https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Fri, 22 May 2026 16:03:56 +0000 Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:57:26 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=996 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34913&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34913 Author: Pat Downey
Subject: 996
Posted: 12 August 2012 at 9:57am

It is all subjective Todd.]]> Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:57:26 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34913&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34913 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34903&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34903 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 996
Posted: 11 August 2012 at 9:19pm

edtop40 wrote: ...in my opinion, just because drums are more upfront or horns are blended back, if all the instrumentation is identical and nothing is omitted or altered, i will always chalk it up to the inherent mono stereo mixing differences and that they are the same, except the mono 45 does run 0:02 longer (2:33 vrs 2:35)

I can't recall if this has been discussed elsewhere on the message board, but I've long wondered when a mix difference(s) between a mono 45 and stereo LP is considered significant enough to warrant a "45 mix" or "LP mix" comment? I'm not clear as to whether this distinction is made only when echo or reverb is added to one of the mixes, or if it also applies in cases where vocals or instruments are panned way up or way down from one mix to the other. (And even in the latter situation, how much of a volume difference would officially qualify as a mix difference?) If Pat has specific criteria in determining when to use "45/LP mix" comments in the database, I'd very much be interested in obtaining some clarification on this.

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:19:46 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34903&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34903 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34891&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34891 Author: edtop40
Subject: 996
Posted: 11 August 2012 at 4:12pm

i just A/B'ed the vinyl 45 to the best of cd and they're
the same except for the mono/stereo differences.....in my
opinion, just because drums are more upfront or horns are
blended back, if all the instrumentation is identical and
nothing is omitted or altered, i will always chalk it up to
the inherent mono stereo mixing differences and that they
are the same, except the mono 45 does run 0:02 longer (2:33
vrs 2:35)]]> Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:12:56 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=34891&title=osmonds-double-lovin#34891 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=5231&title=osmonds-double-lovin#5231 Author: Grant
Subject: 996
Posted: 28 May 2006 at 2:53pm

The stereo and mono mixes are different. The vocals are a bit louder on the mono single, and the horns are lower. The mono single is a bit drier, too.]]> Sun, 28 May 2006 14:53:45 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=5231&title=osmonds-double-lovin#5231 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=5215&title=osmonds-double-lovin#5215 Author: jimct
Subject: 996
Posted: 28 May 2006 at 4:18am

Listed 45 time for both stock and promo is (2:30); both my copies definitely go to (2:35). The "version police" might wanna give this 45 a listen to see if it's the same mix as the stereo (2:32) CD versions; I have my doubts.]]> Sun, 28 May 2006 04:18:29 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=996&PID=5215&title=osmonds-double-lovin#5215