Even if stereo doesn't work for some in recreating the ideal that they are looking for, it certainly works for audio which was designed to use stereo as the medium. To claim that stereo doesn't work for art designed specifically for it is absurd. That's like saying that oil paint doesn't work for painting. Since this type of recording dominates the market and my own listening I am not too concerned.
95 % of the music I want to listen to is only available in stereo. And that is already including the live music events I have a chance to attend in my neighbourhood. So there really is no alternative to stereo. And don't tell me that mono is better. 
Some people in this forum have a habit to dictate what sort or level of audio reproduction quality is good enough and what doesn't cut it. I know that they are only speaking about their own private level, but it notoriously sounds like their message to the world. This is not about all those people who kindly share their own learnings and experiences, but about that schoolmasterly "you ain't seen nothing yet" and "you got it all wrong" behaviour.
A word about "live-like is the benchmark": I have been to enough concerts where the sound (or the performance or even both together) was so utterly bad that I really enjoyed listening afterwards to the same songs/band on my home stereo. And I have been to live events that were such overwhelming, that I would never ever even think about reproducing that in my home.
All things have their merits and shortcomings. And everybody just picks what suits him best. All those who (pretend to) know were the paradise is (or even hell) take this whole thing quite too religious.
Rudolf
Some people in this forum have a habit to dictate what sort or level of audio reproduction quality is good enough and what doesn't cut it. I know that they are only speaking about their own private level, but it notoriously sounds like their message to the world. This is not about all those people who kindly share their own learnings and experiences, but about that schoolmasterly "you ain't seen nothing yet" and "you got it all wrong" behaviour.
A word about "live-like is the benchmark": I have been to enough concerts where the sound (or the performance or even both together) was so utterly bad that I really enjoyed listening afterwards to the same songs/band on my home stereo. And I have been to live events that were such overwhelming, that I would never ever even think about reproducing that in my home.
All things have their merits and shortcomings. And everybody just picks what suits him best. All those who (pretend to) know were the paradise is (or even hell) take this whole thing quite too religious.
Rudolf
Of course it had to come down to this because our knowledge is limited how the specific contributions of recording (technique), speaker and room setup influence localization, spaciousness, timbre and loudness.
We have progressed to the point where we now have surround sound systems and multichannel playback systems. The problem with these to this point and even the much earlier surround sound systems of the late 70's has been that they were used more as a gimmick than as a way to reproduce a natural sound field. I think that just as stereo was an improvement over mono recording and playback we will at some time make the change over to surround sound for music that is an extension on what we talk about in stereo reproduction. Until then we still have our stereo systems. It will take everything that we have learned here and more to make the jump to multichannel sound for music. Not effects for movies but the closer reproduction of the sound fields we hear in a live environment. Until then let us not criticize stereo, let's keep moving forward with better reproduction as it will be even more critical when you have to combine multiple channels in a coherent way.
Markus - just keep plugging away on the "we are so dumb that we don't know what we are doing" point of view. Maybe someday I will get it!
But you know what? Put a 65" TV screen between the speakers and all this becomes close to irrelevant because visual acuity is so much more dominant that the acoustic. If it looks like the sound source is left of center, rear, then that is where you hear it from. 5.1 or 7.1 sound with picture trumps it all. I have some concert DVDs that are phenomenal to watch but turn off the picture and the recording is pretty bad. With picture on, after a few minutes, you don't even notice the poor audio quality.
Hey, that's what I said . . .
Aren't we supposed to disagree about everything?
(actually we seem to agree about 98.27% of the time these days . . .)
The problem "live" is to get all the sound to all the audience in proper balance. The "classical" (acoustic) solution is the reverberant hall . . . the "modern" (amplified) solution is mix-to-mono.
Two channels (stereo) presents the opportunity to "create" a sound experience that is rarely, if ever, heard in a "live" setting . . . if that's what you want. It certainly has the potential at least to be "better than live" in some respects . . .
dewardh,
That is to say that a live show is never done in stereo. Who says that all shows though most are mono aren't also done in stereo at times? When you are doing outside festival sound without a shell or any other rear reflective surface you are counting completely on the direct projection of the sound system and the sound from the instruments on the stage. I have been to more than one show and worked many where the sound was excellent and others where it was the pits. It came down to the mixing engineer more than anything else. If the guy at the console hasn't a clue it doesn't matter how good the sound system is. But in the right hands it can be a wonderful experience. Generalization only holds true some of the time and not all of the time.
ps. I don't think that Pano who is using a mostly horn loaded system is relying on the front wall to give him the effects that he is after, he is using very high directivity to accomplish his goals.
That is to say that a live show is never done in stereo. Who says that all shows though most are mono aren't also done in stereo at times? When you are doing outside festival sound without a shell or any other rear reflective surface you are counting completely on the direct projection of the sound system and the sound from the instruments on the stage. I have been to more than one show and worked many where the sound was excellent and others where it was the pits. It came down to the mixing engineer more than anything else. If the guy at the console hasn't a clue it doesn't matter how good the sound system is. But in the right hands it can be a wonderful experience. Generalization only holds true some of the time and not all of the time.
ps. I don't think that Pano who is using a mostly horn loaded system is relying on the front wall to give him the effects that he is after, he is using very high directivity to accomplish his goals.
Yes . . . if you want both sides of the audience (and the center) to hear the same show then the keyboard, the vocalist(s), percussion (if amplified) etc. are "mixed mono" without regard to location on stage. If the guitars depend on the back line then their speakers are close enough together to be a mono source through most of the audience, and if "augmented" through the PA that will be mixed in to provide uniform balance throughout the audience.
Do anything else and you will be inundated with complaints . . .
I usually mixed front of house in mono, or close to it. Definitely no hard L/R pans. I did try to create a little bit of an image, especially with jazz or latin stuff, horn section and such. Some guitar and key players have enough stereo effects to make it fun.
Kindhorn, you know he was joking about the wall, right?
Kindhorn, you know he was joking about the wall, right?
Pano,
No I thought that he was serious as that is what so much of the disagreement is about on this thread. And I guess we have to qualify stereo as how much of that is anything but left to right panning anyway? So we can say that most stereo is panned mono signal really on most recordings. Not much stereo mic technique used in pop music I would imagine.
No I thought that he was serious as that is what so much of the disagreement is about on this thread. And I guess we have to qualify stereo as how much of that is anything but left to right panning anyway? So we can say that most stereo is panned mono signal really on most recordings. Not much stereo mic technique used in pop music I would imagine.
Kindhorn, you know he was joking about the wall, right?
You know that's the danger - I didn't realize that he was joking. There are some here who would believe that, but I can't keep straight who believes what.
I agree with this to a point. It is not that visual acuity dominates as much as it is visual and sound requires equal levels of brain processing at the same time. The brain has to divide itself between processing both, and much like all multitasking, cannot be perfect at doing both simultaneously.
You also have to take into consideration that 5.1/7.1 mixes created for today, are not nearly as spatially accurate across the front as those done for 6.0 or 7.1 back in the day(I could go on ad nausem about all of the variants of Dolby stereo and Magnetic tape and its benefits, but I won't). Having five speakers in the front allows for such spatial precision, having only three channels cannot compete. To compare, listen to a SDDS 7.1 versus a 5.1 foldown of the same mix.
Lastly, DVD is quite frankly yesterday.com. It is no longer relevant as a video medium. Bluray has stepped up as the premiere video carrier, and 480i and highly compressed Dolby Digital at 448kbps is low resolution both audio and visually when compared to Bluray. The experience of turning off the picture no longer result in a compromised audio experience.
Last edited: