A phase question
 

I know this to be true but have often wondered about the science behind it.
In them old analogue days I built a Mullard circuit for an image width
control. Basically it was a device for adding the sound from the opposite
channel to the other from fully in phase, ie Mono, to completely out of
phase, but in the process, you could often find a position where the stereo
was wider or the sound was more spacious. Of course it did reduce the
central image a bit.. However I built such a control into Goldwwave using
the channel mixing adjustments and yes it works the same way.
The question is, why?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!

A phase question
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

-----------------------

I know this to be true but have often wondered about the science behind it.
In them old analogue days I built a Mullard circuit for an image width
control. Basically it was a device for adding the sound from the opposite
channel to the other from fully in phase, ie Mono, to completely out of
phase, but in the process, you could often find a position where the stereo
was wider or the sound was more spacious. Of course it did reduce the
central image a bit.. However I built such a control into Goldwwave using
the channel mixing adjustments and yes it works the same way.
The question is, why?



** Most stereo recordings rely on amplitude differences to create apparent positions for sounds when listening to a stereo pair of speakers. Same amplitude and phase in each channel creates an image in the middle of the pair, for an ideally situated listener. A dB or two difference in amplitude moves the image over to the stronger speaker. A 10dB or more difference moves it all the way.

A "width control" used at max ( ie expand) setting sums a reverse phase version of one channel with the other so cancelling any central image on the recording. Sounds that appear left and right of centre do not have equal amplitude and undergo far less attenuation. Sounds that appear purely in one channel suffer no attenuation.

The reverberation on a stereo recording has little correlation in the two channels so is unaffected by the expand setting of a width control.

The net result is as you described, the central image is diminished while far left and right sounds PLUS any reverberation remain the same.


..... Phil

A phase question
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I know this to be true but have often wondered about the science behind
it. In them old analogue days I built a Mullard circuit for an image
width control. Basically it was a device for adding the sound from the
opposite channel to the other from fully in phase, ie Mono, to
completely out of phase, but in the process, you could often find a
position where the stereo was wider or the sound was more spacious. Of
course it did reduce the central image a bit.. However I built such a
control into Goldwwave using the channel mixing adjustments and yes it
works the same way.
The question is, why?
Brian

To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and difference
signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel only, you alter
the width. Then convert back to L&R.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutter) puked:

-----------------------------------


To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and difference
signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel only, you alter
the width. Then convert back to L&R.


** That must be straight out of the Mad Magazine Guide to Hi-Fi.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...m-1958.197757/

Totally bonkers.



...... Phil

A phase question
 

Well, I'm familiar with the old Hafler way of trying to add a rear channel
certainly, by only feeding the difference signal to the rear, which nulls
out anything placed in the middle of the sound stage, ie, with completely
in phase signals.
its the opposite of mono.
I was more wondering how the part way phase cancellation makes the
differences it does. Not all recordings really sound right, but playing
around last night with the old Wings over America recordings, you can make
it sound much more 'live' than it did in the first place with apparently no
problems with the centre, better stereo and more subtle ambiance from the
venue.

I think the first post in this series sort of makes sense, but if it were
just that, all stereo recordings would have a better separation, and
ambience,and they don't. I can only suggest that the brain here is making
the difference when it hears something that it recognises as 'right' against
the sort of panned multi track stereo you can hear from some close miked
recordings with artificial reverb added here and there. For example it fails
miserably on those old decca Phase four stereo recordings like Two pianos go
to Hollywood with obviously hard stereo panned pianos at either side.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutter) puked:

-----------------------------------


To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and
difference
signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel only, you alter
the width. Then convert back to L&R.


** That must be straight out of the Mad Magazine Guide to Hi-Fi.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...m-1958.197757/

Totally bonkers.



..... Phil

A phase question
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutter) puked:

-----------------------------------


To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and
difference signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel
only, you alter the width. Then convert back to L&R.


** That must be straight out of the Mad Magazine Guide to Hi-Fi.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...m-1958.197757/

Totally bonkers.

Talking about basics, pet. Not something you'd understand.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the first post in this series sort of makes sense, but if it
were just that, all stereo recordings would have a better separation,
and ambience,and they don't.

Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.

It's why stereo created by pan potting mono sources ends up sounding very
false. Might well be what you want, of course.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 10.45.03 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:

just that, all stereo recordings would have a better separation, and
ambience,and they don't.

In true stereo recordings (XY pair, AB pair, Jecklin disc, Decca tree, etc you are not looking for "separation". The objective is to capture the orchestra's internal balance with the ambience of the hall in question, with each instrument or section focussed correctly in the stereo soundstage.

If you want separation, you record multitrack, and bricklay, one track at a time. That way you get 100% separation, which enables you to later use cross-pan reverb etc etc.

I can only suggest that the brain here is making
the difference when it hears something that it recognises as 'right' against
the sort of panned multi track stereo you can hear from some close miked
recordings with artificial reverb added here and there. For example it fails
miserably on those old decca Phase four stereo recordings like Two pianos go
to Hollywood with obviously hard stereo panned pianos at either side.

In the Ronnie Aldrich two piano recordings on Decca Phase Four, the pianos are two separate overdubbed tracks in mono recorded with a vintage STC 4021 "Ball and Biscuit" moving coil microphone. (Many different mics were tried, but the STC gave the best Phase Four piano sound) One piano track is panned left and the other right in the stereo mix. Each has its own reverb, (EMT 140 to match that of the studio) applied after EQ and compression. The method works well, as intended.

Best regards

Iain

A phase question
 

Dave Plowman (Criminal Nutter) puked:

---------------------------------------




To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and
difference signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel
only, you alter the width. Then convert back to L&R.


** That must be straight out of the Mad Magazine Guide to Hi-Fi.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...m-1958.197757/

Totally bonkers.


Talking about basics,


** Talking right out your stupid FAT arse.

And you do not know basics or ANYTHING else.


Die soon, you vile pommy ****.

A phase question
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

-----------------------


I was more wondering how the part way phase cancellation makes the
differences it does.


** Been thoroughly answered.

Shame you do not like it.



Not all recordings really sound right,

** You did notice the word "most" in my post?



I think the first post in this series sort of makes sense, but if it were
just that, all stereo recordings would have a better separation, and
ambience,and they don't.


** Utterly mad assertion.

Recording engineers decide on these issues.



..... Phil

A phase question
 

Dave Plowman (Lying POS Pommy Turd ) spewed:

---------------------------------------------



Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.



..... Phil

A phase question
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
Dave Plowman (Lying POS Pommy Turd ) spewed:

---------------------------------------------



Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.

***********


From: Phil Allison
Subject: A phase question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

** Most stereo recordings rely on amplitude differences to create apparent
positions for sounds when listening to a stereo pair of speakers.

**********

Is that nothing like you posted, dear Phil?

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 13.05.28 UTC+2 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

It's why stereo created by pan potting mono sources ends up sounding very
false. Might well be what you want, of course.

"Pan potting mono sources"?? Delightfully antiquated terminology, Dave:-) I haven't heard that phrase for years. Did you get it from The Boys Own Guide to Tape Recording circa 1962 ?

Multitrack recording is all about creating an aural illusion. So neither "false" nor "true" come into the statement.

Are you saying that you can pick out instruments "placed in the stereo soundstage created by (your words) "pan potting mono sources?" If so, I am currently working on a baroque orchestral recording in which three key brass or woodwind players were recorded afterwards, and placed subsequently in their correct positions.

If as you say it "ends up sounding very false" then you will have no problem in picking them out. Shall I e-mail you a link to the track?

I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply:-)))

Best regards

Iain

A phase question
 

He is only trying to wind you up, ignore him.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (Lying POS Pommy Turd ) spewed:

---------------------------------------------



Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.



.... Phil

A phase question
 

Now now dears, I thought I had been most specific using as I did a very
primitive old example of how not to do Stereo agains a more enlightened
approach. I did also use the technique to help with a stereo recording with
poor channel seperation as well.
Its interesting what some old stereo recordings throw up like Those Were
The Days from Mary Hopkin for example, the actual recording sounds better
but there is movement of a source of the backing singers in a couple of
places.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain" wrote in message
...
tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 13.05.28 UTC+2 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

It's why stereo created by pan potting mono sources ends up sounding very
false. Might well be what you want, of course.

"Pan potting mono sources"?? Delightfully antiquated terminology, Dave:-)
I haven't heard that phrase for years. Did you get it from The Boys Own
Guide to Tape Recording circa 1962 ?

Multitrack recording is all about creating an aural illusion. So neither
"false" nor "true" come into the statement.

Are you saying that you can pick out instruments "placed in the stereo
soundstage created by (your words) "pan potting mono sources?" If so, I am
currently working on a baroque orchestral recording in which three key brass
or woodwind players were recorded afterwards, and placed subsequently in
their correct positions.

If as you say it "ends up sounding very false" then you will have no problem
in picking them out. Shall I e-mail you a link to the track?

I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply:-)))

Best regards

Iain

A phase question
 

Yes best played on a radiogram!
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain" wrote in message
...
tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 10.45.03 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:

just that, all stereo recordings would have a better separation, and
ambience,and they don't.

In true stereo recordings (XY pair, AB pair, Jecklin disc, Decca tree, etc
you are not looking for "separation". The objective is to capture the
orchestra's internal balance with the ambience of the hall in question, with
each instrument or section focussed correctly in the stereo soundstage.

If you want separation, you record multitrack, and bricklay, one track at a
time. That way you get 100% separation, which enables you to later use
cross-pan reverb etc etc.

I can only suggest that the brain here is making
the difference when it hears something that it recognises as 'right'
against
the sort of panned multi track stereo you can hear from some close miked
recordings with artificial reverb added here and there. For example it
fails
miserably on those old decca Phase four stereo recordings like Two pianos
go
to Hollywood with obviously hard stereo panned pianos at either side.

In the Ronnie Aldrich two piano recordings on Decca Phase Four, the pianos
are two separate overdubbed tracks in mono recorded with a vintage STC 4021
"Ball and Biscuit" moving coil microphone. (Many different mics were tried,
but the STC gave the best Phase Four piano sound) One piano track is panned
left and the other right in the stereo mix. Each has its own reverb, (EMT
140 to match that of the studio) applied after EQ and compression. The
method works well, as intended.

Best regards

Iain

A phase question
 

Why is everyone so grumpy today?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (Criminal Nutter) puked:

---------------------------------------




To alter width, you normally convert from L&R to M&S. (mono and
difference signal) If you alter the gain of the difference channel
only, you alter the width. Then convert back to L&R.


** That must be straight out of the Mad Magazine Guide to Hi-Fi.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...m-1958.197757/

Totally bonkers.


Talking about basics,


** Talking right out your stupid FAT arse.

And you do not know basics or ANYTHING else.


Die soon, you vile pommy ****.

A phase question
 

tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 19.59.45 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Yes best played on a radiogram!
Brian

When the Phase Four technique was conceived, most people listened on radiograms :-) In hindsight, most will agree it was a bit gimmicky, but that is what was expected of stereo. These recordings were originally released on the "London" label and intended for the American market. The senior producer, Tony D'Amato was brought over from the States. Take a listen to the Phase Four recording "Pass In Review" released in 1961. People thought it was sensational. Considering the techniques used, it is a remarkable recording, to this day.

Interesting that the Phase Four label, which had its own production and recording team was considerably more popular in terms of sales than the EMI equivalent label "Studio 2"

You mentioned "Two Pianos in Hollywood" released in 1967. Shortly after this LP was released, the office manager at Decca Studios received a phone call from a lady asking if she could return her pressing, "to have the second piano added", as she could hear only one. It transpired that she was playing her stereo LP on a mono Bush record player.

Best regards

Iain

A phase question
 

tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 20.00.47 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Why is everyone so grumpy today?
Brian

Grumpy? Not me, Sir.

I have spent a most enjoyable day listening to takes of a new recording of music by Johan Helmich Roman, a Swedish baroque composer, affectionately called "The Swedish Handel". I rate him on a par with Thomas Arne. Beautiful!

Iain

A phase question
 

Dave Plowman (Lying POS Pommy Turd ) spewed:

---------------------------------------------




Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.

***********


From: Phil Allison
Subject: A phase question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

** Most stereo recordings rely on amplitude differences to create apparent
positions for sounds when listening to a stereo pair of speakers.

**********

Is that nothing like you posted, dear Phil?



** Nothing like what you falsely claimed I wrote.

You stinking, pommy psychopath.




...... Phil

A phase question
 

Brian Gaff wrote:

------------------

He is only trying to wind you up, ignore him.
Brian


** You must be completely stupid as well as blind.

You pathetic attempts at trolling deserve no replies.




..... Phil

A phase question
 

Swedish Handle? Is that the one you need to start volvos?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Iain" wrote in message
...
tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 20.00.47 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Why is everyone so grumpy today?
Brian

Grumpy? Not me, Sir.

I have spent a most enjoyable day listening to takes of a new recording of
music by Johan Helmich Roman, a Swedish baroque composer, affectionately
called "The Swedish Handel". I rate him on a par with Thomas Arne.
Beautiful!

Iain

A phase question
 

keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 10.26.15 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Swedish Handle? Is that the one you need to start volvos?
Brian

I mentioned Johan Roman because although he is one of the most accomplished baroque composers, he does not seem to be well-known in the UK.

You shot down my attempt at discussion with a jejune troll. Well, done!
Is it any wonder that UKRA has so few subscribers these days?

Iain

A phase question
 

In article , Iain
wrote:
tiistai 31. lokakuuta 2017 19.59.45 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Yes best played on a radiogram! Brian

When the Phase Four technique was conceived, most people listened on
radiograms :-) In hindsight, most will agree it was a bit gimmicky, but
that is what was expected of stereo. These recordings were originally
released on the "London" label and intended for the American market.
The senior producer, Tony D'Amato was brought over from the States. Take
a listen to the Phase Four recording "Pass In Review" released in 1961.
People thought it was sensational. Considering the techniques used, it
is a remarkable recording, to this day.

Following the success of the "Decca Sound" CD box sets a few years ago they
also released a box of the "Phase Four" recordings. Having listened to
them, what struck me was that the recordings D'Amato were credited with
were louder and more distorted than the recordings made by others. So
overall the results varied from 'spectacular' to 'awful'.

That said, I confess I had similar reactions to some of the "Living
Presence" CDs. Although there in some cases, from measurements, I'm not
sure to what extent the clipping was during transfer to CD or of the tape
machines.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A phase question
 

keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 12.07.07 UTC+2 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:

Following the success of the "Decca Sound" CD box sets a few years ago
they
also released a box of the "Phase Four" recordings. Having listened to
them, what struck me was that the recordings D'Amato were credited with
were louder and more distorted than the recordings made by others. So
overall the results varied from 'spectacular' to 'awful'.

That said, I confess I had similar reactions to some of the "Living
Presence" CDs. Although there in some cases, from measurements, I'm not
sure to what extent the clipping was during transfer to CD or of the tape
machines.

Tony D'Amato, whom I knew well, was trying to make the loudest and most
spectacular MOR recordings available at that time. He was an excellent orchestral producer. He used to set up a music stand above the bridge of the console facing the engineer, where he could see the stereo meter pair, and give every cue with great clarity. So as an engineer you knew exactly what was going on in the piece without having to even glance at your own score.

His exaggerated "fortissimo" and "sforzsando" meant that the engineer responding to them was in danger of driving the tape into distortion. So Decca engineers used to align the stereo master recorder 4dB "hot" on replay, and turn the record level down by a similar amount, So that the peak
levels would appear to be the same. Mr D'Amato soon got wise to this :-)

Interestingly on Phase Four classical sessions, and on sessions with the Ted Heath Orchestra, Edmundo Ros, Frank Chacksfield, Stanley Black etc, his quest for high levels was not so much in evidence. But the "spectacular" productions had to be loud.

Iain

A phase question
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:

Dave Plowman (Lying POS Pommy Turd ) spewed:

---------------------------------------------




Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.

***********


From: Phil Allison
Subject: A phase question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

** Most stereo recordings rely on amplitude differences to create apparent
positions for sounds when listening to a stereo pair of speakers.

**********

Is that nothing like you posted, dear Phil?



** Nothing like what you falsely claimed I wrote.

You stinking, pommy psychopath.

The rest contained so many inaccuracies, I just started with the first
one.

If amplitude was the most important (which I assume you think it is by
mentioning it first) then a single mono mic slung over an orchestra and
fed equally to both L&R would give perfect stereo.

--
*WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED "HEMORRHOIDS" INSTEAD OF "ASTEROIDS"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

Dave Plowman is Criminally INSANE

----------------------------------




Saying, as Phil did, that only relative levels between L&R determines
positioning is simplistic nonsense.


** Nothing like what I actually posted - you vile LIAR.

Die right now.

***********


From: Phil Allison
Subject: A phase question
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

** Most stereo recordings rely on amplitude differences to create apparent
positions for sounds when listening to a stereo pair of speakers.

**********

Is that nothing like you posted, dear Phil?



** Nothing like what you falsely claimed I wrote.

You stinking, pommy psychopath.


The rest contained so many inaccuracies,


** Not one.



If amplitude was the most important ....



** Nothing like what I wrote.

A social misfit of Plowman's magnitude ought not die an ordinary death, being dismembered, de-bowled and fed bit by bit to swine is fitting.


FYI to all:

That so many posters here not only tolerate this vile psychopath, but actually defend his monstrous behaviour is an indictment on you all.

uk.rec.audio is very nearly dead now.

Soon it will be totally extinct.




..... Phil

A phase question
 

keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 12.07.07 UTC+2 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:

I confess I had similar reactions to some of the "Living
Presence" CDs. Although there in some cases, from measurements, I'm not
sure to what extent the clipping was during transfer to CD or of the tape
machines.

This predilection for higher levels has always been with us,
and is very much alive today.

Back in the 1930's the jazz label OKeh, was considered to make the
best records. It is probably no co-incidence they were the loudest too:-)

To this day the public judge louder to be better, especially in radio broadcast.

I have recently been involved in making a "showreel CD" for several
singing students. One track, orchestra and female vocal, a s,low ballad which I liked very much indeed, had a huge sordino string section. woodwinds, French horns with trumpets and trombones in bucket mutes. The most wonderful, mellifluous sound.

All tracks were mastered to -0,5dB FS. I made the vocalist a test CD
for her approval. She phoned me a couple of days later and said
"It sounds pretty good, but some of the tracks by other singers (with two guitars, keyboards, bass and drums) sound a lot louder, even though they have a much smaller band!.


Hmm!

Iain

A phase question
 

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
That so many posters here not only tolerate this vile psychopath, but
actually defend his monstrous behaviour is an indictment on you all.

This from the one who only ever lays down 'the law' and never discusses
anything.

Except for 'Die soon, you vile pommy ****' and similar.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Following the success of the "Decca Sound" CD box sets a few years ago
they also released a box of the "Phase Four" recordings. Having listened
to them, what struck me was that the recordings D'Amato were credited
with were louder and more distorted than the recordings made by others.
So overall the results varied from 'spectacular' to 'awful'.

Had a pal who worked for Decca in the day. He reckoned the Phase 4 stuff
was specifically designed to sell to 'Hi-Fi' enthusiasts. And rather
frowned upon by those who made the many very good Decca traditional
recordings.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

In article , Iain
wrote:
keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 10.26.15 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Swedish Handle? Is that the one you need to start volvos? Brian

I mentioned Johan Roman because although he is one of the most
accomplished baroque composers, he does not seem to be well-known in the
UK.

You shot down my attempt at discussion with a jejune troll. Well,
done! Is it any wonder that UKRA has so few subscribers these days?

Serious sense-of-humour failure on your part, alas.

Perhaps if you knew Brian a bit better from his posts on various groups you
response might have been a bit less pompous and self-important?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A phase question
 

In article , Iain
wrote:

Tony D'Amato, whom I knew well, was trying to make the loudest and most
spectacular MOR recordings available at that time. He was an excellent
orchestral producer. He used to set up a music stand above the bridge of
the console facing the engineer, where he could see the stereo meter
pair, and give every cue with great clarity. So as an engineer you knew
exactly what was going on in the piece without having to even glance at
your own score.

His exaggerated "fortissimo" and "sforzsando" meant that the engineer
responding to them was in danger of driving the tape into distortion.
So Decca engineers used to align the stereo master recorder 4dB "hot" on
replay, and turn the record level down by a similar amount, So that the
peak levels would appear to be the same. Mr D'Amato soon got wise to
this :-)

Yes, the distortion on the results in some cases does support that, sadly.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A phase question
 

In article , Iain
wrote:
keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 12.07.07 UTC+2 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:

I confess I had similar reactions to some of the "Living
Presence" CDs. Although there in some cases, from measurements, I'm
not sure to what extent the clipping was during transfer to CD or of
the tape machines.

This predilection for higher levels has always been with us, and is
very much alive today.

Indeed. Alas, it tends to sometimes end up with recordings that go into
saturation or clipping. Which some then take to be even more 'loudness'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A phase question
 

In article ,
Phil Allison writes:

FYI to all:

That so many posters here not only tolerate this vile psychopath, but actually defend his monstrous behaviour is an indictment on you all.

uk.rec.audio is very nearly dead now.

Soon it will be totally extinct.

I would describe your behaviour as psychopathic, and you certainly
make no effort to engage more recent incomers but would rather sling
insults around, much like a monkey throwing faeces.

--
Mike Fleming

A phase question
 

keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 15.46.14 UTC+2 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Had a pal who worked for Decca in the day.

:-)) Really?

He reckoned the Phase 4 stuff
was specifically designed to sell to 'Hi-Fi' enthusiasts.

That was understood by everyone, and was part of the marketing strategy. Phase Four were making "spectacular stereo" records for the emerging stereo
hi-fi market. "Pass In Review" is a brilliant example of something
that had never been done before. There was a great deal of interest
from both magazines and the general public to know how these recordings
were made, and Decca included an insert inside every sleeve with a
drawing of the equipment used, and showing how it was connected up.


And rather
frowned upon by those who made the many very good Decca traditional
recordings.'

In this you are wrongly informed. There was no "frowning" by anyone.
Phase Four was a very important contributor to total sales, and
the pop albums by Tom Jones, Englebert Humperdinck, The Moody Blues,
Marmalade etc, the jazz and folk artists, the baroque labels, and even "Transacord" which sold fine stereo recording of steam trains in remarkable numbers, all generated income without which classical projects,
slow to recoup their costs, might not have been brought to fruition.

Interestingly, the Phase Four engineers also recorded excellent classical albums with Leopold Stokowsky, Bernard Hermann, Henry Lewis,
Stanley Black, Sir Peter Maxwell Davis, Christopher Hogwood etc etc The classical staff rarely if ever crossed over to the light music side.

Iain

A phase question
 

Mike Fleming wrote:

--------------------

In article ,
Phil Allison writes:

FYI to all:

That so many posters here not only tolerate this vile psychopath, but actually defend his monstrous behaviour is an indictment on you all.

uk.rec.audio is very nearly dead now.

Soon it will be totally extinct.

I would describe your behaviour as psychopathic,



** Proving beyond any doubt what a know nothing moron you are.

I post solid technical stuff you simply cannot comprehend.

Plowman is a monstrous charlatan and vile egomaniac.

This NG is ****ed and so are YOU.



..... Phil

A phase question
 

In article , Iain
wrote:
keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 15.46.14 UTC+2 Dave Plowman (News)
kirjoitti:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Had a pal who worked for Decca in the day.

:-)) Really?

Well, "Really" bad attribution, in fact. Given that I wrote none of what
was in the email content you quoted! :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

A phase question
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Iain
wrote:
keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 12.07.07 UTC+2 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:

I confess I had similar reactions to some of the "Living
Presence" CDs. Although there in some cases, from measurements, I'm
not sure to what extent the clipping was during transfer to CD or of
the tape machines.

This predilection for higher levels has always been with us, and is
very much alive today.

Indeed. Alas, it tends to sometimes end up with recordings that go into
saturation or clipping. Which some then take to be even more 'loudness'.

It's something I've never understood. If something is too loud, I turn it
down. Too quiet, turn it up. Pretty well all equipment has a volume
control. Unless you are recording muzak where the listener has no control
over the final level - or pop stuff for a jukebox.

It's almost as if those who indulge in this loudness war are never
actually a 'normal' listener to such things.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

In article ,
Mike Fleming wrote:
In article ,
Phil Allison writes:

FYI to all:

That so many posters here not only tolerate this vile psychopath, but
actually defend his monstrous behaviour is an indictment on you all.

uk.rec.audio is very nearly dead now.

Soon it will be totally extinct.

I would describe your behaviour as psychopathic, and you certainly
make no effort to engage more recent incomers but would rather sling
insults around, much like a monkey throwing faeces.

Surely the idea of a newsgroup is to discuss things? Perfectly possible to
disagree without throwing your toys out of the pram.

--
*I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A phase question
 

torstai 2. marraskuuta 2017 11.24.33 UTC+2 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:
In article , Iain
wrote:
keskiviikko 1. marraskuuta 2017 10.26.15 UTC+2 Brian Gaff kirjoitti:
Swedish Handle? Is that the one you need to start volvos? Brian

I mentioned Johan Roman because although he is one of the most
accomplished baroque composers, he does not seem to be well-known in the
UK.

You shot down my attempt at discussion with a jejune troll. Well,
done! Is it any wonder that UKRA has so few subscribers these days?

Serious sense-of-humour failure on your part, alas.

Does the misspelling of a composers name now pass as humour inn the UK ?
If so, it is clear that the pound sterling and the health service are not
the only things there in serious decline :-)

Iain