| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio For Dummies ™ » A new 'chic' foolishness about mono systems (49 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 3 (49 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of the monophonic honk...  Use stereo system to play mono......  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     2  20368  07-30-2006
  »  New  A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..  REL Precedent Report...  Off Air Audio Forum     24  172790  07-28-2008
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  19793  08-04-2009
06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 21
Post ID: 13820
Reply to: 13812
MONO can be equal to stereo
fiogf49gjkf0d
Romy,,Romy,, romy,,,,,Some times you can be so thick headed...in the logic of mono and its correct use,,nothing faulty...All music performed is live,,,and at times localzation is not percieved,,,How is mono haveing practical advantage over propertly implemented  stereo????  This argument came up in recording Myron Salvador at the organ and chorus ,,At the St louis Cathedral...a friend of mine invited me to record the concert in stereo while he recorded his feed in mono,,,Both of us used the same type of microphones,,,Sennheiser MKH condenser units,,,I set up my mics in the " Londen Tee bar Blumine configureation,,,George strapped his ONE mono sennheiser mike centered between mine on the same bar all elevated up 15 feet,,, i used my stereo Nagra... ane he used a Nagra mono version (borrowed),,, The result???? stereo gave No advantage over his mono version,,,No forced fold down between our systems...He didnt use a feed from my cables but used his own...He had a good solid impactful recording and was just as involving as mine,,  This was a surprise to me,,, I thought the spacial effect (stereo) would be better,,but it was,nt,,,,,,,Dont expect stereo recording to be the answere,,,I have hundreds of photos of recordind venues,,London Phil.  Berlin Symphony,,Vienna Phil,,Etc Etc showing mic placement for stereo....All mics positioned in the orchestra on stands looking down on bald heads of the musictions,,,HOW IS THAT STEREO<<< BULLSHIT !!!! It is your logic that is wrong,,,I have been at this recording longer than you.... I,m right and your wrong and that ends the discussion....    Maron
06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
unicon


Posts 72
Joined on 10-14-2009

Post #: 22
Post ID: 13822
Reply to: 13820
I say .
fiogf49gjkf0d
 zako wrote:
Romy,,Romy,, romy,,,,,Some times you can be so thick headed...in the logic of mono and its correct use,,nothing faulty...All music performed is live,,,and at times localzation is not percieved,,,How is mono haveing practical advantage over propertly implemented  stereo????  This argument came up in recording Myron Salvador at the organ and chorus ,,At the St louis Cathedral...a friend of mine invited me to record the concert in stereo while he recorded his feed in mono,,,Both of us used the same type of microphones,,,Sennheiser MKH condenser units,,,I set up my mics in the " Londen Tee bar Blumine configureation,,,George strapped his ONE mono sennheiser mike centered between mine on the same bar all elevated up 15 feet,,, i used my stereo Nagra... ane he used a Nagra mono version (borrowed),,, The result???? stereo gave No advantage over his mono version,,,No forced fold down between our systems...He didnt use a feed from my cables but used his own...He had a good solid impactful recording and was just as involving as mine,,  This was a surprise to me,,, I thought the spacial effect (stereo) would be better,,but it was,nt,,,,,,,Dont expect stereo recording to be the answere,,,I have hundreds of photos of recordind venues,,London Phil.  Berlin Symphony,,Vienna Phil,,Etc Etc showing mic placement for stereo....All mics positioned in the orchestra on stands looking down on bald heads of the musictions,,,HOW IS THAT STEREO<<< BULLSHIT !!!! It is your logic that is wrong,,,I have been at this recording longer than you.... I,m right and your wrong and that ends the discussion....    Maron


lo,
zako no one disregards how some idiot  cam recorders get their hand on dildoz and try to record a complex orchestra ...
what I say is we have some deep misunderstanding of how stereo works and how to well implement it ... agree with romy somehow that few may know about its benefits.

I have heard many monos they just have limited functioning so they by their nature bypass some major problems we see in stereo topology but thats not the point.
we barely see any well planned stereo .

06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 13823
Reply to: 13822
Best Mono vs. Best Stereo?
fiogf49gjkf0d
Plenty of reasons why a given mono LP might sound better than a given stereo LP at a given time, and I do have some mono LPs I prefer to their stereo counterparts. Still, of my best examples of each, spanning over 60 years, the best of the best stereo just offers "more" than "comparable" mono, IMO, with respect to the "size" and "scale' of the performance, and in terms of voicing, sectional and instrumental interplay, etc. It may be that a system that makes the most of mono does not make the most of stereo, and perhaps vice-versa; but I aim for the stereo. Some listeners are content with mere "spread" from stereo, and some prefer "saturation". I want both from both channels.

As has been mentioned already, many recordings start out with several microphone "channels" and then mix them down into either stereo or mono. How well this is done factors huge in resultant sound potential. For that matter, the recording itself is huge, as are subsequent mastering, molding, stamping, etc., etc., right down to packaging. Also mentioned before (elsewhere?) is the fact that in earlier times there seemed to be fewer known ways to screw up the recordings...

I'd still like to know for sure why some recordings labeled "mono" sound better played back in "stereo".

Best regards,
Paul S
06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zanon
Posts 54
Joined on 11-14-2009

Post #: 24
Post ID: 13824
Reply to: 13823
Mixing is an excellent point
fiogf49gjkf0d
Good point on what mixing, and processing, can do to both mono and stereo recordings.

Look at the examples of room simulation here:
http://www.quantec.com/index.php?id=sound_clips&L=0

OK, they are bad electronic recordings to start with, and then processed further (for good or for ill) but it is remarkable how the sound changes. When listening to the headphone recordings, moving the music from inside to outside is dramatic.
06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 25
Post ID: 13825
Reply to: 13822
Properly implemented stereo?
fiogf49gjkf0d

 zako wrote:
All music performed is live,,,and at times localzation is not percieved,,,How is mono haveing practical advantage over propertly implemented  stereo????  This argument came up in recording Myron Salvador at the organ and chorus ,,At the St louis Cathedral...a friend of mine invited me to record the concert in stereo while he recorded his feed in mono,,,Both of us used the same type of microphones,,,Sennheiser MKH condenser units,,,I set up my mics in the " Londen Tee bar Blumine configureation,,,George strapped his ONE mono sennheiser mike centered between mine on the same bar all elevated up 15 feet,,, i used my stereo Nagra... ane he used a Nagra mono version (borrowed),,, The result???? stereo gave No advantage over his mono version,,,No forced fold down between our systems...He didnt use a feed from my cables but used his own...He had a good solid impactful recording and was just as involving as mine,,  This was a surprise to me,,, I thought the spacial effect (stereo) would be better,,but it was,nt,,,,,,,Dont expect stereo recording to be the answere,,, .

Zako, it is hard to debug what coursed stereo failure in your given example. You know well that it might be zillion reasons and I do not think that your example is illustratable. BTW, stereo is NO ONLY the localization of subjects but much more…

 zako wrote:
I have hundreds of photos of recordind venues,,London Phil.  Berlin Symphony,,Vienna Phil,,Etc Etc showing mic placement for stereo....All mics positioned in the orchestra on stands looking down on bald heads of the musictions,,,HOW IS THAT STEREO<<< BULLSHIT !!!!

Yes and no. Most of what you complain is not the subject of stereo but rather the barbaric use of poly-microphone techniques. The proper stereo is done with just two microphones in dummy hear and so on. The positioning of microphone is super complex subject – I would not even go there…If you feel that by hiding behind the big names of the big concert halls and famous labels will give you some assurance of proper recording techniques then you are mistaken. BTW, the hi-fi recording companies are the worse. The more they accent their hi-endless then more idiotic results they as usually produce.  The typical stereo from hi-fi recording companies is a different instruments coming from different channels and different feed are in opposite absolute phase. Ironic is that the more idiotic recording is the more moronic audiophile adore it. My favorite in this the Patricia Barber that all Morons-audio-fools keep under pillow and that has double-bass and voice in opposite polarity to each other…

 zako wrote:
It is your logic that is wrong,,,I have been at this recording longer than you.... I,m right and your wrong and that ends the discussion....   

I still maintain my view: mono recording are not a cure from bad stereo recording. I do not compare my recording experience to yours – I do not record at all. However, I do my listening and I do not feel that mono recording need to be a direction to pressure. BTW, my observation of the people who pitch mono always made me to divide then in 3 categories:

1)    Inability to get Stereo due to the real-estate reasons. The Japanese Sakuma is perfect example who bravura that he listen ONLY mono but who admit privately that he would rather to do stereo if he had room for second loudspeaker.

