Teflon wrote:

With stereo you hear sound from more than one source (speaker) and the sound from each source is very nearly the same except for some variations in amplitude of certain frequencies and some phase differences which occur because the microphones used to record these signals were placed in different locations with respect to the instruments. These microphones also picked up ambient sounds - the instruments themselves send sound in all directions so the microphones also pick up reflected sounds from the room boundaries. <snip> With mono dipole sound, your also hear sound from more than one source - in this case the speaker + reflected from boundaries. Listening to one dipole speaker with the reflections from your room boundaries your ears also experience a sound 'field' which allows you to experience the sound as coming not just from one speakers - you hear the 'air' in the sound. But you hear the effects of the listening room without trying to 'force' the sound to match an original venue using two speakers. You reduce the conflict between your listening room and the recording. When you listen to live music from a distance, such as the back row at the orchestra, you experience sound as if it come from one 'speaker' which radiates sound in many directions. Perhaps a mono dipole is a more realistic way to experience this sound in playback than with stereo ?

ghpicard wrote:

IMO, stereo is intended to reproduce the sound of a given performance *with the assumption* that one has two ears, and thus two microphones strategically located can faithfully simulate and reproduce the sensations of being live at the recording event.

ghpicard wrote:

OTOH, a dipole is intended to to overcome the many distortions due to the speaker / air interface and its different radiation and reflection patterns.Horns, *again IMO* are a better approach to this. I like more the sound of a mono horn that the one of a mono dipole. Two totally different things.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Guys, I think you use a slightly faulty logic in here. No one would deny the differences in presentation between live events and playback.  I would not argue with what ‘zako’ or ‘gormee’ said. I would however disagree about the way in which they use own arguments. First of all the stereo localization during playback is not the only attribute of stereo, not to mention that sources localization during the life event are there and it the localization just wary with distance. The localization in live music work a bit different - I do not want to go into desiccation of the differences. What however I would like to note (in context of this thread) is the mono is not the answer to make recorded music more impactful. If whatever arguments you have against stereo are correct then how monophonic sound address those arguments? My position is not to worship stereo but to degree with the people who falsely proclaim the mono has any practical advantage over properly implemented stereo. It is not to mention that in 100% of all cases what I was arguing the subject it was always was the case that mono was forced (not chosen) environment. The Cat

steverino wrote:

Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way.

Teflon wrote:

steverino wrote: Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way   You may argue that the only valid goal is proper stereo reproduction - that's OK with me too, I don't argue with your beliefs whether audio or religious.