Phil A
Senior HTF Member
Larry, I no longer have records. When I had them I had a few DuoPhonic releases from Capital (e.g. Beach Boys) that I was abloe to play on both stereo and mono systems. I don't remember exact dates but it was likely (from memory which is not perfect) a bit prior to 1968. There are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of posts that convey the same information correctly posted by Mr. Roadie such as:
http://www.jasonrh.com/pgalt.htm
"
Some words on "duophonic"...
What is "duophonic", you may ask? Well, my friends, Capitol Records were clever. In fact, they were REAL clever. They knew that, since mono LP's were cheaper than stereo ones, they had to entice buyers to stereo. When it was time to put a record on an LP, the label (usually) put the mono version on the mono record, and the remixed stereo version on the other. But what if Capitol is only sent a mono master? How do you fool the record buyer into thinking he's getting the best for his money? Simple. You fake stereo. These experiences in low-fi redefined what "bad mix" meant. Thus, preferable to these versions are the original mono versions, or, a true stereo remix. Below are some of the ways to get those P&G "duophonic" tracks in their full monophonic or stereophonic glory. "
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/p...rail=15&id=800
http://guterman.com/2004_10_01_musicarchive.html
" Secondly, duophonic sound is nothing more than twin monophonic channels playing simultaneously;"
There are posts all over various places.
My original point was only about costs of music back then, which obviously the above explanation of Duophnic shows as Capital's intent to get mono buyers to spend more. I did not intend to start of debate about something unrelated to the thread. Feel free to knock yourself out.
http://www.jasonrh.com/pgalt.htm
"
Some words on "duophonic"...
What is "duophonic", you may ask? Well, my friends, Capitol Records were clever. In fact, they were REAL clever. They knew that, since mono LP's were cheaper than stereo ones, they had to entice buyers to stereo. When it was time to put a record on an LP, the label (usually) put the mono version on the mono record, and the remixed stereo version on the other. But what if Capitol is only sent a mono master? How do you fool the record buyer into thinking he's getting the best for his money? Simple. You fake stereo. These experiences in low-fi redefined what "bad mix" meant. Thus, preferable to these versions are the original mono versions, or, a true stereo remix. Below are some of the ways to get those P&G "duophonic" tracks in their full monophonic or stereophonic glory. "
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/p...rail=15&id=800
http://guterman.com/2004_10_01_musicarchive.html
" Secondly, duophonic sound is nothing more than twin monophonic channels playing simultaneously;"
There are posts all over various places.
My original point was only about costs of music back then, which obviously the above explanation of Duophnic shows as Capital's intent to get mono buyers to spend more. I did not intend to start of debate about something unrelated to the thread. Feel free to knock yourself out.
