advertisement


Electronic Stereo vs Reprocessed Stereo

retseldrib

retseldrib

pfm Member
Just got back from a record fair and picked up a USA pressing of Chuck Berry’s ‘BERRY IS ON TOP’ - https://www.discogs.com/release/3854077-Chuck-Berry-Berry-Is-On-Top

I only noticed it Electronic Stereo on the label when I got it home. I have/ had a few reprocessed stereo Elvis mono records which sound truly dreadful so was expecting a similar experience with the Berry record. However, upon playing I initially thought it was mono then noticed the guitar predominately coming from the RHS channel but the vocal coming out centrally? It actually sounds very good and definitely not a re-recording.

Q. Is electronic stereo different to reprocessed stereo?
 
Can't comment on the specific disc. But yes, the methods used to 'reprocess' old mono material into 'fake stereo' have varied a *lot* over the decades. Some giving much better results than others. A particular example being the reprocessing done on old Jazz from 78s done by Robert Parker for ABC, the BBC, and others in the 1980s. At the time they really stood out compared with other attempts. Nimbus also used the approach with 'classical' '78s' of putting a superb acoustic gramophone into a room with a great acoustic and using mics to capture the result in stereo *and* 'surround sound* when '4 channel' was thought to be the coming thing.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Nimbus also used the approach with 'classical' '78s' of putting a superb acoustic gramophone into a room with a great acoustic and using mics to capture the result in stereo *and* 'surround sound* when '4 channel' was thought to be the coming thing.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how some of the Dolby Atmos editions of stuff like Kind Of Blue have been created.
 
FWIW Personally I can't see the point of 'fake stereo' in terms of imaging. Whereas I can see advantages of reprocessing to make the music clearer and dodge clicks, hum, etc. Matter of taste and marketing a 'new version' I guess.
 
I think the reprocessed stereo from mono practice started as early as 1967 until late 70s; must have seemed a good idea at the time but utter madness with the benefit of hindsight.

Save the dedicated mono 70s Elvis boxsets for around half of the 50s material , the only way to get analogue sourced Elvis mono recordings is to buy the original 50s or early 60s re-issues - an enormously expensive endeavour if you want get a nr mint copy! It seems the same for at least some other artists too.
 
The early "re-processed stereo" efforts (ca. mid 1960s) simply recorded the high frequencies out of phase in each channel to give that "separated channel" effect. Truly awful! Narrow band digital parametric equalizers of the 21st century can do wonders!
 
I’ve never heard a reprocessed for stereo record that sounded any good. My cue to avoid in every case. I do like the idea of mic’ing up a vintage acoustic gramophone for 78s though, that’s certainly how they are meant to sound and there is something quite wonderful about them that is lost when played on a full-range hi-fi. A good recording of a good acoustic horn gramophone would likely get far closer.
 
Last edited:
retseldrib said:
I think the reprocessed stereo from mono practice started as early as 1967 until late 70s; must have seemed a good idea at the time but utter madness with the benefit of hindsight.
Click to expand...

Marketing. Once Hi-Fi became popular as the 'must by a stereo system' the record companies found that ancient material sold better if reprocessed and 'repackaged' as 'Stereo'. Bear in mind that many people simply assumed that stereo meant 'two speakers' and expected to hear something that showed this.
 
Tony L said:
I’ve never heard a reprocessed for stereo record that sounded any good. My cue to avoid in every case. I do like the idea of mic’ing up a vintage acoustic gramophone for 78s though, that’s certainly how they are meant to sound and there is something quite wonderful about them that is lost when played on a full-range hi-fi. A good recording of a good acoustic horn gramophone would likely get far closer.
Click to expand...

Its worth checking out the Parker versions of old jazz, etc. He used the 'stereo' to give a cleaner sound in many respects. Quite remarkable what he achieved given the limited tech at the time. I wish I'd been able to record all his BBC broadcasts. But have got some of the BBC CDs.
 
A lot of genuine early stereo sounds better processed back to mono. Many Beatles LPs are horrible hard left and right
 
davidsrsb said:
A lot of genuine early stereo sounds better processed back to mono. Many Beatles LPs are horrible hard left and right
Click to expand...

A lot sounds superb though. I love early stereo jazz, far more realistic to my ears to have the drums and bass over on one side of the stage, a horn player or piano on the other and the soloist in the middle. As I’ve stated many times before I absolutely detest the fake pop group ‘view from the drum stool’ drum recording and mixing techniques where each drum is in its own reverb and compression environment placed somewhere at random across the sound stage. It sounds ok on obviously studio manufactured rock and pop music, but is hopelessly wrong on a live music form like jazz. Stereo pianos or vibraphones are at least as bad. Maybe worse.

This is my only criticism with the ECM label; they are truly stunning recordings from a natural tonality and dynamic range perspective, but with bloody awful pop fake drum panning and even stereo pianos on occasion. A drum kit is an instrument, not 19 individual instruments. It should occupy its own coherent acoustic space unless we are talking about entirely studio-created music like Pink Floyd, Flaming Lips, Kraftwerk or Aphex Twin.

PS The Beatles “stereo” records before Sgt Pepper aren’t really, they were just an EMI cash-in where two tracks of the 4 track master were panned one way, the other two the other. This was not a proper stereo mix at all. One can argue Revolver works in stereo, but Sgt Pepper was the first to really use the form creatively.
 
Tony L said:
PS The Beatles “stereo” records before Sgt Pepper aren’t really, they were just an EMI cash-in where two tracks of the 4 track master were panned one way, the other two the other. This was not a proper stereo mix at all.
Click to expand...
These are exactly what I dislike, mono is far better
 
I'm sure I read somewhere that the EMI desks used for the early sixties stereo recordings at Abbey Road didn't have pan knobs - just a switch on each channel that offered left, centre or right.

Fine for orchestral recordings where you're recording with a stereo pair of mics that you normally want hard panned but a bit limiting for close miked rock music.
 
A lot of the very early Beatles stuff was ‘bounced down’ too due to limited available tracks and the need for many overdubs. As such you ended up with a track with most stuff on it, and another with the last part recorded on it. Really not a lot you can do to mix that, hence the band out of one speaker, vocals out of the other of some of those recordings.

Very different to the way jazz was recorded onto similar technology, which was live, typically three mics/mic groups onto a three track recorder. That enabled some of the finest recordings ever IMO. The limitations turned into strengths by the exceptional skill of the musos and recording engineers. So many of these early stereo jazz and classical recordings remain absolute reference points in audiophile recording to this day.
 
I have all the beatles stereo and mono pressings (apart from mono white album). The stereo pressings do sound excellent IMO but the 3 titles that have the vocals on one side are frustrating to hear so much prefer the mono. Thank goodness the Beatles were not released in reprocessed stereo in the UK at least
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top