"electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo"

wtf does this mean? how can you simulate multichannel sound on one channel? do they just add some reverb to the backing track?

this always sounds awful in my experience

one channel is delayed by a tiny amount

or some sort of pseudo stereo processing is done where certain frequencies are shifted L/R, in conjunction with the slight delay on one side

also hoos otm

yeah I have picked out many records I was briefly curious/excited about and seeing that on the cover is always sadtrombone.wav

also hmmm I was curious about when this was used but it seems the technology still has applications, from wiki:

Pseudo-stereo

In the course of restoration or remastering of monophonic records, various techniques of "pseudo-stereo", "quasi-stereo", or "rechanneled stereo" have been used to create the impression that the sound was originally recorded in stereo. These techniques first involved hardware methods (see Duophonic) or, more recently, a combination of hardware and software. Multitrack Studio, from Bremmers Audio Design (The Netherlands),[4] uses special filters to achieve a pseudo-stereo effect: the "shelve" filter directs low frequencies to the left channel and high frequencies to the right channel, and the "comb" filter adds a small delay in signal timing between the two channels, a delay barely noticeable by ear (the comb filter allows range of manipulation between 0 and 100 milliseconds), but contributing to an effect of "widening" original "fattiness" of mono recording.[5][6]

The special pseudo-stereo circuit—invented by Kishii and Noro, from Japan—was patented in the United States in 2003,[7] with already previously issued patents for similar devices.[8] Artificial stereo techniques have been used to improve the listening experience of monophonic recordings or to make them more "saleable" in today's market, where people expect stereo. Some critics have expressed concern about the use of these methods.[9]

Electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo = sadface. Thin sound, usually bass & drums in one ear, guitars & vox in another (for rock records anyway.) The early Byrds records are a very good example of how awful this is! Compare a mono copy of Turn Turn Turn to a stereo copy, and it's like night & day.

sometimes it's kinda fun to listen to a fake stereo beatles or stones album in one speaker and hear just a capella vocals or just drums and guitar. you can make fun tape experiments if you record them that way.

the all instruments in one channel, vocals in another is not "electronically reprocessed to simulate stereo" all the time, it's just a weird mixing choice.

My copy of The Troggs "Love is All Around" is one of these. Bummer city.

good example record: Magical Mystery Tour

Most of the album is just 'odd mixing choice' with instruments and vocals hard panned either left or right. This is the stuff that's fun to mess around with the knob that lets you select all left channel, all right channel, all mono, standard, or reverse (if you've got one).

Last couple of tracks though are fake stereo (All You Need is Love and maybe one other? Penny Lane?), and these sound *awful*. It's more like low frequency panned one direction, mids centered, and high frequency panned other direction. It's just disorienting.

(this is for the original US pressing [and a number of US repressings]. there are some upscale repressings that include the final couple tracks as proper mono)

i've never owned a mono copy of mmt. or sgt. pepper. kinda makes me sad. there are mono copies of white album too. would love to hear that!

To be fair a lot of these records were probably not re-engineered with headphones in mind and sound pretty good on a hi-fi.

Sadly I had one of those represses I mentioned with the mono tracks on MMT, but sold it when I was low on cash (to the store where I worked). Regret it now that I'm raking it in!

I think the hard panned stuff can sound cool on a hi-fi, but the simulated stereo sounds weird to me on anything.

but, you know, you buy what you can find sometimes. I've definitely got some Rolling Stones simulated stereo LPs.

i wish someone would write a buyer's/listener's guide to 60's rock. which pressings are the best, etc. one good example, u.s. stereo pressings of donovan albums sound terrible. you really need mono. ditto for first monkees albums and paul revere & the raiders. probably a good bet to go mono for anything 1966 or before in a lot of cases. but i'm no expert. early u.s. stereo stones stuff is just abysmal. sounds like crud. and then there are albums where they only made separate mono mixes for radio. white label promos, don't you know. some of those sound fantastic. and they are the hardest to find/get.

and ian otm about byrds records. you want mono all the way up until ummmmmm, i'd have to check. i'm not a byrds expert either. the later 60's byrds stuff definitely had good stereo mixes.

probably a good bet to go mono for anything 1966 or before in a lot of cases

good general rule, some would say 1967 or before.

i would like a book of this sort of thing, thank you. someone get on it:

Of all Byrds albums, The Notorious Byrd Brothers almost certainly has the most differences between the stereo and mono mixes.

The horns on "Artificial Energy" are noticeably quieter on the mono mix.
The cello sections during the chorus of "Goin' Back" are much quieter on the mono mix.
Where the stereo mix of "Natural Harmony" has a lot of double-tracking on the vocals, this is almost non-existent on the mono mix. To make up for the lack of double-tracking, the mono mix adds extra electronic phasing to the vocals.
The mono mix of "Change Is Now" has more echo on the vocals, which tends to give the song a "spacier" feel.
The Moog synthesizer sound effects on "Space Odyssey" are sometimes louder and sometimes quieter than the stereo mix.

i wish someone would write a buyer's/listener's guide to 60's rock.

scott seward, meet the internet. the internet, meet scott seward.

I know this isn't the "hard-panning" thread, but I'd just like to say that I usually find it distracting - even through speakers. I have a remastered CD of Capt. Beefheart's "Safe As Milk" that is mixed that way. It makes me wish I hadn't gotten rid of my old mono CD version.

if i recall, many of the songs on rhino's aretha franklin box set were mastered such that the vocals are all in one channel and most of the backing track is in another. leads to a world of headache when listened to on earphones.

"scott seward, meet the internet. the internet, meet scott seward."

come on, not everything is on the internet. i'd settle for a website devoted to this kind of thing.

one solution for hard-panning troubles: I walk further away from the stereo. need a big enough room for this one to work though.

that's specifically why i live in a high school gymnasium.

don't know how this thread's getting by without Geir's nuanced and informed opinion

Well.. Dunno if I have that much to add except reprocessed stereo sounds crap. True stereo is still way superior to mono though, even on two track recordings.

good example record: Magical Mystery Tour

Yeah, specifically "I Am The Walrus" for illustration. First two minutes are stereo, than at the 2:01 mark it switches to reprocessed stereo - treble in one channel, bass in the other - for the remainder of the song. And sounds awful from that point on, as it always did. (Although that song's so fucked-up and fucked-with already, that it's easy to imagine Lennon and George Martin wanting it to sound that way.)

Stereo > "pure" mono > hard-pan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "electronically reprocessed stereo"

I think it's because the radio noises were mixed directly onto the mono mix, so they could not mix a true stereo version.

Yeah, that sounds about right

oveheard--

Old man 1: Do you want to get that?
Old man 2: Yeah it's nice, I'll take it.
Old man 1: But it's electronic stereo!
Old man 2: Yeah but it sounds nice.

best part of the situation is that old man 2 is barking orders at old man 1--"flip it!" "okay okay take this one off."

old man 1 may have had a stroke?
old man 2 is a regular, but he has never come in with someone else before.

err, wait, reverse those in the last post--old man 1 is the regular, old man two is the one who can't flip records himself.

Worth mentioning that I listened to the Beatles albums in all sorts of horrible configurations when I was young and never really cared or noticed. We didn't have headphones, and we had a cheap stereo, so that might explain a lot of it. So, I mean, fake stereo etc. certainly don't ruin the albums if you don't have anything to compare them to...

In a way it's probably more realistic (in terms of having the same experience that most people had in the 60's and 70's) to listen to crappy pressings.

Can anybody think of an example where this actually sounds better than the real stereo or mono version?