GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site - Macondo / Milq not a properly implemented stereo setup?

06-22-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #:	26
Post ID:	13826
Reply to:	13825

Cut off his hands.

Unicorn,s comment is correct,,We barely see well planned stereo,,, a good example is,,,i have in front of me a recording done by RCA,,ALso Sprach Zerathutra,,,recorded with 32 micraphones,,,and they claime on the cover its a stereo recording???? I took Phiffer to task (director of that recording)He appologized,,in his letter knowing true well it could have been done better with a couple of mics,,,but they were following at that time a race to outdo Doitcha Grammaphone..and there TONEMEISTER engineers ,,in implimenting as many mic.s as possible,,,,I called him back and suggested he shoot his engineer,,, It was the worst recording they ever made,,,There were so many microphones in that studio it looked like a dense forest of mic stands... Another stupid recording done by john attkinson of Stereophile Magazine,,,Of a pianist with two mics under the lid of the piano,,and two mics on a single mic stand 10 feet behind and above,,mic,s pointing down at the performer and the shiny slick floor...I took him to task for claiming it to be stereo recording.. You cant get a stereo, recording the stage floor,,, The german engineers are the worst at Grammaphone with mic,s hanging from the ceiling arch above the stage pointing down at the floor plus dozens of so called sweeting mics in front of each section of the orchestra,,Timing and phase not even corrected,, Stereo?? pha,, My phalosaphy is let the engineer only set the level, then cut off his hands.

06-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

ghpicard
Posts 12
Joined on 12-15-2008

Post #:	27
Post ID:	13871
Reply to:	13825

Macondo / Milq not a properly implemented stereo setup?

Romy the Cat wrote:

unicon wrote:
….we barely see any well planned stereo .
Absolutely right. Normally people hardly ever familiar with properly implemented stereo. I did properly implemented stereo a few months back in 2001-2002. I did not hear SO MUCH properly implemented stereo ever anywhere else. The Cat

So Romy, we know you haven't yet prepared your new room, but weren't your Macondo / Milq in your old apartment a properly implemented stereo setup ?Why ?Gaston

06-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	28
Post ID:	13872
Reply to:	13871

The properly implemented stereo?

ghpicard wrote:
So Romy, we know you haven't yet prepared your new room, but weren't your Macondo / Milq in your old apartment a properly implemented stereo setup ?Why ?Gaston

Gaston, you confuse a bit the whole notion of “properly implemented stereo”. The “properly implemented stereo” does not imply only playback but it is a whole chain of recording where huge percentage is the initial recording techniques. Regarding the playback only. My old room had OK stereo, Macondo / Milq and the rest crap were fine to support good stereo. Was it as good as it could be or better to say as it shall be? Not really. As I said the true great stereo I had in old room in for 1-2 months during 2001-2002. Pay attention that at that time I had no Macondo in its mature version and no Melquiades.

You will not learn about true stereo observing my experience. I know what makes properly implemented stereo and how to recognize it but it is not the things that might be conveyed. Look at my side my former comments about ability a playback to throw imaging without soundstage. In fact a good stereo is mono with “space”, Very few get it and very few experience it. Good stereo is like diving overlay powerful car, you do not need a lot of power to drive regularly but you need a lot of power once in while to escape complicated situations on roads. The same is with stereo. Stereo by-product effects are fine and unfortunately the Morons feel that this is the Stereo. In really a “properly implemented stereo” sound very much like Mono BUT with greater perceived dynamic, with much more able space and with some semi-holographic qualities, where the key individual sonic micro-fragments have reference to the whole rest Sound….

The Cat

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

06-29-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

el`Ol
Posts 225
Joined on 10-13-2007

Post #:	29
Post ID:	13874
Reply to:	13872

Free association

Non strictly on topic, but if someone wants to try two-channel quadrophonia:
Free demos available at http://www.andreavonsalis.com
Speakers have to stand 4x90°. Rear speakers stand in the same distance as the front speakers and get the same signal. Balance between front and rear is adjusted subjectively.
Personally I regret having spent so much effort on stereophonic realism. I thought I can do the fine-tuning after establishing the basic principle, and with proper tonal balance my system now does the opposite of what I originally intended: Most of the instruments are placed in front of the speakers (and my listening room is not large).

