"Technically augmented stereo"

[barretter]

Originally Posted by dave walsh

There was a boxed set of Beatles LP's in the early 80's, very expensive so all we family members chipped in to buy it for our cousin's birthday. He was delighted but it was the worst example of a a stereo re-mix I have ever heard-you know, things on one side or the other with nothing in between.

All the Beatles' LPs were issued in stereo and they were always recorded on at least two-track, mostly on four-track. After all, EMI had been recording in stereo since at least 1956. The reason that the stereo mixes of the early LPs sound so naff is that George Martin and his merry men were much more concerned about the mono mix since stereo hadn't taken off with the British pop-music buying public even by the middle to late 1960s. The stereo mixes were done perfunctorily but they are not remixes of mono recordings.

[dave walsh]

Thanks for the correction Ted. I got my Parkers mixed up despite having looked up Robert. As you say, Charles was the famous BBC Documentary pioneer ["Shoals of Herring"-Ewan Macoll and all that]. Your extra information, personal contact and professional approval is very welcome.
That explanation re the Beatles Collection make sense Barretter, I always wondered why? Especially as all the later output [Anthology etc] is so much better.

Dave

[barretter]

Originally Posted by Radio Wrangler

The phrase 'Technically augmented stereo' seems wrong

If the signal had started as stereo and then subsequently been augmented, I suppose it would have been an accurate description.

What we seem to be discussing is 'technically augmented mono'. or 'synthetically created stereo'.

David

You could quite easily change "augmented" to "implemented" to convey the meaning. RCA called it "Electronically reprocessed" ; Deutsche Grammophon's British subsidiary used "stereo-transcription" and so on.
Interestingly John Borwick wrote a 2-page article, "Can they make stereo records from old mono masters?" in the March 1969 issue of Gramophone so it's not a new concern.

[Ted Kendall]

According to his autobiography, George Martin was so appalled at the sound of some of the tracks on the Beatles' "Rock 'n' Roll Music" compilation that he reworked the sound as far as was possible at the time to make a more convincing stereo picture. Snag was, there had been an edict from Saville Row that the tapes were not to be tampered with, so the UK issue was untouched and the modified versions were released by Capitol in the US. I haven't heard them.

Up to the White Album, most of the production effort as far as mixing was concerned went into the mono release, the stereo mixes being made to correspond with the mono apart from width - in theory. The most obvious difference between mono and stereo versions occurs on "Helter Skelter", where the stereo version fades back in after the fade-out, culminating with the immortal words "I got blisters on my fingers!"

Abbey Road and Let It Be were only mixed in stereo, as by then double-inventory had been discontinued.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by dave walsh

Thanks for the correction Ted. I got my Parkers mixed up despite having looked up Robert. As you say, Charles was the famous BBC Documentary pioneer ["Shoals of Herring"-Ewan Macoll and all that]. Your extra information, personal contact and professional approval is very welcome.
That explanation re the Beatles Collection make sense Barretter, I always wondered why? Especially as all the later output [Anthology etc] is so much better.

Dave

Re Robert Parker, I forgot to mention that quiet original dubs were a necessary part of his recipe - nothing annoys more in fake stereo than lopsided or filtered surface noise - it is distracting and immediately gives the game away. As it was, with two Packburns (later CEDAR), modified Dolby B decoders, an Orban stereophoniser, EQ and digital reverb, he produced some quite convincing results.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by joebog1

So I had a critical listen today. Well I asked for it I guess. Mono tracks are excellent, and as we all suggested the "electronically processed" tracks really are horrible. Apart from added distortion that is plainly obvious, trebles are non existent. Bass is muddy and for want of a better word, farty. It sounds like there is a large tear in the woofer cone.

Anyone reading these posts will have seen that the records are pressed by EMI, who mostly got their recording right. First LP is entitled "Folk Songs with the Seekers" and is totally mono and quite good quality all the way through. Record two has four tracks "enhanced". They jump out at you without listening carefully, and sound like the aforementioned five transistor geranium wireless with a 1 1/2" speaker.

Oh well.

Joe

As far as I can tell that set is identical to the 5-disc set issued by World Record Club (by then owned by EMI) in the UK. There are 12 tracks "electronically processed to give a stereo effect" and they correspond exactly to the tracks on the LP "A world of our own" which was only issued in mono in the UK but was issued in stereo in New Zealand in 1966. The album was recorded at Abbey Road in 1965 so I find it difficult to believe that it was only recorded in mono.
If you look at the labels you will see that the UK label has the matrix number XAX2870 whereas the NZ one has YAX2870. In the EMI system X = mono and Y = stereo so it appears that a stereo tape existed. It could be that EMI lost the stereo mastertape before the compilation was made. They lost the two-track tapes of the Beatles first singles so it is not impossible.
By the way the World Record compilation is in stereo and I would assume the EMI/Readers Digest box is too. If it were in mono what would be the point of electronically processing the mono-only tracks?

[Electronpusher0]

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice....
I have just checked my set of the World Record club box set and Disc one "Folk Songs with the Seekers" purports to be entirely stereo except track 7 which is "Electronically processed for stereo reproduction.
I will have a listen later and see if they are mono or stereo.

Peter

[Ted Kendall]

My copy of the MFP issue "The Four and only Seekers", which is subtitled "Hide and Seekers" is, as I remember, perfectly decent stereo. The reference to "An FXB production" may indicate that the some of the tapes were leased to EMI - the same concern handled Nina and Frederik, and was eventually absorbed by EMI.

[Electronpusher0]

I have just listened to Disc one and indeed all tracks except track 7 are "proper" stereo.
Track 7 is fake stereo and seems to be a simple bass left, treble right split which gives the disconcerting effect of Judith shifting left and right according to what notes she is singing.

Peter

[barretter]

It could be that the New Zealand issue is electronic stereo but it's hard to tell at this distance in time particularly as they used the UK sleeve with a "stereo" sticker on the back. The World Record Club label does indeed say that the last track on side 1 of the box set is electronic stereo and that one is from the "World of our own" LP. Still difficult to know why the New Zealanders used that YAX matrix number.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

My copy of the MFP issue "The Four and only Seekers", which is subtitled "Hide and Seekers" is, as I remember, perfectly decent stereo. The reference to "An FXB production" may indicate that the some of the tapes were leased to EMI - the same concern handled Nina and Frederik, and was eventually absorbed by EMI.

FXB was a production company belonging to Tom Springfield. As far as I can make out the first Seekers LP (also an FXB production) was recorded in Australia in stereo and it was first issued in the UK by World Record Club in 1964 in both mono and stereo. The tracks on the WRC boxset with the copyright date 1964 are from that LP and are in genuine stereo. Australian issues of the "World of our own" tracks on W & G all say "recorded in England". Why EMI would only make a mono version of the tapes available is a mystery ; the NZ issue is the only one I can find that claims to be stereo apart from the US Capitol issue which is "duophonic".

[G6Tanuki]

The "high and low pass filter" thing to generate pseudo-stereo from a mono signal-source *does* have its uses: the technique is used by some radio-amateurs when listening to Morse/CW signals - the idea being that you 'centre' the required signal in the pseudo-stereo image, then interfering signals that are higher or lower in frequency appear either 'side' of the wanted signal and - with a bit of experience the brain learns to use the effect for added discrimination.

There are circuits for this (using 741 active-filters) in some 1980s ARRL handbooks. also see http://wq6x.blogspot.com/2018/03/wq6...eo-cw-its.html

As to 'augmented stereo' I'm sure we all played around in the 70s by connecting a third speaker between the two +ve outputs of our stereo amplifiers - the 'Hafler method'- to feed a central speaker.

[Electronpusher0]

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

My copy of the MFP issue "The Four and only Seekers", which is subtitled "Hide and Seekers" is, as I remember, perfectly decent stereo. The reference to "An FXB production" may indicate that the some of the tapes were leased to EMI - the same concern handled Nina and Frederik, and was eventually absorbed by EMI.

I have an LP titled "Hide and Seekers" but it is another world record club record. The disc label says "World Stereo" but the only reference on the sleeve is a sticker saying stereo.
My copy of "A world of our own" is Mono.

Peter

[Electronpusher0]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

As to 'augmented stereo' I'm sure we all played around in the 70s by connecting a third speaker between the two +ve outputs of our stereo amplifiers - the 'Hafler method'- to feed a central speaker.

The "Hafler effect" was to provide a rear channel, the centre front channel was simply left plus right.
The Hafler effect could be enhanced by using a bucket brigade delay line to add a delay to the rear channel and give a sense that the rear speaker was much further back.

I watched star wars with the audio processed in such a system, sounded suprisingly good actually.

Peter

[Sideband]

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

Certainly in the case of the Beatles, "I Am The Walrus" was originally mixed in mono, and for years afterwards every stereo issue flipped from a multitrack stereo mix to fake stereo at "sitting in an english garden" because the radio reception was fed live into the original mono mix and would have been difficult to reconstruct. I have, however, heard a more recent mix (could have been on "Love") which is a proper stereo mix throughout - the recognisable radio dialogue is from a BBC production of "King Lear", so no doubt the clean material exists.

Yes you are quite right....just played the 'Love' version. I hadn't noticed before. I was recently going through some of the stereo vinyls and 'Magical Mystery Tour' has a stereo version of 'Walrus' just as you say going into fake stereo at that point.

Mind you, most of the tracks on the Love album have been remixed differently quite deliberately by George Martin and Walrus is no exception especially at the end where it fades into a live track and the radio dialogue is missing.

[joebog1]

I just checked my Readers Digest set, and record one is in fact labelled Stereo. Readers Digest use their own numbers so we can't go that way.

Record one which I thought was mono is in fact stereo without any mention of enhancement. Record two has enhanced tracks on it, and is labelled so as per the pictures. I will have to have yet another listen today and will report back.

Joe

[barretter]

Originally Posted by Electronpusher0

I have an LP titled "Hide and Seekers" but it is another world record club record. The disc label says "World Stereo" but the only reference on the sleeve is a sticker saying stereo.
My copy of "A world of our own" is Mono.

Peter

Compare your label with the Music for Pleasure label : they both have the same matrix number. They are basically the same disc, both made by EMI.

[barretter]

Originally Posted by barretter

FXB was a production company belonging to Tom Springfield. As far as I can make out the first Seekers LP (also an FXB production) was recorded in Australia in stereo and it was first issued in the UK by World Record Club in 1964 in both mono and stereo. The tracks on the WRC boxset with the copyright date 1964 are from that LP and are in genuine stereo. Australian issues of the "World of our own" tracks on W & G all say "recorded in England". Why EMI would only make a mono version of the tapes available is a mystery ; the NZ issue is the only one I can find that claims to be stereo apart from the US Capitol issue which is "duophonic".

After further research I have to correct what I wrote here. The first Seekers LP was "Introducing The Seekers" and was issued by W&G Records in Melbourne in July 1963 in mono (later issued by Decca in the UK only in mono in 1965). The second 2 LPs, "The Seekers" and "Hide and seekers" were recorded in London in 1964 in stereo by World Record Club and issued in mono and stereo. "Hiders and seekers" has accompaniment by the Bobby Richards orchestra (WRC house orchestra), arrangements by Cyril Ornadel (WRC house arranger) and production attributed to F.C.M. Productions (a WRC company). F.X.B Productions only come into the picture with the 4th LP "A world of our own". By this time EMI had bought World Record Club and the Seekers transferred to Columbia.
The recordings issued on "A world of our own" were made at Abbey Road in early 1965 so why they only appeared in mono on UK Columbia is a bit of a mystery. The next Columbia LP was in stereo. Pehaps it was a decision made by the owner of FXB, Tom Springfield (brother of Dusty) who wrote several of the Seekers' hits. As far as I can see F.X.B only ever produced recordings by The Seekers and Judith Durham solo, apart from a few singles by one Peppi who was a friend of Tom and Dusty.