Frustrating Search for Recordings

[Gary Eickmeier]

For some reason the cover designers, reviewers, and cataloguers couldn't
care less about whether a recording is stereo or not. If you buy an older
disc or are looking for something, there is NOTHING on the cover art to
proclaim stereo. Most of the time you can't even tell the original recording
date, which should be 1958 or later to give you a fighting chance. I am
looking for some of Marty Paich's recordings, and cannot tell which are
stereo except by finding one that has some samples on Amazon that I can play
on my computer and tell. They give the album release date as somewhere in
the 90s or 2000s, which is not the recording date.

Is the stereo or mono question so uninteresting to the general public that
it isn't even remarked?

Gary Eickmeier

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> For some reason the cover designers, reviewers, and cataloguers couldn't
> care less about whether a recording is stereo or not. If you buy an older
> disc or are looking for something, there is NOTHING on the cover art to
> proclaim stereo. Most of the time you can't even tell the original recording
> date, which should be 1958 or later to give you a fighting chance. I am
> looking for some of Marty Paich's recordings, and cannot tell which are
> stereo except by finding one that has some samples on Amazon that I can play
> on my computer and tell. They give the album release date as somewhere in
> the 90s or 2000s, which is not the recording date.
>
> Is the stereo or mono question so uninteresting to the general public that
> it isn't even remarked?

Go to any record store and look at the demographics of
those purchasing records. They're mostly younger adults.
Ask them whether they care.

Wait! not many young adults go to records stores!. Well,
that makes it kinda hard. Stand outside the reocrd store
and ask the young adults that walk by whether they care.

Wait! What's a "record store?"

Wait! What's a "record?"

Okay, let's make it simple. Find ANYWHERE where the major
portion of the population that buys music might hange
out. Ask whoever you find whether they care if recordings
are in mono or stereo. Ask them whether they care if
Marty Paich's recordings are in mono or stereo.

Here might be some of there answers:

"Who's Marty Paich?"

"Recorded WHEN? Are you f****** kidding me?

"What's mono?"

"My grandparents have a 'stereo' and they also have
this big thing sitting on a desk that makes this rude
jangling sound and they pick part of it up and talk
into it, just like in those old classic movies from
the '80s. Is that close enough?"

"Is it MP3?"

"Is it in I-Tunes?"

"Whadya mean, 'buy' music?"

"Get away from me, you creep! STRANGER DANGER!"

The world we live in is a very different place.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Gary Eickmeier]

Agreed! But hey, they still have libraries, and schools, and.... Wikipedia!
But that's as far as I am going to go.

I wrote to Marty Paich's official web site, got the curator of their
archives, and he said:

"3 February 2012




Dear Gary:


No clue. There have been so many re-issues, and there are so many
pirates, that it's just impossible to tell.


If you still felt it germane, I would do a search at LC
[http://catalog.loc.gov/], or at any of the five universities in the
national Archives of Recorded Sound.


Best of luck, and thx for asking,

I wrote back and suggested that they pursue producing some
recreations - you know, a modern band gets a hold of the charts, or studies
the old recordings and tries to come up with the identical arrangements, and
re-makes the music in modern technology. This has been done before, and is a
blast. No response yet, but I don't expect any.

Gary Eickmeier



"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> For some reason the cover designers, reviewers, and cataloguers couldn't
>> care less about whether a recording is stereo or not. If you buy an older
>> disc or are looking for something, there is NOTHING on the cover art to
>> proclaim stereo. Most of the time you can't even tell the original
>> recording date, which should be 1958 or later to give you a fighting
>> chance. I am looking for some of Marty Paich's recordings, and cannot
>> tell which are stereo except by finding one that has some samples on
>> Amazon that I can play on my computer and tell. They give the album
>> release date as somewhere in the 90s or 2000s, which is not the recording
>> date.
>>
>> Is the stereo or mono question so uninteresting to the general public
>> that it isn't even remarked?
>
> Go to any record store and look at the demographics of
> those purchasing records. They're mostly younger adults.
> Ask them whether they care.
>
> Wait! not many young adults go to records stores!. Well,
> that makes it kinda hard. Stand outside the reocrd store
> and ask the young adults that walk by whether they care.
>
> Wait! What's a "record store?"
>
> Wait! What's a "record?"
>
> Okay, let's make it simple. Find ANYWHERE where the major
> portion of the population that buys music might hange
> out. Ask whoever you find whether they care if recordings
> are in mono or stereo. Ask them whether they care if
> Marty Paich's recordings are in mono or stereo.
>
> Here might be some of there answers:
>
> "Who's Marty Paich?"
>
> "Recorded WHEN? Are you f****** kidding me?
>
> "What's mono?"
>
> "My grandparents have a 'stereo' and they also have
> this big thing sitting on a desk that makes this rude
> jangling sound and they pick part of it up and talk
> into it, just like in those old classic movies from
> the '80s. Is that close enough?"
>
> "Is it MP3?"
>
> "Is it in I-Tunes?"
>
> "Whadya mean, 'buy' music?"
>
> "Get away from me, you creep! STRANGER DANGER!"
>
> The world we live in is a very different place.
>
> --
> +--------------------------------+
> + Dick Pierce |
> + Professional Audio Development |
> +--------------------------------+
>
>

[Gary Eickmeier]

I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,
and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have been
recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on tape
as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.

Gary Eickmeier

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,
> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have been
> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on tape
> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
Good news. LP 'went stereo' to some significant degree in 1954, and a
lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.

bl

[John Stone]

On 2/5/13 9:43 AM, in article , "Bob
Lombard" > wrote:

> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,
>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have been
>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on tape
>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>>
> Good news. LP 'went stereo' to some significant degree in 1954, and a
> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>
Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't released to
the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players using the
45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "dual arm"
players before that. But they were pretty rare.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Agreed! But hey, they still have libraries, and schools, and.... Wikipedia!

It just so happens I was in a library that did have a fairly
complete recorded music section (they had, for example, the
Ansermet Beethoven 7th, one of my favorites). And, surprise,
there were at least a half dozen people of the 18-32 year old
persuasion in that section!

And, no surprise, every one of them had earbuds on, listening
to their I-Pods. The stacks of CDs and records (yes, they had
quite a few) seem to be more of an slightly incovenient
curiosity than a resource.

The world is a very different place.

--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 4, 6:40=A0am, "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
> For some reason the cover designers, reviewers, and cataloguers couldn't
> care less about whether a recording is stereo or not. If you buy an older
> disc or are looking for something, there is NOTHING on the cover art to
> proclaim stereo. Most of the time you can't even tell the original record=
ing
> date, which should be 1958 or later to give you a fighting chance. I am
> looking for some of Marty Paich's recordings, and cannot tell which are
> stereo except by finding one that has some samples on Amazon that I can p=
lay
> on my computer and tell. They give the album release date as somewhere in
> the 90s or 2000s, which is not the recording date.
>
> Is the stereo or mono question so uninteresting to the general public tha=
t
> it isn't even remarked?
>
> Gary Eickmeier

You can find all the info you need on such question and much much more
over on the Steve Hoffman forum boards. Stevehoffman.tv

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:43:19 AM UTC-8, Bob Lombard wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>=20
> > I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" C=
D,
>=20
> > and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have =
been
>=20
> > recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on =
tape
>=20
> > as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
>=20
> > stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Gary Eickmeier
>=20
> >
>=20
> Good news. LP 'went stereo' to some significant degree in 1954, and a=
=20
>=20
> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex=20
>=20
> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.

LP did not "go stereo" until 1957. Now, there was an audio pioneer in the e=
arly 1950's named Emory Cook who marketed a system to play stereo records s=
tarting around 1955, but this is NOT really a stereo LP as we now know it. =
It consisted of an LP with two bands on each side. The "tone-arm" on the pl=
ayer had TWO phono cartridges mounted one on either side of the arm. The tw=
o styli were separated by the exact distance between the beginning of each =
band on the record. When the out-most stylus was dropped into the record's =
lead-in groove, the other stylus automatically dropped into the lead-in gro=
ove on the inner band as well. Each band represented one of the two stereo =
channels. I'm sure that anyone reading this who understands the physics of =
LP playback can see the problem with this system immediately. LP grooves pa=
ss under the stylus at a constant angular velocity. This is OK with one sty=
lus tracing the entire side, but with the Cook system, The outer stylus tra=
ces more playing TIME per revolution than does the inner stylus (because th=
e diameter of the groove is smaller on the inner portion of a record than i=
t is on the outer portion) There were tricks in groove spacing which could =
overcome this problem to some degree, but it severely compromised playing t=
ime and the inner "channel" always exhibited more distortion than did the o=
uter "channel".

Westrex had been working on it's so-called "45/45" system for cutting two c=
hannels in a single groove since the early 1950's (the only practical way =
in those days to do stereo (although the Weathers Company had come up with =
the idea of multiplexing two channels into a single lateral groove for ster=
eo (whereby the main channel was recorded as (left + right) and the uhf sub=
carrier was (left - (minus) right)), It was also deemed impractical due to =
(1) the wear on the LP which would destroy the delicate high-frequency sub=
carrier starting immediately that the record was first played, and (2) the =
complexity of the demodulation electronics required for playback was deemed=
cost prohibitive by mainstream radio-phonograph manufacturers who needed s=
tereo to be as cheap to sell as mono playback instruments had been).=20

Westrex first demo'd their revolutionary 45/45 single-groove stereophonic d=
isc cutting system to the record industry in late 1956/57. At the demonstra=
tion, Westrex engineers offered to cut masters for any record company inter=
ested in experimenting with stereo LP development. The agreement was that w=
hile the master discs that Westrex would cut from a company's master tape w=
ould be suitable for evaluation, they would have had noise added to the mas=
ter disc making it unsuitable for manufacturing discs to sell to the public=
.. One of the companies who responded to Westrex's offer was a small record =
company known as "Audio Fidelity." Breaking their agreement with Westrex, =
AF immediately went into full production with stereo records made from the =
master that Westrex had cut for them - noise and all! The record, released =
in 1957, was called "The Brave Bulls" and consisted of bullfighting music f=
rom Spain. Well, that broke the dam, and by 1958, the stereo revolution was=
in full swing with all the major labels, RCA, Columbia, Mercury, British D=
ecca, Capitol-EMI, etc. all releasing their first stereo recordings. Westre=
x had timed the release of stereo LP for 1960 (after the bugs were worked o=
ut), but Audio Fidelity's audacious release of the worlds first true stereo=
LP spoiled that little plan!

Many of the bigger names in the recording industry, anticipating that a pra=
ctical stereo record was right around the bend, had started recording their=
catalog of classical music in stereo as early as 1954. Indeed, when Toscan=
ini had his breakdown while conducting a live broadcast of one of the Sunda=
y NBC Symphony concerts, early in 1954, he was but days away from making hi=
s first stereo recording for RCA Victor. I have read that a few stereo test=
sessions were done of Toscanini rehearsing before his breakdown, but I've =
never actually heard them.


On the other hand, I have, on CD, the original studio sessions (recorded o=
n optical; film) of Alfred Newman's score for the 1947 film "The Captain Fr=
om Castile" which is in real stereo! Before your eyebrows go up too high, l=
et me explain that this "stereo" recording was unintended. Newman wanted to=
experiment with orchestral perspective, so he had the 20th Centruy Fox sou=
nd engineers rig two microphones, one on the left of the studio orchestra, =
and one on the right, and run them through two microphone preamps to two tr=
acks on a multitrack optical recorder. His idea is to be able to favor the =
strings by choosing the output from the left channel in lush, romantic scen=
es, of choose the right channel with the brass and woodwinds for scenes of =
action or martial music. The idea that both channels together, played throu=
gh a pair of speakers arrayed left and right would yield full stereo, appar=
ently, never occurred to the redoubtable Mr. Newman.=20

One stereo myth that I'd like to dispel at this point is the myth that Disn=
ey's "Fantasia" was the first public use of stereo sound. "Fantasia" was NO=
T stereo in any sense of the word. It WAS, however multi-channel sound, but=
it was used to pan sound around the theater, not to provide any sense of a=
three-dimensional perspective on Stowkowski's symphony orchestra. The musi=
c was all recorded in normal, optical mono.=20

