Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

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


The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono
and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the
same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling
rapidly.

The law at that time stated that mono tracks could not be included
in an LP that was marketed as stereo.

The record companies also decided in their wisdom that the
huge amount of already existing popular mono material could be
made to sound better alongside genuine stereo material by
electronic reprocessing. There was a considerable demand for
such reprocessed tracks in compliations and "Best Of", releases,
and also leased material issued by companies such as Readers
Digest, and K-Tel.

In these enlightened days, mono tracks are simply identified with an
asterisk, and a footnote.



Iain

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

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


That's not a vinyl recording Brian,


OK Amy, Iain's response this morning prompts me to re-visit your reply to me
and try to work through it all.



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?


Still no idea what that means. I don't do Krooglish.



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 do note is the lame and childish bleating from someone who can dish
it out alright (and does so continuously), but can't take it....



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.


What, that the source of the recording served?



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


Pity you turned them into crap then, isn't it?


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.


I didn't see the horse, but I can see where its been....



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.


My analysis was based on the *entire* portion that you posted. If you had
somehow managed to record a another portion that didn't sound quite so dire
then more fool you for not posting it!



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.


I note that you noted it.




Terrible racket, ain't it?

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


No comparison with anything needed, Amy - it's a terrible racket. Period.

(As the Merkins would say....)



More to the point, it is what it is.


Indeed it is - a terrible racket.



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.


Er no, I don't need to compare it with anything - like I said sad, it's crap
in its own right.



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



Is that a serious question? :-)



Do tell.


Grasping at straws now, ain'tcha? :-)



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.


Attempt to distract the readers noted.



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.


Babbling now. Lost it completely I would say.

What Amy doesn't realise is that when you set yourself up as an expert or
*authority* in this world you'd better be pretty good and all he's done is
demonstrate that he very definitely *isn't* after years of 'authoritative
yap' in this ng.....

He can't win this - the clip is **** and will always be ****, he needs to
stop digging....

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...

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


The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing of mono
and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring two presses for the
same job, at a time when the demand for mono LPs was fallling
rapidly.

Not really relevant to the point. The were two reasons for selling mono
versions of stereo LPs. One was to provide different mixes optimised for
mono and stereo listening. The other to cater for the buyers who had older
record players fitted with cartridges that had no vertical compliance. By
the time most mono record players were fitted with cartridges that *did*
have vertical compliance "mono" listeners could simply buy stereo LPs,
assuming the stereo mix was designed to work well when reduced to mono. So a
single stereo disc would meet all requirements.


The law at that time stated that mono tracks could not be included
in an LP that was marketed as stereo.

The record companies also decided in their wisdom that the
huge amount of already existing popular mono material could be
made to sound better alongside genuine stereo material by
electronic reprocessing. There was a considerable demand for
such reprocessed tracks in compliations and "Best Of", releases,
and also leased material issued by companies such as Readers
Digest, and K-Tel.

ie. what I said about it being a marketing device.

David.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,

Iain Churches wrote:

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.

So far so good.

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.

Right.

Electronic stereo was a lame attempt to give a false sense of spaciousness
to mono recordings. It usually involved things like equalization and/or
delays applied differently to the 2 signals that were sent to the cutting
amplifier.

If you want to cut a mono LP with a stereo head, its just a matter of
properly matrixing the signals that are applied to the amplifier that drives
the cutter. This isn't electronic stereo, its just electrical algebra in the
service of geometry.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

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

The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing
of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring
two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand
for mono LPs was fallling rapidly.

You don't need two different presses to make the mono and stereo versions of
the same LP. You just use different dies.

Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one press at the same time
for LPs that sold in high volumes.

The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the retailers, who were
greatly inconvenienced by the need to maintain dual stocks. Consumers would
not infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be disappointed when
they played them at home.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

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

The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing
of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring
two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand
for mono LPs was fallling rapidly.

You don't need two different presses to make the mono and stereo versions
of the same LP. You just use different dies.



OK, where's the 'pedant' cry when you want one, then?


Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one press at the same
time for LPs that sold in high volumes.


Er, or for factories *all round the world* to be pushing out the same album
24/7 on 'more than one press' while it was *hot*....!!



The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the retailers, who were
greatly inconvenienced by the need to maintain dual stocks. Consumers
would not infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be
disappointed when they played them at home.


Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in the 'post war
prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl
in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very
much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't
know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in
stereo or mono?'...!!

In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about 'stereo'
until the players became widely available, affordably cheap and pretty much
the only choice in the shops, like HD TV (I believe) is today and also like
where Bluray is right now - definitely on its way but no way yet *universal*
and not set to displace DVDs for a good while.

Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting re-released on Bluray
atm and very poorly done is a good parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo
effect' albums that are the subject of debate here.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about
'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap
and pretty much the only choice in the shops,

Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono
to play it on.

