"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
For classical material, the threshold of acceptance was much higher.
At Decca, we developed a three track system, in which the mono original
was copied as two mono tracks to a stereo quarter inch tape recorder.
The original mono source was brought to the mixing console as a centre
signal, and the two additional tracks were brought back out of phase
carefully level matched so that they cancelled when panned centre.
These tracks were then panned left and right.

The two track recorder had a varispeed control by which one could
control the delay between to mono original and the two track machine.
By setting the mono source at say -3dB ref peak level, panned centre
and adding the left and right channels (out of phase) at say 12-15dB
below, one achieved quite a realistic concert hall effect, but of
course without spot information.

The true test of a "reprocessed stereo" recording was to listen in
mono and compare with the mono original. In the method I describe
above, the two channels panned L and R cancelled out in mono, leaving
only the Centre (mono) signal with total compatibility.



Iain the Iain, that was interesting and *very* informative.

It's a pity we have had to wait so long for such insightful information
from a Recording Professional in this group.....

Tee hee. The very idea of trying to produce true stereo from mono on most
music is simply a marketing man's dream. And never, ever, worked.

The term is is "reprocessed stereo". No one, not even the marketing
men, talked about "true stereo"

With the proviso that if it were what would be considered near a mono
source - like say a solo instrument - and was recorded 'dry' in the first
place, then adding stereo reverb, or a synthesised acoustic *might*
improve things.

That would be the simplest of cases. Adding reverb is probably the
worst thing one could do. And from a practical point of view, how many
mono, solo recordings are recorded in a dry acoustic? The above scenario
is a non-starter

FWIW, the only mono source I've found that can be made to approximate to
true stereo by treatment is audience applause.

Again the use of the word "true" is not appropriate, but as I said earlier
the
spatial effect is quite remarkable. After all, at a concert there may be
little
directional information. Applause is a good case in point, and very easily
treated.


Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Tee hee. The very idea of trying to produce true stereo from mono on most
music is simply a marketing man's dream. And never, ever, worked.

Not too much "Tee hee" when you find yourself on
the carpet with two other young recording engineers in front
of the technical director of your studio , who says:
"Look into this electronic stereo business, and see
how it can be made to work to a standard which will satisfy
both the classical record-buying public and the legal department"

A reply like yours above, Dave, would have led to a rapid departure
to take up a place in the queue of those waiting for job interviews
as Gram Ops at Broadcasting House:-))

So we had to take it very seriously.

Over the course of about five years, we refined our system constantly,
and "reprocessed" hundreds of titles, without a single complaint from
producers, reviewers or members of the public, so given what we were
trying to achieve I wonder about your statement that it "never ever worked"

We were not trying to produce the kind of result achieved in a
multi-microphone stereo recording, but an approach to what might
be heard with a crossed pair. EQ was not part of the solution.
We knew that we could not achieve pinpoint of source, but
experiments proved that material such as orchestral
timpani and large string sections worked very well.

There was another studio complex in London (no names) where they
were working on a system of playing a mono signal back into the studio,
via three Tannoy GRFs placed at corners of a triangle which they had
marked out in gaffer tap on the floor.

They then recorded the result with a crossed pair.

I spent many hours there, sitting on top of the conductor's rostrum
just below the crossed-pair, listening to the results.

After marking out a million triangles, and exhausting supplies of gaffer
tape
in central London, they decided to try something else. The system worked
but the added acoustic of the speaker/studio combination did not stand up
well in the "switch to mono and AB with the original" test.

It was quite a challenge.

Cordially.
Iain

"hwh" wrote in message
...

"Robert" schreef in bericht
oups.com...

In the early days of stereo it was common to get stereo records
realeased with a "mono recording reprocessed to give a stereo effect".


I have sent Keith G three tracks which he has put up on his
website. They were reprocessed using the method I described earlier
in this thread, except that a Studer Dyaxis digital work station was used
in place of the three analogue tape recorders.

Please listen to Sample 1 the mono original (57 secs) and then the
reprocessed version Sample 2. There is also an "overcooked" version
on Sample 3.

You can find them at:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/Ster...tereofiles.htm


There are also 3 bitmaps of the phase analysis of each Sample for
those who like a visual reference. These were taken from Cool Edit
Pro (aka Audition) a program with which many members of this
group are probably familiar.

Iain









http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/Ster...tereofiles.htm

"Keith G" wrote


Bugger it - here's another one from the same record:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Flamenco2.mp3


And the deck/cart used to make this recording is probably the best part of
30 years old....