To sum up, there was no commercially made stereo LP in 1954 or 1955. While =
the 45/45 cutter (and playback cartridge) technology does go back to the la=
te 1940s, it was never intended for stereo at that time. It was designed so=
that the SAME system could produce (as well as play) both lateral and vert=
ical (also called hill-and-dale) cut grooves. The notion of stereo sound as=
a PRODUCT (and as we know it) stems from it's use in the Cinerama film pro=
cess debuted in 1952.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:18:37 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,=
=20
>=20
> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have be=
en=20
>=20
> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on ta=
pe=20
>=20
> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good=
=20
>=20
> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Gary Eickmeier


In 1957, Stereo almost always meant two-track. Some recording companies wer=
e doing three track (Mercury's Bob Fine, and RCA Victor's Lewis Leyton & Jo=
hn Pfiffer come to mind here) by having their Ampex 300 and 350 tape transp=
orts modified with three-track erase, record and playback heads. Multi-trac=
k - as we know it, didn't come along until the 1960's. This is one reason w=
hy RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence recordings from the mid-fi=
fties to mid sixties are still in great demand on vinyl as well as CD, SACD=
, and high-resolution downloads.=20

Most of these early stereo recordings were made with spaced omnidirectional=
mikes lined up in front of the ensemble; one on the right, one in the cent=
er, and one on the left. This was at least partially done, originally, so t=
hat the center mike could yield the master tape for the monaural LP release=
(most record companies, in stereo's early days, put out dual inventory of =
most titles. One in Stereo, and one in mono.
There was usually a $1.00 difference between the mono edition and the stere=
o edition at retail.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:18:37 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big
>> Bands" CD,
>>
>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must
>> have been
>>
>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released
>> on tape
>>
>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is
>> good
>>
>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> In 1957, Stereo almost always meant two-track. Some recording
> companies were doing three track (Mercury's Bob Fine, and RCA
> Victor's Lewis Leyton & John Pfiffer come to mind here) by having
> their Ampex 300 and 350 tape transports modified with three-track
> erase, record and playback heads. Multi-track - as we know it, didn't
> come along until the 1960's. This is one reason why RCA Living Stereo
> and Mercury Living Presence recordings from the mid-fifties to mid
> sixties are still in great demand on vinyl as well as CD, SACD, and
> high-resolution downloads.
>
> Most of these early stereo recordings were made with spaced
> omnidirectional mikes lined up in front of the ensemble; one on the
> right, one in the center, and one on the left. This was at least
> partially done, originally, so that the center mike could yield the
> master tape for the monaural LP release (most record companies, in
> stereo's early days, put out dual inventory of most titles. One in
> Stereo, and one in mono.
> There was usually a $1.00 difference between the mono edition and the
> stereo edition at retail.

I'm not sure what your point is with this. Of course early stereo was two
channel. It still is! All I was saying is that I was buying stereo tapes
well before 1958. These were reel to reel, first on two track, then the big
innovation, 4 track tapes, which could be turned over and a second side
played. Most of these tapes were 7 ips, but some cheapies were realeased at
3 3/4 ips.

The tradeoff between LP and tape was tape hiss vs record groove noise. But I
sure remember some of us arguing whether a stereo LP was possible. Well, it
was. I remember the big thing for the modern family in the fifties was a
stereo console, with the record player in a well under a lid, the amplifiers
under another, and a place for the discs in the center space below.

Gary Eickmeier

[Bob Lombard[_2_]]

On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:
> On 2/5/13 9:43 AM, in article , "Bob
> Lombard" > wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,
>>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have been
>>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on tape
>>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
>>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>>
>> Good news. LP 'went stereo' to some significant degree in 1954, and a
>> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
>> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>>
> Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't released to
> the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players using the
> 45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "dual arm"
> players before that. But they were pretty rare.
>
Looks like my memory has slipped a decade. Interesting in it's precision
though. I have LPs of early 50s performances that are true stereo.
Made from stereo open reel tapes?

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-8, Bob Lombard wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:
>

> >> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> >>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands" CD,
>
> >>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must have been
>
> >>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released on tape
>
> >>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is good
>
> >>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> >>>
>
> >> Good news. LP 'went stereo' to some significant degree in 1954, and a
>
> >> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
>
> >> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>
> >>
>
> > Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't released to
>
> > the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players using the
>
> > 45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "dual arm"
>
> > players before that. But they were pretty rare.
>
> >
>
> Looks like my memory has slipped a decade. Interesting in it's precision
>
> though. I have LPs of early 50s performances that are true stereo.
>
> Made from stereo open reel tapes?

Depends on what you mean by "Early 50's" There was no commercial stereo recording going on (except for some stereo soundtracks for Cinerama and starting in 1953 for Cinemascope) before about mid-decade. The first commercial stereo recordings made by record companies for eventual release on either reel-to-reel tape, or, when it became available, vinyl LP, were, to my knowledge, begun in late 1954. The earliest stereo recording (to my knowledge) of musical performances was being done as a demo-only by the late Bert Whyte. Bert was working for Magnecord (a pro-tape recorder manufacturer and early rival of Ampex) at the time as a sales rep. He had the engineers at Magnecord whip him up a stereo recorder/playback system in a couple of road cases (this was around 1952) and he used to schlep the rig around the country in his Packard Station Wagon demoing Magnecord's capabilities.

(AMUSING STORY ALERT) One week, our friend Mr. Whyte found himself in St. Louis where Leopold Stokowski was then the music director for the Symphony there. Bert had met Maestro Stokowski on several occasions and knew that the man possessed a keen interest in recorded sound. Whyte explained the stereo recording process to the Maestro, and prevailed upon him to allow Whyte to record some symphony rehearsals. After the rehearsal was over, Maestro Stokowski invited Whyte to bring the recordings up to his apartment later that evening, and after dinner, if he would set up his playback gear, Stokowski would love hear a stereo playback of that afternoon's rehearsal. "By the way," mentioned Stokowski, "I'm having another guest for dinner this evening as well. James C. Patrillo, the president of the U.S. Musicians Union. It will be a perfect chance for Mr. Patrillo to hear stereo too."

