[[email protected]]

I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for many years.
I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing Beatles
music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the separation was
strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be
much wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , " wrote:
I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for many years.
I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing Beatles
music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the separation was
strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be
much wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

Got to be the head and ears and brain.. I just rotated my head around a noise source.
To the rear the sound does not go to center like from the front.

greg

[[email protected]]

On 2008-12-17 (GregS) said:
I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing
Beatles music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the
separation was strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I
perceived it to be much wider than standing facing the same boom
box.
I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the
latter case.
Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the
structure of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not
often listening in this way.
Got to be the head and ears and brain.. I just rotated my head
around a noise source.
To the rear the sound does not go to center like from the front.
OF course not. From the front, you have eyes to see
possible threats. from the back, you want to be able to
localize on that sound, using your ears. HEnce your brain
is wired along with the way all the systems work together to
give you better aural location clues from the rear, as you
have to compensate for having no rearview mirror g.
THat's my theory anyway g.

But here's another one for ya. COnsider a kid who was born
blind. HIs/her "echolocation" skills become very developed.
My first, and second wives, both blind from birth, could
"feel" or hear a wall, a tree, etc. as they got close to it.





Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for
many years. I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head,
playing Beatles music, with which I'm very familiar. I
noticed that the separation was strikingly wide and
discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be much
wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo
separation both in front of and behind my head, and it
seems notably wider in the latter case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with
the structure of the head and ears, and perhaps the
novelty of not often listening in this way.

Depends which Beatles tunes you are talking about.

Some were made with extreme amounts of separation, such as voices in one
channel, instruments in the other.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:40:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

I'd go with Richard on this - it's because you can hear saber-tooth
tigers sneaking up on you better that way.

Really, almost everything about hearing and perception is about
hearing saber-tooth tigers sneaking up on you, but don't tell
Beethoven that.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:52:19 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Localization is about saber-tooths sneaking up.
Tone is about procreation.

Particularly relevant here on rec.audio.procreation

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Les Cargill]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:52:19 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Localization is about saber-tooths sneaking up.
Tone is about procreation.

Particularly relevant here on rec.audio.procreation

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

Wait; I'll get my wah-wah pedal....

--
Les Cargill

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:26:18 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article ) :


wrote in message
...
I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for many years.
I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing Beatles
music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the separation was
strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be
much wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

Blackburst, here's my educated guess. The stereo effect depends not only on
the distance between the sources, but the distance between the ears.

From the front, the effective distance between the earholes is a little less
than from the back, because from the back the sound has to curve/diffract
around the edge of the ears.

The greater distance accentuates the phase shift between left and right
ears, which is the way we perceive direction above 2 kHz.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511



I think that describes HRTF (Head-related transfer functions), no?

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 5:17*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for
many years. I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head,
playing Beatles music, with which I'm very familiar. I
noticed that the separation was strikingly wide and
discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be much
wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo
separation both in front of and behind my head, and it
seems notably wider in the latter case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with
the structure of the head and ears, and perhaps the
novelty of not often listening in this way.

Depends which Beatles tunes you are talking about.

Some were made with extreme amounts of separation, such as voices in one
channel, instruments in the other.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation. The first song
I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those that follow.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 4:26*pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for many years.
I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing Beatles
music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the separation was
strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be
much wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

Blackburst, here's my educated guess. The stereo effect depends not only on
the distance between the sources, but the distance between the ears.

From the front, the effective distance between the earholes is a little less
than from the back, because from the back the sound has to *curve/diffract
around the edge of the ears.

The greater distance accentuates the phase shift between left and right
ears, which is the way we perceive direction above 2 kHz.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

I think you may be closest. But I also note that we are not used to
hearing stereo that way, and the novelty effect may play a role.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Dec 17, 5:17 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV)
for many years. I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head,
playing Beatles music, with which I'm very familiar. I
noticed that the separation was strikingly wide and
discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be much
wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo
separation both in front of and behind my head, and it
seems notably wider in the latter case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with
the structure of the head and ears, and perhaps the
novelty of not often listening in this way.

Depends which Beatles tunes you are talking about.

Some were made with extreme amounts of separation, such
as voices in one channel, instruments in the other.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation.
The first song I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those
that follow.

Don't have that compilation, sorry.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 4:26 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I've been involved in audio recording (and later, TV) for many years.
I noticed something weird recently.

I was laying on a cot with a boom box behind my head, playing Beatles
music, with which I'm very familiar. I noticed that the separation was
strikingly wide and discrete. In that position, I perceived it to be
much wider than standing facing the same boom box.

