Yup, if there was only one instrument left and no reverb, it would be mono. But reverb would always be used on this kind of synthetic recording in practice, as it helps to smooth over the joins between multiple close-miked sound sources.
Reverb is the oldest trick in the book, the stereo version of Kind Of Blue uses extra ambience courtesy of a concrete echo chamber in the basement of the studio. (Many audiophiles prefer the mono version.)
Last edited:
That's why mics are best positioned up higher that a seated position, so they can pick up each instrument directly, line of sight.
Ok, then we agree. I just don't think that multiple mono sources add up to stereo.
The sound stage or as I like to say, the psycho-acoustic image of a sound reproduced is getting rarer in audio. There are lots of reasons why this is happening but that's not the topic. Is it important? To answer this question you have to turn it around and ask if it's important to you. In other words, it's a question of taste. There are boxes that can artificially create this at the expense of other things we like to hear so it all comes down to what pleases you the most. There are threads about how to define what sounds good to you and people trying to make a science out of personal taste if you search them out. All in all, this is a very touchy topic 😱
Exactly right. And that's what I call "cooking" the recording, even if other people insist it is natural sound recording.
Perhaps those who advocate this "natural" recording from 30 feet over the orchestra, can explain how the mic are capturing the sound people in the seats would be getting or how..... folks at home can get a true soundstage when the mic is flying high above the orchestra?
My point is that all recording is cooked and just a matter if having a good chef. Yes, you can like the sound from that mic 30 feet in the air but only a bit more "natural" than the guy with the pan-pot (who is also mixing in a hall-sound mic too of he/she knows what they are doing).
Ben
So you don't have anything to back up your claim so turn the question back on me? I am happy with the rough translation from the greek as 'solid sound'. And I willing to bet that is what Western Electric meant when they coined the phrase. Can you prove me wrong?
Why not? Earl has been telling us for years that you CAN have all of that, Albeit that is does not come cheap.
No room for stats except for headphones 🙁
How's Wikipedia? Stereophonic sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stereo sound systems can be divided into two forms: The first is "true" or "natural" stereo in which a live sound is captured, with any natural reverberation or ambience present, by an array of microphones. The signal is then reproduced over multiple loudspeakers to recreate, as closely as possible, the live sound. Secondly "artificial" or "pan-pot" stereo, in which a single-channel (mono) sound is reproduced over multiple loudspeakers. By varying the relative amplitude of the signal sent to each speaker an artificial direction (relative to the listener) can be suggested. The control which is used to vary this relative amplitude of the signal is known as a "pan-pot" (panoramic potentiometer). By combining multiple "pan-potted" mono signals together, a complete, yet entirely artificial, sound field can be created. In technical usage, true stereo means sound recording and sound reproduction that uses stereographic projection to encode the relative positions of objects and events recorded.
Clément Ader demonstrated the first two-channel audio system in Paris in 1881, with a series of telephone transmitters connected from the stage of the Paris Opera to a suite of rooms at the Paris Electrical Exhibition, where listeners could hear a live transmission of performances through receivers for each ear. Scientific American reported,"Every one who has been fortunate enough to hear the telephones at the Palais de l'Industrie has remarked that, in listening with both ears at the two telephones, the sound takes a special character of relief and localization which a single receiver cannot produce... This phenomenon is very curious, it approximates to the theory of binauricular audition, and has never been applied, we believe, before to produce this remarkable illusion to which may almost be given the name of auditive perspective."[4]
Engineers make a technical distinction between "binaural" and "stereophonic" recording. Of these, binaural recording is analogous to stereoscopic photography. In binaural recording, a pair of microphones is put inside a model of a human head that includes external ears and ear canals; each microphone is where the eardrum would be. The recording is then played back through headphones, so that each channel is presented independently, without mixing or crosstalk. Thus, each of the listener's eardrums is driven with a replica of the auditory signal it would have experienced at the recording location. The result is an accurate duplication of the auditory spatiality that would have been experienced by the listener had he or she been in the same place as the model head.
Last edited:
You really should read what you say before posting. you said:
If you had said 'true stereo, as defined in wikipedia' you might have had a point, but you didn't.
Plus your quote from wikipedia states 'The first is "true" or "natural" stereo in which a live sound is captured, with any natural reverberation or ambience present, by an array of microphones. The signal is then reproduced over multiple loudspeakers to recreate, as closely as possible, the live sound' Note the words 'array' and 'multiple loudspeakers'. By this definition none of us have true stereo as the inference is multiple >2.
If you had said 'true stereo, as defined in wikipedia' you might have had a point, but you didn't.
Plus your quote from wikipedia states 'The first is "true" or "natural" stereo in which a live sound is captured, with any natural reverberation or ambience present, by an array of microphones. The signal is then reproduced over multiple loudspeakers to recreate, as closely as possible, the live sound' Note the words 'array' and 'multiple loudspeakers'. By this definition none of us have true stereo as the inference is multiple >2.
Whatever this "pop music and such" you refer to might be, this music upon which you look down your nose from your high horse in the land of navel-gazing mass-market new age prog BS (see, I can do that too!), no, you may not assume that's what I listen to and you'd be wrong, mostly.
What you said is just so blatantly in opposition to pretty much everyone in the world's enjoyment of stereo. How do you think stereo became so popular in the first place? Why do you think everyone bought those messed-up early ping-pong mixes? Because this sound was over there, that sound was over here, and that was cool, man. That's impact, in pop music and such. Stereo doesn't have to truly elevate the realism, nor the art, to have value. A simple pan pot stereo mix of carelessly-recorded tracks on a pop song that isn't horribly done is just a generally pleasant, involving effect, and everybody knows it except apparently a few weirdos in this thread.
You're either really saying "I hate pop music and such just as much in mono as in stereo", in which case whoop-dee-freaking-doo thanks for sharing, sir, or you're incredibly wrong about what other people value in their audio playback, however low-fi it might be, and whatever sort of music it might be.
Ray. I feel that you are getting caught up in a simplistic view of what stereo is supposed to be - and making dogma of it. Sorry to see that happen. 🙁
I say that was one who has been there, done that. I know where you are coming from. Maybe it's a right of passage. But the real world and real recordings are much messier than that. A purist approach means one doesn't have to think much. That can be comfortable but rarely is in tune with reality.
I say that was one who has been there, done that. I know where you are coming from. Maybe it's a right of passage. But the real world and real recordings are much messier than that. A purist approach means one doesn't have to think much. That can be comfortable but rarely is in tune with reality.
I thought I liked stereo. Then I found out I was listening to the wrong music that was recorded in the wrong location, with the wrong producer using the wrong techniques. I apologize for my ignorance. I promise that as soon as I get home I'll immediately throw out one of my speakers. That way, as sh***y as my music may be, at least I'll be listening to it the way god intended.
While I will stay out of he "spherical cow" components of that statement. 😉 I do agree with you on the need for limiting reflections that interfere with the ear/brains ability to locate a sound source in space. With too much early reflected sound the triangulation that needs to happen to localize a sound source will not work. In other words, without a high enough primary signal to noise ratio you just get a diffuse sound field.
While I find this is more important for sound in movies the added clarity of a high SNR will help most recordings.
(I amended this next bit in my response to dumptruck)
I am a bit perplexed about your 10ms direct vs reflected delay. I would think 30ms would give the brain more time to do the calculations. 10ms might be enough time in a quiet room to localize a transient noise (pin drop, cricket) but while listening to a song the brain is busy doing other things. When I am listening to music and I hear a cricket I need to turn the music off to be able to pin point where it is.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.