[[email protected]]

" I may be old but your music really does suck"

http://www.cmt.com/news/nashville-sk...oes-suck.jhtml

and more can be found via Google

:-)


Mark

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/30/2014 4:22 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

I had one of those, as well as some similar Altec gear. LONG gone, with
no regrets.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 10/30/2014 4:22 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

I had one of those, as well as some similar Altec gear. LONG gone, with
no regrets.

The MX-10 wasn't all that bad. If you replaced the input transformers with
cleaner, shielded ones, it was pretty quiet too.

They DID try and get as much gain as possible out of those front ends, at
some expense of noise and linearity, but the EF86 was actually a very good
pick although I am no fan of cathode bypass caps and they do not age well.

Oh, I think I rerouted the grounding on ours too. I seem to remember they
used chassis return in a couple points.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil[_9_]]

On 10/31/2014 10:55 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 10/30/2014 4:22 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
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.

I had one of those, as well as some similar Altec gear. LONG gone, with
no regrets.

The MX-10 wasn't all that bad. If you replaced the input transformers with
cleaner, shielded ones, it was pretty quiet too.

They DID try and get as much gain as possible out of those front ends, at
some expense of noise and linearity, but the EF86 was actually a very good
pick although I am no fan of cathode bypass caps and they do not age well.

Oh, I think I rerouted the grounding on ours too. I seem to remember they
used chassis return in a couple points.

So, you built a decent mixer using some of the parts from the Ampex...
Must have saved a little time, anyway. ;-)

--
best regards,

Neil

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/31/2014 12:32 PM, Neil wrote:

So, you built a decent mixer using some of the parts from the Ampex...
Must have saved a little time, anyway.

I don't get it myself, but some people have done a really extensive
rebuild of the Ampex MX-10, using all new capacitors and new metal film
resistors, added phantom power, and (although this is against Scott's
religion) rewired the outputs so that pin 2 is hot. Though many of them
leave the original "peanut" transformers because they are part of the
vintage sound.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/31/2014 12:32 PM, Neil wrote:

So, you built a decent mixer using some of the parts from the Ampex...
Must have saved a little time, anyway.

I don't get it myself, but some people have done a really extensive
rebuild of the Ampex MX-10, using all new capacitors and new metal film
resistors, added phantom power, and (although this is against Scott's
religion) rewired the outputs so that pin 2 is hot. Though many of them
leave the original "peanut" transformers because they are part of the
vintage sound.

Well, I did it because it was the seventies and my employers didn't have
very much money.

Those transformers are a big part of the sound of those things, in fact
I'd say they are pretty much all of the sound of those things which is why
I wanted them gone.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chuck[_10_]]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:55:27 -0400, Neil
wrote:

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.
Nugent's group was The Amboy Dukes.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Neil Gould]

Chuck wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:55:27 -0400, Neil
wrote:

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.

Nugent's group was The Amboy Dukes.

Right! Thanks.

--
best regards,

Neil

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...


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).

One of my first stereo tapes was Emory Cook's Speed the Parting Guest. Lots
of noises, great stereo demo, some musical value. Wish I could find it on
CD. Probably still have the tape somewhere, but to find it - and then to
transfer it to digital - a bit of a task.

Gary Eickmeier

[Gary Eickmeier]

wrote in message
...
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!"

Hi all -

Just got home from rehab for my back surgery. Catching up on my email and
listening to some test recordings from friends.

In Audition 2 there is a function called Stereo Expander that can expand the
stereo pattern up to 300 degrees. I am assuming that this refers to the
normal field as being 120° (60° either side of center) and so 300° would be
150° each side of center. It has the effect of making the lissajous pattern
more round and more to the rear of center. I tried playing an expanded track
with Dolby Pro Logic and it does indeed expand the stereo effect to a semi
surround effect. Widens the field without disturbing the center image.

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting the pattern to
look more rounded for a certain degree of spaciousness. Does anyone out
there check the lissajous pattern (Window: Phase analysis) in mastering?

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting the pattern
to look more rounded for a certain degree of spaciousness. Does anyone out
there check the lissajous pattern (Window: Phase analysis) in mastering?

You're beginning to ask good questions. A display of it - a goniometer - has
traditionally been included in recording mixers intended for stereo
recording since time immemorial.

