[78-L] accidental stereo

[David Lennick]

DAVID BURNHAM wrote:
> dl's subject line was:  EMI Admitted to Accidental Stereo (attn Brad
>     Kay)!!!!

No, Mike Biel's subject line was EMI admitted to Accidental Stereo. I quoted 
Mike's message in my response.

dl
> 
> 
> If accidental stereo actually happened, why would the companies try to hide it?  Knowing the inquisitive nature of most recording engineers and audio specialists I've met, they would explore any possibility of this occurring.
> 
> As I've said before on this list, if you listen to one of these accidental stereo recordings and, (if it's orchestral), you can clearly hear the imaging of the strings so that the sections are distributed across the sound-stage accurately, (usually with the 1st violins on the left and the 2nds on the right), then it is indeed stereo.  On jazz recordings they could, of course, be in any configuration but the instruments should still be clearly placed and not wander.  Simply having two different sounds on two different channels doesn't make it stereo.  Having a spacy sound with no distinct imaging is also not stereo; simply having and inter-channel delay or frequency differences between channels will give you that.  I don't know of any music lover or audiophile who had any use for electronically re-channelled stereo.  
> 
> I'm aware that there are many recordings which were actually recorded in "stereo" which fall outside of my criteria but that's my tale and I'm sitting on it.
> 
> db