Eric Records - new releases - DES or "Digitally Extracted Stereo" versions of 50s classics +

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by John B Good, Feb 2, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    No, no, no! Those were not DES!!! DES, as it is called, is when they take a mono track and use little tricks like digitally EQ'ing, re-balancing, and shifting channels by milliseconds to create an illusion of stereo, or "fake" stereo. All it amounts to is the old rechanneled stereo we all hate. Spectral editing is something entirely different. This is far from the only program available, and some other programs can do certain levels of these functions, here is what Magix Spectral Layers can do.

    The way those early Beatles recordings came about was that they were recorded vocals on one side and music on the other. GM did that only to create a better mono mix. The reason they ever released these twin-track stereo songs is because there was a small demand for stereo, so they put together anything. They could not remix to better stereo because of the way they were recorded. However, with 2009 digital technology, they could at least center vocals and instruments to where they are more in the center to make the balance more modern.

    Today, we have the digital technology to literally extract each element from a mono mix, or in this case, a twin-track recording, and remix each element into true stereo just as if they were multitracked.
     
    McLover likes this.
  2. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    I beg to differ. DES (Digitally Extracted Stereo) IS spectral editing. That's what the "Extracted" means. DES is extracting frequencies ranges from a spectral graph and saving them for subsequent remixing. Those other things you mention, "EQ'ing, re-balancing, and shifting channels by milliseconds" are techniques for creating the illusion of stereo or "fake" stereo. The handful of individuals in the entire world that I am aware of, who are excellent at doing this, primary use Sony SpectralLayers for spectral editing or DES.
     
    lukpac likes this.
  3. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    It is very unfortunate that you guys use the term "DES" for this process. It has a negative connotation and harkens back to the older techniques I called out. A lot of people think it's the same thing, as evidenced in earlier posts.

    Don't get me wrong: I think spectral editing is great, and the work done on these two CDs is remarkable, save one track, IMO.
     
  4. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    We at Eric have discussed this on numerous occasions in attempts to come up the best term for spectral editing. We originally described it as DES, because that was the first and best term formulated at the time by someone who has been at the forefront of promoting the process. "Digitally Extracted Stereo" does a more accurate job of describing the actual process than "Spectral Editing", which could mean any number of things.

    Perhaps you and others can offer some suggestions on a new term or expression that better describes what spectral editing is.
     
  5. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I'll see what I can come up with.
     
  6. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    Maybe even a thread on the subject, although I suspect the mono nuts, purists, naysayers, and others would scream and yell, throw things, and have all kinds of temper tantrums.
     
    Beaglemaster, paolo and oxenholme like this.
  7. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    HEY! I'm one of those mono nuts!:laughup: But, hey, if the spectral remixes sound exactly like the mono mixes, with no artifacts or other anomalies, i'm all for it! That was achieved on the "Hard To Find 45s on CD" Vol. 17. Sorry. I didn't get the "Jukebox Classics" one.:shrug:
     
    Nate-O-Phonic likes this.
  8. Octavian

    Octavian Forum Resident

    Location:
    Louisiana
    Yeah I'll have to disagree with you too. I myself have done some spectral editing myself using programs like Spectralayers. It most certainly is DES. The instruments are extracted digitally. I certainly agree that it is 100 times better than just EQ'ing and re-balancing, but it certainly still fits under the definition of DES.

    Just because you don't like the term DES doesn't mean you can claim that it isn't DES.
     
  9. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    You indeed digitally extract using the spectral view, but it doesn't have to mean stereo. You could use the parts to create a new mono mix, or 5.1, if you wanted to. So, again, you aren't extracting anything to stereo, you are un-mixing, or de-mixing. Hmmm...not quite right, either because some mono tracks are recorded live in the studio.

    I'm fighting it!:wantsome::D
     
    billnunan likes this.
  10. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Space-Age luddite

    Location:
    Central PA
    Thing is Grant, the "extract" part is only the first process. The re-inserting the extractions back into the soundfield in a more-believable position, achieves the "stereo" part. So I think, connotations or not, "DES" makes for a perfictly logical designation.

    Particularly when you go back to basics and realize that "stereo" is an illusion unto itself, created by an engineer assigning positions in the soundfield for various tracks which were never in that original position in space in the first place (unless of course, you recorded it live with all players participating in the original pass of the tape).

    You could, of course, try "DERS", so ya gotcher "Digitally-Extracted, RE-inserted Stereo"...

    [MARYPOPPINS]You know you CAN say it backwards, which is "dociousallirexpalistifragicallerupus", but that's going a bit to far, don't you think?[/MARYPOPPINS]
    [BURT]Indubitably.[/BURT]
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2017
    John B and Nate-O-Phonic like this.
  11. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    I know how the process works.

    I know what stereo is.

    Here's my thing: the elements are extracted. The are then mixed into true stereo, much different than the old techniques that resulted in a very unconvincing illusion of stereo. DES was an unfortunate and inaccurate term for that. Even if it describes this newer process better, it is still tainted with the thought of the older, fake process which was nothing more than the digital version of the old electronically rechanneled crap, and that's where people cry foul. They don 't understand that this spectral stuff is different.

    If you're trying to promote this newer process, you certainly don't want to use a term that has such a negative connotation.

    So, why not just stop calling these new stereo mixes DES all together? They are real stereo mixes, are they not? I admit I am having trouble coming up with a better term, but DES just doesn't work for the reason I explained. That term DES may excite some of the guys on a certain forum, but the people here, and especially most professionals, recoil at the very suggestion. There are people who won't even buy or listen to the CDs if they see/hear "DES".
     
  12. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    Digital extraction to create a new mono mix would be better described as DEM than DES.

    I don't know why you associate digital extraction with electronic rechanneling. To me electronic rechanneling is what RCA did to mono Elvis Presley recordings when they re-released his albums supposedly in stereo, with glorified tone controls removing the highs in one channel, the lows in the other channel, all bathed in horrible, excessive reverb.
     
    slane likes this.
  13. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Well, that's what some people have been calling the digital version of channelling for years.

    It does seem like I am trying to move the goal post a bit, but why use any term at all? The goal of using the spectral editing process is stereo, right? Just call it stereo!:)
     
  14. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    I'm of the school that believes if a stereo mix is created from a mono mix, it shouldn't be called "true stereo". "True stereo" to me means the original source material was either recorded onto more than one track and then mixed to stereo or was recorded live onto two tracks in stereo. Others disagree with me on this, saying if the sound is coming out of speakers where the ears hear directionality, that it is true stereo. I don't disagree with that argument; I just think it is disingenuous to call something true stereo when it was recorded in mono.

    To simply call these new mixes "stereo" wouldn't be inaccurate, but it would belie the fact that processes were applied to a mono recording to produce the stereo, a fact which I think is important and should be pointed out to buyers and potential buyers.
     
  15. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    But, if the goal is achieved, who cares how it was created? After all, they are indeed new stereo mixes created by isolating elements and using them to create a multitrack. If I understand it correctly, "A Groovy Kind Of Love" now has discrete tracks of all the elements because of spectral editing, right?
     
  16. billnunan

    billnunan Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    DES:

    Damm Excellent Sound
    Darn Exquisite Sound
    Darn Excellent Stereo
    Deliver Extra Stereo
    Dat Excellent Stuff

    Ok, I'll stop now.
     
  17. John B Good

    John B Good Forum Hall Of Fame Thread Starter

    Location:
    NS, Canada
    Angels dancing on the head of a pin?
     
  18. Twodawgzz

    Twodawgzz But why do you ask such questions...

    [​IMG]
    BTW Grant, the Jukebox Classics CD you didn't get, Hard To Find Jukebox Classics, The Fifties, 31 Amazing Stereo Hits, has, IMO, the best spectral editing or DES mixes of any release by anyone. I assume it's a matter of what one is familiar with. If one listened to music in the 50's, they would appreciate the Jukebox Classics CD; if their wheelhouse was the 60's, Hard To Find 45s on CD, Vol. 17: Late Sixties Classics would have more appeal.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    That's it! It isn't that i'm not familiar with 50s music, but I was born once the 50s were over. So...
     
