I think the mono vs. stereo debate ultimately comes down to a matter of personal preference. A lot of audiophiles prefer to listen to the stereo pressings, while collectors and jazz aficionados quite often covet the mono pressings.

I prefer to listen to classical music in stereo, which is closer to how it is heard in a concert hall. However, I enjoy listening to jazz in mono, which I feel is closer to how it sounds when I listen to combos play at the Village Vanguard.

I have acquired a lot of Blue Note stereo LPs over the years, but I often use the mono switch on my preamp when I listen to them. I also tend to think Rudy did an excellent job on his RVG Remaster CDs. To me, they sound much more like real jazz music (which I believe was his goal) than the highly separated channels contained on the Analogue Productions SACDs. The gang who hang out on the Huffman website would probably disagree, but to thine own ears be true is my happy motto.

Also, regarding Cohen;s quoting of RVG, he provides no actual information as to its source, so cannot be verified for veracity, they are just “excerpts from an interview”, not the whole interview so out of context. But, this aside, RVG does actually say that:

“Alfred still expected me to create a two track tape from which I could make the mono master disk while mono was still in demand. Later I could then use the same tape as a master for the Stereo LP. I did this by combining the two-tracks in a manner that we called 50/50”.

So it appears that RVG was instructed to create masters that could be used for both Stereo and Mono. It is not correct therefore to say, as you have above, that “Van Gelder’s focus was mono”, or at least not exclusively so.

Cohen, also goes on to quote from RVG:

“When the studio in Englewood Cliffs opened in 1959 it had three speakers in the control room and four speakers in the studio.”

Again, I find it very unlikely that, given RVG had been told to produce a master that could be used to produce Stereo LPs as well as mono, and working in a studio that had clearly been created (by RVG himself no less) for stereo recording and mastering, that he made no use of those facilities in producing the Stereo LPs, about which he states “the transfer of these recordings to early Stereo LPs is an interesting story, but perhaps for another time….”

It is very uniquely, to say the least, that RVG would have pressed Stereo LPs without hearing them at some stage during their produciton.

You seem to make the often repeated mistake of confusing monitoring in mono with stereo mastering. After 1958 all, and I mean ALL Blue Note recordings were done in Stereo, not mono. Before 1962 the equipment available at the mixing end was pretty primitive, to say the least, so there as actually no advantage to monitoring in Stereo as really all you were doing was checking levels – which were the same regardless of mono/stereo. All the actual instrument placement was done by flicking a switch (left, right or centre). And of course, RVG was excellent and close mike placement to get the sound he wanted.

I realise today we are accustomed, in the digital age, to having to hear/view everything first, but at the time Stereo monitoring was no more necessary than viewing a photo on your Leica before pressing the shutter.

To hear how good RVG stereo recordings were look no further than the recordings themselves. For someone who, allegedly took no interest in Stereo, he has managed to produce a vast catalogue of excellent sounding Stereo recordings from 1958 onwards that put their mono fold down versions to shame IMO.

For me also, the very best RVG recordings were made at his parents house at Hackensack – perhaps its the physical space – but I do feel his output does not sound as good after moving to the new studio, and gets progressively worse as the 60s roll on. And his recent CD remasterings are very poor IMO.

I love mono myself, when it was recorded in mono – but the fold downs are as bad as “re-chanelled for stereo” in my book.