When Stereo Became Muddled

[Steven J. Gross]

I always am a fan of true stereo separation, something that has been confusing since "surround sound" became popular. I never bought into that craze. The ambiguity continues today with Bluetooth. Am I alone in that observation?

 

[Harry]

In another thread, a bunch of us compared our first stereo phonographs that we got for Christmas back in the 60s. That was probably the genesis of our stereo awareness. I know it was for me. "Stereo" had always been something that the hi-fi aficionados might upgrade to, and it was gradually appearing in those big console TV combinations with six foot separation of the speakers, so unless you were sitting directly in front of the TV screen, you didn't hear much separation.

Those portable phonographs that we received allowed for stretching the speakers far away from each other and probably most of us were really delighted to hear Nick Ceroli's drums on the Tijuana Brass records coming from the left channel only, while John Pisano's guitar was way over there on the right. From about 1964 through to about 1970 or 71, you could pretty much count on the Tijuana Brass records having that exciting sound stage with greatly separated sound.

And it turns out that the engineers and record producers were all pretty much learning how to effectively use stereo to enhance their records. After all, they were a whole dollar more! On other labels we had the Beatles singing in the right channel and their instruments playing in the left, or the Mamas were singing in the left while the Papas were consigned to the right channel. Or The Association might be split so that the lead singers were left while their harmony vocals were over on the right.

A lot of us really liked that sound. But there were others that were happier when the music was "properly" mixed so that the sounds blended more evenly. As a result, after about 1971, much of stereo became "muddled" as you put it. I first noticed a slight change on SUMMERTIME. Yeah the Tijuana Brass - if that's who were playing - were lined up pretty much the same way as always on a good number of the tracks, but it wasn't quite as dramatic as it had been.

That album was followed by YOU SMILE - THE SONG BEGINS, and there, the "muddling" became even more evident. The stereo sound stage was quite a bit narrower. Bill Edmondson's trombone on "Fox Hunt" was to the left - but not all the way to the left. Stereo engineers were by this point figuring out that dramatic and total separation of sounds were not as desirable so that musically, the units sounded more integrated and together when the weren't so isolated like the old Beatles/Mamas/Papas method.

And it's really never returned. Things just stayed "muddled" from then on. Drums and bass, it seemed were to be centered and that's the way it remained. Today, if there's separation of sounds, it's not very dramatic. At least that's the way it seemed to me.

 

[Harry]

A great example of the change in thinking regarding stereo separation can be had with Sinatra's album with Antonio Carlos Jobim. Back in the 60s, the album had nice, clean separation of the musical elements. But on the remastered version that came out within the last decade combining all of the SINATRA/JOBIM sessions, the stereo was dialed in so that there wasn't so much separation. Listen to a track like "Agua De Beber"; you'll hear the original (on SINATRA & CO.) with Mr. Jobim's vocalizations on the right channel. On the remastered album, his vocalizations are centered - and pretty much buried. It changes the whole feel of the track for me.

Part of this modern trend toward minimal stereo separation probably comes from the earbud generation. Listening to a wide-stereo track on headphones can be a little disconcerting...uncomfortable...because what one ear is hearing, the other can't, making it very unnatural. So, modern engineers are dialing in the stereo separation a bit to sound a little better over earbuds or headphones.

This situation has also led to an appreciation of the old sixties recordings in mono. Some people find that the mono tracks of older Beatles and Mamas and Papas sound more "together" in their mono state.

 

[Rudy]

Proper stereo mixes will position the instruments in various places left-to-right. Multitrack recording makes this possible, and the sound is more cohesive overall.

When there were a limited number of tracks to record on, mainly in the 1950s and 1960s, studios only had two or (later in the 50s) three tracks to work with. There's a difference in recording techniques though.

Two-track recordings of "popular" (or more correctly, non-classical) music were never meant to be released as stereo, yet record labels cashed in on it anyway and put the 2-track recording onto a stereo LP or tape, which were a very unmusical hard-left and hard-right arrangement of the channels, as microphones were routed to either the first or second track on the tape. These were intended to be combined into a mono mix.

However, in classical music, an engineer could place a pair of microphones in a place where they could pick up the full width of the orchestra, and some of the hall ambiance. This is true stereo, where on good systesm you can pick out the locations of sections and individuals in the orchestra, based on their position.

Three-track recordings could work better as stereo recordings, since there were left and right channels to mix instruments to, and a center channel as a "fill" between the two speakers. The early A&M recordings are an example, as it always threw the same instruments on the left and right sides, and lead instruments or vocals were always in the center; this was a limitation of Gold Star Studios and many others who had only three-track capabilities. RCA pulled it off with a better sound than Gold Star could wish for--the Living Stereo era LPs recorded to 3-track have a nice, full soundstage since reverb was also used to flesh out the sound.

3-track classical recordings used a center microphone as a fill between left and right--it wasn't strictly needed, but the right amount could fill in the presentation all for the better. Some of the prized classical recordings of the late 50s onward by RCA (Living Stereo), Mercury (Living Presence), etc. are still regarded today as examples of some of the finest recordings ever made.

When multitrack mixing consoles and tape recorders were available in 8 tracks, then later 16 or more tracks, each input had its own channel on the mixer, and each channel had a "pan pot" which was a control where they could pan that input to any position between left and right. The extra channels on the tape were also available for overdubs, to add instruments at a later time, or for a musician to record a new part if they needed to.

Classical recording techniques changed with multitrack. A pair of mics are still used for overall left and right pickup of the entire orchestra, but now the engineers can place microphones in front of sections or individual soloists, and vary them in the mix as needed. In a sense it can help highlight instruments but on the other hand, some don't feel the overall sound is as true to a concert hall as a much simpler two- or three-mic setup.

It's all personal preference, I guess. A well-mixed multitrack will spread instruments nicely across the entire soundstage, and I prefer that over the crude early stereo LPs, especially where the two-track recordings were never intended for stereo.

And speaking of cashing in on stereo, a few labels took it upon themselves to reissue their mono recordings in fake stereo, using comb filters and other tricks to split up frequency bands left and right. Overall they sound terrible.

Quadraphonic and surround sound, done right, have a similar placement of instruments between all the speakers. Modern day surround has much better mixes than most quadraphonic releases, though, as engineers back then simply threw different instruments at the four corners without much care or thought put into it--the mixes back then were often gimmicky at best.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

It's not a good idea to do something with sound just because it's possible. I remember my first stereo TJB records.... the percussion (including marimba) and bass were all on one side, and the guitars and piano on the other. The only thing centered was the lead trumpet or vocals. As Harry notes, it sounded odd on headphones. It WAS kind of cool though to turn off the guitar/piano side and listen to the drums and Julius alone.

At the movie theater we occasionally get the occasional comment that "my surround sound works better at home" because they can hear it more at home. In a good theater system, the surround is almost always playing something, it's just that the surround channel is blended with the screen channels such you just don't specifically notice it, UNLESS it's turned off suddenly, whereupon the whole sound field seems to go flat, since now all the sound is coming from the screen. I had one guy berate our system once because "You can't hear anyone talking on the surrounds, like we do at home." Um, sorry Mr. Edison, but the problem is in your system, not ours!

 

[Steven J. Gross]

Regarding our 1st phonographs discussions, a lot of us showed stereos but mine was a little mono "toy" which oddly is probably like the current phone and tablet device sound...

 

[Mike Blakesley]

It is pretty odd to me that a lot of the kids these days seem perfectly happy listening to music off of an iPhone speaker that sounds pretty much like the transistor radios we used to listen to! While the "boom box" that sounded so much better, is out of style. It's the circle of life, or something.

I need to check my CD of Herb's Greatest Hits -- most of my A&M CDs are stored away in favor of the newer Shout or HAP versions. Was the left/right stereo still present on Greatest Hits, or did they remix it into the newer less-separated sound for that release, or did they remix for earlier CD releases too?

 

[Bobberman]

I need to check my CD of Herb's Greatest Hits -- most of my A&M CDs are stored away in favor of the newer Shout or HAP versions. Was the left/right stereo still present on Greatest Hits, or did they remix it into the newer less-separated sound for that release, or did they remix for earlier CD releases too?

I have Herb's Greatest hits CD as well as greatest hits volume 2 and several Early A&M CD releases and I'm happy to say the left/right stereo is still present and the shout factory and HAP releases retain that same mix to my knowledge they were Not remixed I hope this helps Mike

 

[Rudy]

Most kids today use ear buds or Bluetooth speakers, including some larger ones that approach the size of boomboxes.

I need to check my CD of Herb's Greatest Hits

It was a straight transfer from whatever was on the original LP. I've never heard any A&Ms that were altered upon reissue, Herb or otherwise.

 

[Harry]

GREATEST HITS on CD used all of the standard stereo mixes that had been on the LP and the LPs from which the songs came. An interesting track to listen to is "The Lonely Bull". As you'll recall, to make a stereo recording, Herb took the mono track and shunted it to the right channel and then overdubbed another trumpet track on the left channel. It was hard-panned on LP and thus on CD too.

When they started making other CDs, a soft-panned version of the track was used. This still had the old mono track right and Herb's new overdub on the left, but each were panned in toward the center a little bit to make it more "comfortable" to anyone listening in headphones.

Hard-panned version:
A&M GOLD SERIES (Japan)
THE LONELY BULL (Deluxe - Shout)
GREATEST HITS (A&M)

Soft-panned version:
all other general releases including
CLASSICS V1
FOURSIDER
LONELY BULL (A&M)
LONELY BULL (HAP)
HERB ALPERT IS... (box set)
A PORTRAIT OF HERB ALPERT (Rondor)
THE VERY BEST OF HERB ALPERT (Canada/UK)

Two others had soft-panning and also faded up the track:
STARTRAX (Australia)
VERY BEST 16 GREATEST HITS (Germany)

 

[Rudy]

Any "two track" recording is excruciating to listen to on headphones. Even on speakers I have little patience for it.

 

[tomswift2002]

Of course, you also have the few 60’s stereo recordings of the Beach Boys, where instead of having the instruments panning from side to side, on 3-track recordings, the instruments were mixed into mono and then it was the vocals that were being panned.

But with surround sound you also have to be careful since I’ve heard some terrible mixes. I remember for the movie, Herbie Fully Loaded Disney had licensed the Beach Boys “Getcha Back” to play over the opening credits. Unfortunately, Capitol just gave Disney a 2-track master, and Disney had to fold it down to mono, since you can only use mono tracks for surround mixes. However in this case it sounded horrible. I think Disney tried creating a stereo soundstage, by using the mono fold down two or three times, but it was terrible. Capitol really needed to give Disney copies of the multi-tracks, or provided Disney with an exclusive 5.1 mix of the song to have done a good mix.

 

[JOv2]

Quadraphonic and surround sound, done right, have a similar placement of instruments between all the speakers. Modern day surround has much better mixes than most quadraphonic releases, though, as engineers back then simply threw different instruments at the four corners without much care or thought put into it--the mixes back then were often gimmicky at best.

I've actually heard neither quad nor surround sound. As a kid, I recall all the hoopla with quad: then, as now, the sonic delivery diagram -- showing a family happily surrounded by music in the four corners of their living room -- seemed peculiar. Unless you want to hear the orchestra as though you're the 4th chair clarinetist, the placement made no outward logical sense. Similarly, for pop LPs, where the soundstage is created (and not typically reflective of how the band is physically oriented), it just seemed odd to want to hear a combo from the viewpoint of within the immediate confines of their instrumental envelope. By virtue its name, "surround sound" I’d gather this is the same deal -- just fancier. (I don’t watch movies (though I do buy soundtracks -- but only for the composer's work, not the screenplay) and know next-to-nothing about that sort of thing, but I always thought "surround sound" was for all those Hollywood action films where everything’s always blowing up and people are screaming and such...so as to make it more you-are-there-ish.)

As for muddled stereo soundstages: listen to any given Steely Dan LP -- if it sounds muddled it's your set-up and not the stereo imaging. From experience, once I got my Hi-Fi into a larger room with proper sound tiles and such, the pop soundstage came alive and I could discern left-to-right sonic placement (the panning) from the crafted soundstage. In my current set-up the early '60s hard-left / hard-right / middle 2-T and 3-T mixes are a downright awful while (which is why monaural is preferred for many of these releases), on the other hand, mixes after 1966 and particularly those from 8T units come to life. The Band's first 3 LPs are fine examples of this: a 5-man group with 3-part vocal harmonies and overdubs (as 4 of the musicians were multi-instrumentalists). The "panning" soundstage diagram would be typically for 8-12 sound sources (including those instruments that emit their sounds from more than one source point and can be inputed into the board on at least two channels (e.g., piano, drum kit). I would agree that devoid of proper speaker spatial consideration, it would probably sound crowded.

 

[Rudy]

By virtue its name, "surround sound" I’d gather this is the same deal -- just fancier.

Different-er?

Modern-day surround is much better executed than quad ever was. If I could put it into words:

• Quad: I have four speakers! I hear things from all four corners!
• Surround: The sound is enveloping me.

As such, I can't even truly describe what well-executed surround mixes sound like. It would be better off to hear it vs. trying to have someone explain it. For non-classical, it does tend to put you in the middle of the sound, yet not uncomfortably so.

Yet I've never heard a classical surround recording. Ideally, it would put us in a good seat in the audience, with only the hall ambiance surrounding us. Although a good two-mic recording also has the effect of creating a "bloom" around two stereo speakers that extends beyond the speakers themselves. (And there are even phasey gimmicks like Q Sound that can place instruments off to one side of the listener using only a pair of speakers.)

There are times I occasionally miss being configured for surround, but the way my room is set up now, I don't have room for good rear speakers. (And even there, to properly match the fronts, I would need electrostatics in the rear...and I'm not spending that much for something I'd use maybe once a month.)

It does have its place in films, of course. Yet I don't watch movies much at all anymore and when I do, they're usually classics from the 60s or earlier. What really turned me off were all the developments beyond simple 5.1 channel surround. That wasn't good enough, so "they" (the film producers? the equipment manufacturers?) decided we should have 7.1 channels. Then 9.1 or 9.2...whatever. Now this Atmos ridiculousness also has height information. Just an excuse for everyone to ditch their latest equipment for the Next Big Thing.

My take on it is that modern film is so terribly acted and devoid of plot that it needs the distraction of a bunch of surround noise to make up for the lack of artistic merit. Just my opinion, though.

 

[Harry]

I lived through the "quad" phenomenon. Since not everyone was set up for quad, as a demonstration, there were two FM stations in the market that got together and played a quad record - two channels on one station, two channels on the other. I remember setting up two stereo receivers in our basement and trying to hear this quad broadcast. It was underwhelming to say the least. One of the stations had an overactive compressor/processor which didn't lend itself at all to this experiment. One of the stations actually went to "quad broadcasting" for a short time, but it never amounted to much as the craze (if there ever was one) died out.

My favorite movie since 1968 was, and has always been, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It was a true "experience" in the Cinerama theater in which I saw it the first couple of times. Particularly enjoyable was my first experience with surround sound. The early part of the movie with the man-apes shrieking first on the sides and then seemingly from the rear of the theater. It became a little game with me over the years to get as close to that experience as I could.

Obviously a mono version of the film on VHS wouldn't do it. A stereo VHS still didn't really accomplish anything either as it was all pan and scan anyway. I bought into the LaserDisc thing as I'd seen a demo of the 2001 disc playing on a store display. It was Letterbox! I had to have it, and sure enough, my first LaserDisc purchase was the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY disc on Criterion. Though it had a nice stereo soundtrack, and by then, I had at least a Pro-Logic setting on my receiver and I set up rear speakers - it still wasn't quite the discreet sound I'd heard in the theater.

Finally when DVD arrived in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was able to funnel the 5.1 surround Dolby Digital track to my front and rear speakers in the large house up north. I could finally hear the man-apes shrieking from behind my couch! We had of course, other movies with 5.1 sound and enjoyed some of them. Mostly it was the sound of bullets and storm noise that seemed to wake up the rear surround speakers. It was a fun, but not essential part of most viewing experiences. I recall a STAR WARS movie - I think it was ATTACK OF THE CLONES - that opened up with the loud engine noise of the transport space-plane arriving on Coruscant. It shook the surround speakers so much so that I could actually smell the wood in the speaker cabinets!

There were a few DTS surround CDs that I bought too, Herb Alpert's PASSION DANCE, Carpenters SACD, and the Corrs IN BLUE. While it was somewhat interesting hearing the separated surround sound, it seemed to me to be too confining to bother with. Stereo copies of this were just as entertaining, particularly when I was in another room.

When we moved south, I found that this house just doesn't lend itself easily to surround sound. Though the house is wired for surround speakers in the ceiling, I've never bothered with it. After all of the hubbub I went through up north just to get a few sound effects coming from the rear, I just didn't think it was worth the effort here. Plain old stereo, with a center channel for movies, sounds pretty darned good to us most of the time.

 

[Rudy]

I just use a soundbar these days. Not a cheap one by any means (most of them are nasty sounding, so it takes some work to find one that actually sounds clean and clear), but it gets the job done. It has a surround mode where it can extract left and right to project them outside the bounds of the speaker to the left and right sides of the room, and even envelop the listener to the sides. But aside from video games (some, but not all, having a surround feature), almost nothing that I watch or listen to makes use of surround. (For the music, I did rip the 5.1 program of the DVD-Audio discs as well as the 5.1 channel portion of SACDs, so they're ready to play on the server if I ever get to that point again.)

If I were building, or remodeling to where I tore the room down to the studs, I would probably still wire up something for surround since I would have the opportunity to do it. But where I'm at now, I can't even wire up a dedicated outlet for the audio system, so...

 

[Bobberman]

I lived through the "quad" phenomenon. Since not everyone was set up for quad, as a demonstration, there were two FM stations in the market that got together and played a quad record - two channels on one station, two channels on the other. I remember setting up two stereo receivers in our basement and trying to hear this quad broadcast. It was underwhelming to say the least. One of the stations had an overactive compressor/processor which didn't lend itself at all to this experiment. One of the stations actually went to "quad broadcasting" for a short time, but it never amounted to much as the craze (if there ever was one) died out.

My favorite movie since 1968 was, and has always been, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It was a true "experience" in the Cinerama theater in which I saw it the first couple of times. Particularly enjoyable was my first experience with surround sound. The early part of the movie with the man-apes shrieking first on the sides and then seemingly from the rear of the theater. It became a little game with me over the years to get as close to that experience as I could.

Obviously a mono version of the film on VHS wouldn't do it. A stereo VHS still didn't really accomplish anything either as it was all pan and scan anyway. I bought into the LaserDisc thing as I'd seen a demo of the 2001 disc playing on a store display. It was Letterbox! I had to have it, and sure enough, my first LaserDisc purchase was the 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY disc on Criterion. Though it had a nice stereo soundtrack, and by then, I had at least a Pro-Logic setting on my receiver and I set up rear speakers - it still wasn't quite the discreet sound I'd heard in the theater.

Finally when DVD arrived in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was able to funnel the 5.1 surround Dolby Digital track to my front and rear speakers in the large house up north. I could finally hear the man-apes shrieking from behind my couch! We had of course, other movies with 5.1 sound and enjoyed some of them. Mostly it was the sound of bullets and storm noise that seemed to wake up the rear surround speakers. It was a fun, but not essential part of most viewing experiences. I recall a STAR WARS movie - I think it was ATTACK OF THE CLONES - that opened up with the loud engine noise of the transport space-plane arriving on Coruscant. It shook the surround speakers so much so that I could actually smell the wood in the speaker cabinets!

There were a few DTS surround CDs that I bought too, Herb Alpert's PASSION DANCE, Carpenters SACD, and the Corrs IN BLUE. While it was somewhat interesting hearing the separated surround sound, it seemed to me to be too confining to bother with. Stereo copies of this were just as entertaining, particularly when I was in another room.

When we moved south, I found that this house just doesn't lend itself easily to surround sound. Though the house is wired for surround speakers in the ceiling, I've never bothered with it. After all of the hubbub I went through up north just to get a few sound effects coming from the rear, I just didn't think it was worth the effort here. Plain old stereo, with a center channel for movies, sounds pretty darned good to us most of the time.

I had a surround sound receiver for almost a decade 2003 until 2011 sometimes it sounded great other times not so much depending on what I was playing but the simple two channel Sony receiver I currently use and have been using since 2011 has been Stellar and Simple to me keeping it simple and doing more with less Goes a lot farther and is more enjoyable at the end of the day

 

[Rudy]

As for muddled stereo soundstages: listen to any given Steely Dan LP -- if it sounds muddled it's your set-up and not the stereo imaging. From experience, once I got my Hi-Fi into a larger room with proper sound tiles and such, the pop soundstage came alive and I could discern left-to-right sonic placement (the panning) from the crafted soundstage.

I find this to be the case also. Stuffing speakers onto bookshelves or on the floor near the furniture are practices that started in the 60s when compact "bookshelf" speakers became popular. Think of the KLH Model 6, the Advent, AR, etc. No way some of these would fit on an actual bookshelf (them Advents is heavy!!), but the acoustic suspension or vented cabinets allowed smaller cabinet dimensions than typical floor standing speakers of the day. Even today, many are happy to stick a pair of Bluetooth speakers on a kitchen counter or tucked into the decor. And I'll even admit I do the same, like the pair of Boston A40s on top of cabinets in the kitchen--perfect for background while making a mess at the stove or stuffing my face.

Yet it doesn't take much to properly set up speakers for a proper listening system. Take some measurements, set up a good listening position, leave some room behind the speakers (get them away from the walls), and go at it. One can even improvise and make some temporary stands to put the speakers on, so they are more at ear level vs. pointing into our knees. (Even cinder blocks, if disguised, make for very sturdy stands that can outperform stands costing in the hundreds of dollars.)

 

[JOv2]

I find this to be the case also. Stuffing speakers onto bookshelves or on the floor near the furniture are practices that started in the 60s when compact "bookshelf" speakers became popular. Think of the KLH Model 6, the Advent, AR, etc. No way some of these would fit on an actual bookshelf (them Advents is heavy!!), but the acoustic suspension or vented cabinets allowed smaller cabinet dimensions than typical floor standing speakers of the day. Even today, many are happy to stick a pair of Bluetooth speakers on a kitchen counter or tucked into the decor. And I'll even admit I do the same, like the pair of Boston A40s on top of cabinets in the kitchen--perfect for background while making a mess at the stove or stuffing my face.

Yet it doesn't take much to properly set up speakers for a proper listening system. Take some measurements, set up a good listening position, leave some room behind the speakers (get them away from the walls), and go at it. One can even improvise and make some temporary stands to put the speakers on, so they are more at ear level vs. pointing into our knees. (Even cinder blocks, if disguised, make for very sturdy stands that can outperform stands costing in the hundreds of dollars.)

ROGER all of the above. Getting my speakers off the floor (about 20 years ago) was a good move, but a good 2' away from the back wall and "isolated" to limited degree on their stands (which are weighty) helps to further define bass and lower mids.