Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
top of the list: stereo
steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Gill Smith wrote:
top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ Just use X/Y and be happy -- Les Cargill |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"Les Cargill" wrote in message
... Gill Smith wrote: top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ Just use X/Y and be happy at least I understood what stereo is unlike 'surround sound' -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"Gill Smith" wrote in
message o.uk top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite Twice? If I have to pull only 2 mic cables for a gig, I think I'm on vacation! monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over Try 30-40 times. inconvenience squared Obviously, you can't understand people like me who keep most of the channels on a 56 channel console busy, concurrently. It is all about the gig. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Gill Smith wrote:
top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared Actually, stereo is great and is well worth the effort. The unfortunate truth, though, is that stereo requires a lot more than just two speakers placed randomly in a random room. Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
: Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never : actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond : the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. Indeed. The first time I heard real stereo, it scared the crap out of me. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: : Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never : actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond : the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. Indeed. The first time I heard real stereo, it scared the crap out of me. I vividly remember the first time I heard it - on headphones at the 1957 Radio Show in Earls Court, London. I was absolutely astonished and had to take the 'cans' off again to check that an orchestra wasn't actually playing in the room. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
wrote: In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: : Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never : actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond : the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. Indeed. The first time I heard real stereo, it scared the crap out of me. I vividly remember the first time I heard it - on headphones at the 1957 Radio Show in Earls Court, London. I was absolutely astonished and had to take the 'cans' off again to check that an orchestra wasn't actually playing in the room. That's binaural again... but that's another thread... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Adrian Tuddenham wrote: wrote: In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: : Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never : actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond : the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. Indeed. The first time I heard real stereo, it scared the crap out of me. I vividly remember the first time I heard it - on headphones at the 1957 Radio Show in Earls Court, London. I was absolutely astonished and had to take the 'cans' off again to check that an orchestra wasn't actually playing in the room. That's binaural again... but that's another thread... --scott I remember the first time I didn't hear it my mom bought me Snoopys christmas record from "the royal Guardsmen"(I think) anound 1966 was so excited when we tore off the plastic wrap and put it on her record player but only music came out no vocals, if I knew how to say it at 8 years old I would have said WTF it seem these new fangled "stereo" recordings were not playable on her GE console record player my parents bought in the late 50's George |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: wrote: In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote: : Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never : actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond : the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. Indeed. The first time I heard real stereo, it scared the crap out of me. I vividly remember the first time I heard it - on headphones at the 1957 Radio Show in Earls Court, London. I was absolutely astonished and had to take the 'cans' off again to check that an orchestra wasn't actually playing in the room. That's binaural again... but that's another thread... The cans were connected to a stereogram so they called it 'stereo'. I think it was a record of Mantovani's orchestra, in which case it would have been made by Decca and would have been recorded with at least three mics into two channels. So that would have been neither true stereo nor true binaural. (It could even have been mono with artificial stereo reverb, I was too young to know.) The main sales point was that it sounded a lot better than mono and nobody cared about whether it was accurate on loudspeakers or headphones. Not a lot different from the mainstream audio of today - except that the sounds were more musical to my ears. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
I remember the first time I didn't hear it
my mom bought me Snoopys christmas record from "the royal Guardsmen"(I think) anound 1966 was so excited when we tore off the plastic wrap and put it on her record player but only music came out no vocals, if I knew how to say it at 8 years old I would have said WTF it seem these new fangled "stereo" recordings were not playable on her GE console record player my parents bought in the late 50's If that's true, then the vocals must have been recorded out of phase. The lateral motion of a stereo groove is the sum of the channels. A stereo record should therefore play in mono, with both channels audible, on a mono record player. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... I remember the first time I didn't hear it my mom bought me Snoopys christmas record from "the royal Guardsmen"(I think) anound 1966 was so excited when we tore off the plastic wrap and put it on her record player but only music came out no vocals, if I knew how to say it at 8 years old I would have said WTF it seem these new fangled "stereo" recordings were not playable on her GE console record player my parents bought in the late 50's If that's true, then the vocals must have been recorded out of phase. The lateral motion of a stereo groove is the sum of the channels. A stereo record should therefore play in mono, with both channels audible, on a mono record player. sorry I was one very disappointed 8 year old until they exchanged it for a mono version regardless of the reason it was the first "stereo" lp that entered my existence and it was a epic fail |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On 1/12/2010 19:13, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gill wrote: top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared Actually, stereo is great and is well worth the effort. The unfortunate truth, though, is that stereo requires a lot more than just two speakers placed randomly in a random room. Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never actually heard real stereo with an image that extends beyond the speakers and don't know how good a thing it can be. --scott Sad, but true. I think many people re-discovered a puny version of stero when theysrated listening to music on their computers. Michael http://www.a-lyric.com/ |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On Dec 1, 1:13*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Consequently there are a lot of folks out there who have never actually heard real stereo Some humor to be found here. Sure they've heard real stereo...and surround sound. Those with normal hearing experience it whenever they're conscious. But being a wise-guy aside, I realize you mean in a playback system. The capability of audio playback seems to be far ahead of video - with fortunes spent on marketing the various hi-def TV formats, the most expen$ive and exotic of them still look like they've got Vaseline on the lens compared to simply looking around. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
The capability of audio playback seems to be far ahead of video
-- with fortunes spent on marketing the various hi-def TV formats, the most expen$ive and exotic of them still look like they've got Vaseline on the lens compared to simply looking around. That's an odd remark, because even my 32" Vizio looks sharper and more-detailed than "life". HD video comes a lot closer to looking like "the real thing" than most audio does to sounding like it. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On Dec 7, 11:12*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: The capability of audio playback seems to be far ahead of video -- with fortunes spent on marketing the various hi-def TV formats, the most expen$ive and exotic of them still look like they've got Vaseline on the lens compared to simply looking around. That's an odd remark, because even my 32" Vizio looks sharper and more-detailed than "life". You're falling into exactly the trap the evil marketing minions want you to fall into. Exaggerated hues and contrast levels while impactful don't equal a true representation of reality. Reality also doesn't have motion artifacts and pixelation that I have yet to see absent on any HD format. Never saw that on the "inferior" analog formats of course. More detailed than life? Look at the skin on your arm with a jewelers loupe and put that same loupe up to a paused frame of someone's arm on an HD tv and see if there's even a remote comparison. HD video comes a lot closer to looking like "the real thing" than most audio does to sounding like it. Umm, nope. Besides what I've already mentioned, other than gimmicky, unconvincing attempts at it, for the most part you're viewing 3-D objects in 2-D. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
things i'd uninvent:
The coil cord is at the top of my list. Rick Ruskin Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA http://liondogmusic.com http://www.myspace.com/rickruskin |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
The coil cord is at the top of my list.
That's because you priouette when you talk on the phone. grim |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On 2010-12-07 said: Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting The coil cord is at the top of my list. That's because you pirouette when you talk on the phone. grim Maybe, but my phone cord from handset to unit gets all twisted up, and coiled cords are just a pita. I"m with Rick here grin. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On 01/12/2010 09:26, Gill Smith wrote:
"Les wrote in message ... Gill Smith wrote: top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ Just use X/Y and be happy at least I understood what stereo is unlike 'surround sound' wait until 3D TV becomes popular (or not) -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On 01/12/2010 01:20, Gill Smith wrote:
top of the list: stereo steroe the same thing twice over, but not quite monumental pain-in-the-ass wiring twice over inconvenience squared -- http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/ Amplification. Crap; louder. If you want to listen, sthfu. Next; recording. You can't anyway. so why ffs bother. imho. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
On Dec 7, 3:57*pm, Rick Ruskin wrote:
*things i'd uninvent: The coil cord is at the top of my list. I use a coil cord for my accordion's internal mics, and I love it. Used to be I'd switch from piano to accordion, stand up from the bench, and find that I had been standing on the cord. Pop. Ouch. Rodney Sauer Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra www.mont-alto.com |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
I remember the first time I didn't hear it my mom bought me Snoopys christmas record from "the royal Guardsmen"(I think) anound 1966 was so excited when we tore off the plastic wrap and put it on her record player but only music came out no vocals, if I knew how to say it at 8 years old I would have said WTF it seem these new fangled "stereo" recordings were not playable on her GE console record player my parents bought in the late 50's Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero mono compatibility. We used to cut 45s with the mono version on one side and the stereo version on the other side... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Scott Dorsey wrote:
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote: I remember the first time I didn't hear it my mom bought me Snoopys christmas record from "the royal Guardsmen"(I think) anound 1966 was so excited when we tore off the plastic wrap and put it on her record player but only music came out no vocals, if I knew how to say it at 8 years old I would have said WTF it seem these new fangled "stereo" recordings were not playable on her GE console record player my parents bought in the late 50's Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero mono compatibility. We used to cut 45s with the mono version on one side and the stereo version on the other side... --scott Yes. This is exactly what I mean when I say, "True stereo". When they artificially seperate the channels so you don't hear any part of the right channel with your left ear and visa-versa, that is NOT "true stereo". It may be called (to me) "artificial stereo" (one of a thousand types) but not "true stereo". |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero
mono compatibility. ALL -- ALL, ALL, ALL -- 45/45 stereo recordings are inherently mono compatible. I didn't say they'd give the same sound as a recording specifically mixed for mono, but they will play on a mono phonograph without losing anything -- other than components which are strictly vertical. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero mono compatibility. ALL -- ALL, ALL, ALL -- 45/45 stereo recordings are inherently mono compatible. Not when you throw something out of phase between the two channels. That could be the result of deliberately inverting the vocal on one channel or it could be the result of widely-spaced miking. With the 45/45 system, the stuff in the center of the stereo image that is R+L appears on the output of the mono player. But there will be comb filtering on anything delayed between the two channels, and if there is deliberate polarity reversal, stuff will disappear. I didn't say they'd give the same sound as a recording specifically mixed for mono, but they will play on a mono phonograph without losing anything -- other than components which are strictly vertical. Right. And when those components contain something like the lead vocal or the lead guitar, I would hesitate to call that good compatibility. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero mono compatibility. ALL -- ALL, ALL, ALL -- 45/45 stereo recordings are inherently mono compatible. I didn't say they'd give the same sound as a recording specifically mixed for mono, but they will play on a mono phonograph without losing anything -- other than components which are strictly vertical. The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
I didn't say they'd give the same sound as a recording specifically
mixed for mono, but they will play on a mono phonograph without losing anything -- other than components which are strictly vertical. The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Is that true? I remember stereo records as being labelled as suitable /only/ for stereo players, or mono players with a retrofitted stereo pickup. (The term "retrofitted" was not used 52 years ago.). There was a short-lived "compatible" stereo record which had blended bass to reduce vertical movement. This did not, of course, keep the stylus from plowing through the higher-frequency vertical groove modulation. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote: Yeah, a lot of that early stuff had absolutely zero mono compatibility. ALL -- ALL, ALL, ALL -- 45/45 stereo recordings are inherently mono compatible. I didn't say they'd give the same sound as a recording specifically mixed for mono, but they will play on a mono phonograph without losing anything -- other than components which are strictly vertical. The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Nahh, we just restrict the low frequencies in the L-R channel severely and it'll play fine on the Close N' Play. The rest is fine. Mind you, if you play those stereo records on cheap mono players much, the lack of vertical compliance will wreck the stereo information on the grooves and they won't ever play properly on a stereo machine again. But the shop standard for 45s when I was starting out was the Close 'N Play. If it doesn't skip on that, it won't skip in the jukebox. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical
compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Such as Command LPs? It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. It's interesting that people were just as unable to understand the facts then, as now. Sidney Frey, who ran Audio Fidelity, griped "The customer pays good bucks for that bass, and it's a crime to remove it." But, of course, the bass wasn't being removed -- only its L-R separation. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Such as Command LPs? It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. It's interesting that people were just as unable to understand the facts then, as now. Sidney Frey, who ran Audio Fidelity, griped "The customer pays good bucks for that bass, and it's a crime to remove it." But, of course, the bass wasn't being removed -- only its L-R separation. The L+R bass was often being removed as well. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Such as Command LPs? The command pop records were very, very silly and they were very aggressively spot miked with bizarre panning. There was no intention of having any mono compatibility on the stereo releases that George Piros and his assistants cut, at all. If you had a mono turntable, you were supposed to buy the mono version. Most of the mono ones said they were cut by John Johnston on the disc but a lot of them weren't especially in the latter ABC days. It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. No, reduced bass separation is EXACTLY that... and even the early Neumann mastering consoles could be ordered with an elliptical filter module to cut the low end on the L-R channel. Sometimes with spaced omni recordings or early Command-style ping-pong stereo, your choice is either to narrow the stereo image or turn the overall levels down just in order to cut the thing at all. You'll note that a lot of those Command albums weren't cut very hot. It's interesting that people were just as unable to understand the facts then, as now. Sidney Frey, who ran Audio Fidelity, griped "The customer pays good bucks for that bass, and it's a crime to remove it." But, of course, the bass wasn't being removed -- only its L-R separation. It's all a compromise. If you bring overall levels down, you lose S/N. If you do anything to the L-R channels, you're altering imaging. You pays your money and you takes your chance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message The cartridges on many cheap mono players had very little vertical compliance. To prevent heavy record wear and groove-jumping, the channel difference on many early stereo records was deliberately restricted. Such as Command LPs? It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. Example: some Beatles records where half the instruments and voices were panned full left and the other half were panned full right. For some strange reason many people prefer the mono versions! ;-) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
