Re-channeled for stereo (original mono)

MusicBrainz
,
1

I was adding some late 50’s, early 60’s releases from the DOT label, and dutifully adding both mono and stereo as separate recordings. As I was doing more work I noticed the following text on the back art.

“Electronically re-channeled for stereo. This album was not originally recorded in stereo but has been electronically reproduced and now can be played on any stereophonic machine.”

Are the mono and stereo albums really separate “recording” releases if the original recording was mono. Realize back then they did not have the sophisticated programs that we have now that can AI the hell out of the recording. Back then I think they simply cloned the mono track to both left and right.

The question I have is, should they be merged or not. I have seen a good number of mono recordings (with mono disambiguation) merged with stereo recording.

3 Likes
2

Something that is “fake stereo” has the mono channel copied to both left and right. This then gets treated as a separate recording. I’ve seen plenty with Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett.

Mono should not be merged into stereo… but it does happen a little too often.

1 Like
3

Thanks, looks like I am going to be doing work breaking out those merges I ran into. I will also go back and disambiguate the recordings I added. Of course that brings up another sticky issue of later compilations that include these recordings, are they mono or stereo. It is those later compilations of the early recordings that I have coming.

4

They are the bigger headaches. It is fairly easy to check your own stuff, but compilations are a puzzle. Sometimes if you have a few examples of your own you soon work out if a band tends to use their Mono or Stereo tracks and can start making educated guesses.

5

Well I would have used the same mono recording.

It’s the same for CD including some mono tracks.
CD are always stereo.
For mono tracks, they have duplicated the mono channel to channels L and R.
And we use the mono recordings for these.

4 Likes
6

Trying to get a consensus on how to treat fake (Electronically re-channeled for stereo) recordings. Instead of making the disambiguation stereo I think something on the lines of “mono simulated stereo” or whatever ideas editors have. As to merging that discussion does not have to be decided yet. Once appropriately disambiguated, if merged it is easy to see.

7

Maybe it’s worth having a little background information: How do I create a stereo mix from mono material. I think most mono upmixes are done this way or something similar. I would call it stereo remix.

8

Is that how it would have been done 60 years ago?

9

I don’t know, depends on the equipment. If L and R channels are different, some sort of remix happened.

2 Likes
10

Fake stereo or duophonic is the same recording as mono. They shouldn’t be separate recordings. See all the early Beatles recordings.

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording#Number_of_audio_channels

However, the original multi-channel recording should be used when multiple channels have been combined into a single channel without actually creating a new mix from the source audio tracks. A similar exception should be made where a mono channel has been split into two stereo channels - for example, in Duophonic recordings.

1 Like
11

I’ve seen “fake stereo” used as the disambig on Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd tracks both in MB and on the actual releases.

I was taught early on to make a three way split between “mono”, “fake stereo” and “stereo” and treat them as three separate recordings. Though I also see the logic that “fake stereo” is just “mono” with some mastering to copy it to two channels.

1 Like