Blue Note Jazz Classics 6500 Series (1969)

[Mark Stryker]

In 1969, Liberty-era Blue Note put out nine LPs of of the label's early material. Most of it was pre-bop (Edmond Hall, Ike Quebec, John Hardee, Sydney DeParis, Art Hodes, etc.), though there is one that couples James Moody and George Wallington sessions. On the front cover of the handful of these that I have, there's a note in the top right corner that says: "These historic performance have been specially engineered to be playable on both monaural and stereo equipment."  Here's my question: What does that mean? I first thought it might mean "simulated stereo" -- but that doesn't make complete sense, because during the same era, Blue Note was issuing 1500 series LPs that were, according to text on the covers: "Electronically re-recorded to simulate stereo." The different wording "specially engineered to be playable etc." suggests a different process.

Those simulated stereo 1500 series reissues sound crappy. These 6500 series records do sound better to the extent that they don't really sound like simulated stereo -- but they don't sound like pure mono to my ears either.

Any insight as to what's going on here?. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mark Stryker

[Dmitry]

Don’t have any of the albums from the 6500 series.Do you have a mono switch in your preamplifier? Maybe what you’re hearing is true mono, but not properly channel-separated, so it may give an impression of stereo.

Some of these “electronically re-engineered for stereo “ albums are mono. It’s just a sales blurb in some cases.

[JSngry]

Used to be that a stereo record was pressed(?) in such a way that playing it with a mono cartridge/stylus would fuck it up. Then they fixed that somehow. That's probably what they refer to here, seems like the time frame is right.

This guy seems to remember it like that: https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/will-playing-a-mono-lp-hurt-my-stereo-stylus.805886/

For a time early LPs, which all were mono, had 1 mil wide grooves, not .7 mil wide grooves which were used for stereophonic LPs, which were introduced around 1957-58. Stereo LPs in those days had warnings on them NOT to play them with mono needles (which were too wide and could damage the grooves). New stereo record players, of course came with stereo cartridges sporting the correct width needle. But if you had an old portable record player and wanted to play the same stereo record on it too, you had to upgrade at least the stylus or the stylus and the cartridge if that was easier. Once you had a stereo cartridge/needle you could still play any of the old wider grooved mono LPs you had. The slightly narrower needle for stereo LPs would not damage the wider-grooved mono LPs. Soon mono LPs were pressed with the narrower groove used for stereo. Only very early mono LPs have the wider groove. Of course ALL LPs (and 45 rpm singles) are considered "micro-groove" recordings, because most of (not all) the earlier 78rpm records had grooves about 3 times wider.

There were several years when stereo was available but a lot of people still only had mono equipment and records. What if you just bought a new phonograph the year before stereo came out? Most people then, less indoctrinated in the throw-away society, weren't going to just throw something like that out. Also, for several years, stereo versions of the same recording could cost as much as twice as much as the mono version. Some people couldn't afford it. Also, there were some people who thought that stereo was just a fad that would pass. They waited until it had been around quite a while before getting on board.

There are other differences between the mono and stereo recordings, but so far as groove width issues go this is the gist of it, unless I got the units wrong or something like that. I'm sure someone will correct anything essential I left out. One other thing, needles for the wider early mono LP groove are available still for some cartridges. Some audiophiles prefer to play those records with the stylus width intended for them.

[JSngry]

Note the warning!

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

i have the james moody, used to have the art hodes, was there one for the art blakey large ensemble stuff?

[Mark Stryker]

Thanks Jim and Dmitry -- very helpful. .

 

 

[JSngry]

Yeah, I think the key there is that they're talking about being playable on both kinds of equipment, not the sound itself.

that was really the "end" of mono, really, when you didn't have to buy a mono record just because you didn't have a stereo record player (or from another angle, you coul now buy a stereo record even if you didn't yet have a stereo record player). People were, like, hey, I'll be getting a stereo record player soon enough, might as well buy a stereo record now.

And you know, geez, I had forgotten ALL about that DON'T PLAY A STEREO RECORD WITH A MONO CARTRIDGE - DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!! business, that's like ancient record history now. But yeah, that was a thing. All the record club ads, you had to select stereo or mono, it was a very real thing.

[kh1958]

As I recall, the small record players I owned as a kid to listen to my Beatles/Hendrix/Jefferson Airplane, etc. albums were stereo, so this warning was always purely theoretical to me.

[JSngry]

There were "stereo needles" too, back when the needle was all you ever replaced (most of us, anyway). But you got those by specifying, not by default, not until, maybe?, the later 1960s?