Stereo: a conspiracy?
- Thread starter radiotubes
- Start date
- Status
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
I would like to respectfully suggest that you haven't heard a decent stereo rig, then.
As I attempted to demonstrate with links to scientific findings from the 1880's, the ability of more than one channel of sound to allow spatial reference by the listener is demonstrated. It is incontrovertible fact, not subject to contestation. The exception would be a listener who had only one ear to hear with; possible and unfortunate if you might be such a person.
I still tend towards conspiracy though.Perhaps a marketing ploy by the powers that be.
If you tend towards believing a conspiracy where there is not only no proof, but not even any reasonable suspicion, I'd say you're either trying to start a fight, or exceedingly silly.
However, if it were a conspiracy, there would have been no reason to stop at two channels. Men's razors, for example, are now up to eleventy-dozen blades, I recall. This from the 'Trac Two' of the halcyon days of my youth. That is indeed marketing and hype.
Stereo / binaural sound, though, was established by scientific means more than a half-century before anyone thought to make consumer sound reproduction equipment that made use of this effect. The effect exists. Period.
The term 'High Fidelity' means precisely that. 'High' is a relative term, and compares to the overall ability of any means to reproduce a live performance. The high-water mark would be 'high' faithfulness to the original performance, regardless of the objective reality of that attempt.
To be quite candid, I don't believe that you believe what you've stated. We're just being baited for your amusement.
I'll say this: mono is great for listening to the music itself without the sonic distractions that many audiophiles (myself included) subject themselves to.
I used to have a mono system based on an Altec 605A driven by a Fisher 80AZ and it was quite enjoyable to just lie down on the couch and listen to the music without worrying about sweet spots, soundstaging and all that. Just the music.
Not that I didn't also have a stereo system as well.
I used to have a mono system based on an Altec 605A driven by a Fisher 80AZ and it was quite enjoyable to just lie down on the couch and listen to the music without worrying about sweet spots, soundstaging and all that. Just the music.
Not that I didn't also have a stereo system as well.
whoaru99
Epic Member
Your implication eludes me on this one. Are you claiming a mono system would reproduce the "circle of sound" better than a discrete multichannel setup?
whoaru99
Epic Member
I tend to agree.
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
If the music is well recorded, it doesn't matter if it is mono, stereo or multichannel - if it accurately presents the music recorded.
It is easier to get a good live recording with the minimal amount of mics than the maximum number.
One great mono speaker is better than seven average speakers and a subwoofer, or a stereo pair for that manner. No worries about balance, or whether there is too much bass, or any other of all the ridiculous audiofool worries. Just listen.
It is easier to get a good live recording with the minimal amount of mics than the maximum number.
One great mono speaker is better than seven average speakers and a subwoofer, or a stereo pair for that manner. No worries about balance, or whether there is too much bass, or any other of all the ridiculous audiofool worries. Just listen.
radiotubes
Member
.
.Actually my statements are intended to provoke discussion. I have debated this issue in my mind and with other audio enthusiasts. This topic comes as a result of my efforts to build a high quality, high fidelity monophonic system that is near completion. I have limited space to work with and the effects of stereo reproduction will most likely have negligible results.
.
@ whoaru99. I should have said that NO sound reproduction system (mono, stereo, multi-channel) could probably reproduce the effect of sitting in the middle of that performance.
.
@ wigwam jones. I've owned and listened to most of the vintage equipment of any merit. You name it, I've listened to it.
.
@ Tom Brennan. Interesting you mention the 80AZ and an Altec Co-ax. I have that system in my bedroom, accept I'm using an Altec 604C with the 80AZ
. They seem to work well together.
Pauln
Well-Known Member
Well, generally switching to mono does reduce noise and distortion, but there is a little more going on here than is being discussed... in stereo, the right channel does not just go to your right ear and the left channel to your left as in headphones. The sounds cross to both ears, and a similar geometry happens when multiple mics are used to record. This can result in each original primary source of sound (from the recorded performance) multi-pathing final delivery to your head up to EIGHT times for each sound. And this is not taking into account speakers with multiple drivers, speaker time alignment, crossover phase shift, or any other things like that.
With two ears and a single sound source, each ear gets the primary sound from the source ONCE, plus the reflections, reverberations, etc.
