Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

Johan Helsingius wrote:

Invented by a deaf Kraut code scribbler

I think JJ (and the other AT&T-Bell Labs guys) would
be rather offended by that remark.


** Good.


and loved only by film industry pukes


Yes, and all of us who have been able to enjoy portable
digital sound and streaming for the last 20 years.



** So you like puke sound ?

Did you carry a Walkman around all the time once ?


- who have always accepted totally crap sound as just fine.


Well, as long as we aren't talking about very low bit rates,
"audibly indistinguishable from the original by most people"
has been more than good enough,


** The recoding industry has never accepted MP3 as good enough.

16bit, 44.1k PCM is considered acceptable, though proven countless times to provide perfect reproduction of any audio band signal. MP3 can do no such thing.



..... Phil

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I found the problems when they attempted to stereofy things like old
Tornados recordiings makde by Joe Meek. Absolutely awful, as were emis best
of Ruby Murray.
and Polidors spicks and specks by the bee giees originaly made in oz.
Then there was the unfortunate lp Capitol put out of Magical Mystery tour
by the beatles with reprocessed mono of Penny lane etc, which had stereo
mixes already.

Agreed. One wonders why electronic stereo versions of
any of these were made. Maybe at the time, it seemed
like a good idea? :-)

Were you able to listen to the exmple I posted, Brian?
I would be interested ín your comments.

Iain


--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

Yes I experimented with this sort of thing domestically around that
time. However a huge number of mono recordings by emi and Deca and
polydor were made using delays and naff frequency shifts that all
sounded like you had a bad head cold in stereo or like it was being
played in a subway in mono.

You may be right about the other labels but as far as I recall,
the Decca classical labels never did what you describe. Hence
our need to find an alternative.

The best effect i had was with small amounts of reverb, but different on
each track. Sadly though the mono in such cases did not sound like
normal mono as there were frequencies where the differing reverb
cancelled and gave the impression of notch filtering.

Total compatibility in mono was paramount.

Iain

http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...StereoDemo.mp3

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 21/01/2017 07:57, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I found the problems when they attempted to stereofy things like old
Tornados recordiings makde by Joe Meek. Absolutely awful, as were emis best
of Ruby Murray.
and Polidors spicks and specks by the bee giees originaly made in oz.
Then there was the unfortunate lp Capitol put out of Magical Mystery tour
by the beatles with reprocessed mono of Penny lane etc, which had stereo
mixes already.

Agreed. One wonders why electronic stereo versions of
any of these were made. Maybe at the time, it seemed
like a good idea? :-)

The marketing men said it had to be stereo as mono was old-fashioned and
no-one would buy it.




--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 21/01/2017 07:57, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I found the problems when they attempted to stereofy things like old
Tornados recordiings makde by Joe Meek. Absolutely awful, as were emis best
of Ruby Murray.
and Polidors spicks and specks by the bee giees originaly made in oz.
Then there was the unfortunate lp Capitol put out of Magical Mystery tour
by the beatles with reprocessed mono of Penny lane etc, which had stereo
mixes already.

Agreed. One wonders why electronic stereo versions of
any of these were made. Maybe at the time, it seemed
like a good idea? :-)

Maybe the record company thought they could make more money out of the
punters.

There are legitimate reasons why I might have several copies of a title.

1. LP, first CD version, remastered CD.
2. LP, first CD version, remastered CD, remastered CD with bonus tracks.
3. LP, first CD version, second CD version where they remembered to turn
on the Dolby NR.
4. LP, CD which later turns out to be transcribed from an LP due to
legal wrangling over the master tapes, CD copied from my own LP and
which sounds better than the first, final official CD when the master
tapes are eventually released.
5. LP, CD remixed by the original artist (longer and not so good),
proper CD using the same mix as the original.
6. Live LP, CD, extended CD without the cuts and with extra tracks and a
bonus DVD-A/SACD.
7. LP, CD, remastered CD, SACD with a CD version where you can hear a
Beatles track backwards at the end due to a problem with the erase head
in the studio.
8. LP, CD where only the soloist's part is the same and where all the
other parts are re-recorded.
9. LP, CD which also features the long track backwards and at half speed
as a tribute to John Peel.
10. LP, CD, CD made from the original tapes replayed on the original
valve tape recorder.


If these are available how can any music lover resist buying them all?

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

With regard to Stereo tv, yes, many films and the old series of Star treck
have been surroundised, I notice. this mainly seems to mean making it sound
a bit like a arge room in most cases.
The panning of people also happens on some films and its quite clerly
artificial as birds or traffic tends to go with the pan.
I'm not sure why anyone bothers with any of this. I would have though a
simple note at the start would suffice saying this material was produced in
mono.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Which reminds me. Many of the Beach Boys stuff was in mono but the
other day a radio station played a track from Pet Sounds and it was in
real stereo, so it has me wondering.

IIRC, Pet Sounds made much use of the then quite new multi-track
recorders.
If those tapes still existed, it would be much easier to create passable
stereo from than a single track mono.

I don't like to mention TV sound on this hallowed group where only the
ultimate is considered relevant, but coming much later than the recording
industry to stereo - not until the '80s - there were by that time lots of
gismos around to produce 'stereo' from mono. And they were all, to a
greater or lesser extent, a waste of time. With only extremely limited
use. Certainly never for music of any sort.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

Well I did comment on this already, but the cd was dateed 200x, but I
suppose it was probably originally an old master made for a double album on
vinyl.


Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2017 13:51, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...

One of the worst recent examples of attempting to do stereo was rather
ominously called the very worst of Spike Jones.
The content was as witty and daft as expected but spot effects massively
filtered pan potted all over the place was completely ridiculous.
Brian

I would be interested to know how recent.

In analogue without LTC (time code) to synchronise,
it would have been extremely difficult. I can visualise
say five tracks on a multitrack recorder: L, LC, C,
RC, R, with the original mono on track 3 (C)

Then you would have to copy just the spot effects
and spin them in wth "finger sync" on the periferal
tracks to make a LR soundstage. With timecode
the task would have been easier. With a DAW
*much easier* but still time-consuming.
Worth doing? Naaah. But obviously someone
thought they could make a few quid.

In my view recordings such as Spike Jones are
sacrosanct, and anyone found violating them should
be locked in a room with Honey G playing on endless
loop very loud:-)


Isn't that banned under the Geneva Convention?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I found the problems when they attempted to stereofy things like old
Tornados recordiings makde by Joe Meek. Absolutely awful, as were emis
best of Ruby Murray. and Polidors spicks and specks by the bee giees
originaly made in oz. Then there was the unfortunate lp Capitol put out
of Magical Mystery tour by the beatles with reprocessed mono of Penny
lane etc, which had stereo mixes already.

Agreed. One wonders why electronic stereo versions of any of these were
made. Maybe at the time, it seemed like a good idea? :-)

Money. Or at least, the belief of some of the people at some of the
companies that fiddling about would return more of it. Hence, for example,
the differences between early Beatles LP releases in the USA and the UK.

New 'versions' are seen as money-spinners, which is as I suspect MQA will
be seen in some quarters.

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
With regard to Stereo tv, yes, many films and the old series of Star
treck have been surroundised, I notice. this mainly seems to mean making
it sound a bit like a arge room in most cases. The panning of people
also happens on some films and its quite clerly artificial as birds or
traffic tends to go with the pan. I'm not sure why anyone bothers with
any of this. I would have though a simple note at the start would
suffice saying this material was produced in mono.

It depends on what exists from the original post production. Basically,
with film production, only the live dialogue is captured at the filming.
And sometimes not even that. If all the material still exists it would be
quite possible (but expensive) to create a true stereo version (or rather
as stereo as any such thing ever is). It's possible true stereo versions
of the music were made at the same time as the mono.

But has been said it's totally pointless trying to create stereo from
mono. Except to some marketing suit. And those stupid enough to buy it.

--
*The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese *

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I don't like to mention TV sound on this hallowed group where only the
ultimate is considered relevant, but coming much later than the recording
industry to stereo - not until the '80s - there were by that time lots of
gismos around to produce 'stereo' from mono.

Indeed. By that time there several free-standing and rack-mounting
"mono to stereo audio converters"

And they were all, to a greater or lesser extent, a waste of time.
With only extremely limited use. Certainly never for music of any sort.

That's a rather sweeping statement. Which ones
did you try and which were your favourites?

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2017 07:57, Iain Churches wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
I found the problems when they attempted to stereofy things like old
Tornados recordiings makde by Joe Meek. Absolutely awful, as were emis
best
of Ruby Murray.
and Polidors spicks and specks by the bee giees originaly made in oz.
Then there was the unfortunate lp Capitol put out of Magical Mystery
tour
by the beatles with reprocessed mono of Penny lane etc, which had
stereo
mixes already.

Agreed. One wonders why electronic stereo versions of
any of these were made. Maybe at the time, it seemed
like a good idea? :-)

The marketing men said it had to be stereo as mono was old-fashioned and
no-one would buy it.


The situation was actually more complex than that.
Mono was still firmly entrenched, But people who
had recently bought stereo systems would only
buy stereo recordings (and undestandably so)

But there were many who still had portable record
players, and clung to mono, and so albums
were released in both mono and stereo - easy
to do when stereo or multirack masters were
available. Many singles were mixed in narrow
stereo. LC. RC

Then the decision came. "No more mono"
Most labels had huge back catalogues of
sometimes very fine mono recordings, for
which there was still considerable demand
especially among buyers of classical music.

Iain