State-of-the-Art fake stereo?

TheOneBeatleManiac and TheOneBeachBoyManiac. He’s currently remixing SMiLE into stereo!

 

IMO , state-of-the-art fake stereo would be a prime example of an oxymoron.

 

I have some CDs of mono source material using tasteful amounts of stereo ambiance. I think it is fine, and in some cases, it improves the sound.

 

The Beach Boys did a passable job extracting the vocals from the "Good Vibrations" mono mix and mixing them along with the stereo multitracks. The EQ, however, pales in comparison to Brian Wilson's mono mix. The original has great midrange EQ on the vocals along with the fattest of fat bass guitars. Why remix if the EQ is going to be vastly inferior?

 

Those were done with what was essentially experimental tech, born out of a university project. Sadly the (somewhat staged) video interview with the guy who did those extractions, Derry Fitzgerald, is to my knowledge long gone, but from what I remember he did them independently, and they weren't a consideration for the 2012 remasters until he presented his mixes to Linett & Boyd.

This factor is also why I strongly believe that unlike some reports on sites I've read Fitzgerald never had access to multitracks, meaning all his isolations were from the mono mixes (possibly pre-2012 remasters as well, but don't quote me on that ). It would also go some way to explain why the EQ is so wonky on those mixes.

 

Not in the case of the above-mentioned Eric CDs.

 

Thanks for letting me listen. I ran it by an oldies-program-director-engineer guy, and they couldn't tell me just how successful these might sound coming into a transmitter, but aside from "Everyday", stereo pretty successful, at least through YouTubb. Oldies guys always fret about whether or not to play a DES recording on-air, without checking it overnight first, to see if any artifacts squeak through the processing chain. It's an unknown quantity, even if it sounds good in a production room.

 

I love that this technology is in the hands of the general public (for a price of course), instead of being something closely guarded by a small group of companies and recording studios. It allows more people to be able to do these kinds of mixes.

 

Note that on most modern multitrack recordings of actual miked instruments (as opposed to sample driven productions) , the majority are done on mono tracks. Many productions use simple panning, but some of use use things to mimic time-based localization

Interesting info here from Professor Lund on sound localization - end of #25 and into #26
#25 -- Mandelbrot and sound localization
#26 -- Sound localization and sound synthesis

As to taking multi-instrument mono recordings - interesting method described here:
Smooth Itakura-Saito NMF results

If you download the denoised and the upmix it sounds fairly convincing - tho certain notes from each of the upmixed parts tends to "dance around" the stereo field.
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm_denoised.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm_upmix.wav

So take the baseline and regularized files into a DAW (audacity is free)
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/res1_is-4.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/res1_sm1-4.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/res1_sm10-4.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/res1_sm100-4.wav


More fascinating is taking the Wiener mask components extracted using the smoothed IS-NMF decomp into a DAW
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-1.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-2.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-3.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-4.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-5.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-6.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-7.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-8.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-9.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm-L50-10.wav


So now take each of the instruments:
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm_brass.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm_acomp.wav
https://www.irit.fr/~Cedric.Fevotte/extras/icassp11/sm_tromb.wav
Take those into a DAW and listen to them. Note the envelope artifacts

Note where he states
"The decomposition produces large band components (1, 4, 9, 10) and ``pitched'' components (2, 3, 5-8). The pitched components catch bits of notes of the leading instruments. When added up together they allow to single out the trumpet and clarinet."

What's interesting is the mono compatibility.

 

Those Beach Boys extraction mixes are horrible! Any fan could have done a better job at home.

 

Fake stereo si not "state of the art". It's "State Of 50+ years ago when that kind of thing was thrust upon a public who didn't know any better".

 

Not so sure about it not being current state of the art - there's a lot - I mean a lot - of fairly current academic research papers listed here:
https://www.monotostereo.info/research

Not sure if I'm a big fan of this but I can see applicability in things like forensic sciences dealing with audio recordings.

 

See Todd Rundgren--Sounds of the Studio...HA!

 

Attempting to make stereo out of mono is, to me, exactly the same thing as trying to make color movies out of black & white. That Beatles thing above is a total abomination. I would have been embarrassed to put my name to the likes of THAT.

 

I have heard some of this work done by Eric Records. It's amazing to hear but I still have mixed emotions about it. It's kind of a Frankenstein concept that tries to rewrite history and the result is good sounding. The intentions are good and the end result sounds good but it just kind of seems artificial to me. More science than actual original engineering. To hear what these songs sounded like if they were originally mixed in stereo and then do an extraction and compare them to see if there are any difference would be cool to hear. But like I said, the sound is good on these extractions.

 

I have no problem with this technology if the original artist/band actually agrees to it. Otherwise, outside of restoration or possibly noise reduction I feel that it's musical rape to screw with a dead man's tape. Might as well mess about enhancing a dead artist's famous painting. The painter's family may wish to do it, likewise the original engineer of an album may wish to do it. But if the artist is gone they should leave it as it is.

In my unpaid and worthless opinion no one else has the right to change a dead person's art, even if that art is now owned by someone else. A little respect, as Aretha was so fond of saying.

 

No one's opinion is worthless - except maybe mine.

And I see your point.

I'm guilty of it - I remixed that LZ Whole Lotta Love thing. I tried to stay true to the intent they had - but who am I to say what they really wanted.?

The Compulsory Copyright allows anyone to re-record a song - even without the permission of the original author or publisher:
:
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf

Must I Use a Compulsory License?

No. Anyone wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work can nego-
tiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But if the copyright owner is unwilling to
negotiate, or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work or
make a DPD [ digital phonorecord delivery] can use the compulsory license.

But - and this sort of agrees with what you state:

Does a Compulsory License Cover Making and Reproducing a Sound Recording?

No. Section 115 does not cover sound recordings. Rather, it covers the reproduction and distribution
of nondramatic musical compositions.
A musical composition and a sound recording are two separate works for copyright purposes.
The author of a musical composition is generally the composer and any lyricist. A sound recording,
on the other hand, is the fixation of a series of musical spoken, or other sounds, often of a musical
composition. The author of a sound recording is generally the performer(s) whose performance is
fixed and the producer who captures and processes the performance to make the final recording.
Licenses generally must be obtained separately from the copyright owners of the sound recording
and the underlying musical composition. Copyright in a sound recording is not the same as, or a
substitute for, copyright in the underlying musical composition.
For more general information about these works, see Copyright Registration for Musical Composi-
tions (Circular 50), Copyright Registration for Sound Recordings (Circular 56), and Copyright Registra-
tion of Musical Compositions and Sound Recordings (Circular 56a).

Upmixes may fall into what is known as a derivative work - Pre 1972 recordings have no protection as to Federal SR copyright -

As to upmixed versions this is interesting:
http://tsircoulaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Sound-engineers-newsletter-formatted.pdf

"Sound experts additionally testified to the different timbre, pitch,
tempo and spatial imagery of the sound waves between the pre
and post-1972 versions of the recordings in question. All of this
combined to result in the court finding that sound engineers can in
fact impart the requisite level of creativity and originality to a pre-
1972 recording as to make it into a derivative work."

So the legality of an upmix stereo version may fall under precedent of the recent CBS case where sound engineers can be considered authors of a derivative work.

RIP Aretha - amazing lady for sure. Interesting story about the original author of Respect -
Respect (song) - Wikipedia

"The two versions of "Respect," as originally written and recorded by Otis Redding and as later re-imagined by Aretha Franklin, are significantly different. While both songs have similar styles and tempos the writers and performers of the lyrics clearly had two different messages in mind. The songs differ lyrically in the refrains, and even the verses have a different slant.[6]

"Redding’s version is characteristically funky, with his raspy-soulful singing and electric vocal charisma front and center."[2] His song utilizes "playful horns and sexy, mock-beleaguered vocals" to deliver lyrics without any subtext.[2] The message of a man demanding respect from his woman for being the breadwinner is decisively clear. Redding's version was written from the perspective of a hardworking man who can only look forward to getting home and finally receiving the respect he deserves from his family. His version is less a plea for respect and more a comment on a man's feeling of worth in his work life and at home. He mentions that he’s "about to, just give you all of my money", and that all he wants in return is respect. The woman he is singing to can even “do me wrong, honey, if you wanna to/You can do me wrong honey, while I'm gone."[6] The lyrics are repetitive and straightforward throughout the song; there isn’t any layering of messages or intentions."

So during her "re-gendering" it took on a new meaning.

 

I don't feel that it's wrong legally speaking. I just feel that if the artist is dead and therefore cannot tell us if he'd approve of the idea it's artistically questionable.

 

Said somebody not even willing to entertain the possibility, or forgive earlier engineers for earlier attempts.

 

Only if one was predisposed to assume all scientific advancement after the date of the recording is sacrelige. Or, "fruit of the poisonous tree".

 

NOW, we're gettin' into the weeds! Not saying I agree with the viewpoint that seeks to disparage the concept so savagely that others will not consider the possibility, lest they be called, "rapists". That's a little unfair. And, disingenuous.

BUT, he brings up a point which we all respect: at which point, are the artists' rights disrespected? If the only thing the process yields is a "new thing", leaving the "originally approved state" of the work itself both untouched, and/or still available through commerce? Or, does the fact that other hands not involved with the original, produced this "new thing", does this have a right to exist?

Let's remove the product in question, from the realm of the metaphorical, mustachioed Mona Lisa, and instead, treat it like a Ritz cracker, or a lawn dart removed from commerce years prior. Exactly what constitutes a "work of art", and what can be defined as an article produced by an artist, for no purpose other than its' existence In The Marketplace. Also, does an artwork that has, for various reasons, fallen into Public Domain, still become bound by these tenets?

In short...who protects the artwork from other things appearing on earth, when no harm has actually been done to the artwork in question? And more intriguing, who protects the rights of other things to exist, when they have not visited any harm on the original, to do it?

"Mustache Lives Matter!"

 

Hey guys and girls, sorry about that 'rape' remark. I just thought at the time that it made for a cool rhyme (rape with tape). I should edit that post. But wait, then the reply quoted above would make no sense.

Arrgh. Decisions decisions. I'll let it stand and take the heat. As Ian once said "I am the cross to take your nail."

 

Yeah, let it stand. It's a comment made in the heat of a strongly-held position, and it's not like the concept of "art" has never been slandered with the word before.
(As long as you allow me similar lattitude for my "Mustachioed lives" comment).

 

This is interesting - go to about 4:30 of this video:

Where he talks about "once it's in the public domain - it's your song... not mine..."


In this vid he mentions about a Japaneses heavy metal version of it
Gilbert O'Sullivan I Interview I Music-News.com


Tho note on songfacts:
Alone Again (Naturally) by Gilbert O'Sullivan Songfacts
O'Sullivan talked about the case in 2010 at a screening for the movie Out On His Own: Gilbert O'Sullivan. He said Biz Markie's record company approached him about sampling the song, and O'Sullivan asked to hear it before granting permission. "Then we discovered that he was a comic rapper," said Gilbert. "And the one thing I am very guarded about is protecting songs and in particular I'll go to my grave in defending the song to make sure it is never used in the comic scenario which is offensive to those people who bought it for the right reasons. And so therefore we refused. But being the kind of people that they were, they decided to use it anyway so we had to go to court."

It is interesting how he seems to put the buyer of his songs in perspective.

And yea - artistic license on the rhyming.

And i saw your profile pic - reminded me of this:
LAUREL WEAVER: (medical examiner) "... What's with the cat?"
COP: "Oh yea - there's a problem with the cat - sign here"
LAUREL WEAVER:"What's the problem"
COP: "It's your problem"
LAUREL WEAVER: "I hate the living..."
~~~ Men In Black 1