12-26-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #:	31
Post ID:	15295
Reply to:	13812

MONO TREE

Stereo is only as good as the width of your head,,,Both visual and audio...Of course locolazion diminish,s as you sit back further,, Hall ambiences will eventually take over...If you are the conductor you get a different perspective,,,And PERSPECTIVE can come from logic of interpretive views..Impactful perspective can come from many sources without stereo...I do not under stand your logic of the case that MONO WAS FORCED (not chosen) you bought your seat (in the hall) and the enviroment will deal you your perspective.. A decest friend of mine ,,(may he rest in hell) only believed in mono,,Making mono records,,most of his life,,would audition his version(mono) than mine (stereo) at the same concert and location..He would point at playback and complain about the swimming sloshy sound,,,He then would disconnect one side and play his mono tape...Showing full localazation and front to back hall balance.. Our mics were on one tall poll mic stand,,In the DECCA tree mic position,,His was the center mic,,,All mics were the same type Sennheiser MKH 105s Mics were about 3rd row back from edge of stage,,,I now have his MONO tapes,,And play them for doughting morons,,showing that good recordings can be made in mono,,,I then place a record RCA stereo,,with 27 mics like the 32 mike version stereo by phifer,,,,(what a piece of shit) A BARTOK piece,,I wrote the producer a scathing letter,,and told him to shoot the fucking engineer...

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	32
Post ID:	15301
Reply to:	15291

I do not like mono although do understand that it has some averages.

AOK_Farmer wrote:
We might well have settled with Mono.

If we lived in octagonal rooms we might have settled on 3 channels.

Maybe it is about the rectangular rooms we live in that we choose stereo? What if we lived in round rooms? Something to think about

Steve, I do not think that our preference foe mono/stereo dictated by geometry of room. I still feel that stereo derived from the fact that we have two ears and no matter how back stereo is we still get some binaural component in stereo.

The Cat

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

AOK_Farmer

Marlboro NY USA
Posts 64
Joined on 07-08-2004

Post #:	33
Post ID:	15302
Reply to:	15301

If you lost hearing in one ear...

Do you think you would lose the ability to hear stereo properly and that for the Van Gogh type person Mono is as sufficient as stereo? I am not sure that there is, deep down, that much of a difference between properly implemented mono and properly implemented stereo. Stereo has much more opportunity for the engineers to screw things up or to do all manner of psychoacoustic effects... but there isn't really a choice is there? It's a stereo world and listening to stereo recordings in mono seems moronic, even if you only have one ear.

Steve

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Romy the Cat

Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #:	34
Post ID:	15304
Reply to:	15302

My standing with stereo is very deliberate.

AOK_Farmer wrote:
Do you think you would lose the ability to hear stereo properly and that for the Van Gogh type person Mono is as sufficient as stereo?

Absolutely, a person with one ear do not need stereo. You can easily try it by covering one ear. In fact it will not be a clean experiment and you still will be getting information to second ear by bone transmitting vibration. Try to close one eye when you drive in complex road. You will get an idea if you are not trained to do so. Be careful however, it might be dangers.

AOK_Farmer wrote:
It's a stereo world and listening to stereo recordings in mono seems moronic, even if you only have one ear.

I prefer to listen all my mono recordings on my stereo system. I do not like convert playback to mono, I use to do it but I do not like it and my standing with stereo is very deliberate.

The Cat

"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	35
Post ID:	15306
Reply to:	15304

How vs. What We Hear

We have already talked about how recording techniques do or do not make the most of a given format, and/or available recordings do or do not especially lend themselves to a given playback system. Then, there is the matter of setting everything up in the listening room in order to "make the most of it", whatever "it" is. Who knows what is possible until someone really decides to push it? I admit I have not so far enjoyed a lot of mono "re-processed into "stereo"; but I have enjoyed some of it.  And I am not so sure we have done everything that can be done with "stereo" yet, either.

At this point, the biggest problem I have with mono - generically speaking - is that it tends to collapse the sound field compared to stereo, and also the sound field tends to "breathe" in and out according to the volume and complexity of the music. Along with this, all sounds tend to "radiate" from the same small-ish place. Of course, some mono recordings are better than others on these counts.  However, for all I know, there are already ways to "deal with" the problems I have cited.

It is also fun to "compare" "stereo" to 5.1 "surround". Although the "surround" I have heard has serious issues, yet it appears that the idea itself has as much intrinsic merit as normal "stereo", given recording processes that consider the playback, going in. Not much serious "surround" program presently available, however...

Which brings me to the main reason I have stayed with stereo so far.  It is not because I care about the "two ears, two channels" agrument, but it is because, to date, it has provided the best known-to-me source/playback format in terms of listening to available program material, according to my present experince with playback. In other words, I'm still an audio ho', and I would jump ship in a New York Minute if something better came along.

