Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"stereo"?
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Gill Smith
May 23, 2012, 10:56:41 AM5/23/12
to
listening to some stereo pop CDs hrough headphones
the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
the rest seemed to have the same instruments but differing volumes
or is it my headphones....
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
the rest seemed to have the same instruments but differing volumes
or is it my headphones....
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
Scott Dorsey
May 23, 2012, 11:43:32 AM5/23/12
to
These are going to be panpotted stereo. They won't have a "solid" image,
and you won't actually hear that "solid" image on headphones anyway.
>the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
>
>i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
That's not stereo and has absolutely nothing to do with real stereo. It's
just one mike routed hard right and one mike routed hard left.
>the rest seemed to have the same instruments but differing volumes
Yes, this is "panpotted stereo" in which there is a stereo field in front
of you with the intensity (but not phase) varying to place different sound
sources at different places in the soundfield.
>or is it my headphones....
You don't get actual stereo sound through headphones although you can get
binaural.
Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences between
channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers themselves.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
and you won't actually hear that "solid" image on headphones anyway.
>the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
>
>i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
just one mike routed hard right and one mike routed hard left.
>the rest seemed to have the same instruments but differing volumes
of you with the intensity (but not phase) varying to place different sound
sources at different places in the soundfield.
>or is it my headphones....
binaural.
Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences between
channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers themselves.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Sylvain Robitaille
May 23, 2012, 12:37:41 PM5/23/12
to
On 23 May 2012 11:43:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
> between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
> themselves.
Any chance you could point interested readers to documentation
> Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
> between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
> themselves.
explaining (either in theory or in practical terms, preferably both)
how that broadened image is accomplished. I've done a fair bit of
mixing (formerly in live sound applications, but more recently on
smaller recording projects), but I find I'm always looking for the
wider image (and have long ago concluded that hard panning isn't
the answer). I'd love some insight from some who have the benefit
of experience. Thanks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
William Sommerwerck
May 23, 2012, 1:00:07 PM5/23/12
to
A "wider than the speakers" image is usually the result of phase or timing
differences between the channels. Amplitude panning will not, in and of
itself, produce such a result.
differences between the channels. Amplitude panning will not, in and of
itself, produce such a result.
Adrian Tuddenham
May 23, 2012, 1:42:45 PM5/23/12
to
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 11:43:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
> > between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
> > themselves.
>
> Any chance you could point interested readers to documentation
> explaining (either in theory or in practical terms, preferably both)
> how that broadened image is accomplished. I've done a fair bit of
> mixing (formerly in live sound applications, but more recently on
> smaller recording projects), but I find I'm always looking for the
> wider image (and have long ago concluded that hard panning isn't
> the answer). I'd love some insight from some who have the benefit
> of experience. Thanks.
If some of the left channel signal is inverted and fed into the right
> On 23 May 2012 11:43:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
> > between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
> > themselves.
>
> Any chance you could point interested readers to documentation
> explaining (either in theory or in practical terms, preferably both)
> how that broadened image is accomplished. I've done a fair bit of
> mixing (formerly in live sound applications, but more recently on
> smaller recording projects), but I find I'm always looking for the
> wider image (and have long ago concluded that hard panning isn't
> the answer). I'd love some insight from some who have the benefit
> of experience. Thanks.
channel and some of the right channel is inverted and fed into the left
channel, this will widen the image. This can be done electronically
with the output signals from cardioid mics or it can be done by the
actual layout of the performers if crossed ribbon mics are being used (a
ribbon mic picks up an inverted signal from behind).
The image created beyond the loudspeaker width is not as distinct as the
image between the loudspeakers, so it is better to keept critical
performers out of that area and just use it for reverberation. If a
large inverted signal is used, the image may seem to spread right around
the back of the listener's head; this can sometimes give a very good
sense of ambience with reverberation but can be extremely disconcerting
if it is used for the performers.
Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
D.M.Leaky & F.H.Brittain wrote a fascinating article which plots the
relationship between the apparent position of the stereo image and the
relative amplitudes of the two signal in the loudspeakers. ["Two Channel
Stereophonic Sound Systems" Wireless World, Vol. 62 No.5 May 1956]
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Sylvain Robitaille
May 23, 2012, 5:22:49 PM5/23/12
to
presumably during mixdown, given a set of recorded tracks.
I'm currently working on a mix of a multitracked recording (drums,
bass, guitar, keyboards, vocals, plus doubling tracks for guitar
and vocals, and a few additional for effects from outboard gear).
I currently have a reasonably satisfactory mix, but I'd like to try the
"wider than the speakers" thing on it. I presume I might do that with
the guitar tracks, or perhaps the keyboard, but what do I need to do?
(note that I prefer to be pointed at documentation rather than just
being handed a recipe)
Perhaps, also, I'm perceiving this all wrong and I would need to
approach such an effect very differently (at the tracking stage,
for example as suggested by a later followup using a stereo pair of
figure-eight mics and manipulating the resulting tracks appropriately).
That's the sort of thing I'm asking about pointers to appropriate
documentation for. It's one thing to understand how to NOT accomplish
the result we're discussing. I'm there. I know that simple panning
won't do it. I'd like to get to understanding how it IS accomplished.
Sylvain Robitaille
May 23, 2012, 5:27:38 PM5/23/12
to
On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
> stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
> ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
> brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
>
> http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
It's a start, and it's certainly worth my while to have a look at it.
> Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
> stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
> ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
> brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
>
> http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
(wow - 1932!) Thanks for that and for "D.M.Leaky & F.H.Brittain" which
should at least provide me with some search terms that might help.
William Sommerwerck
May 23, 2012, 6:02:38 PM5/23/12
to
This isn't a joke -- you might try applying Ambisonic UHJ encoding. This
produces a compatible two-channel surround recording.
SQ encoding also produces a similar effect -- sounds panned to left- and
right-rear in quad tend to appear outside the main speakers in stereo.
produces a compatible two-channel surround recording.
SQ encoding also produces a similar effect -- sounds panned to left- and
right-rear in quad tend to appear outside the main speakers in stereo.
Scott Dorsey
May 23, 2012, 8:50:26 PM5/23/12
to
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:00:07 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> A "wider than the speakers" image is usually the result of phase or
>> timing differences between the channels. Amplitude panning will not,
>> in and of itself, produce such a result.
>
>Yes, I understand that. My question is "how do we accomplish that",
>presumably during mixdown, given a set of recorded tracks.
Well, there was a product called Q-Sound for a while which would allow
>On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:00:07 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> A "wider than the speakers" image is usually the result of phase or
>> timing differences between the channels. Amplitude panning will not,
>> in and of itself, produce such a result.
