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 ...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
|