From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #246 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, September 14 2009 Volume 17 : Number 246 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: something I've never thought of before [kevin studyvin ] Re: something I've never thought of before [2fs ] Mick Taylor [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Why mono? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Why mono? [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Why mono? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Why mono? ["edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk" ] Re: Why mono? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Why mono? [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: Why mono? ["edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk" ] Re: Why mono? [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Door to door atheists (NR) [Steve Schiavo ] Re: Why mono? [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: something I've never thought of before [lep ] Re: something I've never thought of before ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Door to door atheists (NR) ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Why mono? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] setting up your own free website [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: something I've never thought of before [kevin studyvin ] Re: something I've never thought of before [2fs ] Re: Why mono? [kevin studyvin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:54:54 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:33 PM, 2fs wrote: > So, back in the days when most people had mono record players, tehre was > only the one speaker (or one set of speaker components, tweeter, woofer, > etc.) - so, would it make sense, in listening to the Beatles mono set, to > toss the balance on my stereo system entirely to one channel so the sound is > coming from only one speaker? You could consult with noted monaural-sound advocate Phil Spector, on visiting day maybe. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:00:33 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: feg-related On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:15 PM, 2fs wrote: > Suddenly, it's an idea for a TV show: > Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Totally stoked. Just have to go out & find a little old B&W tee-vee to watch it on... (Brings to mind Kim Newman's wonderful Diogenes Club stories.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:17:53 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:54 AM, kevin studyvin wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:33 PM, 2fs wrote: > > So, back in the days when most people had mono record players, tehre was > > only the one speaker (or one set of speaker components, tweeter, woofer, > > etc.) - so, would it make sense, in listening to the Beatles mono set, to > > toss the balance on my stereo system entirely to one channel so the sound > is > > coming from only one speaker? > > > You could consult with noted monaural-sound advocate Phil Spector, on > visiting day maybe. > He'd probably suggest I balance the sound by shooting out one speaker with a handgun, though. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:20:26 +0100 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Mick Taylor Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:10:14 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Mick Taylor profile http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1213013/The-Rolling-Stone-whos-stony-broke-Why-Mick-Taylor-lives-rundown-Suffolk-semi-shabby-car.html Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:50:17 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Mick Taylor profile thanks for that ! what a sad story i got into the stones in 1969 and i always thought Mick T was an integral part of the their best years it's only recently (with the 2002 reissues) did i understand that their early years were awesome in a different way . . needless (needles ?) to say - it's been about 3 decades (with Ron Wood) since the RS had an album that could hold a candle to the earlier eras and Ron Wood's been a RS longer that Bill Wyman ever was . . and i know the Stones got ripped off BUT still - they could be a little more generous ? i also question some of the above "facts" . . . didn't MT sue for the use of some of his licks on "Tattoo You" . . . ? and win ? * And didn't he claim for many years that he had largely written 'It's only rock'n'roll (but I like it)'? I saw Mick Taylor's current band earlier this year in Frome, with Max Middleton on keyboards, performing very lacklustre material from an album which wasn't even that new. The only Stones number he played was 'No Expectations', an old B-side from the Brian Jones era. Not very exciting! - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:10 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Why mono? Could someone explain to me why anyone would *want* to listen to music in mono?? To me it's just a loss of information. I got the 40th anniversary edition of The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, and I listened to the mono version exactly once, to hear what the fuss is about. I don't see/hear the point! - -- b. Sebastian Hagedorn b Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de b' http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:03:24 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Why mono? 1. First of all, Listen to the gimmicky panning from left to right to left to right at the end of "Interstellar Overdrive" that was done as a novelty in a new format . . . it was not what the artists intended . . .there are often differences in the two mixes . . . 2. Until 1968 or so, stereo was a luxury . . . most people had monaural equipment . . . For many, many discussions, you can hear about the debate over mono vs. stereo Beatles remasters here : http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner or here : http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m7d24-Beatles-101-Our-c omplete-Beatles-remastered-CD-coverage My Bob Dylan Examiner Column http://www.examiner.com/x-21829-Bob-Dylan-Examiner my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ In a message dated 9/14/2009 8:54:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de writes: Could someone explain to me why anyone would *want* to listen to music in mono?? To me it's just a loss of information. I got the 40th anniversary edition of The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, and I listened to the mono version exactly once, to hear what the fuss is about. I don't see/hear the point! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:48:06 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Why mono? - --On 14. September 2009 08:57:40 -0400 Jeremy Osner wrote: > But if the music was originally recorded in mono (like e.g. early Beatles > records), the information being lost by abandoning stereo is information > that was not present to begin with. I think? But they never *were* recorded in mono! Even their earliest recordings were at least two-track. Of course each of those tracks was mono, and probably never meant to be mixed as stereo, but still ... I've thought about color vs. b/w movies, but to me that's different, because b/w has more contrast than color, plus it has its own atmosphere. Mono adds nothing to my experience, it only subtracts spatial information. - -- b. Sebastian Hagedorn b Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de b' http://www.uni-koeln.de/~a0620/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:47:16 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: "edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk" Subject: Re: Why mono? Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de said: >Could someone explain to me why anyone would *want* to listen to music in >mono?? To me it's just a loss of information. I got the 40th anniversary >edition of The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, and I listened to the mono >version exactly once, to hear what the fuss is about. I don't see/hear the >point! I don't think that people have a preference for mono as opposed to stereo, in principle, it's that for many classic recordings from the '60s, when stereo was still new, the mono versions reflect the artists' visions. This is certainly the case with The Beatles releases, and from what you say I suspect so with Floyd's Piper. More specifically: In the day, stereo was thought of us a fad, that might or might not even catch on. (Brian Wilson famously disliked the idea of stereo because it meant people would hear his mixes differently based on speaker placement etc., although his hearing loss in one ear may have also been a factor.) So, for example, on Revolver and Sgt Pepper, The Beatles themselves actually stayed in the mixing booth and supervised the mono mixes of the albums, making sure everthing was exactly how they wanted it. Once the mono mix was spot on, they split from the studio, and left the engineers to do the stereo mix. So the mono version is the one that the Beatles actually sat there listening to until it was perfected, and said, "Yes! This is what our album sounds like!" This even lead to other screw-ups, like the fact that 'She's Leaving Home' on the stereo Sgt Pepper is in the wrong key and at the wrong speed. The mono version was played at the intended speed, making it a half-step higher and slightly faster, and honestly, once you've heard it that way, there's no going back. (Having said that, there's nothing stopping one, nowadays, from taking the stereo mix of the song and uplifting the key and speed.) I don't think anyone (apart from Spector) would argue in favour of losing stereo and going back to mono, or that any originally stereo albums could be improved by remixing them in mono, there's merely the attempt to capture as exactly as possible the artists' intentions. Back to lurking, Edward Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:53:03 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Why mono? - --On 14. September 2009 09:03:24 -0400 HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > 1. First of all, Listen to the gimmicky panning from left to right to > left to right at the end > of "Interstellar Overdrive" that was done as a novelty in a new format > . . . > it was not what the artists intended . . . I like the panning :) > there are often differences in > the two mixes . . . True, I noticed that. Originally I thought that the mono version was just the same as pushing the mono button on my receiver :) I *did* notice that the mono mix really is different, but still I don't think I'd ever want to listen to it. > 2. Until 1968 or so, stereo was a luxury . . . most people had monaural > equipment . . . So? I was born in 1968, so fortunately I grew up with stereo. > For many, many discussions, you can hear about the debate over mono vs. > stereo > Beatles remasters here : > http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner > or here : > http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner~y2009m7d24-Beatles-101-Ou > r-c omplete-Beatles-remastered-CD-coverage Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:13:59 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Why mono? :-) my point was that the idea of stereo mixes was a novelty - they weren't sure what to make of it the stereo mixes on early Beatles CDs was: vocals in one speaker, music in the other while i like this - so i can hear details in the vocals and instruments - in theory it does NOT have the "punch" of a great mono mix - made to be listened to on a transistor radio or monaural record player granted neither are in vogue , of course - it's the idea of that the artist intended the mono mix to be definitive and the stereo LPs listed at $1 more IIRC ! The Beatles sat around for the mono mixes - but did not stick around for the stereo mixes - they left it in the hands of George Martin Of course i'm getting both Beatles box sets - (BTW -"Helter Skelter" is much longer in stereo) My Bob Dylan Examiner Column http://www.examiner.com/x-21829-Bob-Dylan-Examiner my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ In a message dated 9/14/2009 9:55:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de writes: > 2. Until 1968 or so, stereo was a luxury . . . most people had monaural > equipment . . . So? I was born in 1968, so fortunately I grew up with stereo. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:28:45 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: "edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk" Subject: Re: Why mono? Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de said: >--On 14. September 2009 08:57:40 -0400 Jeremy Osner >wrote: > >> But if the music was originally recorded in mono (like e.g. early Beatles >> records), the information being lost by abandoning stereo is information >> that was not present to begin with. I think? > >But they never *were* recorded in mono! Even their earliest recordings were >at least two-track. Of course each of those tracks was mono, and probably >never meant to be mixed as stereo, but still ... I've thought about color >vs. b/w movies, but to me that's different, because b/w has more contrast >than color, plus it has its own atmosphere. Mono adds nothing to my >experience, it only subtracts spatial information. Just to clarify here: The only way a mono mix would remove "spatial information" is if the original recording were recorded in *stereo* -- that is, not simply that there is recorded information on more than one track, but rather that a single given sound source was recorded with, say, different microphones placed in different positions to create a stereo picture. In such a case, you *would* of course lose spatial information when moving to mono. But all the Beatles music -- at least before they moved to 8 track, after which I'd have to go back and look it up -- was recorded in mono, which is to say, a given sound source was recorded to a single track. There are no stereo sounds (at least prior to the move to 8-track) in the Beatles' recordings. peace, Edward Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:31:51 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Why mono? also - often the "Stereo" mixes were often horrible back in the day i can't go into detail but sometimes they would have "reprocessed" stereo mixes and other travesties . . . My Bob Dylan Examiner Column http://www.examiner.com/x-21829-Bob-Dylan-Examiner my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ In a message dated 9/14/2009 10:24:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, HwyCDRrev@aol.com writes: the stereo mixes on early Beatles CDs was: vocals in one speaker, music in the other ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:37:49 -0500 From: Steve Schiavo Subject: Door to door atheists (NR) After the rant, they go door to door. - - Steve __________ I can't resist an anime that includes a small, cute, violence prone girl with a scythe. - John ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:57:26 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Why mono? - --On 14. September 2009 15:28:45 +0100 edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > Just to clarify here: The only way a mono mix would remove "spatial > information" is if the original recording were recorded in *stereo* -- > that is, not simply that there is recorded information on more than one > track, but rather that a single given sound source was recorded with, > say, different microphones placed in different positions to create a > stereo picture. In such a case, you *would* of course lose spatial > information when moving to mono. But all the Beatles music -- at least > before they moved to 8 track, after which I'd have to go back and look > it up -- was recorded in mono, which is to say, a given sound source > was recorded to a single track. There are no stereo sounds (at least > prior to the move to 8-track) in the Beatles' recordings. You're absolutely right. I think I understand the issue better now. Thanks, guys! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:25:01 -0400 From: lep Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before jeff 2fs says: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:54 AM, kevin studyvin wrote: >> You could consult with noted monaural-sound advocate Phil Spector, on >> visiting day maybe. >> > > He'd probably suggest I balance the sound by shooting out one speaker with a > handgun, though. this is the funniest thing i've read in days. i was going to *golf clap* but i think that's a bit underwhelming when the bullets are flying. xo - -- "people with opinions just go around bothering one another." -- the buddha ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:48:24 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > i also remember having to switch my stereo stylus > over to my mono stylus (on the other side) Yeah, so you really need a mono laser in your CD player to get the best sound out of these. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:53:07 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Why mono? HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > 1. First of all, Listen to the gimmicky panning from left to right to left > to right at the end > of "Interstellar Overdrive" that was done as a novelty in a new format . "Listen to the MORE AWESOME THAN YOU CAN SAY panning from left to right ..." - FTFY > For many, many discussions, you can hear about the debate over mono vs. > stereo > Beatles remasters here : > http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner This really sold me on the debate: "ROOT CAUSE: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread at java.lang.Thread.start0(Native Method) at java.lang.Thread.start(Thread.java:597)" Cogent. I'm sold. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:57:23 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Door to door atheists (NR) Steve Schiavo wrote: > > After the rant, they go door to door. I think Absolutely did this better in 1990 - Calum converts Jehovah's Witnesses to follow the Suzuki 350: Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:02:09 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Why mono? edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > > I don't think anyone (apart from Spector) would argue in favour of > losing stereo and going back to mono Jeremy Barnes might. He put out a 78 this year: Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:21:07 EDT From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: setting up your own free website OK - that's for suggestion for Google Sites . . if was great except : However , i cannot add HTML codes without google automatically added some info and deleting other any other suggestions ? My Bob Dylan Examiner Column http://www.examiner.com/x-21829-Bob-Dylan-Examiner my blog is "Yer Blog" http://fab4yerblog.blogspot.com/ http://robotsarestealingmyluggage.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:33:16 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: >> i also remember having to switch my stereo stylus >> over to my mono stylus (on the other side) > > Yeah, so you really need a mono laser in your CD player to get the best > sound out of these. Now that's spit-take funny! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:38:25 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: setting up your own free website HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > > However , i cannot add HTML codes > without google automatically added some info > and deleting other What are you trying to do? It took all the HTML I tried to throw at it. If you're trying to import existing HTML, then you're limited to using Google's built in themes. It might work better to copy the rendered web text into Google's WYSIWYG editor - the results will be different, but likely far closer than trying to wedge in arbitrary HTML. But I think that free webpages of your own design went the way of Geocities ... I mean, 10GB of hosting is less than $5/month. It's too cheap to meter. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:49:12 +0000 (UTC) From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Re: Why mono? Doesn't the recordingB board in the booth that the engineer is using have a lot to do with mono versus stereo preference? The Beatles and George Martin were using a 3 track mixing board atB Abbey B for the longest of time. Yet Tom Dowd had been B using an 8 track deck for years B at the Atlantic studio that could take full advantage of stereo. Michael B. - ----- Original Message ----- From: edwardofsim@tiscali.co.uk To: "The Myriad Ones" Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:47:16 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: Why mono? Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de said: >Could someone explain to me why anyone would *want* to listen to music in >mono?? To me it's just a loss of information. I got the 40th anniversary >edition of The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn, and I listened to the mono >version exactly once, to hear what the fuss is about. I don't see/hear the >point! I don't think that people have a preference for mono as opposed to stereo, in principle, it's that for many classic recordings from the '60s, when stereo was still new, the mono versions reflect the artists' visions. This is certainly the case with The Beatles releases, and from what you say I suspect so with Floyd's Piper. More specifically: In the day, stereo was thought of us a fad, that might or might not even catch on. (Brian Wilson famously disliked the idea of stereo because it meant people would hear his mixes differently based on speaker placement etc., although his hearing loss in one ear may have also been a factor.) So, for example, on Revolver and Sgt Pepper, The Beatles themselves actually stayed in the mixing booth and supervised the mono mixes of the albums, making sure everthing was exactly how they wanted it. Once the mono mix was spot on, they split from the studio, and left the engineers to do the stereo mix. So the mono version is the one that the Beatles actually sat there listening to until it was perfected, and said, "Yes! This is what our album sounds like!" This even lead to other screw-ups, like the fact that 'She's Leaving Home' on the stereo Sgt Pepper is in the wrong key and at the wrong speed. The mono version was played at the intended speed, making it a half-step higher and slightly faster, and honestly, once you've heard it that way, there's no going back. (Having said that, there's nothing stopping one, nowadays, from taking the stereo mix of the song and uplifting the key and speed.) I don't think anyone (apart from Spector) would argue in favour of losing stereo and going back to mono, or that any originally stereo albums could be improved by remixing them in mono, there's merely the attempt to capture as exactly as possible the artists' intentions. Back to lurking, Edward Protect your PC with 50% off Norton Security - B http://www.tiscali.co.uk/securepc _______________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:11:56 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Why mono? On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn < Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de> wrote: > --On 