The Channel Mixer function can be used for stereo2ms and ms2 stereo
conversion. Adobe probably didn't know what those presets meant and do not
know what stereo is - nor does a lot of sound board operators - so they last
were there ex shrinkwrap in 1.5.

Those need to be reestablished in any newer version, they a

Mid-Side to LR:

new left channel:
left 100
right 100

new right channel:
left 100
right -100

LR to Mid-Side:

new left channel:
left 50
right 50

new right channel:
left 50
right -50

NOTE: left and right means upper and lower track on the screen in the edit
view just as it would on a stereo tape recorder. It would have been better
software design to label them 1 and 2 as they are on a tape recorder.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting the pattern
to look more rounded for a certain degree of spaciousness. Does anyone
out there check the lissajous pattern (Window: Phase analysis) in
mastering?

You're beginning to ask good questions. A display of it - a goniometer -
has traditionally been included in recording mixers intended for stereo
recording since time immemorial.

The Channel Mixer function can be used for stereo2ms and ms2 stereo
conversion. Adobe probably didn't know what those presets meant and do not
know what stereo is - nor does a lot of sound board operators - so they
last were there ex shrinkwrap in 1.5.

Those need to be reestablished in any newer version, they a

Mid-Side to LR:

new left channel:
left 100
right 100

new right channel:
left 100
right -100

LR to Mid-Side:

new left channel:
left 50
right 50

new right channel:
left 50
right -50

NOTE: left and right means upper and lower track on the screen in the edit
view just as it would on a stereo tape recorder. It would have been better
software design to label them 1 and 2 as they are on a tape recorder.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Yes - I can see that now. So would the next good question be what would the
Lissajous pattern of an M and an S signal from an MS recording look like? I
am imagining the M would be greatly forward and the S would be greatly
rearward, the shapes almost like supercardioid. Then it comes time to
combine them into stereo, with certain amounts of gain applied in the mix.
So I am imagining that you could try for making the two M and S signals
equal in magnitude as seen on the phase pattern, and then you would get a
"round" Lissajous pattern. Would that be ideal, or would it depend on your
judgement w respect to the nature of the original performance?

This would go a long way toward answering one of my original questions, how
should we mix MS to stereo - check the gains to be equal on each, or just
combine them as they came in the recording.

Peter, also was it your original proposal that the overall frequency
response of a good recording should follow a frequency analysis rule of a
mountain shaped curve peaking at 100 Hz and sloping downward from there on
both sides? Could you print that again for me for sharing with a friend? My
friend is really good on MS recording, and may be interested in all of this.

Thanks,

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Yes - I can see that now. So would the next good question be
what would the Lissajous pattern of an M and an S signal from
an MS recording look like?

MS or stereo, just different ways of storing the same data, both play back
as stereo, unless of course you have a sum and difference loudspeaker. Such
have the interesting property that the closer you get the wider the image
gets ... I have heard an old one in Danish (State) Radio, from their
researching age, some time in the 1950's or 1960's.

I am imagining the M would be greatly forward and the S would be greatly
rearward, the shapes almost like supercardioid.

That is irrelevant, but try converting stereo to ms and take a look see
yourself.

Then it comes time to combine them into stereo, with certain amounts
of gain applied in the mix. So I am imagining that you could try for
making the two M and S signals equal in magnitude as seen on the
phase pattern, and then you would get a "round" Lissajous pattern.

It is not the pattern, it is the sound that matters, just as it is not the
frequency graph, it is the sound. Exceptions from general guidelines are the
norm, they are not firm rules, they are "how it usually is". And it usually
is so that "good stereo" EQUALS DIFF no smaller than 6 dB below SUM and no
larger than SUM, if DIFF is larger than SUM then in stereo you will perceive
a hole in the middle.

Would that be ideal, or would it depend on your judgement w respect to the
nature of the original performance?

I think I'll refer you to the "Stereophonic Zoom" AES paper again.

This would go a long way toward answering one of my original questions,
how should we mix MS to stereo - check the gains to be equal on each, or
just combine them as they came in the recording.

"Combine them as they came in the recording" is a meaningless term because
it makes no allowance for sensitivity differences, MS is recorded with
non-identical capsules. So the answer is: adjust while listening, but do be
aware that the target zone is likely, notice the wording LIKELY, to be that
the sum signal should be 0 to 6 dB stronger than the DIFF signal.