I tried a few experiments with perceiving stereo separation both in
front of and behind my head, and it seems notably wider in the latter
case.

Anybody know why? I imagine it has something to do with the structure
of the head and ears, and perhaps the novelty of not often listening
in this way.

Blackburst, here's my educated guess. The stereo effect depends not only
on
the distance between the sources, but the distance between the ears.

From the front, the effective distance between the earholes is a little
less
than from the back, because from the back the sound has to curve/diffract
around the edge of the ears.

The greater distance accentuates the phase shift between left and right
ears, which is the way we perceive direction above 2 kHz.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

I think you may be closest. But I also note that we are not used to
hearing stereo that way, and the novelty effect may play a role.

No, Ty and Bob are correct....it is the head transfer function. That
"hole-in-the-middle behind the head" phenomenon has been known for years.
Onc of the reasons six-channel sound (as opposed to five or seven) never
made much sense and never got very far.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:52:19 -0500, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Localization is about saber-tooths sneaking up.
Tone is about procreation.

Particularly relevant here on rec.audio.procreation

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

Wait; I'll get my wah-wah pedal....


Stop before you go blindf!!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[miniminim]

Of course not. From the front, you have eyes to see
possible threats. from the back, you want to be able to
localize on that sound, using your ears. Hence your brain
is wired along with the way all the systems work together to
give you better aural location clues from the rear, as you
have to compensate for having no rearview mirror g.
That's my theory anyway g. ....

That fits my experience, although I had never thought of it this way,
and may explain something that happened 30 years ago when I was in the
process of fine tuning a crossover for some speakers I was designing.
I had made the adjustment and replaced the needle just before the
start of the track which had a mono, centered voice doing lead
("Witchy Woman" by the Eagles). On my way back to the listening seat,
the words "raven hair, ruby lips" were delivered with such specificity
of location that I felt as if the singer was in the room and I could
literally have pointed to his mouth, even though it would have been
behind my back. The tonality was not quite right, so I had to make
further adjustments and thought I had lost the quality of imaging in
the process, but have to say I never thought to try listening with my
back to the speakers.

Anyway, your theory makes sense to me, Richard, and may have answered
a 30 year old question.

[William Sommerwerck]

"miniminim" wrote in message
...

Of course not. From the front, you have eyes to see
possible threats. From the back, you want to be able to
localize on that sound, using your ears. Hence your brain
is wired along with the way all the systems work together
to give you better aural location clues from the rear, as you
have to compensate for having no rearview mirror g.
That's my theory anyway g. ....

There is a related theory connected with surround sound.

Some people are bothered by direct sounds from behind them. It has been
postulated that these are the people most likely to turn and face predators,
and thus most likely to survive. Folks like myself, who enjoy rear sounds,
would be more likely to be pounced on and devoured.

[Eric B]

I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation. The first song
I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those that follow.
Dear Blackburst
One of the strangest things about human hearing is that the very act
of listening to something changes the way you hear it. The second most
surprising factor is that hearing is correlated with all the other
senses way before the information gets to your cortex. The third is
that our civilized love affair with the visual input clearly effects
the way we hear, mostly to the detriment of hearing because... why
should your ears have to work at what your eyes can clearly see. I
find myself often listening with my back to the speakers in an attempt
to keep my eyes and what they see out of the equation. In my mind, in
my cortex, I have often wondered whether the first instantaneous but
casual aural impression isn't just as valid, if not more, than the one
you form through careful attentive listening.
I suspect that what you experienced was partially the novelty of a
new perspective, one in which your eyes did not participate in their
usual ways. The sabre tooth tiger and instinctual survival concept is
certainly a part, or factor in the acuity you experienced. The fourth
most bizarre aspect of human hearing is that, like with smell, it is
attuned alert you to the new and different. Consider what you usually
hear from above you. When you are out doors it might be birds,
insects, falling trees etc., and in this situation your ears clearly
cover for that which your eyes are too busy in the horizontal to
cover. When you are in doors it is always a ceiling- boring; your mind
can forget about it. No danger, no pretty girls to reproduce with,
etc.
Being in the business, your ears are trained to listen closely, you
know how to listen. In this new perspective you heard something that
was different and new to your experience. How can you use it? That is
the question indeed. For use in music production, well, your clients
might think you odd. Probably, the most important thing you can do
with it is to learn that there are other perspectives and that the
reality can be other than what you think you hear. And in the final
analysis every single detail you can perceive is important and
sometimes you have to approach things from a different perspective to
hear them in a freshly, without preconceptions.
Best regards,
Eric Blackmer

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 9:43*am, Eric B wrote:
I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation. The first song
I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those that follow.

Dear Blackburst
* One of the strangest things about human hearing is that the very act
of listening to something changes the way you hear it. The second most
surprising factor is that hearing is correlated with all the other
senses way before the information gets to your cortex. The third is
that our civilized love affair with the visual input clearly effects
the way we hear, mostly to the detriment of hearing because... why
should your ears have to work at what your eyes can clearly see. I
find myself often listening with my back to the speakers in an attempt
to keep my eyes and what they see out of the equation. In my mind, in
my cortex, I have often wondered whether the first instantaneous but
casual aural impression isn't just as valid, if not more, than the one
you form through careful attentive listening.
* I suspect that what you experienced was partially the novelty of a
new perspective, one in which your eyes did not participate in their
usual ways. The sabre tooth tiger and instinctual survival concept is
certainly a part, or factor in the acuity you experienced. The fourth
most bizarre aspect of human hearing is that, like with smell, it is
attuned alert you to the new and different. Consider what you usually
hear from above you. When you are out doors it might be birds,
insects, falling trees etc., and in this situation your ears clearly
cover for that which your eyes are too busy in the horizontal to
cover. When you are in doors it is always a ceiling- boring; your mind
can forget about it. No danger, no pretty girls to reproduce with,
etc.
* Being in the business, your ears are trained to listen closely, you
know how to listen. In this new perspective you heard something that
was different and new to your experience. How can you use it? That is
the question indeed. For use in music production, well, your clients
might think you odd. Probably, the most important thing you can do
with it is to learn that there are other perspectives and that the
reality can be other than what you think you hear. And in the final
analysis every single detail you can perceive is important and
sometimes you have to approach things from a different perspective to
hear them in a freshly, without preconceptions.
Best regards,
Eric Blackmer

I agree. We become accustomed to hearing things certain ways. And the
stereo spectrum, for all its novelty in the 50s and 60s, and the
multichannel spectrum, for all its more recent novelty, both have a
certain predictability. Our ears-brains become accustomed to the freq
response, dynamic range and apparent mutichannel imaging of the whole
genre of typical sound reporductions systems, and specifically our OWN
sound systems. Anything "outside that box" assaults the senses as
something new and different. Somewhat like hearing a new audio
technology for the first time.

This is what happened to me. Something very familiar made it's way to
my ears in a new and different way, around the contours of the ears
and, as you note, minus both the visual and comfort zone of my usual
listening "box." And it didn't have the same familiarity. The cerebral
side of audio!

I should have known you'd come up with a cerebral and thought-
provoking set of observations. I think it runs in the family, as I'm
an admirer of your father's contributions to auditory perception. I
know your sister JB. And you guys make some incredible microphones!

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , " wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:43=A0am, Eric B wrote:
I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation. The first song
I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those that follow.

Dear Blackburst
=A0 One of the strangest things about human hearing is that the very act
of listening to something changes the way you hear it. The second most
surprising factor is that hearing is correlated with all the other
senses way before the information gets to your cortex. The third is
that our civilized love affair with the visual input clearly effects
the way we hear, mostly to the detriment of hearing because... why
should your ears have to work at what your eyes can clearly see. I
find myself often listening with my back to the speakers in an attempt
to keep my eyes and what they see out of the equation. In my mind, in
my cortex, I have often wondered whether the first instantaneous but
casual aural impression isn't just as valid, if not more, than the one
you form through careful attentive listening.
=A0 I suspect that what you experienced was partially the novelty of a
new perspective, one in which your eyes did not participate in their
usual ways. The sabre tooth tiger and instinctual survival concept is
certainly a part, or factor in the acuity you experienced. The fourth
most bizarre aspect of human hearing is that, like with smell, it is
attuned alert you to the new and different. Consider what you usually
hear from above you. When you are out doors it might be birds,
insects, falling trees etc., and in this situation your ears clearly
cover for that which your eyes are too busy in the horizontal to
cover. When you are in doors it is always a ceiling- boring; your mind
can forget about it. No danger, no pretty girls to reproduce with,
etc.
=A0 Being in the business, your ears are trained to listen closely, you
know how to listen. In this new perspective you heard something that
was different and new to your experience. How can you use it? That is
the question indeed. For use in music production, well, your clients
might think you odd. Probably, the most important thing you can do
with it is to learn that there are other perspectives and that the
reality can be other than what you think you hear. And in the final
analysis every single detail you can perceive is important and
sometimes you have to approach things from a different perspective to
hear them in a freshly, without preconceptions.
Best regards,
Eric Blackmer

