In article , Keith G
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
How much does that matter in most 'domestic' applications?
Means the two waveforms won't be 'mirro images' so won't null.
An important point.
Again, what odds to anyone prepared only to pay as little as possible
for 'budget' speakers?
None. Just that the user won't be hearing clear stereo imaging.
That's a presumption I presume?
One based both on experience and the logic of the situation. if what you
hear isn't as I said was needed, then the 'departures' can alter the
locational impression given. However you won't need a perfect null to zero.
Just one good enough to allow your ears to do the job well. Hard to say
what that requires as it would vary from person to person, room to room,
etc.
Also, if the listener has never heard a genuinely clear image of the kind I
am referring to, they may have no reference point for it, so not know how
how much better the results can be if everything is right. Certainly my
experience is that most people with little knowledge in 'hi fi' assume
'stereo' just means having two speakers with some sounds from each, and
others from around and about.
The 'horns' can be shoved into almost any postion (provided there's
one on the left and one on the right somewhere) and the 'image' might
move a bit but it's quite academic - the music exists independently
of the speakers, wherever they are - up to a point, obviously! (Like
I said the other day - my 'sweet spot' is all the way from my room
out to the back door!! :-)
That's fine. But isn't the kind of stereo imaging I have been talking
about, and hear from the main system I use. I would not be without
this, but if you don't need it, it will make your life easier. :-)
Apologies for the snips (time presses) - my observation here is that, as
in all things, there are 'degrees of 'and stereo is a good example of
where 'good enough is good enough' for most people.
Yes. To many people this may not matter at all. Particularly if they are
listening to studio-assembled pop which has no original spatial layout that
means anything. And others may never have heard it, or care.
For myself I can only say I've never heard better stereo than I can get
here whether it's 'very good' or not; I would go onto say I only have
to enjoy the sound and be convinced by the spatiality when it applies.
Tbh, I don't care if it's 'stereo' or not - I have a lot of mono stuff
and the 'spatiality' on that is/has been good enough to fool a number
of people here, in the past!
I am not surprised by your last sentence above. Yes, I'd say the same about
many people, and agree that mono can give a fair indication of 'distance'
and the general size/type of acoustic in which a recording was made. What
it can't do is give the kind of imaging I was referring to, and which
people may not have either heard or care about. Indeed, many people
rergaded stereo as something they didn't want and stuck with mono for some
time as they preferred it.
I can listen quite happily at times to systems which are giving me no
plausible sense of the locations, etc. But I also find that imaging is a
real step forwards to presenting a sound that is more realistic. Does
improve the experience for me - provided the source material is good.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Frequency response of the ear
Linear Mode
