With 2-channel stereo source material the R+L channels are simply summed, which cancels any out of phase signals. With 5.1 and 7.1 surround recordings the audio engineer can adjust the mixing so the sub woofer channel (.1) sounds correct. For stereo 2-channel recordings the results using a single sub-woofer are NOT controlled. How badly it affects the bass sound quality is dependent on the session miking and room acoustics, but not it's controlled! Simply increasing the sub woofer output will correct the bass levels, but it could vary from one song to the next even on the same album.
I gather you want to talk about how it "ought to be" (or "ought to have been") . . . I merely told you how it was, and is . . .
And no, RIAA equalization did not deal with the vertical excursion problem, which was significantly more severe than the horizontal excursion problem that standard equalization was intended to solve. One had to produce records that could be played in the real world, not just in some "hi fi" showroom.
Kind of have to . . . people wearing headphones do not like the sound of bass in one ear. And that's a big chunk of your prospective sales . . .
Did you not read the (attempts) in brackets?, anyhow you are giving vague variables as parameters to design as system around.
just wanted to shed some light on why some of us prefer stereo bass, benign or not.
I was hoping you understand why your arguments have moved this discussion to the lounge.
So you are saying a snake can't locate low frequency fluttering of prey through 2-dimensional vibrations in the ground? The problem is they can.
Last edited:
Some years ago we did a test of the bass, we could not find a single CD where the bass was not mono. We tried about 100. They may exist, but they are very rare.
Really? This is as good as your evidence gets? The last time a snake listened to my system he liked the bass. Especially the floor vibrations.
Crossfeed! It makes headphones sound better.
I've come up with my own crossfeed which I do with a convolver. For me, it works better than any I've heard.
After arguing this point with Earl for years, I've come to the conclusion that some people might be better at locating bass than others. In some limited testing I've done - I seem to be able to locate bass better than others I've blind tested. Perhaps those who don't like monophonic bass are better than average at locating bass?
No idea why this might be. Certainly I'm no better in the midrange or highs - probably worse than average. A least there seems to be enough evidence of differing abilities to warrant serious testing.
No idea why this might be. Certainly I'm no better in the midrange or highs - probably worse than average. A least there seems to be enough evidence of differing abilities to warrant serious testing.
Really? This is as good as your evidence gets? The last time a snake listened to my system he liked the bass. Especially the floor vibrations.
It's closer to resembling "evidence" then any of the reasons to be pro-mono-bass. Just because somebody recorded that way, does not make it ideal, nor does it fully utilize the equipment. Modes be damned.
Not only is it a good analogy, but proof that animals can locate sources on a 2-dimensional plane using two "ears". In this case the jaw bone has also evolved to be a pseudo inner-ear bone connected to auditory receptors.
At some point audible vibrations heard by humans will transition into mechanical vibration which is felt.
Locating low frequency mechanical vibrations in solid mediums using their feet not something that humans can do, practically speaking. Anything that fluctuates air pressure is fair game.
Last edited:
It doesn't much matter what you prefer, Mr. Snake . . .
I didn't say anything about snakes, or what they can "hear" with those great big ears of theirs. Whether they can hear it or not you're going to have a very hard time finding stereo recordings of it to play on your boom-box . . .
Can you supply more details? Whatever you remember.
- How was the testing done?
- What constituted Bass? (frequency, crossover slope)
- What was the definition of Stereo vs Mono? (angle, amplitude, etc)
Maybe we need to first define what we are calling "Bass".
Do you have any data that would support that claim? If additional sources reduce modal peaks then this should reduce modal ringing not prolong it.
Why are you and your hero so dismissive? It stifles progress.....so does having a finacial interest in being "right"
I can't help it find it humorous that I am being belittled by a man, who accredits his knowledge to another man who literally sells the worlds biggest book on audio theory.
not to mention over-priced shiny red speakers and hyperbole sub-woofers.Let's stick with facts please.
Pano was able to easily disprove "everything recorded in mono" with a few minutes experimenting.
The OPs question was can we localize bass, yes we can, not so much if listening in a room with excited resonances, but nonetheless we can.
Let's stick with technical arguments, not personal characterizations. No second warning.
Well there is that and then there is also the possibility that they are imagining it all. You know "confirmation bias".
I thought that we resolved the fact that virtually all bass in monophonic. How did it get to be stereo all of a sudden?
It was simple. You cross correlate the two channels and look at the spectrum. If the cross-correlation is 1.0 (perfectly correlated) then the two channels are identical. This happened in all the CDs that we tested, albeit the point at which this blend occurred would differ, but nothing ever went below 100 Hz. This was over a decade ago and maybe there are some later CD's with stereo bass (the rational for going mono is not as important on a CD).
Your test is flawed if you are just looking at X-Y on a scope with a fixed filter.
Bass, to me is below 100 Hz, absolutely, but I could accept up to 150. I believe that 5.1 defines bass as < 120 Hz.
Perhaps understanding that the word "stereo" is used to describe the way we hear, using two ears to locate.
There is no such thing as "stereo" bass in real life, it originates from single sources, large or small.
When you add "phonic" onto the end of it, you are simply stating a technique used to record point sourced sounds.
The same is with your incorrect use of the word "monophonic". Monophonic simply means sounds that are in the same pitch and rhythm.
Technically you could add parallel octaves and still be considered "monophonic".
I listen to monophonic singers on me stereophonic system everyday.
There is no such thing as "stereo" bass in real life, it originates from single sources, large or small.
When you add "phonic" onto the end of it, you are simply stating a technique used to record point sourced sounds.
The same is with your incorrect use of the word "monophonic". Monophonic simply means sounds that are in the same pitch and rhythm.
Technically you could add parallel octaves and still be considered "monophonic".
I listen to monophonic singers on me stereophonic system everyday.
OK, I've tried something close to this (I think).
- Took a CD rip that showed clear X-Y differences under 100Hz
- Inverted the Left Channel
- Mixed Left & Right to Mono
- Ran spectrum analysis
See the results below.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.