2)    The Sinister reasons. Any asshole who suddenly need to sell Klangfilm or WE mono system or who need to release a premastered mono recording “suddenly” begin to sing songs that  mono is unbeatable…

3)    Inability to get proper Stereo due to the audio reasons. This is majority. The guy from the Anstendig institute above is a good example (I still did not read his article). What I spoke with him years back he absolutely discarded my audio results because I do not use equalization. According to him if a person do not use 64 band equalization then I have shity sound. So, do you want ME to argue with HIM about stereo. After the 64 band equalization you have a defecation of phases and he fell that it call “stereo”

 unicon wrote:
….we barely see any well planned stereo .
Absolutely right.  Normally people hardly ever familiar with properly implemented stereo. I did properly implemented stereo a few months back in 2001-2002. I did not hear SO MUCH properly implemented stereo ever anywhere else.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-22-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 26
Post ID: 13826
Reply to: 13825
Cut off his hands.
fiogf49gjkf0d
Unicorn,s comment is correct,,We barely see well planned stereo,,,   a good example is,,,i have in front of me a recording done by RCA,,ALso Sprach Zerathutra,,,recorded with 32 micraphones,,,and they claime on the cover its a stereo recording????  I took Phiffer to task (director of that recording)He appologized,,in his letter knowing true well it could have been done better with a couple of mics,,,but they were following at that time a race to outdo Doitcha Grammaphone..and there TONEMEISTER engineers ,,in implimenting as many mic.s as possible,,,,I called him back and suggested he shoot his engineer,,, It was the worst recording they ever made,,,There were so many microphones in that studio it looked like a dense forest of mic stands...   Another stupid recording done by john attkinson of Stereophile Magazine,,,Of a pianist with two mics under the lid of the piano,,and two mics on a single mic stand 10 feet behind and above,,mic,s pointing down at the performer and the shiny slick floor...I took him to task for claiming it to be stereo recording..  You cant get a stereo, recording the stage floor,,,  The german engineers are the worst at Grammaphone with mic,s hanging from the ceiling arch above the stage pointing down at the floor plus dozens of so called sweeting mics in front of each section of the orchestra,,Timing and phase not even corrected,,  Stereo?? pha,, My phalosaphy is let the engineer only set the level, then cut off his hands. 
06-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
ghpicard
Posts 12
Joined on 12-15-2008

Post #: 27
Post ID: 13871
Reply to: 13825
Macondo / Milq not a properly implemented stereo setup?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
 unicon wrote:
….we barely see any well planned stereo .
Absolutely right.  Normally people hardly ever familiar with properly implemented stereo. I did properly implemented stereo a few months back in 2001-2002. I did not hear SO MUCH properly implemented stereo ever anywhere else. The Cat
So Romy, we know you haven't yet prepared your new room, but weren't your Macondo / Milq in your old apartment a properly implemented stereo setup ?Why ?Gaston
06-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 28
Post ID: 13872
Reply to: 13871
The properly implemented stereo?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 ghpicard wrote:
So Romy, we know you haven't yet prepared your new room, but weren't your Macondo / Milq in your old apartment a properly implemented stereo setup ?Why ?Gaston

Gaston, you confuse a bit the whole notion of “properly implemented stereo”. The “properly implemented stereo” does not imply only playback but it is a whole chain of recording where huge percentage is the initial recording techniques. Regarding the playback only. My old room had OK stereo, Macondo / Milq and the rest crap were fine to support good stereo. Was it as good as it could be or better to say as it shall be? Not really. As I said the true great stereo I had in old room in for 1-2 months during 2001-2002. Pay attention that at that time I had no Macondo in its mature version and no Melquiades.

You will not learn about true stereo observing my experience. I know what makes properly implemented stereo and how to recognize it but it is not the things that might be conveyed. Look at my side my former comments about ability a playback to throw imaging without soundstage. In fact a good stereo is mono with “space”, Very few get it and very few experience it. Good stereo is like diving overlay powerful car, you do not need a lot of power to drive regularly but you need a lot of power once in while to escape complicated situations on roads. The same is with stereo. Stereo by-product effects are fine and unfortunately the Morons feel that this is the Stereo. In really a “properly implemented stereo” sound very much like Mono BUT with greater perceived dynamic, with much more able space and with some semi-holographic qualities, where the key individual sonic micro-fragments have reference to the whole rest Sound….

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
06-29-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #: 29
Post ID: 13874
Reply to: 13872
Free association
fiogf49gjkf0d
Non strictly on topic, but if someone wants to try two-channel quadrophonia:
Free demos available at http://www.andreavonsalis.com
Speakers have to stand 4x90°. Rear speakers stand in the same distance as the front speakers and get the same signal. Balance between front and rear is adjusted subjectively.
Personally I regret having spent so much effort on stereophonic realism. I thought I can do the fine-tuning after establishing the basic principle, and with proper tonal balance my system now does the opposite of what I originally intended: Most of the instruments are placed in front of the speakers (and my listening room is not large).
12-26-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
AOK_Farmer


Marlboro NY USA
Posts 63
Joined on 07-08-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 15291
Reply to: 13874
If we lived in triangular rooms...
fiogf49gjkf0d
We might well have settled with Mono.


If we lived in octagonal rooms we might have settled on 3 channels.


Maybe it is about the rectangular rooms we live in that we choose stereo? What if we lived in round rooms?  Something to think about ;-)


Steve
12-26-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 31
Post ID: 15295
Reply to: 13812
MONO TREE
fiogf49gjkf0d

Stereo is only as good as the width of your head,,,Both visual and audio...Of course locolazion diminish,s as you sit back further,, Hall ambiences will eventually take over...If you are the conductor you get a different perspective,,,And PERSPECTIVE can come from logic of interpretive views..Impactful perspective can come from many sources without stereo...I do not under stand your logic of the case that MONO WAS FORCED (not chosen) you bought your seat (in the hall) and the enviroment will deal you your perspective..  A decest friend of mine ,,(may he rest in hell) only believed in mono,,Making mono records,,most of his life,,would audition his version(mono) than mine (stereo) at the same concert and location..He would point at playback and complain about the swimming sloshy sound,,,He then would disconnect one side and play his mono tape...Showing full localazation and front to back hall balance..  Our mics were on one tall poll mic stand,,In the DECCA tree mic position,,His was the center mic,,,All mics were the same type Sennheiser MKH 105s  Mics were about 3rd row back from edge of stage,,,I now have his MONO tapes,,And play them for doughting morons,,showing that good recordings can be made in mono,,,I then place a record RCA stereo,,with 27 mics like the 32 mike version stereo by phifer,,,,(what a piece of shit) A BARTOK piece,,I wrote the producer a scathing letter,,and told him to shoot the fucking engineer...

12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 32
Post ID: 15301
Reply to: 15291
I do not like mono although do understand that it has some averages.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 AOK_Farmer wrote:
We might well have settled with Mono.

If we lived in octagonal rooms we might have settled on 3 channels.

Maybe it is about the rectangular rooms we live in that we choose stereo? What if we lived in round rooms?  Something to think about

Steve, I do not think that our preference foe mono/stereo dictated by geometry of room. I still feel that stereo derived from the fact that we have two ears and no matter how back stereo is we still get some binaural component in stereo.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
AOK_Farmer


Marlboro NY USA
Posts 63
Joined on 07-08-2004

Post #: 33
Post ID: 15302
Reply to: 15301
If you lost hearing in one ear...
fiogf49gjkf0d
Do you think you would lose the ability to hear stereo properly and that for the Van Gogh type person Mono is as sufficient as stereo? I am not sure that there is, deep down, that much of a difference between properly implemented mono and properly implemented stereo. Stereo has much more opportunity for the engineers to screw things up or to do all manner of psychoacoustic effects... but there isn't really a choice is there? It's a stereo world and listening to stereo recordings in mono seems moronic, even if you only have one ear.

Steve
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 15304
Reply to: 15302
My standing with stereo is very deliberate.
fiogf49gjkf0d
 AOK_Farmer wrote:
Do you think you would lose the ability to hear stereo properly and that for the Van Gogh type person Mono is as sufficient as stereo?

Absolutely, a person with one ear do not need stereo. You can easily try it by covering one ear. In fact it will not be a clean experiment and you still will be getting information to second ear by bone transmitting vibration. Try to close one eye when you drive in complex road. You will get an idea if you are not trained to do so. Be careful however, it might be dangers.
 AOK_Farmer wrote:
It's a stereo world and listening to stereo recordings in mono seems moronic, even if you only have one ear.

I prefer to listen all my mono recordings on my stereo system. I do not like convert playback to mono, I use to do it but I do not like it and my standing with stereo is very deliberate.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 35
Post ID: 15306
Reply to: 15304
How vs. What We Hear
fiogf49gjkf0d
We have already talked about how recording techniques do or do not make the most of a given format, and/or available recordings do or do not especially lend themselves to a given playback system.  Then, there is the matter of setting everything up in the listening room in order to "make the most of it", whatever "it" is.  Who knows what is possible until someone really decides to push it?  I admit I have not so far enjoyed a lot of mono "re-processed into "stereo"; but I have enjoyed some of it.  And I am not so sure we have done everything that can be done with "stereo" yet, either.

At this point, the biggest problem I have with mono - generically speaking - is that it tends to collapse the sound field compared to stereo, and also the sound field tends to "breathe" in and out according to the volume and complexity of the music.  Along with this, all sounds tend to "radiate" from the same small-ish place.  Of course, some mono recordings are better than others on these counts.  However, for all I know, there are already ways to "deal with" the problems I have cited.

It is also fun to "compare" "stereo" to 5.1 "surround".  Although the "surround" I have heard has serious issues, yet it appears that the idea itself has as much intrinsic merit as normal "stereo", given recording processes that consider the playback, going in.  Not much serious "surround" program presently available, however...

Which brings me to the main reason I have stayed with stereo so far.  It is not because I care about the "two ears, two channels" agrument, but it is because, to date, it has provided the best known-to-me source/playback format in terms of listening to available program material, according to my present experince with playback.  In other words, I'm still an audio ho', and I would jump ship in a New York Minute if something better came along.

Maybe there are even ways to more or less "re-mix" "stereo" playback signals in order to process them better in terms of our perception...


Paul S
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 36
Post ID: 15308
Reply to: 15306
Sound field
fiogf49gjkf0d
I have hundreds of photos taken at recording sessions,,,(thats another hobby of mine,,), The so called sound field is a real joke,,,In perticular one photo of the Berliner Symphony orchestra,,, The mics and mic stands are high up 15 ft or more,,Mics pointed down at the BALD HEADS of the players,,and sweeting mics helter skelter in the orchestra,,,Thats a sound field ???? ,, The soloist at the piano has two mics under the sound lid,,inches from the piano strings,,, What the fuck for??,,,Thats a sound field???  Like my dead ol mono friend would say ,,SLAME THAT FUCKING piano lid down on that recording engineers head.    John Atkinson(stereophile ed) did a recording of a small JAZZ group,,a couple of years ago, again several mics were under the lid,,I noticed in the photo,,He forgot to hook up the other end to his mixing board,,  Another photo i have is 14 mics on a drum kit,,NOW THATS A SOUND FIELD..
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 37
Post ID: 15310
Reply to: 15308
Not directly related.
fiogf49gjkf0d
I would like to point out those multi-microphone techniques and mono/stereo sentiments are not directly related.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-27-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 38
Post ID: 15311
Reply to: 15308
It's All In Your Head
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, Zako, the recording processes are often beyond rational comprehension, and the playback is also "inherently flawed".  Also, there certainly are recordings that offer nothing I can recognize or accept as sound field or ambience.  None the less, there are recordings that I do get a sense of "sound field" from, and most of these happen to be "stereo".

Fortunately for me, I have no horse in the stereo-versus-mono race; I just happen to prefer the added "sound field" or "ambience" when I can get it, other factors being equal, and I think I have already mentioned other "benefits" I associate with "stereo".  Needless to say, I mean, "well done stereo" (whatever that means...)!

Best regards,
Paul S
12-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 39
Post ID: 15312
Reply to: 15311
Gentlemen, I'd Like to Propose a Test
fiogf49gjkf0d

OK, who has not recently tried a good mono recording played from just one BIG speaker?  It has been quite I while since I have done this.  It may take a while to get to it, but at some point I will play the 1943 Furtwangler/BPO Beethoven 9 through one DEBZ, and I will get back with impressions.  IMO, this recording has sound field, ambience, everything, up the wazoo in "enhanced mono".  Let's hear how it sounds in "true mono".

Paul S

12-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 40
Post ID: 15316
Reply to: 15310
Sentiments
fiogf49gjkf0d
The mono/stereo sentiments are not directally related...In some ways yes,,and in some ways no,,,But a complex answere would take a complex mix of remastering the program,, Ive done it both ways.   And so has my long ago dead friend,, who had done alot of research in mic placements for both,,He was always keeping records of what he did,,, I must add he and Paul Klipsch did alot of earley recording together,,,Configuring every known mic placement thery and mic configurations,,,I pour over his papers and math,,also useing all his old tapes as a guide,,To follow what he was after,,For awhile i used his audio equipment,,Just to have a reference to his minds ear,,  He sure new that orchestra hall ,,to capture the particular sound,,
Page 2 of 3 (49 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Beware of the monophonic honk...  Use stereo system to play mono......  Audio For Dummies ™  Forum     2  20368  07-30-2006
  »  New  A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..  REL Precedent Report...  Off Air Audio Forum     24  172790  07-28-2008
  »  New  The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..  Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......  Playback Listening  Forum     1  19793  08-04-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts