This is an excerpt from an article you wrote [in TVTech]

[Ron Estes:] "I had heard of sum and difference recording and thought this might solve the problem. One of our maintenance men, John Strain, designed and built a matrix encoding box... Channel 1 of the VTR was fed a compatible "sum" or mono mix, while Channel 2 of the VTR was fed a "difference" mix that could be used for archival purposes to play back these shows later in stereo. This method was used for several years before the network was stereo-capable. Many of 'The Best of Carson' shows, which originally aired in mono, aired in stereo by decoding the 'sum' and 'difference' signals on the videotapes."

Personally, given my hothouse multitrack ways, I would rate this as an 11 (out of 10), for degree of difficulty.

You got one thing wrong however - well actually several.

First, Ron hadn't even thought about recording the show in stereo until after I told him that I already had recorded some of Doc's music in stereo way back when Dave Williams was mixing the show. Doc was about blown away with the sound!

Second, I came up with the sum and difference idea. I conceived of, designed, built and implemented a sum and difference encoder for Ron to use. Ron may have heard that there was something called sum and difference but it was I that came up with the idea of using it so that we could continue the show in mono but also lay down a difference track on audio 2 so that we would have shows recorded in stereo, that way, when and if stereo was ever approved, we would be already prepared. Ron and I almost got FIRED over this. How dare we do something without management’s approval first?

Later - Ron got all kinds of accolades and honors and bonuses etc because "HE" saved NBC's butt and The Tonight Show was the very FIRST EVER stereo TV broadcast! I didn't get anything - but Ron and I did get nominated for an Emmy, which neither of us got because I was a "maintenance man" and they do NOT give Emmys to maintenance men. Ron got an Emmy the next year though because I didn't go along. NBC gave Ron a huge wood and brass placard and a large bonus (which he shared with me) - but NBC never even mentioned anything about me. Ron did say at the presentation that he could not have done it without my help.

I "cleaned up" Ron's mixing board using some methods which were NOT approved of by other maintenance personnel. Ron said that his board was the cleanest of any of the audio consols at NBC after I got through with it. I accredit the good sounding audio and the excellent stereo seperation to the way that I maintened Ron's mixing console.

Hi Dave, Please tell me that "fig 1" and "fig 2" in "Another Can of Audio Worms" got transposed. The spiderweb of "Fig 1" is, "...simple...", and the simple one to one straight lines of "fig 2" are, "..beginning of chaos." If only my life could be this kind of chaotic. Thanks, Kery white

Dear Mr. Dave,

Just finished reading "Another Can Of Worms". Forgive the pun but your article pretty much "sums" up the problem. Fixing it is probably next to impossible Broadcast audio is no longer an art it's just another commodity.

Having been in the audio business since Ampex made their three track recorders I've witnessed pretty much of what your speak.

I don't know about you but at this point I would like to watch at TV program and not have to grab the gain control when commercials happen. Commercial post production is the business we're in and I'm tired of getting all the blame for "those damn loud spots". Naturally we pack as much level on our spots as we can but it's really up to the broadcaster to make it fit with the rest of the program, after they have the last fader in the audio chain.

Broadcasting would do well in firing all the cost containment people and use some of that money and hire a true audio professional.

Upmixing and downmixing, just the thought of it scares me to death.

Great writing, keep up the good work.

Many Thanks,


Mike King

Hey Dave,

i would love to take you up on your offer to our acoustics class (i.e. loudspeakers) Please let me know a good time to swing by and say hi.

-Joe Cardoza

Thanks Dave for such a wealth of information, is it copyright? Can I use it when teaching my new students in September on a new media technologies course?

Nigel

Thank you very much for providing such vital information in this format. I have one question: which medium does cover the subject of stereo/mixing/imaging better, the Total Recording Book or the Golden Ears course (I have a working knowledge of all hard- and software ) I prefer a hands on approach with examples.
Thanks and keep up the good work,

Frans

Hello Dave,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I became the audio engineer for the band simply because in practice I wound up standing by the mixer. For a garage band even the simplest 8 track has been a quantum leap of quality over our old cassette recorder. So I mix an mix and get a decent product but I am awe of what it takes to master and make it a product worth listening to. Thanks for the education, I will send out my product to master and focus on scales before the arthritis gets any worse!

To: Dave Moulton
Re: http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton'

I, too, am annoyed with the audio level discrepancies found on supposedly high-tech rebroadcast systems.
I read your disertations on tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton', with much interest. I inadvertantly discovered the site ia a Birthday celebration of the VTR machine. As you note, I found there to be wild differences between the same broadcaster's air signal and ExpressVu's version as well.
ExpressVu said it was the broadcaster's fault. They even tried to sell me an upgraded set top box. What a hoot. The broadcaster says their product is just fine and that is confirmed with my antenna. I was about to set up and record the two comparison audio streams on my laptop for lab tests to determine the actual delta but realized there was no point to it.
The actual problems are that ExpressVu's personnel no longer have the education, training, expertize or motivation to understand and operate the technology. ExpressVu isn't interested in changing any of that either. I'm pretty sure they now no longer know where their head ends are located nor how to actually adjust them if they ever did find them. The folks they employ only know how to unpack a box and plug it in like most folks do with the wireless router they just bought at the supermarket. The programming and level setting procedures got tossed out along with the box.
My communications to the CRTC, Bell and others produced no results.
I am a radio systems specialist with over 45 years experience in analogue voice and data wireless transmissions systems. I'm especially proud of the performance of receiver voting systems I've set up. No one could ever tell from which of 26 receivers anyone was coming through on the largest one or the one with just two. This in spite of poor telco circuits, radio links, co-located receivers or microwave/fibre paths. It is simply a matter of utilizing published procedures, proper test gear and, above all, an understanding of how things work.
I am disheartened to see low pay getting low education/capabilities, the assumption that everything works right out of the box (plug & play?), that if the sales rep says it's so, it must be...
Sorry, starting to rant. But, I'm sure you get the idea.
I've attached a copy of some of my correspondance for your amusement. The canned paragraphs are especially interesting:

I believe you neglected to take into account the contractual obligations you have to provide me with a satisfactory product as well as that of your supplier of programming to provide you with a satisfactory product.
Does "I pay you and you pay them" not ring any bells with you?

Thanks for a great website Dave. It's like a true oasis in a desert of confusion and obfuscation. Many thanks. PRB

Thanks for the informative article in TV Technology.
Sadly, the CCTA has just ceased operations. They claim they can no longer fullfill their mandate. Just when we need them most to help through the transitions you describe!

Hey Dave! whats the word on the new A8 are they going to give you one or what!? haha let me know if they do because you have to give me a ride! haha!! Hope all is well
Best of luck
-Chris

Dang it, I just wanted to send an email to you, but guess I'm left with the guest log and just hope you find it someday.
I searched and scoured the sites I and II, looking for your input on frequencies and bits.. I found both subjects, however none touched on what I was looking for, and it seems no one is touching on it. Even when I tried to touch on it with a tech at M-AUDIO, I got pushed aside as a "whatever" canidate. I'm not running for relection for "whatever", but I would like to see some topics on the following subject matter regarding digital audio.
I have worked in analog, and anyone who has, knows that aside from the "device" recording the event,, there is tape quality and speed variables to consider.. Generally faster tape, begets higher frequencies, because it captures more time, it has a higher resolution..
Now,, to digital, in relation,, if you take a 32bit recording event at 48khz,, I can record the exact same event, at 16 bits, and have more information and higher fidelity = resolution.. by recording at 192khz
-- also,, I can achieve a higher quality mixdown, by remaining in 16bit realm,, and avoiding someone's mathmatical algorithym or dithering process which does random splash data removal to make it sound "similar" to the original recording. But, 16 bit math, within it's own common denominator will divide data evenly, quickly and with better results and true=er math.. You can do the same process with jpg's, bmp's, or image files to "see" the results of dithering and other mathmatical approximities..
EXAMPLE: Take a digital camera that has 3MP against a camera with 1MP and reduce them to a common small size, and the 3MP looks more vivid, has more detail and retains more information in greater detail, than the one captured at the lower resolution, the exact same is true with digital audio.
If you listen to a 16bit/192khz recording of a train panning left to right, and compare it to the exact same recording using 32bit/48khz,, you will hear the difference.. You WILL hear it.
It's like using a prestine metal choromium top of the line grain analog tape, and recording at a slower speed, you won't get the quality,, without the speed.. and 192khz is faster than 48khz... also,, 16 bits is fine enough grain and easier to process, and mathmatically easier for a cpu to toss back at you... That's all I wanted to say,, except, that I wish I had a job like you.. Not meaning to sound envious or jealous, but it's unavoidable.. I am..
But God bless you and your website.. And good luck to all who read this and understand it.. a Tech at M-Audio who provides support for sound cards, doesn't agree with me,, which is well, I won't go there. Peace...

Hi Dave, I just received and read your article entitled "Taming Wild Mastering Levels" that was included in the 02.18.2006 iZotope Newsletter... Thank you, thank you. I have printed it out, laminated it & posted it in the lobby for all of our clients to read. - Jeremy Ryan

I read your article on delays and their use to simulate ambience. I have been a producer for a lot of years, but I have never gotten the clarity that I received in reading your article. Amazing!

hi!

excellent bock (total recording)!
extremely useful ear training!

thanx for that!!!

[thanks for the feedback! -- webguy]

Dave,
just wanted you to know that your class has really opened my eyes to a new field in the music industry. Psycoacoustics is something i could really see myself getting into. i was wondering if you might have some suggestions on books that would be good for me to read on this subject. thanks abunch i hope to stay in touch with you.
-chris

Dave,
I met you at the Parsons audio Expo Today 11-10-05, I was the guy from saratoga NY with the word clock problem.
Thanks for your help, I am going to sign up for your course January 12,2005.
Thanks Kevin

I have enjoyed your excellent articles in TV Technology, with the latest being "The Center Channel." I do think you may want to revisit your discussion re: assignment of the dialogue to the center speaker as a practice used in the days of CinemaScope and Todd-AO production, to keep it "on screen." As an attendee of many of those original productions in lavish theatres in New York City, (e.g. Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version)), I would disagree with your analysis. Dialogue was "panned" to match the position of the actor on the screen. Since there were three channels of sound reproduced by three speakers behind the large, wide screen, the movement of the dialogue matching that of the actor made for a far more dynamic presentation of the sound, compared to assigning all dialogue to the center speaker. This latter arrangement is satisfactory for small screen TV, although I believe the reecent DVD release of Todd's great travelogue, and a few other "spectaculars" of that era, retains the dialogue panning technique. With a matched set of speakers for a home theatre system, at least for nostalgia buffs like me, I vastly prefer panned dialogue to constraining it to one center channel. Thanks for listening (to me).

hey dave cool sight this stuff is awsome!! see ya in class

"First you lick the salt. The salt is to prevent dehydration. Then you drink the Tequilla. The Tequilla is to make you feeeeeeel good. Then you eat the lemon. The lemon is to prevent scurrrrrrvy!" thanks for all you taught! -- SRT 1987 Fredonia, NY