At the end of the otherwise not so exciting interview, Mark Levinson mentions a Bell Labs paper of 1936 on mono/stereo/multichannel, which might be very interesting. Anybody got a clue where to get it?
vac
I have it somewhere in my pile of moving boxes. At least 6 months till I sort that stuff.
It concludes that LCR is best and then of course no one really has ever done it!
Last edited:
3-channel recordings were made in the 1950's - stereo only "won" due to ease of encoding/decoding
ArkivMusic | RCA Living Sterio on Super Audio
lots of multichannel arrangements have been explored over the years, many clearly bettered Stereo
ArkivMusic | RCA Living Sterio on Super Audio
lots of multichannel arrangements have been explored over the years, many clearly bettered Stereo
I was told the first stereo happened by accident in Paris perhaps 1919 lets say ( best I remember of an article and even Pars I guess at ) . Telephones had been provided to take sound outside the concert hall .Someone showed others how holding two earpieces gave stereo . Probably just a myth ?
There was a very early telephone invention showing two receivers, one for each ear! One microphone however.
Thanks, would be interesting to know how and why Bell labs came to that conclusion; hope inverse Murphy law will strike in your part of the universe to dig it out by happenstance.
vac
If Klipsch was promoting 3 channel stereo, rather than 2 channel, it was based on his OWN experience and perhaps Bell Labs back in the 1930's, so let me set you straight.
It is TRUE that two K-horns situated in opposite walls of a normal sized room do NOT give a good stereo image. More a ping-pong stereo image. WHY? Two reasons, first they are separated by too great a distance to merge properly, and the K-horn's extremely varied arrival time of the various frequencies, at least 4ms, probably more, removes information useful for stereo imaging. I know, because I lived with stereo K-horns for almost 10 years, AND I measured the path length between the woofer and tweeter.
Back in the 1960's, both Richard Heyser and I each had a MONO K-horn as our reference speaker. Stereo might be great for headphones, but MONO records and FM broadcasting were the most hi fi. The difference in the source material at that time was very obvious between mono and stereo, stereo being slightly inferior. Yet by 1970, I moved to stereo K-horns, and Richard Heyser quietly moved to other loudspeakers, that we would normally consider 'inferior' for audio reproduction. He apparently did that to get a better STEREO image.
Now what about Paul Klipsch? Paul was caught up with a problem. What to do, his K-horns would not 'image' properly, and he must have gotten complaints. Well, he designed the CornWall center fill loudspeaker to FILL IN the center, and his apparent stereo imaging was much improved. This was his solution, and he could cite back to 1936, apparently, and for him that was not too hard, just like when I look back to my more challenging days of 30 to 40 years ago. For me, listening to him in 1965, when I first met him, made me a 'convert', but as the years rolled by, and my experience increased, I found 'holes' in his arguments, and for a while, I virtually 'disowned' him for misleading me. This was unfair, I now realize.
It is TRUE that two K-horns situated in opposite walls of a normal sized room do NOT give a good stereo image. More a ping-pong stereo image. WHY? Two reasons, first they are separated by too great a distance to merge properly, and the K-horn's extremely varied arrival time of the various frequencies, at least 4ms, probably more, removes information useful for stereo imaging. I know, because I lived with stereo K-horns for almost 10 years, AND I measured the path length between the woofer and tweeter.
Back in the 1960's, both Richard Heyser and I each had a MONO K-horn as our reference speaker. Stereo might be great for headphones, but MONO records and FM broadcasting were the most hi fi. The difference in the source material at that time was very obvious between mono and stereo, stereo being slightly inferior. Yet by 1970, I moved to stereo K-horns, and Richard Heyser quietly moved to other loudspeakers, that we would normally consider 'inferior' for audio reproduction. He apparently did that to get a better STEREO image.
Now what about Paul Klipsch? Paul was caught up with a problem. What to do, his K-horns would not 'image' properly, and he must have gotten complaints. Well, he designed the CornWall center fill loudspeaker to FILL IN the center, and his apparent stereo imaging was much improved. This was his solution, and he could cite back to 1936, apparently, and for him that was not too hard, just like when I look back to my more challenging days of 30 to 40 years ago. For me, listening to him in 1965, when I first met him, made me a 'convert', but as the years rolled by, and my experience increased, I found 'holes' in his arguments, and for a while, I virtually 'disowned' him for misleading me. This was unfair, I now realize.
I hoped I would find the reference in Toole and sure enough: Steinberg, J. C., and Snow, W. B., [1934]. "Auditory perspective---Physical Factors, " Electrical Engineering, vol. 33, pp. 12-17.
See, for commentary, the section in Toole, Sound Reproduction, particularly 15.2 "The Birth of Multichannel Audio", pp. 273-276.
Mark Levinson is a good promoter. He interviews with a mixture of concern for the art of music reproduction and self-interest. It is hard to separate the two, unless you might have known him and worked with him over the years.
John Meyer, of Meyersound, saw through Mark, way back in 1975, when I first gave Mark the JC-3 power amp design. John warned me not to trust the guy, and guess what? He was right.
However, when Mark is 'on track' he speaks as a humble, concerned 'patron of the arts' concerned with 'selflessly' doing good for the reproduction of music. Behind the scenes, he grabs the money, and spends it on himself, leaving the rest of us out. That is why virtually everyone who first worked for him, left his company, either voluntarily or were fired. That doesn't sound like the guy in the interview, does it?
In my case, he refused to pay me further for the JC-2 preamp, saying that he had modified it, and it was not mine, anymore. I got $10 a unit, with NO previous funding for my efforts. When sales got larger, he saw that giving that $10/preamp to me was taking profits away from him, so he cut me off. He DID ask if he could still use MY initials on the product, and I threatened to sue him if he did, so the JC-2 became the ML-1, I am sure at some lawyer's suggestion. As well, the JC-3 became the ML-2, and I never received a penny in compensation for that amp design. And so it goes.
John Meyer, of Meyersound, saw through Mark, way back in 1975, when I first gave Mark the JC-3 power amp design. John warned me not to trust the guy, and guess what? He was right.
However, when Mark is 'on track' he speaks as a humble, concerned 'patron of the arts' concerned with 'selflessly' doing good for the reproduction of music. Behind the scenes, he grabs the money, and spends it on himself, leaving the rest of us out. That is why virtually everyone who first worked for him, left his company, either voluntarily or were fired. That doesn't sound like the guy in the interview, does it?
In my case, he refused to pay me further for the JC-2 preamp, saying that he had modified it, and it was not mine, anymore. I got $10 a unit, with NO previous funding for my efforts. When sales got larger, he saw that giving that $10/preamp to me was taking profits away from him, so he cut me off. He DID ask if he could still use MY initials on the product, and I threatened to sue him if he did, so the JC-2 became the ML-1, I am sure at some lawyer's suggestion. As well, the JC-3 became the ML-2, and I never received a penny in compensation for that amp design. And so it goes.
John,
Did you not hear how many times he was Robbed over the years, he needed every penny ..
Anyway sad to hear and it was a bit troubling to hear him accuse everyone else but himself for all 3 company failures, Robbed of course , company name and all.
PS: If you have any amplifier designs hanging around for 10.00 let me know, unlike ML, I'm a prompt and fair payer , credit due will be given
The sad thing these days (meaning at least a half-century) is that one almost needs to get a law degree and maybe even pass the Bar exam to fend for oneself. When I agreed to design (really, invent) and develop a product recently (mostly non-audio) I chatted with a friend who did a lot of work for a company in Canada. He advised me to pay an attorney what would run about 5k for a solid, enforceable contract. For him, this made the difference between making almost nothing and about 100k iirc.
I didn't do this, and it is good that I didn't, as the product has not done well. Were I to be paid for the units shipped I would maybe just be at break-even on legal fees today. The company is struggling just to pay the contract manufacturer --- they are not denying that I am owed.
However, I heard the story of a piece of software that some actual lawyers developed. Large company M said they wanted it and were going to use it whether the company agreed to their offer or not. You know, the old "We'll see who lasts the longest".
But. What M did not appreciate was that all of the developers were in fact practicing attorneys, and were able to go indefinitely and, crucially, not be "out-of-pocket". After a little round or two of depositions, as this situation became clear, they settled with a nice big check from M.
I didn't do this, and it is good that I didn't, as the product has not done well. Were I to be paid for the units shipped I would maybe just be at break-even on legal fees today. The company is struggling just to pay the contract manufacturer --- they are not denying that I am owed.
However, I heard the story of a piece of software that some actual lawyers developed. Large company M said they wanted it and were going to use it whether the company agreed to their offer or not. You know, the old "We'll see who lasts the longest".
But. What M did not appreciate was that all of the developers were in fact practicing attorneys, and were able to go indefinitely and, crucially, not be "out-of-pocket". After a little round or two of depositions, as this situation became clear, they settled with a nice big check from M.
I don't know if I need you, but I know I certainly enjoy talking to you.
You bring me hope, Nige. For quite some time, I thought I was some kind of a throwback, thinking that vintage stuff was at least far more soldly made than modern products, which are far more complex and flashier. Now, having you around, I see I'm not altogether alone in that view.
And we have found several very interesting points of common interest, such as, for example, Armstrong. A now defunct British company whose one product I have heard and fell in love with it. Still am.
I meant when you were living in the UK .....
Oh, you humorous fellow, you!
Canned food? Living in the countryside? Surrounded by farms?
I'll have you know, good sir, that my morning eggs arrived still warm every morning. Aboslutely true, the farm they came from was less than half a mile from my school, at the entrance of the school driveway actually.
But of course, I wasn't completely lucky, some things did come from cans, and worse, Oxo gravy was 100% synthetic and tasted it.
Last edited:
Hah, who but you would take some words out of my mouth. Paul W Klipsch had been advocating 3 channel stereo ever since I even heard about him, in the early 70ies.
Unlike you, John, I never met him, and my experience eith his products was defined by only one locally available Klipschorn speaker pair, but in the end, I believed to have seen his logic. Unlike you, I thought then, and I still think now that he was right, never mind that he may have had some details wrong.
One of the people I have utmost respect for.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.