John,
I respect you for what you have achieved, you are one of the Icons in Audio history.
But why then generalising in an unrespectful way.
How do you know that most people are intellectually lazy, and even if that were true, why stipulating that.
You can bring a horse to the water, but let the horse decide himself.
To my personal feeling, some peope are easier to influence with theories that are sounding nice, but that are based on wishful thinking.
So instead of thinking that people are intellectually lazy, I think most of them know quite well how to separate the hens from the roosters.
I’m looking forward to the Heyser text you wanted to prepare, good suggestion.
I like the guy, don’t take everything he suggest for granted, but it sets your mind in motion helping to see things from a different angle.
Hans
https://digitalcommons.colum.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=cadc_heyser_unpublished
(part of a larger package)
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
But I've asked a specific question.
George
Just for a change of gears, I downloaded the English translation of a Newton’s Principia. The version I got was done by an American by the name of Andrew Motte in the mid 1800’s.
I never realized Principia is over 500 pages. His house is about 80 miles from where I live, so next time I go to see my son, I will go there.
I never realized Principia is over 500 pages. His house is about 80 miles from where I live, so next time I go to see my son, I will go there.
I've seen an original in one of the Cambridge museums. At the time I think I could get the gist of some of the page from the Latin, but I've forgotten all that now. I do get tingly seeing 300 year old manuscripts and realising how much and yet how little they knew back then. And then walk out feeling very thick.
Ah it was part of a page of anecdotes, the plural of which stubbornly refuses to become data. Generally I stop reading as soon as Martin Colloms gets mentioned.
A belief is not evidence. You can believe you can hear a spider spinning its web for all I care. I am merely interested in useful data and not about to change my opinion based on stories from someone on the internet!
Nope. Sorry.I suppose you see it now.
I was in mono mode last night and was once again wondering if we chucked the baby out with the bath water when we went to stereo.
Mono can possibly sound more direct and engaging than stereo because our brains aren't desperately trying to make sense of two channel stereo?
I don't see your claims at all here. He speaks about mono LP or tape reproduction played through stereo speakers and the artifacts that result.
Last edited:
Well stereo is no more a real soundfield than mono for sure. I think my annoyance is that you listen to a 50s or 60s mono* and you get a homogenous sound you can lose yourself in. Listen to any number of studio stereo recordings on a half decent system (i.e what we all have) and you hear the patchwork quilt of mono sources sewn together. Fine for listening in the car but unsatisfying in the living room.
*earlier monos that do this are available and recommended as well 🙂
Pavel's track for the preamp test got me, had no idea it was mono until someone mentioned it......seemed to have a more solid soundstage is how I’d describe it after listening again ‘in the know’ I remember you gave me lots of guff about it but after checking out some other good mono recordings (muddy waters was one I remember) it was quite pleasant if not more relaxing.
And soundstage although maybe not as wide or glamorous..... it still had plenty of depth and positioning.
Edit, so is listening to a mono recording with two speakers just a faux image like some are saying......I’d really like to implement a center channel with a mono mix and still stereo l/r.
Last edited:
More importantly a mono recording started out as a single recorded signal, listen to it with one amplifier channel and one speaker everything else is an added effect.
Last edited:
Well just tried a mono track on just one side like you said (even centered the speaker)....so much better sounding with two. Do purists still listen to one channel single speaker?
In the 70s it was common to see a front panel switch with 5 positions:
Stereo
Mono: L ---> L and R
Mono: R ---> L and R
Mono: (L+R) ---> L and R
Delta: (L-R) ---> L and R
The Apt Holman preamp upped the game by providing a continuously dialled knob (potentiometer) which gave
Lout = (rot% * L) + ((100-rot%) * R)
Rout = ((100-rot%) * L) + (rot% * R)
Stereo
Mono: L ---> L and R
Mono: R ---> L and R
Mono: (L+R) ---> L and R
Delta: (L-R) ---> L and R
The Apt Holman preamp upped the game by providing a continuously dialled knob (potentiometer) which gave
Lout = (rot% * L) + ((100-rot%) * R)
Rout = ((100-rot%) * L) + (rot% * R)
Welcome to the fake simulacrum of recorded music, enjoy but please don't judge anyone else's impressions.
Nowt wrong with a personal preference but logically two speakers for mono is wrong. The optimal speaker and placement for mono is of course a seperate topic for discussion.
Delta/side is very useful if you happen to have any hill and dale edison diamond discs. Being odd I have a cartridge re-wired for mono and delta operation (as all decca cartridges are internally).
Stereo width control I've never played with but planning to put one in for experimentation (and to annoy the minimal signal path purists) 🙂