Peter, also was it your original proposal that the overall frequency
response of a good recording should follow a frequency analysis rule of a
mountain shaped curve peaking at 100 Hz and sloping downward from there on
both sides?

That is a somewhat unprecise wording. To really elaborate in a useful and
helpful way would take more time than I want to dedicate to this currently,
I have a long edit queue and a day job to tend to.

Could you print that again for me for sharing with a friend? My friend is
really good on MS recording, and may be interested in all of this.

If he makes good MS recordings, why ask, he already knows, the ultimate
answer is: listen, there are always atypical sources and circumstances.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting
the pattern to look more rounded for a certain degree of
spaciousness.

You are stating the obvious.

A mono signal produces a straight line. The greater the difference between the
channels, the broader the pattern. Right?

QED

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Sean Conolly" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

A display of it - a goniometer - has traditionally been included in
recording mixers intended for stereo recording since time immemorial.

Can you list a specific model with one? I've never seen one.

This is because there are not so very many mixers designed with stereo in
mind. However danish NP comes to mind as one of the manufacturers that
offered it. And if you look at old studio photographs you will see a scope
on or near the console if it didn't offer it.

Most daw software also has such a display mode.

Thanks,
Sean

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting
the pattern to look more rounded for a certain degree of
spaciousness.

You are stating the obvious.

A mono signal produces a straight line. The greater the difference between
the channels, the broader the pattern. Right?

QED

Yes, right William. What I was referring to was more the frontal bias vs
rearward of that circle. My friend sent a recording whose phase pattern was
more in the forward direction than equally round from center. I put it
through the Stereo Expander function to see if I injected a little more of
the difference signal I would get some action in the surround channels and
more spaciousness of the soundstage. It worked. So, as is my nature, I
started wondering if there might be some rule of mastering based on the
Lissajous pattern that would make a recording more interesting and
involving, in an envelopment sort of way. That led to some questions about
MS technique and mixing M and S to get stereo.

Next up - Alvin Foster of the BAS sent me a recording that they used in
their last meeting of a choral piece. The question was what differences do
you notice between a recording of the same piece made with a multi-mike
technique compared to one made at the same time with the Soundfield single
point mike. The brief listen I have done so far indicates more immediacy and
presence with the multi-mike one, and a little more spaciousness and
distance with the Soundfield. Now I want to listen to the Soundfield
recording with various surround sound modes to attempt a poor man's
Ambisonic decoder. My receiver has the ability to stretch the stereo field
all the way around to the rear L and R speakers if I want to. I don't
usually, of course, but with certain recordings such as Ambiophonics or
Ambisonics, who knows? Until you try it.....

If I could just take legacy live recordings and find a way to get the
audience noises and applause to the rear channels where it belongs, I could
die happy.

Gary

[Gary Eickmeier]

Some miscommunication here, so let me explain -

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Yes - I can see that now. So would the next good question be
what would the Lissajous pattern of an M and an S signal from
an MS recording look like?

MS or stereo, just different ways of storing the same data, both play back
as stereo, unless of course you have a sum and difference loudspeaker.
Such have the interesting property that the closer you get the wider the
image gets ... I have heard an old one in Danish (State) Radio, from their
researching age, some time in the 1950's or 1960's.

Yes of course MS is just another way of recording stereo, but not until it
is processed into stereo. I was just asking about the raw M and S signals,
not the mixed L and R result. The M would obviously be straight ahead and
the S, being a pure difference signal, straight rearward. I know, I know,
try it for myself. Will do when I get the time.

I am imagining the M would be greatly forward and the S would be greatly
rearward, the shapes almost like supercardioid.

That is irrelevant, but try converting stereo to ms and take a look see
yourself.

Oops - yes, will do.

Then it comes time to combine them into stereo, with certain amounts
of gain applied in the mix. So I am imagining that you could try for
making the two M and S signals equal in magnitude as seen on the
phase pattern, and then you would get a "round" Lissajous pattern.

It is not the pattern, it is the sound that matters, just as it is not the
frequency graph, it is the sound. Exceptions from general guidelines are
the norm, they are not firm rules, they are "how it usually is". And it
usually is so that "good stereo" EQUALS DIFF no smaller than 6 dB below
SUM and no larger than SUM, if DIFF is larger than SUM then in stereo you
will perceive a hole in the middle.

