IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Stereophonic recording?, L/R balance
hlloyge
post Jul 6 2011, 22:19
Post #26





Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



QUOTE (pdq @ Jul 6 2011, 18:57) *
No, tape hiss will be different in the two channels. There may also be an azimuth misallignment that results in a small time shift between channels.
IOW, if you invert one channel and add them, you will not get digital silence.
I'm not arguing against your definition, only trying to understand it.


I am sorry, but tape hiss and head misalignment are hardware errors. I can't take them into account IF the program is recorded mono.
We all know what mono is, I hope - complete recording mixed into one channel. So, if we play it on stereo or surround equipment, it will still be mono, because it is recorded on one channel.
Stereo is recorded on two channels. If the source is mono (from mono tape, for example), then it's mono recording, even if you record it on 6 channels, it's mono.
If there is channel separation that you can hear, than it's stereo recording.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jul 6 2011, 23:31
Post #27





Group: Members
Posts: 3371
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (hlloyge @ Jul 6 2011, 17:19) *
If there is channel separation that you can hear, than it's stereo recording.

That's what I thought you meant.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hollowman
post Jul 7 2011, 04:14
Post #28





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 24-March 07
Member No.: 41808



QUOTE (Roseval @ Jul 6 2011, 12:56) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 6 2011, 12:14) *
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?


Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning

Thx!
Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 7 2011, 04:17
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dc2bluelight
post Jul 7 2011, 08:50
Post #29





Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 16-June 11
Member No.: 91562



QUOTE (pdq @ Jul 6 2011, 13:00) *
I think what hiloyge was saying is that if there is no discernible separation between the two channels then that is mono, otherwise it is stereo.


Not to quibble, but you can actually have a two channel recording and not have stereo. It's a matter of intent. If the two channels are intended to play into two speakers in a stereo listening configuration, that could be defined stereo. But two channels may have other purposes, like the ability to mix instruments and vocals in post, with the final intent being a single mono channel. One channel could be used for audio, the other for timecode - that's mono, but the recording has two channels. I've often used two channels in video for entirely different signals meant to be combined in some way in post. So, not every recording made with two channels is really stereo.

There are those who would take issue with the difference between stereo developed from panned mono tracks and stereo comprised of paired/spaced microphones, but either technique when mixed to stereo fits the definition, even if only paired microphones is considered "true stereophony".

I'd like to sort of correct myself for apparently perpetuating the "Beatles never intended to be released in stereo" myth. I thought it was true, but this link may indicate otherwise. Not a half bad read in any case:

http://www.friktech.com/btls/beatlesinstereo.pdf

Last comment on the issues of an analog mono tape payed on a stereo head, and the anomalies that result. No, it's not considered stereo, but it's darn difficult to eliminate interchannel differences in frequency response or timing (phase). In some cases, poor azimuth alignment and guidance can take an otherwise hard-center mono signal and smear it into a pseudo-stereo mess. Hopefully nobody today uses a machine with head az off that far, or guidance that poor, but it used to be an issue about 3 decades back. Broadcast cartridge machines were notably beastly in that regard. If you did this today and played it into an AV Receiver set to decode matrix surround, parts of the image would fly between the surround speakers and the center speaker. Yet, in truth, you don't have either a stereo or surround recording.

See why we now use digits?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 7 2011, 10:31
Post #30





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (Roseval @ Jul 6 2011, 20:56) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 6 2011, 12:14) *
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?
Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning
That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself. tongue.gif

QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 04:14) *
Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hlloyge
post Jul 7 2011, 11:04
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 695
Joined: 10-January 06
From: Zagreb
Member No.: 27018



QUOTE (dc2bluelight @ Jul 7 2011, 09:50) *
Not to quibble, but you can actually have a two channel recording and not have stereo. It's a matter of intent. If the two channels are intended to play into two speakers in a stereo listening configuration, that could be defined stereo. But two channels may have other purposes, like the ability to mix instruments and vocals in post, with the final intent being a single mono channel. One channel could be used for audio, the other for timecode - that's mono, but the recording has two channels. I've often used two channels in video for entirely different signals meant to be combined in some way in post. So, not every recording made with two channels is really stereo.


I've worked in linear editing before, with umatics and betas, and I know what are you talking about, But to be frank, I've heard experimental music made just like that - two alltogether separate channels. You could play either one of them, or together - they would have different meaning then.
Also, timecode is recorded in vsync area of video signal, IIRC, not on audio tracks. Except for when we sent out vhs to subtitlers, we would record timecode on one channel, and mono mix on other.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hollowman
post Jul 7 2011, 13:53
Post #32





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 24-March 07
Member No.: 41808



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 7 2011, 02:31) *
QUOTE (Roseval @ Jul 6 2011, 20:56) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 6 2011, 12:14) *
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?
Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning
That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself. tongue.gif

QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 04:14) *
Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.

Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception. Stereo-vision (binocular vision) comes to mind -- and why Viewmasters and 3D movies work, I guess! I've read that certain animals -- e.g., sharks, rats -- can SMELL in stereo:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract
I'm not sure how width fits into it. A single solo instrument, playing one sustained note, but with reverb added for depth.
So how does height fit into all this? (Gear reviewers and and "audiophiles" often describe height subjectively using various adjectives). FWIW, wiki has this to say about "Height channels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels
Also, lots of psychoacoustics going on ... e.g., does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 7 2011, 13:55
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jul 7 2011, 14:14
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 1005
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 08:53) *
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.



--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hollowman
post Jul 7 2011, 14:44
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: 24-March 07
Member No.: 41808



QUOTE (Soap @ Jul 7 2011, 06:14) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 08:53) *
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.
'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.

Back to sound/hearing ... don't recall where I read this (Sci Am, New Sci, Sci News, etc) but there was "recently" some new finding into how the ear system does more 'smart' processing locally (i.e, at ear) than prev. known. I.e., the brain doles out more 'logics' responsibility to the remote organ itself. (The same has been known about eye/visual system for a while).
Can someone recall a source for this?

EDIT:
WRT human perception of stereophonic sound 'field' ... and things that may affect it: Personal health (when I'm tired or low-blood-sugared, sound field tends to 'mono out' on me); long-duration music listening, at moderate or high volume, also 'mono's' sound field IME -- is this due to tired eardrums? intoxicants/drugs/meds; barometeric press, etc.

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 7 2011, 15:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Soap
post Jul 7 2011, 14:59
Post #35





Group: Members
Posts: 1005
Joined: 19-November 06
Member No.: 37767



QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 09:44) *
QUOTE (Soap @ Jul 7 2011, 06:14) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 08:53) *
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.
'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.


More mumbo-jumbo words, and an"exception" already covered by my post.


--------------------
Creature of habit.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ed Seedhouse
post Jul 7 2011, 16:00
Post #36





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 69959



QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 05:53) *
Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception.


It means nothing of the sort. Originally the term simply meant "solid". From Wikipedia: 'The word stereophonic derives from the Greek "στερεός" (stereos), "firm, solid"[1] + "φωνή" (phōnē), "sound, tone, voice"[2] and it was coined in 1927 by Western Electric, by analogy with the word "stereoscopic".'

Alan Blumlein showed how two microphones placed close together could record a live event in such a way that it would sound convincing over two speakers, preserving in the forward plane the normal phase and volume cues the human ear uses to detect sound. I believe it is the proper way to record a live event in stereo, but that doesn't mean other means can't work too.

Pan-potted recordings are still stereo and if done right (very difficult) can sound very convincing. "Abbey Road" is, IMO, a good example. Even heavily multi-miked recordings can sound great. My favorite Mahler II is the Bernstein version recorded that way by, if I recall right, DG. Sounds great and the final movement always brings tears to my eyes, multi-miked or no. Yeah, I bet it would be even better if Blumlein stereo had been used instead but it is what it is, and it's a great recording in my book.





--------------------
Ed Seedhouse
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jul 7 2011, 16:06
Post #37





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 05:53) *
QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 7 2011, 02:31) *
QUOTE (hollowman @ Jul 7 2011, 04:14) *
Okay ... another nomenclature query…mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.
Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception. Stereo-vision (binocular vision) comes to mind -- and why Viewmasters and 3D movies work, I guess! I've read that certain animals -- e.g., sharks, rats -- can SMELL in stereo:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract
I'm not sure how width fits into it. A single solo instrument, playing one sustained note, but with reverb added for depth.
So how does height fit into all this? (Gear reviewers and and "audiophiles" often describe height subjectively using various adjectives). FWIW, wiki has this to say about "Height channels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels
Also, lots of psychoacoustics going on ... e.g., does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

How is any of that relevant to what I said? Not that I said anything profound enough to demand an in-depth reply, even if it were at all related, but then such a thing would be drastically out-of-character for you in this thread!

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 7 2011, 18:11
Reason for edit: Fixed quote attribution.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dc2bluelight
post Jul 8 2011, 06:32
Post #38





Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: 16-June 11
Member No.: 91562



QUOTE (hlloyge @ Jul 7 2011, 05:04) *
I've worked in linear editing before, with umatics and betas, and I know what are you talking about, But to be frank, I've heard experimental music made just like that - two alltogether separate channels. You could play either one of them, or together - they would have different meaning then.
Also, timecode is recorded in vsync area of video signal, IIRC, not on audio tracks. Except for when we sent out vhs to subtitlers, we would record timecode on one channel, and mono mix on other.


As I said, the difference between stereo and two channel non-stereo is "intent". It's not the content.

Um, in the old days, timecode was, in fact, recorded on a second audio track in several video tape formats, as well as audio tapes for special use (multi-image slide shows comes to mind). VITC came a bit later, and eventually was more common, but we were talking about differences between two-channel and stereo, so I went into the way-back machine of my own thick head and pulled out timecode. In all cases of timecode on an audio track, though, it was never intended to be heard, even though I've had to try to filter it out of the actual audio track more than once. So, again, it's about intent.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 16:39