Brian Eno 3 speaker setup, Hafler circuit, etc.

[Andysu]

i may adopt it again , tried it around when reading about it , mid 1980's 86 87 ?
i may adopt it again like a recuse shelter cat or dog

 

[anmpr1]

I remember when this came about. It was explained to me that microphones and instruments were not always in phase with each other and therefore the effect varies from recording to recording. As a good example is The Lovin’ Spoonfuls ‘ ‘You didn’t have to be so nice’ ...

Those early LS records (plus many other 'groups' back then) were a recording patchwork. Probably because studio time was expensive, and because the actual band members were often inexperienced. Record labels employed union hourly rate studio musicians who laid down the basic tracks, then singers added their contribution, with the final mix assembled almost willy nilly. You can tell that little thought went into it. Especially since the pop stuff was 'meant' for AM car radio, the source being a 45rpm played with something like a Stanton 500, talked over by a DJ. Actual production 'values' secondary to the money-making endeavor.

As I recall, Spoonful stereo records typically had vocals on on channel, with instruments on the other. Sometimes there was little in between.

I hadn't listened to that particular track in years, but just did. A very simple mix. Basic instrumental track recorded in monophonic, more or less smack dab in the middle of the mix. Sebastian's voice is on the left channel, background chorus on the right. John's voice does have an 'out of phase' character to it.

Alternately, you often had some pretty intricate and well thought out productions, featuring multiple musicians, mixed into mono-- the idea that what you heard would not so much be different instruments playing different parts, but something fused into a single 'studio' instrument, as it were. Phil Spector and Brian Wilson come to mind. Compare the intended mono mix of Be My Baby with some subsequent 'stereo' reissues. Even in mono, the driving beat of Hal Blaine's drum carried the recording, and you can hear the studio's natural reverb in his drum (and in the other instruments-- I'm assuming that there was no added reverberation, but I don't know that).

I mean, the Wall of Sound technique is sometimes considered 'unnatural', but in spite of their depth, those recordings have a naturalness you often don't find in a lot of subsequent, more electronic processed productions. For his part, Wilson claimed he always liked to use Gold Star (along with Western) because of the studio's reverberant acoustic.

Somewhere around here I have the Pet Sounds box set, that features two CDs highlighting the evolution of Brian's final product, as the Wrecking Crew goes through multiple takes. Unlike a lot of today's pop, you had acoustic instruments (horns, harmonica, upright bass, banjo, piano etc.) playing along with six and twelve string electric guitar, organ and electric bass, --and interestingly enough, in the stereo mix you can hear each instrument clearly in an ambient stereo. Most of that was lost in the final product that Brian mixed down to mono.

Now I see that there is new a 5.1 mix of the record. I don't have a surround system, so I have no idea how it compares with either the subsequent stereo mix, or original monophonic.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't have a surround system, so I have no idea how it compares

Oh my brother, time to step out of the dark side and into the light.
Todays 5.1 and Atmos immersive audio are the SOTA for
enjoying modern recordings. Truly incredible things are being done in surround
musical productions.

 

[jshprsns947]

Ok this has been interesting reading all of this conversation here. So here's my question: how exactly would you do this with a setup like mine? I've included a diagram with all the information that I'm guessing would be helpful to know, but I don't know the first thing about electricity or circuits or any of the science behind sound so please let me know if I left something out or mislabeled something..

But the basic gist is I have a little 2-channel PTA stereo amp that's rated 40W for each channel, and then I got this active subwoofer recently which has its own 100W amp built in, and it took me awhile to figure it out, but basically the sub has two speaker IN terminals (L&R), and two speaker OUT terminals (L&R), and so where without the sub I would have my pair of Polk bookshelf spkrs plugged into the little amp, NOW I have to connect the spkr OUT terminals on the small amp to the spkr IN terminals on the back of the sub, and THEN my speakers into the spkr OUT on the sub and it works great. Oh and my source is just a aux-to-RCA cable from the laptop/TV/phone to the small amp.

But I found this really nice Phase Tech. center channel speaker at the thrift store for a few bucks and out of curiosity I did a google search to see if it's possible to wire 3 spkrs to 2 channels and voila, here we are lol. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! None of this equipment is worth really anything so I'm not TOO worried about it getting ruined, but at the same time it is all I have and I can't afford to replace any of it so I'm just trying to research a bit before I just go plugging stuff in wherever the plugs fit lol. Thanks!

 

[anmpr1]

Truly incredible things are being done in surround musical productions.

Surely. But at my late stage of the game, I have everything I really want to listen to in either monophonic, or stereo. A lot is material from the '60s and '50s, along with post war live recordings, such as the Furtwangler radio transcriptions. It's not important for surround.

Then, I'd have to buy two or three more loudspeakers, and where am I going to find room for two more LaScalas and a center Cornwall? A couple of more Dynakits or three, some kind of processor, and... well, you get the idea.

Not only that, but I'm superstitious. Look, if god had wanted us to listen to more than stereo, he'd have given us more than two ears. Right? And consider what happened to Icarus. Daedalus warned him that he shouldn't use his new add-on wax ears to listen too closely to 5.1. But what did he do? I'll tell you what he did. He didn't pay any attention to his old man, and the next thing you know he has four subs and a half dozen Dolby Atmos loudspeakers pointing in every direction. Plus a wireless remote control that no one can understand. Before he knew it, all that surround sound melted his wax ears, and he became deaf. Ovid wrote a poem about it that proves it.

 

[Sal1950]

Surely. But at my late stage of the game, I have everything I really want to listen to in either monophonic, or stereo. A lot is material from the '60s and '50s, along with post war live recordings, such as the Furtwangler radio transcriptions. It's not important for surround.

Absolutely, Fred and Wilma can understand that completely.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Oh my brother, time to step out of the dark side and into the light.
Todays 5.1 and Atmos immersive audio are the SOTA for
enjoying modern recordings. Truly incredible things are being done in surround
musical productions.

Maybe for live recordings. Otherwise I think it's comparing two different things and tastes. -Stereo and surround that is. I'd rather listen to music on my stereo setup.

 

[Sal1950]

Maybe for live recordings. Otherwise I think it's comparing two different things and tastes. -Stereo and surround that is. I'd rather listen to music on my stereo setup.

Things like that are what the mono guys were saying about stereo in the late 50s, early 60s.
Time and superior technology marches on.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

That's what the mono guys were saying about stereo in the late 50s, early 60s.
Time and superior technology marches on.

I've actually had a pretty powerful surround system. I still prefer stereo for music.

 

[Sal1950]

I've actually had a pretty powerful surround system. I still prefer stereo for music.

I can respect your opinion but as a audiophile who has had quality systems of both types
since the early 70s I would have to strongly disagree.
Listen to a modern Atmos recording like Point Yello on a quality rig of both types and the Atmos
mix is miles beyond anything else.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I can respect your opinion but as a audiophile who has had quality systems of both types
since the early 70s I would have to strongly disagree.
Listen to a modern Atmos recording like Point Yello on a quality rig of both types and the Atmos
mix is miles beyond anything else.

I have no interest in surround anymore. Feels like I've done that.

You should listen to what you like.

 

[quodlibets]

I listen to a lot of early choral music and my living room is relatively small. I wanted to see if I could increase the ambience with some of the excess toys I already have. My normal setup is lossless files > iMac > Topping DAC > HR-824 powered studio monitors. I first took the balanced outs from the Topping and took a new signal from pin 2 left and pin 2 right and fed them to a small pair of JBL SR 6325P speakers which I located at the rear of the room where I sit. This helped but because of the small room the speakers were too close to me and I kept localizing on them. I then used BlackHole to split the output from Apple Music to feed the Topping and also to feed Logic Pro. In Logic Pro I added a 50 millisecond delay and then fed that to a Shiit DAC with balanced outs. I then separated out the surround by using the two hots and reversed the polarity on one of the speakers. This is of course rather cumbersome but it actually works rather well. If someone made an affordable decoder the size of the Topping I would get that but there is not room on my desk for a normal sized audio component.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Of possible interest to you:

Dynaco QD-1 Quadaptor Manual | HiFi Engine

www.hifiengine.com

Jim