OK! Another great rule to pay attention to.


Would that be ideal, or would it depend on your judgement w respect to
the nature of the original performance?

I think I'll refer you to the "Stereophonic Zoom" AES paper again.

Yes I have that paper, will take another look.

This would go a long way toward answering one of my original questions,
how should we mix MS to stereo - check the gains to be equal on each, or
just combine them as they came in the recording.

"Combine them as they came in the recording" is a meaningless term because
it makes no allowance for sensitivity differences, MS is recorded with
non-identical capsules. So the answer is: adjust while listening, but do
be aware that the target zone is likely, notice the wording LIKELY, to be
that the sum signal should be 0 to 6 dB stronger than the DIFF signal.

Permit me to elaborate. When you are recording MS, your first choice is the
gain setting of the M and S signals. You can either: Set both gains to the
same number on the scale, or set the two gains to be equal on the meters, no
matter how they look on the slider or knob scales. I use the same model of
microphones for both M and S, so setting the knobs the same seems
reasonable. But there would naturally be more M signal than S, so that must
be where you are getting the 6 dB difference as another "rule." I will add
that to my list!

Peter, also was it your original proposal that the overall frequency
response of a good recording should follow a frequency analysis rule of a
mountain shaped curve peaking at 100 Hz and sloping downward from there
on both sides?

That is a somewhat unprecise wording. To really elaborate in a useful and
helpful way would take more time than I want to dedicate to this
currently, I have a long edit queue and a day job to tend to.

Could you print that again for me for sharing with a friend? My friend is
really good on MS recording, and may be interested in all of this.

If he makes good MS recordings, why ask, he already knows, the ultimate
answer is: listen, there are always atypical sources and circumstances.


Again, miscommunication here - I am talking about frequency response now,
not M and S ratios. I thought you were the author of that principle. I guess
not.

Gary Eickmeier

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...

So I am wondering if there is a goal in mastering of getting
the pattern to look more rounded for a certain degree of
spaciousness.

You are stating the obvious.

A mono signal produces a straight line. The greater the difference between the
channels, the broader the pattern. Right?

It's more complicated than that. Amplitude changes will change the angle
of the line, phase differences will open the line up into a circle. When
you have a lot of signal sources together it's impossible to judge the
relative contributions. But if you have one source at a time it can be
quite useful. And, if you know some other things about the recording
(like the mike configuration) it can help you make some useful guesses.

The phase meter does not have a 1:1 correlation with any particular
attribute of imaging, but it's a useful quantitative tool for checking
in situations where you can't trust your imaging. And of course it's very
handy for LP cutting...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen wrote:
"Sean Conolly" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

A display of it - a goniometer - has traditionally been included in
recording mixers intended for stereo recording since time immemorial.

Can you list a specific model with one? I've never seen one.

This is because there are not so very many mixers designed with stereo in
mind. However danish NP comes to mind as one of the manufacturers that
offered it. And if you look at old studio photographs you will see a scope
on or near the console if it didn't offer it.

Neumann and API both made modules for their consoles that you could get
if you wanted one.

Today you can buy a module from RTW that will fit into your console.

The Tektronix audio scopes are available very cheap on the surplus market
too... every broadcaster used to have one, then they went to 5.1...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
In Audition 2 there is a function called Stereo Expander that can
expand the stereo pattern up to 300 degrees. I am assuming that this
refers to the normal field as being 120° (60° either side of center)
and so 300° would be 150° each side of center.

You wouldn't have to dream up such wacky assumptions if you would just
read the manual. Or even if you looked closely at the screen. The
manual is pretty lean on this subject, but it does clarify at least
two of your unencumbered-by-the-thought-process assumptions.

But understanding what's going on never seems to be of much interest
to you,

[Sean Conolly]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

A display of it - a goniometer - has traditionally been included in
recording mixers intended for stereo recording since time immemorial.

Can you list a specific model with one? I've never seen one.

Thanks,
Sean

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Permit me to elaborate. When you are recording MS, your first choice is
the gain setting of the M and S signals. You can either: Set both gains to
the same number on the scale, or set the two gains to be equal on the
meters, no matter how they look on the slider or knob scales. I use the
same model of microphones for both M and S, so setting the knobs the same
seems reasonable.

What matters when you record is to use the dynamic range of the recording
contraption, so yes, you aim for equality on the meters. You do btw.
strictly speaking not use the same microphone in case you use the same model
with different settings.

But there would naturally be more M signal than S

Mic positioning matters, it is probably wrong if you have too much S.

so that must be where you are getting the 6 dB difference as
another "rule."

No, analyzing recording that has good imaging and analyzing those that
hasn't.

Could you print that again for me for sharing with a friend? My friend
is really good on MS recording, and may be interested in all of this.

If he makes good MS recordings, why ask, he already knows, the ultimate
answer is: listen, there are always atypical sources and circumstances.

Again, miscommunication here - I am talking about frequency response now,

I am well aware of that.

not M and S ratios. I thought you were the author of that principle.
I guess not.

Oh, I am the author of those posts, indeed. This just is not the time for me
to use time to elaborate on them here for several reasons.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Actually a mono signal produces a straight line at 45 deg
If the L And R are uncorrelated, you will get a circular shape.
If the L And R are anti correlated or mono but out of phase, you will get a straight line at -45 deg. Thats what you don't want to see.

I believe that was the purpose for having such a display...to verify that the "mono" components of your mix are in phase and not out of phase.

Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/6/2014 10:47 PM, wrote:
Actually a mono signal produces a straight line at 45 deg If the L
And R are uncorrelated, you will get a circular shape. If the L And R
are anti correlated or mono but out of phase, you will get a straight
line at -45 deg. Thats what you don't want to see.

There appears to be two different versions of the Lissajous pattern, one
for the people who know what it is, the other for others. The diagonal
line for mono is the real Lissajous pattern. The other version rotates
the display by 45 degrees so that mono is represented by either a
vertical or horizontal line. I don't remember which is left/right is in
polarity or out of polarity.

Uncorrelated left/right still looks like scrambled eggs.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Sean Conolly]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
This is because there are not so very many mixers designed with stereo in
mind.

I beg your pardon?

I would dare to say that about 95% of the mixers on the market were designed
for stereo, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I couldn't
even begin to count the number of mixers I've used over the last 40 years,
all without this feature.

I'm thinking these mixers you're referring to are for a more specialized
application, like broadcast or location recording?

Sean

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On 11/6/2014 10:47 PM, wrote:
Actually a mono signal produces a straight line at 45 deg If the L
And R are uncorrelated, you will get a circular shape. If the L And R
are anti correlated or mono but out of phase, you will get a straight
line at -45 deg. Thats what you don't want to see.

There appears to be two different versions of the Lissajous pattern, one
for the people who know what it is, the other for others. The diagonal
line for mono is the real Lissajous pattern. The other version rotates the
display by 45 degrees so that mono is represented by either a vertical or
horizontal line. I don't remember which is left/right is in polarity or
out of polarity.

Uncorrelated left/right still looks like scrambled eggs.

In Audition 2, it is a window called PhaseAnalysis. It is displayed in
several ways, but basically shows directionality and center of gravity of
the signal. It is marked Left, Right, Mono, and Invert. A mono signal shows
a hypercardioid pattern straight ahead, or to the top of the diagram. Left
and Right show that way, and an S signal would show straight back to the
rear, or bottom of the graph. I assume that a "good" recording would have a
nice round Phase Analysis when all of the instruments are playing and there
is some spaciousness to the recording.

Gary Eickmeier

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Sean Conolly" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...

This is because there are not so very many mixers designed with stereo in
mind.

I beg your pardon?

I am quite serious.

I would dare to say that about 95% of the mixers on the market were
designed for stereo, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
I couldn't even begin to count the number of mixers I've used over the
last 40 years, all without this feature.

Those were designed for multimono.

I'm thinking these mixers you're referring to are for a more specialized
application, like broadcast or location recording?

Well, yes, stereo recording is a specialized task and not many do it.

Sean

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
I'm thinking these mixers you're referring to are for a more
specialized application, like broadcast or location recording?

Well, yes, stereo recording is a specialized task and not many do it.

There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast majority
of broadcast output - if you remove music from the equation. Especially in
TV.

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Dave Plowman (News)" skrev i en meddelelse
...

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:

I'm thinking these mixers you're referring to are for a more
specialized application, like broadcast or location recording?

Well, yes, stereo recording is a specialized task and not many do it.

