loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:42:32 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

You've just confirmed my worst fears. On *any* quarter decent stereo
in a room which doesn't double as a bathroom, a mono source should
come from directly between the speakers and *easily* be confused as
just the one central speaker. If your system doesn't do this, I'm not
surprised you prefer headphones. You might start by checking the phase
of your speakers, and or the drive units within.

Any *you* just missed my point in grand style.

there is SUPPOSED to be a difference between one sound (say a tone for
sake of argument) comming from in front of you, compared to two sources
either side of you.

a pair of speakers really cant quite give you the real effect.

With a tone source in front of you, the sound would arrive at each ear,
in phase, with no delay, at the same amplitude. Moving your head would
make the sound arrive significantly out of phase for a relatively small
movement, and the amplitude would vary fairly dramatically for left
compared to right.

Try this with two sources either side of you *simulating* the 'in front'
tone, and you will fine that a small movement will give much less
variation.

thus, slightly moving your head is not really effective with a stereo
recording, in placing sources on the soundstage.

now, admittedly, with headphones, moving your head makes *no*
difference, but Im not convinced this is worse than the 'incorrect'
impression given with a stereo pair.

Interestingly, the problem is worse if you move the speakers further
away, so if you extrapolate back, the best case for a two source
recording would be two speakers held a *fraction* away from your head,
just enough to allow you to move your head slightly. pretty close to
headphones, IMHO.


--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:45:16 -0000
"Tim S Kemp" wrote:

headphones require a particular type of recording to work properly, so
do speakers. they just require DIFFERENT types of recording.

you said

"show me a pair of speakers that can create the, admittedly unusual,
situation of having a sound entirely in one ear and not at all in the
other."

Yes I did.

inferring it was the best way to get a stereo image.

No, thats what you read into it. I said what I meant and nothing more.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:45:16 -0000
"Tim S Kemp" wrote:

headphones require a particular type of recording to work properly, so
do speakers. they just require DIFFERENT types of recording.

you said

"show me a pair of speakers that can create the, admittedly unusual,
situation of having a sound entirely in one ear and not at all in the
other."

Yes I did.

inferring it was the best way to get a stereo image.

No, thats what you read into it. I said what I meant and nothing more.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:35:11 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

well, it'll affect it, sure - bass being omnidirectional to a far
greater degree than treble - the 'reflection' effects are far more
noticeable in the treble, so any medium that boosts treble or
attenuates bass will score 'well' on imaging (other things being
'correct').

I was trying to be tactful and avoid stirring up a format-bashing war

Just to be clear, I didnt bash any format - just made a point about the
relative abilities of high and low frequencies to create 'image'.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:35:11 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

well, it'll affect it, sure - bass being omnidirectional to a far
greater degree than treble - the 'reflection' effects are far more
noticeable in the treble, so any medium that boosts treble or
attenuates bass will score 'well' on imaging (other things being
'correct').

I was trying to be tactful and avoid stirring up a format-bashing war

Just to be clear, I didnt bash any format - just made a point about the
relative abilities of high and low frequencies to create 'image'.

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
For simplification, I'm only considering a 'straight' classical
recording where the purpose is to give the listener as close an
approximation of hearing the piece as one would at a concert.

In that case I'll concede the headphones *may* give a lacklustre
soundstage. I say *may* as it *may* give an exaggerated soundstage which
can actually sound rather nice.

In which case I'm guilty of misunderstanding you, as I assumed by the
'stunning stereo image' of your original post that I replied to that you
meant as lifelike as possible. Of course, this isn't what many either
strive for or desire.

certainly headphones would give an inaccurate soundstage if fed on such
a recording.

You'd not even attempt to do a serious recording of this nature using
headphones as the monitoring unless forced to. Believe me on this. ;-)

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
For simplification, I'm only considering a 'straight' classical
recording where the purpose is to give the listener as close an
approximation of hearing the piece as one would at a concert.

In that case I'll concede the headphones *may* give a lacklustre
soundstage. I say *may* as it *may* give an exaggerated soundstage which
can actually sound rather nice.

In which case I'm guilty of misunderstanding you, as I assumed by the
'stunning stereo image' of your original post that I replied to that you
meant as lifelike as possible. Of course, this isn't what many either
strive for or desire.

certainly headphones would give an inaccurate soundstage if fed on such
a recording.

You'd not even attempt to do a serious recording of this nature using
headphones as the monitoring unless forced to. Believe me on this. ;-)

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:35:11 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

well, it'll affect it, sure - bass being omnidirectional to a far
greater degree than treble - the 'reflection' effects are far more
noticeable in the treble, so any medium that boosts treble or
attenuates bass will score 'well' on imaging (other things being
'correct').

I was trying to be tactful and avoid stirring up a format-bashing war

Just to be clear, I didnt bash any format - just made a point about the
relative abilities of high and low frequencies to create 'image'.



No worries - I never thought you had.

I made that remark as it was impossible to mention anything other than 16/44
digital round here without starting off a mile o' ****e a while back. I have
my own preferences, others have theirs - it's what makes the world (as in
turntable? :-) go round!

My point was merely that well-executed mono (which, perforce, is most likely
to be 'non digital') can provide a listener with an excellent 'soundstage
and that it is well aided and abetted by decent valve amplification.

