things i'd uninvent

[Gill Smith]

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/

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

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

[Gill Smith]

"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/

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

> 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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

> 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.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"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

[Michael]

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/

[brassplyer]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

> 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.

[brassplyer]

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.

[Rick Ruskin]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

> The coil cord is at the top of my list.

That's because you priouette when you talk on the phone. <grim>

[[email protected]]

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

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

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

[Devany]

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.

[[email protected][_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Bill Graham]

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".

[William Sommerwerck]

> 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[William Sommerwerck]

> 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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Arny Krueger]

"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! ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> 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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Greg Andrews]

"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