What is the real purpose of four channel sound?

[Rstaylor]

Count me in as one of the anal completists when it comes to The Beatles.
Yes, I bought the stereo and mono cd sets the day they were released.
Funny thing is, prior to the mono set being released, I always preferred the stereo versions of all Beatles albums.
But after I really started listening to the mono albums, I realized what all the fuss was about.
The mono usually blows the stereo out of the water.
Two exceptions being A Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale, those two have more than decent stereo mixes.
Rubber Soul is just hard to listen to in stereo, too many vocals panned hard in one channel.


n my case I got the mono versions (in addition to the stereo versions) because I am an anal completist. And I'd wager I wasn't alone. Have I listened to the mono versions? Sure, but 99 out of a 100 times, when I reach for a Beatles album, it's going to be the stereo version (or a multi-channel version, of

 

[Tribby2001]

I sold ALL my Beatles, including mono-potamias, and used the proceeds for Sgt Pepper, Abby, White and Let It Be in glorious Blu-ray surround boxes. [They're not up-mixes from mono are they???]

(Sorry I brought up d'uh "B" word.)

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

(What's so funny?)

 

[Bill B]

Count me in as one of the anal completists when it comes to The Beatles.
Yes, I bought the stereo and mono cd sets the day they were released.
Funny thing is, prior to the mono set being released, I always preferred the stereo versions of all Beatles albums.
But after I really started listening to the mono albums, I realized what all the fuss was about.
The mono usually blows the stereo out of the water.
Two exceptions being A Hard Day's Night and Beatles For Sale, those two have more than decent stereo mixes.
Rubber Soul is just hard to listen to in stereo, too many vocals panned hard in one channel.


n my case I got the mono versions (in addition to the stereo versions) because I am an anal completist. And I'd wager I wasn't alone. Have I listened to the mono versions? Sure, but 99 out of a 100 times, when I reach for a Beatles album, it's going to be the stereo version (or a multi-channel version, of

I’ve got to ask…are you old enough where you bought the albums in the 1960s when they were first released?
I wasn’t and didn’t get into them until the mid-70s (I was a child, literally in the 60s). By then all you heard was stereo and that is what I considered “normal “.

 

[gene_stl]

My first cousin spent a junior year abroad in the UK. She sent me a copy of Revolver when it came out. It took me a VERY long time to realize that it was an EMI Mono pressing. It still sounds great.

As luck would have it my sister got as a gift a stereo portable record player on what one could call the early side (early sixties) It had three small vacuum tubes and a pair of about four inch speakers , one of which could be nestled into its suitcase. A Columbia iirc. A teenage special. I used it much `more than my sis did.

"Andrew at Parlorgram Auctions" who is a second or third generation fan and a dealer in all manner of Beatle stuff has all the YT videos one might ever want to watch about the Fab Four and which edition is which. His channel is called Parlorgram Auctions. Very knowledgeable for a "young un"
I myself was about 12 when the Beatles hit. We used to love it when they came on AM radio in the car, and when they came on Ed Sullivan (TeeWee was mono for another quite a few years) or a half hour news feature about them. They were a balm on the national psyche especially after the Kennedy assassination and then all the rest of the stuff that happened in the supposedly wunnerful 1960s.

 

[MidiMagic]

Until the very late sixties almost all stereo records were dual inventory with mono, and mono were about a dollar cheaper. A heavy mono cartridge would not move in the proper directions to track stereo properly and could damage the grooves of a stereo record. By the late sixties most people had stereo (or a stereo cartridge wired as mono).

Myself I never noticed any record damage from playing stereo with a mono cartridge, it would depend on how heavy the tracking is set. I'm sure that the Beatles were involved with stereo releases before Abbey Road!

It wasn't the tracking force, but the compliance of the stylus. Many old cartridges simply would not let the stylus vibrate in a vertical direction. Here is an example from a mono changer. Notice the shaft that carries stylus vibration into the cartridge.

 

[MidiMagic]

I’ve got to ask…are you old enough where you bought the albums in the 1960s when they were first released?
I wasn’t and didn’t get into them until the mid-70s (I was a child, literally in the 60s). By then all you heard was stereo and that is what I considered “normal “.

I was 6 years old when the first stereo records were released. But everything I had at the time was 78 rpm.

In 1961, my father got an RCA stereo console. This was the first player we had that could play stereo records (and the only one until 1970, when I got my Collaro Conquest).

I didn't really hear much difference because it was a console. So I bought the cheaper mono records. I did have some stereo records.

I jumped directly from mostly mono to Dynaco diamond quadraphonic in 1970. I have never been without quad since then.

 

[MidiMagic]

I think the deal was that they would record with the mono mix in mind and then the stereo version was, in a way, an afterthought. Until stereo became the dominant "format" in the late 60s.

I have many of the later albums.

Up to Rubber Soul, the stereo versions had vocals on one side and instruments on the other.

Revolver was the first album that had a reasonable stereo mix.

They really knew what they were doing with Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, The Beatles (white), Abbey Road, and Let it Be.

 

[Akaiquadster2]

What's silly is critiquing a 20+ year old TV commercial promoting a then new superior format that's still alive and well today. Got vinyl? Now that's silly.

I’m not saying the format is silly I’m just pointing out that it’s original proponents didn’t stick with it in their product development….I have ta Sony 400 disc sacd player and the next model included bluray but dropped sacd

 

[gene_stl]

Very ironic and amazing that Sony dropped the sacd.

 

[Tribby2001]

I’m not saying the format is silly I’m just pointing out that it’s original proponents didn’t stick with it in their product development….I have ta Sony 400 disc sacd player and the next model included bluray but dropped sacd

If you can't find a SACD player today you're not even trying.

 

[Akaiquadster2]

If you can't find a SACD player today you're not even trying.

Oh I’m happy with the old Sony and my original PS3 phat that I kept the accidental release of multichannel over optical … it gives superior surround effects if not as hi res as other options…

 

[jaybird100]

Very ironic and amazing that Sony dropped the sacd.

Not really. Sony has a reputation of dropping technology they developed. Beta; mini-disc; elcaset; SACD; they develop formats, but don't properly back them, ultimately dumping them.

 

[mutant_matt]

Not really. Sony has a reputation of dropping technology they developed. Beta; mini-disc; elcaset; SACD; they develop formats, but don't properly back them, ultimately dumping them.

But, is the question, did the formats fail due to lack of backing, or did they stop backing them because they failed?

Didn't they jointly produce the CD spec with Philips?

And isn't BluRay theirs? (which "won" against HDCD (which arguably was "better" (as was BetaMAX! )))

Is it more do to with licensing costs?

 

[jaybird100]

But, is the question, did the formats fail due to lack of backing, or did they stop backing them because they failed?

Didn't they jointly produce the CD spec with Philips?

And isn't BluRay theirs? (which "won" against HDCD (which arguably was "better" (as was BetaMAX! )))

Is it more do to with licensing costs?

You'll notice I didn't mention CD, for just the reason you cited. Both Sony and Philips had their own ideas about CD, but ultimately merged their technology. In the case of SACD, Sony should have made more of an emphasis on promoting it for the autosound industry. They offered only a few models, and didn't advertise them in the industry magazines. Columbia Records, owned by Sony, initially only released single layer SACD's that would not play on regular CD players. Only toward the end of their run of SACD's did they go hybrid. I thought Sony had in mind for the SACD to replace regular CD's, but on a more versatile disc. Sony Japan still releases SACD's, and we can order them, but they're expensive, especially with shipping included. Thank goodness for Dutton-Vocalion, for keeping the format going, and with "twofer" discs at a great price.

Betamax beat VHS to market. It touted excellent picture quality, and an hour on a tape. VHS came around, and offered the convenience of more time on a tape, and, on many VCR's, multiple speeds for even more recording time, at reduced picture quality. The public was wowed by the amount of time you could record on a tape, rather than the picture quality. Beta introduced their Beta II and Beta III speeds, to compete, but it wasn't enough. Beta Hi-Fi greatly improved on the sound quality; VHS copied Sony and did essentially the same thing. Ultimately, Sony threw in the towel and began producing VHS VCR's. Beta gained acceptance in the professional market.

Elcaset offered the promise of reel-to-reel performance, with the convenience of a cassette. It had possibilities for the home and professional markets, but it disappeared almost as quickly as it appeared. DAT was another great idea, but it was still a tape. This was another format that didn't make it as a home format, but was accepted by professionals.

I'm sure Sony had sound reasons for their decisions, regarding these formats. I only wish they had given SACD more of a chance. It's a terrific format, offering many options for the consumer, and the record companies, alike. For the American arm of Columbia Records to have completely dropped out of the SACD business. If it weren't for some independent labels, Acoustic Sounds, Mo-Fi, and the above mentioned Dutton-Vocalion, our SACD players would be gathering dust on the shelf. That's the format that hits home the most for me.

 

[par4ken]

Not really. Sony has a reputation of dropping technology they developed. Beta; mini-disc; elcaset; SACD; they develop formats, but don't properly back them, ultimately dumping them.

In partial defense of Sony, they backed Beta until the end, professionally anyway. They gave in at the consumer level for a few years but then the DVD came out.

Mini-disc was rather pointless once ipod's came out.

The Elcaset was really a non starter. I could never see the need for it. If you want convenience use regular cassettes, if you want higher quality use reel tape.

SACD was supported for many years even when sales of SACD's were down, have they totally stopped supporting it now on all models?

My real bitch would be with them stopping support for SQ Quadraphonic, had they hung on they could've produced Tate decoders!

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

SACD is the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century, I could make a feature-length film about it. Just the perfect storm of bad things to kill it.

 

[MidiMagic]

Too many formats.
- I have mini-discs I can't read.
- I ignored Elcaset, DAT, SACD, DVDA, and others because I didn't want any more formats.
- I have some 8-tracks only because they were given to me.

 

[Doug G.]

Too many formats. I agree with THAT. Especially these days. It's much worse than the original quad days.

Doug

 

[jimfisheye]

Sony likes to try making competing formats to try to corner the market. The SACD (DSD) was simply a different digital code for the same end result. SACD is every bit the same quality as HD PCM. No more, no less. The ADC and DAC now needs to be a different design for the different data format. I think this failed because it wasn't just an attack on consumers but also the recording industry. At the time when AD and DA converters were still very expensive gear, Sony told recording studios to replace those units with DSD converters and change over to DSD. No new features or improved sound, just changing the digital language to try to obsolete their competition. Would need new DAW software too! They tried to pretend they didn't know about HD PCM and tried to compare everything to 16 bit CD on their brochures. Then they got busted degrading some of the CD audio on their releases to make the DSD program sound better next to it.

They gave up and stayed with PCM digital when they moved on to bluray.

They actually had a clear better format back with Beta over VHS. They were so aggressive with their style of pushing it and competing that consumers turned away because of that.

Anyway, we can transcode DSD to PCM now virtually losslessly with free software so it's a moot point. Annoying to have the rogue format floating around all the same.

 

[kfbkfb]

http://decoy.iki.fi/dsound/ambisonic/motherlode/source/1982_The Bell Labs Story_Part 3_Barry Fox.pdf^^^
...an infinite number of microphones and reproducers...


Interesting about restricting the frequency range to 40Hz to 15kHz.

(haven't found parts 1 & 2)


Kirk Bayne