Maybe there are even ways to more or less "re-mix" "stereo" playback signals in order to process them better in terms of our perception...

Paul S

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #:	36
Post ID:	15308
Reply to:	15306

Sound field

I have hundreds of photos taken at recording sessions,,,(thats another hobby of mine,,), The so called sound field is a real joke,,,In perticular one photo of the Berliner Symphony orchestra,,, The mics and mic stands are high up 15 ft or more,,Mics pointed down at the BALD HEADS of the players,,and sweeting mics helter skelter in the orchestra,,,Thats a sound field ???? ,, The soloist at the piano has two mics under the sound lid,,inches from the piano strings,,, What the fuck for??,,,Thats a sound field??? Like my dead ol mono friend would say ,,SLAME THAT FUCKING piano lid down on that recording engineers head. John Atkinson(stereophile ed) did a recording of a small JAZZ group,,a couple of years ago, again several mics were under the lid,,I noticed in the photo,,He forgot to hook up the other end to his mixing board,, Another photo i have is 14 mics on a drum kit,,NOW THATS A SOUND FIELD..

12-27-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	38
Post ID:	15311
Reply to:	15308

It's All In Your Head

Yes, Zako, the recording processes are often beyond rational comprehension, and the playback is also "inherently flawed". Also, there certainly are recordings that offer nothing I can recognize or accept as sound field or ambience. None the less, there are recordings that I do get a sense of "sound field" from, and most of these happen to be "stereo".

Fortunately for me, I have no horse in the stereo-versus-mono race; I just happen to prefer the added "sound field" or "ambience" when I can get it, other factors being equal, and I think I have already mentioned other "benefits" I associate with "stereo". Needless to say, I mean, "well done stereo" (whatever that means...)!

Best regards,
Paul S

12-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	39
Post ID:	15312
Reply to:	15311

Gentlemen, I'd Like to Propose a Test

OK, who has not recently tried a good mono recording played from just one BIG speaker? It has been quite I while since I have done this. It may take a while to get to it, but at some point I will play the 1943 Furtwangler/BPO Beethoven 9 through one DEBZ, and I will get back with impressions. IMO, this recording has sound field, ambience, everything, up the wazoo in "enhanced mono". Let's hear how it sounds in "true mono".

Paul S

12-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #:	40
Post ID:	15316
Reply to:	15310

Sentiments

The mono/stereo sentiments are not directally related...In some ways yes,,and in some ways no,,,But a complex answere would take a complex mix of remastering the program,, Ive done it both ways. And so has my long ago dead friend,, who had done alot of research in mic placements for both,,He was always keeping records of what he did,,, I must add he and Paul Klipsch did alot of earley recording together,,,Configuring every known mic placement thery and mic configurations,,,I pour over his papers and math,,also useing all his old tapes as a guide,,To follow what he was after,,For awhile i used his audio equipment,,Just to have a reference to his minds ear,, He sure new that orchestra hall ,,to capture the particular sound,,

12-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,657
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #:	42
Post ID:	15320
Reply to:	15318

Winner, Schminner: This Gives Me an Idea...

OK, I managed to get to the "fully mono" experiment done pretty quickly. The single speaker made a more "compact" sound that stuck more closely to the speaker, itself, despite "increased" ambient cue "saturation".

No surprise, I happen to prefer my optimised-for-stereo system in stereo, even when the "stereo is mono", since I prefer the sound to "originate" "in space", away from the speakers.

Still, rather than bringing me to a "conclusion" regarding stereo versus mono, this little session has instead pushed me to wonder if a better idea might actually be more of a normal mono/stereo "hybrid" that might get the most from either "format", with better density and better ambience in both cases.

For openers, I can get the full-mono sound to "open up" significantly if I get my head just right with respect to the tweeter...

Hmmm...

Paul S

12-28-2010

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

zako
Posts 85
Joined on 05-25-2008

Post #:	43
Post ID:	15321
Reply to:	15320

Open up

Open up ,,,??,,,,What are tweeters supposed to do ?? remember everything below 5K is the fundamentals of all musicle instruments,,Every thing above are the harmonics,,, A key of C of a violin or a key of C of a viola,, What will disquindish the difference of the two,, ITS HARMONICS,,WHAT do you mean by DENSITY ? Ambience is always needed otherwise you would be in a Anechoic state. As far as the Mono/Stereo debate,,,I,ll take the overall cohiesive balance that the composer wanted,,And screw the Spacial layout of the orchestra..

