| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio For Dummies ™ » A new 'chic' foolishness about mono systems (49 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 3 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  21184  07-30-2006
  »  New  A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..  REL Precedent Report...  Off Air Audio Forum     24  180067  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  20553  08-04-2009
12-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #: 41
Post ID: 15318
Reply to: 15316
Firebird
fiogf49gjkf0d
paul s,,, yes an old mono Stravinsky FireBird,,,I never seen it remasterd,,,Colombia,, Now owned by Sony,,I wish they would re release it Like the did some Bruno Walter records..
12-28-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,143
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 42
Post ID: 15320
Reply to: 15318
Winner, Schminner: This Gives Me an Idea...
fiogf49gjkf0d
OK, I managed to get to the "fully mono" experiment done pretty quickly.  The single speaker made a more "compact" sound that stuck more closely to the speaker, itself, despite "increased" ambient cue "saturation".

No surprise, I happen to prefer my optimised-for-stereo system in stereo, even when the "stereo is mono", since I prefer the sound to "originate" "in space", away from the speakers.

Still, rather than bringing me to a "conclusion" regarding stereo versus mono, this little session has instead pushed me to wonder if a better idea might actually be more of a normal mono/stereo "hybrid" that might get the most from either "format", with better density and better ambience in both cases.

For openers, I can get the full-mono sound to "open up" significantly if I get my head just right with respect to the tweeter...

Hmmm...


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

Post #: 43
Post ID: 15321
Reply to: 15320
Open up
fiogf49gjkf0d
Open up ,,,??,,,,What are tweeters supposed to do ??  remember everything below 5K is the fundamentals of all musicle instruments,,Every thing above are the harmonics,,, A key of C of a violin or a key of C of a viola,, What will disquindish the difference of the two,, ITS HARMONICS,,WHAT do you mean by DENSITY ?  Ambience is always needed otherwise you would be in a Anechoic state.  As far as the Mono/Stereo debate,,,I,ll take the overall cohiesive balance that the composer wanted,,And screw the Spacial layout of the orchestra..
06-04-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #: 44
Post ID: 18238
Reply to: 15321
It's not mono vs stereo, but mono dipole vs stereo
fiogf49gjkf0d
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.

Listening to two speakers and the reflections from your room boundaries your ears experience a sound 'field' which allows you to experience the sound as coming not just from two speakers - you hear the 'air' in the sound.

It seems to me very difficult to ensure the stereo playback matches the live performance because the listening room and the place of the performance are different. Even if the recording and mixing were perfect the reproduction will not be correct. Maybe the result is actually confusing, there is a conflict between the recording environment and the playback environment so that the result is actually worse. Perhaps, at most, you can only get a 'sense' and feeling for the original performance.

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 ?

So the 'full mono experiment' is the wrong one, you don't want a mono-pole speaker if using mono.



Could it be - that if you sit close to your speakers, which you might have to do if they are very large, then the listening room is not so intrusive and does not contribute itself to the sound field - then you need stereo (or multi-channel) to give you a sound field that does not collapse to one small place. But if you sit further away from your speaker, or listen to music throughout a house with open space, then the room(s) create a sound field and stereo is no longer the only game in town.



06-04-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
ghpicard
Posts 12
Joined on 12-15-2008

Post #: 45
Post ID: 18239
Reply to: 18238
Stereo is not even similar to dual mono dipoles
fiogf49gjkf0d
 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 ?

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.
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.
06-06-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #: 46
Post ID: 18247
Reply to: 18239
Please explain more
fiogf49gjkf0d
 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.

Doesn't it also assume that these two ears receive only the sound from each respective left/right speaker - which is not what happens ?
 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.

Sorry, but what does that mean ? I don't know what distortions from the speaker/air interface a dipole is intended to overcome ?
And knowing this I hope it will allow me to understand why horns are better for this ?
p.s. mono horns - Romy says they 'honk'
04-06-2016 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 302
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 47
Post ID: 22594
Reply to: 13812
Solo
fiogf49gjkf0d
 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


Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way. I am undecided whether that applies to recordings of solo instruments though. Also some Pop music because of its occasional harmonic and contrapuntal limitations sometimes sounds better focused than spread out. Classical music however doesn't so benefit.
04-09-2016 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #: 48
Post ID: 22597
Reply to: 22594
Mono - more to it than you think ?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 steverino wrote:
Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way.

I would assume this is a popular viewpoint, and easily agreed with, when the goal is to reproduce as closely as possible the spatial effects enjoyed in a music venue. And also if you want to listen to orchestra with the traditional placement of instruments, such as violin to the left etc. where something different would sound out of place.
However, there are times when my goal is not to reproduce the spatial effects of a venue and sometimes I do not insist on the need to perceive instruments in an orchestra to have a particular placement. Sometimes my goal is to enjoy the music without the constraint that I should be located in a particular place relative to the reproduction system in order to have proper stereo, or even just to feel enveloped by the sound without any need for authentic placement of instruments. In these cases, I like a mono source where the sound is subject to the reverberations of the room I am in. I could imagine that my ear-eye-brain would then perceive no incongruity in the spatial information generated by the speaker-room interaction because the system is not attempting to generate a spatial experience from another place, another venue altogether. The choice of speaker for this type of reproduction may not be optimally a single speaker from a stereo pair, but a speaker of different design which encourages interaction with the room. 
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.
04-09-2016 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
steverino
Posts 302
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #: 49
Post ID: 22598
Reply to: 22597
Didn't say that
fiogf49gjkf0d
 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.


But I didn't so argue. I specifically mentioned the examples of solo instruments and certain pop music as possibly sounding better in mono. The issue is not whether the stereo presentation mirrors the actual live performance positions but whether it provides more of the musical information relevant to the composer's intention. There is a reason why orchestra members don't line up in a vertical file but are distributed as they are on a stage. Composers knowing the standard  layout compose accordingly. The same thing applies to a string quartet. If they have something different in mind then they notate the score to specify where the players should be.

As for pop music I agree that its artificial nature makes it more dependent on the good taste and judgment of the mixing engineer which is not a great idea as these qualities are in short supply.

Of course your preference may be to hear something in mono instead of stereo but that is a personal choice rather than something dictated by the nature of the music.
Page 3 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  21184  07-30-2006
  »  New  A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..  REL Precedent Report...  Off Air Audio Forum     24  180067  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  20553  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