LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  July 2015

ARSCLIST July 2015

Subject:

Re: "Dynaphonic Sound"

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 21 Jul 2015 22:15:59 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (162 lines)

Hi Dave:

I disagree, at least in the case of stereo recordings of acoustic music made in reverberant spaces. 
There is a LOT of information that doesn't fold down to mono, in fact a lot of it is partially 
cancelling. And, in the case of a lot of jazz, pop and other early stereo, with specific instruments 
hard-panned left, right and center, a simple fold-down to mono screws up the mix balance. The lazy 
way that rock and pop engineers and producers dealt with this in the 70s was to make everything 
near-mono, which is a muddy and uninteresting way to present alleged stereophony. In the age of 
earbuds and headphones, there's been a return to interesting stereo in some genres, especially the 
electronic/sampled genres like EDM and the more creative hip-hop/danceable pop. These recordings do 
not sum to stereo well at all, because key sounds and musical hooks/riffs are hard-panned or may 
occur simultaneously but in different channels (ie in the left and right ears when listening on 
headphones).

The kind of "compatibility" that Eargle advocated was that near-mono mush that became SOP in the 70s 
and 80s. I remember rock fans being freaked out by Van Halen early albums because Ted Templeman 
would hard-pan Eddie's guitar, which of course allowed the guitar to sit out there in the mix and 
shine rather than being buried and muddied like typical rock mixes of the time.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Dynaphonic Sound"


> What I always said to anybody who was interested in hearing me say it was that mono compatibility 
> isn't important because of the number of mono radios out there; mono compatibility is important 
> because it is an automatic by-product of good stereo. If a stereo recording is done properly, 
> there should be no signal in the difference which isn't present in the sum. Any signal between 
> hard left and hard right will be fully there in the sum signal.
> db
>
>
>     On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:09 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> John Eargle wrote an interesting article about mono compatibility in 1969:
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1588
> Even that late, he was strongly advocating consideration of at least some mono compatibility due 
> to
> FM radio working poorly in stereo in many areas, plus the continued popularity of AM radio, among
> other issues.
>
> There's an interesting table in the article showing that mono LPs outsold stereo well into the 
> 60's,
> basically until retailers forced the record companies and distributors to stock either a mono or
> stereo version, but not both.
>
> One reason, but not the main reason, for Mercury's 3-spaced-omni approach was the built-in full
> compatibility with mono. Basically, until the mid-60's, the mono versions of Mercury Living 
> Presence
> releases were made with the same single-mic technique used since 1951. That mono mic was also the
> center mic in the stereo recording. Because of the poor crosstalk performance of half-inch 3-track
> tapes, a separate feed from the center mic was made to a full-track mono recorder, and a seperate
> full-track master tape was edited to cut the mono LPs.
>
> No matter how a record was cut in 1951, 1961 or 1971, if it was played once or twice on one of 
> those
> early mono record-wreckers, it was shot.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] "Dynaphonic Sound"
>
>
>> Compatible stereo LPs should have had specific characteristics if they bore that notation.
>> Recording studios had a meter, usually with a very long German name but was basically a
>> correlation meter, meaning that the needle rested in the centre of the meter, went to the extreme
>> right for a mono recording and to the extreme left with a totally out of phase recording. For the
>> record to be mono compatible the needle should read above +.5, (half way between centre and
>> extreme right). This reading will give excellent stereo while not putting too much stress on a
>> mono cartridge because the signal on the record is mainly lateral. It is the presence of a strong
>> vertical signal which causes the record to wear quickly with a mono cartridge because the stylus
>> has low compliance to vertical movement. Eventually, of course, all discs were considered to be
>> mono compatible regardless of how correlated the recorded signal was.
>> db
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:11 PM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't know that record or that label, but "compatible" meant you could
>> play the stereo record with a mono cartridge. Nothing really changed when
>> the record industry switched to "compatible" as opposed to dual
>> inventory--they just figured that a mono cartridge in the typical
>> record-wrecker changer wouldn't wear the record out any faster than a
>> stereo cartridge. Both were going to trash the record soon enough anyway.
>>
>> "Dynaphonic" has no particular meaning to me. It is probably just a trade
>> name, hopefully to be confused with RCA's "Dynagroove" tradename and
>> "process," which did actually mean something--the groove spacing was
>> controlled to allow more room on the record surface for grooves that needed
>> it, and make them closer together where that was OK and had no ill effect.
>> While this may have helped reduce distortion and cross-talk between grooves
>> coming from the record surface, it otherwise had no effect on the quality
>> of the sound itself.
>>
>> Best,
>> John Haley
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Williams, Tim <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, I meant if you have an answer or thoughts about "dynaphonic
>>> sound" to just share with me or the list and not answer the library patron
>>> directly. I didn't mean to include his personal contact info.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <
>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Williams, Tim <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:19 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] "Dynaphonic Sound"
>>>
>>> It sounds like it might just be marketing, but I thought some of you might
>>> enjoy answering what "Dynaphonic Sound Compatible" means for a stereo LP
>>> released in the 70s.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:01 PM
>>> To: Williams, Tim
>>> Subject: RE: Comment to CLP: Music -- Pittsburgh LP Collection
>>>
>>> Oh, I neglected to mention "The Wonderful Slovak Songs of Christmas with
>>> The Mens Choir of Sts. Peter & Paul Church, Johnstown, Pa." Page Recording
>>> Co., "Dynaphonic Sound Compatible" Stereo SLP 506.
>>>
>>> The Canizaro Library at Ave Maria U., FL, gives it a release date of
>>> "197?."
>>>
>>> Now I'm trying to figure out what "Dynaphonic Sound" is ...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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