Beatles remastered cd

mints · 25-09-2009, 09:21

I dont know if I am posting in the correct place for this but here goes.

I purchased a copy of Please Please Me remastered album to see if it was worth me buying the rest.

The sound is improved overall BUT on all the stereo tracks the vocals are on the right channel and Ringos drums are on the left.

I have tried the cd on two systems, I may of course have obtained a faulty one,anyone else out there who has a copy.

How do you find it.

chrisjr · 25-09-2009, 09:31

That is exactly how it was recorded.

You have to remember that way back in the 60's when this album was new Stereo was very much a minority interest and most records released at the time were mono.

There were none of the 24 or even 48 track tape decks that exist today. A studio was lucky if it had a two track machine to play with. If it had it was not unusiual to record vocals and some instruments on one track and drums and everything else on the other.

Then the two tracks would be mixed down to the mono master used to produce the records. Then record companies discovered stereo so went back to the two track masters and simply released those as a stereo version.

Fairly obviously because there was no multi-track master to go back to they were unable to re-mix the stereo master to place the vocals in the centre and spread the drums across the stereo image as later recordings did.

st3v3yb0y · 25-09-2009, 10:11

The early albums are meant to be in mono, the stereo mix was a bit of a con and largely loses the soul of the track.

Reminds me of a rather dim pub owner some years ago who proudly announced that he had a new hi fi system for the pub.
"It's got 2 speakers you know"
" I have put one in this bar and the other through there"
He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon

Nigel Goodwin · 25-09-2009, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by st3v3yb0y

"It's got 2 speakers you know"
" I have put one in this bar and the other through there"
He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon

That's what the mono button on the amplifier is for

chrisjr · 25-09-2009, 10:38

I recall way back in my school days in the early 70s being told that Stereo was better than Mono because one speaker had all the bass and the other had all the treble!

And he wasn't talking about drive units in one cabinet either but truly believed that one speaker cabinet was for the bass and the other for the treble!

Urban Bassman · 25-09-2009, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by st3v3yb0y

The early albums are meant to be in mono, the stereo mix was a bit of a con and largely loses the soul of the track.

Reminds me of a rather dim pub owner some years ago who proudly announced that he had a new hi fi system for the pub.
"It's got 2 speakers you know"
" I have put one in this bar and the other through there"
He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon

Try that with Revolution, the single version. The backing vocals and main guitar are on a different speaker to the main vocal but the drums and bass seem to be mixed across. You get a great version for a makeshift Karaoke.

jmclaugh · 25-09-2009, 11:20

As I have all of their LPs I haven't bothered buying any of these but there are two sets available, one in stereo and one in mono which is a bit cheaper.

Urban Bassman · 25-09-2009, 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr

That is exactly how it was recorded.

You have to remember that way back in the 60's when this album was new Stereo was very much a minority interest and most records released at the time were mono.

There were none of the 24 or even 48 track tape decks that exist today. A studio was lucky if it had a two track machine to play with. If it had it was not unusiual to record vocals and some instruments on one track and drums and everything else on the other.

Then the two tracks would be mixed down to the mono master used to produce the records. Then record companies discovered stereo so went back to the two track masters and simply released those as a stereo version.

Fairly obviously because there was no multi-track master to go back to they were unable to re-mix the stereo master to place the vocals in the centre and spread the drums across the stereo image as later recordings did.

Even Sgt Peppers was only recorded on a 4 track machine which makes it even more remarkable.

Geoff Emerick, the sound engineer on SP did an amazing job to get a Stereo mix considering the limitations of the technology. I've only ever had the Stereo version of the album but I am interested in the Mono version as some of the songs are fundamently different - e.g. Speed differences on Lucy In The Sky and She's Leaving Home. Also a lot of the heavier echo effects were lifted from the stereo version of LSD but added for Mr Kite.

Unfortunately I can't afford the box set to get the Mono versions yet but here's hoping!!

The Beatles must have thought christmas had come when they had access to an 8 track in late 1967.

RobAnt · 25-09-2009, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr

I recall way back in my school days in the early 70s being told that Stereo was better than Mono because one speaker had all the bass and the other had all the treble!

And he wasn't talking about drive units in one cabinet either but truly believed that one speaker cabinet was for the bass and the other for the treble!

I had exactly the same experience. Although the "idiot" was a room mate when I was in the airforce.

He simply couldn't understand that it was a time differential that placed instruments and singers on a wide sterephonic platform.

This was probably his view because it is what he had experienced listening to older records which didn't properly utilise the stereophonic platform. This was in the '70's, so many people still didn't have and understand stereo.

Yet, here I sit, listening to the superlative recording of Zoltan Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite, made by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Istvan Kertesz in 1967. You've got to hear it to believe brilliant an old recording like this can be.

MrGiles2 · 25-09-2009, 14:45

While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be.

They sounded great on my little Dansette player

and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was.

Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound.

I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum?

Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time.

Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s.

isnt technology wonderful?

chrisjr · 25-09-2009, 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

I had exactly the same experience. Although the "idiot" was a room mate when I was in the airforce.

He simply couldn't understand that it was a time differential that placed instruments and singers on a wide sterephonic platform.

This was probably his view because it is what he had experienced listening to older records which didn't properly utilise the stereophonic platform. This was in the '70's, so many people still didn't have and understand stereo.

Yet, here I sit, listening to the superlative recording of Zoltan Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite, made by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Istvan Kertesz in 1967. You've got to hear it to believe brilliant an old recording like this can be.

Actually more of a volume differential between left and right. Certainly with manufactured stereo. By that I mean where a bunch of single microphones have been used to pick up individual instruments.

On the mixing desk in the studio they are "placed" in the stereo image using Pan Pots on the desk which simply vary the amount of signal sent to left and right channels.

With an orchestral recording then you can get time information adding to the volume information. Especially if you use a single stereo pair of microphones for the main sound pick-up.

And it is amazing what you can get simply by sticking a simple pair of mics in front of an orchestra or even just a small group of musicians.

I have made quite a few recordings over the years from solo classical piano to Heavy Metal and more or less all points in-between. But it can be pretty mind blowing if you get the stereo mic set in just the right place in front of an orchestra in the right acoustics. Hard to credit sometimes just how little kit you really need sometimes.

Nigel Goodwin · 25-09-2009, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was.

Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound.

You sound a little confused about Dansette as well

Dansette was just one of a great many companies making record players, using auto-changer decks bought in from BSR, Garrard, or Collaro (not sure of the spelling on the last, as it was the least popular). Dansette has tended to become the 'buzzword' for cheap mono record players back from that day, but everyone and his dog made them.

bigbruvvaluvvau · 25-09-2009, 15:40

I have the old stereo cd's ripped to my iPod and my ipod hooked up to my car via one of those cassette plug in things, the problem is the cable has twisted and ripped so as i go over bumps and make turns i constantly lose/gain sound from the left channel. Today I was on a roundabout playing the Rubber Soul album and the left sound went leaving me with an acapella album for the rest of the drive home

RobAnt · 25-09-2009, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr

Actually more of a volume differential between left and right. Certainly with manufactured stereo. By that I mean where a bunch of single microphones have been used to pick up individual instruments.

On the mixing desk in the studio they are "placed" in the stereo image using Pan Pots on the desk which simply vary the amount of signal sent to left and right channels.

With an orchestral recording then you can get time information adding to the volume information. Especially if you use a single stereo pair of microphones for the main sound pick-up.

And it is amazing what you can get simply by sticking a simple pair of mics in front of an orchestra or even just a small group of musicians.

I have made quite a few recordings over the years from solo classical piano to Heavy Metal and more or less all points in-between. But it can be pretty mind blowing if you get the stereo mic set in just the right place in front of an orchestra in the right acoustics. Hard to credit sometimes just how little kit you really need sometimes.

Yes, of course, it is a mixture of both time and volume differential. A sound from the left speaker will reach your right ear after a sound from the right speaker, and of course, if the sound is actually generated midway between the right speaker and the centre, then there will by its nature a minute drop in volume coming from the left speaker too. The sound has to pass over a slightly different distance, degrading the volume enroute.

But time differential is by far the most important for the correct placement of instruments across the sound stage, because all sounds have a different volume level.

As you say a good stereo microphone is a great benefit as the time and volume differentials are inherent in a stereo microphone recording. In other words they occur naturally.

The pots, rather than being a volume control, are just an artificial method of achieving the same effect. That's very important in multi channel recordings as voices and instrument (of bands in particular) will usually be recorded in mono. These monophonic recordings are "mixed" into position when all the tracks are overlaid to form a coherent piece of work.

Skilled mixers have the talent to do this "live". But in my experience some performers want a mono mix to each of the stage monitors or ear pieces, and a different - positional mix to the audience monitors.

I remember experiments in the '70's or '80's of testing making stereophonic records with microphones in a dummy head's ears!

JBlink · 25-09-2009, 19:06

I still have the original Please Please Me mono album and a later version in stereo. The original is in poor condition because as a kid at the time I never knew how to look after vinyl. My Dad has just bought the whole remastered box set and will rip it to MP3 - oh how times have changed!

On the Sgt Pepper subject, my first experience of stereo was playing the album on my parent's new stereogram. Even two full range speakers placed 4ft within the cabinet apart created such a fabulous audience effect on the opening track it blew me away!

chrisjr · 25-09-2009, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

Yes, of course, it is a mixture of both time and volume differential. A sound from the left speaker will reach your right ear after a sound from the right speaker, and of course, if the sound is actually generated midway between the right speaker and the centre, then there will by its nature a minute drop in volume coming from the left speaker too. The sound has to pass over a slightly different distance, degrading the volume enroute.

Yes a sound from the left speaker reaches the right ear slightly after the sound from the right. But if a sound appears to originate from a point between the speakers it is the relative level of signal in each that was used in the recording process to achieve that effect. A sound appearing about 1/4 of the way from the right will have most of it's energy in the right channel and a proportion in the left, but rather more than a "minute" drop in level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

But time differential is by far the most important for the correct placement of instruments across the sound stage, because all sounds have a different volume level.

I would dispute that. The relative volume between left and right channels has a far greater role. That much is blindingly obvious if you watch the output level meters on the mixing desk as you pan from left to right. Unless the engineer deliberately introduces one there will be no actual time differential in the signals being produced by the loudspeakers.

If a sound is panned to the centre of the speakers then it has equal signal level in left and right and each signal is perfectly in time with the other. And that applies wherever the sound is placed between left and right. The obvious exception being where the sound is panned hard left or hard right when no signal is present in the opposite channel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

As you say a good stereo microphone is a great benefit as the time and volume differentials are inherent in a stereo microphone recording. In other words they occur naturally.

Indeed and it is entirely possible to get a convincing 3D sound stage from just a two channel recording. It is a bit eerie hearing sounds that appear to be in front of the plane of the speakers, especially if you are more used to manufactured stereo made from loads of single channel sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

The pots, rather than being a volume control, are just an artificial method of achieving the same effect. That's very important in multi channel recordings as voices and instrument (of bands in particular) will usually be recorded in mono. These monophonic recordings are "mixed" into position when all the tracks are overlaid to form a coherent piece of work.

Pan Pots are just volume controls. All they do is vary the relative amount of a single channel source fed to two or more output mixes. In simple terms you split the single source in two and feed it to two volume controls wired in opposite directions. So as one increase in volume the other decreases and vice versa.

And strictly speaking MONO does not necessarily imply a single channel. You can have a mono recording that uses two channels or even more. All it means is that all channels have exactly the same signal in them all the time. Which is why I always ask my non technical colleagues if what they really mean by "the monitors are mono" is one speaker or headphone ear has fallen silent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobAnt

I remember experiments in the '70's or '80's of testing making stereophonic records with microphones in a dummy head's ears!

Binaural. And still being done. Though not always with a dummy head. One set up that some sound recordists use is a pair of small mics arranged one each side of a perspex disc. The disc performing much the same role as the dummy head in separating the sounds received by the two mics.

Done well the results are frighteningly real. If you get a recording of a binaural play for example that involves one of the actors creeping up on the dummy head and whispering in it's "ear" it can make you jump out of the seat when you listen back on headphones

Which is of course the biggest drawback with binaural. it doesn't work quite so well on speakers.

And if your pockets are deep enough there is the Soundfield Mic series. These use an array of four mics to capture what is in effect a 3D sound image and use some very clever electronics to manipulate the sound in some fairly amazing ways.

frasera · 26-09-2009, 00:40

its the mix style. early on in stereo recording harsh separation of components to each stereo side was normal, it wasn't until later that the mixers created more natural sounding mixes. its just a matter of style choice, the beatles used multitrack recording so they could have put it together any number of ways.

mike1948 · 26-09-2009, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be.

They sounded great on my little Dansette player

and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was.

Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound.

I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum?

Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time.

Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s.

isnt technology wonderful?

I think there is a Dansette in London's Science Museum. Well worth a look and it is free.

MaxBeta · 29-09-2009, 12:31

I have the Love CD but not heard the latest remaster yet.

Amazing that George Martin and the team- Geoff Emerick, Hurricane Smith et al- captured such good sounding recordings, way better than most domestic equipment of the time could reproduce.

MrGiles2 · 02-10-2009, 09:02

Hello Mike, thanks for letting me know about the Dansette in the museum, will have a look next time am in London.

Hope you well.

kokomo · 02-10-2009, 09:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be.

They sounded great on my little Dansette player

and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was.

Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound.

I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum?

Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time.

Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s.

isnt technology wonderful?

Yes it is wonderfull, but I'll bet, whilst enjoying the 'sound' that is possible now, you get little if any more of a buzz listening to the music than you did way back on the old Dansette.

StereRowe · 02-10-2009, 18:40

I remember my family taping a penny on the pick-up to stop some records jumping on our Dansette.

tellytart1 · 02-10-2009, 19:27

There was a famous mastering "mistake" too, on Eleanor Rigby, the stereo mix originally had the vocals start panned centre, but almost immediately they paned hard right.

This was fixed in the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" album. I'm assuming it was a mistake as the vocal started centred then moved, rather than being deliberately placed on the right channel.

Lukeyboy · 02-10-2009, 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by tellytart1

There was a famous mastering "mistake" too, on Eleanor Rigby, the stereo mix originally had the vocals start panned centre, but almost immediately they paned hard right.

This was fixed in the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" album. I'm assuming it was a mistake as the vocal started centred then moved, rather than being deliberately placed on the right channel.

It may be a mistake, but it's still there in the new Stereo remasters. I'd never actually noticed that before.

tellytart1 · 02-10-2009, 21:23

That's odd, because they corrected it when Yellow Submarine Songtrack was released!

25-09-2009, 09:21	#1
mints Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 83	Beatles remastered cd I dont know if I am posting in the correct place for this but here goes. I purchased a copy of Please Please Me remastered album to see if it was worth me buying the rest. The sound is improved overall BUT on all the stereo tracks the vocals are on the right channel and Ringos drums are on the left. I have tried the cd on two systems, I may of course have obtained a faulty one,anyone else out there who has a copy. How do you find it.

25-09-2009, 09:31	#2
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	That is exactly how it was recorded. You have to remember that way back in the 60's when this album was new Stereo was very much a minority interest and most records released at the time were mono. There were none of the 24 or even 48 track tape decks that exist today. A studio was lucky if it had a two track machine to play with. If it had it was not unusiual to record vocals and some instruments on one track and drums and everything else on the other. Then the two tracks would be mixed down to the mono master used to produce the records. Then record companies discovered stereo so went back to the two track masters and simply released those as a stereo version. Fairly obviously because there was no multi-track master to go back to they were unable to re-mix the stereo master to place the vocals in the centre and spread the drums across the stereo image as later recordings did.

25-09-2009, 10:11	#3
st3v3yb0y Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: surrey Posts: 15	The early albums are meant to be in mono, the stereo mix was a bit of a con and largely loses the soul of the track. Reminds me of a rather dim pub owner some years ago who proudly announced that he had a new hi fi system for the pub. "It's got 2 speakers you know" " I have put one in this bar and the other through there" He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon

25-09-2009, 10:30	#4
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by st3v3yb0y "It's got 2 speakers you know" " I have put one in this bar and the other through there" He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon That's what the mono button on the amplifier is for

25-09-2009, 10:38	#5
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	I recall way back in my school days in the early 70s being told that Stereo was better than Mono because one speaker had all the bass and the other had all the treble! And he wasn't talking about drive units in one cabinet either but truly believed that one speaker cabinet was for the bass and the other for the treble!

25-09-2009, 11:11	#6
Urban Bassman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Colchester Posts: 2,147	Quote: Originally Posted by st3v3yb0y The early albums are meant to be in mono, the stereo mix was a bit of a con and largely loses the soul of the track. Reminds me of a rather dim pub owner some years ago who proudly announced that he had a new hi fi system for the pub. "It's got 2 speakers you know" " I have put one in this bar and the other through there" He was playing Rubber soul that day, vocals in the public bar and the drums in the saloon Try that with Revolution, the single version. The backing vocals and main guitar are on a different speaker to the main vocal but the drums and bass seem to be mixed across. You get a great version for a makeshift Karaoke.

25-09-2009, 11:20	#7
jmclaugh Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Devon Posts: 48,017	As I have all of their LPs I haven't bothered buying any of these but there are two sets available, one in stereo and one in mono which is a bit cheaper.

25-09-2009, 11:26	#8
Urban Bassman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Colchester Posts: 2,147	Quote: Originally Posted by chrisjr That is exactly how it was recorded. You have to remember that way back in the 60's when this album was new Stereo was very much a minority interest and most records released at the time were mono. There were none of the 24 or even 48 track tape decks that exist today. A studio was lucky if it had a two track machine to play with. If it had it was not unusiual to record vocals and some instruments on one track and drums and everything else on the other. Then the two tracks would be mixed down to the mono master used to produce the records. Then record companies discovered stereo so went back to the two track masters and simply released those as a stereo version. Fairly obviously because there was no multi-track master to go back to they were unable to re-mix the stereo master to place the vocals in the centre and spread the drums across the stereo image as later recordings did. Even Sgt Peppers was only recorded on a 4 track machine which makes it even more remarkable. Geoff Emerick, the sound engineer on SP did an amazing job to get a Stereo mix considering the limitations of the technology. I've only ever had the Stereo version of the album but I am interested in the Mono version as some of the songs are fundamently different - e.g. Speed differences on Lucy In The Sky and She's Leaving Home. Also a lot of the heavier echo effects were lifted from the stereo version of LSD but added for Mr Kite. Unfortunately I can't afford the box set to get the Mono versions yet but here's hoping!! The Beatles must have thought christmas had come when they had access to an 8 track in late 1967.

25-09-2009, 14:09	#9
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Quote: Originally Posted by chrisjr I recall way back in my school days in the early 70s being told that Stereo was better than Mono because one speaker had all the bass and the other had all the treble! And he wasn't talking about drive units in one cabinet either but truly believed that one speaker cabinet was for the bass and the other for the treble! I had exactly the same experience. Although the "idiot" was a room mate when I was in the airforce. He simply couldn't understand that it was a time differential that placed instruments and singers on a wide sterephonic platform. This was probably his view because it is what he had experienced listening to older records which didn't properly utilise the stereophonic platform. This was in the '70's, so many people still didn't have and understand stereo. Yet, here I sit, listening to the superlative recording of Zoltan Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite, made by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Istvan Kertesz in 1967. You've got to hear it to believe brilliant an old recording like this can be.

25-09-2009, 14:45	#10
MrGiles2 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Teesside Posts: 1,940	While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be. They sounded great on my little Dansette player and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was. Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound. I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum? Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time. Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s. isnt technology wonderful?

25-09-2009, 14:47	#11
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt I had exactly the same experience. Although the "idiot" was a room mate when I was in the airforce. He simply couldn't understand that it was a time differential that placed instruments and singers on a wide sterephonic platform. This was probably his view because it is what he had experienced listening to older records which didn't properly utilise the stereophonic platform. This was in the '70's, so many people still didn't have and understand stereo. Yet, here I sit, listening to the superlative recording of Zoltan Kodaly's Hary Janos Suite, made by the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Istvan Kertesz in 1967. You've got to hear it to believe brilliant an old recording like this can be. Actually more of a volume differential between left and right. Certainly with manufactured stereo. By that I mean where a bunch of single microphones have been used to pick up individual instruments. On the mixing desk in the studio they are "placed" in the stereo image using Pan Pots on the desk which simply vary the amount of signal sent to left and right channels. With an orchestral recording then you can get time information adding to the volume information. Especially if you use a single stereo pair of microphones for the main sound pick-up. And it is amazing what you can get simply by sticking a simple pair of mics in front of an orchestra or even just a small group of musicians. I have made quite a few recordings over the years from solo classical piano to Heavy Metal and more or less all points in-between. But it can be pretty mind blowing if you get the stereo mic set in just the right place in front of an orchestra in the right acoustics. Hard to credit sometimes just how little kit you really need sometimes.

25-09-2009, 15:22	#12
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by MrGiles2 and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was. Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound. You sound a little confused about Dansette as well Dansette was just one of a great many companies making record players, using auto-changer decks bought in from BSR, Garrard, or Collaro (not sure of the spelling on the last, as it was the least popular). Dansette has tended to become the 'buzzword' for cheap mono record players back from that day, but everyone and his dog made them.

25-09-2009, 15:40	#13
bigbruvvaluvvau Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,385	I have the old stereo cd's ripped to my iPod and my ipod hooked up to my car via one of those cassette plug in things, the problem is the cable has twisted and ripped so as i go over bumps and make turns i constantly lose/gain sound from the left channel. Today I was on a roundabout playing the Rubber Soul album and the left sound went leaving me with an acapella album for the rest of the drive home

25-09-2009, 18:01	#14
RobAnt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: South West Posts: 10,218	Quote: Originally Posted by chrisjr Actually more of a volume differential between left and right. Certainly with manufactured stereo. By that I mean where a bunch of single microphones have been used to pick up individual instruments. On the mixing desk in the studio they are "placed" in the stereo image using Pan Pots on the desk which simply vary the amount of signal sent to left and right channels. With an orchestral recording then you can get time information adding to the volume information. Especially if you use a single stereo pair of microphones for the main sound pick-up. And it is amazing what you can get simply by sticking a simple pair of mics in front of an orchestra or even just a small group of musicians. I have made quite a few recordings over the years from solo classical piano to Heavy Metal and more or less all points in-between. But it can be pretty mind blowing if you get the stereo mic set in just the right place in front of an orchestra in the right acoustics. Hard to credit sometimes just how little kit you really need sometimes. Yes, of course, it is a mixture of both time and volume differential. A sound from the left speaker will reach your right ear after a sound from the right speaker, and of course, if the sound is actually generated midway between the right speaker and the centre, then there will by its nature a minute drop in volume coming from the left speaker too. The sound has to pass over a slightly different distance, degrading the volume enroute. But time differential is by far the most important for the correct placement of instruments across the sound stage, because all sounds have a different volume level. As you say a good stereo microphone is a great benefit as the time and volume differentials are inherent in a stereo microphone recording. In other words they occur naturally. The pots, rather than being a volume control, are just an artificial method of achieving the same effect. That's very important in multi channel recordings as voices and instrument (of bands in particular) will usually be recorded in mono. These monophonic recordings are "mixed" into position when all the tracks are overlaid to form a coherent piece of work. Skilled mixers have the talent to do this "live". But in my experience some performers want a mono mix to each of the stage monitors or ear pieces, and a different - positional mix to the audience monitors. I remember experiments in the '70's or '80's of testing making stereophonic records with microphones in a dummy head's ears!