06-04-2012

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #:	44
Post ID:	18238
Reply to:	15321

It's not mono vs stereo, but mono dipole vs stereo

With stereo you hear sound from more than one source (speaker) and the sound from each source is very nearly the same except for some variations in amplitude of certain frequencies and some phase differences which occur because the microphones used to record these signals were placed in different locations with respect to the instruments. These microphones also picked up ambient sounds - the instruments themselves send sound in all directions so the microphones also pick up reflected sounds from the room boundaries.

Listening to two speakers and the reflections from your room boundaries your ears experience a sound 'field' which allows you to experience the sound as coming not just from two speakers - you hear the 'air' in the sound.

It seems to me very difficult to ensure the stereo playback matches the live performance because the listening room and the place of the performance are different. Even if the recording and mixing were perfect the reproduction will not be correct. Maybe the result is actually confusing, there is a conflict between the recording environment and the playback environment so that the result is actually worse. Perhaps, at most, you can only get a 'sense' and feeling for the original performance.

With mono dipole sound, your also hear sound from more than one source - in this case the speaker + reflected from boundaries.

Listening to one dipole speaker with the reflections from your room boundaries your ears also experience a sound 'field' which allows you to experience the sound as coming not just from one speakers - you hear the 'air' in the sound. But you hear the effects of the listening room without trying to 'force' the sound to match an original venue using two speakers. You reduce the conflict between your listening room and the recording.

When you listen to live music from a distance, such as the back row at the orchestra, you experience sound as if it come from one 'speaker' which radiates sound in many directions. Perhaps a mono dipole is a more realistic way to experience this sound in playback than with stereo ?

So the 'full mono experiment' is the wrong one, you don't want a mono-pole speaker if using mono.

Could it be - that if you sit close to your speakers, which you might have to do if they are very large, then the listening room is not so intrusive and does not contribute itself to the sound field - then you need stereo (or multi-channel) to give you a sound field that does not collapse to one small place. But if you sit further away from your speaker, or listen to music throughout a house with open space, then the room(s) create a sound field and stereo is no longer the only game in town.

06-04-2012

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

ghpicard
Posts 12
Joined on 12-15-2008

Post #:	45
Post ID:	18239
Reply to:	18238

Stereo is not even similar to dual mono dipoles

Teflon wrote:
With stereo you hear sound from more than one source (speaker) and the sound from each source is very nearly the same except for some variations in amplitude of certain frequencies and some phase differences which occur because the microphones used to record these signals were placed in different locations with respect to the instruments. These microphones also picked up ambient sounds - the instruments themselves send sound in all directions so the microphones also pick up reflected sounds from the room boundaries.

<snip>
With mono dipole sound, your also hear sound from more than one source - in this case the speaker + reflected from boundaries.

Listening to one dipole speaker with the reflections from your room boundaries your ears also experience a sound 'field' which allows you to experience the sound as coming not just from one speakers - you hear the 'air' in the sound. But you hear the effects of the listening room without trying to 'force' the sound to match an original venue using two speakers. You reduce the conflict between your listening room and the recording.

When you listen to live music from a distance, such as the back row at the orchestra, you experience sound as if it come from one 'speaker' which radiates sound in many directions. Perhaps a mono dipole is a more realistic way to experience this sound in playback than with stereo ?

IMO, stereo is intended to reproduce the sound of a given performance *with the assumption* that one has two ears, and thus two microphones strategically located can faithfully simulate and reproduce the sensations of being live at the recording event.
OTOH, a dipole is intended to to overcome the many distortions due to the speaker / air interface and its different radiation and reflection patterns.Horns, *again IMO* are a better approach to this. I like more the sound of a mono horn that the one of a mono dipole.
Two totally different things.

06-06-2012

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #:	46
Post ID:	18247
Reply to:	18239

Please explain more

ghpicard wrote:
IMO, stereo is intended to reproduce the sound of a given performance *with the assumption* that one has two ears, and thus two microphones strategically located can faithfully simulate and reproduce the sensations of being live at the recording event.

Doesn't it also assume that these two ears receive only the sound from each respective left/right speaker - which is not what happens ?

ghpicard wrote:
OTOH, a dipole is intended to to overcome the many distortions due to the speaker / air interface and its different radiation and reflection patterns.Horns, *again IMO* are a better approach to this. I like more the sound of a mono horn that the one of a mono dipole.
Two totally different things.

Sorry, but what does that mean ? I don't know what distortions from the speaker/air interface a dipole is intended to overcome ?
And knowing this I hope it will allow me to understand why horns are better for this ?
p.s. mono horns - Romy says they 'honk'

04-06-2016

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

steverino
Posts 367
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #:	47
Post ID:	22594
Reply to:	13812

Solo

Romy the Cat wrote:
Guys, I think you use a slightly faulty logic in here. No one would deny the differences in presentation between live events and playback. I would not argue with what ‘zako’ or ‘gormee’ said. I would however disagree about the way in which they use own arguments.

First of all the stereo localization during playback is not the only attribute of stereo, not to mention that sources localization during the life event are there and it the localization just wary with distance. The localization in live music work a bit different - I do not want to go into desiccation of the differences. What however I would like to note (in context of this thread) is the mono is not the answer to make recorded music more impactful. If whatever arguments you have against stereo are correct then how monophonic sound address those arguments?

My position is not to worship stereo but to degree with the people who falsely proclaim the mono has any practical advantage over properly implemented stereo. It is not to mention that in 100% of all cases what I was arguing the subject it was always was the case that mono was forced (not chosen) environment.

The Cat

Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way. I am undecided whether that applies to recordings of solo instruments though. Also some Pop music because of its occasional harmonic and contrapuntal limitations sometimes sounds better focused than spread out. Classical music however doesn't so benefit.

04-09-2016

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

Teflon
Ontario
Posts 10
Joined on 02-22-2012

Post #:	48
Post ID:	22597
Reply to:	22594

Mono - more to it than you think ?

steverino wrote:
Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way.

I would assume this is a popular viewpoint, and easily agreed with, when the goal is to reproduce as closely as possible the spatial effects enjoyed in a music venue. And also if you want to listen to orchestra with the traditional placement of instruments, such as violin to the left etc. where something different would sound out of place.
However, there are times when my goal is not to reproduce the spatial effects of a venue and sometimes I do not insist on the need to perceive instruments in an orchestra to have a particular placement. Sometimes my goal is to enjoy the music without the constraint that I should be located in a particular place relative to the reproduction system in order to have proper stereo, or even just to feel enveloped by the sound without any need for authentic placement of instruments. In these cases, I like a mono source where the sound is subject to the reverberations of the room I am in. I could imagine that my ear-eye-brain would then perceive no incongruity in the spatial information generated by the speaker-room interaction because the system is not attempting to generate a spatial experience from another place, another venue altogether. The choice of speaker for this type of reproduction may not be optimally a single speaker from a stereo pair, but a speaker of different design which encourages interaction with the room.
You may argue that the only valid goal is proper stereo reproduction - that's OK with me too, I don't argue with your beliefs whether audio or religious.

04-09-2016

Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree

steverino
Posts 367
Joined on 05-23-2009

Post #:	49
Post ID:	22598
Reply to:	22597

Didn't say that

Teflon wrote:
steverino wrote:
Generally I agree that Mono recordings are only preferable when the stereo recording is messed up in some way

You may argue that the only valid goal is proper stereo reproduction - that's OK with me too, I don't argue with your beliefs whether audio or religious.

But I didn't so argue. I specifically mentioned the examples of solo instruments and certain pop music as possibly sounding better in mono. The issue is not whether the stereo presentation mirrors the actual live performance positions but whether it provides more of the musical information relevant to the composer's intention. There is a reason why orchestra members don't line up in a vertical file but are distributed as they are on a stage. Composers knowing the standard layout compose accordingly. The same thing applies to a string quartet. If they have something different in mind then they notate the score to specify where the players should be.

As for pop music I agree that its artificial nature makes it more dependent on the good taste and judgment of the mixing engineer which is not a great idea as these qualities are in short supply.

Of course your preference may be to hear something in mono instead of stereo but that is a personal choice rather than something dictated by the nature of the music.

	Target	Threads for related reading	Most recent post in related threads	Forum	Replies	Views	Started
»	New	Beware of the monophonic honk...	Use stereo system to play mono......	Audio For Dummies ™ Forum	2	34303	07-30-2006
»	New	A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..	REL Precedent Report...	Off Air Audio Forum	24	272292	07-28-2008
»	New	The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..	Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......	Playback Listening Forum	1	30890	08-04-2009

	Target	Threads for related reading	Most recent post in related threads	Forum	Replies	Views	Started
»	New	Beware of the monophonic honk...	Use stereo system to play mono......	Audio For Dummies ™ Forum	2	34303	07-30-2006
»	New	A tube tuner? REL Precedent 646C..	REL Precedent Report...	Off Air Audio Forum	24	272292	07-28-2008
»	New	The unintended consequences of binaural things in Hi-Fi..	Re: Binaural -- or what ever the case was......	Playback Listening Forum	1	30890	08-04-2009