On this topic (stereo images. mics etc.), here's one for ya - This evening I
have had another visit from my 'audiophile' chum and we've had a right old
time and he's gone off with a bagful of spare LPs (I gotta stop doin'
that!). I played him a record that claims 'The greatest advance in sound
since High Fidelity was invented' and asked his opinion of it. (It is
actually a *staggeringly* good stereo sound!) When he agreed that is was
really quite 'excellent', I was pleased to be able to tell him that it was
recorded over 40 years ago!

Anyhoo, it makes a big point of the mics used:

RCA-44BX
Telefunken U-47
Telefunken KM 56
Telefunken 201
Western Electric 1142A
Altec 639B

and the methodology:

"Recorded on Ampex equipment, re-recorded onto a master disc from a
Fairchild tape machine through Pultec equalizers and a McIntosh 200 watt
amplifier to a specially built cutting head mounted on a Scully automatic
lathe."

It goes on to say:

"The automatic variable pitch mechanism is electronically controlled and
uniquely coupled to an automatic depth control device so that each groove
will be of the optimum depth in relation to its modulation to give the best
tracking." (Needless to say, my V15 creamed through the whole thing from end
to end with a full range of hard-hitting percussive sounds to ear-splitting
spicky trumpet sounds without missing a beat!)

What I want to know is whether or not this kit was indeed special at that
time and were the production techniques anything out of the ordinary? IOW,
was the 'The greatest advance in sound since High Fidelity was invented'
claim in any way justified or was it just a bit of sleeve hype? I have to
say the sound *is* quite remarkable and my mate did repeat his oft-quoted
'what TF have they done with sound reproduction in the last 30 years?' line!

(Wrong group really I know, but it kinda follows on from the 'stereo' and
'mikeing' aspects of this thread......)

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:35:11 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:

well, it'll affect it, sure - bass being omnidirectional to a far
greater degree than treble - the 'reflection' effects are far more
noticeable in the treble, so any medium that boosts treble or
attenuates bass will score 'well' on imaging (other things being
'correct').

I was trying to be tactful and avoid stirring up a format-bashing war

Just to be clear, I didnt bash any format - just made a point about the
relative abilities of high and low frequencies to create 'image'.



No worries - I never thought you had.

I made that remark as it was impossible to mention anything other than 16/44
digital round here without starting off a mile o' ****e a while back. I have
my own preferences, others have theirs - it's what makes the world (as in
turntable? :-) go round!

My point was merely that well-executed mono (which, perforce, is most likely
to be 'non digital') can provide a listener with an excellent 'soundstage
and that it is well aided and abetted by decent valve amplification.

On this topic (stereo images. mics etc.), here's one for ya - This evening I
have had another visit from my 'audiophile' chum and we've had a right old
time and he's gone off with a bagful of spare LPs (I gotta stop doin'
that!). I played him a record that claims 'The greatest advance in sound
since High Fidelity was invented' and asked his opinion of it. (It is
actually a *staggeringly* good stereo sound!) When he agreed that is was
really quite 'excellent', I was pleased to be able to tell him that it was
recorded over 40 years ago!

Anyhoo, it makes a big point of the mics used:

RCA-44BX
Telefunken U-47
Telefunken KM 56
Telefunken 201
Western Electric 1142A
Altec 639B

and the methodology:

"Recorded on Ampex equipment, re-recorded onto a master disc from a
Fairchild tape machine through Pultec equalizers and a McIntosh 200 watt
amplifier to a specially built cutting head mounted on a Scully automatic
lathe."

It goes on to say:

"The automatic variable pitch mechanism is electronically controlled and
uniquely coupled to an automatic depth control device so that each groove
will be of the optimum depth in relation to its modulation to give the best
tracking." (Needless to say, my V15 creamed through the whole thing from end
to end with a full range of hard-hitting percussive sounds to ear-splitting
spicky trumpet sounds without missing a beat!)

What I want to know is whether or not this kit was indeed special at that
time and were the production techniques anything out of the ordinary? IOW,
was the 'The greatest advance in sound since High Fidelity was invented'
claim in any way justified or was it just a bit of sleeve hype? I have to
say the sound *is* quite remarkable and my mate did repeat his oft-quoted
'what TF have they done with sound reproduction in the last 30 years?' line!

(Wrong group really I know, but it kinda follows on from the 'stereo' and
'mikeing' aspects of this thread......)

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:14:20 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

For simplification, I'm only considering a 'straight' classical
recording where the purpose is to give the listener as close an
approximation of hearing the piece as one would at a concert.

In that case I'll concede the headphones *may* give a lacklustre
soundstage. I say *may* as it *may* give an exaggerated soundstage which
can actually sound rather nice.

In which case I'm guilty of misunderstanding you, as I assumed by the
'stunning stereo image' of your original post that I replied to that you
meant as lifelike as possible. Of course, this isn't what many either
strive for or desire.

I think headphones CAN give a stunning (as in lifelike) stereo image. However you seem to be set in thinking of a 'normal' recording so, given that, I'll agree, they wont (necessarily) be as lifelike.

certainly headphones would give an inaccurate soundstage if fed on such
a recording.

You'd not even attempt to do a serious recording of this nature using
headphones as the monitoring unless forced to. Believe me on this. ;-)

but you might well do for a binaural recording...

and what of the situation I described of trying to portray someone listening through a hole in a wall (in, say, a film) ? 100% left or right, which is impossible with a pair of stereo speakers...

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup.