Print

Print


The term "Coincidental Stereo" would more likely imply a recording with a coicidental Stereo mike.  Since, if an accidental Stereo recording took place, the mikes would likely be very close together, it would be a "near coincidence" recording and would be much more impressive on a headset than on speakers.

db


On Thursday, September 4, 2014 10:22:04 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 

>
>
>Hi Paul:
>
>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 
>2-channel product.
>
>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
>>
>> 
>
>
>