Ping: Brian Gaff. Re Electronic Stereo
Iain Churches
I was interested in your impressions of "electronic stereo"
particular with regard to popular music, as it was sometimes
done in the 60's and 70's
I have now found the demo file, made many years ago,
to which I referred in the other thread.
It is divided into three segments, with clear gaps between each.
The first is the original mono recording.
The second is reprocessed. For the demo, I made the soundstage
unrealistically wide, to clearly illlustrate the effect.
No one makes any claims for this being genuine stereo, and to
meet with the requirements of law, this type of material is always
cleartly marked "reprocessed" or "electronic sytereo" Neither
can it be said to pinpoint various instruments within the stero
soundstage but it does give the spatial spread which was expected
while at the same time offering mono compatibility which was
an important part of the brief.
This track was totally acceptable to a stereo disc cutter head.
When switched mono, it falls back into perfectly compatible
mono, as comparison with the first segment will show.
The third segment illustrates was happens when you push it too
far. A version like this could not have been cut to disc.
Please take a listen:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/iain.churches/MusicTest/ElectronicStereoDemo.mp3
Iain
Brian Gaff
I suppose being kind of purist about these things I tend to feel that
anything which can be cancelled out to produce the original, has to be mono.
Saying you can create mono from two dis-similar channels is rubbish, it has
to sound tonally or reverberatively different to the original recording due
to phase and frequency changes between the channels.
I'm not saying that such recordings should not be made, but I am saying that
real genuine mono versions need to be made as well.
I have a very aptly named The worst of Spike Jones etc. Now most of these
seem to have been sourced from a 78 master, and some horrid noise gate used
to remove the noise, making the whole thing sound a bit like putting dolby
in on a non dolby tape, and to add insult to injury, someone has fiddled
with the sound and panned effects all over the place. Ruins the whole thing.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:469Nm.41754$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
Iain Churches
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8GjNm.6801$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>I will go and listen over the weekend.
Good. Your comments will be of interest
> I suppose being kind of purist about these things I tend to feel that
> anything which can be cancelled out to produce the original, has to be
> mono. Saying you can create mono from two dis-similar channels is rubbish,
> it has to sound tonally or reverberatively different to the original
> recording due to phase and frequency changes between the channels.
Before you reach you verdict, you should listen:-)
Remember too that this had to be done with analogue
technology available in the late 1960's.
> I'm not saying that such recordings should not be made, but I am saying
> that real genuine mono versions need to be made as well.
That was the whole point. If you can produce a truly mono
compatible version, then you have as they say "killed two
birds with one stone"
> I have a very aptly named The worst of Spike Jones etc. Now most of these
> seem to have been sourced from a 78 master, and some horrid noise gate
> used to remove the noise, making the whole thing sound a bit like putting
> dolby in on a non dolby tape, and to add insult to injury, someone has
> fiddled with the sound and panned effects all over the place. Ruins the
> whole thing.'
That's a great pity. The Spike Jones' recordings are excellent as they
stand. The recording technology is what it is, but the performances are
remarkable
Regards
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > I'm not saying that such recordings should not be made, but I am saying
> > that real genuine mono versions need to be made as well.
> That was the whole point. If you can produce a truly mono
> compatible version, then you have as they say "killed two
> birds with one stone"
For that to be the case every single added effect would have to be in
equal and out of phase amounts on L&R. Rather unlikely, don't you think?
To me it's a bit like colouring a B&W film, etc. Interesting exercise, but
that's all.
A better way would be an aftermarket stereo simulator - if you really must
have this - as there then would be no need to retain a degree of mono
compatibility.
--
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Iain Churches
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50bd17a...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <_2tNm.42110$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > I'm not saying that such recordings should not be made, but I am saying
>> > that real genuine mono versions need to be made as well.
>
>> That was the whole point. If you can produce a truly mono
>> compatible version, then you have as they say "killed two
>> birds with one stone"
>
> For that to be the case every single added effect would have to be in
> equal and out of phase amounts on L&R. Rather unlikely, don't you think?
Please, listen to the demo, Dave before you start to offer
conjecture.
You can confirm the mono compatibility by playing both the
first (mono) and the second ("stereo") segments into your
audio sequencer. Convert the "electronic stereo" segment
to mono, by summing the two channels, then level match
with the mono segment, and compare.
Iain
Keith G
>
> I was interested in your impressions of "electronic stereo"
> particular with regard to popular music, as it was sometimes
> done in the 60's and 70's
>
> I have now found the demo file, made many years ago,
> to which I referred in the other thread.
>
> It is divided into three segments, with clear gaps between each.
>
> The first is the original mono recording.
It's actually 'dual mono' in the clip.
I'm investigating the differences between mono and dual mono myself, atm....
>
> The second is reprocessed. For the demo, I made the soundstage
> unrealistically wide, to clearly illlustrate the effect.
I thought that was nothing special but nevertheless quite acceptable. Does
that make me an Audio Slut....?? :-)
>
> The third segment illustrates was happens when you push it too
> far. A version like this could not have been cut to disc.
That's a good example of the crappy 'stereo effect' that put me off worrying
about 'stereo' many years ago - the sort of sound that was frequently found
on budget 'easy listening' and 'party' albums.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >> That was the whole point. If you can produce a truly mono
> >> compatible version, then you have as they say "killed two
> >> birds with one stone"
> >
> > For that to be the case every single added effect would have to be in
> > equal and out of phase amounts on L&R. Rather unlikely, don't you
> > think?
> Please, listen to the demo, Dave before you start to offer
> conjecture.
Not conjecture, Iain. Science.
--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Iain Churches
> In article <%FwNm.42185$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >> That was the whole point. If you can produce a truly mono
>> >> compatible version, then you have as they say "killed two
>> >> birds with one stone"
>> >
>> > For that to be the case every single added effect would have to be in
>> > equal and out of phase amounts on L&R. Rather unlikely, don't you
>> > think?
>
>
>> Please, listen to the demo, Dave before you start to offer
>> conjecture.
>
> Not conjecture, Iain. Science.
Not science, pure conjecture, Dave.
Did you listen to the demo, or consider how the
mono conpatible "electronic stereo" was produced?
No, of course you didn't:-)
Dave Plowman (News)
> Not science, pure conjecture, Dave.
> Did you listen to the demo, or consider how the
> mono conpatible "electronic stereo" was produced?
> No, of course you didn't:-)
I've lots of experience of stereo simulators Iain. Have you?
--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers
Iain Churches
> In article <qd5Tm.48989$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >> conjecture.
>> >
>> > Not conjecture, Iain. Science.
>
>> Not science, pure conjecture, Dave.
>
>> Did you listen to the demo, or consider how the
>> mono conpatible "electronic stereo" was produced?
>> No, of course you didn't:-)
>
> I've lots of experience of stereo simulators Iain.
A link to your work would be of interest.
> Have you?
If you had taken the trouble to listen to the demo, you would
not need to ask:-) A large percentage of the classical electronic
stereo re-issues on Decca ECS (Eclipse) were processed by
this method, many of them by me. They carry sleeve credits.
I ask again:
Did you listen to the demo, or consider how the
mono conpatible "electronic stereo" was produced
in the early1960s before the commercial stereo simulators
to which you refer were available Dave?
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
> A link to your work would be of interest.
Sadly before 'listen again' or whatever...
--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
Iain Churches
> In article <zUmWm.52772$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > I've lots of experience of stereo simulators Iain.
>
>> A link to your work would be of interest.
>
> Sadly before 'listen again' or whatever...
Translation please.
Iain
David Looser
Dave's work was broadcast in the days before the introduction of "listen
Again" type services.
I'd have thought that was clear enough.
David.
Iain Churches
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7ouhu1F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Iain Churches" <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
> news:eZnWm.52802$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:50cb01b...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> In article <zUmWm.52772$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>>> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>> > I've lots of experience of stereo simulators Iain.
>>>
>>>> A link to your work would be of interest.
>>>
>>> Sadly before 'listen again' or whatever...
>>
>> Translation please.
> Dave's work was broadcast in the days before the introduction of "listen
> Again" type services.
>
> I'd have thought that was clear enough.
Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
Iain
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
> access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
You mean you never listen to BBC programmes? How sad is that?
--
*Caution: I drive like you do.
Ian Jackson
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <pCqWm.52851$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
>> access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
>
>You mean you never listen to BBC programmes? How sad is that?
>
have access to the BBC 'Listen Again' facility (and several other
things)?
--
Ian
Don Pearce
Cunningness is limited to the simple ability to find a UK-based proxy,
a facility you can download as an option in Firefox. I wouldn't have
thought that was beyond anyone who has managed to find Usenet.
d
Iain Churches
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OwHY9lAo...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Precisely that.
But we do hae access to high bit rate digital broadcasting
by NDR, SWR, YLE and SR etc etc etc, whose
music programmes are at least on a par with the BBC
Iain
Iain Churches
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4b2d48f4....@news.eternal-september.org...
Can you point me to such a proxy Don? I know of several
people who would be interested.. I don't use Firefox.
Iain
Jim Lesurf
IIUC those out of the UK can get reduced bitrate versions. But I can't
comment on how they compare with the standard UK streams as I've never
listened to them!
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/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Don Pearce
There's a reasonable list here. They tend to come and go, but just
Google for UK Proxy, and you will always find something current.
http://proxy-list.co.uk/popular-proxies.php
d
Dave Plowman (News)
Dunno. But anyone who listens to the BBC couldn't possibly be *unaware* of
the various 'listen again' facilities.
--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:OwHY9lAo...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <50cb18c...@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> > <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
> >>In article <pCqWm.52851$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> >> Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
> >>> access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
> >>
> >>You mean you never listen to BBC programmes? How sad is that?
> >>
> > Isn't the problem that, unless they're cunning, people overseas don't
> > have access to the BBC 'Listen Again' facility (and several other
> > things)?
> Precisely that.
But you claimed to have no knowledge of it?
> But we do hae access to high bit rate digital broadcasting
> by NDR, SWR, YLE and SR etc etc etc, whose
> music programmes are at least on a par with the BBC
Typical. Who cares what you do have access to?
--
*If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest have to drown too?
Iain Churches
> In article <OwHY9lAo...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <50cb18c...@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <pCqWm.52851$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
>> > Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >> Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
>> >> access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
>> >
>> >You mean you never listen to BBC programmes? How sad is that?
>> >
>> Isn't the problem that, unless they're cunning, people overseas don't
>> have access to the BBC 'Listen Again' facility (and several other
>> things)?
>
> Dunno.
> But anyone who listens to the BBC couldn't possibly be *unaware* of
> the various 'listen again' facilities.
There are no BBC listen again facilities to be aware of
outside the UK. This is made clear on the BBC website.
Iain
Jim Lesurf
<Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> There are no BBC listen again facilities to be aware of outside the UK.
> This is made clear on the BBC website.
Ah! So the streams I've seen for 'outside the UK' are only for 'live' use?
I guess that is fair enough from the POV of the BBC and license payers.
Dave Plowman (News)
Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:50cb252...@davenoise.co.uk...
> > In article <OwHY9lAo...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
> > Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <50cb18c...@davenoise.co.uk>, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> >> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
> >> >In article <pCqWm.52851$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi>,
> >> > Iain Churches <Iai...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I live outside the UK, and so have no
> >> >> access to or knowledge of the UK broadcasters repeat prgrammes.
> >> >
> >> >You mean you never listen to BBC programmes? How sad is that?
> >> >
> >> Isn't the problem that, unless they're cunning, people overseas don't
> >> have access to the BBC 'Listen Again' facility (and several other
> >> things)?
> >
> > Dunno.
> > But anyone who listens to the BBC couldn't possibly be *unaware* of
> > the various 'listen again' facilities.
> There are no BBC listen again facilities to be aware of
> outside the UK. This is made clear on the BBC website.
Weaselling out again, Iain?
--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *