LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2014

ARSCLIST August 2014

Subject:

Re: Accidental stereo (again)

From:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:02:40 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (155 lines)

Well, of course, if you're using an MS pair, mono compatibility is flawless, unless you're also using spot mikes or, as you called them, touch up mikes, because when you combine the two channels to mono, the difference mike disappears.  When Decca/London introduced "Phase-four stereo", it seems the main development was the pan-pot.  RCA's "Stereo Action" releases were also a spotlight for the pan-pot.  With the judicious use of spot mikes, the pan-pot should have solved the problem of image shifting.

When I was with CBC and whenever I was involved in training, I always emphasized that the main reason to insure mono compatibility is that good mono is a by-product of good stereo.  Every sound in nature is audible to a one-eared person.  But, naturally, there are innumerable opinions of what constitutes "good stereo".  To me, good stereo results when the entire sound stage is percieved as a solid curtain of sound between the stereo speakers and with eyes closed, the speakers themselves do not seem to be the source of sound except for extreme left or right sound sources.  To other engineers, the priority is the spacy sound that's produced when there's a large difference signal.  This occurs with the fairly popular mike technique usually erroneously called "ORTF".  I say "erroneously" because ORTF specifies precise measurements between mikes but most engineers I've seen apply the term to any near coincidental mike pickup.

db


On Saturday, August 30, 2014 3:19:09 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

>
>
>Hi Dave:
>
>Mercury experimented with 2-omni "binaural" and also with crossed-matrix single-source mic 
>techniques. None were judged to produce the intimate yet spacial stereophony that 3-spaced-omni 
>produced. Experiments were also tried with "touch-up" mics as were commonly used by RCA and Columbia 
>and others. The problem there is that the image collapses and/or shifts when the whole orchestra 
>goes full-tile vs. during quiet or section-solo times. This problem is called "congestion" by some 
>audio reviewers and is very evident on 70s DGG and Philips recordings, to my ears, also Columbia 
>many-mic extravaganzas. Decca made recordings with many mics (Mehta/LA "Planets" for instance) that 
>don't get as "congested".
>
>It can't be understated how important mono compatibility was in the early stereo era. Stereo was a 
>niche market, most of sales were mono, until the mid-60's when record stores stopped carrying mono 
>versions of most new classical releases. For Mercury, the idea of having two mic setups ran counter 
>to the compact and efficient production methods they had perfected. Same small team, same equipment, 
>all the time. So, a big draw for 3-spaced-omni was also mono compatibility. The single-mic pickup 
>perfected for mono became the center mic. No fold-down, no remix, no fuss. A mono full-track master, 
>made from only the center mic, and a stereo 3-track master, both edited from the same edit notes, 
>two LP masters cut. RCA for years used a separate mono setup and engineer. I think the same was true 
>at Columbia. I don't know what 2-mic folks like Vanguard did for mono releases. You definitely can't 
>successfully sum 2-omni stereo to mono. I think the Europeans who used MS or other crossed-matrix 
>methods were able to use one channel for mono (although there were crosstalk phase-cancellation 
>issues with that method).
>
>-- Tom Fine
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 2:52 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>
>
>> Tom et al
>>
>> Very interesting posting, revealing some of the procedures and reasonings behind Mercury's mike 
>> set-ups.  I think some companies used two spaced omni pick-ups, (if I recall correctly, Capitol 
>> Records had an inner sleeve with their stereo LPs describing a stereo procedure using 2 mikes), 
>> but the 3 mike system makes infinitely more sense.  As I think I've posted before, I used a 
>> modification of the Mercury set up for my orchestral recordings - there were 3 omni mikes across 
>> the front of the stage but the centre one was actually the mid portion of a C24 mid-side 
>> configuration.  The side mikes were C12s whenever they were available - the C 12 being a mono 
>> version of the C24.
>>
>> I wouldn't say that Blumlein "invented" the 45/45 cutting method, I think he just put it forth as 
>> a possible way of cutting a single groove stereo record.  I don't know what, if anything, Blumlein 
>> actually issued a patent for.  Actually, since he was working for EMI, it's quite possible that 
>> all of his developments were the property of that company and not his personally.  Since it would 
>> be fairly difficult to build a 45/45 cutter, I imagine that his experimental stereo discs were 
>> likely cut using two separate recording heads - one starting at the edge of a disc and the other 
>> starting about 3 inches closer to the centre.
>>
>> db
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 2:08:40 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it's a stretch to say that Blumlein alone "invented" 45/45 stereo cutting. Keller et al 
>>>have
>>>US patents on it and Bell Labs successfully used it to make experimental recordings in the 1930s,
>>>among them with Stokowski/Philadelphia. As I understand it, those were 45/45 and not
>>>vertical-lateral stereo recordings.
>>>
>>>I do agree with your point about stereo mic'ing. Blumlein and Bell Labs came up with different
>>>approaches, and in fact Bell Labs experiements ended up favoring 3-channel stereophony as a more
>>>realistic reproduction of an orchestral sound source. The M-S and other crossed-matrix techniques
>>>were very firmly entrenched in Europe, to the point that people couldn't believe that 3 spaced
>>>omni's actually worked as well as they did for Mercury. Then a Philips engineering team tried the
>>>same technique in the mid-60's and got a series of very good-sounding recordings (somewhat
>>>un-Philips-like because they were both intimate and reverberant and not either-or).
>>>
>>>As for 45-45, as I understand it, the whole reason Westrex could charge a license fee for all 
>>>stereo
>>>cuts, in the 60s and I think into the 70s, was because they inherited the WECO patents from Keller
>>>et al from the 30s. Again, if Blumlein had exclusively "invented" 45/45, Bell Labs wouldn't have
>>>been granted a U.S. patent.
>>>
>>>By the way, the theory of 3 spaced omnis is very different from 2-mic approaches. In the "M3"
>>>technique (as Philips called it), the center mic is paramount and is also the mono feed. The side
>>>mics are there more to add depth, width and height to the stereo image, not as much as primary
>>>sound-receivers (although they do perform this function for the side-most sound sources). The 
>>>center
>>>mic must be focused perfectly of the image is diffuse. The side mics must be additive to the
>>>stereophony, as they are placed it becomes obvious where they are most additive (usually in a
>>>straight plane with the center mic). One of the reasons Mercury preferred having the mics on ropes
>>>vs. stands was that it was easier to move the sides at the same time (two guys on ropes). They 
>>>used
>>>a surveyor's measure stick to record exact heights and tape measures to record exact distances 
>>>from
>>>set points on the floor and walls.
>>>
>>>Few would argue that there is much less setup hassle -- but also less range of adjustment -- when
>>>using a single-point stereo setup like a stacked Blumlein array or a single-point MS mic like the
>>>AKG C24.
>>>
>>>-- Tom Fine
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 1:19 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2014 5:37 AM, Michael Biel wrote:
>>>>> Because Blumlein was killed during WW II it is obvious that he was not
>>>>> the engineer who Keith Hardwicke was referring to.  Besides, Blumlein
>>>>> was in research and development, not in record production or cutting.
>>>>> By the way, Blumlein was NOT the the one who discovered the art of
>>>>> stereo recording.  Arthur C. Keller of Bell Labs was doing stereo
>>>>> recordings in the Capitol Theater in 1927, four years before Blumlein
>>>>> envisioned it.  Keller did stereo recordings of Stoki and the Phila in
>>>>> 1931.  the Brits have done a dandy promotional campaign for Blumlein
>>>>> which is why he is "credited by most" even if the "most" are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But Keller and Blumlein were using very different recording techniques, so to say that either
>>>> discovered *the* art of stereo recording isn't accurate. Keller used spaced omni microphones,
>>>> while Blumlein used a pair of figure-8 microphones stacked on top of one another and pointing at
>>>> 90 degree angles to one another. The former technique creates the stereo soundfield from a
>>>> combination of intensity and phase differences, while the latter uses intensity differences 
>>>> only.
>>>> Blumlein also developed the "45/45" techniquee of cutting a stereo signal into a single record
>>>> groove; it became the standard format in the 1950s when it was reinvented by American engineers 
>>>> at
>>>> Western Electric.
>>>>
>>>> Peace,
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager