"Dusty in Memphis" in mono on HDtracks?

These are the only comments I've read on the subject (from the 2002 booklet):

"...The mono mixes have been supplied on a digital tape from the Rhino/Atlantic vaults in the USA" - Gary Moore

"...Although the album was issued in stereo only, the aforementioned tracks were mixed to mono for the single releases. These mono mixes are included as bonus tracks on this Deluxe edition" - Paul Howes

Doesn't rule out folds (although it's all a bit misleading if they are).

I guess this is the digipak version (mine's a jewel case with artwork closer to the original UK LP):

 

I also first heard the mono mixes on the Mercury CD and never even considered the possibility of them being folds. I even thought hearing a mixing difference, namely stronger bass and drier drums on the mono. But now it dawns on me it might as well been the difference in EQ between the stereo source and the monos on that CD.

Still, we could approach this by triangulation. Surely Atlantic still issued real mono mixes on singles in 1969, right? So if other singles released by Atlantic U.S. around this time also are dedicated mono mixes, the chances are high these are, too.

 

Doesn't the bass usually sound louder on a fold? I think that's in part because the lack of spatial cues makes the music sound duller.

They could be dedicated mono mixes - but they sure sound an awful lot like the stereo mixes. Didn't they usually mix the vocals a lot higher in the mono mixes?

And did they perform a separate set of mixes (mono and possibly stereo) for the singles as opposed to the LPs?

 

My money's on folds (I've not noticed a single balance mismatch comparing to folding the stereo Rhino - even the groovy level jumps are the same on "Breakfast In Bed") - the balance is quite good and it's consistent so perhaps Tom Dowd monitored in both stereo and mono for the mix. Maybe he even ran the mix to stereo and mono tape machines at the same time (no significant generational loss I can hear).

 

Everything is pointing to one mix - Occam's razor, and all that.

Anything is possible, however.

I always thought the monos were OK - I'm thinking I want the whole mono album now... and I want the original mono!

I was always curious about why they listed the bonus tracks on the 2002 CD as "MONO/ORIGINALS" - maybe they were trying to make clear they were from original mono masters since that's really the only justification for having folds on the same disc as the stereo mixes?

Dusty and Tom Dowd:

 

Atlantic, late '60's...CSG-processed mono folds?

 

I think that's it! That would explain the balance being retained in folded mono (vocal stays at similar level to side info).

The stereo has a certain 'pingy' or 'quacky' sound to it which, when I think about it, reminds me of the Lalo Schifrin Bullitt soundtrack CD I have (Warner Bros 9362-45008-2) which is supposedly Haeco-CSG processed. Not bad in an obvious way, but slightly odd is the only way to describe it.

Atlantic took out an ad in Billboard championing the CSG system in April '68:

Atlantic CSG ad - Billboard, April '68

Significantly, they suggest that it will be used from then on, replacing dedicated mono mixes (they even suggest their catalogue will be 're-mastered in the CSG STEREO process'. Yikes - did that actually happen?!)

I was looking into CSG only a few days ago and saw this ad - never made the connection to Dusty In Memphis

Did Atlantic go through with their stated plans? Did they continue to use the process but drop the "CSG STEREO" identifier (they state it will be on the products processed with Haeco-CSG)?

Has anyone tried undoing the process (undoing the phase shift in one channel - not a time-delay)? I'm guessing that with the correct tools it would be possible to significantly improve the phase coherence of the stereo master but not correct it perfectly.

Anyway, it seems to me this album may well be Haeco-CSG processed Stereo and folded mono.

 

Holy cow - I had no idea that was even a thing! You learn something new every day.

Per the Wikipedia article, Haeco-CSG was usually applied to the LP master, but...

However the Haeco-CSG processing was often applied at the master tape mix session. This, in effect, makes it a permanent part of the stereo recording. However, the process can still be reversed through modern digital reprocessing. Unfortunately, many compact discs of these processed albums still are encoded with the system, causing the center channel blurring effect even on modern digital playback systems.

 

The thing is, I don't detect a blurring of the centre - I think that may be why I couldn't fathom if CSG was used in the past (Everly Brothers - Roots and Lalo Schifrin - Bullitt) without folding.

My guess is that adding a phase shift to one channel just reduces the reinforcement of the centre info on folding, without specifically blurring the central info on stereo playback. Or I've not understood what is meant by 'blurring effect'? I think there is a sonic signature though - which I can only describe as a 'pingy' or 'quacky' sound (maybe the sound of playing something in a small tin box mixed into the sound somehow but with an inside-out stereo effect, an unnatural phase effect). I suppose this would be a result of messing with the stereo image in this way. So, perhaps the image is not right, but I wouldn't decribe it as 'blurred'. More like the two channels have a small ammount of "inside-outness".

A 180˚ phase shift on one channel is obvious in stereo (the 'weird' effect - fully inside-out) - shifts set somewhere around or below 90˚ would, I imagine, be less obviously 'weird' sounding but would reduce centre/side balance change on folding (ie, the purpose of the Haeco-CSG system).

 

The stereo mix doesn't have the out-of-phase sound that's common with CSG-processed masters. Listen to The Association's Greatest Hits! if you're not familiar with the sound.

That said, it's not out of the question that an Atlantic engineer post-processed the tracks selected as singles and folded them to mono, or the entire album reel...

 

Guys, aside from the fold down question, how does the HD Tracks version sound?

 

To my ears, folding it produces a balance you'd only get with a phase shift. As I understand it, the ammount of shift was up to the operator.

Not only that but there's the sound of some phase shift to my ears listening in stereo (try on headphones - that weird "suckout" effect). Compared to the bonus cuts on the Rhino, the album tracks, outtake and the two 1970 single sides have this sound. The Gamble & Huff and later Jeff Barry Atlantic masters don't.

Also, it explains why the mono is not much better or worse than the stereo - they are both compromised...

Maybe I'm wrong but I've be thinking about CSG lately in an effort to understand it and this topic has made me realise what's going on sound-wise.

Sticking my neck out on this one.

 

Hi, at the risk of seeming naive, could someone explain CSG in a sentence or two? Thanks

Oh and BTW I have a re-issue Dusty in Memphis on.... 4 men with beards vinyl (I think) Is that a decent issue or am I going to have to look for an original pressing?

~Peace

 

It all comes down to what happens when you fold (sum) stereo to mono. Normally (no phase offset between channels), as you go from the centre to the side in the stereo image, less reinforcement will occur upon folding - doubled level for the centre content, no change in level on fully panned content. If you split the folded mono back to both speakers you find the centred information about the same as it was in stereo and the side information has dropped away a few dB (and is now in the centre too).

The Haeco-CSG process introduces a phase offset between the two channels of the stereo program. The means that upon folding to mono, centred information like vocals won't be "doubled" while the hard panned information still stays the same (still a sliding scale from centre to edge). That is, it reduces the increase in the level of the centre material and the wider material to the fixed edge - like lowering a circus tent in the middle, if the roof shape represents the relative levels of the originally stereo information now that it is mono).

The amount you can flatten the "tent" with a fold from stereo goes from not at all (no phase offset), to flat (90˚) and all the way to the floor (180˚). Remember, the height at the far left and right of the tent are always the same so this 180˚ shift will produce no centre information upon folding but will have increasing amounts of content the wider-panned that content was in stereo.

If the ground (180˚ offset) represents no centre stereo content left in the mono fold, the full height of the tent roof at the centre (ie, no phase offset) is double the flat height (ie, 90˚ or 270˚ phase offset).

As phase offset between channels is applied beyond 180˚, it's like starting to raise the tent again. 270˚ gets you back to the flat tent roof position (like 90˚) and at 360˚ phase offset you are back where you started with full roof height in the centre (0˚).

Remember, this circus tent roof analogy here is supposed to show the level shift in the mono fold for sounds that came from these positions in the stereo field.

The way this is done is a matter of a/c circuits (which inherently have a phase for each frequency in the circuit)... but I've gone over the original request for a sentence or two already...

 

I have both the stereo and mono Dusty In Memphis from HDTracks. The mono is quite similar to the stereo, though the tonal balance is different. It sounds like virtually the same mix to me. If it's not a fold down, someone carefully worked to make it as similar to the stereo mix as possible in terms of the instrument balance.

It does sound substantially louder than the stereo mix and more compressed. Her vocals sound noticeably harsher without the air reverb provides on the stereo version. The bass is much more up-front but somewhat tubby and not rich. Instruments like the snare drum on songs like "So Much Love" seem punchier as a result, but that's not exactly a good thing - I think it throws the mixes out of balance a bit.

I vastly prefer the stereo version. Although it seems to have more of a high end, the stereo version actually doesn't seem to have anymore hiss than the mono, which is surprisingly hissy in spite of the fact it sounds dull.

I thought I read some critical things regarding that pressing.

Traditionally when stereo mixes are simply folded down any material that's already present in both channels (frequently vocals or drums) gets unnaturally emphasized, its apparent volume dramatically boosted. That messes up the balance of the mix. CSG was an electronic attempt to find and then suppress the volume of material that appeared in both stereo channels, so that if you summed the mix to mono the proper balance would be maintained.

The only problem is, doing so somewhat messes up the stereo mix - it artificially widens the stereo soundstage, leaving a kind of hole or suckout in the middle of the stereo image (especially when you listen via headphones).

 

As 8 of the 11 tracks were already in mono , from the singles, perhaps the remaining 3 have been folded for this mono HD release to cash in on the mono craze?

 

I think the original mono singles were just folds of the stereo mix as well. I have those from the Rhino release over a decade ago...

 

Thankyou!

 

The mono version is being sold on iTunes as well.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/dusty-in-memphis-mono/id896708083

 

Nope that was just perfect. Thanks for the clear explantion. CSG isnt something I had ever heard of.

 

I just want to note that NONE of the editions of Dusty In Memphis I've heard over the years qualify as sounding "great". They're all either hissy or muted/NoNoised to death. It is what it is. Lots of people raved about the SACD - I found it a disappointment. The HDTracks stereo 192 version sounds - tonally - the most like the original Rhino releases from the '90s, only noticeably better. I don't have the original '60s vinyl to compare any of them to, though... Although that might not necessarily be the best reference, either - who knows what happened when the vinyl master was created...

 

Equipment profile?

 

Just mi-fi. An h/k AVR254 receiver with my old Energy eXL speakers and a Klipsch powered sub, running at 24/96.

I've also listened to both on my Audio Technica ATH-M50's with a Dragonfly amp running 24/96, which I find to be very neutral and revealing.

I've never encountered a bad master that sounded better on higher-end equipment though, at least relative to a better-sounding master. They usually just sound that much worse in comparison as you climb the esoteric ladder...

 

Mono version is also streaming on Spotify.