Stereo Separation on my 1964 LP

[Rick-An Ordinary Fool]

Attached is a pic of the LP I am talking about. It's not my exact LP cover but pic I found on the net to show you what album.

I picked up this 1964 USED Lp at my local record shop, I previewed it before buying it ($10.00) and found it to be a excellent copy. Once I brought it home, cleaned it with my record doctor machine, played it & I am utterly amazed at the clarity in this record for the age. I asked my local dealer if after showing him the label if this was a first pressing or an original Lp or a poss re-issue?, he said it most definately was an original pressing. The Lp label is CBS says Stereo dated 1964, orange label says Made in England.

However once I got it home & played it on my turntable, I put my headphones on & I got a really really cool sound. The moment the first song played I knew something was different than other S/G records I have. This album is more of a folk sounding songs. It's mostly just guitar & Paul & Art singing. But what I noticed was that Art was on the left side & Paul is on the right. It was like they were literally standing on each side of me & I was in the middle. I went to my receiver & adjusted my balance left & right and it is clearly just Art on the left side with guitar playing, then I turned it all the way to the right side balance & it's only Paul with guitar. On other songs, it's Art on the left w faint vocals of Paul & guitar & then on the right side it is still only Paul vocals w guitar. Then even when I keep the balance in the middle they still sound like they are on each side of me.

It's like this on every song on the entire album. Art's vocal is clearly on the left side & Paul's vocal clearly on the right.

What is cool to do also is take the song "Bleecker Street" and if I keep the balance on my headphones all the way to the left I can just hear Art singing the entire song, then I can start the song again & scroll it all the way to the right & just hear only Paul sing it. Even when there just humming it is cool to hear just one of them on each side. Of course, normally the balance is kept in the middle. But it's fun to play.

I'm just utterly amazed at how bright & rich the sound is from this LP. I guess I just got lucky with this Lp. I also think this is my first LP that is this old (1964) so maybe this is why I am so amazed too.

In any case I wanted to share with you all my find.

 

[snapcrotch]

Thanks for sharing, in rapt detail, the pleasures of your vinyl purchase. And let your record dealer/salesman know, too. If the manager is keen on building up a dedicated clientele, the store employees will remember you and what you're looking for. A return visit every other week should allow time for enough new arrivals -- with one (or more) standouts you can't resist buying, giving a spin, and having a new adventure in the joy of listening. 'La dolce vita'!

 

[Rudy]

Chris: stereo LPs from the late 50's and early 60's can actually sound quite good too. I have the remastered CD of your album, which I bought quite cheaply as a 5-CD set with all of S&G's other albums. Haven't listened that closely to it yet, but the disc comes in a replica LP jacket with the proper "360 Sound" label.

Not sure if you're into jazz, but if you can ever find a good clean copy of Dave Brubeck's albums (either on the 360 Sound label, or the "6-eye" label for earlier issues), they sound excellent also. One of my favorites is Time Further Out; it has an excellent drum sound.

RCA LiViNg StErEo LPs are good too. A couple of earlier ones have a bit of extra echo, but if you find a good clean copy of one of Mancini's earlier albums, they sound really nice. An original Living Stereo copy of "Mr. Lucky Goes Latin" in clean condition sounds wonderful. There is a lot of depth in the recording, not just a lot of left/right information. RCA DynagrooVe LPs aren't as good, but still, there are some decent titles there. One notoriously good sounding LP is Belafonte Live at Carnegie Hall. Very simple mic setup, which pinpointed the smaller groups on the stage. Not cheap though...good clean copies of this 2-LP set can run $50 or more. (I have a cheaper copy that still sounds really good though.)

 

[Kathy]

Well, "seperated stereo" was the reason why most systems started having TWO speakers. And vice-versa. Home Stereo, as well as the radio in your car. Naturally, to make the sound "gimmicky" and utilize the "new technology", I guess artists and music product manufacturers, alike had to DO something to make you pay another Buck or Two for what would go from what was another "version" to hear your favorite artists' material to what would suddenly be the 'Industry Standard'. With the sound, suddenly having to be more equally divided (and not as dramatically seperated), as more and more product emerged, while the "newness" wore off (and to cut costs?). Fortunately CD reissues can ressurect this "old format", and in half the time with half the effort it take when this stuff was pressed on 12", 10" & 7" vinyl product. As well as, in some cases, on Tape.

If there were ANYTHING today this technology would be worth investing in, "seperated stereo" could become a novelty again, with TODAY'S artists. But I guess THIS is where ANY 'run of the mill artist of today' admits his stuff isn't "THAT good enough" that his work be heard in this fashion---not yet, anyway.

Good find, right there--a vintage Simon & Garfunkel, right where they were coming out at the right time "Divided Stereo" was so very WIDESPREAD. Hope you decide to invest in the whole S&G catalog. That's been a constant in the Family Collection--and any time we'd come across GOOD vinyl, it'd be here to stay. The print quality of the 'XEROX-Copied Reproductions of the Covers and Back Covers' on the recent CD-reissues, somehow don't do justice, even if there are a few bonus tracks on some albums, we've not yet heard. Whether on '45', as in '7" singles to be played at 45 RPM', 'LP' as in 'Long Play or 12" records to be played at 331/3 RPM', or 'Lp', as in 'Liquid Propane', Enjoy!

Kat

 

[Harry]

That album of course was the first for Simon & Garfunkel at Columbia. It was, as you described, pretty much a folk album, and didn't do all that well in the charts at the time of release. The song, "The Sound Of Silence" got some airplay at college radio stations which gave Columbia some ideas.

Columbia's Tom Wilson gathered together the backing band that had played on Bob Dylan's latest album and recorded a new percussive backing track to "The Sound Of Silence", while Paul Simon was out of the country and Art Garfunkel was back at college. The newly mixed single, now with a folk-rock feel, went to number one. It was also the last time that anyone tampered with a Simon & Garfunkel record without their knowledge.

The re-done single version appeared on their next album and became the title track. On the single mix, both Paul and Art are centered in the stereo with the backing band around them on the left and right.

Harry
...old S&G fan, online...

 

[JMK]

I've also found the UK pressings of the mid-60s Columbia LPs to be extraordinary, which is pretty funny considering the generally botched mastering that most UK LPs seem to have had during that period. One of my guilty pleasures is the Percy Faith soundtrack score to the abysmally bad movie "The Oscar", (Columbia 1966) and the difference between the US and UK pressings is really pretty amazing.

This brings to mind the UK pressing of "Love Music," which is beyond horrible (at least in the two versions I have). I don't know what they did, but the high end is virtually nonexistent, and the rest of the mix sounds like it's being piped through a thermal blanket.

 

[andywithaz]

Since we are talking about LPs, I thought I would bring this topic that I have always wondered about up. The master recordings have the best sound quality and the records have worse quality because they have been pressed using a recording that is a few generations behind in quality. But what if over time the master had become brittle and deteriorated. Could a mint copy LP sound better than a CD that was remastered from the original masters or could the LP sound better than playback in the studio from the original master

 

[TonyCurrie]

Hey - my UK pressed copy of THE OSCAR is likewise a treasured item. For such a really bad movie to have such a great soundtrack, a nice surprise.

Many UK pressings of the 60s were rubbish because of the very reason raz pinpoints. For US recordings, the master tape would be copied to produce sub-masters which were sent to the UK, Australia, etc. To avoid messing up the record company abroad would in turn make a sub-master and then either press from that, or possibly from another generation down. (Cassette and 8-track copies were duplicated from sub-sub-masters that were run through so often they they became transparent!)

I have no experto knowledge of this one, but I suspect that CBS (Columbia to you guys) kept its standards high by providing stampers made from the original master recordings. Certainly the CBS "Super Stereo" series was breathtaking. But here in the UK, home produced stuff (like the orchestral material from my pals Tony Hatch & Sounds Orchestral) generally had a sparkle that was often lacking in US-originated recordings. Mancini, for example, often sounded muddy on UK pressings.

An interesting subject and worth more discussion!!

 

[Rudy]

All good points.

It's true, many LP master tapes are a couple of generations away from the two-track masters. As a mastering engineer described it to me, there were some labels that would use the two-track originals for the original pressing of the LP. Before the signal reached the cutting head, it was fed through EQ and whatever else was needed to master the LP. At the same time, during the cutting, the studio would run a tape copy. That way, in subsequent lacquer cuttings, they wouldn't have to re-do all of the EQ settings, they could just use that LP mastering tape that they ran during the cutting of the lacquer. So this is a good case for knowing which labels used this method, and it would make first pressing vinyl the best sounding.

Tony has a good point about "non-domestic" recordings. If you think about it, A&M was not about to send their 2-track originals over to Europe, or Japan, to cut an LP. They'd send a backup copy. (Just what it was a backup of is anyone's guess.) And there is no telling how many generations away from the original this backup copy would be. Likewise, EMI in the UK would not be sending one of their originals over to the US for an American release. Digital recording has eliminated some of this generational loss to an extent.

And if it's any consolation, A&M used Columbia for pressing a lot of their US product.

 

[Dave]

That album of course, was the first for Simon & Garfunkel. Columbia's Tom Wilson gathered together the backing band that had played on Bob Dylan's latest album and recorded a new percussive backing track to "The Sound Of Silence", while Paul Simon was out of the country and Art Garfunkel was back at college. The newly mixed single, now with a folk-rock feel, went to number one. It was also the last time that anyone tampered with a Simon & Garfunkel record without their knowledge.

The re-done single version appeared on their next album and became the title track. On the single mix, both Paul and Art are centered in the stereo with the backing band around them on the left and right.

Harry
...old S&G fan, online...

Did the same band also back up S&G on "Homeward Bound" and "Scarborough Fair/Canticle (Parsley Sage, Rosemary & Thyme)"? I've also got PARSLEY, SAGE, ROSEMARY & THYME and those two tracks sound like they could've been leftover SOUNDS OF SILENCE tracks, too. I've had the OLD FRIENDS box-set, which half-confirms it--not much detail, where everything was recorded, though. And I once did have a UK Pressing of SOUNDS OF SILENCE which had "Homeward Bound" on it, starting Side 2. Which got replaced by my better playing American Copy.

Dave

...and plenty of Stereo Seperation, through BOOKENDS, too...