>
>Yes, I understand that. My question is "how do we accomplish that",
>presumably during mixdown, given a set of recorded tracks.
you to effectively delay one channel or the other as you panned across
the soundfield. This gave you real phase differences like you would
hear from an actual stereo recording. Folks overused it and abused it
and then people complained there was poor mono compatibility, and it
sort of died out.
But the real way to do it effectively is to mike instruments so that
there are multiple mikes with phase differences between them, and
bring those mikes up into the mix. With a classical ensemble that
you mike with a single pair, it's easy. With extensive multitracking
it is more difficult and it can mean you have to plan where everything
goes before tracking. To some extent you can get away with just stereo
miking a few instruments and doing panpotted stereo with others.
But.... mike a guitar amp with two mikes, one pulled back a foot
farther than the other. Pan the close mike to the center, the rear
mike hard right or hard left. Listen to how it sounds, and notice
what happens when you move the rear mike forward and back just a little.
Scott Dorsey
May 23, 2012, 8:52:08 PM5/23/12
to
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>On 23 May 2012 11:43:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
>> between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
>> themselves.
>
>Any chance you could point interested readers to documentation
>explaining (either in theory or in practical terms, preferably both)
>how that broadened image is accomplished. I've done a fair bit of
>mixing (formerly in live sound applications, but more recently on
>smaller recording projects), but I find I'm always looking for the
>wider image (and have long ago concluded that hard panning isn't
>the answer). I'd love some insight from some who have the benefit
>of experience. Thanks.
Go to your school library and get a copy of The New Stereo Soundbook
>On 23 May 2012 11:43:32 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Actual stereo sound involves both frequency and phase differences
>> between channels, and a broad image that is wider than the speakers
>> themselves.
>
>Any chance you could point interested readers to documentation
>explaining (either in theory or in practical terms, preferably both)
>how that broadened image is accomplished. I've done a fair bit of
>mixing (formerly in live sound applications, but more recently on
>smaller recording projects), but I find I'm always looking for the
>wider image (and have long ago concluded that hard panning isn't
>the answer). I'd love some insight from some who have the benefit
>of experience. Thanks.
by Streicher and Everest. It is a good reference and a good introduction
and just all-around a good book to read.
Adrian Tuddenham
May 24, 2012, 4:09:58 AM5/24/12
to
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
> > stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
> > ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
> > brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
> >
> > http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
>
> It's a start, and it's certainly worth my while to have a look at it.
> (wow - 1932!) Thanks for that and for "D.M.Leaky & F.H.Brittain" which
> should at least provide me with some search terms that might help.
Blumlein gives a different way of spreading the signal. He resolves it
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>
> > Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
> > stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
> > ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
> > brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
> >
> > http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
>
> It's a start, and it's certainly worth my while to have a look at it.
> (wow - 1932!) Thanks for that and for "D.M.Leaky & F.H.Brittain" which
> should at least provide me with some search terms that might help.
into sum and difference channels then varies the relative gains of the
two channels. This is exactly the equivalent of feeding controlled
amounts of inverted signals to the opposite loudspeakers and some modern
'spreader' networks use that method.
By for doing it that way he could introduce phase shift networks into
the difference channel to 'translate' the microphone signals into ones
more suitable for loudspeaker reproduction.
Arny Krueger
May 24, 2012, 8:13:38 AM5/24/12
to
"Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
> listening to some stereo pop CDs hrough headphones
> the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
> i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
speakers, but the usual echoes in the listening room tend to cover that up.
There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have this
failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
> the rest seemed to have the same instruments but differing volumes
> or is it my headphones....
Now you know why some people like listening to headphones though blending
systems.
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 10:45:36 AM5/24/12
to
> Now you know why some people like listening to
> headphones though blending systems.
More than 40 years ago, Ben Bauer at CBS Labs designed a passive network
> headphones though blending systems.
that simulated acoustic crosstalk. I built one into a plastic card-file box
(!!!) and attached it to my KLH Model 11 FM. It worked extremely well.
It's amazing that no one seems to make anything like this, or include the
processing in various digital devices.
Scott Dorsey
May 24, 2012, 10:50:30 AM5/24/12
to
In article <jplhh1$4oq$2...@dont-email.me>,
Doesn't Headroom still make a headphone processor with a shuffler?
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 11:18:47 AM5/24/12
to
> Doesn't Headroom still make a headphone
> processor [sic] with a shuffler?
A "shuffler" converts arrival-time (or phase) differences into amplitude
differences.
http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/data/6939.pdf
See, in particular, section 1.2 on page 3.
The usual term is "crossfeed".
Headroom sells a $1950 German amplifier with a crossfeed circuit.
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/spl-phonitor-headphone-amp.php
These Headroom amps have a crossfeed circuit.
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/headroom-total-bithead.php
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/headroom-micro-amp.php
http://www.headphone.com/headphone-amps/headroom-portable-micro-amp.php
http://www.headphone.com/learning-center/about-headroom-crossfeed.php
Sylvain Robitaille
May 24, 2012, 12:29:06 PM5/24/12
to
On 23 May 2012 20:52:08 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Go to your school library and get a copy of The New Stereo Soundbook
> by Streicher and Everest. ...
> Go to your school library and get a copy of The New Stereo Soundbook
Wow! Excellent! Thank you. I work at a university, so I expect I
should have no trouble getting my hands on a copy from the library, but
I also imagine I may want to purchase a copy of my own. This looks like
it'll be all that you suggest it is, and then some. Thanks again.
Sylvain Robitaille
May 24, 2012, 12:41:28 PM5/24/12
to
On 23 May 2012 20:50:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Well, there was a product called Q-Sound for a while which would allow
> you to effectively delay one channel or the other as you panned across
> the soundfield. ...
> Well, there was a product called Q-Sound for a while which would allow
> you to effectively delay one channel or the other as you panned across
Wikipedia gives a selected list of records made with this technology, at
least one of which I believe I have and a few more which I'm sure I
wouldn't mind having (hrrrmmmm ... presumably this might be affected if
the record is re-released in re-mastered form?) At least I can have a
chance to hear this in action.
> But the real way to do it effectively is to mike instruments so that
> there are multiple mikes with phase differences between them, and
> bring those mikes up into the mix.
> But.... mike a guitar amp with two mikes, one pulled back a foot
> farther than the other. Pan the close mike to the center, the rear
> mike hard right or hard left. Listen to how it sounds, and notice
> what happens when you move the rear mike forward and back just a
> little.
Thanks for taking the time ...
Gavino
May 24, 2012, 1:54:40 PM5/24/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:A4adnUMzR7cguCPS...@giganews.com...
experience, but for anyone wanting to listen to the individual components of these
recordings and hear how they are made up, they are wonderful.
news:A4adnUMzR7cguCPS...@giganews.com...
> That ain't stereo. It is multitrack badly mixed. It is suboptimal on
> speakers, but the usual echoes in the listening room tend to cover that up.
>
> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have this
> failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
You may see it as a failing, and perhaps it's not ideal for an all-round listening
> speakers, but the usual echoes in the listening room tend to cover that up.
>
> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have this
> failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
experience, but for anyone wanting to listen to the individual components of these
recordings and hear how they are made up, they are wonderful.
geoff
May 24, 2012, 4:52:39 PM5/24/12
to
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
geoff
William Sommerwerck
May 24, 2012, 5:12:08 PM5/24/12
to
>> There are a number of well-known recordings from
>> that era that have this failing. Some Beatle's releases
>> have the same problem.
> Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
Actually, wrt the Beatles, it is a problem. They saw recording in terms of
>> that era that have this failing. Some Beatle's releases
>> have the same problem.
> Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
mono sound. Stereo was a not a major consideration.
Scott Dorsey
May 24, 2012, 8:18:53 PM5/24/12
to
they were never intended to be released that way.
In the case of the Mamas and Papas it was a stylistic thing.
Gill Smith
May 24, 2012, 8:47:33 PM5/24/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jpmj5d$d0n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
the iTunes track seems much more balanced than on my old CD
maybe the way ahead is re-mastering old stuff!
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
news:jpmj5d$d0n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
>>> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
>>
>>Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
>
> In the case of the Beatles releases it was definitely a problem, in that
> they were never intended to be released that way.
>
> In the case of the Mamas and Papas it was a stylistic thing.
I guess record companies update mixes
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
>>> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
>>
>>Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
>
> In the case of the Beatles releases it was definitely a problem, in that
> they were never intended to be released that way.
>
> In the case of the Mamas and Papas it was a stylistic thing.
the iTunes track seems much more balanced than on my old CD
maybe the way ahead is re-mastering old stuff!
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
MarkK
May 24, 2012, 9:43:23 PM5/24/12
to
> >>>
> >>> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
> >>> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
> >>
> >>Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
> >
>
I happen to like the hard panned style, I don't understand why so many
people don't like it, but as I said, it's a matter of taste.
If you want to consider it from a technical view instead of a style
prefernce view, think of this... hard panning eliminates problems with comb
filtering and transient response issues associted with muliple correlated
sources that folks work so hard to avoid in mic placement, then don't give a
second thought to the two separated speakers. I'll make the exception for
bass, bass coming out of both speakers is a good thing.
all this is IMHO of course.
Mark
Mark
Frank Stearns
May 24, 2012, 11:55:08 PM5/24/12
to
to use the full pan spectrum, and in fact suggests panorama is one of the important
items we have to make for a lush mix, right up there with EQ, reverb, proper
dynamics, and other FX.
I just finished a project where one of the mixes starts with a soloist panned hard
left and his own reverb field also panned hard left, a 40 piece orchestra mostly
mono in the center, and a 130 voice chorus hard right.
Eventually, after the solo portion is finished, the orchestra and chorus gradually
bloom into a more conventional stereo spread (and it is wide).
It's not something I would do 99.9% of the time, but when a tune seems to call for
something like this, I'll bloody do it!
Hopefully the client likes it (proof disks are in their hands now), but they're
generally happy when I have these crazy moments, because they're in support of the
music. I might get some pushback on this from some of those in the review pool
(though the conductor really liked the early version he heard), but we'll see.
Hopefully it'll grow on them, as the effect really enhances the lyrical content. A
conventional mix would lose something.
But tastes will vary, as you note.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
Don Pearce
May 25, 2012, 12:38:39 AM5/25/12
to
she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
d
Trevor
May 25, 2012, 12:46:40 AM5/25/12
to
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4fbf0c20...@news.eternal-september.org...
> A friend of mine is totally deaf in one ear (since birth, almost), but
> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem anyway.
Trevor.
Don Pearce
May 25, 2012, 1:17:58 AM5/25/12
to
And try and find one on iTunes. Her iPod doesn't have a mono switch.
What it does now have is a modified earbud cable that sums the two
channels. That was about ten minutes work. She says all her music
sounds better, but the difference is quite subtle.
d
geoff
May 25, 2012, 4:01:51 AM5/25/12
to
I must be looking at the wronmg amps ;-/
geoff
Arny Krueger
May 25, 2012, 6:42:45 AM5/25/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jplhh1$4oq$2...@dont-email.me...
www.head-fi.com
more specifically:
http://www.head-fi.org/search.php?search=cross+feed+headphone+amp
William Sommerwerck
May 25, 2012, 8:07:30 AM5/25/12
to
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
news:hcadnRE549-p_iLS...@giganews.com...
>> It's amazing that no one seems to make anything like this,
>> or include the processing in various digital devices.
When I posted, I'd forgotten that HeadRoom's amplifiers included crossfeed.
The Meier circuit is interesting, though I doubt I'll rush to build one.
(Someone should tell Mr Meier that there is no such thing as a "Comb
filter". It's a "comb filter".)
It also turns out there's a Meier crossfeed algorithm for the Rockbox
operating system.
Scott Dorsey
May 25, 2012, 8:30:39 AM5/25/12
to
In article <jpn2qs$r62$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> A friend of mine is totally deaf in one ear (since birth, almost), but
>> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
>> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
>> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
>> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
>> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
>
>But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
>Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem anyway.
In the seventies when ping-pong mixes were still popular, a lot of home
>> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
>> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
>> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
>> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
>> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
>
>But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
>Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem anyway.
stereo preamps had a "blend" control to allow you to reduce stereo separation.
Trevor
May 25, 2012, 8:55:07 AM5/25/12
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:-NadnYDC5IpZoSLS...@giganews.com...
>> But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
>> Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem
>> anyway.
>
> 'Most amps ' ! These days ?!!
>
> I must be looking at the wronmg amps ;-/
Probably. I guess your looking at home theatre suround amps.
>> Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem
>> anyway.
>
> 'Most amps ' ! These days ?!!
>
> I must be looking at the wronmg amps ;-/
Trevor.
Trevor
May 25, 2012, 8:57:12 AM5/25/12
to
news:jpnu1f$a3d$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Trevor.
> In the seventies when ping-pong mixes were still popular, a lot of home
> stereo preamps had a "blend" control to allow you to reduce stereo
> separation.
Yes my Crown IC150 called it a "panorama" control.
> stereo preamps had a "blend" control to allow you to reduce stereo
> separation.
Trevor.
ckoz...@snet.net
May 25, 2012, 10:20:57 AM5/25/12
to
The classic definition of stereo contains no number of "channels" or speakers. Want to hear true stereo? Go to an acoustic at the local bookstore or a bar. That's stereo! or even rolling a cart through your local Walmart. Build a system that can recreate that experience and you have the classical definition of stereo. Carrying a properly oriented H4n around might come close, but the effect will probably sound best over headphones, and you might get some quizzical looks carrying that "thing" around. :)
Still, I like to freak guests out at my backyard parties: Place a speaker at both sides of the pool and put on "I can see for miles" by the Who, or some Hendrix. Turns their heads everytime. lolol!
Still, I like to freak guests out at my backyard parties: Place a speaker at both sides of the pool and put on "I can see for miles" by the Who, or some Hendrix. Turns their heads everytime. lolol!
ckoz...@snet.net
May 25, 2012, 10:30:24 AM5/25/12
to
Touch or classic?
Don Pearce
May 25, 2012, 11:26:33 AM5/25/12
to
Soundhaspriority
May 25, 2012, 1:26:30 PM5/25/12
to
"Sylvain Robitaille" <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnjrql9...@charlotte.encs.concordia.ca...
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:00:07 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> A "wider than the speakers" image is usually the result of phase or
>> timing differences between the channels. Amplitude panning will not,
>> in and of itself, produce such a result.
>
> Yes, I understand that. My question is "how do we accomplish that",
> presumably during mixdown, given a set of recorded tracks.
>
A simple case is as follows. A room is recorded with a stereo mike pair. In
mix, some left channel is subtracted from the right, and right from left, in
an attempt at crosstalk cancellation. A plugin such as
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/30/free-stereo-enhancer-plugin/
might be beneficial.
But with individually recorded tracks, there is no stereo. The effect of an
ensemble in a room requires a room for simple algorithms to work. If there
is no room, it has to be manufactured in the DAW. If you want to see what
can be done, with a lot of money and engineering, consider buying a Sony or
Yamaha surround ambience/surround decoder from the 90's. These units are not
ideal solutions for a DAW user, but the intricacy of the room synthesis
algorithms, and the large number of adjustable parameters, is a real eye
opener.
Examples:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-TA-E1000ESD-Preamplifier-Digital-Processor-/221029829803?pt=US_Home_Audio_Amplifiers_Preamps&hash=item3376678cab
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-SDP-EP9ES-Digital-Surround-Processor-Control-Amplifier-Sony-ES-/180889478666?pt=US_Home_Audio_Amplifiers_Preamps&hash=item2a1dda660a
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-TA-E2000ESD-2-Channel-PreAmplifier-Preamp-for-Surround-or-5-Channel-ES-/280882560952?pt=US_Home_Audio_Amplifiers_Preamps&hash=item4165e7bfb8
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
May 25, 2012, 1:31:24 PM5/25/12
to
"Adrian Tuddenham" <adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1kklcl7.10nkouh6um68qN%adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
> Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 18:42:45 +0100, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
>>
>> > Most of the original papers which layed down the foundations for good
>> > stereo are difficult to obtain because the research was done many years
>> > ago. Blumlein's orignal patent is comprehensive - but you would need a
>> > brain on a par with Blumlein's to fully understand it.
>> >
>> > http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm
>>
>> It's a start, and it's certainly worth my while to have a look at it.
>> (wow - 1932!) Thanks for that and for "D.M.Leaky & F.H.Brittain" which
>> should at least provide me with some search terms that might help.
>
> Blumlein gives a different way of spreading the signal. He resolves it
> into sum and difference channels then varies the relative gains of the
> two channels. This is exactly the equivalent of feeding controlled
> amounts of inverted signals to the opposite loudspeakers and some modern
> 'spreader' networks use that method.
>
> By for doing it that way he could introduce phase shift networks into
> the difference channel to 'translate' the microphone signals into ones
> more suitable for loudspeaker reproduction.
>
Yes, Blumlein is fundamental. But Blumlein did not have to deal with
something so severe as tracks recorded individually, in isolation, in a dead
studio. To turn panpot tracks into a good imitation requires much more work.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Tobiah
May 25, 2012, 1:51:39 PM5/25/12
to
Some decades ago, I read a description of a technique
that was meant to somehow enhance stereo. The idea
was to hook a third speaker up with a lead going to
the positive side of one channel and to the negative
side of the other.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
William Sommerwerck
May 25, 2012, 2:07:16 PM5/25/12
to
> Some decades ago, I read a description of a technique
> that was meant to somehow enhance stereo. The idea
> was to hook a third speaker up with a lead going to
> the positive side of one channel and to the negative
> side of the other.
You mean to the positive sides of both channels.
> that was meant to somehow enhance stereo. The idea
> was to hook a third speaker up with a lead going to
> the positive side of one channel and to the negative
> side of the other.
It's called "Dynaquad" and was thought up by the late David Hafler. Because
the speaker is connected "differentially", it reproduces only what is
different between the channels. As ambience has random phase, more of it
than the direct sounds reaches this speaker. If the speaker (preferably two)
are placed behind the listener, there is an enhancement of the recording's
ambience.
Soundhaspriority
May 25, 2012, 2:02:23 PM5/25/12
to
news:jpnskh$85k$2...@dont-email.me...
improvement. I found myself switching it on and off.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@cocmast.net> wrote in message
> news:hcadnRE549-p_iLS...@giganews.com...
>
>>> It's amazing that no one seems to make anything like this,
>>> or include the processing in various digital devices.
>
>> http://www.head-fi.org/search.php?search=cross+feed+headphone+amp
>
> When I posted, I'd forgotten that HeadRoom's amplifiers included
> crossfeed.
>
My neural circuits found the Headroom crossfield to be, at best, a subtle
> news:hcadnRE549-p_iLS...@giganews.com...
>
>>> It's amazing that no one seems to make anything like this,
>>> or include the processing in various digital devices.
>
>> http://www.head-fi.org/search.php?search=cross+feed+headphone+amp
>
> When I posted, I'd forgotten that HeadRoom's amplifiers included
> crossfeed.
>
improvement. I found myself switching it on and off.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
ckoz...@snet.net
May 25, 2012, 4:35:52 PM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:26:33 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
I'm sorry I didn't phrase my question in English: Is the iPod a Touch or a Classic(wheel on front)? The reason I asked is because iOS 5 has both Mono mode and a balance control under Accessibilty menu.
-CC
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 07:30:24 -0700 (PDT), .net wrote:
>
> >Touch or classic?
>
> Probably.
>
> d
_____________
>
> >Touch or classic?
>
> Probably.
>
> d
I'm sorry I didn't phrase my question in English: Is the iPod a Touch or a Classic(wheel on front)? The reason I asked is because iOS 5 has both Mono mode and a balance control under Accessibilty menu.
-CC
Scott Dorsey
May 25, 2012, 5:11:49 PM5/25/12
to
some ways the precursor to matrix surround systems.
