One idea comes to my mind once in a while. For listening to music as background while working and moving around, a single speaker should be perfect. I have even read about some people, who prefer listening music in mono. I once raised this subject on another forum, where someone suggested adding "stereo" tweeters to get some "air". Which is exactly the opposite way the Stereolith speaker works.
I have a pair of tweeters left from an old project. I was thinking of using a dual coil woofer for lows and two tweeters for "stereo" highs - all in a single box. Have you ever tried something similar (and unorthodox)?
What are your opinions for mono music listening? Which is the best way? I have always admired vintage speakers as Hartsfield or Altec Iconic 820 - which were originally intended for mono use.
I have a pair of tweeters left from an old project. I was thinking of using a dual coil woofer for lows and two tweeters for "stereo" highs - all in a single box. Have you ever tried something similar (and unorthodox)?
What are your opinions for mono music listening? Which is the best way? I have always admired vintage speakers as Hartsfield or Altec Iconic 820 - which were originally intended for mono use.
Maybe a better way to get air without losing the mono sound would be to use open back (open baffle) at least above 200Hz.
Member
Joined 2003
Using more than one tweeter is always a bad idea. Wavelength of 20KHz is only 17mm, which will be less than the distance between the two tweeters, causing huge lobing problems at high frequencies. Might be good if you are looking for some pseudo 3D effect as you move about the room, but not hifi at all.
Open baffle, or some omni-directional speaker is a much greater idea, IMO.
Open baffle, or some omni-directional speaker is a much greater idea, IMO.
While trying out my new system, I remembered this thread. Surprisingly enough, the mono sound in a classic "stereo triangle" arrangement is really nice. Much better than from a single loudspeaker. That would confirm the theory that omnidirectional should be good for mono listening.
Mono listening equals domestic bliss - and no better way to enjoy it than on vintage equipment! 🙂
Attachments
A "Smith" distributed source horn is nice in mono. Coaxial in Karlson cabinets too.
"this" with an 18" speaker sounded fabulous on George Formby's recordings 😀
"this" with an 18" speaker sounded fabulous on George Formby's recordings 😀
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I get a headache looking at that photo (Galu) - I think its some kind of psychological torture.
But yes, mono is good. I prefer a single speaker with wide dispersion and allow the room to do the rest: A Big'un - the Audio Nirvana Super 15
But yes, mono is good. I prefer a single speaker with wide dispersion and allow the room to do the rest: A Big'un - the Audio Nirvana Super 15
Will very likely go mono for the garage. Will give me a chance to use some of the speaker drivers (and output transformers) for which I have no mate. Later will need another mono system for 78s and vintage mono discs. That would be a good incentive to finish the 40s vintage console refurb. 🙂
scott: Yes, even when moving around - but not the whole room.
I kind of like when the sound is emerging "out of air" and is not located at a speaker. I even prefer room "flooded" with music in the workshop as it does not distract me while moving around.
I was once in front of a shopping center and hearing some music, it took me a while to find the speakers. They were the Bose Freespace hidden in the flowers. If I could do that in the workshop, I would be more than happy🙂
I kind of like when the sound is emerging "out of air" and is not located at a speaker. I even prefer room "flooded" with music in the workshop as it does not distract me while moving around.
I was once in front of a shopping center and hearing some music, it took me a while to find the speakers. They were the Bose Freespace hidden in the flowers. If I could do that in the workshop, I would be more than happy🙂
I asked because it sounds like you are listening to mono via a normal stereo set up which I believe is not ideal due mainly to comb filtering and lack of stability in the image, how audible this would be is suspect and subject to reflections etc.
An omni would be good or try placing them back to back like a bipole 🙂
An omni would be good or try placing them back to back like a bipole 🙂
You should all try this http://elias.altervista.org/html/SingleSpeakerStereo.html
Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker
Kind of similar as a mono speaker by its basic feel but has the freaking stereo image across the wall. Its pretty amazing for background music.
Stereophonic Sound from a Single Loudspeaker
Kind of similar as a mono speaker by its basic feel but has the freaking stereo image across the wall. Its pretty amazing for background music.
My experience with mono is negative, every time you merge left and right signal into mono, I feel like much of the valuable information is lost. This is true even for casual background listening. Off course very evident in critical listening.
My solution would be two identical speakers placed very close to each other. Even on top of each other. As a matter of fact that's how I am evaluating amps.
My solution would be two identical speakers placed very close to each other. Even on top of each other. As a matter of fact that's how I am evaluating amps.
scottjoplin: I think that the comb filtering and reflections actually create illusion of space that is non-existing in the mono recording. E.g. drummer playing toms that are physically moving almost like in the stereo recording, only at a smaller spot. What was more funny, the sound was also moving up and down slightly.
But when you mention back-to-back placement - I did some experiments in another room and the arrangement back to back in a corner (around 70 cm from the walls, playing stereo) created a huge sweet spot and virtual space that did not react on position or head movement (meaning it stayed where it should). See a bad sketch below:
The only downside was that the HF from the tweeters was damped a bit by the reflection.
tmuikku: I have put together some cheap HT speakers, I yet have to experiment more, but I liked the back to back placement more (https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...-sound-single-loudspeaker-47.html#post5700986) - maybe it was due to the cheapness of the speakers - the sound could be identified as coming from the front speaker. It was much better when I blocked the direct HF beam by a piece of paper.
adason: I did this mono experiment because I have only a stereo sound card that I used for the dual mono crossover. It surprised me with the spaciousness that I did not expect at all. As I wrote above, the back to back placement was actually much better, but not possible in the workshop - there are basically doors, stairs or openings in all the corners, it is a central basement room and it does not practically have a corner at all.
But when you mention back-to-back placement - I did some experiments in another room and the arrangement back to back in a corner (around 70 cm from the walls, playing stereo) created a huge sweet spot and virtual space that did not react on position or head movement (meaning it stayed where it should). See a bad sketch below:
The only downside was that the HF from the tweeters was damped a bit by the reflection.
tmuikku: I have put together some cheap HT speakers, I yet have to experiment more, but I liked the back to back placement more (https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...-sound-single-loudspeaker-47.html#post5700986) - maybe it was due to the cheapness of the speakers - the sound could be identified as coming from the front speaker. It was much better when I blocked the direct HF beam by a piece of paper.
adason: I did this mono experiment because I have only a stereo sound card that I used for the dual mono crossover. It surprised me with the spaciousness that I did not expect at all. As I wrote above, the back to back placement was actually much better, but not possible in the workshop - there are basically doors, stairs or openings in all the corners, it is a central basement room and it does not practically have a corner at all.
Attachments
I was the last kid on the block to go to stereo in the early-60's. The trade-off for (which nobody has discussed) is between being able to afford one high quality mono speaker versus stereo of lower quality.
You have the same trade-off today. For sure, the matter of size and cost of a fine sub-woofer leads many to have a mixed-bass sub.
B.
You have the same trade-off today. For sure, the matter of size and cost of a fine sub-woofer leads many to have a mixed-bass sub.
B.
no in fact the "device" in that picture is not causing psychological torture it's emitting gamma rays that are modifying the brain tissue of the "mono" listeners preconditioning them for the alien invasion that is STEREO!!
(playing mono recordings at a 1000 times the original speed, backwards will unmask the embedded signals)
I don't believe there is any true stereo recording using a pair of microphones . It is 100% artifact creation of the sound engineer. 45 rpm records were mono played on jukeboxes for decades.
Well of course its artificial (not artifact, get your nomenclature straight). That's why it sounds even better than two mic recording. Not to mention, most of the instruments in popular music are electronic, not acoustic. Not even possible direct two mic recording.
With my system I enjoy amazing amount of spatial recognition, even "see" the whole music group in front of me.
Sound engineers work hard for months to make that happen. When you press that "mono" button, you ruin it. That should be illegal. You should go to jail for that! 🙂
There is a reason why we have two ears.
With my system I enjoy amazing amount of spatial recognition, even "see" the whole music group in front of me.
Sound engineers work hard for months to make that happen. When you press that "mono" button, you ruin it. That should be illegal. You should go to jail for that! 🙂
There is a reason why we have two ears.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.