2. music
  3. 1369958090

Horrible early stereo mix

Why don't record re-releases correct the horrible stereo separation from many early stereo recordings?
You know the records: half the band in the left channel; half the band in the right channel; nothing in the center.
All the early Beatles in stereo are like that. I just got a reissue of a Dinah Washington record. The fidelity is great but the stereo separation is crazy.
I know these recordings were probably mixed for a console stereo where the speakers were only 24" apart.
But why keep this awful flaw?
The only way I can listen to these records is to move my speakers together.
maxh
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
Why not buying mono versions after all?
frogman
7,407 posts
 
Mono switch on preamp?
tostadosunidos's avatar
tostadosunidos
1,197 posts
 
The early Beatles' stereo mix is tricky to correct. The original 4-tracks are long gone. They were never intended to be mixed in stereo--George Martin has said he made the stereo mix as an aid to a quicker, easier mono mix. The U.S. wanted stereo and that's what they got (plus added reverb).

I did make personal cassettes of the early LP's in which I panned everything a bit more to the center so it's not so extreme sounding. I suppose they could do that, but it's far from the ideal solution. With the proper software you could do it yourself.

Personally, I'd rather hear the much-maligned stereo mix than the mono.
arh
366 posts
 
Many early masters are 3 or 4 track which make it impossible to do what you want. It wasn't until 8 track and 16 track came along which allowed placing each instrument on a separate track that allowed for placement of a track anywhere in the stereo plane
Alan
rrog
1,958 posts
 
I don't have a problem with those recordings. I kind of like the separated sound and I appreciate the recordings for what they are. Many early jazz recordings are that way also and there is something special about how natural those recordings sound.
More to discover