Don Pearce
May 25, 2012, 5:53:26 PM5/25/12
to
d
MG
May 25, 2012, 6:36:10 PM5/25/12
to
news:4fbf156b...@news.eternal-september.org...
The last round of Beatles releases included a box set of all the mono mixes.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Beatles-Mono-Box-Set/dp/B002BSHXJA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337985291&sr=8-1
This would solve all her problems with Beatles music, at least, and I am
pretty certain would sound noticeably different than summing the stereo
channels of their stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Beatles-Mono-Box-Set/dp/B002BSHXJA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337985291&sr=8-1
This would solve all her problems with Beatles music, at least, and I am
pretty certain would sound noticeably different than summing the stereo
channels of their stuff.
Soundhaspriority
May 25, 2012, 6:43:21 PM5/25/12
to
On May 24, 1:43 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Gill Smith <gill.smith....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >listening to some stereo pop CDs hrough headphones
>
> These are going to be panpotted stereo. They won't have a "solid" image,
> and you won't actually hear that "solid" image on headphones anyway.
>
> >the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
>
> >i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
>
> That's not stereo and has absolutely nothing to do with real stereo. It's
> just one mike routed hard right and one mike routed hard left.
>
Many people here don't know that I invented stereo. I hold the key
patents on stereo, including the one that proscribes two ears as being
necessary.
I also invented a high power water pump, but a criminal professor at
Drexel, Dr. Kalata, stole it from me.
Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894
> Gill Smith <gill.smith....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >listening to some stereo pop CDs hrough headphones
>
> These are going to be panpotted stereo. They won't have a "solid" image,
> and you won't actually hear that "solid" image on headphones anyway.
>
> >the only truly stereo track was California Dreaming by the Mamas and Papas
>
> >i.e. one instrument on one earpiece
>
> That's not stereo and has absolutely nothing to do with real stereo. It's
> just one mike routed hard right and one mike routed hard left.
>
Many people here don't know that I invented stereo. I hold the key
patents on stereo, including the one that proscribes two ears as being
necessary.
I also invented a high power water pump, but a criminal professor at
Drexel, Dr. Kalata, stole it from me.
Bob Morein
(215) 646-4894
Message has been deleted
Soundhaspriority
May 25, 2012, 8:00:13 PM5/25/12
to
"Jeff Henig" <yom...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:1367537910359681362.0...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jeff,
Thank you :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Message has been deleted
Don Pearce
May 25, 2012, 10:35:26 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:36:10 -0400, "MG" <rebor...@mypacks.net>
Would certainly solve somebody's bank account problem. No, it's all
sorted now, but thanks.
d
sorted now, but thanks.
d
geoff
May 26, 2012, 2:09:38 AM5/26/12
to
spread !
geoff
ckoz...@snet.net
May 26, 2012, 7:26:37 AM5/26/12
to
So it's definitely not an iPod Touch?
ckoz...@snet.net
May 26, 2012, 7:29:13 AM5/26/12
to
Me too! Hard panning may not he stereo, but it sure turns heads at my gatherings. :) And some of the Zeppelin & Hendrix where stuff gets panned back & forth, whooaa, fahhr ouuut! lol
Marc Wielage
May 27, 2012, 7:15:44 AM5/27/12
to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 14:12:08 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article <jpm85q$veq$2...@dont-email.me>):
> Actually, wrt the Beatles, it is a problem. They saw recording in terms of
> mono sound. Stereo was a not a major consideration.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Not after the WHITE ALBUM (1968). From then on, their album projects were
primarly stereo-focused. But they were only together 2 more years.
I'd say many, many pre-1968 stereo rock projects were flawed in terms of
balance and impact. Some were stellar, many were wonky. It's amazing how
many good ones RCA did, though (as one example).
--MFW
(in article <jpm85q$veq$2...@dont-email.me>):
> Actually, wrt the Beatles, it is a problem. They saw recording in terms of
> mono sound. Stereo was a not a major consideration.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
Not after the WHITE ALBUM (1968). From then on, their album projects were
primarly stereo-focused. But they were only together 2 more years.
I'd say many, many pre-1968 stereo rock projects were flawed in terms of
balance and impact. Some were stellar, many were wonky. It's amazing how
many good ones RCA did, though (as one example).
--MFW
Sylvain Robitaille
May 28, 2012, 2:48:47 PM5/28/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:26:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
> ... A room is recorded with a stereo mike pair. In mix, some left
should be used only on selected components of a recording. (I would
expect to hear phase cancellation in the center of the "image"
otherwise, for example if used on a full mix).
> A plugin such as
> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/30/free-stereo-enhancer-plugin/
> might be beneficial.
Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd *want* to use that, as by the
description I wouldn't expect the result to sound very natural. What
I'm trying to understand is how some mix engineers have accomplished a
"wider-than-the-speakers" perspective, in days before computer plugins
were the norm, while still retaining a mostly very natural sound. If I
could cite an example recording, I'm sure this would be a lot easier ...
> But with individually recorded tracks, there is no stereo.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true, from the point of view of a final
mix of those tracks. I suppose it opens the debate to "what is stereo",
and that's something I honestly don't believe we need to debate and
convince each other of. Ultimately, if we can get the recordings we're
after (and in this case, I'm hoping to understand a technique that I
believe will improve the final mix of a recording I'm working on),
whether we agree or not about what "stereo" means and whether the
recordings are truly stereo recordings becomes a rather minor issue.
It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
> ... If there is no room, it has to be manufactured in the DAW. ...
... or by other artificial means, but yes, ok ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@encs.concordia.ca
Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... A room is recorded with a stereo mike pair. In mix, some left
> channel is subtracted from the right, and right from left, in an
> attempt at crosstalk cancellation.
Sounds like something I could at least experiment with, but presumably
> attempt at crosstalk cancellation.
should be used only on selected components of a recording. (I would
expect to hear phase cancellation in the center of the "image"
otherwise, for example if used on a full mix).
> A plugin such as
> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/30/free-stereo-enhancer-plugin/
> might be beneficial.
description I wouldn't expect the result to sound very natural. What
I'm trying to understand is how some mix engineers have accomplished a
"wider-than-the-speakers" perspective, in days before computer plugins
were the norm, while still retaining a mostly very natural sound. If I
could cite an example recording, I'm sure this would be a lot easier ...
> But with individually recorded tracks, there is no stereo.
mix of those tracks. I suppose it opens the debate to "what is stereo",
and that's something I honestly don't believe we need to debate and
convince each other of. Ultimately, if we can get the recordings we're
after (and in this case, I'm hoping to understand a technique that I
believe will improve the final mix of a recording I'm working on),
whether we agree or not about what "stereo" means and whether the
recordings are truly stereo recordings becomes a rather minor issue.
It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
> ... If there is no room, it has to be manufactured in the DAW. ...
