OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that)
I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask:

This don't look right to me:

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


Is it dual mono? Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform?

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that)
I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask:

This don't look right to me:

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


Is it dual mono? Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform?




They are similar but not identical, the bottom channel looks as if it is has
a lower db recording signature...Stereo/ dual mono???

--


Regards
p.mc

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?
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.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"p.mc" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody else, come to that)
I've got another 'dual mono' question to ask:

This don't look right to me:

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


Is it dual mono? Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform?




They are similar but not identical, the bottom channel looks as if it is
has a lower db recording signature...Stereo/ dual mono???

--


Regards
p.mc

"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, 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!

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 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...??

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

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


Terrible racket, ain't it? God only knows where the nasty, *tinny* sound
comes from - ****e mics, ****e mic choices or recorded over the *phone*
possibly?

LOL!

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...


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.

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.


This is a very old can of worms, that you are now re-opening,
Brian:-)

In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act,
or somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK
decided that, with the exception of important classical archive
recordings, they would release no futher mono material. This
was also of course a great money saver, as it removed the
necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants with two presses
being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and stereo
versions of the same LP.

As you mention, there were some pretty awful efforts at
"electronic stereo" particularly on pop records, the simplest
of which was to switch in BP (bass phase) so that all material
below 100 Hz was common and stayed in the centre and then
equalise the left channel to boost the HF from about 5k upwards
and the right channel to boost the low mids and LF. There
are many variation of this basic ideas, and all of which
sounded pretty hideous.


However, there were other approaches that were
much more accepable, and when switched mono
dropped back into the centre giving total compatibility
with the original mono signal.

There was considerable demand from third party clients
for this work, and the studios where I worked had a
suite specifically set up to cater for it. The method itself
was kept secret:-))

No one claimed or even suggested it was genuine stereo,
but it certainly gave the spatial effect that many people
seemed to want, with the advantage of compatibility if
you wished to listen mono. In digital, the same result
can be achieved more easily but using the same
principles.

I have some "before and after" samples, to which I will
post a link, a) if there is an interest, b) if I can find them.

Regards
Iain

"Keith G" wrote in message

OK, pending my marching orders from Arny (or anybody
else, come to that) I've got another 'dual mono' question
to ask:
This don't look right to me:

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


Is it dual mono?

Could be.

Is it possible to tell by just looking at the waveform?

The tolerance on visual examination of waveforms is on the order of 1%,
depending on how you line up and magnify things.

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act, or
somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK decided that,
with the exception of important classical archive recordings, they would
release no futher mono material. This was also of course a great money
saver, as it removed the necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants
with two presses being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and
stereo versions of the same LP.

I hope you didn't actually mean "duplicity". :-) I was never a fan of EMI
pressings, but I don't know if I'd go that far.

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


In the 70's due to requirements of the Trades Descriptions Act, or
somesuch, the great minds of the record industry in the UK decided that,
with the exception of important classical archive recordings, they would
release no futher mono material. This was also of course a great money
saver, as it removed the necessity for duplicity at the pressing plants
with two presses being required for simultaneous pressing of mono and
stereo versions of the same LP.

I hope you didn't actually mean "duplicity". :-) I was never a fan of
EMI
pressings, but I don't know if I'd go that far.


Gosh sorry. I was not thinking in English, and was trying to avoid the word
duplication. as it has other meanings in the production context.
Just to put the record straight I meant that it avoided the necessity of
having two presses producing different versions of the same LP.

Iain

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?

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

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

"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.

Iain