[klaatumail] Re: Technical Question - no KK
- From: Marc Tobolski <marc_tobolski@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:37:33 -0700
Ba-da-bump!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 16, 2012, at 4:49 AM, Wesle Dymoke <wesdym@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
