[thebearded1]

my system disappears nicely which a big part of my attraction. though, i have some wonderful classic recordings that clearly have half of the music coming from 1 speaker and half from the other.... Wes Montgomery So March Guitar (DCC Gold CD) is a great example.  The CDs warmth, depth and detail is very, very good...I just get zero imaging....just complete channel separation (guitar on left and drums, bass and piano on right).  I have other classics on high quality vinyl from the late 50s and early 60s that have a similar effect.  In reality, 90% of my collection shows off my system's disappearing act quite well.  Has anyone had a similar experience with otherwise excellent sounding recordings?

[funkmonkey]

Yup.  funny you mentioned it 'cause I was thinking the same thing the other day...  Can't remember what i was listening to exactly but it could have been Wes, or Grant Green.  I wonder is more current re-masters address this. (BTW) my listening was CD source.

[konut]

What you are hearing is the flawed understanding of the, then new, stereo technology. Rather than capture the performance in a natural "soundstage" it was though that the isolation and rendering of the instruments in the hard right, hard left, was the best use of the new 2 channel technology. It took awhile before this type of recording technique was regarded as unnatural and displeasing.

[martyo]

Same deal with Bill Evans and the complete Village Vanguard Recordings, 1961.

[funkmonkey]

What you are hearing is the flawed understanding of the, then new, stereo technology. Rather than capture the performance in a natural "soundstage" it was though that the isolation and rendering of the instruments in the hard right, hard left, was the best use of the new 2 channel technology. It took awhile before this type of recording technique was regarded as unnatural and displeasing.

It is certainly not all recordings from the "birth of stereo" era, some seemed to get it right from the get-go.  Though admittedly I haven't checked the dates too closely of the recordings from stereos infancy... I wonder, is there is a specific recording that set the precedent?  That got the engineers to think and record in true stereo rather than two channel mono?

[konut]

It was ALL an experiment back then. Guessing what would work was the norm. Some guessed wrong. Others guessed right.

[rajacat]

Same deal with Bill Evans and the complete Village Vanguard Recordings, 1961.

Yeah, I was wondering why the bass and the drums were either occupying the same spot or perhaps the drums were sitting behind the bass or vice versa all from the left speaker. For awhile I was thinking this must be an imaging problem, maybe lack of depth of field, with my system. Of course, I know better but this album supposed to be an all time great and you'd think that it would've been better recorded. It's like there isn't a player in the center; it's all left and right with the piano on the right.

-Roy

[rockadanny]

Yeah - I find this very annoying at times. Especially with players who have such a strong sound like Coltrane. He can sound overbearing on these recordings. Arrggghhh!!! 

[konut]

This was posted on the Slim Devices community forum relating to the up coming Beatles remaster. Its an interview with George Martin. It explains the situation back then with regard to the stereo mixing problem.
 http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm

[ZLS]

    The selling technique for stereo recording was a recording of a ping-pong game with the sound of the ball being hit moving from left channel to right channel and back and forth again. 

    This was what was expected of stereo, the clear separation between channels. 

[funkmonkey]

This was posted on the Slim Devices community forum relating to the up coming Beatles remaster. Its an interview with George Martin. It explains the situation back then with regard to the stereo mixing problem.
 http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm

Great little interview, thanks for posting it. 

[no1maestro]

Of course the companies approached this "new" technology differently but I'm not sure that answers a lot of questions. The "ping pong" approaches were cheesy and tiring but it sold the new technology to folks who needed a simple demonstration and didn't understand the mechanics of it. RCA and Mercury used the minimalist microphone technique to record orchestral and a few popular recordings to demonstrate the true stereo effect. I agree that it took time for all of the studios to settle on a "surround" or soundstage approach and their earlier "double mono" recordings suffer to our ears now that we know what can be done.

[Goosepond]

    The selling technique for stereo recording was a recording of a ping-pong game with the sound of the ball being hit moving from left channel to right channel and back and forth again. 

    This was what was expected of stereo, the clear separation between channels. 

Yep. The recording I remember when I was a kid was the Russian Roulette one. This guy had one of those long all enclosed consoles with a speaker at each end. It sounded like the gun was sliding along a bar top in an old West saloon. You'd follow it with your eyes from one end to the other. Then the possible victim would pick it up, spin the bullet chamber, and then you'd hold your breath until you either heard the loud "click" or the shot. If a click, then the whole thing would be repeated. Of course we thought it was cool. 

Gene

[Bill Thomas]

     Part of the problem had to do with trying to issue "Stereo" recordings from sources that were originally recorded to 2-track or 3-track tape.  When you have "Rhythm" on Track One, "Strings and Brass" on track two and Vocals on Track three, you're pretty restricted about how "Stereo" the recording will sound.  (This is just one example.)

     By the same token, recording engineers who were adept at "positioning" instruments from a standpoint of "depth" for Mono recordings, had a whole NEW ballgame to learn when Stereo showed up.  Remember "Duophonic" Stereo recordings?  These were attempts to make Stereo records from original Mono sources.  A little different EQ between channels, a bit of delay along with a mess of reverb and "Voila!"  Stereo!  (Yeah, RIGHT!)

     It's the audio equivalent of "Colorizing" black and white movies.  Sometimes it can be "pleasant", but MOST of the time, it is just plain WRONG!  It CERTAINLY has nothing to do with "realism."

     But recording engineers are learning more and more every day.  ONE day, they might even get it all correct!  (lol)  (Now what was that I heard about dealing with Seven channels???)

     No offense meant to all the EXTREMELY talented recording engineers out there.  You GOOD ones have my undying respect!

Sincerely,

Bill Thomas

[BrianP]

The multitracked pop recordings of the era (such as all the early Beatles) were mixed this way intentionally, apparently because the engineers hadn't yet figured out how to pan tracks across the center of the soundstage.

But a lot of the live-in-studio, direct-to-two-track recordings from the time also have this broad separation. I'm thinking particularly of some of Rudy Van Gelder's sides for Blue Note and other labels. I think it had a lot to do with placement of both the performers and the microphones. For instance, if there were two horn players on a session, he would space them as far apart as possible.

Wilma Cozart (Mercury Living Presence), and probably a number of other engineers, used a three-track system for live recording. The resultant tracks could be handily mixed to mono (bouncing all three tracks down to one, with maybe a little more gain on the center microphone), or to stereo (by splitting the center track equally between left and right). These records had more of a seamless soundstage, with plenty of center fill.

The trouble with some modern small-ensemble classical recordings (especially string quartets) is that they don't have ENOUGH stereo spread. All the performers are bunched so close together in the center that it might as well be a mono recording. I would prefer to hear the first and second violins, and the viola, coming from distinctly different points in space, so I could follow the individual lines better. This should be doable by seating the players further apart on the stage, and spacing the mics a bit further apart.

[Wayner]

They could of used a little "reverb" in their dull lifeless recordings. There isn't any rule that says it's suppose to sound like it did in the little funky recording room. How is that a "natural" environment? Just a touch of some nice "stereo" reverb would have really added some spice to these otherwise almost lifeless recordings.

I have an Aaron Copland Columbia Masterworks album that I think was done in the early 60's and it blows away many even later day recordings. The trick here was that it was a full orchestra in a live hall and the microphones picked up all the lush ambience from the hall, in stereo.

For the remark on the Beatles, I recall that (I think) Abbey Road was done on a 4-track. I know it was one of those albums beyond the I wanna hold your hand stuff, anyway.

Jimi Hendrix was right at the door step of the stereo phenom and did some weird things with the stereo effect. I think on a couple of songs, everything was recorded on one channel in mono, then put into a milli-second tape delay for the other channel, a technique I have done myself. At least it brought some interest to the music.

Tommy James and the Schondells also screwed around with strange stereo/mono/delay stuff on lots of their early recordings. I consider them pioneers for what they were doing, even if they didn't get it exactly right.

Unfortunately, guys like Frank Sinatra were recorded in mono, 'cause that was all they had at the time. Roy Orbison had the same technology problems. That didn't stop their popularity. If any of you have Roy Orbison's Mystery Girl on vinyl, don't you wish all his recordings sounded like this?

Wayner

[Bill Thomas]

Well, Stereo was a whole NEW ballgame for engineers to learn about.  Microphone technique had to change.  There had to be a better understanding of exactly what determines "where" something is positioned in the soundfield.  In the beginning, most engineers thought it was simply a matter of panning an instrument to *some* position in the left-right spread.  It took MANY years before they understood that while panning provides *some* perception of positioning, the BIGGEST determinant was the time difference between the left and right channels.  If an equal audio signal is sent to both speakers at the exact same time, the audio will be perceived as coming from a point midway between the speakers.  If the signal to the right channel is delayed slightly, the sound will be perceived as coming from somewhere towards the left speaker - even though the audio delivered to the two speakers is at the exact same level.  Of course, there is a limit to how much delay you can add before you start getting a bit of "echo", (which also destroys any trace of positioning since audio is now coming from both speakers at different times - too big a time difference for the brain to translate into positioning.  Instead, it just sounds like "doubling" of the instrument or voice.

(By the way, it was Sergeant Pepper that was recorded on two 4-tracks.)  Another bit of useless trivia:  When Atlantic Records got their brand new 8-track machine installed, the FIRST song recorded on it was "Splish Splash" by Bobby Darin.

Just more useless musings...

Bill

[Wayner]

Another point Bill, is that mic preamps may not have been that flexible at the time to do a pan position for every track, even if there were just 4. I suspect that there may have been some re-wiring by some more electtrically minded recording engineers to get the pan effect they wanted in the early days. You just can't imagine what a studio looked like in 1956.

I also think lots of bands played "live" and were recorded in stereo with a several mics in the recording room, mixed to a stereo recorder. Any attempt at "re-mixing" after the session was gone.

This may also prove how good some of these earlier bands were back then. They were true musicians, compared to many today that have a million chances to get the "best take" and then be able to edit the crap out of it in so many ways with all of the computer based recording processes.

Great topic.

Wayner