I agree. We become accustomed to hearing things certain ways. And the
stereo spectrum, for all its novelty in the 50s and 60s, and the
multichannel spectrum, for all its more recent novelty, both have a
certain predictability. Our ears-brains become accustomed to the freq
response, dynamic range and apparent mutichannel imaging of the whole
genre of typical sound reporductions systems, and specifically our OWN
sound systems. Anything "outside that box" assaults the senses as
something new and different. Somewhat like hearing a new audio
technology for the first time.

This is what happened to me. Something very familiar made it's way to
my ears in a new and different way, around the contours of the ears
and, as you note, minus both the visual and comfort zone of my usual
listening "box." And it didn't have the same familiarity. The cerebral
side of audio!

I should have known you'd come up with a cerebral and thought-
provoking set of observations. I think it runs in the family, as I'm
an admirer of your father's contributions to auditory perception. I
know your sister JB. And you guys make some incredible microphones!

Doing the same test on noise I did before, I cupped my ears in reverse
and that center came back into focus.

greg

[[email protected]]

On Dec 19, 11:14*am, (GregS) wrote:
In article , " wrote:





On Dec 19, 9:43=A0am, Eric B wrote:
I was listening to the Beatles "1", a hits compliation. The first song
I noticed as Ticket To Ride, then those that follow.

Dear Blackburst
=A0 One of the strangest things about human hearing is that the very act
of listening to something changes the way you hear it. The second most
surprising factor is that hearing is correlated with all the other
senses way before the information gets to your cortex. The third is
that our civilized love affair with the visual input clearly effects
the way we hear, mostly to the detriment of hearing because... why
should your ears have to work at what your eyes can clearly see. I
find myself often listening with my back to the speakers in an attempt
to keep my eyes and what they see out of the equation. In my mind, in
my cortex, I have often wondered whether the first instantaneous but
casual aural impression isn't just as valid, if not more, than the one
you form through careful attentive listening.
=A0 I suspect that what you experienced was partially the novelty of a
new perspective, one in which your eyes did not participate in their
usual ways. The sabre tooth tiger and instinctual survival concept is
certainly a part, or factor in the acuity you experienced. The fourth
most bizarre aspect of human hearing is that, like with smell, it is
attuned alert you to the new and different. Consider what you usually
hear from above you. When you are out doors it might be birds,
insects, falling trees etc., and in this situation your ears clearly
cover for that which your eyes are too busy in the horizontal to
cover. When you are in doors it is always a ceiling- boring; your mind
can forget about it. No danger, no pretty girls to reproduce with,
etc.
=A0 Being in the business, your ears are trained to listen closely, you
know how to listen. In this new perspective you heard something that
was different and new to your experience. How can you use it? That is
the question indeed. For use in music production, well, your clients
might think you odd. Probably, the most important thing you can do
with it is to learn that there are other perspectives and that the
reality can be other than what you think you hear. And in the final
analysis every single detail you can perceive is important and
sometimes you have to approach things from a different perspective to
hear them in a freshly, without preconceptions.
Best regards,
Eric Blackmer

I agree. We become accustomed to hearing things certain ways. And the
stereo spectrum, for all its novelty in the 50s and 60s, and the
multichannel spectrum, for all its more recent novelty, both have a
certain predictability. Our ears-brains become accustomed to the freq
response, dynamic range and apparent mutichannel imaging of the whole
genre of typical sound reporductions systems, and specifically our OWN
sound systems. Anything "outside that box" assaults the senses as
something new and different. Somewhat like hearing a new audio
technology for the first time.

This is what happened to me. Something very familiar made it's way to
my ears in a new and different way, around the contours of the ears
and, as you note, minus both the visual and comfort zone of my usual
listening "box." And it didn't have the same familiarity. The cerebral
side of audio!

I should have known you'd come up with a cerebral and thought-
provoking set of observations. I think it runs in the family, as I'm
an admirer of your father's contributions to auditory perception. I
know your sister JB. And you guys make some incredible microphones!

Doing the same test on noise I did before, I cupped my ears in reverse
and that center came back into focus.

greg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At the risk of going a little (more) off topic... speaking of the
Beatles and separation...

I find that I actually like the hyper separation of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Mark

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
At the risk of going a little (more) off topic... speaking of the
Beatles and separation...

I find that I actually like the hyper separation of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Was it ever "in vogue"? (i.e. intentional?)
Or was it an artifact of pre-historic attempts at making
stereo mixes out of 3-track studio tapes?
Perhaps you are correct. It was a "novelty" at best.
It never represented what you would really hear if
you were at a concert. Unless you were sitting in the
middle of the ensemble.

[Paul Stamler[_2_]]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
wrote ...
I find that I actually like the hyper separation of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Was it ever "in vogue"? (i.e. intentional?)
Or was it an artifact of pre-historic attempts at making
stereo mixes out of 3-track studio tapes?
Perhaps you are correct. It was a "novelty" at best.
It never represented what you would really hear if
you were at a concert. Unless you were sitting in the
middle of the ensemble.

I think a lot of the extreme panning on early stereo records was an attempt
to give purchasers the perception that they were getting their money's worth
(stereo LPs cost a dollar more than mono).

Peace,
Paul

[Ray Thomas[_2_]]

At the risk of going a little (more) off topic... speaking of the
Beatles and separation...

I find that I actually like the hyper separation of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you seek out some Beatles info from Google, Wiki or books written by
George Martin et al you will probably discover that EMI released the hard
panned left/right "stereo" records as a desperate rush to match the
classical releases of the era...Martin never intended this release schedule,
and the instrumental/vocal panning was a submix intended as a prior step to
mono mixdown....those early releases (prior to Sgt Pepper) were intended for
mono release only...something that wasn't even corrected in the CD versions
I believe ? So we have been listening to the 'unauthorized' hard panned
mixes for decades.....
RT

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:04:43 GMT, "Ray Thomas"
wrote:

At the risk of going a little (more) off topic... speaking of the
Beatles and separation...

I find that I actually like the hyper separation of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Because most people think it sounds odd?

[D.M. Procida]

Ray Thomas wrote:

If you seek out some Beatles info from Google, Wiki or books written by
George Martin et al you will probably discover that EMI released the hard
panned left/right "stereo" records as a desperate rush to match the
classical releases of the era...Martin never intended this release schedule,
and the instrumental/vocal panning was a submix intended as a prior step to
mono mixdown....those early releases (prior to Sgt Pepper) were intended for
mono release only...something that wasn't even corrected in the CD versions
I believe ? So we have been listening to the 'unauthorized' hard panned
mixes for decades.....

Bear in mind also that recordings mastered for vinyl would have less
separation in the bass, as a compromise between fidelity, wide bass
separation and volume is required. So what you hear on CD recordings is
likely to be even wider than the same recording mastered for vinyl.

I think it was popular because it allowed the listener to turn off Paul
McCartney sometimes.

Daniele

[[email protected]]

On Dec 21, 7:04*am, "Ray Thomas" wrote:
At the risk of going a little (more) off topic... speaking of the
Beatles and separation...

I find that I actually like the hyper separation *of full pan left
full pan right of many of the Beatles and other early stereo
recordings when stereo was a novelty.

Why has full panning gone so far out of vogue?

Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*---
If you seek out some Beatles info from Google, Wiki or books written by
George Martin et al you will probably discover that EMI released the hard
panned left/right "stereo" records as a desperate rush to match the
classical releases of the era...Martin never intended this release schedule,
and the instrumental/vocal panning was a submix intended as a prior step to
mono mixdown....those early releases (prior to Sgt Pepper) were intended for
mono release only...something that wasn't even corrected in the CD versions
I believe ? *So we have been listening to the 'unauthorized' hard panned
mixes for decades.....
RT

A couple of corrections from a longtime Beatlehead, and sometime
contributor to Beatles journals:

1) The very earliest Beatles recordings were on 2-track, with
occasional live overdubs, playing the 2-track while dubbing to another
2-track. From late 1963 to late 1968, the original studio recordings
were done on 4-track, often submixed and overdubbed. (For part of the
White Album and all of Let It Be and Abbey Road, it was 8-track.)

2) George Martin's preference that the releases be mono only applies
to the first 2 albums (up to early 1964). From that point on, Martin
supervised stereo mixes. The left-center-right spectrum was an
artifact of the limited tracks, and the primitive understanding of how
to use stereo.

3) I thought the mixes were charming at the time, and I still see tham
as quaint today. Hey, this is the holy grail of the most well-regarded
band of all time!