... or by other artificial means, but yes, ok ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@encs.concordia.ca
Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Soundhaspriority
May 29, 2012, 6:16:07 PM5/29/12
to
news:slrnjs7i4...@charlotte.encs.concordia.ca...
Nevertheless, "wider than the speakers" is one of the most elusive claims of
stereo. It isn't part of the basic concept of stereo, because the scientific
models of sound localization have nothing to say about it. Scientifically
speaking, all we have to build a stereo image are:
1. Intensity differences
2. Inter-aural time delay differences
3. Phase differences
4. Comb filtering caused by the outer ears.
5. Law of first arrival.
The above is what is scientifically known. As for sound coming outside of
the speakers, that occurs when, while someone is mixing and plays with
phases and L-R subtraction, it just happens. The wise mixer is happy when it
does.
>> But with individually recorded tracks, there is no stereo.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily true, from the point of view of a final
> mix of those tracks. I suppose it opens the debate to "what is stereo",
> and that's something I honestly don't believe we need to debate and
> convince each other of.
"What is stereo" sounds like a troll, but in recent years it has become a
real question.
>Ultimately, if we can get the recordings we're
> after (and in this case, I'm hoping to understand a technique that I
> believe will improve the final mix of a recording I'm working on),
> whether we agree or not about what "stereo" means and whether the
> recordings are truly stereo recordings becomes a rather minor issue.
>
I didn't say, "there is real stereo." There isn't any fake stereo either,
unless the inter-aural time delay is similar to the real thing. By
panpotting individually recorded tracks in a dead room, only intensity
differences appear in the final recording -- unless the room is
synthetically recreated for each track.
> It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
> in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
> Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
>
The above statement negates every scientific discovery related to sound
since and including Blumlein. Perhaps your assumption of the listener makes
it irrelevant. You might be right. But it saddens if it is true.
>> ... If there is no room, it has to be manufactured in the DAW. ...
>
> ... or by other artificial means, but yes, ok ...
>
Keep asking the question.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:26:30 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> ... A room is recorded with a stereo mike pair. In mix, some left
>> channel is subtracted from the right, and right from left, in an
>> attempt at crosstalk cancellation.
>
> Sounds like something I could at least experiment with, but presumably
> should be used only on selected components of a recording. (I would
> expect to hear phase cancellation in the center of the "image"
> otherwise, for example if used on a full mix).
>
>> A plugin such as
>> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/30/free-stereo-enhancer-plugin/
>> might be beneficial.
>
> Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd *want* to use that, as by the
> description I wouldn't expect the result to sound very natural. What
> I'm trying to understand is how some mix engineers have accomplished a
> "wider-than-the-speakers" perspective, in days before computer plugins
> were the norm, while still retaining a mostly very natural sound. If I
> could cite an example recording, I'm sure this would be a lot easier ...
>
I know what you're talking about, and most/all of us have experienced it.
>
>> ... A room is recorded with a stereo mike pair. In mix, some left
>> channel is subtracted from the right, and right from left, in an
>> attempt at crosstalk cancellation.
>
> Sounds like something I could at least experiment with, but presumably
> should be used only on selected components of a recording. (I would
> expect to hear phase cancellation in the center of the "image"
> otherwise, for example if used on a full mix).
>
>> A plugin such as
>> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2009/03/30/free-stereo-enhancer-plugin/
>> might be beneficial.
>
> Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd *want* to use that, as by the
> description I wouldn't expect the result to sound very natural. What
> I'm trying to understand is how some mix engineers have accomplished a
> "wider-than-the-speakers" perspective, in days before computer plugins
> were the norm, while still retaining a mostly very natural sound. If I
> could cite an example recording, I'm sure this would be a lot easier ...
>
Nevertheless, "wider than the speakers" is one of the most elusive claims of
stereo. It isn't part of the basic concept of stereo, because the scientific
models of sound localization have nothing to say about it. Scientifically
speaking, all we have to build a stereo image are:
1. Intensity differences
2. Inter-aural time delay differences
3. Phase differences
4. Comb filtering caused by the outer ears.
5. Law of first arrival.
The above is what is scientifically known. As for sound coming outside of
the speakers, that occurs when, while someone is mixing and plays with
phases and L-R subtraction, it just happens. The wise mixer is happy when it
does.
>> But with individually recorded tracks, there is no stereo.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessarily true, from the point of view of a final
> mix of those tracks. I suppose it opens the debate to "what is stereo",
> and that's something I honestly don't believe we need to debate and
> convince each other of.
real question.
>Ultimately, if we can get the recordings we're
> after (and in this case, I'm hoping to understand a technique that I
> believe will improve the final mix of a recording I'm working on),
> whether we agree or not about what "stereo" means and whether the
> recordings are truly stereo recordings becomes a rather minor issue.
>
unless the inter-aural time delay is similar to the real thing. By
panpotting individually recorded tracks in a dead room, only intensity
differences appear in the final recording -- unless the room is
synthetically recreated for each track.
> It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
> in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
> Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
>
since and including Blumlein. Perhaps your assumption of the listener makes
it irrelevant. You might be right. But it saddens if it is true.
>> ... If there is no room, it has to be manufactured in the DAW. ...
>
> ... or by other artificial means, but yes, ok ...
>
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Ron Capik
May 29, 2012, 6:45:07 PM5/29/12
to
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
gregz
May 29, 2012, 7:15:06 PM5/29/12
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
I don't remember a lot having, but that panorama control on the crown ic
preamp was neat.
Greg
> In article <jpn2qs$r62$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>> "Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> "Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> A friend of mine is totally deaf in one ear (since birth, almost), but
>>> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
>>> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
>>> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
>>> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
>>> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
>>
>> But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
>> Of course most amps have a mono switch that would solve her problem anyway.
>>> she still likes to listen to her music on ear bud(s). I tried her with
>>> some old Beatles a few years ago, and complained that it sounded all
>>> wrong. It took a few minutes to work out that there were parts of it
>>> she couldn't hear at all. For her, certainly, properly sound-staged
>>> music sounds OK, but hard left-right panning just doesn't work.
>>
>> But the original mono mixes would be just perfect! :-)
>
> In the seventies when ping-pong mixes were still popular, a lot of home
> stereo preamps had a "blend" control to allow you to reduce stereo separation.
> --scott
> In the seventies when ping-pong mixes were still popular, a lot of home
> stereo preamps had a "blend" control to allow you to reduce stereo separation.
>
I don't remember a lot having, but that panorama control on the crown ic
preamp was neat.
Greg
gregz
May 29, 2012, 7:21:27 PM5/29/12
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Tobiah <to...@tobiah.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some decades ago, I read a description of a technique
>> that was meant to somehow enhance stereo. The idea
>> was to hook a third speaker up with a lead going to
>> the positive side of one channel and to the negative
>> side of the other.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> This is Hafler Quad.... it is a curious and odd effect that is in
> some ways the precursor to matrix surround systems.
> --scott
In the early 70's I connected a matrix headliner in my 64 1/2 mustang.
> Tobiah <to...@tobiah.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some decades ago, I read a description of a technique
>> that was meant to somehow enhance stereo. The idea
>> was to hook a third speaker up with a lead going to
>> the positive side of one channel and to the negative
>> side of the other.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> This is Hafler Quad.... it is a curious and odd effect that is in
> some ways the precursor to matrix surround systems.
> --scott
Using a mini 8 deck. Two small speakers in the roof. Front and rear stereo.
You have to sit sideways.
Greg
Sylvain Robitaille
May 30, 2012, 1:15:59 PM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 18:45:07 -0400, Ron Capik wrote:
> I have one word to add: psychoacoustics.
No doubt a worthwhile search term, I'm sure ... thanks.
> I have one word to add: psychoacoustics.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@alcor.concordia.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille
May 30, 2012, 1:33:31 PM5/30/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 18:16:07 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:
> ... As for sound coming outside of the speakers, that occurs when,
> "What is stereo" sounds like a troll, ...
Yes, or at least fodder for endless discussion where ultimately the
participants should simply agree to disagree. Thus my pointing out that
it didn't seem worthwhile to discuss, at least for the purposes of the
original question I posed (how to accomplish "wider than speakers"
stereo[?] imaging).
> ... By panpotting individually recorded tracks in a dead room, only
>> It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
>> in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
>> Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
>>
> The above statement negates every scientific discovery related to sound
> since and including Blumlein.
Really? It certainly wasn't intended to do anything of the sort,
but rather only to point out that the expectations setup by the *word*
"stereo" might be considerably different for different people. Consider
the discussion in another part of this thread, of what was done to turn
mono mixes into "stereo" (or so it said on the record sleeve) on popular
music recordings.
> Perhaps your assumption of the listener makes it irrelevant.
My assumption is that the listener is not necessarily a trained audio
professional.
> You might be right. But it saddens if it is true.
Hopefully my clarification makes the statement seem much less drastic.
> Keep asking the question.
... or, presumably, at least researching it? Thanks for the input.
> ... As for sound coming outside of the speakers, that occurs when,
> while someone is mixing and plays with phases and L-R subtraction, it
> just happens. The wise mixer is happy when it does.
It hadn't occured to me that this couldn't just be created at will.
> just happens. The wise mixer is happy when it does.
> "What is stereo" sounds like a troll, ...
Yes, or at least fodder for endless discussion where ultimately the
participants should simply agree to disagree. Thus my pointing out that
it didn't seem worthwhile to discuss, at least for the purposes of the
original question I posed (how to accomplish "wider than speakers"
stereo[?] imaging).
> ... By panpotting individually recorded tracks in a dead room, only
> intensity differences appear in the final recording -- unless the room
> is synthetically recreated for each track.
Right, thus the rather unsatisfactory result in that case, of course.
> is synthetically recreated for each track.
>> It really only matters from the point of view of the expectation setup
>> in the listener's mind, when I say "listen to this stereo recording."
>> Does it mean the same thing to that listener as it does to me?
>>
> The above statement negates every scientific discovery related to sound
> since and including Blumlein.
but rather only to point out that the expectations setup by the *word*
"stereo" might be considerably different for different people. Consider
the discussion in another part of this thread, of what was done to turn
mono mixes into "stereo" (or so it said on the record sleeve) on popular
music recordings.
> Perhaps your assumption of the listener makes it irrelevant.
professional.
> You might be right. But it saddens if it is true.
> Keep asking the question.
... or, presumably, at least researching it? Thanks for the input.
Carey Carlan
May 30, 2012, 10:09:14 PM5/30/12
to
Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote in
news:slrnjs7i4...@charlotte.encs.concordia.ca:
> Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd *want* to use that, as by the
> description I wouldn't expect the result to sound very natural. What
> I'm trying to understand is how some mix engineers have accomplished a
> "wider-than-the-speakers" perspective, in days before computer plugins
> were the norm, while still retaining a mostly very natural sound. If
> I could cite an example recording, I'm sure this would be a lot easier
> ...
this thread.
Theoretically, a stereo field wider than the speakers is not hard to
understand. Normally, both ears hear the sound from both speakers. To
widen the stereo effect, the sound from the left speaker must be partially
cancelled at the right ear and the sound from the right speaker at the left
ear. The more cancellation, the wider the stereo field. This can be
accomplished with limited success by feeding the inverse of the right
channel to the left speaker (and vice versa) then listening in the sweet
spot.
The extreme case is headphones where each ear receives only one channel, in
which, if left and right are completely different, the channels appears to
be left and right of the listener's head.
Sylvain Robitaille
May 31, 2012, 12:17:46 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:09:14 GMT, Carey Carlan wrote:
> ... To widen the stereo effect, the sound from the left speaker
done with only certain components of a mix? Perhaps the "havoc" I refer
to is addressed by finding a suitable balance between widened field, and
compromised center? Possibly even something like: mix the left/right
material separately from center material, apply widening, then sum with
center material?
> ... To widen the stereo effect, the sound from the left speaker
> must be partially cancelled at the right ear and the sound from the
> right speaker at the left ear. The more cancellation, the wider
> the stereo field. This can be accomplished with limited success
> by feeding the inverse of the right channel to the left speaker
> (and vice versa) then listening in the sweet spot.
Havoc with the center image, I presume, or is what you're describing
> right speaker at the left ear. The more cancellation, the wider
> the stereo field. This can be accomplished with limited success
> by feeding the inverse of the right channel to the left speaker
> (and vice versa) then listening in the sweet spot.
done with only certain components of a mix? Perhaps the "havoc" I refer
to is addressed by finding a suitable balance between widened field, and
compromised center? Possibly even something like: mix the left/right
material separately from center material, apply widening, then sum with
center material?
Jonathan
May 31, 2012, 12:48:08 PM5/31/12
to
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:47:33 PM UTC-4, Gill Smith wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jpmj5d$d0n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
> >>> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
> >>
> >>Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
> >
> > In the case of the Beatles releases it was definitely a problem, in that
> > they were never intended to be released that way.
> >
> > In the case of the Mamas and Papas it was a stylistic thing.
>
> I guess record companies update mixes
>
> the iTunes track seems much more balanced than on my old CD
>
> maybe the way ahead is re-mastering old stuff!
>
> --
> http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
From what I gathered from a discussion here awhile ago, the Beatles' stuff cannot be remixed (since the session tapes are no longer available).
I think the tracks that they claim to be "remastered" are derived from the same stereo mixes as the prior releases.
