What's wrong with stereo?

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal, ever sit at the very back of a concert hall?

Rarely and unhappily.

However, it is worse than is a really good stereo presentation since I was right up against the real back wall in the concert hall.

 

[NorthStar]

That was my point. :b

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Rarely and unhappily.
However, it is worse than is a really good stereo presentation since I was right up against the real back wall in the concert hall.

That was my point. :b

I wouldn't invest my time and money to reproduce a bad experience.

 

[NorthStar]

Kal, I was just sayin'. :b

* At college I worked as a technical Light & Sound assistant, and we took sound 'measurements' (analysis), at all the hall's various spots (balconies, at the very rear, etc.),
and Stereo at home sounds definitively better than at the rear of a concert Hall.
...In that instance, there. Stereo's good, not bad at all, viewed (heard) in that consideration.

And we did that before each performance, because each artist's sound is different from one another. And the gear they use is also different (mics and all instruments). ...Even the wiring.

 

[Gregadd]

do think that the advantage of mono is more pronounced with small jazz ensembles and chamber music. Stereo is absolutely essential for capturing the essence of symphonic music.

We then can think of a large ensemble being most problematic. Sitting at the back of the room the sound has bounced around the room so much as to loose almost all its' directionality.


I recall, for directivity purposes, the marching band particulary the one that dances around while playing. The effect was dramatic when the band constantly changed direction as a whole. Even mor strange when different players 'twirled" around.

 

[Gregadd]

http://thejacksonsymphony.org/education-outreach/pdf/Orchestradiagram2008.pdf

Given the current state of two channel sterer is it realistic to think we could get a true replica of this in our room?

I would note that I am bid fan of Carol Kidd. The imaging when she plays with a jazz combo is quite realistic. Change that too where she plays in fornt of a full orchestra.

 

[fas42]

http://thejacksonsymphony.org/education-outreach/pdf/Orchestradiagram2008.pdf

Given the current state of two channel sterer is it realistic to think we could get a true replica of this in our room?

I would note that I am bid fan of Carol Kidd. The imaging when she plays with a jazz combo is quite realistic. Change that too where she plays in fornt of a full orchestra.

Personally, I find the imaging is a function of one's mental focus; in other words what you "hear" depends on what mental "gear" you're in at the time. For example, at a live concert I could spend the whole time closing my eyes and trying to pick exactly where the kettle drum, or tuba was, etc, etc: to my mind a pretty tedious and pointless thing to do, a nice way of wasting a lot of money. IMO, the point of the exercise is so soak up the total sound, the "texture" of the performance, connecting to the "message" and soundscape that the composer, and conductor, is trying to convey ...

Frank

 

[DonH50]

@Myles; Thank you very much! I have heard of that text but have never added it to my collection. Hopefully Old Colony is still in business (didn't they publish the Audio Amateur?)

Decades ago I found the best way (for me) to mic a (ok, "my") trumpet was with the mic at a 45 degree angle a little below the bell and 2' - 3' away to reduce the wind and valve noise and provide a better representation of the timbre heard in the audience. I have found when trying to record small groups that mic placement is not only critical but the optimum position varies with the instrument. Drum kits are the worst as you need a variety of mics and positions. Acoustic guitars, I like to use one near the hole and one higher to pick up the finger plucks that so many like to hear in a recording. Flutes take two mics (several mic companies make a two-mic rig for flute), etc.

I don't want to talk about it; my recording rig has been stored the past couple of years and I cannot afford to get back into that! It never paid well enough for me, too many freebies for the school, local youth orchestra, etc.

 

[kevinh]

It is a shame the technology didn't allow for more than 3 channels.

Early on RCA use 3 channels for their recordinga a L-C-R arrangement but
you can't do 3 ch with an LP.

 

[MylesBAstor]

It is a shame the technology didn't allow for more than 3 channels.

Early on RCA use 3 channels for their recordinga a L-C-R arrangement but
you can't do 3 ch with an LP.

Yes it was! Attendees at the NY Audio Show will, however, get to hear a real three channel system courtesy of VPI.

 

[NorthStar]

It is a shame the technology didn't allow for more than 3 channels.

Early on RCA use 3 channels for their recordinga a L-C-R arrangement but
you can't do 3 ch with an LP.

Actually you can do four (4) channels (quad) with an LP.

 

[kevinh]

Actually you can do four (4) channels (quad) with an LP.

I am referring to the 50's when the standards were established. That is why we don't have 3 ch as the standard instead of 2.

 

[NorthStar]

I see. And you are absolutely right indeed.

 

[Gregadd]

Many have claimed (assuming it was live) that they can identify the recording venue right down to the wall surface(suchas drywall). This would seem to bely the claim that stereo recorodings are incapable of retrieving hall ambienc.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Many have claimed (assuming it was live) that they can identify the recording venue right down to the wall surface(suchas drywall). This would seem to bely the claim that stereo recorodings are incapable of retrieving hall ambienc.

First, one has to decide how much to or whether to believe such claims. Second, no one has said that stereo cannot convey (I prefer that to retrieve, for some reason) hall ambience. It is just that some of us claim it cannot convey all nor can it convey some of the important spatial aspects of that ambience.

 

[Gregadd]

Sorry Kal I should have been more specific. I hope you can elaborate.

It is just that some of us claim it cannot convey all nor can it convey some of the important spatial aspects of that ambience.

 

[NorthStar]

First, one has to decide how much to or whether to believe such claims. Second, no one has said that stereo cannot convey (I prefer that to retrieve, for some reason) hall ambience. It is just that some of us claim it cannot convey all nor can it convey some of the important spatial aspects of that ambience.

Easy why; because a pair of loudspeakers aren't the hall's total space.
Only by being in that full space can you get all the clues available.
And two loudspeakers simply cannot 'reconstruct' that space with all those spatial clues.

The simili space you have (on a stereo recording; LP, CD, SACD, R2R, or whatever) is limited by the speaker drivers' dispersion, their total number, the microphones used for the recording, and your own acoustic space of your room.

And best is to have a completely & acoustically treated listening room to begin with, of course.
Because if not you are in the space of the medium recording itself mixed with your own room's space. ...And reproduced by your two loudspeakers in that room (yours).

Some music recordings are better than others, and those are worth looking for.
That is one very important aspect of audiophilia business. ...The second most important one after your own musical taste (emotional freedom).

IMO

 

[fas42]

Easy why; because a pair of loudspeakers aren't the hall's total space.
Only by being in that full space can you get all the clues available.
And two loudspeakers simply cannot 'reconstruct' that space with all those spatial clues.

The simili space you have (on a stereo recording; LP, CD, SACD, R2R, or whatever) is limited by the speaker drivers' dispersion, their total number, the microphones used for the recording, and your own acoustic space of your room.

Sorry, Bob, I would have to disagree. The key point is that the ear/brain is cleverer than often given credit for, and doesn't need to have the soundscape handed to it on a platter: in other words, the sound information doesn't have to be "perfect" for your listening mechanism to "get" it, to fully understand what's in the musical picture. Including all the ambience.

But for this to happen two vital things have to be in place. Firstly, all the detail on the recording has to be reproduced, no good throwing a blanket over it in some manner, by fiddling in some fashion using cables, speaker manipulation, etc, etc. Secondly, that fine, lower level information can't be swamped by excess distortion: if that happens the mind gives up, throws in the towel, and you're worse off than ever.

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

Frank, I spent as much time listening to live events (and even making my own; live) as I spend time listening to music at home (be it stereo or multichannel).

And lat me tall ya: it ain't the same for my brain!
At a classical theater hall I got the true deal of the ambiance; not so at home, no way Jose!
And even from your jukebox, or from Neil Armstrong's sound system on the moon!

Now, fill this in nicely & tightly, and smoke it! :b

 

[fas42]

Frank, I spent as much time listening to live events (and even making my own; live) as I spend time listening to music at home (be it stereo or multichannel).

And lat me tall ya: it ain't the same for my brain!
At a classical theater hall I got the true deal of the ambiance; not so at home, no way Jose!
And even from your jukebox, or from Neil Armstrong's sound system on the moon!

Now, fill this in nicely & tightly, and smoke it! :b

Which is what all the "fighting" here on the forum is about. I, and a few others, disagree with that proposition, because we have experienced that level of performance. Others, like yourself :b:b, say otherwise because you never have, or very rarely experience it -- and therefore are "certain" that it doesn't exist, can't be possible, to the degree that Tim is convinced that I am the most "whacked" audio individual he's ever come across! But that's by the way ... :b

Frank