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!

"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.

"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....

"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.

"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....

"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

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