Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

During the early1970's the major UK record
companies decided that mono LPs would be
discontinued. However there was still
a very large back catalogue in mono - fine
recordings of excellent performances - for
which there was still a considerable demand.

There had been many efforts to produce
"electronic stereo" by means of EQ and
pan pots in an attempt to "separate"
instruments into frequency bands and pan
them across the stereo spectrum, left to right.
Most of these sounded awful.

At the studio were I worked, a small group
of us discussed an idea to create electronic
stereo soundstage using phase/time shift,
rather than treat the recording itself with
equalisation. Our aim, was to simulate a
recording made with a co-incidental pair
of microphones.

The brief from our production team was to
provide a stereo master which, with both
channels summed (i.e played mono), would
be indistinguishable from the original mono,
with no degradation of the original sound.

This clearly tagged the EQ method as a
complete non-starter.

This was long before the days of digital
processors and computer plug-ins, so
we resorted to three Studer analogue tape
machines - a C37 mono full-track quarter-inch
source machine, an eight track A80 running at 30 ips
with Doldy "A" and a stereo A80 quarter-inch
15ips master recorder with Dolby "A"

The idea, simple in itself, depended on the delay
between the record and playback head on the
multitrack machine to introduce a sense of width
in the sound stage..

To set the delay, a VCSC (variable capstan speed
control) was used on the high-speed multitrack machine.
The audio from the mono source was sent to two tracks
of the multitrack, with the phase of the second track
reversed, so that when they were brought back from
the replay chain to the console, they had 180 degree
phase difference, and cancelled out when switched mono.

Having established the required delay, which was
dependent on both the music content and the location
in which it had been recorded, one could set up
the "stereo sound stage" by bringing up the
original mono signal on the mixing desk, and then
adding to it the out-of-phase pair, at some 10dB
below the mono signal.

We demonstrated the idea by first playing the
"stereo" tape with both tracks panned centre
for mono, and then after about one minute,
opening the pans to L and R. Listeners
were impressed. We wanted to avoid the
word "electronic" and so called it
"reprocessed stereo"

A large number of early classical recordings
were reprocessed using this system for our own
label and also for third party labels. The compatibility
test was perfect, and switching to stereo gave a
spread to the original recording with no other changes.

Here is one of my experiments with a jazz track.

On this audio extract, there are three segments.
The first is mono, the second is reprocessed stereo,
and the third segment is a good example of what happens
when the level difference of mono signal and the
out-of-phase pair is too small.

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


Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:45:47 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

During the early1970's the major UK record
companies decided that mono LPs would be
discontinued. However there was still
a very large back catalogue in mono - fine
recordings of excellent performances - for
which there was still a considerable demand.

There had been many efforts to produce
"electronic stereo" by means of EQ and
pan pots in an attempt to "separate"
instruments into frequency bands and pan
them across the stereo spectrum, left to right.
Most of these sounded awful.

At the studio were I worked, a small group
of us discussed an idea to create electronic
stereo soundstage using phase/time shift,
rather than treat the recording itself with
equalisation. Our aim, was to simulate a
recording made with a co-incidental pair
of microphones.

The brief from our production team was to
provide a stereo master which, with both
channels summed (i.e played mono), would
be indistinguishable from the original mono,
with no degradation of the original sound.

This clearly tagged the EQ method as a
complete non-starter.

This was long before the days of digital
processors and computer plug-ins, so
we resorted to three Studer analogue tape
machines - a C37 mono full-track quarter-inch
source machine, an eight track A80 running at 30 ips
with Doldy "A" and a stereo A80 quarter-inch
15ips master recorder with Dolby "A"

The idea, simple in itself, depended on the delay
between the record and playback head on the
multitrack machine to introduce a sense of width
in the sound stage..

To set the delay, a VCSC (variable capstan speed
control) was used on the high-speed multitrack machine.
The audio from the mono source was sent to two tracks
of the multitrack, with the phase of the second track
reversed, so that when they were brought back from
the replay chain to the console, they had 180 degree
phase difference, and cancelled out when switched mono.

Having established the required delay, which was
dependent on both the music content and the location
in which it had been recorded, one could set up
the "stereo sound stage" by bringing up the
original mono signal on the mixing desk, and then
adding to it the out-of-phase pair, at some 10dB
below the mono signal.

We demonstrated the idea by first playing the
"stereo" tape with both tracks panned centre
for mono, and then after about one minute,
opening the pans to L and R. Listeners
were impressed. We wanted to avoid the
word "electronic" and so called it
"reprocessed stereo"

A large number of early classical recordings
were reprocessed using this system for our own
label and also for third party labels. The compatibility
test was perfect, and switching to stereo gave a
spread to the original recording with no other changes.

Here is one of my experiments with a jazz track.

On this audio extract, there are three segments.
The first is mono, the second is reprocessed stereo,
and the third segment is a good example of what happens
when the level difference of mono signal and the
out-of-phase pair is too small.

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


Iain


Mono for me. The second segment still has everything I want to hear at
centre front, but with some vague "stuff" round the sides. The third
part sounds like someone has got the phasing totally wrong somewhere
down the line.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 19/01/2017 12:45, Iain Churches wrote:
During the early1970's the major UK record
companies decided that mono LPs would be
discontinued. However there was still
a very large back catalogue in mono - fine
recordings of excellent performances - for
which there was still a considerable demand.

There had been many efforts to produce
"electronic stereo" by means of EQ and
pan pots in an attempt to "separate"
instruments into frequency bands and pan
them across the stereo spectrum, left to right.
Most of these sounded awful.

At the studio were I worked, a small group
of us discussed an idea to create electronic
stereo soundstage using phase/time shift,
rather than treat the recording itself with
equalisation. Our aim, was to simulate a
recording made with a co-incidental pair
of microphones.

The brief from our production team was to
provide a stereo master which, with both
channels summed (i.e played mono), would
be indistinguishable from the original mono,
with no degradation of the original sound.

This clearly tagged the EQ method as a
complete non-starter.

This was long before the days of digital
processors and computer plug-ins, so
we resorted to three Studer analogue tape
machines - a C37 mono full-track quarter-inch
source machine, an eight track A80 running at 30 ips
with Doldy "A" and a stereo A80 quarter-inch
15ips master recorder with Dolby "A"

The idea, simple in itself, depended on the delay
between the record and playback head on the
multitrack machine to introduce a sense of width
in the sound stage..

To set the delay, a VCSC (variable capstan speed
control) was used on the high-speed multitrack machine.
The audio from the mono source was sent to two tracks
of the multitrack, with the phase of the second track
reversed, so that when they were brought back from
the replay chain to the console, they had 180 degree
phase difference, and cancelled out when switched mono.

Having established the required delay, which was
dependent on both the music content and the location
in which it had been recorded, one could set up
the "stereo sound stage" by bringing up the
original mono signal on the mixing desk, and then
adding to it the out-of-phase pair, at some 10dB
below the mono signal.

We demonstrated the idea by first playing the
"stereo" tape with both tracks panned centre
for mono, and then after about one minute,
opening the pans to L and R. Listeners
were impressed. We wanted to avoid the
word "electronic" and so called it
"reprocessed stereo"

A large number of early classical recordings
were reprocessed using this system for our own
label and also for third party labels. The compatibility
test was perfect, and switching to stereo gave a
spread to the original recording with no other changes.


Many years ago I built a gadget to do the same thing with an op-amp, 3
resistors and a capacitor.
Constant amplitude with a delay at higher frequencies on one channel.
It worked OK but there was no point - mono doesn't sound any better when
spread thinly.

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...

Many years ago I built a gadget to do the same thing with an op-amp, 3
resistors and a capacitor.
Constant amplitude with a delay at higher frequencies on one channel.

Interesting. Was this totally mono compatible with the original?
That was the main part of the brief.

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On this audio extract, there are three segments.
The first is mono, the second is reprocessed stereo,
and the third segment is a good example of what happens
when the level difference of mono signal and the
out-of-phase pair is too small.

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

Mono for me.

For me too. But when the people upstairs decide there will be
no more mono, there will be no more mono. Fortunately, these
days we are more enlightened, and listeners expect mono archive
material to be preserved in pristine mono.

The second segment still has everything I want to hear at
centre front, but with some vague "stuff" round the sides.

Frequency analysis of the original mono, and the reprocessed stereo
track:

Mono
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...requency01.png

Reprocessed Stereo
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...requency02.png

Phase analysis

Mono
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches.../ESPhase01.png

Reprocessed stereo
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches.../ESPhase02.png

The third
part sounds like someone has got the phasing totally wrong somewhere
down the line.

Your analysis of the third segment was spot on, Don,
and illustrates well the importance of the relationship
of the mono centre signal to the out of phase pair.

"Overcooked"
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches.../ESPhase03.png

Iain






d


http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...requency01.png

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 19/01/2017 14:54, Iain Churches wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...

Many years ago I built a gadget to do the same thing with an op-amp, 3
resistors and a capacitor.
Constant amplitude with a delay at higher frequencies on one channel.

Interesting. Was this totally mono compatible with the original?
That was the main part of the brief.

No but that wasn't necessary as my gadget was part of the replay chain
and could have been fitted into an amp (instead of a tobacco tin) with
a defeat switch and a pot for 'image width'.

I didn't think of using my tape deck as a delay.

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2017 14:54, Iain Churches wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
...

Many years ago I built a gadget to do the same thing with an op-amp, 3
resistors and a capacitor.
Constant amplitude with a delay at higher frequencies on one channel.

Interesting. Was this totally mono compatible with the original?
That was the main part of the brief.

No but that wasn't necessary as my gadget was part of the replay chain
and could have been fitted into an amp (instead of a tobacco tin) with
a defeat switch and a pot for 'image width'.

I didn't think of using my tape deck as a delay.

Tape decks we had plenty of:-)

The Studer with external capstan control, was running
well in excess of 30 ips.

At one stage we tried, in addition to the main antiphase
pair, three pairs lightly EQ'd. These were added sparingly,
as one might add condiments in cooking! Once again in
mono, these pairs too cancelled out, just leaving a track
indistinguishable from the mono original.

Generally speaking the reprocessed material that I was
involved with was jazz and classical.

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

Iain Churches wrote:


During the early1970's the major UK record
companies decided that mono LPs would be
discontinued. However there was still
a very large back catalogue in mono - fine
recordings of excellent performances - for
which there was still a considerable demand.

There had been many efforts to produce
"electronic stereo" by means of EQ and
pan pots in an attempt to "separate"
instruments into frequency bands and pan
them across the stereo spectrum, left to right.
Most of these sounded awful.

At the studio were I worked, a small group
of us discussed an idea to create electronic
stereo soundstage using phase/time shift,
rather than treat the recording itself with
equalisation. Our aim, was to simulate a
recording made with a co-incidental pair
of microphones.

The brief from our production team was to
provide a stereo master which, with both
channels summed (i.e played mono), would
be indistinguishable from the original mono,
with no degradation of the original sound.

This clearly tagged the EQ method as a
complete non-starter.

This was long before the days of digital
processors and computer plug-ins, so
we resorted to three Studer analogue tape
machines - a C37 mono full-track quarter-inch
source machine, an eight track A80 running at 30 ips
with Doldy "A" and a stereo A80 quarter-inch
15ips master recorder with Dolby "A"

The idea, simple in itself, depended on the delay
between the record and playback head on the
multitrack machine to introduce a sense of width
in the sound stage..