14. September 2009 08:57:40 -0400 Jeremy Osner > wrote: > > But if the music was originally recorded in mono (like e.g. early Beatles >> records), the information being lost by abandoning stereo is information >> that was not present to begin with. I think? >> > > But they never *were* recorded in mono! Even their earliest recordings were > at least two-track. Of course each of those tracks was mono, and probably > never meant to be mixed as stereo Right. "Stereo" isn't just two tracks; it's two tracks mixed specifically to be heard simultaneously from two speakers (tpically, two identical speakers). Some of the other posts point out that (a) the mono mixes were much more carefully done than the stereo mixes, at least on the earlier albums; (b) a lot of people originally heard the mono mixes and would enjoy hearing them again. I would add that there's an art to mixing in mono that's very different from the art of mixing in stereo. In stereo, you have the luxury of using space to differentiate parts: two parts that are otherwise similar in sound, texture, and volume can be distinguished by one being panned left & the other right. You can't do that in a mono mix - in fact, arguably, recording *for* mono can and should affect the compositional and arranging process, in that if you know that you've written two parts that will end up blending together in listeners' ears and you don't want that effect, you rewrite. Multiple channels, then, free up certain restraints (for good and for bad). Anyway, for myself I'm happy to hear the songs any which way - so long as we have the choice. I do not like it when versions of songs disappear entirely (David Thomas of Pere Ubu is *notoriously* imperious as to maintaining permanent control over what he wants people to hear on Ubu records...to the point that every reissue of Ubu albums presents new mixes, sometimes very different ones, sometimes with new or missing parts). Inevitably, in a few years, there'll be another box set...in which the entire Beatles catalog is remixed (not just remastered) in stereo (as the Yellow Submarine "songtrack" CD was a few years ago, and that _Love_ thing two years or so back). What's not entirely clear to me: when you had only 4 tracks at your disposal, a typical practice (which the Beatles did quite a lot) was to "bounce down" some of those tracks if yo needed more than 4. So, you'd record (say) rhythm guitar on one track, bass on another, and drums on the third...but you wanted more than one track for vocals, piano, and a lead guitar. So, you'd take those three tracks, mix them carefully, and record them on a single track of a new 4-track recording - freeing up another 3 channels for your vocals, piano, and lead guitar. Where this gets interesting, in the remix potential, is that if EMI was careful about preserving its tapes and both the 4-track master used for the record (bounced-down rhythm section, vocals, piano, lead guitar) *and* the original 4-track with 3 tracks for the rhythm section were preserved, you could *now* go back and remix all 7 tracks that were recorded, with no loss of fidelity from bouncing down. I'm going to assume something like that was what was done on the YS Songtrack album (which remixed the original sounds, using more modern notions of spatial placement, i.e., bass frequencies centered, instruments spread...rather than all the instruments in one channel & all the vocals in another). I could go on - but it'd be nice if someone with actual experience, you know, mixing a record on old-school equipment could say something rather than my rampant hypothetical speculations... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:13:21 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've never thought of before On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > > i also remember having to switch my stereo stylus > > over to my mono stylus (on the other side) > > Yeah, so you really need a mono laser in your CD player to get the best > sound out of these. > > Shit, don't let Phil Spector hear you - him armed with a mono laser I don't want to think about. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:47 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: Why mono? > Anyway, for myself I'm happy to hear the songs any which way - so long as we > have the choice. I do not like it when versions of songs disappear entirely > (David Thomas of Pere Ubu is *notoriously* imperious as to maintaining > permanent control over what he wants people to hear on Ubu records...to the > point that every reissue of Ubu albums presents new mixes, sometimes very > different ones, sometimes with new or missing parts). Which sent me back to the notes to St. Arkansas, where DT has this to say: "Some of you may remember stereo sound. It had a brief vogue for a decade between the mid-60s and mid-70s before being edged out of fashion by Enhanced Mono. A product of that brief window, Pere Ubu never lost its affection for the format. Most people know that by moving between the two speakers of your hi fi system a point can be located at which the sound seems to lock into place. Ordinarily this is the point that forms an equilateral triangle with the two sound sources. With Pere Ubu, however, this point has been located directly in front of the right hand source. There are good reasons for this. 1. See the Folly Of Youth video. 2. Sound is heard from left to right. Facing and equidistant to the sound source the left ear will 'hear' before the right. Situating the focal point in front of the right source alters depth of field. 3. The scale created by a Mid/Side approach is sometimes preferable to a standard Left/Right separation. You are, of course, free to do as you choose." For somebody who originated the term "avant-garage," sometimes I suspect he overthinks. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #246 ********************************