Left ears hears: primary sound delivery
Right ear hears: primary sound delivery
Time delay between the two is used to locate the direction
With two ears and multiple individual sound sources, each ear gets the primary sound from each source ONCE, plus plus the reflections, yada yada...
If you use one microphone to record and a single channel to playback, same thing as above. This is "true" mono.
If you use TWO mics to record, each mic gets some of each sound source. Then if you sum those signals and play back through a SINGLE channel you have those two signals delivering from the same place. Depending on the mic positions, there may be a delay among the sounds.
If you use TWO mics to record to TWO channels played back through TWO channels, some of the recorded original sound source in the left channel is bled over and reproduced in the right channel because the original mic on the right got some of the sources' left side. And vise versa for the other channel.
What this means is that when you playback in stereo two channel, each ear is now getting FOUR primary sound deliveries instead of the natural ONE... so now each ear hears:
Primary LEFT source sound captured by LEFT mic reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary RIGHT source sound captured by LEFT mic reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary LEFT sound captured by RIGHT mic reproduced in RIGHT channel
Primary RIGHT sound captured by RIGHT mic reproduced in RIGHT channel
Each ear is receiving FOUR versions of each original primary sound source, so the total number of primary sound deliveries to your head from a single original recorded sound source becomes EIGHT (8)!. This is for EACH individual sound!
All these primary sounds are distinguished by small differences in time delay (phase) and level (the sounds bled over to the other mics that end up in the opposite channel). Now days the manipulation of the phase of these multiples in opposing channels is used to widen the field of perceived sound stage in some entertainment applications.
Listening to stereo-mono (mono played back using stereo speakers) only reduces the number of primary sound deliveries by half.
Left ear hears:
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in Right channel
Right ear hears:
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in Right channel
Now each ear is hearing just TWO versions of each original primary sound source. Still a total of FOUR distinct deliveries to your head.
Listening to mono (one speaker) returns to the natural situation of each ear receiving only ONE primary delivery of each sound source - ONLY if the original recording was done with ONE mic. If the original recording used multiple mics and summed those to a single channel, the difference signals among those mics would still be in the playback.
The employment of isolation techniques in studio recording to prevent the bled over to secondary mics, or the recording of individual instrument tracks to be combined after the fact can reduce the number of multiple primary sound deliveries by half... all the examples above are worst case as in recording live performance.
I have a great deal of awe and admiration for the talents and art of the engineers that make this apparent sonic mess of things actually come out sounding like music.
With two ears and a single sound source, each ear gets the primary sound from the source ONCE, plus the reflections, reverberations, etc.
Left ears hears: primary sound delivery
Right ear hears: primary sound delivery
Time delay between the two is used to locate the direction
With two ears and multiple individual sound sources, each ear gets the primary sound from each source ONCE, plus plus the reflections, yada yada...
If you use one microphone to record and a single channel to playback, same thing as above. This is "true" mono.
If you use TWO mics to record, each mic gets some of each sound source. Then if you sum those signals and play back through a SINGLE channel you have those two signals delivering from the same place. Depending on the mic positions, there may be a delay among the sounds.
If you use TWO mics to record to TWO channels played back through TWO channels, some of the recorded original sound source in the left channel is bled over and reproduced in the right channel because the original mic on the right got some of the sources' left side. And vise versa for the other channel.
What this means is that when you playback in stereo two channel, each ear is now getting FOUR primary sound deliveries instead of the natural ONE... so now each ear hears:
Primary LEFT source sound captured by LEFT mic reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary RIGHT source sound captured by LEFT mic reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary LEFT sound captured by RIGHT mic reproduced in RIGHT channel
Primary RIGHT sound captured by RIGHT mic reproduced in RIGHT channel
Each ear is receiving FOUR versions of each original primary sound source, so the total number of primary sound deliveries to your head from a single original recorded sound source becomes EIGHT (8)!. This is for EACH individual sound!
All these primary sounds are distinguished by small differences in time delay (phase) and level (the sounds bled over to the other mics that end up in the opposite channel). Now days the manipulation of the phase of these multiples in opposing channels is used to widen the field of perceived sound stage in some entertainment applications.
Listening to stereo-mono (mono played back using stereo speakers) only reduces the number of primary sound deliveries by half.
Left ear hears:
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in Right channel
Right ear hears:
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in LEFT channel
Primary MONO source sound reproduced in Right channel
Now each ear is hearing just TWO versions of each original primary sound source. Still a total of FOUR distinct deliveries to your head.
Listening to mono (one speaker) returns to the natural situation of each ear receiving only ONE primary delivery of each sound source - ONLY if the original recording was done with ONE mic. If the original recording used multiple mics and summed those to a single channel, the difference signals among those mics would still be in the playback.
The employment of isolation techniques in studio recording to prevent the bled over to secondary mics, or the recording of individual instrument tracks to be combined after the fact can reduce the number of multiple primary sound deliveries by half... all the examples above are worst case as in recording live performance.
I have a great deal of awe and admiration for the talents and art of the engineers that make this apparent sonic mess of things actually come out sounding like music.
Last edited:
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
Nope. You had your fun, now move on, sport.
michaelhigh
mind's eye music
radiotubes
Member
@ wigwam jones...Sorry you feel that way. There are some excellent/intelligent contributions to this thread (including your own) in what I feel is in support of monaural sound reproduction. While stereo may not be a conspiracy, there are good arguments to support monophonic hi-fi.
To much info for the average audiophile here to take in here!I don't have time to debate one way or the other as I only have time to set up,play and then listen to my system and what I hear is good enough for me as it should be for all of you out there!It has taken me a half century of buying,tinkering and finally listening to various pieces to get to where I am today and that's enough for most lifetimes I would think and to this might I add Amen to that!
Last edited:
.
..
I'm using an Altec 604C with the 80AZ
No doubt. I'll bet it sounds very nice. Of all the gear I've sold off the units I sometimes wish I'd kept are the 80-AZ and a couple of SA-100s. Sometimes; not often though.
The fact that you opened this discussion with the word conspiracy rightfully raised the question of your intentions.
I enjoy both monophonic and stereophonic music systems. They both produce beautiful music, albeit differently.
There is no question that the human brain hears music stereophonically, irrespective of the source, whether or not the source is a point source or the breadth of a symphony orchestra on stage. That statement, of course, has nothing to do with which type system a listener finds more enjoyable, or if the listener has a preference one way or the other.
uxwbill
Lurking in the Shadows
I don't think it's BS. I do think that it makes mixing a sound source so that sounds appear to come from a certain direction much easier...instead of having to figure out how to do this from two speakers by playing games with the phasing and other factors in a signal, the sound just has to be sent to whatever speaker it should be coming out of.
Maybe I'm all wet. I don't have a surround system and don't feel that I need one, at least not now.
I'll rise in defense of Radiotubes...
Or rather, (if you haven't seen this) I'll let noted 'rock artist' Bobby Dylan do it.
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/media/videos/stick-with-mono
s.
Or rather, (if you haven't seen this) I'll let noted 'rock artist' Bobby Dylan do it.
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/media/videos/stick-with-mono
s.
voltcontrol
Fizheuer Zieheuer
Phil Spector (and his 'wall of sound' sig sound) also didn't like stereo.
Ps Do you guys realise mono is used often in PA with good reason?
Sticking with stereo here too, the 'BS 5.1 methinks not' post wasn't directed at a person.
Ps Do you guys realise mono is used often in PA with good reason?
myu701
Vintage futurist
I couldn't agree more. Yes, a system with a speaker for each instrument spatially placed where those instruments would be playing, driven by a single track of music for each driver, is the ultimate simulation. And although equipment wise it would be feasible, recording wise it is not economically viable.
This is why stereo technology has so much involved, to try capturing those distinct musical elements through only two channels. But it's obvious from the information you proffered after your first post that you're building a mono system and by the follow up by your second post, you are seeking to debunk arguments that are in favor of stereo. Go mono if you wish. If it pleases you, then enjoy. But just because you've been unable to get any joy from stereo systems you've heard and owned doesn't mean there is some bizarre "stereo conspiracy". I do not think it is productive to cajole others with the idea that they've been duped, that stereo is just a gimmick and mono is the only "true" sound. I have two ears, not one. And I really enjoy the imaging depth you get with stereo.
Last edited:
- Status