Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and
that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly
wrong?

In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter
head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono
cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono
singles were cut.

On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some
stereo, would this still apply? If so how?

These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono
material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter
could work at nominal fixed depth.

Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono?

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Are we saying then, that some mono recordings are cut in stereo and
that the engineering is such that they can get the balance badly
wrong?

In the UK at least, cutting facilities used a separate mono cutter
head.. Both EMI and Decca had lathes fitted permanenty with mono
cutters on which replacement masters for mono material, and also mono
singles were cut.

On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some
stereo, would this still apply? If so how?

These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono
material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter
could work at nominal fixed depth.

Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono?

Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and
read Brian's question to Keith's original post.

Interesting it was assumed to be a poorly cut disc of a mono
recording, where the question was asked: " the engineering is
such that they can get the balance badly wrong?"

When in in fact it was a recording made with a stereo pair by our
very own expert, Arny :-)))

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and some
stereo, would this still apply? If so how?

These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono
material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter
could work at nominal fixed depth.

Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono?

Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and
read Brian's question to Keith's original post.

No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two
contradicting views you gave you consider correct.

Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you
can't.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and
some
stereo, would this still apply? If so how?

These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono
material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter
could work at nominal fixed depth.

Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono?

Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and
read Brian's question to Keith's original post.

No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two
contradicting views you gave you consider correct.

Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you
can't.



Hah! First time Poochie's pooted summat of interest!

As a total 'non industry/non techy' I would say sure, why not? But mono'
isnt as straightforward as many would think - start here and look for
mentions of 'lateral' and 'hill and dale' mono:

http://members.myactv.net/~je205d/mono.htm


(Iain - note the LP sleeves!! :-)

I'll tidy his stoopid sig away, in appreciation, this time...

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I can recall playing a very warped bit of mono vinyl,
and if you did switch from stereo to mono you could hear
the changes in phase presumably. Are we saying then, that some mono
recordings are cut in
stereo and that the engineering is such that they can
get the balance badly wrong?

See below.

I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks
are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even
worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad
old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays,
phase and tone changes.

That's not a vinyl recording Brian,

He never said it was. He said that it was a result that might be obtained by
that means.

Can you distinguish the difference between those two situations, Kitty?

It's purportedly a
live recording from one of the self-styled
*meister-yappers* here who considers himself a bit of a
'recordist' and good enough at it, apparently, to try and
put a true industry professional like Iain Churches in
his place - constantly aided and abetted by his trusty
pooch, of course!

Note the lame and childish attempt to turn a purported technical question
into yet another stage of Kitty's ongoing personal vendetta(s).

What I see is that, for a supposed 'stereo recording',
the tracks *appear* nearly identical throughout which
would suggest to me that either the mics are too far away
from the recording target

Since you've identified the source of the recording Kitty, let's talk about
the source of the recording, and the purpose that it served.

The recording was of a really pretty good high school chorus, made in a high
school auditorium, with the goal of coming as close as possible to the sound
heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event.

or the target material is
completely homogenous, left to right - whatever, but the
channel imbalance can only be real *sloppiness* at some
point, whether it be down to poor mic placement, poor
level settings or some cock-up in post processing...??

The first problem with the analysis provided is that it is based on what was
inherently a snapshot of just a portion of the entire event.

Contrary to your apparent belief Kitty, music is not static, and the balance
and any similarity between the 2 channels are not constant but rather
varies. That means that at any point in time, the channels are likely to not
be in perfect balance.


Anyway, here's what it sounds like (completely
unadulterated by me):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/HeejusDin.wav

Childish attempt to editorialize and prejudice listeners by means of a
taunting and insulting file name noted.

Terrible racket, ain't it?

Compared to some of your previous posts here Kitty, really not all that bad.

More to the point, it is what it is.

The thing you want to compare the recording to is not available to you,
Kitty. What you need to hear to make a reasonable comparison to is the sound
heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding over the event.

Do you know where the adjudication panel were seated, Kitty?

Do tell.

God only knows where the
nasty, *tinny* sound comes from - ****e mics, ****e mic
choices or recorded over the *phone* possibly?

The mic was a Rode NT-4.

http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=NT4 .

The sound quality came from the same basic place that many of the sonic
miscegenations that you have posted links to here have come from, Kitty.
The source.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I can recall playing a very warped bit of mono vinyl,
and if you did switch from stereo to mono you could hear
the changes in phase presumably. Are we saying then, that some mono
recordings are cut in
stereo and that the engineering is such that they can
get the balance badly wrong?

See below.

I suppose this could occur where stereo and mono tracks
are being cut on the same disc. However it gets even
worse as it was of course a regular practice in the bad
old days to 'synthesize the stero using echo, delays,
phase and tone changes.

That's not a vinyl recording Brian,

He never said it was. He said that it was a result that might be obtained
by that means.


???

WTF is Amy going on about - is he *loosing* it...???

rest snipped - all looks a bit wacky to me....

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
On say a compilation album where some of the tracks were mono and
some
stereo, would this still apply? If so how?

These would have to be cut on a stereo lathe. For the mono
material the cut would have only lateral excursion and the cutter
could work at nominal fixed depth.

Indeed. Are you then saying this method is flawed in mono?

Stop playing your silly cat and mouse games, Dave, and
read Brian's question to Keith's original post.

No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two
contradicting views you gave you consider correct.

There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious?
A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut
on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo.
Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or
a mono lathe can be used for mono.

That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that
such material could be cut on a stereo lathe. I promised
that I would find somedemo material form Brian if he
is interested to hear it.


Either you can cut a satisfactory mono signal with a stereo lathe or you
can't.

Of course you can, but in the days when both stereo and mono
were being cut, it made no sense in tying up a stereo lathe to do it.

Iain

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Since you've identified the source of the recording Kitty, let's talk
about the source of the recording, and the purpose that it served.

The recording was of a really pretty good high school chorus,

Is that "really pretty good" in your opinion Arny?


made in a high school auditorium, with the goal of coming as close as
possible to the sound heard by the adjudication panel that was presiding
over the event.



Unless your adjudicators each had only one ear (mono), with severe
HF distortion, then you failed miserably in your attempt to reach the
goal.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two
contradicting views you gave you consider correct.

There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious?
A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut
on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo.
Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or
a mono lathe can be used for mono.

That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that
such material could be cut on a stereo lathe.

Eh? That doesn't make sense.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
No cat and mouse. Just trying to find out which one of the two
contradicting views you gave you consider correct.

There is nothing contradictory. Is it not perfectly obvious?
A recording containing some stereo material has to be cut
on a stereo lathe if you want the listener to hear it in stereo.
Either a stereo lathe (with a stereo or mono cutter head) or
a mono lathe can be used for mono.

That was precisely the reason for electronic stereo, so that
such material could be cut on a stereo lathe.

Eh? That doesn't make sense.

Well no, it makes no sense at all. Clearly mono *can* be cut on a stereo
lathe. After all mono is just stereo in which the difference signal happens
to be zero.

AIUI "electronic stereo" was basically a marketing device, a way of selling
existing mono material to a new market.

David.


--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

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