And here they are again with a track from an album I got only *yesterday*
for the princely sum of 25p* :-)

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Mow%20Mow.mp3


(Ain't that just about the silliest song title of all time?? :-)

Enjoy! (All you old 'groovers'..!!! :-)


*Whaat? - The Sally Army's pleased, I'm pleased....

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Tee hee. The very idea of trying to produce true stereo from mono on
most music is simply a marketing man's dream. And never, ever, worked.

The term is is "reprocessed stereo". No one, not even the marketing men,
talked about "true stereo"

Perhaps not. But it didn't work anyway. It just made the mono recording
sound worse to anyone with an audio or musical 'ear'. Hence my comment
about it being a marketing device.

With the proviso that if it were what would be considered near a mono
source - like say a solo instrument - and was recorded 'dry' in the
first place, then adding stereo reverb, or a synthesised acoustic
*might* improve things.

That would be the simplest of cases. Adding reverb is probably the
worst thing one could do. And from a practical point of view, how many
mono, solo recordings are recorded in a dry acoustic? The above
scenario is a non-starter

Yes. I'm simply stating a case where it *might* work. For ******s like
Keith who believe in magic, and genuflect to 'experts' But only when they
are sycophants to him.

FWIW, the only mono source I've found that can be made to approximate
to true stereo by treatment is audience applause.

Again the use of the word "true" is not appropriate, but as I said
earlier the spatial effect is quite remarkable. After all, at a
concert there may be little directional information. Applause is a
good case in point, and very easily treated.

Which is why I mentioned it. It's about the only one case where I'd be
happy to use 'simulated' stereo - but only if f***ing desperate.

Your way of producing simulated stereo was and is pants. As are all others
- for the music we enjoy.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

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

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Tee hee. The very idea of trying to produce true stereo from mono on most
music is simply a marketing man's dream. And never, ever, worked.

Not too much "Tee hee" when you find yourself on
the carpet with two other young recording engineers in front
of the technical director of your studio , who says:
"Look into this electronic stereo business, and see
how it can be made to work to a standard which will satisfy
both the classical record-buying public and the legal department"

A reply like yours above, Dave, would have led to a rapid departure
to take up a place in the queue of those waiting for job interviews
as Gram Ops at Broadcasting House:-))

snip

Strange the way you appear to have principles for decent audio - renting
out analogue recorders to punters and using valve amps for monitoring -
and claim to have an ear for music, Iain, yet condone this sort of *total*
crap.

Electronic reprocessing of mono to stereo was for those using radiograms
to listen to James Last while watching the TV.

End of story.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Strange the way you appear to have principles for decent audio - renting
out analogue recorders to punters and using valve amps for monitoring -
and claim to have an ear for music, Iain, yet condone this sort of *total*
crap.

The analogue recorders are not rented to
"punters" as you call them but established studios.
An operator is a part of the deal. It's not Avis Rent a Car:-)

I don't claim to have an "ear for music"
I am fortunate to have perfect pitch. I have "A" level music,
and ABRSM (piano) grade 8, and French horn (grade 6)
which is probably quite a lot better than "an ear for music"
as you call it:-)

I also have the experience of engineering many hundreds of
recordings for major labels.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of reprocessed stereo.
I found it an interesting excercise and technical solution to fill a
demand. As I said elewhere, if the extra dimension bothers you,
press the mono switch. In the case of the reprocessed Decca
classical recordings you will get complete compatibility.
So why are you so scathing, disgruntled and bitter about this? :-)


Electronic reprocessing of mono to stereo was for those using radiograms
to listen to James Last while watching the TV.

:-))))

Once again, we are talking about a completely different genre here,
Dave. My (our) work on reprocessed stereo was with classical music,
and the results we achieved were accepted by discerning listeners.


Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Tee hee. The very idea of trying to produce true stereo from mono on
most music is simply a marketing man's dream. And never, ever, worked.

The term is is "reprocessed stereo". No one, not even the marketing men,
talked about "true stereo"

Perhaps not. But it didn't work anyway. It just made the mono recording
sound worse to anyone with an audio or musical 'ear'. Hence my comment
about it being a marketing device.

Have you taken the trouble to actually listen to the several different
approaches taken by various companies, and differentiate between
them?

I get the feeling that you may be generalising here, and are not
really familiar too with the subject, or the object of the exercise.

Some methods certainly did not work,but others achieved their goal.
As I mentioned earlier, we reprocessed many hundreds of mono masters,
mostly interesting early classical material, and the discerning people
who bought these were satisfied.

Yes. I'm simply stating a case where it *might* work. For ******s like
Keith who believe in magic, and genuflect to 'experts' But only when they
are sycophants to him.

There is no magic here, and I have never claimed to be an expert. That is
not a term I use. An expert is a person who knows more and more about
less and less until he reaches the point when he knows everything about
nothing:-))

I have however been a professional recording engineer with major
companies all my working life.

This requires considerable knowledge over a broad base.
One has to be able to move from a string quartet to
a hard hitting 25 piece big band to a TV documentary, dialogue,
music, foley and FX mix and command the skills that each requires.

(snip)

Which is why I mentioned it. It's about the only one case where I'd be
happy to use 'simulated' stereo - but only if f***ing desperate.

Again, desperation is not part of the equation. We, along with our
counterparts in other record companies were given the brief to find
a method of producing "electronically processed stereo" and that's what
we had to do when record plants ceased to produce mono pressings.


Your way of producing simulated stereo was and is pants. As are all others
- for the music we enjoy.

Of the great number of alternatives, it gave the most satisfactory results
for classical recordings. I would be most interested to hear something
better.

Criticism is easy. Doing it better is not so easy. Here's a challenge:
I know that you work within the audio industry Dave, and have
access to studio facilities. So I look forward to hearing what you can do.
If you can improve on what we did, using the technology available
at that time, please send me a .wav file by e-mail together with the mono
original. Or perhaps better still, it would be better for me to provide you
with a mono .wav file for you to work on. I will pick something out and
send it you if you agree. No digital processing allowed:-)))

If electronic stereo bothers you so much, switch it back to mono.
With the system I described, one gets total compatibility, so there
will be no detriment to "the music you enjoy". The compatibility
offered by the Decca method was something that few others could
offer.

Iain

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:28:10 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Again, desperation is not part of the equation. We, along with our
counterparts in other record companies were given the brief to find
a method of producing "electronically processed stereo" and that's what
we had to do when record plants ceased to produce mono pressings.

What a load of utter crap! All you have to do is feed a mono signal to
a stereo cutting lathe, and it will cut a perfectly good lateral-only
mono master with no vertical component whatever. One might have hoped
that you'ld know this. What *you* prostitutes were doing was taking
mono *masters*, and fudging some kind of fake stereo spread to keep
the marketing boys happy.

Absolutely *nothing* to do with record plants being unable to produce
mono pressings, because of course you could if you wanted to - but the
*marketing* guys demanded 'stereo'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:06:33 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:28:10 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Again, desperation is not part of the equation. We, along with our
counterparts in other record companies were given the brief to find
a method of producing "electronically processed stereo" and that's what
we had to do when record plants ceased to produce mono pressings.

What a load of utter crap! All you have to do is feed a mono signal to
a stereo cutting lathe, and it will cut a perfectly good lateral-only
mono master with no vertical component whatever. One might have hoped
that you'ld know this. What *you* prostitutes were doing was taking
mono *masters*, and fudging some kind of fake stereo spread to keep
the marketing boys happy.

It is quite true that a mono signal can be cut by a stereo cutting head,
and mono will be produced. But there was a decision made not to press
any more mono LPs and mono material could not for legal reasons be
passed off a stereo. So there was no option but to find methods to
produce electronic stereo.

Absolutely *nothing* to do with record plants being unable to produce
mono pressings, because of course you could if you wanted to - but the
*marketing* guys demanded 'stereo'.

This was a decision by both factory and administration that there would
be no more mono pressings. Most record companies in the UK took this
decision early 70's. I am surprised you were not aware of it.

I'm well aware of it - I was there, fighting off that other snake oil
masterpiece, the Linn Sondek - and the sheer dishonesty of
'reprocessed for stereo' has not changed in the intervening years.

Stop with the lies, Churches. You already admitted that a stereo
cutting lathe can quite happily produce a mono master, which of course
can happily be pressed by any vinyl pressing plant, since mono and
stereo are utterly irrelevant to record pressing.

You're talking about creating phasey fake stereo from *old* mono
masters, to keep the marketing boys happy. Thanks for clarifying the
dishonesty with "mono material could not for legal reasons be passed
off as stereo. So there was no option but to find methods to produce
electronic stereo". This was just another classic record industry scam
to resell back catalogue - as with 2-channel SACD and DVD-A.

You did *not* produce "electronic stereo", you produced a phasey
fudged fake that smeared across the soundstage and fooled the 'easy
listening' crowd. I'm not surprised that you've ended up as a
recordist for dodgy Scandinavian videos.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering