Fake Stereo (Fork off of "your remastering engineer poll!")

[Doug Hess Jr.]

The topic of fake stereo was brought up during the "your remastering engineer poll" topic. Here is the link to comments about one system: http://www.islandnet.com/~djml/cds/bsrequotes.html

Anyone heard any of this stuff? I don't hold any more hope for this than the famed "Revecorting System" that was supposed to digitally re-create the musical instruments and take mono and make a true, discreet recording from it.

I actually own an Omnisonic Imager that I got from the old DAK catalog (where we all got our BSR 10 channel EQ's back in the 80s). The Imager didn't do much.
Besides the fact that it isn't real stereo-- just looking for comments.

Doug Hess

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: Dough ]

[Grant]

It can't be done. Not digitally, not through analog...

I am constantly amazed by those who want stereo so bad they will get it in the worst way. They spend hours upon hours with their Cool Edit/Sound Forge/Pro Tools get-ups trying to make stereo out of mono. It can't be done!

Just like the legions of wanna-be hip-hoppers and kareoke lizards trying to wipe vocals off of ripped CD tracks, these people will not stop. You can't fight physics.

[Todd Fredericks]

I agree with Grant about how silly people can get about this big need to turn mono into stereo. Both are great formats and reproduce music very well (obvious isn't it?). It drives me nuts (only slightly) when I find a great 50's/60's album and it's in NM condition and then I see the slogan "Electronically Processed for Stereo" (or we ****ed up this great piece of work to further annoy your listening displeasure, Spotty!). I don't understand what people find so objectionable about a good, solid mono mix (especially when that's all that exists)? I'm sure there are a few listeners out there who wouldn't even know something was mono/stereo if it wasn't pointed out to them ("Help, it's mono, runaway, runaway!!"). Using a computer to approximate what an instrument sounds like seems very scary. How many variables will it take into account? Would this not technically turn any recording with this technique into synth-music?? If only every drum-set, every guitar tone, every room , every mike & set-up, every atom in the universe were the same then still perhaps slightly maybe this would have any truth. If music was only as easy to reproduce as "painting by numbers" then who needs musicians or roadies? I guess a piano is only a piano. I wish more time was spent on properly perserving our music heritage rather than trying to destroy it. Why not show the world how much slicker everything is "now" and make new music...

Todd

[Dave]

Couldn't agree more with Todd. As far as "new stuff" is concerned let's keep in mind who the major purchasers of music are nowadays. Trying to appeal to a younger crowd can be a real challenge. Let's face it guys the musicians/songwriters now can't even hold a candle to the McCartneys, Henley, Waters, Page etc. and if they are even close to that calibar the kids aren't interested at all because they want to be different, special so that's what they'll settle for. ;)

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Grant T.:
Just like the legions of wanna-be hip-hoppers and kareoke lizards trying to wipe vocals off of ripped CD tracks, these people will not stop.

Not sure what you're getting at there. Depending on how the song was recorded, it's quite *easy* to remove vocals from songs. If the vocal is centered, just invert one of the channels and sum to mono. Of course, you loose anything else that might be in the center as well, but...

But yes, if it's a choice between mono and a "stereo mix" from mono, give me the mono.

On the other hand, if a *true* stereo source is available, all other factors being equal, I'll jump on it.

[Andrew]

When I first noticed the name of this thread it looked like somebody was being told to fork off! :p

[Todd Fredericks]

I think maybe my opinion on the great mono/true stereo debate is release both and I'll decide which I enjoy more. Maybe the music industry needs to introduce warnings about alteration to original content like the film industry does (but didn't want to)...

Todd

[RetroSmith]

Yea, and I know some people that INSIST that DEC (thats Digitally Extracted stereo) makes a mono track True Stereo.

Cant be done, period.

Every DEC track Ive heard has problems and should not have been done...the mono is still better sounding in every case.

[Steve Hoffman]

Just to chime in here, for Doug's sake. :D

To me, a good mix is a good mix. That is the most important thing. Sure, I wish it was stereo, but if it isn't, it ain't!

Sometimes though, I'll listen to a crappy stereo mix just to hear the added dimension that stereo brings.

One example off of my fevered brow:

"I Want To Hold Your Hand" by The Beatles.

Really bad stereo mix, really wonderful mono mix.

When I was a kid and getting into stereo for the first time, I wondered why this song was in fake stereo on Meet The Beatles". We know now that it wasn't mixed in stereo until later, and Capitol never asked for one (or cared). It wasn't until I heard the British import of "A Collection Of Beatle Oldies" in 1968 that I heard the song (and others, like "Ticket To Ride", "Can't Buy Me Love", etc.) in stereo for the first time.

Well, I played that stereo version for many years, never actually hearing the proper mono mix. (You can't count my little yellow & orange Capitol single. Too bad of sound).

Anyway, in the late 1970's (wayyyyy back when), I was going to school and in the evenings working for the radio genius Bill Drake ( he invented "Boss Radio"), in his radio syndication company, and I had to master "I Want To Hold Your Hand" for one of the syndication reels. They had only the mono and stereo Capitol "Meet The Beatles" LP, and they didn't sound too good, let me tell ya.

Well, of course, I ran home to get my true stereo mix on Parlophone. Bill Drake said "NO WAY WE ARE GOING TO USE THAT, IT SOUNDS TERRIBLE. I DON'T CARE IF IT IS IN TRUE STEREO!"

Of course, I was crushed (I was young). BUT THEN:

Bill Drake called Capitol Records and got them to make him a 15 ips tape copy of the Capitol British mono 45 copy tape, and when I cued that up: ZOWIE! It just smoked, and I mean SMOKED the stereo version.

So, we ended up making a fake stereo version out of the mono tape and using that. I wanted to do it straight mono, but they wouldn't let me. (Making friends right and left even then). I got an A for Effort though, 'cause I went the extra mile and tried to find a good stereo version.

So, after all that, what is wrong with the stereo mix? Well, the all-important backing track ain't loud enough. It's way, way down in the mix, and to make it worse, they EQ'd all of the top and bottom out, and added some nasty upper midrange to everything. Really a bad mix; one of the worst I've ever heard from The Beatles camp, mono or stereo.

At any rate, the MONO version (which can be heard on the Singles Box, sounds truly amazing, even after all this time. Too bad the stereo can't sound just like it.

Uhhh...What was the question?
:D

[Grant]

Luke, I know you don't think of hip-hop but most hip-hoppers aren't likely going to mess with stuff old enough to have beem just mono.

Steve, thanks for that about "I Want To Hold Your Hand". The stereo mix never sounded "right" The original mono mix has all the excitement of 1964.

[Steve Hoffman]

Not to name drop, but Phil Spector told me that to him, MONO meant "finished".

He said that one of his productions was only finished when mixed to mono.

In stereo, the mix would suffer if someone was not in the right listening spot, or the stereo was not balanced properly, or the stereo mix was played back in mono by mistake, or one speaker got disconnected. He HATED that kind of stuff. Stuff he couldn't control. He wanted complete control over every part of production.

See what he means? Until the mix is totally mono, the perception of it can be altered by accident or design.

Remember in the early 1970's when the "Back To Mono" buttons were all the rage? I remember a picture of George Harrison wearing one. Phil's doing, I'm sure!

I'm sure he will be real crazy about surround sound. ;)

[Doug Hess Jr.]

OK, since I lit this fire, let me jump back a moment and try to explain where I was going. I was simply trying to get some comments on how the Broadie Sound "Reality Enhancement System" and others like it sounded. It's kinda like Mrs. Field's Cookies. Unless you buy them from a Mrs. Fields Store, you don't have the real thing...but I certainly don't mind taste testing the experiments in trying to make them at home.
So I was just wondering if anyone on the forum had heard any of this stuff to see if it had ANY redeeming qualities at all for any purpose--since they ALL fail at their prime purpose of making true stereo out of mono.
Doug

[Steve Hoffman]

One word: Sucks. ;)

The only reality enhancement system I remember is the one that they sold behind the stage at Woodstock. Har har.

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman:
We know now that it wasn't mixed in stereo until later, and Capitol never asked for one (or cared).

Well, that's actually not totally true. Three stereo mixes were made:

1 - during the same session as the mono mix (1963)
2 - around the time of Help (1965)
3 - for A Collection of Beatles Oldies in 1966

3 is the common stereo mix. 2 (I believe) was done for the German audience - I've never heard it. 1 was done right alongside the stereo mix of This Boy and like that track, has the vocals mixed right and lead guitar center. Yeah, the stereo is weird, but it's got a *lot* more punch than the regular stereo mix. The only known issue is on an Australian single reissue.

Have you heard #1 above, Steve? Or #2 for that matter? From Joe Brennan's site:

The other two stereo mixes are similar but distinguishable. The June 1965 mix [c] has the lead guitar louder and the handclaps slightly louder, and somewhat more bass sound. Compare for example the right channel on the last "ha-a-a-and": the louder guitar covers the vocal more than in [d]. The more common mix [d] has slightly less bass but the cymbal sound is better-- both these differences from [c] may be pressing or LP mastering, rather than the mix, but the handclap and particularly the lead guitar are mix differences.

[FabFourFan]

Originally sort of posted by Luke Pacholski:
Three stereo mixes of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" were made, the first during the same session as the mono mix (1963), with the only known issue on an Australian single reissue.

Luke, thanks for mentioning this one!

It's my favorite stereo IWTHYH by a mile, because it has that surefire winning formula for early Beatles stereo - "music on the left, vocals on the right"! :-)

Believe it or not, the old mix sounds very musical compared to the "regular stereo mix" from 1966 with the bad midrange eq.

(This track in the Another Phase box set, and in lots of other places, I'm sure.)

(And, as always, this is IMHO!)

[Todd Fredericks]

I love the mono mix of "Hey Jude". It's magic when the horns come in. The stereo mix is not too shabby either... Do you think in a few years they will use this Reality Enhancement System on "She Loves You" so we can hear the splices in full 360 stereo?

Todd

[Sckott]

Steve and I have the Australian single mix of IWHYH on a boot called "The Beatles World Best Remaster Edition". Steve and I could never figure out why there was always the mixes we knew and then there was that wacky Australian single. The sound is great, but not exactly condusive to perfect or definitive.

Steve is welcome to comment if he can.

[Steve Hoffman]

I heard that the funky twin track stereo mix of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was also shipped to Capitol Canada and US in December '63. Dave Dexter told me he thought it sounded so bad he had the master destroyed.

At any rate, my point was that the "official" stereo mix of "Hand" simply stinks.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: Steve Hoffman ]

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman:
I heard that the funky twin track stereo mix of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was also shipped to Capitol Canada and US in December '63. Dave Dexter told me he thought it sounded so bad he had the master destroyed.

Considering what Dave Dexter did to the Beatles' catalog, I'm taking that comment with less than a grain of salt.

Besides, it's not twin-track anyway...

[Grant]

Originally posted by Todd Fredericks:
I love the mono mix of "Hey Jude". It's magic when the horns come in.

Todd
Thanks! I'm glad SOMEONE else sees the beauty in the mono mix! The mono actually sounds full, like they are jamming. The bass is deeper, the brass shines, the whole track even runs longer. The stereo mix, IMO, sounds weak.

[xios]

The early mix of IWHYH is also available on the Australian pressing of "20 Greatest" from the early 80's. Probably the easiest legit pressing to find...