--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


"David Looser" wrote in
message ...

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

The record companies decided to discontinue the pressing
of mono and stereo versions of the same LP, requiring
two presses for the same job, at a time when the demand
for mono LPs was fallling rapidly.

You don't need two different presses to make the mono
and stereo versions of the same LP. You just use
different dies.

OK, where's the 'pedant' cry when you want one, then?

I was just commenting on how ludicrous Iain's comment about "two presses"
was. He obviously has no clue about how LP production plants work.

Furthermore, it was not unusual to use more than one
press at the same time for LPs that sold in high volumes.

Er, or for factories *all round the world* to be pushing
out the same album 24/7 on 'more than one press' while it
was *hot*....!!

I was again just commenting on how ludicrous Iain's comment about "two
presses" was. He obviously has no clue about how LP production plant works.

The major pressure for eliminating mono came from the
retailers, who were greatly inconvenienced by the need
to maintain dual stocks. Consumers would not
infrequently erroneously buy the wrong version and be
disappointed when they played them at home.

Oh, I'm sure 'dual stocks' were a commonplace thing in
the 'post war prosperous' US of A', but my memory is/was
that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint, still
morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very
much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most
record shops - don't know about anyone else here, but I
was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in stereo or
mono?'...!!

By the 60s record stores in the US were largely using the "self serve"
model, with open bins of stock fully accessible to the customers. Therefore,
questions like 'Would sir like that in stereo or mono?' were already
completely moot.

The usual question was "Will you be paying for that with cash, check or
charge?"

In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a
rat's about 'stereo' until the players became widely
available, affordably cheap and pretty much the only
choice in the shops,

By the mid/late 1960s that was pretty much the case in the US.

If memory serves, we started converting to stereo in dead earnest by 1960,
by 1965 FM stereo was the rule, and by 1968 the US was pretty much an
all-stereo world, both media and equipment.

like HD TV (I believe) is today and
also like where Bluray is right now - definitely on its
way but no way yet *universal* and not set to displace
DVDs for a good while.

I have heard questions as to whether or not Blu Ray has already flopped on
the marketplace. The two questions I hear are "where is Blu Ray version of
my favorite movie?", and "OK, I've got the movie, why did they want such a
premium for such mediocre video?"

Further also, some of the utter crap that's getting
re-released on Bluray atm and very poorly done is a good
parallel for some of the dodgy 'stereo effect' albums
that are the subject of debate here.

That could be the case. DVD at 720 x 480 is close enough to mediocre HD to
make some people wonder why they should pay a premium for HD.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about
'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap
and pretty much the only choice in the shops,

Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had mono
to play it on.


Read this bit again:

"but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl
in still skint, still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very
much an either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't
know about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in
stereo or mono?'...!!"


My point is that it *was* either mono or stereo but never both, at least out
in the sticks where I lived (nearest towns Hertford, Stevenage) - you either
bought the copy they had in stock or you didn't. So you well indeed may have
bought the stereo version to play on a deck with a *compatible mono
cartridge, ask your dealer if you are not sure* - IOW, with the correct
stylus radius.

I don't think Joe Simple even *noticed* stereo until they'd been busting
their guts for a while to produce all the ping-pong 'stereo samplers' that
were mentioned in the original mono/dual mono/stereo thread....



--
*No radio - Already stolen.

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
In reality, I don't think most ordinary people gave a rat's about
'stereo' until the players became widely available, affordably cheap
and pretty much the only choice in the shops,

Well yes. Not much point in buying the stereo version if you only had
mono to play it on.


Read this bit again:

"but my memory is/was that back in the heyday of vinyl in still skint,
still morgaged up to the arse, 60s Britanistan, it was very much an
either/or, take it or leave it thing in most record shops - don't know
about anyone else here, but I was *never* asked 'Would sir like that in
stereo or mono?'...!!"

They probably expected you to ask for what you wanted - like when singles
were available in 78 and 45.


My point is that it *was* either mono or stereo but never both, at least
out in the sticks where I lived (nearest towns Hertford, Stevenage) -
you either bought the copy they had in stock or you didn't. So you well
indeed may have bought the stereo version to play on a deck with a
*compatible mono cartridge, ask your dealer if you are not sure* - IOW,
with the correct stylus radius.

I don't think Joe Simple even *noticed* stereo until they'd been busting
their guts for a while to produce all the ping-pong 'stereo samplers'
that were mentioned in the original mono/dual mono/stereo thread....

Not if he only had a Dansette. Those who had a reasonable system would
know about stereo - the BBC did enough tests for everyone to at least have
heard of it.

Incidentally the one actual ping pong track I've heard had excellent
audience ambience on it. But if you put one speaker either side of the
room as most did you'd not have noticed.

--
*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

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