25-09-2009, 19:06	#15
JBlink Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Hampshire Posts: 2,926	I still have the original Please Please Me mono album and a later version in stereo. The original is in poor condition because as a kid at the time I never knew how to look after vinyl. My Dad has just bought the whole remastered box set and will rip it to MP3 - oh how times have changed! On the Sgt Pepper subject, my first experience of stereo was playing the album on my parent's new stereogram. Even two full range speakers placed 4ft within the cabinet apart created such a fabulous audience effect on the opening track it blew me away!

25-09-2009, 21:52	#16
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt Yes, of course, it is a mixture of both time and volume differential. A sound from the left speaker will reach your right ear after a sound from the right speaker, and of course, if the sound is actually generated midway between the right speaker and the centre, then there will by its nature a minute drop in volume coming from the left speaker too. The sound has to pass over a slightly different distance, degrading the volume enroute. Yes a sound from the left speaker reaches the right ear slightly after the sound from the right. But if a sound appears to originate from a point between the speakers it is the relative level of signal in each that was used in the recording process to achieve that effect. A sound appearing about 1/4 of the way from the right will have most of it's energy in the right channel and a proportion in the left, but rather more than a "minute" drop in level. Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt But time differential is by far the most important for the correct placement of instruments across the sound stage, because all sounds have a different volume level. I would dispute that. The relative volume between left and right channels has a far greater role. That much is blindingly obvious if you watch the output level meters on the mixing desk as you pan from left to right. Unless the engineer deliberately introduces one there will be no actual time differential in the signals being produced by the loudspeakers. If a sound is panned to the centre of the speakers then it has equal signal level in left and right and each signal is perfectly in time with the other. And that applies wherever the sound is placed between left and right. The obvious exception being where the sound is panned hard left or hard right when no signal is present in the opposite channel. Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt As you say a good stereo microphone is a great benefit as the time and volume differentials are inherent in a stereo microphone recording. In other words they occur naturally. Indeed and it is entirely possible to get a convincing 3D sound stage from just a two channel recording. It is a bit eerie hearing sounds that appear to be in front of the plane of the speakers, especially if you are more used to manufactured stereo made from loads of single channel sources. Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt The pots, rather than being a volume control, are just an artificial method of achieving the same effect. That's very important in multi channel recordings as voices and instrument (of bands in particular) will usually be recorded in mono. These monophonic recordings are "mixed" into position when all the tracks are overlaid to form a coherent piece of work. Pan Pots are just volume controls. All they do is vary the relative amount of a single channel source fed to two or more output mixes. In simple terms you split the single source in two and feed it to two volume controls wired in opposite directions. So as one increase in volume the other decreases and vice versa. And strictly speaking MONO does not necessarily imply a single channel. You can have a mono recording that uses two channels or even more. All it means is that all channels have exactly the same signal in them all the time. Which is why I always ask my non technical colleagues if what they really mean by "the monitors are mono" is one speaker or headphone ear has fallen silent! Quote: Originally Posted by RobAnt I remember experiments in the '70's or '80's of testing making stereophonic records with microphones in a dummy head's ears! Binaural. And still being done. Though not always with a dummy head. One set up that some sound recordists use is a pair of small mics arranged one each side of a perspex disc. The disc performing much the same role as the dummy head in separating the sounds received by the two mics. Done well the results are frighteningly real. If you get a recording of a binaural play for example that involves one of the actors creeping up on the dummy head and whispering in it's "ear" it can make you jump out of the seat when you listen back on headphones Which is of course the biggest drawback with binaural. it doesn't work quite so well on speakers. And if your pockets are deep enough there is the Soundfield Mic series. These use an array of four mics to capture what is in effect a 3D sound image and use some very clever electronics to manipulate the sound in some fairly amazing ways.

26-09-2009, 00:40	#17
frasera Inactive Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,063	its the mix style. early on in stereo recording harsh separation of components to each stereo side was normal, it wasn't until later that the mixers created more natural sounding mixes. its just a matter of style choice, the beatles used multitrack recording so they could have put it together any number of ways.

26-09-2009, 17:33	#18
mike1948 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 2,060	Quote: Originally Posted by MrGiles2 While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be. They sounded great on my little Dansette player and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was. Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound. I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum? Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time. Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s. isnt technology wonderful? I think there is a Dansette in London's Science Museum. Well worth a look and it is free.

29-09-2009, 12:31	#19
MaxBeta Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: West Midlands Posts: 447	I have the Love CD but not heard the latest remaster yet. Amazing that George Martin and the team- Geoff Emerick, Hurricane Smith et al- captured such good sounding recordings, way better than most domestic equipment of the time could reproduce.

02-10-2009, 09:02	#20
MrGiles2 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Teesside Posts: 1,940	Hello Mike, thanks for letting me know about the Dansette in the museum, will have a look next time am in London. Hope you well.

02-10-2009, 09:23	#21
kokomo Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 83	Quote: Originally Posted by MrGiles2 While we are on the subject of sound placements as regarding the remastered Beatles CDs, I used to buy them when they first came out from 1963 onwards and bought everyone right up to Let It Be. They sounded great on my little Dansette player and maybe some of you might not know wot the Dansette player actually was. Well, they were little record players with one speaker at the front, with a vertical bar in the middle of the turntable which dropped the LP onto the turntable, ( they didnt half cause dents and scratches on the records in those days) and the arm holding the cartridge and stylus would cross onto the edge of the LP, and HEY PRESTO!!!! you got fabulous Mono sound. I was told by a friend that there is an existing Dansette Player in a museum somewhere, possibly the Victoria and Albert Museum? Technology has come a long way since, I now have 6 DVD players, one which I used as a CD player (Sony BD500 Blu-Ray) attached to a Yamaha Amplifier which drives 10 speakers although only 8 work at any one time. Music sounds a little bit better than it did in those early days during the 1960s. isnt technology wonderful? Yes it is wonderfull, but I'll bet, whilst enjoying the 'sound' that is possible now, you get little if any more of a buzz listening to the music than you did way back on the old Dansette.

DS Forums

Beatles remastered cd

02-10-2009, 18:40	#22
StereRowe Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Leicester Posts: 1,273	I remember my family taping a penny on the pick-up to stop some records jumping on our Dansette.

02-10-2009, 19:27	#23
tellytart1 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London Posts: 3,638	There was a famous mastering "mistake" too, on Eleanor Rigby, the stereo mix originally had the vocals start panned centre, but almost immediately they paned hard right. This was fixed in the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" album. I'm assuming it was a mistake as the vocal started centred then moved, rather than being deliberately placed on the right channel.

02-10-2009, 21:07	#24
Lukeyboy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 1,447	Quote: Originally Posted by tellytart1 There was a famous mastering "mistake" too, on Eleanor Rigby, the stereo mix originally had the vocals start panned centre, but almost immediately they paned hard right. This was fixed in the "Yellow Submarine Songtrack" album. I'm assuming it was a mistake as the vocal started centred then moved, rather than being deliberately placed on the right channel. It may be a mistake, but it's still there in the new Stereo remasters. I'd never actually noticed that before.

02-10-2009, 21:23	#25
tellytart1 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London Posts: 3,638	That's odd, because they corrected it when Yellow Submarine Songtrack was released!