There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast majority
of broadcast output - if you remove music from the equation. Especially in
TV.

Quite correct. There is also a lot of music recording going on based on the
asumption that a pan pot can create stereo.

Dave Plowman London SW

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast
majority of broadcast output - if you remove music from the equation.
Especially in TV.

Quite correct. There is also a lot of music recording going on based on
the asumption that a pan pot can create stereo.

I think you may have missed the point.

TV and films have the problem that there are pictures. To get a decent
result both the sound stage and what you see should ideally match.

Recording the sound for pictures in true stereo simply ain't going to
match - unless you stick to a single camera shot.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Hi Dave,

"Dave Plowman (News)" skrev i en meddelelse
...

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast
majority of broadcast output - if you remove music from the equation.
Especially in TV.

Quite correct. There is also a lot of music recording going on based on
the asumption that a pan pot can create stereo.

I think you may have missed the point.

No, notice the word "also".

TV and films have the problem that there are pictures. To get a decent
result both the sound stage and what you see should ideally match.

I thought so too, until I started also shooting video of concerts by
request, good stable stereophonic sound is ok and the camera shot used can
wander peacefully all over the place, including off into the parking lot.
This is so because our event perception compensates for varying distance and
angle to the sound source.

Recording the sound for pictures in true stereo simply ain't going to
match - unless you stick to a single camera shot.

On this we may have to agree to disagree.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast
majority of broadcast output - if you remove music from the equation.
Especially in TV.

Quite correct. There is also a lot of music recording going on based on
the asumption that a pan pot can create stereo.

I think you may have missed the point.

TV and films have the problem that there are pictures. To get a decent
result both the sound stage and what you see should ideally match.

Recording the sound for pictures in true stereo simply ain't going to
match - unless you stick to a single camera shot.

A larger point is that multi-mike pan pot crafting of a recording is just as
valid a technique as "purist" stereo recording. The final result can be an
attempt at the realistic duplication of a sonic event or it can be a
creation on the editing bench, or a combination. If someone wants to call
the purist technique the only "real" stereo recording, I would point out
that you don't need a mixer for that, so there is no point in calling any
mixer "stereo" or not stereo. Any multichannel mixer with a stereo output on
the back is a stereo mixer.

Gary Eickmeier

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
Hi Dave,

"Dave Plowman (News)" skrev i en meddelelse
...

In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote:
There is absolutely no point in recording in stereo for the vast
majority of broadcast output - if you remove music from the
equation. Especially in TV.

Quite correct. There is also a lot of music recording going on based
on the asumption that a pan pot can create stereo.

I think you may have missed the point.

No, notice the word "also".

TV and films have the problem that there are pictures. To get a decent
result both the sound stage and what you see should ideally match.

I thought so too, until I started also shooting video of concerts by
request, good stable stereophonic sound is ok and the camera shot used
can wander peacefully all over the place, including off into the
parking lot. This is so because our event perception compensates for
varying distance and angle to the sound source.

Recording the sound for pictures in true stereo simply ain't going to
match - unless you stick to a single camera shot.

On this we may have to agree to disagree.

No - notice the 'if you remove music from the equation.'

A video of a concert is primarily a music recording with pictures thrown
in.

That is not the majority of TV or film sound. Merely a tiny part of it.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/6/2014 10:47 PM, wrote:
Actually a mono signal produces a straight line at 45 deg If the L
And R are uncorrelated, you will get a circular shape. If the L And R
are anti correlated or mono but out of phase, you will get a straight
line at -45 deg. Thats what you don't want to see.

There appears to be two different versions of the Lissajous pattern, one
for the people who know what it is, the other for others. The diagonal
line for mono is the real Lissajous pattern. The other version rotates
the display by 45 degrees so that mono is represented by either a
vertical or horizontal line. I don't remember which is left/right is in
polarity or out of polarity.

Some tubes are just twisted 45 degrees. The Neumann ones are twisted so
a mono signal is a vertical line and not diagonal. It's the same display,
just the tube is centered differently.

The one on my Studio-Z console is set up so mono is diagonal.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom McCreadie]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
snip
There appears to be two different versions of the Lissajous pattern, one
for the people who know what it is, the other for others. The diagonal
line for mono is the real Lissajous pattern. The other version rotates
the display by 45 degrees so that mono is represented by either a
vertical or horizontal line. I don't remember which is left/right is in
polarity or out of polarity.

Some tubes are just twisted 45 degrees. The Neumann ones are twisted so
a mono signal is a vertical line and not diagonal. It's the same display,
just the tube is centered differently.

The one on my Studio-Z console is set up so mono is diagonal.

My favourite simple software implementation is the Vector Audio Scope
in RME's Digicheck. From it's Help File:
=============
Display of Phase:

- 0° / mono: shows vertical line.

- Left only: shows line from the upper left to the lower right.

- Right only: shows line from the upper right to the lower left.

- 180° / out of phase: shows horizontal line.

Note: a sine shifted 90° between left and right will generate a circle on the
display
============
My (probably mistaken) impression is that Gary takes the Lissajous blob pattern
to be a sort of helicopter snapshot of the audiotorium - giving info on the
relative strengths of the signals that arrive at the mics from different
directions of the 360° circle..and thus dictating the need for playback speakers
to be delivering sound from the same direction.
--
Tom McCreadie

[John Williamson]

On 09/11/2014 14:06, Tom McCreadie wrote:

My (probably mistaken) impression is that Gary takes the Lissajous blob pattern
to be a sort of helicopter snapshot of the audiotorium - giving info on the
relative strengths of the signals that arrive at the mics from different
directions of the 360° circle..and thus dictating the need for playback speakers
to be delivering sound from the same direction.

The channel phase display in Audition 3 can be set to do that. Or a
number of other things, depending on what works best for you and the track.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Tom McCreadie]

John Williamson wrote:

On 09/11/2014 14:06, Tom McCreadie wrote:

My (probably mistaken) impression is that Gary takes the Lissajous blob pattern
to be a sort of helicopter snapshot of the audiotorium - giving info on the
relative strengths of the signals that arrive at the mics from different
directions of the 360° circle..and thus dictating the need for playback speakers
to be delivering sound from the same direction.

The channel phase display in Audition 3 can be set to do that. Or a
number of other things, depending on what works best for you and the track.
The bottom "Inverse" hemisphere of the Audition 3 Phase Analysis display is
occupied by signals where the L and R channel mic signals are of opposite
algebraic sign (the lower left quadrant being for the signals where the
_absolute_ voltage value of the L is greater than that of the absolute R value.
The greater the L becomes w.r.t. the R, the closer the display-point shifts up
to the left horizontal axis.
But why should there be a simple mapping between all that and the specific
direction of sounds coming in from rear auditorium quadrants?
--
Tom McCreadie

"I have always avoided clichés like the plague."

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie wrote:

My (probably mistaken) impression is that Gary takes the Lissajous blob
pattern to be a sort of helicopter snapshot of the audiotorium - giving
info on the relative strengths of the signals that arrive at the mics from
different directions of the 360° circle..and thus dictating the need for
playback speakers to be delivering sound from the same direction.

Whew, cowboy, that's quite a ride. Insightful, though not something that
would have occurred to me, and interesting even if your impression is
incorrect, Tom. Thanks.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
A larger point is that multi-mike pan pot crafting of a recording is just as
valid a technique as "purist" stereo recording. The final result can be an
attempt at the realistic duplication of a sonic event or it can be a
creation on the editing bench, or a combination.

It is a valid artistic technique, but it isn't stereo. At best it is
"intensity stereo" or "panpotted stereo."

If someone wants to call
the purist technique the only "real" stereo recording, I would point out
that you don't need a mixer for that, so there is no point in calling any
mixer "stereo" or not stereo.

It's not that only the purist technique is stereo, it is that only techniques
which create an actual solid stereo image are stereo. There are ways to make
a real soundstage from discrete signals but panpotting does not do the job.

Any multichannel mixer with a stereo output on
the back is a stereo mixer.

What if it has a 2-buss output instead?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Tom McCreadie wrote:
My (probably mistaken) impression is that Gary takes the Lissajous blob pattern
to be a sort of helicopter snapshot of the audiotorium - giving info on the
relative strengths of the signals that arrive at the mics from different
directions of the 360° circle..and thus dictating the need for playback speakers
to be delivering sound from the same direction.

Five minutes worth of listening and viewing the scope will disabuse him of
this mistaken notion, I would think. Then again he has proven to be rather
difficult to enlighten.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."