HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Scientific Discussion => Topic started by: HTS on 2011-06-06 01:47:35

Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: HTS on 2011-06-06 01:47:35
What does stereo recording achieve? I noticed that the left and right channels of some stereo samples don't sound the same, and loaded them into audacity. The program confirms my suspicion that the sounds vary greatly in characteristics. For a vibrato filled note, most often only one of the channels displays the wavy pattern induced by the vibrato. Is this what stereo recording is supposed to do? So the sounds mixed into your music will have certain instruments placed to the L/R side of the listener?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Glenn Gundlach on 2011-06-06 04:21:43
What does stereo recording achieve? I noticed that the left and right channels of some stereo samples don't sound the same, and loaded them into audacity. The program confirms my suspicion that the sounds vary greatly in characteristics. For a vibrato filled note, most often only one of the channels displays the wavy pattern induced by the vibrato. Is this what stereo recording is supposed to do? So the sounds mixed into your music will have certain instruments placed to the L/R side of the listener?


Much of what you get in popular recordings is more accurately described as multi channel mono from multi-track with artificial reverb. These can be very pleasing. In a true stereo recording you're getting the room reflections and 'ambience'. I have some London / Decca recordings that are true stereo and are excellent.

BTW when the left and right channels sound the same, it's mono.

In my opinion much of what was 'wrong' with recordings were the limitations of the LP. Low frequency mono mix, 30 Hz high pass, restricted separation all to avoid skipping. Digital recording has no such limitations. In theory down to DC, no interchannel phase restrictions, no spectral limits because of EQ and then take out all the pesky wow, flutter ticks and pops. I'm told that gives it 'character'. Rubbish.

Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: HTS on 2011-06-06 04:30:10
Much of what you get in popular recordings is more accurately described as multi channel mono from multi-track with artificial reverb. These can be very pleasing.

Yeah that's what I meant. But most sample libraries (including the expensive Vienna Symphonic) are recorded in True Stereo. How are you going to produce commercial style audio that people are used to listening to, with these unbalanced samples?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Paulhoff on 2011-06-06 04:30:18
What does stereo recording achieve? I noticed that the left and right channels of some stereo samples don't sound the same, and loaded them into audacity. The program confirms my suspicion that the sounds vary greatly in characteristics. For a vibrato filled note, most often only one of the channels displays the wavy pattern induced by the vibrato. Is this what stereo recording is supposed to do? So the sounds mixed into your music will have certain instruments placed to the L/R side of the listener?

Yes, you didn't know this? How you ever hear people in a group all sounding like they are in the same place when not using a sound system.


Paul

     
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Rotareneg on 2011-06-06 04:47:27
Much of what you get in popular recordings is more accurately described as multi channel mono from multi-track with artificial reverb. These can be very pleasing.

Yeah that's what I meant. But most sample libraries (including the expensive Vienna Symphonic) are recorded in True Stereo. How are you going to produce commercial style audio that people are used to listening to, with these unbalanced samples?


Just making a wild guess, but could it be that the channels on the samples are not actually left and right, but rather forward facing and rearward facing (I.E. the mic is rotated 90 degrees) or some other configuration and that they're meant to give whoever is mixing the final music more options on how to make the instruments sound?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: HTS on 2011-06-06 04:50:40
Yes, you didn't know this? How you ever hear people in a group all sounding like they are in the same place when not using a sound system.


Paul

     

Recordings aren't supposed to be like that. Foobar has the crossfeed feature precisely because of this characteristic of early digital recordings.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: HTS on 2011-06-06 04:57:44
Much of what you get in popular recordings is more accurately described as multi channel mono from multi-track with artificial reverb. These can be very pleasing.

Yeah that's what I meant. But most sample libraries (including the expensive Vienna Symphonic) are recorded in True Stereo. How are you going to produce commercial style audio that people are used to listening to, with these unbalanced samples?


Just making a wild guess, but could it be that the channels on the samples are not actually left and right, but rather forward facing and rearward facing (I.E. the mic is rotated 90 degrees) or some other configuration and that they're meant to give whoever is mixing the final music more options on how to make the instruments sound?

No idea about that, just the L/R stresses aren't even consistent across the same instrument/playing style. The samples for a violin may have one note sound left-leaning, then the next semitone above becomes right leaning, then left again, then center (just like the commercial recordings).
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Glenn Gundlach on 2011-06-06 07:53:03
Much of what you get in popular recordings is more accurately described as multi channel mono from multi-track with artificial reverb. These can be very pleasing.

Yeah that's what I meant. But most sample libraries (including the expensive Vienna Symphonic) are recorded in True Stereo. How are you going to produce commercial style audio that people are used to listening to, with these unbalanced samples?


So you do a channel blend to towards mono but not actually be mono. I sometimes use a 90%/25% mix. What that means is left gets 90% L + 25% R. Right gets 90% R + 25% L. With large channel differences this ends up close to unity. A 50%/50% mix would be pure mono and you can fiddle any way you want. If channel 'balance' is important then diddle the gain until you're happy. These things are very easy in Adobe Audition. I don't use the other editors so I can't say.

Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: dhromed on 2011-06-06 10:15:57
Recordings aren't supposed to be like that. Foobar has the crossfeed feature precisely because of this characteristic of early digital recordings.


Recordings are indeed supposed to be like that, or otherwise everything would effectively be mono — unless I'm misunderstanding you.

Crossfeed is an effect to simulate speaker setup with only headphones, so that part of one channel is fed into the other ear, just as would happen in a two-speaker setup. A portion of listeners experience fatigue with the "hard" stereo effect of headphones, and crossfeed helps them listen for longer periods (I personally experience the exact opposite, btw, but that's why it's a preference).
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Paulhoff on 2011-06-06 14:47:28
Yes, you didn't know this? How you ever hear people in a group all sounding like they are in the same place when not using a sound system.


Paul

     

Recordings aren't supposed to be like that. Foobar has the crossfeed feature precisely because of this characteristic of early digital recordings.


I have no idea of what you are talking about. I've hear the same thing since the begining of stereo, in fact the very early recordings had only left and right sound, and nothing coming from the center, so they come out with so-called 360 sound that had the same sound (for the vocals) coming from the left and right channels to make it sound as it they where in the center. Stereo channels do not have to be the same, that is how one gets a spread in the field of sound.


Paul

     
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2011-06-06 14:52:24
What does stereo recording achieve?


One of two things.

(1) A stereo file is simply a means for packaging two different audio data files.

(2) An attempt to convey a sense of spaciousness.

Quote
I noticed that the left and right channels of some stereo samples don't sound the same, and loaded them into audacity. The program confirms my suspicion that the sounds vary greatly in characteristics. For a vibrato filled note, most often only one of the channels displays the wavy pattern induced by the vibrato.


Sounds like maybe an example of (1).

Quote
Is this what stereo recording is supposed to do? So the sounds mixed into your music will have certain instruments placed to the L/R side of the listener?


If you are creating a music file by mxing files that are each related to a specific instrument (whether created from samples, of by multitracking) one generally pans each file, when adding it to the audio scene that you are trying to create.  The source files can be mono or stereo.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: skexu on 2011-06-06 14:57:22
I don't know how for classical, but in popular music, it's just part of the music. That's why we invented stereo. The band/sound engineer/whoever wanted to use two channels for listening pleasure, and most people like it.

However, one can't just make two separate tracks with different content, because it's just confusing. I personally don't like The Beatles' albums in stereo because I feel weird when listening.

edit: ^ that's what I was thinking about
^^  that's also what I was thinking about
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Rotareneg on 2011-06-06 19:20:17
HTS doesn't mean "Why is music released in stereo?", he was asking why individual recordings of individual instruments would be recorded in stereo since they often get mixed together to place the instruments whereever in the stereo sound field the producer/editor/whoever wants during editing.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Paulhoff on 2011-06-06 19:32:11
HTS doesn't mean "Why is music released in stereo?", he was asking why individual recordings of individual instruments would be recorded in stereo since they often get mixed together to place the instruments whereever in the stereo sound field the producer/editor/whoever wants during editing.


How would one know the different if one didn't hear each recording of the individual instruments to begin with? All we hear is a mix. Also recording an instrument in stereo would capture more of the sound field of the instrument to begin with.


Paul

     
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: skexu on 2011-06-06 21:18:54
Minor differences are just a nice variation to our ears. We have two of them, right?

Is there a online library of samples of instruments? I would like to find a sample THAT wrong that you hear a note nearly fully on left channel or nearly fully on right.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: dc2bluelight on 2011-06-21 22:13:47
I don't know how for classical, but in popular music, it's just part of the music. That's why we invented stereo. The band/sound engineer/whoever wanted to use two channels for listening pleasure, and most people like it.

Experiments done in the early 1930s by Bell Labs involved researching a method of reproducing the orchestra concert experience.  Initial experiments involved a multitude of mics, channels, speakers, but engineers concluded that the minimum channel count necessary to reproduce that experience was three, L, C, and R.  However, the speakers were in a large concert venue, so replicating the acoustics using surround speakers wasn't considered.  The channel count was reduced to two for practical reasons, mainly the release of music on record, and later transmission by radio. 

A historic 3 channel live demo was done in 1933, with the live concert at the Academy of Music in Philadephia, and the 3 channel demo system at the Constitution Hall in Washington DC.  The speakers were behind an acoustically transparent scrim, and the performance involved an orchestra and singers that moved around on the stage.  Obviously, all channels were handled simultaneously. 

Meanwhile in Great Britain, Alan Blumlein worked on two channel stereo using crossed figure 8 microphones.  I believe his program material was actors on a stage.
However, one can't just make two separate tracks with different content, because it's just confusing. I personally don't like The Beatles' albums in stereo because I feel weird when listening.

Much of the early Beatles music was never intended for stereo, but rather recorded on a two channel tape machine so the vocal and band mix could be done later.  The stereo release is simply the two track master, band on one side, vocals on the other, but never really meant for a stereo release.  The stereo release was driven by a new market for stereo records, and the view probably was that anything done in two channels, real stereo or not, was marketable.  We have to remember that real home stereo systems weren't all that common in the early 1960s, most listening, certainly all pop music radio, was mono.  I believe the mono/stereo mix issue is documented in Geoff Emerick's book, "Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles".  I don't have it in hand to confirm that, but it's a great read regardless. 

We had a lot of "Ping Pong" stereo in the early years of stereo because it made for a dramatic demo when compared to mono, though hardly true streophony. 
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: dc2bluelight on 2011-06-21 22:21:05
How would one know the different if one didn't hear each recording of the individual instruments to begin with? All we hear is a mix. Also recording an instrument in stereo would capture more of the sound field of the instrument to begin with.


Paul

     


+1 to that.  Most, but not all, instruments produce a sound field that is not a single point source.  Brass might be the obvious exception, especially at a distance, but even brass players move.  Woodwinds are one type that often gets mistaken for a point source, but none really are in the near field.  I've often mic'ed solo saxophones with a stereo pair, and been glad of it later.  Guitars too are excellent in stereo, though most electrics are pretty much point sources at the amp. 
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: hollowman on 2011-07-06 11:14:34
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: itisljar on 2011-07-06 15:39:03
If it has two separate channels, it's stereo, no matter what's on them.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: pdq on 2011-07-06 15:52:46
If it has two separate channels, it's stereo, no matter what's on them.

Even if the two channels are identical? Or what if the two channels differ only at sub-audible levels (such as when a mono master tape is played back with stereo heads)?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: itisljar on 2011-07-06 17:31:30
Even if the two channels are identical? Or what if the two channels differ only at sub-audible levels (such as when a mono master tape is played back with stereo heads)?

If they are identical, they are not separate.
And what do you mean sub-audible levels? If you play mono recording through stereo heads, there is also identical information on both channels. Not stereo.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: pdq on 2011-07-06 17:57:18
And what do you mean sub-audible levels? If you play mono recording through stereo heads, there is also identical information on both channels. Not stereo.

No, tape hiss will be different in the two channels. There may also be an azimuth misallignment that results in a small time shift between channels.

IOW, if you invert one channel and add them, you will not get digital silence.

I'm not arguing against your definition, only trying to understand it.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: db1989 on 2011-07-06 18:54:21
At the most basic level, one could never obtain identical signals from two transmissions (whether simultaneous or sequential) of any analogue source, as both the medium and the process introduce random variation at all times.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: pdq on 2011-07-06 19:00:53
I think what hiloyge was saying is that if there is no discernible separation between the two channels then that is mono, otherwise it is stereo.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Roseval on 2011-07-06 20:56:28
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?


Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning (http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_Panning#Hard_Panning)
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: itisljar on 2011-07-06 22:19:04
No, tape hiss will be different in the two channels. There may also be an azimuth misallignment that results in a small time shift between channels.
IOW, if you invert one channel and add them, you will not get digital silence.
I'm not arguing against your definition, only trying to understand it.


I am sorry, but tape hiss and head misalignment are hardware errors. I can't take them into account IF the program is recorded mono.
We all know what mono is, I hope - complete recording mixed into one channel. So, if we play it on stereo or surround equipment, it will still be mono, because it is recorded on one channel.
Stereo is recorded on two channels. If the source is mono (from mono tape, for example), then it's mono recording, even if you record it on 6 channels, it's mono.
If there is channel separation that you can hear, than it's stereo recording.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: pdq on 2011-07-06 23:31:11
If there is channel separation that you can hear, than it's stereo recording.

That's what I thought you meant.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: hollowman on 2011-07-07 04:14:37
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?


Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning (http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_Panning#Hard_Panning)

Thx!
Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: dc2bluelight on 2011-07-07 08:50:05
I think what hiloyge was saying is that if there is no discernible separation between the two channels then that is mono, otherwise it is stereo.


Not to quibble, but you can actually have a two channel recording and not have stereo.  It's a matter of intent.  If the two channels are intended to play into two speakers in a stereo listening configuration, that could be defined stereo.  But two channels may have other purposes, like the ability to mix instruments and vocals in post, with the final intent being a single mono channel.  One channel could be used for audio, the other for timecode - that's mono, but the recording has two channels.  I've often used two channels in video for entirely different signals meant to be combined in some way in post. So, not every recording made with two channels is really stereo.

There are those who would take issue with the difference between stereo developed from panned mono tracks and stereo comprised of paired/spaced microphones, but either technique when mixed to stereo fits the definition, even if only paired microphones is considered "true stereophony".

I'd like to sort of correct myself for apparently perpetuating the "Beatles never intended to be released in stereo" myth.  I thought it was true, but this link may indicate otherwise.  Not a half bad read in any case:

http://www.friktech.com/btls/beatlesinstereo.pdf (http://www.friktech.com/btls/beatlesinstereo.pdf)

Last comment on the issues of an analog mono tape payed on a stereo head, and the anomalies that result.  No, it's not considered stereo, but it's darn difficult to eliminate interchannel differences in frequency response or timing (phase).  In some cases, poor azimuth alignment and guidance can take an otherwise hard-center mono signal and smear it into a pseudo-stereo mess.  Hopefully nobody today uses a machine with head az off that far, or guidance that poor, but it used to be an issue about 3 decades back.  Broadcast cartridge machines were notably beastly in that regard.  If you did this today and played it into an AV Receiver set to decode matrix surround, parts of the image would fly between the surround speakers and the center speaker.  Yet, in truth, you don't have either a stereo or surround recording. 

See why we now use digits?
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: db1989 on 2011-07-07 10:31:20
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?
Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning (http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_Panning#Hard_Panning)
That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself.

Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: itisljar on 2011-07-07 11:04:50
Not to quibble, but you can actually have a two channel recording and not have stereo.  It's a matter of intent.  If the two channels are intended to play into two speakers in a stereo listening configuration, that could be defined stereo.  But two channels may have other purposes, like the ability to mix instruments and vocals in post, with the final intent being a single mono channel.  One channel could be used for audio, the other for timecode - that's mono, but the recording has two channels.  I've often used two channels in video for entirely different signals meant to be combined in some way in post. So, not every recording made with two channels is really stereo.


I've worked in linear editing before, with umatics and betas, and I know what are you talking about, But to be frank, I've heard experimental music made just like that - two alltogether separate channels. You could play either one of them, or together - they would have different meaning then.
Also, timecode is recorded in vsync area of video signal, IIRC, not on audio tracks. Except for when we sent out vhs to subtitlers, we would record timecode on one channel, and mono mix on other.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: hollowman on 2011-07-07 13:53:32
What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?
Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning (http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_Panning#Hard_Panning)
That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself.

Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.

Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception. Stereo-vision (binocular vision) comes to mind -- and why Viewmasters and 3D movies work, I guess! I've read that certain animals -- e.g., sharks, rats -- can SMELL in stereo:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html (http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract)
I'm not sure how width fits into it. A single solo instrument, playing one sustained note, but with reverb added for depth.
So how does height fit into all this? (Gear reviewers and and "audiophiles" often describe height subjectively using various adjectives). FWIW, wiki has this to say about "Height channels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels)
Also, lots of psychoacoustics going on ... e.g., does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Soap on 2011-07-07 14:14:37
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships.  Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.

Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: hollowman on 2011-07-07 14:44:53
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships.  Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.
'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or  continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.

Back to sound/hearing ...  don't recall where I read this (Sci Am, New Sci, Sci News, etc) but there was "recently" some new finding into how the ear system does more 'smart' processing locally (i.e, at ear) than prev. known. I.e., the brain doles out more 'logics' responsibility to the remote organ itself. (The same has been known about eye/visual system for a while). 
Can someone recall a source for this?

EDIT:
WRT human perception of stereophonic sound 'field' ... and things that may affect it: Personal health (when I'm tired or low-blood-sugared, sound field tends to 'mono out' on me); long-duration music listening, at moderate or high volume, also 'mono's' sound field IME -- is this due to tired eardrums? intoxicants/drugs/meds; barometeric press, etc.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Soap on 2011-07-07 14:59:33
does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.


That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships.  Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.
'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or  continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.


More mumbo-jumbo words, and an"exception" already covered by my post.
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: Ed Seedhouse on 2011-07-07 16:00:19
Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception.


It means nothing of the sort.  Originally the term simply meant "solid".  From Wikipedia: 'The word stereophonic derives from the Greek "???????" (stereos), "firm, solid"[1] + "????" (ph?n?), "sound, tone, voice"[2] and it was coined in 1927 by Western Electric, by analogy with the word "stereoscopic".'

Alan Blumlein showed how two microphones placed close together could record a live event in such a way that it would sound convincing over two speakers, preserving in the forward plane the normal phase and volume cues the human ear uses to detect sound.  I believe it is the proper way to record a live event in stereo, but that doesn't mean other means can't work too.

Pan-potted recordings are still stereo and if done right (very difficult) can sound very convincing.  "Abbey Road" is, IMO, a good example.  Even heavily multi-miked recordings can sound great.  My favorite Mahler II is the Bernstein version recorded that way by, if I recall right, DG.  Sounds great and the final movement always brings tears to my eyes, multi-miked or no.  Yeah, I bet it would be even better if Blumlein stereo had been used instead but it is what it is, and it's a great recording in my book.



Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: db1989 on 2011-07-07 16:06:06
Okay ... another nomenclature query…mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.
Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception. Stereo-vision (binocular vision) comes to mind -- and why Viewmasters and 3D movies work, I guess! I've read that certain animals -- e.g., sharks, rats -- can SMELL in stereo:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html (http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract)
I'm not sure how width fits into it. A single solo instrument, playing one sustained note, but with reverb added for depth.
So how does height fit into all this? (Gear reviewers and and "audiophiles" often describe height subjectively using various adjectives). FWIW, wiki has this to say about "Height channels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels)
Also, lots of psychoacoustics going on ... e.g., does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

How is any of that relevant to what I said? Not that I said anything profound enough to demand an in-depth reply, even if it were at all related, but then such a thing would be drastically out-of-character for you in this thread!
Title: Stereophonic recording?
Post by: dc2bluelight on 2011-07-08 06:32:51
I've worked in linear editing before, with umatics and betas, and I know what are you talking about, But to be frank, I've heard experimental music made just like that - two alltogether separate channels. You could play either one of them, or together - they would have different meaning then.
Also, timecode is recorded in vsync area of video signal, IIRC, not on audio tracks. Except for when we sent out vhs to subtitlers, we would record timecode on one channel, and mono mix on other.


As I said, the difference between stereo and two channel non-stereo is "intent".  It's not the content. 

Um, in the old days, timecode was, in fact, recorded on a second audio track in several video tape formats, as well as audio tapes for special use (multi-image slide shows comes to mind).  VITC came a bit later, and eventually was more common, but we were talking about differences between two-channel and stereo, so I went into the way-back machine of my own thick head and pulled out timecode.  In all cases of timecode on an audio track, though, it was never intended to be heard, even though I've had to try to filter it out of the actual audio track more than once.  So, again, it's about intent.