Date:         Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:15:10 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
              reply-type=original

Wing was also a recession-fighter, introduced during the early 60's downturn. The series was 
discount price and cheaply packaged. Not all Mercury executives thought it was a good idea but the 
pop guys prevailed and the rack-jobbers loved it because they could stack 'em high and sell 'em 
cheap. Simulated stereo was just a bad idea on all fronts, but it prevailed up into the 70s. There 
were some interesting experiments done in a better reprocess method, both at Columbia Studios and at 
Fine Recording. But it was costly -- book expensive studio time, set up an excellent full-range 
speaker in a nice live room like the 30th St. studio of the Ballroom and then play the mono material 
thru the speaker and record a stereo pickup to a new master. It actually works very well, especially 
with recordings originally made close-mic'd or in a dead room. But it begs the question, why bother. 
Just enjoy a well-mixed mono presentation. Electronic reprocess of mono into psuedo-stereo is a 
degradation 99+% of the time.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lennick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?


> Mike Richter wrote:
>
>> Rob Bamberger wrote:
>> > I seem to recall hearing in the early 1960s (when I was a mere youth
>> > developing an instinct that would, in due course, mistrust a
>> > civilization that could come up with reprocessed stereo) that playing
>> > stereo pressings on a monophonic record player would harm the stereo LP.
>> >  Was this a myth?  At some point, stereo LP covers indicated that they
>> > were mono-compatible. Was the prior warning meant to discourage people
>> > from playing stereo records with their older, heavily weighted tonearms
>> > and mono cartridges that would chew up the stereo groove?
>>
>> It was not a myth. Some monaural cartridges had so little vertical
>> compliance that they would mash the difference signal out of existence
>> in a few playings. AFAIK, "mono compatible" meant that after you did
>> eliminate the vertical component, the horizontal (lateral) would still
>> play adequately with the incompliant cartridge.
>>
>> Note that the issue was not so much tracking force per se but
>> compliance, displacement of the stylus assembly per unit of force applied.
>>
>> Mike
>> --
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.mrichter.com/
>
> There were a few types of LP labelled "mono compatible". In the mid 60s (or
> earlier?), Mercury introduced the Wing label, reissuing a lot of mono pop and
> classical material in simulated stereo..the sound was ghastly in mono and
> stereo. I know there were a couple of other such labels, aside from Everest and
> Stereo Fidelity producing mono LPs which were actually pressed from the stereo
> stampers. In 1968 we began to see "playable on mono equipment" on virtually all
> stereo LP jackets because the companies finally phased out mono at that time,
> and we were told that the tone arms and cartridges were now compliant enough.
>
> I have one Cook stereo lp (not binaural) that must have been cut with a 1-mil
> or 1-5 mil point, "A Double Barrel Blast"..that disc never sounded good on
> anything. Also wasn't terribly funny.
>
> dl