To set the delay, a VCSC (variable capstan speed
control) was used on the high-speed multitrack machine.
The audio from the mono source was sent to two tracks
of the multitrack, with the phase of the second track
reversed, so that when they were brought back from
the replay chain to the console, they had 180 degree
phase difference, and cancelled out when switched mono.

Having established the required delay, which was
dependent on both the music content and the location
in which it had been recorded, one could set up
the "stereo sound stage" by bringing up the
original mono signal on the mixing desk, and then
adding to it the out-of-phase pair, at some 10dB
below the mono signal.

We demonstrated the idea by first playing the
"stereo" tape with both tracks panned centre
for mono, and then after about one minute,
opening the pans to L and R. Listeners
were impressed. We wanted to avoid the
word "electronic" and so called it
"reprocessed stereo"

A large number of early classical recordings
were reprocessed using this system for our own
label and also for third party labels. The compatibility
test was perfect, and switching to stereo gave a
spread to the original recording with no other changes.

Here is one of my experiments with a jazz track.

On this audio extract, there are three segments.
The first is mono, the second is reprocessed stereo,
and the third segment is a good example of what happens
when the level difference of mono signal and the
out-of-phase pair is too small.

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



** Listening on headphones while operating the "stereo-mono"
switch on my amp:

Segment 1 is plain mono.

Segment 2 has some ambience coming from L & R of center -
which disappears entirely when switched to mono.

Segment 3 in simply out of phase - the level drops by over
15db when switched to mono leaving mostly swishy sounding
artefacts from the low bit rate MP3.

In fact, I hear swishy cymbals on all three segments.

I think a similar trick was once used with stereo recordings
to create signals for rear speakers - using a BBD delay and
reverse phase.



.... Phil

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

** Listening on headphones while operating the "stereo-mono"
switch on my amp:

Segment 1 is plain mono.

Yes.

Segment 2 has some ambience coming from L & R of center -
which disappears entirely when switched to mono.

That was the producers' brief, total mono compatibility with
no change in the original sound.

Segment 3 in simply out of phase - the level drops by over
15db

Yes. It was done to illustrate the importance of the ratio
of centre to side signals. Normally the centre signal needs to
be some 6 to 10dB stronger. In segment 3 the levels are
equal.

In fact, I hear swishy cymbals on all three segments.

That's probably due to the low res of the track which I
posted.

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


Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

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.
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.


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

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...
During the early1970's the major UK record
companies decided that mono LPs would be
discontinued. However there was still
a very large back catalogue in mono - fine
recordings of excellent performances - for
which there was still a considerable demand.

There had been many efforts to produce
"electronic stereo" by means of EQ and
pan pots in an attempt to "separate"
instruments into frequency bands and pan
them across the stereo spectrum, left to right.
Most of these sounded awful.

At the studio were I worked, a small group
of us discussed an idea to create electronic
stereo soundstage using phase/time shift,
rather than treat the recording itself with
equalisation. Our aim, was to simulate a
recording made with a co-incidental pair
of microphones.

The brief from our production team was to
provide a stereo master which, with both
channels summed (i.e played mono), would
be indistinguishable from the original mono,
with no degradation of the original sound.

This clearly tagged the EQ method as a
complete non-starter.

This was long before the days of digital
processors and computer plug-ins, so
we resorted to three Studer analogue tape
machines - a C37 mono full-track quarter-inch
source machine, an eight track A80 running at 30 ips
with Doldy "A" and a stereo A80 quarter-inch
15ips master recorder with Dolby "A"

The idea, simple in itself, depended on the delay
between the record and playback head on the
multitrack machine to introduce a sense of width
in the sound stage..

To set the delay, a VCSC (variable capstan speed
control) was used on the high-speed multitrack machine.
The audio from the mono source was sent to two tracks
of the multitrack, with the phase of the second track
reversed, so that when they were brought back from
the replay chain to the console, they had 180 degree
phase difference, and cancelled out when switched mono.

Having established the required delay, which was
dependent on both the music content and the location
in which it had been recorded, one could set up
the "stereo sound stage" by bringing up the
original mono signal on the mixing desk, and then
adding to it the out-of-phase pair, at some 10dB
below the mono signal.

We demonstrated the idea by first playing the
"stereo" tape with both tracks panned centre
for mono, and then after about one minute,
opening the pans to L and R. Listeners
were impressed. We wanted to avoid the
word "electronic" and so called it
"reprocessed stereo"

A large number of early classical recordings
were reprocessed using this system for our own
label and also for third party labels. The compatibility
test was perfect, and switching to stereo gave a
spread to the original recording with no other changes.

Here is one of my experiments with a jazz track.

On this audio extract, there are three segments.
The first is mono, the second is reprocessed stereo,
and the third segment is a good example of what happens
when the level difference of mono signal and the
out-of-phase pair is too small.

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


Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"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)
 

Iain Churches wrote:

"Phil Allison"

** Listening on headphones while operating the "stereo-mono"
switch on my amp:

Segment 1 is plain mono.

Yes.

Segment 2 has some ambience coming from L & R of center -
which disappears entirely when switched to mono.

That was the producers' brief, total mono compatibility with
no change in the original sound.

Segment 3 in simply out of phase - the level drops by over
15db

Yes. It was done to illustrate the importance of the ratio
of centre to side signals. Normally the centre signal needs to
be some 6 to 10dB stronger. In segment 3 the levels are
equal.


** To quote a famous TV alien: "that does not compute".

Such a strong cancellation requires R to almost exactly equal -L.

A small delay plus phase reversal could NOT produce that.

Do the math....



In fact, I hear swishy cymbals on all three segments.

That's probably due to the low res of the track which I
posted.


** IMHO MP3 sucks.

Low bit rate MP3 sucks to the max.

Invented by a deaf Kraut code scribbler and loved only by film industry pukes - who have always accepted totally crap sound as just fine.



..... Phil

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...



In fact, I hear swishy cymbals on all three segments.

That's probably due to the low res of the track which I
posted.


** IMHO MP3 sucks.

Low bit rate MP3 sucks to the max.

Invented by a deaf Kraut code scribbler and loved only by film industry
pukes - who have always accepted totally crap sound as just fine.


Agreed. But .wav files take up space on the
server which I need for other things.

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"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:-)

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

You said classical, I did not. 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.

--
----- -
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)
 

Yes indeed, it was a shame and there was no indication on it that they had
done this dastardly deed. Its not too bad if played with channels summed,
but still seems a waste of time and money.
Its a cd so I have no idea if its an original master made back some time
ago somebody got hold of or was created for the CD There is a lot of hiss on
some tracks and the sound does seem compressed in a similar way to similar
age stuff, was, so my suspicion is it was done some while ago as noise
reduction is better nowadays without affecting the frequency responce of
the music.



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.
Mind you people would be forgiven for thinking the Christmas Album by Phil
Spector was mono for its cd reeleases all are in that mode, yet I have it on
a stereo Vinyl.

I do also think that companies like EMI have been going back where old
recordings exist and attempting to remaster in decent real stereo. some work
better than others of course!
Brian

--
----- -
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
...

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:-)

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

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)
 

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.

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.

- 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, especially considering the
appalling state of recorded music...

Julf

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 20/01/2017 14:57, 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.

I think it was remixed from the original multi-track tapes.

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

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)
 

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"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?

I didn't try everyone that was auditioned. Just reporting back on what was
found by my department - and no real point in trotting out names of stuff
not used. As there wasn't such a demand for such a device in my particular
field as there obviously was in yours.

Which one do you now use to turn a fine mono music recording into fine
stereo?
I'd be interested to find out that.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

Iain Churches wrote:


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,


** That is an odd way the express the situation.

A player with a mono PU could always play a stereo record, responding only to the lateral modulation and so giving a L+R signal. Mono records differed in only having lateral modulation, no vertical.

A LOT of LPs were sold as "mono-stereo compatible" - meaning the vertical modulation had been supressed, at least at low frequencies, so the mono PUs would not miss track or badly damage the grove.

The simple fix for most MONO record players was to fit a stereo PU ( crystal or ceramic ) and wire the outputs in parallel. The new PU was then able to track vertical modulation and not damage stereo LPs.

The first such PU I bought was the famous BSR C1 ceramic type, in about 1964.

http://thumbs.picclick.com/00/s/MTQwNFgxNjAw/z/6GUAAOSwv9hW4X1C/$/BSR-C1-Ceramic-Stereo-Phono-Cartridge-_1.jpg

It had good stereo separation, with modest compliance figures in both V & H.

I fancy it likely exceed the near zero vertical compliance of the infamous
Decca London hi-fi magnetic PU - which I came across in hte early 1980s but was never tempted to buy.

I was using a Shure V15III by then, which seemed to track everything that existed when fitted in a "Formula 4" tone arm.


..... Phil

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.


How right you are. Not just record companies but every
company worldwide is there to turn a profit. That's the
raison d'etre of business. But at least those who buy
CDs, DVDs and go to theatre or concerts can choose
what they buy or go to see. Caveat emptor.-

A pal of mine in the UK told me earlier today that the
standard TV licence is now UKP145 and payable in
advance. Can that be correct?

He joked: So many programmes are re-runs, I am
inclined to say "I have already paid to see these
programmes, last year, and the year before, and
the year before that......."

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 21/01/2017 14:39, Phil Allison wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:


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,


** That is an odd way the express the situation.

A player with a mono PU could always play a stereo record, responding only to the lateral modulation and so giving a L+R signal. Mono records differed in only having lateral modulation, no vertical.

A LOT of LPs were sold as "mono-stereo compatible" - meaning the vertical modulation had been supressed, at least at low frequencies, so the mono PUs would not miss track or badly damage the grove.

The simple fix for most MONO record players was to fit a stereo PU ( crystal or ceramic ) and wire the outputs in parallel. The new PU was then able to track vertical modulation and not damage stereo LPs.

The first such PU I bought was the famous BSR C1 ceramic type, in about 1964.

http://thumbs.picclick.com/00/s/MTQwNFgxNjAw/z/6GUAAOSwv9hW4X1C/$/BSR-C1-Ceramic-Stereo-Phono-Cartridge-_1.jpg

It had good stereo separation, with modest compliance figures in both V & H.

I fancy it likely exceed the near zero vertical compliance of the infamous
Decca London hi-fi magnetic PU - which I came across in hte early 1980s but was never tempted to buy.

I was using a Shure V15III by then, which seemed to track everything that existed when fitted in a "Formula 4" tone arm.

A lot of mono cartridges were sold as 'stereo compatible' if they had
some vertical compliance and wouldn't straighten your grooves.

V15 - the best pick-up in the world, or at least inviting someone to
listen to your V15 was the best pick-up line.

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

A player with a mono PU could always play a stereo record, responding only
to the lateral modulation and so giving a L+R signal. Mono records
differed in only having lateral modulation, no vertical.

Record shop assistant, at least in the UK used to ask,
when you enquired about an LP "Mono or stereo?"

A LOT of LPs were sold as "mono-stereo compatible" - meaning the vertical
modulation
had been supressed, at least at low frequencies, so the mono PUs would not
miss track or badly damage the grove.

I don't know how records were cut in Oz, but in the
UK the LF was not supressed, but summed as L+R (lateral).
This was done in stereo cutting also, but at a lower
frquency to ensure a restricted vertical depth, and
easier tracking.

This was know as Bass Phase. The control console for
both Neumann and Westrex lathes have a switch with
two or more frequency settings for this purpose.


I was using a Shure V15III by then, which seemed to track everything that
existed when fitted in a "Formula 4" tone arm.

Yes. I had (and still have) a Shure V15III in an SME arm.
Excellent:-)

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

I didn't try everyone that was auditioned. Just reporting back on what was
found by my department - and no real point in trotting out names of stuff
not used.

It is the ones that you *did* try that are of interest.
For TV, mono compatibility was clearly important,
just as it was for classical music.

As far back as 1969 there was a Dutch company
(Arden, Aarens, something like that) that built a 3U
rack-mounted mono-to-stereo system , using the
then new Bucket Brigade technology, (which
originated from Holland). It worked rather well.

I went to a very good demo at the APRS and afterwards
asked about mono compatibility. The demonstrator looked
at me wide eyed and said "Why, when you have gone to
all the trouble of converting a track from mono to stereo,
would you want to change it back again?"

As there wasn't such a demand for such a device in my particular
field as there obviously was in yours.

Did you have close co-operation with BBC Radio?
We went to BH several times to discuss ideas.
They had a number of cryptically-numbered black
boxes which they demonstrated to us, and some very
clever people. They could have easily done it for you.

Which one do you now use to turn a fine mono music recording into fine
stereo?
I'd be interested to find out that.

I am sure you would:-)

Happily these days, people regard mono as something rather sacred.
So, in audio restoration, clients ask for a clean digital master in mono,
with no mention of stero.

Did you play my demo? Your comments would be of interest.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches...StereoDemo.mp3

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

On 21/01/2017 16:51, Huge wrote:
On 2017-01-21, Iain Churches wrote:

[31 lines snipped]

A pal of mine in the UK told me earlier today that the
standard TV licence is now UKP145

Actually £145.50.

and payable in
advance.

It always was.

Can that be correct?

Absolute bargain. The Beeb has to be paid for somehow and I'd rather
that than advertising.

The BBC produces absolute ****e. Whatever the licence fee is, it is too
much.
And it has loads of adverts, although mostly for its own shows.

--
Eiron.

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/2017 16:51, Huge wrote:
On 2017-01-21, Iain Churches wrote:

[31 lines snipped]

A pal of mine in the UK told me earlier today that the
standard TV licence is now UKP145

Actually £145.50.

and payable in
advance.

It always was.

Can that be correct?

Absolute bargain. The Beeb has to be paid for somehow and I'd rather
that than advertising.

The BBC produces absolute ****e. Whatever the licence fee is, it is too
much.
And it has loads of adverts, although mostly for its own shows.

I live outside the UK.

We can see via satelite some ten or so news channels
BBC World is by far the best, the most in depth and the
most neutral.

We see also BBC series. Inspector George Gently, Foyle's
War, War and Peace, and Pride and Prejudice are currently
running, as are the medical series with Dr Michael Mosely
(BBC Earth) and QI (BBC Brit) All are excellent.

Iain

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
As there wasn't such a demand for such a device in my particular
field as there obviously was in yours.

Did you have close co-operation with BBC Radio?

Given I worked for ITV, unlikely.

We went to BH several times to discuss ideas.
They had a number of cryptically-numbered black
boxes which they demonstrated to us, and some very
clever people. They could have easily done it for you.

Are you saying BBC radio regularly produced 'stereo' from mono? I'd be
surprised.

But then the requirements for TV sound are very different to those for
radio or the recording industry. Which is why it was such fun to work in.

--
*Velcro - what a rip off!*

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

Reprocessed Stereo (with example)
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
A pal of mine in the UK told me earlier today that the
standard TV licence is now UKP145 and payable in
advance. Can that be correct?

Have you never lived in the UK, Iain, and bought a TV licence?

If so, you'd know it was still as good value as ever.

He joked: So many programmes are re-runs, I am
inclined to say "I have already paid to see these
programmes, last year, and the year before, and
the year before that......."

There are channels which show only repeats. We do have some 100 or so
available in most areas via an aerial.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

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