That evening, Bert, and Stokowski and Patrillo had a nice, cordial dinner at Stokowski's flat, and afterwords, Bert dragged the Magnecord, and the two McIntosh amplifiers and his two speakers up to Stokowski's apartment and set it up in his host's living room. Bert carefully explained the set-up, showing Patrillo the microphones and how they related to the two speaker system now sitting before them some 6-7 feet apart. Then he played that afternoon's recordings back for the Maestro and his notorious union organizer guest. Both listened at rapt attention while the music unfolded before them in glorious stereophonic sound. When it was over, Stokowski sat speechless, but Patrillo started to ask some questions. "Now, you say that you are making two simultaneous recording s on that contraption?"
"Yes", said Whyte, "In a way." But each recording represents the same performance from two different perspectives, just as your ears do in a live musical setting."
"This is great", Enthused, Patrillo. "Now we can charge double the union scale for all stereo recording sessions".
"I don't think you understand Mr. Patrillo", said Whyte. "These are not two different recordings, but they are two separate recordings. They will always be played together, never apart."

There then ensued a spectacular argument between Whyte, Patrillo, and Stokowski that went on into the wee hours. Finally, after much time and "liquid persuasion", Patrillo acquiesced! Thus, at the very nascent beginnings of the stereo era, the idea of stereo recording was almost killed off by the man of whom it has been said was the "...only union organizer in the history of the labor movement to constitute a union organized AGAINST its own members."

I got this story, first hand, directly from the horse's (Bert's) own mouth

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 7:17=A0am, Bob Lombard > wrote:
> On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/5/13 9:43 AM, in article , "Bob
> > Lombard" > wrote:
>
> >> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Bands"=
CD,
> >>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must hav=
e been
> >>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released o=
n tape
> >>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is go=
od
> >>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>
> >>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> >> Good news. =A0LP 'went stereo' =A0to some significant degree in 1954, =
and a
> >> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
> >> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>
> > Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't released=
to
> > the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players using =
the
> > 45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "dual a=
rm"
> > players before that. But they were pretty rare.
>
> Looks like my memory has slipped a decade. Interesting in it's precision
> though. =A0I have LPs of early 50s performances that are true stereo.
> Made from stereo open reel tapes?

probably. Something worth looking out for are new issues of old stereo
recordings that were never available in stereo. here is a very cool
example.
http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/85509/Elvis_Presley-Stereo_57_Essential_E=
lvis_Volume_2-45_RPM_Vinyl_Record
I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:17=A0am, Bob Lombard > wrote:
>=20
> > On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:

> > >> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>=20
> > >>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Band=
s" CD,
>=20
> > >>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must h=
ave been
>=20
> > >>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released=
on tape
>=20
> > >>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is =
good
>=20
> > >>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > >>> Gary Eickmeier
>=20
> >
>=20
> > >> Good news. =A0LP 'went stereo' =A0to some significant degree in 1954=
, and a
>=20
> > >> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
>=20
> > >> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > > Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't releas=
ed to
>=20
> > > the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players usin=
g the
>=20
> > > 45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "dual=
arm"
>=20
> > > players before that. But they were pretty rare.
>=20
> >
>=20
> > Looks like my memory has slipped a decade. Interesting in it's precisio=
n
>=20
> > though. =A0I have LPs of early 50s performances that are true stereo.
>=20
> > Made from stereo open reel tapes?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> probably. Something worth looking out for are new issues of old stereo
>=20
> recordings that were never available in stereo. here is a very cool
>=20
> example.
>=20
> http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/85509/Elvis_Presley-Stereo_57_Essential=
_Elvis_Volume_2-45_RPM_Vinyl_Record
>=20
> I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out.

I recollect that a lot of 50's rock-n-roll LPs were never released in stere=
o, Even although many were recorded in stereo. The only reason that I can c=
ome-up with why that might be so is that demographically, the record compan=
ies figured that teenagers were not likely to have any more than a cheap "p=
ortable" record player and not a stereo at their disposal to play pop recor=
ds on, so they didn't do stereo. Also, in the '50's, the pop music scene me=
ant 45 RPM singles, which didn't go "stereo" until the early-'60's when the=
development of compatible stereo/mono discs finally ended dual inventory.=
=20

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:49:45 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:18:37 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> >> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big
> >> Bands" CD,
> >> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must
> >> have been
> >> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been released
> >> on tape
> >> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it is
> >> good
> >> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
> >>
> >> Gary Eickmeier
> >
> >
> > In 1957, Stereo almost always meant two-track. Some recording
> > companies were doing three track (Mercury's Bob Fine, and RCA
> > Victor's Lewis Leyton & John Pfiffer come to mind here) by having
> > their Ampex 300 and 350 tape transports modified with three-track
> > erase, record and playback heads. Multi-track - as we know it, didn't
> > come along until the 1960's. This is one reason why RCA Living Stereo
> > and Mercury Living Presence recordings from the mid-fifties to mid
> > sixties are still in great demand on vinyl as well as CD, SACD, and
> > high-resolution downloads.
> >
> > Most of these early stereo recordings were made with spaced
> > omnidirectional mikes lined up in front of the ensemble; one on the
> > right, one in the center, and one on the left. This was at least
> > partially done, originally, so that the center mike could yield the
> > master tape for the monaural LP release (most record companies, in
> > stereo's early days, put out dual inventory of most titles. One in
> > Stereo, and one in mono.
> > There was usually a $1.00 difference between the mono edition and the
> > stereo edition at retail.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is with this. Of course early stereo was two=
=20
> channel. It still is!=20

Except it's not. You may ultimately hear it as two track, but most recordin=
gs are definitely NOT stereo. Most are recorded in a studio (or even more t=
han one studio) with a microphone for each acoustic instrument and most lik=
ely, a separate channel for each instrument in isolation. Some instruments =
are even captured using contact mikes which directly turn the vibrations of=
the musical instrument into electrical signals without any actual sound (t=
hrough the air) being captured at all! These 8, 16, 24. 32, and more tracks=
on a hard-disk driver "recorder" are then at some point, of course, mixed =
down to two channels, but those two channels are rarely stereo. Stereo does=
n't mean "two" or even "four" or 5.1 or even 7.1 "channels". Stereophonic m=
eans three dimensional sound from the Greek 'stereos' meaning, literally, "=
solid" and 'phonos' meaning "sound". When one mixes a multi-track, multi-mi=
crophone recording down into two channels, the recording has no three-dimen=
sionality at all, to do that, one has to record the space that musical ense=
mble occupies, not the instruments themselves. In a real stereo recording, =
there exists an actual, spatial relationship between the players in the ens=
emble and between the ensemble and the two microphones used to capture the =
event. A two-channel mix, OTOH, is just a bunch of monaural instruments lin=
ed up across a soundstage between two speakers having been placed there wit=
h a pan-pot control on the mixer. It's not stereo, but it is multichannel.=
=20

My point in responding to you was that in 1957, multi-miking through 4, 8 o=
r more channels had yet to be developed. Not only was all musical stereo r=
ecording done on a maximum of three tracks but a maximum of three mikes as =
well. The reason for the latter was simply noise. The more mikes used, the =
noisier the recording. It took solid-state electronics to make multi-miking=
and multi-track recording practical.=20

> All I was saying is that I was buying stereo tapes=20

Not only that. You stated:"...and it was stereo and it was terrific. Record=
ed in 1957, but must have been recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have=
possibly been released on tape=20
well before 1958. These were reel to reel, first on two track, then the big=
innovation, 4 track tapes, which could be turned over and a second side pl=
ayed. Most of these tapes were 7 ips, but some cheapies were realeased at 3=
3/4 ips."

I was, originally addressing the part of your post pertaining to multi-trac=
k in 1957.

> The tradeoff between LP and tape was tape hiss vs record groove noise. Bu=
t I=20
> sure remember some of us arguing whether a stereo LP was possible. Well, =
it=20
> was. I remember the big thing for the modern family in the fifties was a=
=20
> stereo console, with the record player in a well under a lid, the amplifi=
ers=20
> under another, and a place for the discs in the center space below.

Those "brown-goods" stereo consoles to which you refer came out in 1958 - a=
fter stereo records=20
got off the ground. Also, before the stereo LP was developed, the only way =
for the consumer to get stereo in the home was via stereo reel-to-reel tap=
es, but these were NOT 1/4 track as you suggest, they were all half-track, =
meaning that they played in one direction only. the 1/4-track tapes to whic=
h you refer came later. The very first commercial reel-to-reel even had sta=
ggered heads where two monaural half-track tape heads were mounted side-by-=
side with one inverted from the other. One head laid-down (or played back) =
the left channel, and the other head laid-down or played-back the right cha=
nnel. Having both channel's heads in one block and in-line with one another=
, came later, as did splitting the tracks in two to make a 1/4 track tape p=
layback system where the tape with flipped over after the first "side" was =
played through. You are mostly correct about the speeds, however. Most earl=
y commercial reel-to-reel was recorded at 7.5 ips (inches per second) and s=
ome of the cheapies were a dismal 3.75 ips.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Hello again AE -

Without re-quoting all that, I think we are talking past each other here.

I sure don't need a lecture on what stereo is or means. But your comments
inspire some back to basics dialog. I think we all know the difference
between a track and a channel. All I was saying (or trying to) was that the
Marty Paich recording I was talking about was recorded in 1957, before the
popular stereo LP was released, and it said that it was released on LP,
which meant that I expected it to be a mono recording because that was what
all LPs were in 1957. Therefore, since this re-release is real stereo, it
must have been recorded in stereo or with several tracks which were then
combined into the mix for the mono release, but then later could be used to
remake a stereo master. The stereo era was already roaring on tape well
before the stereo disc came out, but I don't know if this recording was
purposely done in careful stereo sound.

But your comments imply that you think they had to use one channel per
microphone, there were no multitrack recorders, so all recordings must have
been made with no more than three microphones. Obviously, you can combine
any number of microphones into fewer channels using a mixer. Well, I don't
know the history of
multitrack recorders, but I would hope they had more than three tracks by
the time this album was recorded.

I understand your sentiments about "real" stereo recordings, but I would
interject that a recording is a new work of art, and can be created, or
produced, in a number of ways, all of which are classified "stereo." A
recording can be an attempt at the realistic reproduction of an existing
auditory perspective, or it can be a totally artificial in-studio creation
by the engineer. You can have a purist recording with one of the classic
microphone configurations, or you can combine that with some highlight or
ambience mikes, or you can mike each instrument on a separate track and
place it in the mix and even add some artificial acoustics or distance to
it. This will still result in a three dimensional recreation of a piece of
performance because it will be played back on loudspeakers placed in a real
room in front of you.

You might consider that the recording art is a continuum somewhere between a
multi-miked artificial production placed in front of you (more like "they
are here"), and a purist "picture" of another acoustic space, captured by
your microphones and reconstructed in your listening room in an attempt to
transport you to the recorded space. Both ends of the continuum of
possibilities are "stereo," or in more precise language "stereophonic
sound," meaning an impression of a solid (stereo) auditory perspective
reproduced on loudspeakers (phonic) in a real acoustic space. It can be two
channel, three, four, or five channel or any number you want. The additional
channel systems have their own names such as surround sound, or simply 5.1
or 7.1 or Ambisonics or Ambiophonics and beyond, but they all fall under the
classic definition of "stereo."

Gary Eickmeier

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 7:49=A0pm, Audio_Empire > wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 7:17=A0am, Bob Lombard > wrote:
>
> > > On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:
> > > >> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> > > >>> I just played my new copy of Marty Paich's "The Picasso of Big Ba=
nds" CD,
>
> > > >>> and it was stereo and it was terrific. Recorded in 1957, but must=
have been
>
> > > >>> recorded in stereo or multitrack, could have possibly been releas=
ed on tape
>
> > > >>> as well as LP, but I believe LP went stereo in 1958. Anyway, it i=
s good
>
> > > >>> stereo, not artificial and not ping pong. Recommended.
>
> > > >>> Gary Eickmeier
>
> > > >> Good news. =A0LP 'went stereo' =A0to some significant degree in 19=
54, and a
>
> > > >> lot in '55 - at least in classical studio recordings. The Westex
>
> > > >> technology was demonstrated in '47, I think.
>
> > > > Really? My understanding is that the first stereo LP's weren't rele=
ased to
>
> > > > the public until 1958. Certainly there were no stereo LP players us=
ing the
>
> > > > 45/45 system before then. There were some stereo tapes and some "du=
al arm"
>
> > > > players before that. But they were pretty rare.
>
> > > Looks like my memory has slipped a decade. Interesting in it's precis=
ion
>
> > > though. =A0I have LPs of early 50s performances that are true stereo.
>
> > > Made from stereo open reel tapes?
>
> > probably. Something worth looking out for are new issues of old stereo
>
> > recordings that were never available in stereo. here is a very cool
>
> > example.
>
> >http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/85509/Elvis_Presley-Stereo_57_Essen...
>
> > I will definitely be buying this one when it comes out.
>
> I recollect that a lot of 50's rock-n-roll LPs were never released in ste=
reo, Even although many were recorded in stereo. The only reason that I can=
come-up with why that might be so is that demographically, the record comp=
anies figured that teenagers were not likely to have any more than a cheap =
"portable" record player and not a stereo at their disposal to play pop rec=
ords on, so they didn't do stereo. Also, in the '50's, the pop music scene =
meant 45 RPM singles, which didn't go "stereo" until the early-'60's when t=
he development of compatible stereo/mono discs finally ended dual inventory=
..

the mono to stereo transition in pop/rock as well as jazz was a lot
more complex than classical and so fans of those genres (me) have to
do a lot more research on what is what. A lot of recordings from the
50s and 60s are often favored by audiophiles in mono over stereo
because of superior mixes for the mono. But as many of these old
titles get reissued by top flight mastering engineers who dig in the
vaults and find the source tapes we will often find reissues in stereo
that defy old adages about certain titles that are commonly purported
to be better in mono. In many cases there a multiple variations of a
given title in both mono and stereo and each with it's own virtues and
liabilities.

A classic case of the importance of homework. Take a classic title
like Simon and Garfunkel Book Ends. You have some pretty terrific yet
highly flawed original U.S. pressings in stereo. Then you have their
U.K. counterparts that have some advantages and disadvantages over the
original U.S. pressings. You have the 70-80 U.S. pressings which are
sonic disasters and then you have the early CDs which are even worse
due to the label loosing the original master tapes. It gets even more
complicated. The master tapes were apparently found and so we ended up
getting some pretty terrific reissues on LP and on CD. But ya gotta
know which ones to get! there are two different versions of the LP
reissue cut by different mastering engineers at different facilities
and pressed at different pressing plants. The later version being
substantially better. Then you have the legendary early Japanese
pressing. And I haven't even gotten to the mono yet!!! The original
U.S. mono has a dedicated mix that many find quite superior to the
stereo mix. This LP fetches some petty high prices. But be careful...
The original UK mono which also comes at a premium is merely a stereo
fold down. It's a crazy mine field and one has to do a lot of home
work to figure this stuff out. So what to get? The legendary Japanese
early stereo pressing, The Later cut Sundazed reissue and the original
U.S. mono.

This title is not the exception either. It really is the rule with
most great recordings from the 50s through the 70s.

[Gary Eickmeier]

.....small correction, the Ambiophonic system is more of a loudspeaker
binaural system than a stereophonic system. The main difference being, with
stereophonic both ears are free to hear both or all speakers, reproduced in
a real room. With binaural systems two channels are piped to their
respective ears with the ears isolated from the real room acoustics as much
as possible.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:48:46 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Hello again AE -
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Without re-quoting all that, I think we are talking past each other here.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I sure don't need a lecture on what stereo is or means. But your comments
>=20
> inspire some back to basics dialog. I think we all know the difference
>=20
> between a track and a channel. All I was saying (or trying to) was that t=
he
>=20
> Marty Paich recording I was talking about was recorded in 1957, before th=
e
>=20
> popular stereo LP was released, and it said that it was released on LP,
>=20
> which meant that I expected it to be a mono recording because that was wh=
at
>=20
> all LPs were in 1957. Therefore, since this re-release is real stereo, it
>=20
> must have been recorded in stereo or with several tracks which were then
>=20
> combined into the mix for the mono release, but then later could be used =
to
>=20
> remake a stereo master. The stereo era was already roaring on tape well
>=20
> before the stereo disc came out, but I don't know if this recording was
>=20
> purposely done in careful stereo sound.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> But your comments imply that you think they had to use one channel per
>=20
> microphone, there were no multitrack recorders, so all recordings must ha=
ve
>=20
> been made with no more than three microphones. Obviously, you can combine
>=20
> any number of microphones into fewer channels using a mixer. Well, I don'=
t=20
>=20
> know the history of
>=20
> multitrack recorders, but I would hope they had more than three tracks by=
=20
>=20
> the time this album was recorded.

In 1957? No, I don't think multi-track recorders (4, 8, 16 tracks or more) =
had been developed yet. As I said, some companies were using three-track st=
ereo recorders with one mike per track, but again, elaborate mixing facilit=
ies for multi-miking just hadn't been developed. Now all of this assumes cl=
assical music. Studio recorded pop, was for the most part, still mono in 19=
57, as was most jazz. Rudy Van Gelder was doing location as well as studio =
Jazz recording for labels like Blue Note, Savoy, Prestige records, Riversid=
e, etc., but he didn't start recording in stereo until late 1957 or early 1=
958. Most of his most famous recordings are mono.=20


> I understand your sentiments about "real" stereo recordings, but I would=
=20
>=20
> interject that a recording is a new work of art, and can be created, or=
=20
>=20
> produced, in a number of ways, all of which are classified "stereo." A=20
>=20
> recording can be an attempt at the realistic reproduction of an existing=
=20
>=20
> auditory perspective, or it can be a totally artificial in-studio creatio=
n=20
>=20
> by the engineer. You can have a purist recording with one of the classic=
=20
>=20
> microphone configurations, or you can combine that with some highlight or=
=20
>=20
> ambience mikes, or you can mike each instrument on a separate track and=
=20
>=20
> place it in the mix and even add some artificial acoustics or distance to=
=20
>=20
> it. This will still result in a three dimensional recreation of a piece o=
f=20
>=20
> performance because it will be played back on loudspeakers placed in a re=
al=20
>=20
> room in front of you.

You are right, and most listeners won't care, because they don't know the d=
ifference. But still=20
in all, multi-track mono is NOT stereo by any distortion of the definition =
of that that term.
=20
> You might consider that the recording art is a continuum somewhere betwee=
n a=20
>=20
> multi-miked artificial production placed in front of you (more like "they=
=20
>=20
> are here"), and a purist "picture" of another acoustic space, captured by=
=20
>=20
> your microphones and reconstructed in your listening room in an attempt t=
o=20
>=20
> transport you to the recorded space. Both ends of the continuum of=20
>=20
> possibilities are "stereo," or in more precise language "stereophonic=20
>=20
> sound," meaning an impression of a solid (stereo) auditory perspective=20
>=20
> reproduced on loudspeakers (phonic) in a real acoustic space. It can be t=
wo=20
>=20
> channel, three, four, or five channel or any number you want. The additio=
nal=20
>=20
> channel systems have their own names such as surround sound, or simply 5.=
1=20
>=20
> or 7.1 or Ambisonics or Ambiophonics and beyond, but they all fall under =
the=20
>=20
> classic definition of "stereo."

You are right, but this is a liberty that I don't recognize. Sure, sometime=
s accent
mikes are required on some instruments because the overall stereo pair can'=
t pick
the instruments up properly, but that's as far as I believe that a recordin=
g engineer
/producer should go. I know I'm right here because history me I'm right. Th=
e purists,
working in the late '50's and early '60's are still highly regarded for the=
ir work which
is still much in demand and which keeps getting re-released in new formats =
decade
after decade. All serious music lovers know the names Bob Fine, Lewis Layto=
n, Gerald
Mohr, Rudy Van Gelder, Joanna Nikrenz and Marc J. Aubort, etc. but almost n=
o one=20
remembers the likes of J. David Saks - the foremost proponent of using as m=
any tracks
as possible (one per instrument if possible and that's for a ninety-some pi=
ece symphony
orchestra (his Philadelphia Orchestra recordings for RCA in the 1970's are =
a travesty
of sound - literally a symphonic cartoon.

No, the type of recording that you are trying to legitimize here is the equ=
ivalent of a=20
news program whereby the technicians think that the President's news confer=
ence
would look better photographed in the Rose Garden, than in the White House =
press
auditorium, so they superimpose the President over a background of that out=
side area.
They are not there to create anything, but are there merely to document the=
event. I=20
feel strongly that this is also the job of the recording engineer/producer =
(talking
about classical music here as well as location-recorded jazz. Don't really =
care what
the engineers/producers do with regard to pop. I suspect that the job ther=
e is to make
the recording artists "happy" with the resultant sound no matter how unlike=
reality that
sound might ultimately be.). =20

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:53:23 AM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:49*pm, Audio_Empire > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:57:09 PM UTC-8, Scott wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 7:17*am, Bob Lombard > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On 2/5/2013 6:51 PM, John Stone wrote:
>
> > > > >> On 2/5/2013 10:18 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>
> > I recollect that a lot of 50's rock-n-roll LPs were never released in stereo, Even although many were recorded in stereo. The only reason that I can come-up with why that might be so is that demographically, the record companies figured that teenagers were not likely to have any more than a cheap "portable" record player and not a stereo at their disposal to play pop records on, so they didn't do stereo. Also, in the '50's, the pop music scene meant 45 RPM singles, which didn't go "stereo" until the early-'60's when the development of compatible stereo/mono discs finally ended dual inventory.
>
>
>
> the mono to stereo transition in pop/rock as well as jazz was a lot
>
> more complex than classical and so fans of those genres (me) have to
>
> do a lot more research on what is what. A lot of recordings from the
>
> 50s and 60s are often favored by audiophiles in mono over stereo
>
> because of superior mixes for the mono. But as many of these old
>
> titles get reissued by top flight mastering engineers who dig in the
>
> vaults and find the source tapes we will often find reissues in stereo
>
> that defy old adages about certain titles that are commonly purported
>
> to be better in mono. In many cases there a multiple variations of a
>
> given title in both mono and stereo and each with it's own virtues and
>
> liabilities.
>
>
>
> A classic case of the importance of homework. Take a classic title
>
> like Simon and Garfunkel Book Ends. You have some pretty terrific yet
>
> highly flawed original U.S. pressings in stereo. Then you have their
>
> U.K. counterparts that have some advantages and disadvantages over the
>
> original U.S. pressings. You have the 70-80 U.S. pressings which are
>
> sonic disasters and then you have the early CDs which are even worse
>
> due to the label loosing the original master tapes. It gets even more
>
> complicated. The master tapes were apparently found and so we ended up
>
> getting some pretty terrific reissues on LP and on CD. But ya gotta
>
> know which ones to get! there are two different versions of the LP
>
> reissue cut by different mastering engineers at different facilities
>
> and pressed at different pressing plants. The later version being
>
> substantially better. Then you have the legendary early Japanese
>
> pressing. And I haven't even gotten to the mono yet!!! The original
>
> U.S. mono has a dedicated mix that many find quite superior to the
>
> stereo mix. This LP fetches some petty high prices. But be careful...
>
> The original UK mono which also comes at a premium is merely a stereo
>
> fold down. It's a crazy mine field and one has to do a lot of home
>
> work to figure this stuff out. So what to get? The legendary Japanese
>
> early stereo pressing, The Later cut Sundazed reissue and the original
>
> U.S. mono.
>
>
>
> This title is not the exception either. It really is the rule with
>
> most great recordings from the 50s through the 70s.

You are correct here. I spent much of the 1970's searching out British
versions of various classical recordings made by EMI (in England) and
even US VOX. Here in the United States, EMI owned Capitol/Angel
records. They would send Capitol cutting masters of EMI titles to be
cut and pressed here and sold on those US labels. The interesting
thing was that if you compared the US Angel release of most British, French
or German recordings, the American version was always poorer. I'm not just
talking about pressing quality either. Often the British EMI (His Master's
Voice) copy of a particular recording sounded so much better than the
version mastered and pressed here in the US by Capitol records, that it
was hard to believe that they were the same performance!

I also found that if I could locate a British pressing of the American Vox
label, (done in England by British Decca - "London" Records)it was always
much superior to the domestic pressing which, being a budget label here,
was always plagued by under fill, noisy surfaces, and other defects. The British
pressed versions were usually perfect.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Audio_Empire wrote:

> No, the type of recording that you are trying to legitimize here is
> the equivalent of a
> news program whereby the technicians think that the President's news
> conference
> would look better photographed in the Rose Garden, than in the White
> House press
> auditorium, so they superimpose the President over a background of
> that outside area.
> They are not there to create anything, but are there merely to
> document the event. I
> feel strongly that this is also the job of the recording
> engineer/producer (talking
> about classical music here as well as location-recorded jazz. Don't
> really care what
> the engineers/producers do with regard to pop. I suspect that the
> job there is to make
> the recording artists "happy" with the resultant sound no matter how
> unlike reality that
> sound might ultimately be.).

OK, we understand each other perfectly, but I just want to add that close or
multi miking can be a legitimate technique in certain circumstances. Think
about the live vs recorded demos of those early years. They would record a
string quartet anechoically, then play it back in the same room as the live
performers so that they would share the same acoustics and therefore both
sound live. So this is an example of a legitimate "they are here" stereo
recording technique, one that does not attempt to record another acoustic
space. Think about any jazz or pop recording with a singer in it. Would you
attempt to record the singer with anything but a single microphone, mixed in
with the overall perspective of the band, no matter how it was recorded?
Would you ever record them with just your purist techniques and without the
accent mike? Of course not. There just aren't enough channels to duplicate
reality all that well.

It's kind of like a photograph or a painting. These are a new work of art,
based on some aspect of reality that the artist is trying to interpret
through the medium of composition, color, and light. It will be an image of
some reality, which might be an attempt at realism, a total decorative
creation, or something in between. But it will (usually) not be three
dimensional, so the artist uses perspective carefully to interpret
dimension.

I could go on with the analogy but the point is that certain techniques need
to be employed to bring out what the artist wants us to get out of the new
work. The painter may place the most important object or person in the
foreground, or compose it so that your eye is led to it, and so on. The
producer will make the singer perfectly clear and in the center foreground,
no matter where he or she may have been in reality. The guitar, perfectly
clear if you were there, may need to be accented in a recording to make it
clearer in the new medium.

Your point, also well taken, is that if the producer knows nothing about
sound, he may think this multi-miking travesty is "even better" than a more
purist attempt to capture also the wonderful acoustics of the concert hall
they were in. He thinks he is shoving up-close super realism in our faces,
and that will be appreciated by his similarly uneducated audience and sell
records. Might as well also introduce smell-O-Vision so we can expereince
their body odor up close.

So definitions are definitions but recording is still an art, to be
practiced only by those who understand the medium. Would that be a fair
summary?

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 7:37:03 AM UTC-8, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Audio_Empire wrote:
>
>
>
> > No, the type of recording that you are trying to legitimize here is
>
> > the equivalent of a
>
> > news program whereby the technicians think that the President's news
>
> > conference
>
> > would look better photographed in the Rose Garden, than in the White
>
> > House press
>
> > auditorium, so they superimpose the President over a background of
>
> > that outside area.
>
> > They are not there to create anything, but are there merely to
>
> > document the event. I
>
> > feel strongly that this is also the job of the recording
>
> > engineer/producer (talking
>
> > about classical music here as well as location-recorded jazz. Don't
>
> > really care what
>
> > the engineers/producers do with regard to pop. I suspect that the
>
> > job there is to make
>
> > the recording artists "happy" with the resultant sound no matter how
>
> > unlike reality that
>
> > sound might ultimately be.).
>
>
>
> OK, we understand each other perfectly, but I just want to add that close or
>
> multi miking can be a legitimate technique in certain circumstances. Think
>
> about the live vs recorded demos of those early years. They would record a
>
> string quartet anechoically, then play it back in the same room as the live
>
> performers so that they would share the same acoustics and therefore both
>
> sound live. So this is an example of a legitimate "they are here" stereo
>
> recording technique, one that does not attempt to record another acoustic
>
> space. Think about any jazz or pop recording with a singer in it. Would you
>
> attempt to record the singer with anything but a single microphone, mixed in
>
> with the overall perspective of the band, no matter how it was recorded?
>
> Would you ever record them with just your purist techniques and without the
>
> accent mike? Of course not. There just aren't enough channels to duplicate
>
> reality all that well.

Wellm accent mikes are something else again and in my opinion constitute a
legitimate use of pan-potting as long as there is an overall stereo pair to get
the space "right". Panning an accent mike to the right space on on an instrument
that needs a bit of reinforcement is just good practice, and of course, a vocalist
needs a vocal mike to place him/her firmly in the phantom center channel on
playback.
>
>
>
> It's kind of like a photograph or a painting. These are a new work of art,
>
> based on some aspect of reality that the artist is trying to interpret
>
> through the medium of composition, color, and light. It will be an image of
>
> some reality, which might be an attempt at realism, a total decorative
>
> creation, or something in between. But it will (usually) not be three
>
> dimensional, so the artist uses perspective carefully to interpret
>
> dimension.
>
>
>
> I could go on with the analogy but the point is that certain techniques need
>
> to be employed to bring out what the artist wants us to get out of the new
>
> work. The painter may place the most important object or person in the
>
> foreground, or compose it so that your eye is led to it, and so on. The
>
> producer will make the singer perfectly clear and in the center foreground,
>
> no matter where he or she may have been in reality. The guitar, perfectly
>
> clear if you were there, may need to be accented in a recording to make it
>
> clearer in the new medium.

Like I said, anything goes on pop music (and to be perfectly fair, many pop
"artists" using the recording medium and all of the tools available to the
modern recording studio to create the performance in the first place, and
without those tools, the performance simply does not and can not exist).

> Your point, also well taken, is that if the producer knows nothing about
>
> sound, he may think this multi-miking travesty is "even better" than a more
>
> purist attempt to capture also the wonderful acoustics of the concert hall
>
> they were in. He thinks he is shoving up-close super realism in our faces,
>
> and that will be appreciated by his similarly uneducated audience and sell
>
> records. Might as well also introduce smell-O-Vision so we can expereince
>
> their body odor up close.
>
>
>
> So definitions are definitions but recording is still an art, to be
>
> practiced only by those who understand the medium. Would that be a fair
>
> summary?

Exactly.