How in god's name do they convert a mono recording into a stereo mix?

If one has access to the original tapes, a new mix can be done in stereo -- a number of '60's rock records (Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Who) have received this treatment for CD release. "True stereo" refers to a stereo mix from instruments recorded AND mixed in stereo (eg: a binaural pair of mikes recording each instrument, instruments mixed to stereo). This was a relatively uncommon recording technique for rock/pop music in the '60's. Ergo, I'm uncertain whether the remixed "Pet Sounds" is "true stereo" or a stereo remix.

As an aside, Brian Wilson was deaf in one ear and couldn't hear stereo, so a mono "Pet Sounds" is likely closer to what he intended for the sound.

Almost all good wave editors will allow you to convert a mono
track to stereo. After this is done, for practical purpose it's
still mono, although it looks like a stereo file in the
editor.

Higher end digital tweakers, common in all studio home and pro,
allow you to use a customizable digital echo chamber on the
file. It asks you to set right and left virtual microphones
to emulate a stereo capture. Then you program the listening
room space, area, wall distance from the microphones and the
reflectivity -- which is whatever you want the room to sound
like -- cement walls, wooden, furnished room, etc.

Then you process the wave through the virtual echo chamber and
you get a stereo simulation from a single source.

That's one fairly easy way, taking a couple minutes in a variety
of software sounds labs. There are others, some of which have
been mentioned.

The computing power on the desktop just makes this so easy to do. But the idea probably goes back to the invention of stereo and the need
to jigger mono catalog into the newer format in some tolerable
manner.

You could certainly do the same thing in a studio decades ago,
it just took a lot more work and some actual ability with
physical, as opposed to virtual, microphones.

(my suspicion is that there were a number of instruments bounced onto single tracks, which would, I assume, confound the digital tweaking somewhat?).

Yep, the digital echo chamber is just an after-the-fact fix-up measure.

does this mean that the beatles 60s albums should really be listened to in mono as this is how they were mixed? or are there benefits from listening to revolver in stereo as they were playing around with stereo and panning etc more at that stage?

you need a mono copy of revolver. preferably first-press parlophone. okay?

and always remember my friends:

"Any UK release that has a "1" etched in the dead wax at the 9 o'clock postion and a single alpha character at the 3 o'clock. The "1" indicates the record was pressed from the very first mother and the 3 o'clock represents the stamper number. Single characters at 3 o'clock indicate very early stampers. If the only letter at 3 o'clock is "G", and the mother at 9 o'clock is "1" you have yourself one of the first 300-500 pressings ever made of that record. That's a keeper my friends. For more information on decoding Parlophone records, please see my Parlophone Matrix, Mothers and Stampers guide."

Yeah, scott OTM.

Some of the most serious mono/stereo differences I've heard are the first few Byrds records--Mono mixes blow away the stereo.

there are books devoted to stereo/mono beatles. it's endless, really. everyone has a different preference. early u.k. pressings are usually the best and truest sources though. the beatles themselves apparently had nothing to do with the stereo mixes of sgt. pepper and revolver for instance. thus, many geeks will only listen to early mono mixes of those albums. and they do SOUND different. the mono version of the white album has completely different mixes/versions from the stereo version.
u.s. vinyl is mostly fucked. not in every case. but capitol would fuck with mixes all the time. add shit. echo, reverb, etc.

u.s. stones vinyl in fake stereo! *shudder*. soooooooo bad. and that's what everyone in this godforsaken country grew up on.

and then when you get into what they did to the remaster/reissues of all these CDs! oy, you don't want to know.

there is a reason people pay such a premium for white label promos and test pressings. cuz they are the LEAST fucked with documents you have of what something originally sounded like. or was supposed to sound like.

the original mono mix of tomorrow never knows is completely different from the later mono version. i think. is that the song i'm thinking of? lennon didn't like it. and they switched it. and the stereo/mono versions are different too, naturally. the mono version is way louder for one thing.

im wondering if the reason my chuck berry best of double cd comp doesnt sound as certain tracks that i have on original chess LPs is cos of a difference in the mixes... or maybe they just did a poor transferring job.

does this mean that the beatles 60s albums should really be listened to in mono as this is how they were mixed?

