Stereophonic recording?, L/R balance Options

[HTS]

What does stereo recording achieve? I noticed that the left and right channels of some stereo samples don't sound the same, and loaded them into audacity. The program confirms my suspicion that the sounds vary greatly in characteristics. For a vibrato filled note, most often only one of the channels displays the wavy pattern induced by the vibrato. Is this what stereo recording is supposed to do? So the sounds mixed into your music will have certain instruments placed to the L/R side of the listener?

[hollowman]

What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?

[Roseval]

What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?

Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning

[db1989]

What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?

Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning

That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself.

Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.

[hollowman]

What is the proper semantic name -- e.g., a Wiki-style name -- for that Beatles-type "stereo" sound that incorporates hard-left, hard-right, and mono-dead-center?
Is it three-track mono, etc?

Hard panning

http://wikirecording.org/How_to_Approach_P...ng#Hard_Panning

That might be it? although it says nothing about the hard centre. I wanted to go with trichotomous, myself.

Okay ... another nomenclature query.... As with The Beatles, I only know this by example. Early "stereo" recordings like Miles Davis Kind of Blue does not (at least to me me) sound HARD-panned. But it is not 3D Blumlein/"holographic" stereo either. E.g. not mono-L, mono-C, mono-R (as with Beatles hard pan) ... but: mono-L, mono-C/L, mono-C, mono-C/R, mono-R. So, effectively, more "multi-track" but (as with HP/Beatles) again no 3D/"holographic" depth (e.g., flat or 2D sound, but more filled in between hard L and hard R).

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no defined term for something as simple as panning individual tracks to defined points in the stereo field—such as your example of 100% L, 50% L, C, 50% R, 100% R—without any spread/depth. It’s the kind of thing lots of producers do, except they may use light reverb in post, which may not have been available/easy in the past.

Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception. Stereo-vision (binocular vision) comes to mind -- and why Viewmasters and 3D movies work, I guess! I've read that certain animals -- e.g., sharks, rats -- can SMELL in stereo:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/sharks-smell-stereo.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5761/666.abstract
I'm not sure how width fits into it. A single solo instrument, playing one sustained note, but with reverb added for depth.
So how does height fit into all this? (Gear reviewers and and "audiophiles" often describe height subjectively using various adjectives). FWIW, wiki has this to say about "Height channels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_channels
Also, lots of psychoacoustics going on ... e.g., does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 7 2011, 13:55

[Soap]

does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.

[hollowman]

does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.

'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.

Back to sound/hearing ... don't recall where I read this (Sci Am, New Sci, Sci News, etc) but there was "recently" some new finding into how the ear system does more 'smart' processing locally (i.e, at ear) than prev. known. I.e., the brain doles out more 'logics' responsibility to the remote organ itself. (The same has been known about eye/visual system for a while).
Can someone recall a source for this?

EDIT:
WRT human perception of stereophonic sound 'field' ... and things that may affect it: Personal health (when I'm tired or low-blood-sugared, sound field tends to 'mono out' on me); long-duration music listening, at moderate or high volume, also 'mono's' sound field IME -- is this due to tired eardrums? intoxicants/drugs/meds; barometeric press, etc.

This post has been edited by hollowman: Jul 7 2011, 15:14

[Soap]

does the stereo effect totally go away if you cover one ear? For vision, stereo depth does not really entirely go away with covering up (or losing!) one eye.

That is a perfect example of how one does not see with their eyes alone, but rather the entire chain including the brain.

If you put a one eyed man into a world with no familiar visual cues (and prevented him from moving his head) he would have no depth perception, because our binocular vision is not the strongest hint as to depth relationships. Size of familiar objects, movement deltas, and sharpness differences are the three strongest.

'Entire chain' ... aka continuum or continuums. E.g., may include blightsight phenomenon.
With vision, you can do the 'stereo' test. Look at a pen or finger pointing to the eyes 'axis'. Cover up one eye, and cont. to look. Depth does not fully go away.

More mumbo-jumbo words, and an"exception" already covered by my post.