• minticecream@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Turns out early audio consoles with stereo didn’t have a pan knob. They had a pan switch. So choices were limited to left, right, or center (mono).

    Wasn’t til later that the pan pot was invented allowing incremental panning and true stereo mixing.

    • Hammocks4All@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s wild. But theoretically they could make two separate mono tracks, right? For example, a left mono track with 75% of what would have been an isolated left channel + 25% of the right channel and, similarly, a right mono track with 25% of what would have been an isolated left + 75% of the right. Then, sure, pan switch it fully to left and right.

        • bizarroland@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          2 months ago

          Exactly. Plus the common use of mastering at the time was to optimize the recorded audio for printing on a vinyl disc, and if the grooves were too deep or the transitions too sharp it could cause the needle to skip out of the track.

          If your average listener is going to be listening on a mono device then a smart thing to do would be to pan one thing consistently to one side and the other to the other as the mono needle isn’t going to care where it’s getting its vibrations from. That would give you more resolution and more depth for the cut, as long as the final disc was only played in mono.

          I’m not saying that’s the case for every recording but I’m pretty sure it has happened quite a few times back then while they were still figuring everything out.

      • Riley@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        You have to understand that mixing consoles from that era were supremely limited in channels (think four, eight, later sixteen), to the point where they would often have to mix one section (say, the drums) and then record that mix to tape so it would take up a single channel and then do the guitar, bass, and vocals on another channel. The idea of having two of the same thing going through two channels was an exorbitant luxury they couldn’t afford!

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean this is true but not about the '70s as the original post states. Even by the '60s they had sophisticated stereo audio mixers - they just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of running on people’s phones like today.

  • the dopamine fiend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    2 months ago

    The jump from mono to stereo made a lot of engineers’ heads spin. Then again, how many 100% perfect 5.1 albums have you heard?

    Actually, I’ve listened to only three 5.1 remixes, all of them phenomenal albums to begin with, and their 5.1 jobs were pretty meh. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots came out pretty good, but mainly because they just fucked around and tried stuff.

    • li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      2 months ago

      I hate the “spatial” mixes.

      Sometimes they’re done really well, but most of the time it’s just putting different parts of the song in different areas and makes it sound “diluted”.

      Like, the guitar is in front of you, then the bass is behind and to the left… why??

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re missing a key ingredient: Lysergic acid diethylamide.

        In all other circumstances I agree with you.

        • li10@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          Lysergic acid diethylamide doesn’t fix a bad mix.

          You can still hear all the separate instruments surrounding you on a good regular mix, all the spatial does is break the interwoven sound.

      • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        My understanding is that most (at least rock) music is mixed this way, just subtle enough to help your brain pick out instruments but not enough to consciously notice.

        • li10@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          Music is mixed that way, but spatial then takes a hammer to that concept.

          It takes away the single interwoven sound and imo sounds like different tracks being played on opposite sides of the room.

          I usually try the atmos mix for an album if it’s available on tidal, and usually all it ever does is remove the punch from songs.

      • LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It was a pain in the ass but me and a buddy got it working once. I was a young teen and this was long before weed helped me see more beauty in music, so I didn’t get much out of it, but as an adult it’d probably be different.

    • Riley@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys, who produced Pet Sounds, was actually deaf in one ear. Despite that, he got along just fine in a monophonic world, but the switch to stereo completely left him behind. It was a huge change in how music was mixed.

    • Hammocks4All@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It makes sense. I bet it’s super hard, especially at first.

      It’s largely a headphone problem, at least for me. I can’t listen to a song where certain tracks are completely isolated to one ear. The audio doesn’t need to be mixed perfectly, but I need at least a little bit of each sound in each ear. Otherwise it’s too distracting. My brain hates it.

      • Tabooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s supposed to sound like the band is in front of you on a stage. Not all mashed into one spot in the center of the stage. You should be able to close your eyes and picture where each drum is positioned. Where the before guitar players are standing. And you should be able to hear the shape of the room. Modern recordings mixed digitally can no longer do this. Then again if you’re streaming Spotify into Bluetooth your missing most of what’s there anyways.

    • saigot@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s some cool 5.1 and even 7.1 stuff in classical music (I don’t have a a surround sound setup myself but I hear a lot of talk of it).

  • MermaidsGarden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This would be more early 60’s, mostly because those engineers were working with 2 track stereo which really limits your options. Most artists were recording on at least 8 track stereo by the 70’s.

    • Hammocks4All@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Incredible. I’m learning a ton and gaining a huge appreciation of it all thanks to everyone’s comments in this post.

  • Riley@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    It was the early days of a new technology and way of listening that was completely different compared to the past 60+ years of recorded audio. I guess as a more modern analogy it’s like those cheap 3D films at the height of the fad that felt the need to gratuitously shove objects directly in front of the camera to get the most out of the 3D effect.

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Those were the better 3d movies because they at least felt like there was depth. Unlike those modern movies.

  • daggermoon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    It was designed to show off stereo sound which was still fairly new at the time. I like the way those recordings sound actually.

  • Tabooki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Today’s music is digitally mixed on laptops and has zero dynamic range or feeling. Then again people listen on Bluetooth now so they are only getting 20% of the music anyways. Makes me very sad

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      2024 I finally tried some Bluetooth headphones after maybe 10+ years.

      Still using SBC by default, still no duplex HD audio, and still static driver noise at idle.

      What is even the point lol. SBC-XQ only solves the first problem which is still inferior to even the cheapest of quality 3.5mm cable.

      Even my Nintendo DS sounds better and it’s limited to 32Khz audio lol.

      • HandMadeArtisanRobot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Jeez, were one of the two devices 10 years old? That hasn’t been my experience for a long time (except the duplex audio issue. I can’t believe it’s still terrible.)

        Then again, I mostly use BT for the convenience. Being able to do yard work with zero wires is amazing.

  • gid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    You know, I love those albums where they fucked around did things like hard-pan all the drums to the right channel. I’m here for the experimentation.

  • astrsk@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s fun and interesting all the experimentation that went on back then. As someone deaf in one ear… it’s hard to truly appreciate, but I get it.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    My dad had some albums, maybe Mike Oldfield or others…there was a train going through a station, and hearing it pass from left to right in stereo was amazing at the time

    • daggermoon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it was to reduce distortion on mono records when played back with a stereo stylus. I could be wrong though.

  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The early days of stereo (which is what you’re talking about, the recordings of 70s which aren’t using stereo as an “effect” almost universally have the vocals panned to the center. The old way to take the vocals out of a recording was to adjust how much of the signal present equally on both channels was allowed to be played) were all about two things: backwards compatibility with mono systems and giving people with stereo systems a recognizable effect no matter what goofy system they had.

    Wild panning accomplishes both goals.

    Studio engineering that used the stereo format to create the illusion of a room or capture the sound of the room the players were playing in wasn’t developed yet and came from the experimental stereo recordings that sound crazy now like silver apples of the moon.

  • Orbituary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s actually a biological reason for this, believe it or not. Language and music “time share” many characteristics of both hemispheres of the brain. Language and music are processed in different hemispheres.

    Read pages 20-26 of the book “How Music Really Works” by Wayne Chase. It breaks it down in detail.