Conference hips::uk_audioo

Hi,

I have to agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not a great fan of stereo
effects. However, I'm not yet sure whether I'm ready to rock the boat by
going to mono. I wonder whether the sound will fill the room in the same
way.

Mark.

As far as I'm aware, most high-end systems are stereo but they use two - or
more - mono power amps instead of one stereo amp.  I use two Denon mono amps
myself, not that I'd call my system high-end - yet (heh heh!).

I haven't seen the article, but I'd disagree with the assertion that imagery
and soundstage are unimportant.  Stereo images give positional information
which can be helpful in making the reproduction believable, and the separation
of the performers/instruments to particular positions in space also makes it
less difficult to hear what's going on.  This seems to work even when the
apparent positions aren't a true reflection of where the performers actually
were at the time of recording.

I do agree that a guitar being panned from channel to channel isn't that
impressive.  But that doesn't make a stereo recording, it's just someone using
the two available audio channels to create a musical effect.  A simple (eg
two-microphone) stereo recording can be very impressive in convincing you that
you're there.  That might not be 'truth' but it's one valid goal.

As for how stereo works, I'll be interested to see what people think...  I've
never understood it myself.

Nick


-- By the way, one useful effect of good imaging for those who use LPs is that
the crackles come out of the speakers and the music doesn't.  Much easier to
ignore the noise.

    I don't know of any high end mono systems, although a lot of high end
    systems use multiple mono amps - but they're still stereo systems.
    
    It's true that stereo (or stereo effects) help with picking out various
    parts of a mix in some systems, but if stereo is required to do this on
    a system, it is most likely the system is only using the "gimmicky"
    aspect of stereo to cover up inadequacies elsewhere. On the other hand,
    a well recorded and reproduced stereo recording can sound stunning -
    but then the same applies to a mono recording.
    
    Mono recording *can* contain enough phase and amplitude information to
    provide an illusion of depth, when reproduced well. Also, when
    reproduced well, it is easy to pick out and follow the different 
    contributions to the mix in a mono recording.
    
    Many modern recordings, often of contemporary music, are not really
    stereo despite what the label says; they are really multi mono. The
    mixdown engineer positions the different contributions to the track
    (probably each recorded at a different time, if not place) according to
    choice. The result may initially sound like they're all jamming
    together; when you hear the real stereo, though, recordings like these
    appear as the confections they really are - entertaining but unable to
    stand up to extended listening. A real stereo recording, even of a solo
    instrument, provides a sense of being there - or them being here - that
    is almost holographic.
    
    When you hear that for the first time in dem room with one of your
    favourite recordings, you'll know you're on the first step of a very
    slippery slope :-)
    
    Dave

Which is presumably why I've noticed that I've started going for live recordings 
(ie in concert) rather than studio albums...

(Have a listen to "8:30" by Weather Report; it is actually like being at one of
their concerts!)

Tarik

I think the distrust of the "stereo effect" is due to the fact that it works
against all odds.

I can't believe that a stereo image works when there are so many variables
that cannot really be properly explained.

One minute change in speaker position could conceivably have a large effect
in the stereo image.

Mark.

    My perception is this: stereo recordings have the quality of "depth",
    or 3-dimemsionality to some extent, while mono recordings, as I vaguely
    recall them, sounded "flat", or 2-dimensional (width and height only.)
    
    In my view it makes no sense to discuss at length the quality of sound
    produced by mid-to-low-end systems, since most often these systems are
    hopelessly flawed and compromised.  In truly high-end systems the
    overwhelming advantages of stereo recordings are so obvious the
    discussion (stereo vs. mono) quickly becomes moot.
    
    If a particular recording includes "stereo" gimmickry, that says nothing
    about the general characteristics of the stereo phenomenon.  It simply
    says that a particular recording engineer has low standards.  
    
    Certain aspects of the public discussion of musical fidelity in
    recording and playback equipment I believe only makes sense when we
    refer to the most expensive, integrated, and accurate assemblies of
    components - whether we can afford them or not.  For some people that's
    hard to do, since it means accepting the fact that their beloved
    system is no doubt significantly flawed in comparison.
    
    The fact that my system is flawed is irrelevant.  I understand that it
    is only economic constraint that keeps me from listening to the
    "absolute sound", rather than technical constraints in the medium
    itself.  
    
    If a $35,000 system sounded no-better than a $350 system, there would
    probably be no $35,000 systems, and we'd all be trouble.  Get it?
    in serious trouble.  Get it?
    

    Sorry I buggered the last line of 172.6, Mates.  Please excuse my lack
    of expertise with Note-Sending.