mixes are easier to translate but still slammed. The bigger models of cheap disposable crap not the Yamahas all have even more resonant cabinets and horrible crossovers. I haven’t heard the Kali IN-5 or the new Palmer monitors that B&H has now. Yes I’m recommending small Rokits and the JBLs used in ghetto editing suites but these translate better than many more expensive monitors and monitors loved by losers on the internet for measuring with a flat line at 70db that have aggressive limiters on the woofers to try to get bass out of them with aggressive boosts in the crossovers. You will never be able to translate the low mids on those vs the shit monitors that try to replay the transients and resonances and proximity effect boosts but distorted. How nice they sound doesn’t matter, it’s about translation and a 200 dollar pair of JBLs or 400 dollar pair of KRKs show more problems than 1500 dollar Neumanns and 8000 dollar Genelecs and you can buy them anywhere and won’t fear breaking and replacing them. Why would you want something that’s actually mono and shitty? Well, I'd be inclined to say that you're joking, but somehow I don't think so.
Ther reason that you ALWAYS check in mono is so that out of phase information does not disappear when it is played over MONO formats, such as, for example, AM RADIO! And I gusess the other crappy new formats that we have with our shiny new digital age.
Who needs all that old information anyway?
Who needs to hear Ross the Boss's lead guitar solos on AN ENTIRE ALBUM? Which, by the way, KILLED the sales. Of course back then sales depended on AM radio.... Remind you of anything?
You check in mono TO AVOID MAKING STUPID MISTAKES!
It has nothing at all to do with fidelity or speaker quality.
And BTW, a well designed diffraction horn like the old JBL 2397 midrange doesn't honk.
|
|