It's interesting that people were just as unable to understand
the facts then, as now. Sidney Frey, who ran Audio Fidelity, griped "The customer pays good bucks for that bass, and it's a crime to remove it." But, of course, the bass wasn't being removed -- only its L-R separation. It's all a compromise. If you bring overall levels down, you lose S/N. If you do anything to the L-R channels, you're altering imaging. Not according to conventional wisdom -- bass is audibly non-directional. Indeed, with two speakers reproducing bass that might have only been reproduced by one, you have more bass energy in the room. * As for the removal of L+R bass... Hasn't the recording industry (at least in the US) always been guilty of that, long before stereo? * Bud Fried was adamant about full bass response on both channels. Shame he isn't here to gripe about it. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
William Sommerwerck wrote:
It's interesting that people were just as unable to understand the facts then, as now. Sidney Frey, who ran Audio Fidelity, griped "The customer pays good bucks for that bass, and it's a crime to remove it." But, of course, the bass wasn't being removed -- only its L-R separation. It's all a compromise. If you bring overall levels down, you lose S/N. If you do anything to the L-R channels, you're altering imaging. Not according to conventional wisdom -- bass is audibly non-directional. Once you get below around 25 Hz, this is certainly the case. Problem is that when you set that elliptical around 100 Hz, you're affecting stuff audibly an octave higher. There is imaging at 200 Hz for sure, even at 100 Hz. Indeed, with two speakers reproducing bass that might have only been reproduced by one, you have more bass energy in the room. * Yes, THIS is actually more important. Killing the low end on the L-R channel means you actually get more bass and it means you have more bass headroom, which seems counterintuitive but there you are. As for the removal of L+R bass... Hasn't the recording industry (at least in the US) always been guilty of that, long before stereo? If you cut the L+R bass, your horizontal excursion is reduced and that means you can either bring up the overall levels or increase the groove pitch to get more time on the record. Low end takes up a lot of real estate on the disc. * Bud Fried was adamant about full bass response on both channels. Shame he isn't here to gripe about it. I think he's right, and I think the one huge advance that was made in the digital world was that we can finally get clean low-distortion full-range bass in all channels. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/
early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. Example: some Beatles records where half the instruments and voices were panned full left and the other half were panned full right. For some strange reason many people prefer the mono versions! ;-) Well, that's a different kind of "compromise" -- the Beatles were not attuned to the idea of stereo spread and depth. Mono can sound terrific, with an excellent sense of space and depth -- if it's done correctly. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
Indeed, with two speakers reproducing bass that might have only
been reproduced by one, you have more bass energy in the room. * Yes, THIS is actually more important. Killing the low end on the L-R channel means you actually get more bass and it means you have more bass headroom, which seems counterintuitive, but there you are. It's counterintuitive only if you're ignorant of basic audio engineering. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
William Sommerwerck wrote:
It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. Example: some Beatles records where half the instruments and voices were panned full left and the other half were panned full right. For some strange reason many people prefer the mono versions! ;-) Well, that's a different kind of "compromise" -- the Beatles were not attuned to the idea of stereo spread and depth. The Beatles were also really ****ed off at the label for releasing those too, as I recall. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
things i'd uninvent
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
It's highly unlikely the channel separation on /any/ early stereo LP was deliberately compromised. Some were made with reduced bass separation, but that's something else. Example: some Beatles records where half the instruments and voices were panned full left and the other half were panned full right. For some strange reason many people prefer the mono versions! ;-) Well, that's a different kind of "compromise" -- the Beatles were not attuned to the idea of stereo spread and depth. According to the books written by their producer and engineer, they had no reason to be attuned to the idea of stereo spread and depth. During the years they were recording and releasing music as The Beatles, the demand in England was for monaural discs (both LP and singles). Stereo record players were rare in homes (especially among teenagers), and the radio stations broadcasting pop music were mono. So they put their main focus into creating the mono versions. The low-selling stereo versions were done as an afterthought, often performed by a different EMI engineer. -Greg -- ::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ::::: ::::::::::::: Doomp Doomp Doomp . Da-Doomp Doomp Doomp Da-Doomp |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
######THEY DO DIFFERENT THINGS TO GET IT############# | Pro Audio | |||
######THEY DO DIFFERENT THINGS TO GET IT############# | Pro Audio | |||
The ART of doing things | Pro Audio | |||
Do you like silly things? | Audio Opinions | |||
- Need Help Connecting Things | General |