[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?



Wing was also a recession-fighter, introduced during the early 60's downturn. The series was discount price and cheaply packaged. Not all Mercury executives thought it was a good idea but the pop guys prevailed and the rack-jobbers loved it because they could stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap. Simulated stereo was just a bad idea on all fronts, but it prevailed up into the 70s. There were some interesting experiments done in a better reprocess method, both at Columbia Studios and at Fine Recording. But it was costly -- book expensive studio time, set up an excellent full-range speaker in a nice live room like the 30th St. studio of the Ballroom and then play the mono material thru the speaker and record a stereo pickup to a new master. It actually works very well, especially with recordings originally made close-mic'd or in a dead room. But it begs the question, why bother. Just enjoy a well-mixed mono presentation. Electronic reprocess of mono into psuedo-stereo is a degradation 99+% of the time.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?



Mike Richter wrote:

Rob Bamberger wrote:
> I seem to recall hearing in the early 1960s (when I was a mere youth
> developing an instinct that would, in due course, mistrust a
> civilization that could come up with reprocessed stereo) that playing
> stereo pressings on a monophonic record player would harm the stereo LP.
>  Was this a myth?  At some point, stereo LP covers indicated that they
> were mono-compatible. Was the prior warning meant to discourage people
> from playing stereo records with their older, heavily weighted tonearms
> and mono cartridges that would chew up the stereo groove?

It was not a myth. Some monaural cartridges had so little vertical
compliance that they would mash the difference signal out of existence
in a few playings. AFAIK, "mono compatible" meant that after you did
eliminate the vertical component, the horizontal (lateral) would still
play adequately with the incompliant cartridge.

Note that the issue was not so much tracking force per se but
compliance, displacement of the stylus assembly per unit of force applied.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/

There were a few types of LP labelled "mono compatible". In the mid 60s (or earlier?), Mercury introduced the Wing label, reissuing a lot of mono pop and classical material in simulated stereo..the sound was ghastly in mono and stereo. I know there were a couple of other such labels, aside from Everest and Stereo Fidelity producing mono LPs which were actually pressed from the stereo stampers. In 1968 we began to see "playable on mono equipment" on virtually all stereo LP jackets because the companies finally phased out mono at that time, and we were told that the tone arms and cartridges were now compliant enough.

I have one Cook stereo lp (not binaural) that must have been cut with a 1-mil
or 1-5 mil point, "A Double Barrel Blast"..that disc never sounded good on
anything. Also wasn't terribly funny.

dl


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]