Stereo vs Mono Mixing 101

[JackA]

Okay, as I may have told you, a LOT of Beatles songs were mixed by Giles Martin, not for any serious collectors, but for interactive video games. Sadly, the drum tracks are mutilated, rendering (decent) remixing impossible. Anyway, a friend sent me this, thought it was a big deal @ 320kbps (I scaled down), but I feel the vocals are a tad low. Rather than mix to stereo, this cheats mixing to mono...


http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thruyou-acoustic.mp3

Though it is shortened, what I mixed...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/thruyou1.mp3

What I find with a lot of people, even rendering condensed multi-tracks to make trading/transporting easier (smaller file size(s)), the vocals are too low.

Actually, with Led Zeppelin's (4) songs [second album] of multi-tracks, they were initially sold on (4) separate CDs. Could have easily put them on (2) CDs, if they didn't have each track in stereo, even though stereo content didn't exist. It shows me people lack decent logic!

Thank you.

Jack

[geoff]

On 12/11/2015 2:47 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> Actually, with Led Zeppelin's (4) songs [second album] of multi-tracks, they were initially sold on (4) separate CDs. Could have easily put them on (2) CDs, if they didn't have each track in stereo, even though stereo content didn't exist. It shows me people lack decent logic!
>
> Thank you.
>
> Jack
>
>

"It shows me people lack decent logic!"

Sure does - especially when looking in a mirror.

There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 2:47 a.m., JackA wrote:
> >
> > Actually, with Led Zeppelin's (4) songs [second album] of multi-tracks, they were initially sold on (4) separate CDs. Could have easily put them on (2) CDs, if they didn't have each track in stereo, even though stereo content didn't exist. It shows me people lack decent logic!
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> >
>
> "It shows me people lack decent logic!"
>
> Sure does - especially when looking in a mirror.

-- Be nice!!
>
> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.

I was unable to find how stereo is actually created (on CD) from the single stream of data, but found nothing on the internet!

Jack

>
> geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>
>There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.

This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
be such a demand for reissued material.

There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
catch on.

There is a four-channel standard in the Red Book, for quadrophonic playback.
As far as I know, nobody has ever actually implemented it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 6:27:51 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
> >
> >There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.
>
> This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
> love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
> But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
> be such a demand for reissued material.
>
> There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
> half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
> catch on.
>
> There is a four-channel standard in the Red Book, for quadrophonic playback.
> As far as I know, nobody has ever actually implemented it.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

To Geoff. I thought it would be advantageous, since little are concerned about stereo, and since crosstalk between stereo channels is superior with digital broadcasts, to offer (4) HD Radio (or Satellite) Music channels via (4)monophonic broadcasts. Clever, eh!!!?? :-)

And CDs are a dumb format, you can have as many channels as you want, even octaphonic sound, you just create the encoding and decoding.

Jack

[geoff]

On 12/11/2015 12:27 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.
> This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
> love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
> But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
> be such a demand for reissued material.
>
> There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
> half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
> catch on.
>
> There is a four-channel standard in the Red Book, for quadrophonic playback.
> As far as I know, nobody has ever actually implemented it.
> --scott

Actually ooops - I should have said "channel" rather than "Track". CDs
can have up to 99 tracks, but (most) people will understand what I meant
from the context !

geoff

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 12:27 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
> >> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.
> > This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
> > love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
> > But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
> > be such a demand for reissued material.
> >
> > There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
> > half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
> > catch on.
> >
> > There is a four-channel standard in the Red Book, for quadrophonic playback.
> > As far as I know, nobody has ever actually implemented it.
> > --scott
>
> Actually ooops - I should have said "channel" rather than "Track". CDs
> can have up to 99 tracks, but (most) people will understand what I meant
> from the context !

It is okay, we are forgiving of those who lack technical knowledge :)

Jack
>
> geoff

[John Williamson]

On 11/11/2015 23:04, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD. Mono programme is actually carried on both channels.
>
> I was unable to find how stereo is actually created (on CD) from the single stream of data, but found nothing on the internet!
>
The audio data is encoded within the stream on the CD as per the
0published standard, and extracted as stereo by the decoder. The
encoding scheme is laid down in the published standards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 12/11/2015 10:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>>
>> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD.

Actually it's quite easy to make each channel (I assume that's what you
meant, as there surely are "1 track CD's" available) a different
program. People just choose not to. The cost of CD's now is minimal, so
NO point anyway. It's easier to sell the same material on twice as many
disks, because people think they are getting more for their money. And
the Beatles early records than run less than 30 minutes are never issued
as "2 fors" like many lesser artists do, simply so they can make more
profit, no other reason.


> This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
> love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
> But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
> be such a demand for reissued material.
>
> There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
> half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
> catch on.

Exactly, there is nothing to stop you issuing CD's with L & R tracks as
different recordings. However it would require some intelligence on the
part of the person playing it back, and that can NEVER be assumed, so
they don't do it.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 12/11/2015 02:14, JackA wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
>> Actually ooops - I should have said "channel" rather than "Track". CDs
>> can have up to 99 tracks, but (most) people will understand what I meant
>> from the context !
>
> It is okay, we are forgiving of those who lack technical knowledge :)
>
You should know, as we have forgiven you your total lack of it on many
occasions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 12/11/2015 8:03 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 10:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD.
>
> Actually it's quite easy to make each channel (I assume that's what you
> meant, as there surely are "1 track CD's" available) a different
> program. People just choose not to.

Well, only with some frigging around with playback equipment that would
be totally beyond the average listener.


>
> Exactly, there is nothing to stop you issuing CD's with L & R tracks as
> different recordings. However it would require some intelligence on the
> part of the person playing it back, and that can NEVER be assumed, so
> they don't do it.

I don't think I could be bothered. Let alone a non-technical listener
with the additional technical challenges ;-)


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 12/11/2015 10:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
>> half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
>> catch on.
>
>Exactly, there is nothing to stop you issuing CD's with L & R tracks as
>different recordings. However it would require some intelligence on the
>part of the person playing it back, and that can NEVER be assumed, so
>they don't do it.

The real problem with doing this is the track marks. The two halves of the
program are apt to have breaks at different times.
--scott

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

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 2:03:40 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 10:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > geoff > wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as a 1-track CD.
>
> Actually it's quite easy to make each channel (I assume that's what you
> meant, as there surely are "1 track CD's" available) a different
> program. People just choose not to. The cost of CD's now is minimal, so
> NO point anyway. It's easier to sell the same material on twice as many
> disks, because people think they are getting more for their money. And
> the Beatles early records than run less than 30 minutes are never issued
> as "2 fors" like many lesser artists do, simply so they can make more
> profit, no other reason.

I have several 3" diameter CDs. They come in handy for use as Bonus Tracks (2-3 song) songs, complimenting the 5" diameter CD (album).

Jack
>
>
> > This is unfortunate; the people who release old mono opera recordings would
> > love to be able to get twice the running time for a single track on a disc.
> > But when the Red Book was worked out, nobody had any idea that there would
> > be such a demand for reissued material.
> >
> > There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
> > half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
> > catch on.
>
> Exactly, there is nothing to stop you issuing CD's with L & R tracks as
> different recordings. However it would require some intelligence on the
> part of the person playing it back, and that can NEVER be assumed, so
> they don't do it.
>
> Trevor.

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 2:19:47 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 12/11/2015 02:14, JackA wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> >> Actually ooops - I should have said "channel" rather than "Track". CDs
> >> can have up to 99 tracks, but (most) people will understand what I meant
> >> from the context !
> >
> > It is okay, we are forgiving of those who lack technical knowledge :)
> >
> You should know, as we have forgiven you your total lack of it on many
> occasions.

You technical puppies should remain seated on the porch while the Big Dogs roam the technical world!

Jack :)
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

[Trevor]

On 13/11/2015 1:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 12/11/2015 10:27 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> There was an early label that reissued some mono recordings with the first
>>> half on the left channel and the second half on the right. The idea did not
>>> catch on.
>>
>> Exactly, there is nothing to stop you issuing CD's with L & R tracks as
>> different recordings. However it would require some intelligence on the
>> part of the person playing it back, and that can NEVER be assumed, so
>> they don't do it.
>
> The real problem with doing this is the track marks. The two halves of the
> program are apt to have breaks at different times.

Definitely. You can either have two tracks marks per mono track, or none
at all. Neither is ideal, but all you are trying to do is replicate what
we once did with mono recordings on stereo tape recorders. (no tracks
marks then) As I already said though, since the cost of manufacturing
CD's is now minimal, ANY possible reason to do this has *long* passed.

Trevor.