[geoff]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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

[geoff]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[[email protected]]

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?.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

[John Williamson]

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.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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!"

[Dave Plowman (News)]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[John Williamson]

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.

[polymod]

"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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[geoff]

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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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

[Trevor]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[geoff]

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