Depends on your taste. Personally I tend to use headphones, which means I always prefer stereo.

dude geir dude, u mad. headphones is where you notice a bad stereo mix even more!

>>u.s. vinyl is mostly fucked. not in every case. but capitol would fuck >>with mixes all the time. add shit. echo, reverb, etc

Slight shades of Dave Marsh ranting about Dave Dexter in his new book that no one's buying on the Beatles second album.

Look, it's like this. If you were a kid and you got the US Beatle albums, they were flat out great. You didn't know about or care that their releases in the UK were radically different or that Meet the Beatles was actually their second album in the US after the first flop at VeeJay or wherever. And it didn't matter that The Early Beatles reprised all that stuff two years late.

Beatles '65 was a great album and if your experience of it was original, you probably don't get the same kick out of the proper UK sequencing. I don't. And Beatles VI was another beloved favorite. And it's why I was happy to buy the box sets that released them on CD and ignore all the idiots griping on-line about botched mastering jobs.

The Beatles CDs of the early stuff (pre-Rubber Soul at least)I've heard have been horrible. I'd be curious to hear the Brit LPs (not enough to spend the money on them, really). But when I hear "You've Really Got a Hold On Me" in fake stereo off the Second Album it sounds massive with the compression and reverb. The drums kick and the vocals are huge. The mono CD sounds like someone sucked all the life out of it. And I'm not someone who usually notices these kinds of things...

Marsh's point about the "Second Album" is that Dexter basically made a masterpiece by accident.

im not sure if i can afford all the mono beatles' (never mind other artists) albums. not in the condition id like anyway.

headphones is where you notice a bad stereo mix even more!

Even a bad stereo mix is more interesting to listen to than a mono mix. Although those first two albums may be a weird listen as times considering they have nothing appearing in the middle.

the capitol box sets are certainly worth picking up, although the album with the huge differences in mono/stereo mixes was sgt. pepper. this used to be on oink but yo ucan probably find it if you look hard enough online (you'll pay big money for a vinyl copy) as a dr. ebetts cd.

"Sgt. Pepper"'s stereo mix has several creative gimmicks though. They may have been mainly the work of George Martin, but they are still brilliant. And George Martin played an important part in the genius of The Beatles anyway, so....

Hold on, what about this thing you said just 5 days ago:

I don't see a guitarist as much of an artist either unless he is the writer of the group.

The art lies in the melody and the true artist is the one who composed the melody. That's what it was like in the days of Mozart and Beethoven and that's what it should be like today either.

The ideal musician is the singer/songwriter/producer/multi-instrumentalist who is a control freak and doesn't want anything outside of his brain to have even the slightest impact on how his music sounds.

-- Geir Hongro, 25. joulukuuta 2007 20:40 (5 days ago) Bookmark Link

So now you're willing to admit that George Martin's production work, which had nothing to with melody and everything to do without sound, actually "played an important part in the genius of The Beatles". I thought the only genius was in writing the melodies. Also, if melody was all that mattered, you shouldn't even care whether you're listening to a mono or a stereo mix.

Scandinavians be gettin' cagey.

But the only Scandinavian here is Geir...

well there are lots of different tricks in the mono sgt pepper. it's a pretty radically different mix. different sound effects on good morning, etc.

oops, wikipedia corrected me--you NORDIC TYPES be getin' cagey.

>>Marsh's point about the "Second Album" is that Dexter basically made a >>masterpiece by accident.

Now there's a scintillating observation that probably never occurred to anyone before. I was mildly interested in paging through the book until a damned-by-faint-praise review of it ran in the Times.

So now you're willing to admit that George Martin's production work, which had nothing to with melody and everything to do without sound, actually "played an important part in the genius of The Beatles". I thought the only genius was in writing the melodies.

There is nothing about George Martin's production that would change those melodies anyway. A producer will only fuck up if he insists on changing the chords or doing something else that changes the mood and nature of the melody.