"Technically augmented stereo"

[John10b]

Thank you for the link, I’ve only taken a preliminary look and listen, and it certainly is very interesting, the amount of work involved is most impressive.
John

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by bluepilot

Well, not always

Modern "music" usually consists of something like a multi-track tape with a track for each instrument.

...and that is considerably more than two channels of information, with which you can produce a stereo (or at least a proper "multi-mono") mix. You can in theory pick a mono signal apart with Retouch or something similar - this was done for the early Beatles tracks on Rock Band - but compared to proper stereo it doesn't work because the separation can never be complete and if you try to make it so you introduce artefacts.

[G6Tanuki]

I remember some horrid 1960s 'pseudo-stereo' Hungarian/East-German/Russian stuff where the 'stereo' was created by pushing the audio through a high/low-pass filter pair, and presenting the outcome across both 'sides' of the stereo-image.
Meaning that instruments/vocalists appeared to move from left to right or right-to-left and back again, depending on the instantaneous frequency of their particular contribution.

They were still sometimes broadcasting this acoustic-horrorshow on East German radio [the old, odd 65-75MHz OIRT FM band] back in the 80s, causing much mirth to West German listeners.

[TonyDuell]

There was a 'stereo simulator' project in ETI many years ago (It's in Top Projects 6, but no idea what magazine issue it appeared in) that did essentially that. Just a quad op-amp IC wired as a pair of active filters.

My late father made it and said that it made some music more enjoyable to listen to, but equally it was an unpleasant effect with instruments/performers 'swimming left and right' on others. It is something to be added by the listener if they want it, not something to be included in the published recording.

[joebog1]

I resay what I did in the beginning!! If it was mono recorded it will stay mono.

I have a few thousand LP's, in various condition. Most are stereo because of my age, but I do have quite a collection that I bought from the US Library of Congress, when they digitised all their collection. 99% is mono bluegrass!! I have never seen any modified "records" available, as my LP's are collections of re recorded mono 78's. MANY recorded at the "Quarter recording studio" outside the local cafe. The quarter being two bits or 1/4 of a dollar.

The sound quality varies, but I "reckon" it was recorded into a megaphone type microphone into a carbon granule microphone element, which then drove an amplifier to the cutting lathe. It made ONE record without any copies or history.

SO!! apart from the quality issue I can still plainly hear the people playing real music.
Jug, Jook and jazz!. Thats before their lunch hour ended and they went back to
"pickin cotton".

Joe

[Ted Kendall]

If frequency division is not to sound risible, it has to be done along the lines of the Orban or TRU spreaders, which produced a fairly gently comb filtered signal which was then subtracted from the original to give two outputs panned left and right, giving width whilst retaining mono compatibility. This avoids the "guts on the left, tonsils on the right" aspect of simple frequency division, but can still be caught out - I should imagine the opening of "Rhapsody In Blue" should be quite interesting, with the clarinet waving left and right at a rate of knots!

At a tangent, I was a little disturbed to read a feature on the broadcasting of the Proms a year or two back, in which the balancer was quoted as saying that she used fifty microphones. I hope this was a misquote - a classical balance with fifty mics open at once, even in the RAH, would sound ghastly. The most I ever remember being used there on serious music was for the premiere of Tippett's "Mask of Time", a work with a huge orchestra, chorus and a Spike Jones percussion section. Given only one shot at it, we had to work multitrack, and used twenty-six mics, with a submixer to shoe-horn the kitchen department onto two tracks. Even then, most of the spot mics were only used for short periods. The sort of poly-miking which supposedly goes on these days begs the question of whether the output is stereo at all - but that's an OT story altogether...

[Sideband]

Originally Posted by mono2STEREO

As the originator of the term "Digitally Extracted Stereo" (DES), let me invite you to visit my website, monotoSTEREO.info. I started the website just over five years ago to provide a collection of resources for individuals interested in upmixing older mono source material to stereo through the use of spectral editing, sound source separation, and related processes. In that time the website has been visited over 35,000 times by individuals in 154 countries! Be sure to check out the many examples on the MEDIA pages of the website! Also, be sure to check out the links to numerous commercially released CDs making use of this technology on the LATEST RELEASES, RELEASED 1, and RELEASED 2 pages! Those wishing to delve deeper should check out the more than 1,500 links on the RESEARCH pages for research papers, presentations, etc. in the field. It is my sincere hope that you find the website interesting, useful, and thought provoking! There is also a companion Facebook page where I post updates and related content. Be sure to "Like" the Facebook page to follow the updates! ~ Christopher Kissel

The results in most of those 'upmixed' recordings are truly astounding. I suppose the purist might not like a 1928 mono recording upmixed into convincing stereo and of course they are entitled to their opinion. It it could be likened to adding colour to some of the old monochrome comedies like Laurel and Hardy. Personally I like the stereo upmix using DES although it's a little unexpected to hear a 1920's recording in stereo. I think however if it's done well then it's worth doing and is certainly thousands of times better than the 'Stereo Enhanced' recordings that abounded in the 60's and 70's. I heard some Glen Miller recordings that had been 'enhanced'...absolutely dreadful. The Glen Miller recordings using DES are truly amazing.

[ben]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

I remember some horrid 1960s 'pseudo-stereo' Hungarian/East-German/Russian stuff where the 'stereo' was created by pushing the audio through a high/low-pass filter pair, and presenting the outcome across both 'sides' of the stereo-image.

By no means limited to the Eastern Bloc. I have some good ol' imperialist EMI albums by the likes of Ken Dodd, and the Beach boys with this hideous pseudo stereo!

[John10b]

This thread certainly makes interesting reading. I find the subject of setting up mics in the AH particularly interesting. I have had the pleasure of singing on the stage as well as being in the audience at the AH. How the sound engineers rigged up the mics is a real wonder to me. There is a question I’d like to ask , how do you differ in your set up in the AH with, say, a full concert with no Amplifiers for the vocalist and a concert with amplified sound?
John

[Hartley118]

Originally Posted by Ted Kendall

If frequency division is not to sound risible, it has to be done along the lines of the Orban or TRU spreaders, which produced a fairly gently comb filtered signal which was then subtracted from the original to give two outputs panned left and right, giving width whilst retaining mono compatibility. This avoids the "guts on the left, tonsils on the right" aspect of simple frequency division, but can still be caught out - I should imagine the opening of "Rhapsody In Blue" should be quite interesting, with the clarinet waving left and right at a rate of knots!
.........

I recall the intriguing gadget called the “Stereophoner” from the late 1950s. This was advertised in publications such as “The Gramophone” and was claimed to have been invented by conductor Hermann Scherchen. Like other such devices, it took a mono input signal and produced two-channel stereo by differently filtering the two outputs. It was intended for the home listener at the time when most available discs were mono and stereo recordings were few and far between.

It may simply have been the naive ‘HF to the left, LF to the right’ principle, but I’m not sure. I believe that Scherchen was genuinely enthusiastic that the most important feature of any audio recording method was to create the most appropriate illusion for the listener. It’s difficult to disagree with that principle.

Martin

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by Hartley118

I believe that Scherchen was genuinely enthusiastic that the most important feature of any audio recording method was to create the most appropriate illusion for the listener. It’s difficult to disagree with that principle.

Indeed, and I wouldn't. The trouble with artificial stereo is that it is just that - an artifice, and that causes the left hand side of the brain to kick in when the right should be enjoying the music. The upshot is listening fatigue, best indicated by a feeling of relief when you switch off or away from it.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by John10b

This thread certainly makes interesting reading. I find the subject of setting up mics in the AH particularly interesting. I have had the pleasure of singing on the stage as well as being in the audience at the AH. How the sound engineers rigged up the mics is a real wonder to me. There is a question I’d like to ask , how do you differ in your set up in the AH with, say, a full concert with no Amplifiers for the vocalist and a concert with amplified sound?
John

That's a very fair point, and come to think of it, probably accounts for the fifty mics I referred to.

The RAH isn't the easiest hall in which to get a good sound anyway. The flying saucers in the roof and the canopy over the stage, whilst improving the acoustics for the audience, make difficulties for the balancer. Where no amplification is involved, as in most classical works, the rig used to be one pair fairly close to the stage, one further back, sometimes a backward facing pair for reverberation and some discreet spot mics, usually for woodwind (which can get lost unless boosted a tad) and timps (which have a tendency to "roll around" unless there is a spot to give them a little definition). TRU also used three mics along the front of the orchestra, which made life easier if remixing was required, and served to offer some "bloom" to the sound. Choirs were separately miked, R3 usually using 4038 ribbons high up on stands and steeply angled towards the voices, so the dead side rejected the orchestra and gave a degree of control to pull them up without bringing the band up as well. This, with variations, was the general approach for Proms.

What I hadn't accounted for was that the Proms are now a broader church, spilling into Doctor Who, film music and the Pet Shop Boys, bless 'em. Amplification is inseperable from these, and amplification changes the game completely. The same mics generally feed both PA and recording, certainly on stage, or the performers would be knee-deep; you have to work much closer than before to avoid feedback on the PA and coloration on the recording; and this implies mores mics to cover the performers adequately. The usual pairs are used for a general "wash", into which the closer mics are mixed to give the overall sound, probably with some artificial reverb to make it all of a piece.

Incidentally, you aren't alone in wondering at the mic rigs - up to a point the mics have to go where they can be slung, and enormous care is taken to get them in the rightest place, correctly angled in three planes, and above all, safe. Not a job for the faint-hearted, or those with vertigo.

[John10b]

Thank you very much Ted, most interesting, I’ve always been interested in sound and have had many a conversation with professional sound engineers. In my days we didn’t have mics that you could stick to your head, we singers very much had to project our voices so the mics picked us up, not so easy when you have to move around the stage acting as well. Thanks again.
John

[barretter]

Originally Posted by G6Tanuki

I remember some horrid 1960s 'pseudo-stereo' Hungarian/East-German/Russian stuff where the 'stereo' was created by pushing the audio through a high/low-pass filter pair, and presenting the outcome across both 'sides' of the stereo-image.
Meaning that instruments/vocalists appeared to move from left to right or right-to-left and back again, depending on the instantaneous frequency of their particular contribution.

They were still sometimes broadcasting this acoustic-horrorshow on East German radio [the old, odd 65-75MHz OIRT FM band] back in the 80s, causing much mirth to West German listeners.

One might wonder why West German listeners were buying Stereo FM receivers for the 65-75Mhz band when it wasn't used in their country if it were not for the reassurance in Wikipedia that East Germany didn't use it either and broadcast on the "Western" 88-108Mhz band.
One might also wonder if the Hungarian/East German/Russian "stuff" was any worse than what Decca were doing in the UK with their old mono recordings ; or indeed which labels you are talking about as Hungary had Hungaroton, East Germany had Eterna and the USSR had Melodiya.

[dave walsh]

I seem to have missed this thread somehow It's very interesting. I find that more information keeps emerging about early recordings [and maybe guitar] techniques all the time ie 50 years later. I will always defer to people who have the ability to make a true and accurate technical definition of stereo. They do know what they are talking about. Thanks for your outline in post 5* Ted. Currently something is being put out as an 8 channel [embedded] source but I think I'll pass.

When I'm stuck [as with Particle Physics on another thread recently] I resort to how it feels/appears to me. Totally unscientific I agree. On the other hand subjectivity always comes into most things, especially audio.

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.

When Charles Parker's "Jazz Classics in Stereo" series started on Radio 2 [in 1982] I was tremendously impressed. One vintage recording from the late 1920's sounded so crisp and immediate I could hardly believe it wasn't recorded the day before. I did think [naively] that it was now "stereo" but to be honest, I didn't really care as it sounded so good. He had a very mixed reception to his work but I think it was invaluable-actual stereo or not! There's a reason, for example that Dylan's Record Company bothered to put out original mono masters. They sold like hot-cakes on vinyl and CD. I've produced a lot of "stereo" recordings by simply doubling the mono feed [I had a Mini-Disc recorder that was unreliable on one channel] without any "tweaking" and it has seemed to work but perhaps that's just me?

Electron pusher /Joe [post 62*]. Yes the Seekers [New or Old] looked very much a bit naff and outdated in the sixties but I always secretly admired songs like Morningtown. Judith Durhams's voice seemed a bit piercing but when I saw her on You Tube in an Australian concert [filmed in colour] I was knocked out by the voice and presence of the lead singer. Maybe that was the concert you saw Electron? I've been reading the Judith Durham biography recently.

Dave W

"Maybe I'm Too Sensitive Or Else I'm Getting Soft" [If You See Her Say Hello Bob Dylan]

[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

[emeritus]

When I went to a prom a few years ago, from where we were (up in the gods), in one of the pieces where the singer was using a mike, she was rather drowned out by the orchestra, but she could be heard clearly in the recording of the performance later broadcast on Radio 3. You could hear the singers not using amplification wihout problems.

[Ted Kendall]

Charles Parker is the man who produced the Radio Ballads - John Axon and the like. Robert Parker made the stereo jazz programmes, and he did jazz a service in the process by introducing it to a new audience. The jiggery-pokery was a means to an end, as he told me when we met on one of his field trips. He made a fortune when he sold Molinare, and spent some of it finding and dubbing the cleanest pressings wherever they happened to be. Starting from excellent transfers, he managed the difficult task of making them attractive to an audience unused to the limitations of shellac pressings whilst keeping the enthusiasts on side, and his reworks are tasteful and musically innocuous. Not remastering as I do it, but thought through, technically secure and commercially successful.

[Ted Kendall]

Originally Posted by emeritus

When I went to a prom a few years ago, from where we were (up in the gods), in one of the pieces where the singer was using a mike, she was rather drowned out by the orchestra, but she could be heard clearly in the recording of the performance later broadcast on Radio 3. You could hear the singers not using amplification wihout problems.

It's difficult to boost a miked singer throughout the RAH in an otherwise acoustic context without introducing obvious coloration, and the R3 balancer may have erred on the side of caution when it came to the PA feed.

[emeritus]

I still have an off-air mono cassette recording I made from FM of the 1969 "Last Night". The speeches at the end refer to the then-newly-installed mushrooms for improving the reverberations, and to the fact that a commercial record company had been recording the performance and was intending to have copies of the LP in the shops in record time. A couple of years ago I found a mint copy of that LP in a local charity shop. Well worth 50p. While the LP must be of better audio quality than the cassette, my higher frequency hearing loss means that, to me, the LP sounds no different from my 50 year old tape.