Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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 strongest recollection is when I asked if the record shop in Stevenage
New Town centre (called The Recod Shop) had anything by a new group called
Queen? The guy behind the counter said 'Ooo?' and shuffled off to look. They
actually had a (stereo?) copy of Brighton Rock which I bought!



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.


The very early part of the 60s era for me was one of finally being allowed
to mess with the 'stereogram' and, when I had got the *bug* I remember
hankering after a Pioneer PL12D with a Shure M75ED2 on it, but had to settle
for a mail order turntable/receiver + separate speakers thing with a BSR
deck in it!!!

Which was nice...

In the early 70s I got a Philips GA212 deck with an Ortofon cart, a
Cambridge P50 amp and AR4Xa speakers.



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.


I have seen speaker pairs in all sorts of congurations which only
confirms/confirmed that Joe Ordinaire didn't have a clue or even care about
'stereo' back then. The trouble with the whole 'stereo roll out', as I see
now, is that that they were peddling stereo to people with only mediocre kit
to start with, to play hideous bloody sample records like this one:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TotalSound.jpg

....that had a hideous, wide-ranging cocktail of ****ed-up 'tribute music'
garnered from various other albums currently in the catalogue:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...lSoundRear.jpg

(Excuse the stain - I guess its previous owner got a little excited when he
bought the disc! :-)


Which sounded summat like this (Side 2, Track 2):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3


For 'Dad' to make himself look a complete tit and bore the crap out of
everybody with and somehow get him to prioritise a 'proper' hifi system over
a little tinny secondhand car to take the family to the seaside on bank
holidays or summat like!

(All that said, If I had the chance I'd be back there *like a shot* - fitwer
possible...!! :-)

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

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

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?"


IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here and no shop would
take a cheque off anyone they didn't already know!



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.


We were probably the better part of a decade behind the US in such things
back then - if its toxic debt, obesity, street violence or drug-related
crime, we are about a fortnight behind you these days....



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.


Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we went
over to FM stereo.



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?"


OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed - HD everything is
the name of the game now and the big studio names are well behind it. Most
important though, LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over
ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think a big organisation
has shown a bit of long-term common sense conquering the all-too familiar
short-term greed!

Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people aren't exactly
*rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD anything'!!



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.


Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody overhead projecting BD
and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we are - if the differences are not so sharply
defined with the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well be
right.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Keith G" wrote


blah blah blah



http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/TotalSound.jpg

...that had a hideous, wide-ranging cocktail of ****ed-up 'tribute music'
garnered from various other albums currently in the catalogue:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...lSoundRear.jpg

(Excuse the stain - I guess its previous owner got a little excited when
he bought the disc! :-)


Which sounded summat like this (Side 2, Track 2):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3



I have since 'monoed' and 'dual monoed' this clip for some fairly
interesting comparisons and made one or two discoveries that I won't mention
in case anyone (??) wants to compare them for themselves:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/MonoClip.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...alMonoClip.mp3

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/StereoClip.mp3


I would love to compare some stereo and mono recordings made simultaneously
but separately of the same event!

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

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

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?"

IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here
and no shop would take a cheque off anyone they didn't
already know!

Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-)

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.

We were probably the better part of a decade behind the
US in such things back then - if its toxic debt, obesity,
street violence or drug-related crime, we are about a
fortnight behind you these days....

Not a bad place to be...

However, all those factors depend considerably exactly where in the US you
live.

For example, the murder rate in the city immediately south of here is about
100 per 100,000 per year. In my town and those around it on all other sides,
less than 1 per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws in all places.


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.


Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't
know when we went over to FM stereo.

Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK. Market
penetration stats would be tougher to find.

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?"

OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed
- HD everything is the name of the game now and the big
studio names are well behind it. Most important though,
LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over
ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think
a big organisation has shown a bit of long-term common
sense conquering the all-too familiar short-term greed!

The problem with lack of BluRay titles to rent or buy remains a big drag.

Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people
aren't exactly *rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD
anything'!!

Exactly. Ditto for the cable providers.

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.

Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody
overhead projecting BD and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we
are -

Sometimes the problem is that the displayed picture is not large enough, but
often the problem is that the program material just isn't that good.

if the differences are not so sharply defined with
the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well
be right.

The problem with many HDTVs is that the screen just isn't large enough given
the viewing distance. Habits and preferences have been oriented around
masking the limitations of NTSC and PAL.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

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

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

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?"

IIRC, in the 60s no-one had a credit or charge card here
and no shop would take a cheque off anyone they didn't
already know!

Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-)



Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy?

Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you and
your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here. What they don't
seem to be able to forgive is that I give as good as I get - I've only said
'I pay in the same coin as I am paid' about 28,000 times....

Now, do I even read the rest or do I just ignore it?

We'll see...





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.

We were probably the better part of a decade behind the
US in such things back then - if its toxic debt, obesity,
street violence or drug-related crime, we are about a
fortnight behind you these days....

Not a bad place to be...

However, all those factors depend considerably exactly where in the US you
live.

For example, the murder rate in the city immediately south of here is
about 100 per 100,000 per year. In my town and those around it on all
other sides, less than 1 per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws in
all places.


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.


Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't
know when we went over to FM stereo.

Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK. Market
penetration stats would be tougher to find.

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?"

OK. First off, there's no much doubt Bluray will succeed
- HD everything is the name of the game now and the big
studio names are well behind it. Most important though,
LoveFilm do not charge extra for Bluray rental over
ordinary DVDs - first sign in a long while where I think
a big organisation has shown a bit of long-term common
sense conquering the all-too familiar short-term greed!

The problem with lack of BluRay titles to rent or buy remains a big drag.

Amazon and other retailers still need to spot that people
aren't exactly *rushing* to pay through the nose for 'HD
anything'!!

Exactly. Ditto for the cable providers.

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.

Maybe, but that's certainly not the case with anybody
overhead projecting BD and DVDs with a 1080p PJ like we
are -

Sometimes the problem is that the displayed picture is not large enough,
but often the problem is that the program material just isn't that good.

if the differences are not so sharply defined with
the new breed of LED and OLED panel TVs then you may well
be right.

The problem with many HDTVs is that the screen just isn't large enough
given the viewing distance. Habits and preferences have been oriented
around masking the limitations of NTSC and PAL.

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message

per 100,000 per year. Same gun control laws
in all places.


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.


Googleable of course, but off the top of my head I don't know when we
went over to FM stereo.

Google would probably show when FM stereo was available in the UK.
Market penetration stats would be tougher to find.

Hard to give meaningful answers for the above in the UK. The coverage was
for many years limited to just a few areas. And tended to be only on Radio
3 in those areas. And was only a few programmes per week. So it was quite
some time between the first Radio 3 sheduled stereo broadcasts in the
London area and when most of the UK population were provided with
tranmissions on a routine multi-station basis.

The main problem IIRC was that during much the same period Colour TV was
also being rolled out, and the BBC simply gave that priority.

FWIW when I 'emigrated' up to Scotland we weren't provided with BBC Radio 4
on FM. So no stereo here for radio 4. This was in the 1980s and early
1990s.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-)



Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy?

Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you
and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here.

Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you
Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc.

As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back.
But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder *

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Well, at least the shops you frequented, Kitty! ;-)



Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy?

Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that you
and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here.

Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened you
Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc.



???

How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??) at
the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes to prove
you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing has been lost
by it....



As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it back.
But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return.



And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie
Poos and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop
whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your name
all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long think and
see if you can come with summat nice and scathing....

(Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one cast!!
:-)


Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's about
the tenth time this crap has appeared this week:

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder *

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy?

Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that
you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here.

Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened
you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc.

???

How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??)
at the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes
to prove you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing
has been lost by it....

*You* meant no offence? Just wanted to be familiar? Excuse me while I
throw up. That's the best whine I've read for a while.
But you didn't offend me by name calling - I've been insulted by experts.
And you're no Oscar Wilde.

But you obviously hate being called Kitty which gives much pleasure.



As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it
back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return.



And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie
Poos

Is that another example of you trying to be familiar, Kitty?

and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop
whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your
name all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long
think and see if you can come with summat nice and scathing....

Could run that by me again in English?

(Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one
cast!!
:-)

Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's
about the tenth time this crap has appeared this week:

Glad you read it with such relish. You certainly comment on it enough.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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

Another 'dual mono' question....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Starting the insults and name-calling again, Amy?

Pity the *judgementalists* here haven't been able to pick up on that
you and your devoted little pal *always* start the ****fests here.

Kitty, you first called me Plowie or whatever ages before I christened
you Kitty. Sauce for the goose etc.

???

How very strange that you have apparently taken offence (for *years*??)
at the 'familiar' name Plowie when no offence was ever meant only goes
to prove you are indeed a pathetic little ********** and that nothing
has been lost by it....

*You* meant no offence? Just wanted to be familiar?



Good oh - Pucciwankaboy's here to give me a break from seriously boring
movie....


Excuse me while I
throw up.



Been down the pub again, then..??



That's the best whine I've read for a while.


Don't you mean *wine*.....???


But you didn't offend me by name calling - I've been insulted by experts.



Oh, I'm *sure* you have.

LOL!


And you're no Oscar Wilde.



No, but I strongly suspect you swing that way, dear....



But you obviously hate being called Kitty which gives much pleasure.


Knock yourself out Pucciwankaboy - like I could care less..??





As I said before if you treat people with respect you should get it
back. But if like you try and put them down expect the same in return.



And the same goes for you, but I don't need or want your respect Poochie
Poos

Is that another example of you trying to be familiar, Kitty?

and there's no way under heaven you could ever get mine, so just stop
whining and dry yer eyes - there's a nice new *serious troll* with your
name all over it waiting for a response, why don't you have a good long
think and see if you can come with summat nice and scathing....

Could run that by me again in English?


Go wash your face with cold water and read it again.



(Then I'll have hooked both of this group's biggest *****s* with one
cast!!
:-)

Ay oop, his pathetic little sig generator has stuck as well - that's
about the tenth time this crap has appeared this week:

Glad you read it with such relish.


Relish?

Like Patum Peperium you mean..??



You certainly comment on it enough.


It is puerile and pathetic, yet it is almost always the best thing in your
posts....



--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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