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

[Ed Seedhouse]

Stereo (generally, and AFAIK) means depth or 3D or holographic sensory perception.

It means nothing of the sort. Originally the term simply meant "solid". From Wikipedia: 'The word stereophonic derives from the Greek "στερεός" (stereos), "firm, solid"[1] + "φωνή" (phōnē), "sound, tone, voice"[2] and it was coined in 1927 by Western Electric, by analogy with the word "stereoscopic".'

Alan Blumlein showed how two microphones placed close together could record a live event in such a way that it would sound convincing over two speakers, preserving in the forward plane the normal phase and volume cues the human ear uses to detect sound. I believe it is the proper way to record a live event in stereo, but that doesn't mean other means can't work too.

Pan-potted recordings are still stereo and if done right (very difficult) can sound very convincing. "Abbey Road" is, IMO, a good example. Even heavily multi-miked recordings can sound great. My favorite Mahler II is the Bernstein version recorded that way by, if I recall right, DG. Sounds great and the final movement always brings tears to my eyes, multi-miked or no. Yeah, I bet it would be even better if Blumlein stereo had been used instead but it is what it is, and it's a great recording in my book.