Dear Paul,

I know some of you are getting my postings and some of you are not.  Therefore, please re-post my posting if you respond to it.

Jack Pfeiffer used to be my boss.  Although I wasn't at RCA in 1986, I was there (at BMG) from 1990 on.  Jack didn't say that he had first hand knowledge of two microphone setups back in the 78 days, only that he checked it with an oscilloscope, etc. (which, by the way, I seriously doubt;  most likely, he had an engineer do it for him.)  That means that he didn't know it was stereo, only that he believed it was.  Re Mark Obert-Thorn's posting, this isn't proof.  I think that the Ellington is most likely "stereo" due to what Mike Biel wrote about different setups, but the others are not.  Until there is a way to synchronize two different discs perfectly, there won't be a way to know with certainty one way or the other.

--Jon Samuels

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 9:45 AM, Paul Urbahns <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Mark Obert-Thorn wrote:

> The issue George brings up has always been the
> sticking point with regard to the acceptance of accidental stereo from the
> very beginning.  When it comes to synchronizing discs whose matrices were
> originally cut on two different tables, there are so many variables --
> differing original recording speeds between the discs; pitch fluctuations
> within each disc; playback speed variations; incorrect centering of the
> records to be played back; disc warpage, etc. -- that it becomes difficult
> if not impossible to determine whether the differences were due to separate
> miking or inexact synchronization.

For the benefit of those on this thread here is an excerpt from an
Audiophile Audition show in the 1980s where the late John Pfeiffer confirms
it as true stereo so I really don't understand the debate. Especially since
the EMI rep commonly quoted never seriously tested the recordings.

Paul Urbahns
Radcliff, Ky