  20. MaestroDavros

    MaestroDavros Forum Resident

    Location:
    D.C. Metro Area
    I feel that calling extracted/isolated stereo simply "stereo" or even "true stereo" is a dangerous road to go down for several reasons:

    First, for years it's been hard enough to pry out information from most releases what source tapes were used on reissues, so one could imagine the confusion and downright frustration that would/could arise if these types of releases were called "true stereo". As an example, there is still a bit of confusion surrounding those extracted Beach Boys mixes done by Derry Fitzgerald in regards to whether they synch up the multitracked instruments with isolated vocals, or if they were straight up extractions (to my ears at least, songs like Good Vibrations still have the analog saturation "crunch" that are not on the original multitracks, so I personally believe the latter) so if those examples alone are causing nomenclature problems, than things would only get worse from there.
    Second, the fact of the matter is, at least to me, that extracted stereo no matter how it is achieved, is by its very nature a distinct format from multitracked stereo stems. This is because they exist in a different way. Looking back at the 50's, the most multitracked elements that were available (if at all) would be 3; these included bleed-through, and other "artifacts" for lack of a kinder term. Considering that this bleed-through is so crucial to creating the spatial cues and ambiance present in the original recordings, largely because these are on other tracks that don't include the main instruments. Contrast this with spectral isolation and related processes, which "unpick" as it were the individual elements, the cues are often lost or at least tampered with because now what would have been a spatial cue is now no different from a room reverb effect. I think this is a large reason that I've seen people call extracted stereo "artificial", "digital" or "lifeless", no matter how good the product is.
    Third, to use a film example, in the 1950's-1960's there were numerous competing widescreen formats: Cinerama, CinemaScope, Todd-AO, VistaVision, etc. All of these were different, used different lenses, different film stock types, different aspect ratio's, and so on. Now technically you could deem all of these "widescreen" but to do so would only act as a disservice to the distinction of these formats, not to mention the confusion not only among enthusiasts, but the public at large. This is why people have at least a vague (to put it mildly) understanding of these differences, and why something like the terms Cinerama, CinemaScope, or even to an extent VistaVision are still unique symbols (although I concede that the average joe is unlikely to know that last one).

    To sum it up, extracted stereo is without a doubt a wonderful tool, but must be treated with distinction against the more conventional stereo recording methods, or else we will run into too much vague confusion regarding which-is-which.
     
    showtaper and stereoptic like this.
  21. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Technically, the result of mixing these extracted elements is indeed true stereo. Listening to the results tells me that all of the spatial cues are there.

    I see your point about how the labels, producers, and (not so much) engineers abhor telling us what sources they used, or what they did. I guess calling them "true stereo" would confuse the issue of exactly what a label has in their possession. But, some of those stereo mixes are so accurate to the mono mixes that a record label who owns them could legitimately use them in place of the mono. They are that good! If and when Eric releases more of them, I hope the tight quality control and resistance by the engineer and producer to putting any kind of sonic signature on them is maintained.
     
  22. Have any of you tried making your own DES mixes of songs using Spectralayers or some other software? I am curious as to how a "homemade" DES song would sound as compared to a "professional" DES song.
    I'm actually surprised The Beatles "She Loves You" hasn't turned up somewhere. We have a lot of talented people here who are great at personal mixes. If anyonw knows of such mixes I'd love to be pointed in that direction.
    I'm actually OK with the "DES" term. I don't think enough people have even heard about it for it to have that bad a rap already. I brought it up at work yesterday and played the volume 17 CD and nobody knew what the **** I was talking about.
     
    showtaper and Twodawgzz like this.
  23. oxenholme

    oxenholme Senile member

    Location:
    Knoydart
    It has. So has Love Me Do.
     
  24. billnunan

    billnunan Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Volumes 18 and 19 of "Hard to Find 45s on CD " are available now at Eric Records.

    Got my order in last night.
     
  25. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    There's already a thread about it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine