What's wrong with stereo?

[Gregadd]

I find that sound souces while providing clear directional clues are generally omnidirectional. WIth the current 2 channel setup what are the objectives? Are they being met? Have you ever expereicend the 3 dimensinal illusion? IF YOU FEEL 2CH STEREO IS UNACCEPTABLE TRY TO POINT TO SPECIFIC SHORTCOMINGS. PLEASE TRY TO AVOID CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS LIKE IT'S NOT PERFERCT. How do we address these shortcomings/ Feel free to compare and contrast with oither formats. Links to otheR articles are acceptable.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Are they being met? Have you ever expereicend the 3 dimensinal illusion?

Yes on 15/30 ips tape

 

[Gregadd]

Originally Posted by Gregadd
Are they being met? Have you ever expereicend the 3 dimensinal illusion?

Yes on 15/30 ips tape

Myles I assume you use at least a phono section. It would appear your sytem and room are capapble of suppoting a three dimensional image. Any ideas why your tape is capable of produicing this image. Myles system is available at www.positive-feedback.com

Note: It would appear this is not a case that would beneift form blind testing.

 

[Gregadd]

The original Patent for stereo.


http://www.doramusic.com/patents/394325.htm

 

[microstrip]

Greg,

I am repeating myself, but F. Toole said it all when he wrote "Stereo, therefore, is not really a system at all but, rather, a basis for individual experimentation".

You can read the full text at: www.harmanaudio.com/all_about_audio/loudspeakers_rooms.pdf

IMHO, what we should debate mostly in this forum is our implementations of these "individual experimentations" and what is behind them.

And yes, I had great 3D illusions with LPs, CDs and reel-to-reel tape.

The great shortcoming of stereo is the strong dependence on the listener capability to create the illusion with the help of small clues, many of them due to interactions with the listening room. It is not per capable per si of exact reproducing the reality using only two sources (the speakers). But with good equipment, properly matched and placed in a suitable room it can be highly rewarding in the recreation of the illusion.

 

[fas42]

Absolutely nothing.

The shortcomings for most people is that their systems are not sufficiently, cleanly resolving the fine detail in the recordings for the 3D illusion to manifest comfortably. The last word is key, it's not that hard to create a system that spits high levels of apparent detail in your face, but they make such a mess of it that it's hard, fatiguing to listen to.

Micro suggests that the room is very important; I disagree, it can certainly help the listener focus on the "musical" elements of the playback, and compensate for deficiencies elsewhere, but is definitely not essential.

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

I usually am limited to picking amongst the results of others experiments.

Micro suggests that the room is very important; I disagree, it can certainly help the listener focus on the "musical" elements of the playback, and compensate for deficiencies elsewhere, but is definitely not essential.

Frank

Careful Frank, Ethan is back.

 

[fas42]

Careful Frank, Ethan is back.

As in "Be afraid, be very afraid ..."? :b

No, Ethan is good to have around as a counterbalance to other points of view. And I suspect if I listened to his system I would appreciate its good points, because he has achieved a certain end using another set of techniques. I have experienced very, very heavily treated rooms and I can hear the benefits, but the strangeness of the environment I find too disturbing to want to continue listening to the music ...

Frank

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Micro suggests that the room is very important; I disagree, it can certainly help the listener focus on the "musical" elements of the playback, and compensate for deficiencies elsewhere, but is definitely not essential.

Wow! Flies in the face of everything I know that I need for musical experience, especially harmonic balance and soundstage. The worst systems I have every heard were the product of lousy rooms, not lousy equipment.

Kal (who had dinner with Ethan last night)

 

[RogerD]

Wow! Flies in the face of everything I know that I need for musical experience, especially harmonic balance and soundstage. The worst systems I have every heard were the product of lousy rooms, not lousy equipment.

Kal (who had dinner with Ethan last night)

There are exceptions

 

[fas42]

Wow! Flies in the face of everything I know that I need for musical experience, especially harmonic balance and soundstage. The worst systems I have every heard were the product of lousy rooms, not lousy equipment.

Kal (who had dinner with Ethan last night)

This is why it's so hard to really truly communicate here in regard to ideas: I would need to listen to Kal's and Ethan's system, and they to mine, and then there would be some common ground to develop the conversation from.

Frank

 

[MylesBAstor]

Myles I assume you use at least a phono section. It would appear your sytem and room are capapble of suppoting a three dimensional image. Any ideas why your tape is capable of produicing this image. Myles system is available at www.positive-feedback.com

Note: It would appear this is not a case that would beneift form blind testing.

This is probably a little more up to date snapshot of the system. Need to update the PFO info But doesn't have my current Doshi phono section in the picture nor the Silver Circle 5se PLC with its latest Vesuvius Mk.2 power cord.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/album.php?albumid=36

I've always found that dimensionality of images is directly related to the total amount of information on the source and the low frequency quality/quantity. The better the low end response, the better the feeling of dimensionality. Ergo, to my ears, even the best LPs were mastered with the limits of the average or worse turntable in mind. OTOH, the tapes that I have, don't necessarily have that restriction (though obviously we can talk about tape head bumps). But there is no question that the low end on the best 15/30 ips tape is far more dynamic, possesses a greater sense of ease and is more extended. When you hear a tape like the Benny Carter Jazz Giant (Contemporary Records), you feel you can wrap your arms around the players.

Also, I find that dimensionality is the province still of tube gear, in particular the best triode and SE amplifiers. The best 3D amplifier I ever heard was sadly a Sonic Frontiers amplifier that was just being developed as they went out of business. This 100 wpc, 211 based, triode amplifier, still sets the standard for me when it comes to instrumental body.

 

[DonH50]

Most instruments are directional (in varying degrees) but they do come from just one spot in space. The rest of the sound comes from the room (stage, whatever). Spread a number of instruments across the stage, get a good recording (mics and mix), and stereo can provide a convincing illusion of the sound in front of you, including "depth". Like you were there. Interaction with the room must provide the "feel" of the hall. Stereo can do that, but so can a good multichannel setup.

I have had good tube gear (well, by the standards of a decade or three ago) and SS, and whilst tube midrange was sometimes more engaging I did not find they varied significantly in imaging and sound stage. Except as they interacted with the speakers. I found speakers, speaker positioning, and room design had a much bigger impact. YMMV.

All IMO - Don

 

[fas42]

When you hear a tape like the Benny Carter Jazz Giant (Contemporary Records), you feel you can wrap your arms around the players.

This is the goal, a sense of complete naturalness: there is absolutely no need for your ear to "flinch" as you tune into the sound. The first thing I listen for when experiencing another system is this factor; how much do I mentally have to clench, or go into "active" listening to be at ease with the sound.

The friend's system highlights the "problem" with vinyl in the low frequency area: last visit the CD was so far ahead in this regard, while still having, to use a phrase that would make sense here, the "liquidness" of the "analogue sound".

Frank

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Most instruments are directional (in varying degrees) but they do come from just one spot in space. The rest of the sound comes from the room (stage, whatever). Spread a number of instruments across the stage, get a good recording (mics and mix), and stereo can provide a convincing illusion of the sound in front of you, including "depth". Like you were there. Interaction with the room must provide the "feel" of the hall. Stereo can do that, but so can a good multichannel setup.

Agreed. However, while the frontal illusion, including depth, can be can be completely satisfying, the "feel" of the hall is dependent on the interaction with the room and is not determined by the actual acoustics of the original hall. That is what good multichannel adds.

IMHO, too.

 

[audioguy]

The worst systems I have ever heard were the product of lousy rooms, not lousy equipment.

Kal

100% agree !!!

 

[DonH50]

I agree, Kal. I should have qualified "Stereo can do that" better... Multichannel can in general (and IMO) provide a much more realistic "feel" of the hall by helping take the room out of the equation. The problem with the room is that, even if tweaked to sound like e.g. a concert hall, it is sort of a one-show pony. Make your room sound like a concert hall, and it sounds wrong for a jazz combo, rock concert, or solo piano. And so forth and so on...

 

[fas42]

Agreed. However, while the frontal illusion, including depth, can be can be completely satisfying, the "feel" of the hall is dependent on the interaction with the room and is not determined by the actual acoustics of the original hall. That is what good multichannel adds.

IMHO, too.

That does not compute! Not one teeny, little bit!!

For me, the "feel" of the original hall acoustics is completely derived from the recording; if the system is working at a top level that recorded acoustic will actually completely take over the acoustic of the listening room: as they say, you will be transported to the recording of the event.

That recovery of the recorded acoustic is extremely dependent upon, extremely sensitive to the state of tune of the system, because it's all about cleanly reproducing the very low level sound that was picked up by the mic's. The fact that is comparatively difficult to do does not preclude it being possible!

Frank

 

[Kal Rubinson]

For me, the "feel" of the original hall acoustics is completely derived from the recording; if the system is working at a top level that recorded acoustic will actually completely take over the acoustic of the listening room: as they say, you will be transported to the recording of the event.

Not possible. If the room's acoustics are not contributing to the sound, you are in an anechoic chamber. The room's acoustics are required to transform the stereo source into a simulation of an immersive acoustic but no one room can do this faithfully for all possible event sites. That is not to say that it cannot be fairly satisfying. OTOH, if the ambient acoustic is created by the recording and playback of the actual event's ambient acoustic, as with multichannel, it is more faithful to each and every original event.

That recovery of the recorded acoustic is extremely dependent upon, extremely sensitive to the state of tune of the system, because it's all about cleanly reproducing the very low level sound that was picked up by the mic's. The fact that is comparatively difficult to do does not preclude it being possible!

I fail to see the relevance of this statement to the issue at hand. It applies to any reproduction with any number of channels.

 

[fas42]

if the ambient acoustic is created by the recording and playback of the actual event's ambient acoustic, as with multichannel, it is more faithful to each and every original event.

So are you saying it is impossible to capture the event's ambient acoustic using stereo recording, and then generate that in the playback environment using stereo playback?

I fail to see the relevance of this statement to the issue at hand. It applies to any reproduction with any number of channels.

Said, because people say something is wrong with stereo because it doesn't create the sense of being at the event; and having experienced many people's systems I can see where that view comes from. What I said there, is what one has to do to overcome the hurdle of "just" using stereo.

Frank