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jpmj5d$d0n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
> >>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:O-mdnVRrd4coZyHS...@brightview.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>> There are a number of well-known recordings from that era that have
> >>> this failing. Some Beatle's releases have the same problem.
> >>
> >>Not a 'problem' per se. A 'style' albeit an annoying one.
> >
> > In the case of the Beatles releases it was definitely a problem, in that
> > they were never intended to be released that way.
> >
> > In the case of the Mamas and Papas it was a stylistic thing.
>
> I guess record companies update mixes
>
> the iTunes track seems much more balanced than on my old CD
>
> maybe the way ahead is re-mastering old stuff!
>
> --
> http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
From what I gathered from a discussion here awhile ago, the Beatles' stuff cannot be remixed (since the session tapes are no longer available).
I think the tracks that they claim to be "remastered" are derived from the same stereo mixes as the prior releases.
William Sommerwerck
May 31, 2012, 1:34:59 PM5/31/12
to
Just out of curiosity... Is there such a thing as a "figure-8 panpot" -- a
panning rule that treats the mono signal as if it were being panned between
a Blumlein pair? Such a panning rule would probably position sounds to the
far left and right "outside" the speakers.
panning rule that treats the mono signal as if it were being panned between
a Blumlein pair? Such a panning rule would probably position sounds to the
far left and right "outside" the speakers.
Les Cargill
May 31, 2012, 1:42:14 PM5/31/12
to
wouldn't it?
--
Les Cargill
William Sommerwerck
May 31, 2012, 2:53:25 PM5/31/12
to
>> Just out of curiosity... Is there such a thing as a "figure-8
>> panpot" -- a panning rule that treats the mono signal as if
>> it were being panned between a Blumlein pair? Such a
>> panning rule would probably position sounds to the far left
>> and right "outside" the speakers.
> That would require something to provide a 90 degree phase
> shift, wouldn't it?
Nope. Blumlein is strictly amplitude panning -- except for the polarity
>> panpot" -- a panning rule that treats the mono signal as if
>> it were being panned between a Blumlein pair? Such a
>> panning rule would probably position sounds to the far left
>> and right "outside" the speakers.
> That would require something to provide a 90 degree phase
> shift, wouldn't it?
inversion (not phase shift) to the rear.
Don Pearce
May 31, 2012, 2:58:36 PM5/31/12
to
to 20kHz? It implies a delay of 12.5mSec at 20Hz, and 12.5uSec at
20kHz. That would be a very odd sort of response to create.
Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave a
stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
d
John Williamson
May 31, 2012, 3:02:16 PM5/31/12
to
difference component? The BBC specify that the difference signal must be
no greater than the sum, to ensure mono compatibility, and, incidentally
keeping the signal "between the speakers".
I've not tried it, but it might give a wider sound field result at the
expense of mono compatibility.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
William Sommerwerck
May 31, 2012, 3:28:25 PM5/31/12
to
> I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave
> a stable image outside the speakers.
It depends on how you define "stable".
> a stable image outside the speakers.
Many "enhancement" systems provide outside-the-speakers effects that are
sharp and not phasey. However, the are not stable with large head movements.
Sylvain Robitaille
May 31, 2012, 4:13:21 PM5/31/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:58:36 GMT, Don Pearce wrote:
> Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave a
> stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
> the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
That's a side-effect I hadn't considered, and suggests that the result
> Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave a
> stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
> the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
might NOT, after all, benefit my mix in the way I was expecting.
I've seen plenty of discussion about this, and I appreicate it greatly,
as it's given me a chance to learn about an effect I've often wondered
about, but never successfully accomplished. I fully expect that the
suggestion I should followup on at highest priority is The Stereo
Soundbook (not available in our university library).
Les Cargill
May 31, 2012, 6:21:55 PM5/31/12
to
Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:42:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity... Is there such a thing as a "figure-8 panpot" -- a
>>> panning rule that treats the mono signal as if it were being panned between
>>> a Blumlein pair? Such a panning rule would probably position sounds to the
>>> far left and right "outside" the speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That would require something to provide a 90 degree phase shift,
>> wouldn't it?
>
> What does a 90 degree phase shift mean across an audio band from 20Hz
> to 20kHz? It implies a delay of 12.5mSec at 20Hz, and 12.5uSec at
> 20kHz. That would be a very odd sort of response to create.
>
A Hilbert transform does
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 12:42:14 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity... Is there such a thing as a "figure-8 panpot" -- a
>>> panning rule that treats the mono signal as if it were being panned between
>>> a Blumlein pair? Such a panning rule would probably position sounds to the
>>> far left and right "outside" the speakers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That would require something to provide a 90 degree phase shift,
>> wouldn't it?
>
> What does a 90 degree phase shift mean across an audio band from 20Hz
> to 20kHz? It implies a delay of 12.5mSec at 20Hz, and 12.5uSec at
> 20kHz. That would be a very odd sort of response to create.
>
But mainly, I was forgetting what Blumlein meant...
> Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave a
> stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
> the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
>
> d
Les Cargill
Trevor
May 31, 2012, 10:06:28 PM5/31/12
to
"Jonathan" <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfc19836-0ffd-433c...@googlegroups.com...
>
> From what I gathered from a discussion here awhile ago, the Beatles' stuff
> cannot be remixed (since the session tapes are no longer available).
> I think the tracks that they claim to be "remastered" are derived from the
> same stereo mixes as the prior releases.
They also released a set from the mono mixes. And "remastered" can mean
> From what I gathered from a discussion here awhile ago, the Beatles' stuff
> cannot be remixed (since the session tapes are no longer available).
> I think the tracks that they claim to be "remastered" are derived from the
> same stereo mixes as the prior releases.
almost anything these days. Change one bit in an audio file and it has been
"remastered" :-)
And every time you go from analog to digital it MUST be a "remaster".
Trevor.
Trevor
May 31, 2012, 10:09:16 PM5/31/12
to
news:4fc7be82...@news.eternal-september.org...
Trevor.
> Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that actually gave a
> stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
> the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
Exactly my experience, and sounds truly awful on headphones! :-(
> stable image outside the speakers. They only ever sound vaguely as if
> the speakers are wired up wrongly - not at all satisfactory.
Trevor.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 1, 2012, 4:24:52 AM6/1/12
to
> Incidentally I have never heard a widening effect that
> actually gave a stable image outside the speakers.
> They only ever sound vaguely as if the speakers are
> wired up wrongly -- not at all satisfactory.
> actually gave a stable image outside the speakers.
> They only ever sound vaguely as if the speakers are
As I said in a preceding post, there are forms of processing that place
sounds "outside" the speakers. (These are used mostly to get surround effect
from two speakers.) They work very well, and don't sound "phasey". However,
the effect is not stable with large head movements.
0 new messages