 |
 |
Mike, what an informative fact-filled posting! One fact I would question, (and that's a little gentler than "challenge"), is the bandwidth of AM radio. I thought the rules limited a station to a bandwidth of 10k, permitting frequencies up to only 5k to prevent overlap into adjacent stations. db Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 5, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > This is such a long and complicated thread! David discusses at this > point earphone and speaker monitoring in the early years and then later, > mixing in with Tom's Cook materials. The early Western Electric > recordings at WE and then Victor/Columbia were monitored with the large > convex paper cone moving armature speakers. They were as large as > 36-inches. Electrical playback at home was headphones with crystal sets > because that is all it could drive. With tube sets the Magnavox horn > speakers were not bad, but there were some electromagnetic speakers like > the Peerless which supposedly had great bass response. I have not been > that enamored with the RCA speakers in their radios, yet I have heard > their phonographs sounding great. I have heard Atwater Kent radios from > 1929 and later with fantastic sound -- rich bass and wideband reception > on AM passing through highs that could be 7 or 8 KHz. > > > I read the Cook papers that Tom linked in his article and it is obvious > that he monitored with headphones because he recorded in remote > locations (seashore is in one picture) and was also right there with the > musicians in his remote folk and jazz recordings. You couldn't use > speakers, yet the same paper often discusses that the recordings would > be heard by speakers at home, not headphones. He discusses setting mics > 6 feet apart and the speakers six feet apart. He gives wavelength > figures as his reasoning. Yet he also talks about perspective heard in > headphones. Both David and I seem to agree that spaced pairs are not > what is meant as headphone binaural, having the mikes 6 inches apart is. > (I'm trying to find the post where David said something like this. I > don't want to put words in his mouth.) Cook does seem to indicate that > nobody but him will listen to his recordings on headphones. > > > David and several others gave their first stereo experiences which were > from the 1950s which is the same era as Cook. Same with me. In just > about every instance of demos there was an emphasis on hearing different > things on the two speakers, NOT fusing the sound to give you the > illusion of a phantom third channel or a continuous curtain of sound. I > heard a couple of tape demos in 56 and 57, and when my sister got a > Columbia stereo phono in early 59, even though the machine's speakers > became a center bass channel when the two satellite speakers were used, > I never heard a balanced soundstage. When I got my component set-up at > the end of the year as a Bar Mitvah present, my speakers were unbalanced > - the left channel was the Wollensak while the right channel was my mono > amp and corner-mount speaker. All difference and no center. Visiting a > friend who's father had a six foot wide stereo console, his demo to me > was some Command records. 'These babies are hand made, individually > hand cut." I knew from that he was crazy. "You better believe I expect > to hear different stuff coming out of the two sides -- I paid enough for > it!" > > > Even the industry was unsure of the fusing of a phantom center channel. > We now expect the solo vocalist to be in the center channel. MANY early > stereo records placed the singer off to one side or the other because > they did not expect home units to fuse a center channel. Exaggerated > separation was more important because cartridges only had 18-24 dB of > separation, and consoles -- which were very prevalent -- had speakers > too close together with a cabinet that was vibrated by both sets of > speakers. While this should have promoted a curtain of sound with a > center channel, it didn't. The emphasis was for L vs. R differences. > > > Tom is right when he says elsewhere that mono outsold stereo for many > years. I went to all the annual NY HiFi shows in the early 60s, and I > think it took till 1962 or 63 for the audiophile stereo market to kick > in. Columbia stuck with the multi-miked classical even then -- still > looking for separation. I think this all fits together -- you can't > separate the home playback equipment and the expectations of the average > consumer from the history of the recordings of the time. The listening > experience was different then. > > > > Mike Biel [log in to unmask] > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again) > From: DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, September 05, 2014 10:58 am > To: [log in to unmask] > > Thanks, Tom, interesting insight. I have no idea if early electrical > recording sessions were monitored on earphones or loudspeakers, but > certainly crystal sets always used an earphone. I assume, (and I might > be wrong), that electronic audio was born as a complete package - > pre-amp, power amp, electro-dynamic speaker, (one using an electro > magnet, not a permanent magnet), microphones, wires, cutting heads and > phono cartridges. > > My comment about earphone listening was referring to listening to > earphones for higher quality sound reproduction, without the > interference of the bad acoustics in most home listening environments > and to reproduce the early binaural recordings. I don't recall any > referrence to high quality head sets before the late '50s. I remember > all sorts of stereo demonstrations at the CNE, (Canadian National > Exhibition), both pre and post the development of the single groove > stereo disc, but they invariably used ear phones, (not a headset), where > you actually had to hold each ear phone to each ear. I think in the > earliest days of electronic reproduction the sound from speakers or ear > phones was pretty wretched. I have heard speakers from the '20s, > (speakers mounted in a round cookie tin shaped enclosure with grill > cloth on the front, or a long swan-neck shaped horn physically connected > to what is essentially an ear phone and they don't sound as good as > decent > acoustic reproduction. > > db > > > On Friday, September 5, 2014 7:13:15 AM, Tom Fine > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > >> >> >> Hi Dave: >> >> As I understand the history, the original listening device for > electronically-generated audio was >> "earphones." Going back to crystal radios. I think the original > iteration was exactly what was used >> for the earpiece on early telephone sets (a carbon device?). Then came > what were essentially >> earphones at the end of horns, the first "loudspeakers," so radios > could be heard by several people >> at the same time. Then came field-coil speakers. Then came dynamic > speakers. >> >> I think location recording was monitored with "earphones" throughout > the mono electrical-recording >> era, although playback from lacquers may have involved speakers > (probably not until the 1940s, but I >> might be wrong about that). >> >> Headphones kept evolving for professional audio and broadcasting all > along, but I think they hit a >> note with consumers in the stereo era. Remember the baby boomer kids > with big Koss closed-back >> 'phones in 70's college dorm rooms? For my generation, headphones were > part of the Walkman, so they >> were a big part of our youth (people forget how liberating > super-portable "personal stereo" was, >> given that the previous choice was boomboxes, which weren't as > tolerated in suburban homes as they >> were on inner city streets, plus nothing enhanced that alienated > suburban white kid teenage thing >> more than putting on the Walkman 'phones, cranking up the punk rock > and sneering! ;) ). When the >> iPod came along, we got to a new phase of ultra-portability, now heard > through earbuds or >> bass-enhanced Beats-style phones. >> >> To my ears, the worst music for headphone listening is hard-panned > early stereo like Blue Note >> stereo mixes or stereo Beatles mixes pre-Abbey Road. Old "binaural" > material works fine. I suspect, >> aside from collector-fetish cache, one of the reasons many mono mixes > of popular and jazz titles are >> being reissued in modern times has to do with earbud/Beats listening. > The mono sounds superior in >> that setting vs the hard-panned stereo. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again) >> >> >>> I just read most of the information in your attachments, Tom; I would > love to hear the Reginald >>> Foort Organ record that is shown. I did not quite understand how > Cook's twin groove records >>> provide superior mono compatibility because if you play either groove > you'll only get one channel, >>> and if you use a Cook stereo arm to play both channels and mix them > to mono, the best you'll get is >>> as good as a single 45/45 groove but most likely a microscopic > misallignment of the arms will cause >>> a phase shift. The author does say, (I don't know if this is modern > writing or historic), that >>> binaural cannot be properly listened to using speakers because of > both channels getting to both >>> ears - exactly what we were discussing. >>> >>> I'm not sure but I don't believe earphones were ever used to listen > to music before the >>> introduction of Stereo. Mono sounds very poor on headphones - the > source of sound is in the >>> middle of your head. So the message I get from this is that in the > earliest days of "Stereo" >>> recording the intent was that it should be listened to on earphones. >>> >>> db >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, September 4, 2014 5:14:48 PM, Tom Fine > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am pretty sure (based on photos and somewhat sketchy descriptions > in magazine articles) that >>>> Cook's early stereo recordings were made with 2 widely spaced mics > onto a Magnecorder >>>> staggered-head >>>> 2-track. He is always shown monitoring with headphones. To me, this > is clearly "binaural" >>>> recording >>>> methodology, which will only sound good through headphones. On > speakers, there will be a very weak >>>> center, unless the speakers are spaced at headphone distance (ie > right next to each other). >>>> >>>> Now, I don't know whether Cook changed his setup or method when he > came up with the dual-channel >>>> cutting and playback systems. >>>> >>>> Here is a bunch of material on Emory Cook that I gave to Chris > Sanchez to write up in his >>>> Preservation Sound blog: >>>> http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=5695 >>>> and >>>> http://www.preservationsound.com/?p=6240 >>>> >>>> -- Tom Fine >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:19 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again) >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 04/09/2014, Tom Fine wrote: >>>>>> I think, in the early stereo days, only Emory Cook consistently >>>>>> recorded true "binaural" tapes, in other words those designed to > be >>>>>> listened to through headphones only. >>>>> >>>>> Are you sure of that. My experience is exactly the opposite. Cook >>>>> produced exactly one CD. It was a demonstration of a re-processing >>>>> technique, and you had to sign an agreement not to copy it in > order to >>>>> get it. the first track is a female blues singer. For about 30 > seconds >>>>> the small combo is heard on the right track in mono with nothing > on the >>>>> left channel until she starts to sing. It is like those Elvis and >>>>> Beatles tapes meant for mix-down, but this is what Cook chose to > start >>>>> his demo CD. >>>>> >>>>> Because his dual groove system used a radial playback arm, he knew > there >>>>> would be phase shift problems. Plus the two bands were cut with >>>>> different EQ curves. Thus it was vital that there be as little > "center" >>>>> channel as possible, that there be nothing that was strongly heard > in >>>>> both channels. I've got about 20 discs but no arm for them. When > he >>>>> did come out with single-groove stereo LPs the separation was > extreme. >>>>> Remember, this is the guy who did the atmospherics albums with two > radio >>>>> receivers hundreds of miles apart. When he recorded the folk > groups he >>>>> stuck two mikes down in front of two different parts of the group. > I >>>>> don't think he separated them into two rooms like RCA did that > time when >>>>> they split a group into two studios a city block apart, but > listening to >>>>> these with headphones leaves a hole in the middle where your head > used >>>>> to be. Maybe some of his classical recordings used mikes close >>>>> together, but that was a minority of his catalog. >>>>> >>>>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask] >> >> >>