this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
682 points (98.0% liked)

Memes

45678 readers
803 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minticecream@lemmy.world 118 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Turns out early audio consoles with stereo didn’t have a pan knob. They had a pan switch. So choices were limited to left, right, or center (mono).

Wasn’t til later that the pan pot was invented allowing incremental panning and true stereo mixing.

[–] Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's wild. But theoretically they could make two separate mono tracks, right? For example, a left mono track with 75% of what would have been an isolated left channel + 25% of the right channel and, similarly, a right mono track with 25% of what would have been an isolated left + 75% of the right. Then, sure, pan switch it fully to left and right.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's even more complicated.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 26 points 2 months ago

Exactly. Plus the common use of mastering at the time was to optimize the recorded audio for printing on a vinyl disc, and if the grooves were too deep or the transitions too sharp it could cause the needle to skip out of the track.

If your average listener is going to be listening on a mono device then a smart thing to do would be to pan one thing consistently to one side and the other to the other as the mono needle isn't going to care where it's getting its vibrations from. That would give you more resolution and more depth for the cut, as long as the final disc was only played in mono.

I'm not saying that's the case for every recording but I'm pretty sure it has happened quite a few times back then while they were still figuring everything out.

[–] koncertejo@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

You have to understand that mixing consoles from that era were supremely limited in channels (think four, eight, later sixteen), to the point where they would often have to mix one section (say, the drums) and then record that mix to tape so it would take up a single channel and then do the guitar, bass, and vocals on another channel. The idea of having two of the same thing going through two channels was an exorbitant luxury they couldn't afford!

[–] aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, that's the piece of info I never had. If it's not a Reddit-level fact. The 2 channels were new and people wete trying things out and mind-altering substances were freely available as well, so judgment might have been hogtied at times.

At the time, there was sentiment that it was a way to sell two amplifiers and speakers instead of one, a suspicion furthered by the later arrival of quad, which for many was a bridge too far. Audio places tried that briefly and then went back to selling stereo. And may be why a certain generation looks askance at 5.1 etc.

There were other changes as well, tubes/valves to solid state plus hybrids...when I read about Cloud products in IT, it rhymes, marketing hoodoo inveigling into genuine tech appraisals.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It’s an incorrect comment based on a real thing.

There was equipment with switched panning, but knob panning was so common it was referenced in diy electronic project books aimed at high schoolers.

There are some tube amplifier circuit types where the pan control actually changes directly what signal goes to what grid of what tube, and in those cases it would be useful to have switch instead of pot pan, but there were circuits to mitigate the problems and even tubes intended to take multiple grid inputs by that time.

Another comment explained how a person could work around that problem and get pot pan with split channels and they’re right.

One of the biggest reasons for switched panning was that it wasn’t always clear that you were going for a stereo effect! Often in the case of reinforcing a live band, you had some speaker cabinets for different frequencies and it would be stupid to send the trumpets to the big cabinet meant for the tympani!

Partial panning was also used in lots of the movie versions of stereo and multi source sound from over a hundred years ago so it’s not like switched panning was the only option or something

Switched panning is famously present on mastering machines though for the old (er than single groove stereo) two groove stereo record type.

So switched panning isn’t the reason for the wild mixing of the 50s and 60s, but it did exist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I mean this is true but not about the '70s as the original post states. Even by the '60s they had sophisticated stereo audio mixers - they just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of running on people's phones like today.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, we had stereo mixing/mastering pretty much down by the 70s I think...

What I think OP might be referring to are albums that were recorded in mono in the 60s, and then released again in stereo in the 70s when the tech only allowed for full L or R panning. Those albums were never meant to be listened in anything but mono though.

[–] the_dopamine_fiend@lemmy.world 68 points 2 months ago (7 children)

The jump from mono to stereo made a lot of engineers' heads spin. Then again, how many 100% perfect 5.1 albums have you heard?

Actually, I've listened to only three 5.1 remixes, all of them phenomenal albums to begin with, and their 5.1 jobs were pretty meh. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots came out pretty good, but mainly because they just fucked around and tried stuff.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I hate the “spatial” mixes.

Sometimes they’re done really well, but most of the time it’s just putting different parts of the song in different areas and makes it sound “diluted”.

Like, the guitar is in front of you, then the bass is behind and to the left… why??

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You’re missing a key ingredient: Lysergic acid diethylamide.

In all other circumstances I agree with you.

[–] li10@feddit.uk 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lysergic acid diethylamide doesn’t fix a bad mix.

You can still hear all the separate instruments surrounding you on a good regular mix, all the spatial does is break the interwoven sound.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Iamsqueegee@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Have you ever listened to Zaireeka appropriately? I haven’t, but that must be a headache to line up correctly.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

I thought part of the point of Zaireeka is that it is impossible to get it exact every time, so every time you play it it is a unique soundscape.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] koncertejo@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys, who produced Pet Sounds, was actually deaf in one ear. Despite that, he got along just fine in a monophonic world, but the switch to stereo completely left him behind. It was a huge change in how music was mixed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MermaidsGarden@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This would be more early 60’s, mostly because those engineers were working with 2 track stereo which really limits your options. Most artists were recording on at least 8 track stereo by the 70’s.

[–] sfbing@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Exactly. This is a 60s thing, not a 70s thing.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

I noticed that I had blown the front left speaker in my first car when bohemian rhapsody was missing vocals. I don't remember when "a night at the opera" came out, but I'm going to be bold and say the 70s.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 50 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Just put it in mono. Now, how can I fix this infamous autotune trend?

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Now, how can I fix this infamous autotune trend?

Instrumental-only music?

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

You mean quantized, snapped-to-the-grid instrumental music? Sigh.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] daellat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Brother it's time to join us in the drum and bass camp

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I second this motion. All in favour?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] debil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just ignore that crap and put some real shit into your headphones. Like The Cramps - Songs The Lord Taught Us.

Play it loaded.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fox@pawb.social 28 points 2 months ago (6 children)

What's interesting is just how different the quality was of some of the stereo releases vs the mono bounces. For an example, the stereo HDCD version of Pet Sounds is a little wack, but even if you joined the two channels to mono it sounds a hundred times better than the shittastic mono release. Got to wonder if they optimized it for AM radio play the way that similarly awful sounding releases in the early 2000s optimized for iPod earbuds.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] koncertejo@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was the early days of a new technology and way of listening that was completely different compared to the past 60+ years of recorded audio. I guess as a more modern analogy it's like those cheap 3D films at the height of the fad that felt the need to gratuitously shove objects directly in front of the camera to get the most out of the 3D effect.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

Those were the better 3d movies because they at least felt like there was depth. Unlike those modern movies.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The things people did with mixing in the 70s and 80s were revolutionary, and a lot of the sound you hear today was invented in that time. Things like the drum sound in "In the Air Tonight" with compression gating has been used ever since.

https://www.musicradar.com/news/drums/classic-drum-sounds-in-the-air-tonight-590970

[–] Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Incredible. I’m learning a ton and gaining a huge appreciation of it all thanks to everyone’s comments in this post.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

That's what good link aggregators are for.

[–] SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does make it easier to isolate vocals I guess

[–] eightpix@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

It was designed to show off stereo sound which was still fairly new at the time. I like the way those recordings sound actually.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I believe that they had stereo mixing pretty figured out by the 70s...

Early-mid 60s though? Sure.

Unless you're referring to when they started mixing mono albums into stereo, then yeah. Those albums were never meant to be listened in stereo, and I wouldn't listen to a remaster of any of them unless they were officially approved by the band, or done by the band's own producer. And even then...

[–] ElectroLisa@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 months ago

Wild guess but stereo equipment wasn't a thing in households and it was a way to get the adoption going

[–] Tabooki@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Today's music is digitally mixed on laptops and has zero dynamic range or feeling. Then again people listen on Bluetooth now so they are only getting 20% of the music anyways. Makes me very sad

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 14 points 2 months ago

Let’s get you back to bed, Rick Beato.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

2024 I finally tried some Bluetooth headphones after maybe 10+ years.

Still using SBC by default, still no duplex HD audio, and still static driver noise at idle.

What is even the point lol. SBC-XQ only solves the first problem which is still inferior to even the cheapest of quality 3.5mm cable.

Even my Nintendo DS sounds better and it's limited to 32Khz audio lol.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] astrsk@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago

It’s fun and interesting all the experimentation that went on back then. As someone deaf in one ear… it’s hard to truly appreciate, but I get it.

[–] mbgid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

You know, I love those albums where they fucked around did things like hard-pan all the drums to the right channel. I'm here for the experimentation.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

My dad had some albums, maybe Mike Oldfield or others...there was a train going through a station, and hearing it pass from left to right in stereo was amazing at the time

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

The early days of stereo (which is what you’re talking about, the recordings of 70s which aren’t using stereo as an “effect” almost universally have the vocals panned to the center. The old way to take the vocals out of a recording was to adjust how much of the signal present equally on both channels was allowed to be played) were all about two things: backwards compatibility with mono systems and giving people with stereo systems a recognizable effect no matter what goofy system they had.

Wild panning accomplishes both goals.

Studio engineering that used the stereo format to create the illusion of a room or capture the sound of the room the players were playing in wasn’t developed yet and came from the experimental stereo recordings that sound crazy now like silver apples of the moon.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This might explain why old players had a mono/stereo setting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Orbituary@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

There's actually a biological reason for this, believe it or not. Language and music "time share" many characteristics of both hemispheres of the brain. Language and music are processed in different hemispheres.

Read pages 20-26 of the book "How Music Really Works" by Wayne Chase. It breaks it down in detail.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 2 months ago

CMV: Mono mix of Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit" is better.

load more comments
view more: next ›