+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "False" Stereo

  1. #1
    Join Date: Mar 2010

    Location: France

    Posts: 221
    I'm Julian.

    Default "False" Stereo

    Some time ago I bought the whole record collection of an elderly friend; some 700 odd Lps, 45s & 78s. Amongst this collection were several boxed sets of Readers Digest compilations. One is a set called the Glen Miller Years and has many other big bands on it such as Artie Shaw, Guy Lombardo, Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey, Duke Ellington (& some with a young Frank Sinatra as a vocalist) etc. etc.

    This is labelled ‘Stereo’, though obviously, as some tracks were originally recorded pre-war they cannot really be Stereo; however the re-mastering is very well done on good quality discs by RCA and they do have a sort of Stereo sound.


    The blurb states; “72 historic recordings made by 14 celebrated bands, reprocessed from original master discs deposited in RCA archives, and from records in private collections”.

    My question is; how was this done. At the time 1966/7 you could have bought either Mono or Stereo of this set.
    Julian.

  2. #2
    Join Date: Nov 2011

    Location: Guildford, Surrey

    Posts: 925
    I'm Bob.

    Default

    I'm guessing, but the stereo version of the set you talk about was probable fake stereo - from days when stereo discs were perceived as "better".

    I bought a few "electronically re-processed for stereo" discs back in the day. The better ones were listenable, the bad ones horrible - a sort of fake acoustic and muddy sound with recessed treble. it sounded as though bass frequencies had been panned to the right, and higher frequencies - such as there were - panned left.

    I can only guess this was done with varying filter techniques - though nothing I'd be very proud of

    It's only fairly recently - since I started recording LPs for streaming (a cardinal sin in some folks' eyes in itself ) - that I've tried to rescue these discs by applying parametric equalisation to the file and, of course, mono-ing it. The results have been variable, but never worse than the original

  3. #3
    Join Date: Mar 2010

    Location: France

    Posts: 221
    I'm Julian.

    Default

    I am sure you are right. I have now found "electronically reproduced" on the box, but actually this set is not too bad at all - whoever did it knew what he was doing. However I must try mono-ing & some re-equalisation.
    Julian.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •