Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are
reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... geoff |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"geoff" skrev i en meddelelse
... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. geoff Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30/10/2014 8:21 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote:
"geoff" skrev i en meddelelse ... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. geoff I'd have thought middle, 50% L, and 50% R would have been a little kinder and gentler. Maybe with some stereo reverb washed across the full span. geoff |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30/10/2014 09:52, geoff wrote:
On 30/10/2014 8:21 p.m., Peter Larsen wrote: "geoff" skrev i en meddelelse ... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. geoff I'd have thought middle, 50% L, and 50% R would have been a little kinder and gentler. Maybe with some stereo reverb washed across the full span. In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. Like this one:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Wt_Avpx3E Amazingly, people actually *bought* these by the thousand... Later on, things calmed down and the aim of the engineers then was to produce a natural sounding sound stage. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
John Williamson wrote: "- show quoted text -
In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. Like this one:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Wt_Avpx3E Amazingly, people actually *bought* these by the thousand... Later on, things calmed down and the aim of the engineers then was to produce a natural sounding sound stage. -- Tciao for Now! John. " I think every household should have at least one track or one album of such material - purely for amusement or test purposes. If not, at least Led Zeppelin II or Are You Experienced?. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
John Williamson wrote: In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. -- *WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?" Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30/10/2014 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , John Williamson wrote: In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. If you listen to the record I linked to, there's plenty of that on it as well. Bass drum on the far left, snare on the far right, and bagpipes dead centre, for example. A ping pong game with the players panned hard left and right with nothing happening in the centre. I suspect a touch of mickey taking by the production team... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
geoff wrote:
OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... geoff Drugs. -- Les Cargill |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:21:40 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote:
"geoff" skrev i en meddelelse ... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. Or The Shadows' "Dance On", bass is hard left, solo hard right. It's a nice test for people's directional hearing for bass, although a pure sinewave would be better. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 6:58 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. "Stereo" is derived from a word that means "solid," so real stereo fakes us into thinking that we're hearing something that has continuous width and depth. Ping-pong stereo is something different, and indeed sounds like a game of ping-pong heard from along the axis of the net. There were bongos on one side answering horns on the other side, and back and forth. Sometimes there was nothing in the middle. The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo -- like say mono panned hard right and left. Well... Yes and no. My father's Symphonic tape recorder (the brand is now owned by Funai) had stereo playback (but not recording). Though the demo tape comprised mostly conventional stereo recordings, there was a sample with a ping-pong ball bouncing back and forth. Granted, //this// was a conventional recording, but it was the type of demo used to impress the cloth-eared. "Ping pong" stereo //wasn't// needed for listeners with expensive equipment -- they knew what they were hearing. (Livingston tapes ran an ad with the caption "Is that an orchestra in your living room?".) Ping-pong stereo became popular with the introduction of small stereo consoles, in which the speakers were separated by 3' or less. Enoch Light knew that without exaggerated stereo, people wouldn't buy the consoles, and thus his recordings. (He reversed, in effect, the razor/blade relationship -- if you make an appealing blade, people will buy the razor.) "Persuasive Percussion" was the first Command album (and probably the first album to be recorded all the way through with ping-pong imaging). It was a huge success (helped, I think, by the distinctive geometric graphics on the cover). My opinion is that these recordings were made with a Blumlein pair. You can sometimes hear one side being switched off altogether. There are moments on Light's ping-pong recordings when both channels are going, and it sounds like real stereo. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
geoff wrote:
OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Mostly because consoles didn't have panpots, only routing switches. And partly because people didn't really have any clue what stereo really was. Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... Those were not stereo mixes, those were 2-track masters that were intended for mixdown to mono. Nobody EVER intended those to be released as stereo and they were certainly never tracked with stereo release in mind. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , John Williamson wrote: In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. Although fake stereo of that era might have something going left to right across the soundstage as the engineer moves the panpot back and forth. For example, how Miles Davis suddenly gets louder and is slowly panned into the middle when he starts his solo. DG ruined a lot of classical releases with this kind of foolishness too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:21:40 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote: "geoff" skrev i en meddelelse ... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. Or The Shadows' "Dance On", bass is hard left, solo hard right. It's a nice test for people's directional hearing for bass, although a pure sinewave would be better. I am sure if that was released on LP, the mastering engineer would have fixed that right up.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: Or The Shadows' "Dance On", bass is hard left, solo hard right. It's a nice test for people's directional hearing for bass, although a pure sinewave would be better. I am sure if that was released on LP, the mastering engineer would have fixed that right up... Excessive vertical modulation was a problem with stereo LPs -- especially in the bass. Putting loud bass on just one channel was a no-no. In theory, 45-45 stereo LPs were fully compatible with mono pickups. The lateral motion -- which was all a mono pickup responded to -- was the sum of the channels, so the listener heard everything. Unfortunately, most mono pickups had no vertical compliance, and the stylus tore up the vertical groove modulation. For a while, one company produced records with summed bass, claiming they were compatible with mono pickups. This seems unlikely, because the pickup still had the higher-frequency vertical modulation to plow through. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Dave Plowman (News):
And all these years I thought "ping pong" meant moving back & forth, as in the bridge in "Whole Lotta Love". So a good example of ping pong stereo would be the "stereo" version of I Got You(I feel good). James Brown vocal hard panned one side, horns opposite, interplaying each other "so nice" horns horns! "so good" horns horns! "I got youuu!" |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
In article ,
Mike Rivers wrote: On 10/30/2014 6:58 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. "Stereo" is derived from a word that means "solid," so real stereo fakes us into thinking that we're hearing something that has continuous width and depth. Quite. Ping-pong stereo is something different, and indeed sounds like a game of ping-pong heard from along the axis of the net. There were bongos on one side answering horns on the other side, and back and forth. Sometimes there was nothing in the middle. Quite. Just pointing out that a train going across the sound stage isn't a good example. ;-) The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. First stereo mixer I saw used M&S. Because of stud faders. Width varying on a fade wasn't so noticeable as image shift. So had width controls too. -- *Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: Or The Shadows' "Dance On", bass is hard left, solo hard right. It's a nice test for people's directional hearing for bass, although a pure sinewave would be better. I am sure if that was released on LP, the mastering engineer would have fixed that right up... Excessive vertical modulation was a problem with stereo LPs -- especially in the bass. Putting loud bass on just one channel was a no-no. It still is. But when stuff gets sent to the mastering house like that, the first response is usually just to throw an elliptical high-pass filter into the L-R signal and center the bass. Sometimes there are enough harmonics on the bass that even when the low end has been cut out of the difference channel, the instrument still sounds like it's coming from the side because all of the high end stuff from the instrument is still coming from the side. In theory, 45-45 stereo LPs were fully compatible with mono pickups. The lateral motion -- which was all a mono pickup responded to -- was the sum of the channels, so the listener heard everything. Unfortunately, most mono pickups had no vertical compliance, and the stylus tore up the vertical groove modulation. By the seventies that got better.... but let me say that the quality of tracking on that GE portable phonograph your teacher had in music appreciation class was not good in either plane. For a while, one company produced records with summed bass, claiming they were compatible with mono pickups. This seems unlikely, because the pickup still had the higher-frequency vertical modulation to plow through. It all depends on what you mean by compatibility. Records wear out, it's just a matter of whether they wear out faster or more slowly. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 10:06 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
By the seventies that got better.... but let me say that the quality of tracking on that GE portable phonograph your teacher had in music appreciation class was not good in either plane. Well, the 3 inch speaker in it wasn't very good at reproducing the fundamentals of the bass instruments either. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
geoff wrote:
OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... Having recorded in studios in the mid '60s, I think there are some simple answers to your question. 1) Multi-track recording was still a new game. Several of the studios I was in had mixers without pan controls! 2) Stereo was regarded as a "special effect" by many pop music artists. 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. 4) LSD. -- best regards, Neil |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30/10/2014 14:38, Neil Gould wrote:
3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. Don't forget the jukeboxes, which is where most records were heard about a week after the first radio play. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. Poly |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Mike Rivers wrote:
[...] The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. Blumlein: Brit Patent 394,325 (1931) -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30 Oct 2014 09:13:43 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:21:40 +0100, Peter Larsen wrote: "geoff" skrev i en meddelelse ... OK, limited number of source tracks and even some of those are reductions. But why such extreme stereo placement ? Particularly thinking early Beatles stereo versions here .... The recordings are two track multitrack recordings intended for mixing to mono, subsequently released as they were and labeled stereo. There are also a number of what appears to have been three track multitrack recordings that were mixed to stereo, usually simple to identify: bass guitar full left or full right, a freak scenery, especially freakish to cut no doubt The Freak Scene's "A million Grains of Sand" is an excellent example, ensemble is mentioned in Wikipedia. Or The Shadows' "Dance On", bass is hard left, solo hard right. It's a nice test for people's directional hearing for bass, although a pure sinewave would be better. I am sure if that was released on LP, the mastering engineer would have fixed that right up.... According to Wikipedia, "Dance on!" was made between April 1962 and October 1963. Maybe it was mono then, with the tape being a 2-track, later released on CD. Mat Nieuwenhoven |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. Blumlein: Brit Patent 394,325 (1931) There's always a wiseass. But how many multichannel mixers could you buy then that had pan pots? -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Mike Rivers wrote:
The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. This is the first mixer I ever owned, a Sony MX-12. I used it for PA and for recording. On batteries the noise floor was pleasantly low. Of course, at the time I bought it I knew nothing about any of this, literally. It was small and cheap, and in those days one had few choices. http://tinyurl.com/mkck7w9 -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , John Williamson wrote: In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. But a decent recording of something going left to right across the sound stage isn't ping pong. Ping pong is where there is no true stereo - like say mono panned hard right and left. Although fake stereo of that era might have something going left to right across the soundstage as the engineer moves the panpot back and forth. For example, how Miles Davis suddenly gets louder and is slowly panned into the middle when he starts his solo. DG ruined a lot of classical releases with this kind of foolishness too. --scott In MIles situation, that move well reflected his own change of position on stage in a live setting, as he took center stage for his solos. It just doesn't sound quite right to an informed ear when managed by panpot. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/30/2014 1:54 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote: The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. Blumlein: Brit Patent 394,325 (1931) There's always a wiseass. But how many multichannel mixers could you buy then that had pan pots? 100% of all the stereo equipment available at the time. :-) -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 30/10/2014 11:25 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
In the early days of stereo, the ping pong effect was fashionable, so that home users thought they were getting the most value out of their then massive investment in stereo equipment. For examples, try out the "Stereo Spectacular" records that came out in the '60s, with recordings of steam trains going across the sound stage and the like. "Going across" - exactly . But certainly not all L, then suddenly all R ! So just "fashion" then. geoff |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 2:30 PM, hank alrich wrote:
The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. This is the first mixer I ever owned, a Sony MX-12. I used it for PA and for recording. My one "phat toob preamp," an Ampex MX-10 mixer, has four channels with A-Both-B switches on each channel. It's too noisy for digital but it looks nice in the rack. And, no, I don't want to sell it. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... Mike Rivers wrote: The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. This is the first mixer I ever owned, a Sony MX-12. I used it for PA and for recording. On batteries the noise floor was pleasantly low. Of course, at the time I bought it I knew nothing about any of this, literally. It was small and cheap, and in those days one had few choices. http://tinyurl.com/mkck7w9 -- Did the manual look something like this ? http://tinyurl.com/nrt7de9 ;-p Sean |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"Neil" wrote in message
... On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) -- And so we're going back in a full circle, finding new ways to produce bad releases of good music. Except the music really was better back in the day, and I don't care what anyone says. Sean |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Neil wrote:
On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) And let's face it, most of the music was pretty awful too. "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I've Got Love In My Tummy?" Get serious. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
"hank alrich" skrev i en meddelelse
... Mike Rivers wrote: The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. This is the first mixer I ever owned, a Sony MX-12. I used it for PA and for recording. On batteries the noise floor was pleasantly low. Of course, at the time I bought it I knew nothing about any of this, literally. It was small and cheap, and in those days one had few choices. http://tinyurl.com/mkck7w9 I still have mine, it has had the minijacks replaced with large jack sockets. Kind regards Peter Larsen shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 31/10/2014 9:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote: On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) And let's face it, most of the music was pretty awful too. "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I've Got Love In My Tummy?" Get serious. I beg to differ, in general the music of the sixties was far better than the crap of today. A few exceptions like Yummy Yummy, Chirpy Chirpy etc were abominations sure, but far from the norm IMO. However I really hate that even some of the more serious singers these days think they need to have some (c)rapper on their records to sell more copies. And that's *far* more common :-( Trevor. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Trevor wrote: "- show quoted text -
I beg to differ, in general the music of the sixties was far better than the crap of today. A few exceptions like Yummy Yummy, Chirpy Chirpy etc" Those who defend today's music probably have some stake in it - as a marketer, producer, engineer, or reseller. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 10/30/2014 6:20 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote: On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) And let's face it, most of the music was pretty awful too. "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I've Got Love In My Tummy?" Get serious. Even though the 1910 Fruitgum Company was late in the game, when multitrack was well established and there were many excellent recordings in all genres, it's still funny that you mentioned them. One event in our town featured that group as a follow-up to Ted Nugent's group (MC-5?). The Fruitgum company was actually a blues-rock group of studio musicians that refused to play their bubblegum hits in public (might explain their disappearance), and after the first couple of tunes, Nugent was drooling by the side of the stage over both of the guitarists' licks, which cut him up one side and down the other. Getting back to the earlier years, people had to actually perform the music, since there wasn't an opportunity to cut their part out of the mix if it fell short. No auto-tune, masking effects, and so on either. So even the mediocre acts were often musically better than many of today's hit makers. -- best regards, Neil |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
Sean Conolly wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... Mike Rivers wrote: The pan pot was a relatively recent invention. The first stereo mixers had a left-center-right switch so there was no 50% left position. This is the first mixer I ever owned, a Sony MX-12. I used it for PA and for recording. On batteries the noise floor was pleasantly low. Of course, at the time I bought it I knew nothing about any of this, literally. It was small and cheap, and in those days one had few choices. http://tinyurl.com/mkck7w9 -- Did the manual look something like this ? http://tinyurl.com/nrt7de9 ;-p Sean Sorta. ;-) ! -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Ping-pong stereo
On 31/10/2014 11:20 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote: On 10/30/2014 11:26 AM, polymod wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... 3) Until the later '60s, most pop music releases (as opposed to music that became popular) were mono, distributed on 45s and intended to be played on portable record players with abomimable audio quality or listened to on transistor radios with even worse audio quality. And we loved every minute of it. +1 It was about the music, not the audio reproduction. Not that the audio production was all that good for a lot of pop music. ;-) And let's face it, most of the music was pretty awful too. "Yummy, Yummy, Yummy, I've Got Love In My Tummy?" Get serious. --scott Actually I quite dug that. geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ping Scott Dorsey, The New Stereo Soundbook, Time | Pro Audio | |||
Ping Max | Vacuum Tubes | |||
ping Les | Car Audio | |||
Ping Ned | Vacuum Tubes | |||
>Ping Tim W. | Vacuum Tubes |