There's a difference between what's on a recording and "fake" system generated imaging Dave! IME cables are often the primary creator of this false stage with the same etched images placed in exactly the same locations with the same size and weight on all recordings, there's little or hardly any difference in perceived depth either when the stage is artificially created and framed, that's a system coloration and nothing to with the recording or the pressing.
I wasn't cherry picking nor arguing the virtues of mono vs stereo simply pointing out that mono recordings aren't flat and in some cases more visceral than stereo..
Ok, I guess I've never experienced that... certainly systems where the room contributes far too much of it's own spatial information but not what you've described. I guess I'm lucky.
I do agree that mono can be quite good... I have the Beatles remasters in both stereo and mono, mono is often better and certainly isn't flat!
There's too much fake imaging with false framed imaging in systems today which is nothing but artificial hifi and never exists in any type of live event. I don't care for any of that either and it has nothing to do with system resolution, if anything most of that stuff is a coloration of lower resolution systems. I like mono recordings too and often prefer them to stereo versions; and they're not flat. I disagree with your comment Mono can be more direct and have plenty of ambience, depth and appropriate special cues without the smearing of stereo. Just get mono and stereo versions (analog Lp!) of Sinatra & Basie Live at the Sands and you'll see what I mean. Plenty of fantastic mono Jazz & Classical records out there that are recorded with all the special information Of the venue when it's present.
Live as reference is mostly relevant if we're talking about unamplified music and it's possible to reproduce a close enough faxcimile at home to make it believable and allow the listener to be engaged in the same way as a live venue. There's no live reference with amplified music specially with studio recordings which is the majority of what's out there. In this case you need a dynamic system capable of playing back at the right volume, scale and weight to make it believable.
Hi David
The fake imaging is on the recording in most cases and therefore should be accurately reproduced as such...so it has a lot to do with system resolution.
I never said mono can't be good but it clearly can't represent spatially like stereo done well.
I only refer to live unamplified as a reference. Live amplified has no meaning as a reference.
I also enjoy his articles, by all means. But this was just me thinking loud, nothing else. But a pair of old Altecs will miss out on a lot of musical information and details. I had a pair of Altecs many, many years ago (30 years or so)... I do not miss them .
Hi David
The fake imaging is on the recording in most cases and therefore should be accurately reproduced as such...so it has a lot to do with system resolution.
There certainly is manufactured imaging in recordings but I'm not sure that's what Art was talking about but rather the system generated one that is very much front and center of the system's playback signature, sometimes enticing but always distractive rather than supportive.
Dave, your opinion on cables artificially enhancing stereo attributes deserves a thread of it's own.
I know exactly which cables create a totally fake sound.
And they're not cheap.
Dave, your opinion on cables artificially enhancing stereo attributes deserves a thread of it's own.
I know exactly which cables create a totally fake sound.
And they're not cheap.
It certainly is David.
Just at the interval of Wihan string quartet, having just finished some Beethoven.
These four boys just on a different plane, the timing and fluidity just plain spooky.
What I'm loving about tonight is that I'm in the best position, nine rows back, central, in a moderately sized hall with sympathetic acoustics (medieval hall with pitched roof), and critically the music not being played unecesarily loud.
I'm learning so much from my dozen gigs so far.
First, that hyper soundstaging and especially forensic pinpoint imaging of the kind I hear in so many big expensive tower speakers seems to be an archetype not present in live unamplified.
Two, the tipped up zingy tone I hear so often at shows on this evidence is a facile attempt of exotic tweeter materials and leading edge enhancing cables to replicate the energy of live, but comes across as an affectation/colouration.
For me, these live experiences, and esp the gig today is telling me it's all about tone, timbre, space/air and (zero) noise floor, and that thankfully I'm already half way there and what I want to concentrate on/work towards further.
There are great classical recordings and the recording engineers all used similar techniques.
Classical recording engineers rarely get the same attention that their pop and rock counterparts do. While pioneers such as Robert Fine (Mercury, Fine Sound), Kenneth Wilkinson (Decca), Lewis Layton (RCA) and Fred Plaut (Columbia) rarely get mentioned in trade magazines, they have created some of the most stellar recordings of our time, as well as developed techniques that influence to this day. Marc Aubort has been recording for more than half a century. From wire recorders onwards, he has used virtually every analog and digital format to capture classical music on location. Classical engineers still frequently refer to his recordings on Nonesuch during the '70s as a yardstick for their incredible, dynamic range and truth of timbre. After six Grammys and over a thousand recordings on Vox, Nonesuch, EMI, BMG, Philips Classical and other labels, Marc continues working today as he always did, relying primarily on a spaced pair of tube Schoeps mics. We spoke at Marc's Elite Recordings office, located in New York's Masonic Hall Building.
How have your recording techniques evolved over such a long career in classical work? How, for example, did you mic up the early Vanguard sessions?
Even before that, the idea was, to be as faithful to the score as possible and not try to gimmick things up. And that led to essentially two mic pickups for stereo and possibly some reinforcement. But keeping in mind that you have two ears, two microphones are what you need for stereo. In other words, not to flatten out the stage by having all sorts of microphones in the orchestra, bringing everything forward. The back of the orchestra is not meant to be heard up close.
It certainly is David.
Just at the interval of Wihan string quartet, having just finished some Beethoven.
These four boys just on a different plane, the timing and fluidity just plain spooky.
What I'm loving about tonight is that I'm in the best position, nine rows back, central, in a moderately sized hall with sympathetic acoustics (medieval hall with pitched roof), and critically the music not being played unecesarily loud.
I'm learning so much from my dozen gigs so far.
First, that hyper soundstaging and especially forensic pinpoint imaging of the kind I hear in so many big expensive tower speakers seems to be an archetype not present in live unamplified.
Two, the tipped up zingy tone I hear so often at shows on this evidence is a facile attempt of exotic tweeter materials and leading edge enhancing cables to replicate the energy of live, but comes across as an affectation/colouration. For me, these live experiences, and esp the gig today is telling me it's all about tone, timbre, space/air and (zero) noise floor, and that thankfully I'm already half way there and what I want to concentrate on/work towards further.
Marc,
As you suggest the zero noise floor and if that is possible @ home and I think one can come close, the result being, tone, timbre, space/air. The drastic reduction in noise floor just brings everything else with it. The only caveat with such a noise floor the music does come closer,but in my experience you can't improve a system without moving closer.
Roger, my combination of dedicated feed seperate from the rest of house, dedicated lines, balanced power and Entreq grounding, plus room acoustics to die for, and now the fantastic find of Stacore passive isolation for components, are all really taking me to a level of diminishing noise floor I could only have dreamed of in London.
Roger, my combination of dedicated feed seperate from the rest of house, dedicated lines, balanced power and Entreq grounding, plus room acoustics to die for, and now the fantastic find of Stacore passive isolation for components, are all really taking me to a level of diminishing noise floor I could only have dreamed of in London.
There is no way mono even comes close to stereo in ambiance and imaging. Listen to the Capitol records recording of Nat King Cole with mono and stereo versions. Mono captures about 70 percent of the information that stereo does. Stereo is not just two channels,it captures more information with multiple microphones. Listen to Cavalleria Rusticana in mono vs stereo...no comparison. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys used mono because he was deaf in one ear. To each his own.
Why not when it's the same recording? Mono doesn't mean single mic'd and with the same information the difference is how it's mixed down to one or two channels for mono and stereo presentation, you shouldn't be losing any information.
Which Cole recordings are you referring to all his albums prior to 1956 or 1957 were actually true mono the later stereo re-releases were either poorly manipulated or were two identical mono channels mixed down for stereo, how did you get 30% more? Both your tts are single armed and from your comments I doubt that you have a dedicated mono setup to make direct comparisons either.
I'm not deaf but plugging one ear doesn't change perception of stereo to mono or cause loss of half the sound from speakers.
It certainly is David.
Just at the interval of Wihan string quartet, having just finished some Beethoven.
These four boys just on a different plane, the timing and fluidity just plain spooky.
What I'm loving about tonight is that I'm in the best position, nine rows back, central, in a moderately sized hall with sympathetic acoustics (medieval hall with pitched roof), and critically the music not being played unecesarily loud.
I'm learning so much from my dozen gigs so far.
First, that hyper soundstaging and especially forensic pinpoint imaging of the kind I hear in so many big expensive tower speakers seems to be an archetype not present in live unamplified.
Two, the tipped up zingy tone I hear so often at shows on this evidence is a facile attempt of exotic tweeter materials and leading edge enhancing cables to replicate the energy of live, but comes across as an affectation/colouration.
For me, these live experiences, and esp the gig today is telling me it's all about tone, timbre, space/air and (zero) noise floor, and that thankfully I'm already half way there and what I want to concentrate on/work towards further.
There's also a physical connection to the live environment that's there even if you might be unaware of it at the time, the more "Natural" a system the less your body/self will react to the reproduced input and find it alien or different.
Why not when it's the same recording? Mono doesn't mean single mic'd and with the same information the difference is how it's mixed down to one or two channels for mono and stereo presentation, you shouldn't be losing any information.
You keep asserting this but it is not true. When you mix down to mono from stereo (or more), you lose the directional information which is represented by the differences among the source channels.
There's also a physical connection to the live environment that's there even if you might be unaware of it at the time, the more "Natural" a system the less your body/self will react to the reproduced input and find it alien or different.
You keep asserting this but it is not true. When you mix down to mono from stereo (or more), you lose the directional information which is represented by the differences among the source channels.
Never said anything about mixing down from stereo to mono! I mentioned multichannels mixed down to one for mono or two channels for stereo, you're mixing down in both cases and yes the final presentation is different. There's also stereo derived from two identical mono channels do you gain directional information?
Never said anything about mixing down from stereo to mono! I mentioned multichannels mixed down to one for mono or two channels for stereo, you're mixing down in both cases and yes the final presentation is different.
There's also a physical connection to the live environment that's there even if you might be unaware of it at the time, the more "Natural" a system the less your body/self will react to the reproduced input and find it alien or different.
F. Toole clearly addressed the fundamental limitations of stereo :
"It was left to the end user to create something pleasant. Stereo, therefore, is not an encode/decode system, but a basis for individual experimentation. The fact that both audiophiles and the audio industry have thrived in spite of this situation is a tribute to the power of human adaptation. Given time, we can come to believe that many different variations on the truth are apparently equally entertaining."
In some sense the stereo information is just a limited and distorted view of reality and different people react differently to it. Some people tell us that they prefer the limitations of mono reproduction to the artifacts and ambiguous guessing needed by stereo. IMHO it is not too different from the feeling expressed by several of our members concerning stereo and MCH - surely MCH has more information, but is not their preference.
Audiophiles are usually extremely "trained" people - and surely sometimes their views diverge from the mainstream statistical "truth".
