I think they are aptly named "accidental stereo." It's not an intentional mic setup for an
intentional 2-channel recording intended for 2-channel playback. Maybe "coincidental stereo" would
be a better term because, by coincidence, both disks survived to be sync'd and reissued as a
By the way, to my ears, the same is true of the Elgar EMI recording -- the mics weren't set up with
the intention of 2-channel playback but it happens to work in a way that adds more of a sense of
room-space than is heard on either mono recording.
As I said earlier, it's an interesting thing for collectors, and certainly not anything that should
be controversial or temper-raising to the record companies, but it's not a big deal in the evolution
of stereo sound like Bell Labs and Blumlein research was. I think anyone with ears realized, long
before recording methods were invented, that different listening positions yield different listening
perspectives, so there's no great "discovery" that 2 mics placed at different positions in front of
the same musicians will pick up slightly different things. That's the only thing "proven" by the
accidental stereo stuff, again no huge deal.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Urbahns" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Duke Ellington accidental stereo comparison
> Tom Fine, so in your opinion are they stereo or "stereo phoney"
> Paul Urbahns
> Radcliff, ky