[klaatumail] Re: Technical Question - no KK
- From: Wesle Dymoke <wesdym@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 04:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Perhaps they merely knew how DJs are. I used to train DJs. Mostly to use the
paper rather than the carpet.
>________________________________
> From: "Bradley, David" <David_Bradley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "'klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:26 AM
>Subject: [klaatumail] Re: Technical Question - no KK
>
>One additional comment.
>
>Back in the days of AM radio being a mostly music medium, record companies
>would send a promo single to the station with mono on one side and stereo on
>the other side.
>
>Some record companies were a bit on the OCD side about making sure that the
>proper version was played. The reason being that if you combine the stsreo
>signals into mono, you lose some of the balance in things. Things that appear
>in both channels become too loud or too soft in comparison to other things in
>the mix. That's why a proper mono mix is done for those singles.
>
>So, to stop the AM stations from playing the stereo side on mono radio, some
>would mess with the mix so that it didn't sound right when combined to mono.
>
>A good example of this is "I Fought The Law" by the Bobby Fuller Four. The
>stereo mix on the promo singles had one channel inverted. The result of this
>was that when you played this stereo side in mono, the vocals disappeared and
>you had an instrumental version. AM radio wasn't interested in playing rare
>mixes, so an accidental instrumental was a horrible thing. They wanted to play
>the hit, so they'd turn it over and play the mono mix.
>
>:)
>
>Talk about being control freaks!
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
