Hardy har, har, har. 😀
I really did enjoy it and it made some old recordings that I found a bit boring come to life.
As good as more modern stereo recordings? No. But they went from "meh" to very enjoyable.
I really did enjoy it and it made some old recordings that I found a bit boring come to life.
As good as more modern stereo recordings? No. But they went from "meh" to very enjoyable.
I cannot handle mono sound - I have an Ella vinyl I bought on a whim at a shop somewhere and was very disappointed to discover it was mono. It never gets played.
Whereas I think Ella in mono sounds best. Now I'm not a huge fan of lieder butI have a mono DG recording of Schubert where is just singer an piano I love. It sounds like the piano is behind the singer and the singer is higher up (as he would be). I know it's my brain frantically trying to make sense of the information provided, but the illusion is remarkable. Sane people may hear something completely different...
Right, not really dipole. The crossover was something else, I have difficulty seeing how the design process converged.
Two ears, two speakers. One channel. It can work just fine.
That said, I had a friend in the '70s who claimed stereo was a scam. He did have two ears but claimed that stereo and mono sound just the same.
That said, I had a friend in the '70s who claimed stereo was a scam. He did have two ears but claimed that stereo and mono sound just the same.
This mono/stereo topic is right up my alley, partly because it's fundamental to psychoacoustics and our auditory system, and partly because it's fundamental to how recording engineers make decisions about recording and mixing.
I'd like to offer a couple of observations about "mono" recordings. First, even though the final recording is monaural, there were likely several microphones being used. Each microphone was in a different place in the venue/room. As a result, each microphone picked up a somewhat different room acoustic sound. Even if there was only one microphone, the mere fact that each instrument was in a different place leads to a different set of reflections and reverberation pattern for each instrument. Our auditory system hears this. This is one reason why we can hear a sense of "location" among instruments even with a monaural recording played back on a single speaker.
The other thing I'd like to mention is that, when a monaural recording is played through a stereo pair of speakers, it sounds "fuller". This is at least partly because of the fact that the listener is hearing two sets of room reflections - one from each source. While they are VERY similar, they are different. This adds a sense of "spaciousness" to the sound, which is often pleasing.
🙂
I'd like to offer a couple of observations about "mono" recordings. First, even though the final recording is monaural, there were likely several microphones being used. Each microphone was in a different place in the venue/room. As a result, each microphone picked up a somewhat different room acoustic sound. Even if there was only one microphone, the mere fact that each instrument was in a different place leads to a different set of reflections and reverberation pattern for each instrument. Our auditory system hears this. This is one reason why we can hear a sense of "location" among instruments even with a monaural recording played back on a single speaker.
The other thing I'd like to mention is that, when a monaural recording is played through a stereo pair of speakers, it sounds "fuller". This is at least partly because of the fact that the listener is hearing two sets of room reflections - one from each source. While they are VERY similar, they are different. This adds a sense of "spaciousness" to the sound, which is often pleasing.
🙂
I've heard that they spent a lot of time on the early Beatles recordings getting the mono mixes just right, but the stereo mixes were an afterthought. It actually makes sense, as mono equipment was more common at the time.
Yup and yup to Dave's points above. I think multiple (or in this case, 2) speakers can "smooth out" a mono mix in a way that a single speaker can't, although I know the purists would scoff at such a notion. The effect is similar to having multiple subwoofers in the room, I think.
Another consideration: When I try to listen to mono music with only one speaker, it seems logical for me to take one of the stereo speakers and park it in the center, directly in front of the listening position. But this immediately creates another problem, since my speakers have been carefully voiced for proper sound at 30° off-axis, so the sound immediately becomes top-heavy from listening directly on-axis. Some re-voicing would be necessary in order to do this right, and even then the single-source "sound" as described above would still persist. For that reason, I just do the 2-speaker mono thing, purists be damned. (In fact, I've eliminated my center-channel speaker from the multichannel setup for the same reason, since I'm always sitting in the sweet spot anyway.)
Another consideration: When I try to listen to mono music with only one speaker, it seems logical for me to take one of the stereo speakers and park it in the center, directly in front of the listening position. But this immediately creates another problem, since my speakers have been carefully voiced for proper sound at 30° off-axis, so the sound immediately becomes top-heavy from listening directly on-axis. Some re-voicing would be necessary in order to do this right, and even then the single-source "sound" as described above would still persist. For that reason, I just do the 2-speaker mono thing, purists be damned. (In fact, I've eliminated my center-channel speaker from the multichannel setup for the same reason, since I'm always sitting in the sweet spot anyway.)
Depth location?
Is it "on-axis" though since the angle to your ears has changed? Also due to your head related transfer function it will sound different?
Bill Evans Trio - Explorations is an example of a beautifully done stereo recording. Pure tube path, minimal mixing. Bill Evans Trio* - Explorations | Релизы | Discogs
I did an experiment listening to pink noise yesterday, I found it interesting and revealing, it also made me question more the validity of listening tests designed to pick out small differences, even rotating my head the tiniest bit made a dramatic difference to what I heard. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/356684-mtm-sound-characteristics-7.html#post6267222
No space, no three dimensional sound field. I have a few very good Ella vinyls, can’t imagine they’d sound better on mono.
Why would you listen to mono and yet spend thousands (£ or hours of DIY work) on equipment designed to play stereo?
Ditto B&W movies. If I have the option, I’d rather watch in colour!
Interesting comments.
Psychoacoustically, I think as well as just dave's comments, the brain knows what the instrument layout was, so hears it appropriately. All our sensory info is heavily processed using amongst other things, what we know or think we know about the situation.
Personally, I get a good 3D sound field from 2 speaker mono, and apart from special effects (movie stuff - missile goes from left to right type of thing) it's often just as good as a stereo filed, which is an auditory illusion anyway...
Psychoacoustically, I think as well as just dave's comments, the brain knows what the instrument layout was, so hears it appropriately. All our sensory info is heavily processed using amongst other things, what we know or think we know about the situation.
Personally, I get a good 3D sound field from 2 speaker mono, and apart from special effects (movie stuff - missile goes from left to right type of thing) it's often just as good as a stereo filed, which is an auditory illusion anyway...
This goes against what Mr Heyser wrote which is in itself interesting and in my mind suggests the stereo speakers are not optimal for the job. I have a feeling you need a very wide dispersion with mono, but no facts to back that up.
Again interesting, but doesn't feel right to me. I'd put is as wrong speakers for mono again.
Is that logical or just your stereo wired thought processes. Is there any good reason why you should try to get a point source for mono (honest question).
I would argue why not also build equipment to get the best from mono
You've clearly not seen a B&W movie on the original prints. Only one theatre in the UK that is bomb proof enough for nitrocellulose projection but worth the trip. I personally love the creative use of light (and cigarette smoke) in B&W films. It's an art form in its own right. If you can't enjoy 'the third man' just because it's B&W you are missing out. But each to their own.