loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Ian Molton wrote:

Pop music is usually multitracked, isn't it? Would two widely-spaced
mics also be 'normal'? Do you mean that normal recording is anything
that isn't binaural?

The vast majority of soud systems is a stereo pair of loudspeakers.
therefore most music will be designed for such.
normal is the 'most usual'
I dont think I can make it clearer, sorry.

I was meaning normal in terms of recording technique, not in terms of the
intended use of the recording after processing...

And a 'normal' stereo recording is 'adjusted' to make up for the
deficiencies of its typical playback medium - stereo speakers.

What is a 'normal' stereo recording and how is it 'adjusted'?



Sliders on a mixing desk - if the ME gets really bored he'll have yer grand
piano motoring backwards and forwards across the speakers.....

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:48:07 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


There is a *lot* more to good stereo than a simple 'ping-pong' effect!
Having said that, although the soundfield tends to follow one around
more, it is also a fallacy to think that mono reproduction isn't
capable of producing the effects of 'left and right', depth and
spatiality, but I will address this elsewhere.

Absolutely agreed. just to be clear:

*nowhere have I said front/rear stereo imaging doesnt work, nor that it
is valueless
*nowhere have I said mono cant image left/right (in fact, I made a point
of the fact that it can).

Also, dare I say it? - the choice of media and type of amplification
is very important to get the best demonstration of the above effects.

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 (which
we have not seen here for a while - possibly the greatest success of the
'new' group, so far), what I was alluding to is that the dreaded valves and
vinyl combo is by far and away the best to demonstrate the potential of a
good mono recording. Of course, it could be argued that it's probably the
*only* way, given that even DAB just about manages to avoid mono
transmission of music (FWIW).....

One of the main reasons for using valve amps is because of their superior
ability to separate point sources of different sounds (instruments, voices)
and portray a sense of 'air', 'space' and 3D 'soundstaging' which helps
avoid the planar 'wall of sound' that I (for one) feel you get with a)
'digital music' and b) SS amplification and which does nothing to help
create a good 'stereo image' other than to fling it high and wide, as I said
earlier. (Whether this is down to a higher content of 2nd order harmonics or
a lower 3rd order harmonic content, as I have seen suggested, I neither know
nor care........)

For me, a perfect demonstration of this is possible with the Chinese (?)
wood blocks that are used in a couple of Laurie Anderson's tracks (there's a
good one on the Mr Heartbreak album) while a perfect demonstration of the
total lack of 'soundstage' can be got from the telly, using external SS
amplification and speakers, even with one's eyes closed......

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:48:07 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


There is a *lot* more to good stereo than a simple 'ping-pong' effect!
Having said that, although the soundfield tends to follow one around
more, it is also a fallacy to think that mono reproduction isn't
capable of producing the effects of 'left and right', depth and
spatiality, but I will address this elsewhere.

Absolutely agreed. just to be clear:

*nowhere have I said front/rear stereo imaging doesnt work, nor that it
is valueless
*nowhere have I said mono cant image left/right (in fact, I made a point
of the fact that it can).

Also, dare I say it? - the choice of media and type of amplification
is very important to get the best demonstration of the above effects.

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 (which
we have not seen here for a while - possibly the greatest success of the
'new' group, so far), what I was alluding to is that the dreaded valves and
vinyl combo is by far and away the best to demonstrate the potential of a
good mono recording. Of course, it could be argued that it's probably the
*only* way, given that even DAB just about manages to avoid mono
transmission of music (FWIW).....

One of the main reasons for using valve amps is because of their superior
ability to separate point sources of different sounds (instruments, voices)
and portray a sense of 'air', 'space' and 3D 'soundstaging' which helps
avoid the planar 'wall of sound' that I (for one) feel you get with a)
'digital music' and b) SS amplification and which does nothing to help
create a good 'stereo image' other than to fling it high and wide, as I said
earlier. (Whether this is down to a higher content of 2nd order harmonics or
a lower 3rd order harmonic content, as I have seen suggested, I neither know
nor care........)

For me, a perfect demonstration of this is possible with the Chinese (?)
wood blocks that are used in a couple of Laurie Anderson's tracks (there's a
good one on the Mr Heartbreak album) while a perfect demonstration of the
total lack of 'soundstage' can be got from the telly, using external SS
amplification and speakers, even with one's eyes closed......

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Surely the idea is for the speakers to reproduce what the mics are
'hearing'?

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said many
times now..

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.

A manufactured performance - made up via multi tracking, as most pop music
is, can be made to sound as the producer etc wishes on either headphones
or speakers.

And with, say, a classical piece, to near reproduce what an audience
would hear in the hall? And in that hall, you'd hear the main sound
from the stage, but other sounds - audience, reverberation etc from
other than the front? If you aren't interested in this information,
why not just stick to mono?

mono can still reproduce reverberation from the back. in fact its not a
bad time to point out that if you are claiming a stereo pair can produce
rear sounds, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a mono
speaker ought to be able to image both left and right in the same
manner. of course it can, but I doubt anyone here would recommend it as
a decent listening experience.

Of course the mono speaker can reproduce all the information fed into it,
but this doesn't include reproducing that directional information
accurately, anymore than a B&W TV set can reproduce a colour picture in
colour when fed with one.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
Surely the idea is for the speakers to reproduce what the mics are
'hearing'?

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said many
times now..

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.

A manufactured performance - made up via multi tracking, as most pop music
is, can be made to sound as the producer etc wishes on either headphones
or speakers.

And with, say, a classical piece, to near reproduce what an audience
would hear in the hall? And in that hall, you'd hear the main sound
from the stage, but other sounds - audience, reverberation etc from
other than the front? If you aren't interested in this information,
why not just stick to mono?

mono can still reproduce reverberation from the back. in fact its not a
bad time to point out that if you are claiming a stereo pair can produce
rear sounds, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that a mono
speaker ought to be able to image both left and right in the same
manner. of course it can, but I doubt anyone here would recommend it as
a decent listening experience.

Of course the mono speaker can reproduce all the information fed into it,
but this doesn't include reproducing that directional information
accurately, anymore than a B&W TV set can reproduce a colour picture in
colour when fed with one.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

And when the voice is 'supposed' to be imnaged directly in front of you
- the centre... what then?

in 'real life' your little head movements might help but on a pair of
speakers you are SOL - the voice is comming from far away on each side.

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.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
But of course. And you'd have to define a point source, since nothing
will be exactly that. A voice might as well be called one too.

And when the voice is 'supposed' to be imnaged directly in front of you
- the centre... what then?

in 'real life' your little head movements might help but on a pair of
speakers you are SOL - the voice is comming from far away on each side.

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.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Wally wrote:
Pop music is usually multitracked, isn't it? Would two widely-spaced
mics also be 'normal'? Do you mean that normal recording is anything
that isn't binaural?

Widely spaced mics give a poor stereo image - you end up with a 'hole' in
the middle of the soundstage. The 'conventional' technique is two
directional microphones pointing forwards but at an angle to one another
of perhaps 30-45 degrees with the actual capsules as close to one another
as physically possible. A single unit stereo mic will be something like
this - although there are many possible permutations.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Wally wrote:
Pop music is usually multitracked, isn't it? Would two widely-spaced
mics also be 'normal'? Do you mean that normal recording is anything
that isn't binaural?

Widely spaced mics give a poor stereo image - you end up with a 'hole' in
the middle of the soundstage. The 'conventional' technique is two
directional microphones pointing forwards but at an angle to one another
of perhaps 30-45 degrees with the actual capsules as close to one another
as physically possible. A single unit stereo mic will be something like
this - although there are many possible permutations.

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on
this point I am with you 100%.

I agree also, but its not entirely wrong to do that. for example,
removing a chimneybreast is NOT a cheap thing to do, and you'd probably
have to bin a lot of your furniture...

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to remove a chimney breast -
'irregularities' in a room's shape are a good thing for sound.

I guess some people just figure they'll ge the best equipment they can,
if they cant do anything about the room

I'd personally rather have a modest Hi-Fi in a good room than the very
best money could buy in a lousy one.

You'll all, I'm sure, know of my preference - everything being equal - of
CD over vinyl.

But that preference is as *nothing* compared to my preference for a good
listening room.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

In article ,
Ian Molton wrote:
I have disagreed with much of what you have said in this thread but on
this point I am with you 100%.

I agree also, but its not entirely wrong to do that. for example,
removing a chimneybreast is NOT a cheap thing to do, and you'd probably
have to bin a lot of your furniture...

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to remove a chimney breast -
'irregularities' in a room's shape are a good thing for sound.

I guess some people just figure they'll ge the best equipment they can,
if they cant do anything about the room

I'd personally rather have a modest Hi-Fi in a good room than the very
best money could buy in a lousy one.

You'll all, I'm sure, know of my preference - everything being equal - of
CD over vinyl.

But that preference is as *nothing* compared to my preference for a good
listening room.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Actually, Im not. my point is that the type of recording used doesnt
reflect the ability of the technology to give a clear stereo image. you
are simply required to feed the correct type of recording into the
respective system in order for it to produce a 'correct' image.


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."

inferring it was the best way to get a stereo image. There's more to stereo
than pumping sound into the ear (otherwise my etymotics would be the
ultimate...) because you then get fed the imaging of someone elses idea of
stereo, not your own with your own ears and head shape.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Actually, Im not. my point is that the type of recording used doesnt
reflect the ability of the technology to give a clear stereo image. you
are simply required to feed the correct type of recording into the
respective system in order for it to produce a 'correct' image.


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."

inferring it was the best way to get a stereo image. There's more to stereo
than pumping sound into the ear (otherwise my etymotics would be the
ultimate...) because you then get fed the imaging of someone elses idea of
stereo, not your own with your own ears and head shape.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.

Ahhh yes, B&O - Hifi for the deaf.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

Just about every single reply here is simply pointing out the poor
acoustics of the average listening room. It amazes me that people will
spend so much on amps and speakers, but baulk at sorting room acoustics. I
call it the B & O syndrome.

Ahhh yes, B&O - Hifi for the deaf.

loudspeaker stereo imaging
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:36:59 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said
many times now..

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.

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

--
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 21:36:59 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

Would rather depend on the placement of the mics, as has been said
many times now..

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.

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

--
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 21:56:50 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

You'll all, I'm sure, know of my preference - everything being equal - of
CD over vinyl.

Same here.

But that preference is as *nothing* compared to my preference for a good
listening room.

If you can get your hands on one, sure.

I cant, so I'll settle for nice equipment...

--
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 21:56:50 +0000 (GMT)
Dave Plowman wrote:

You'll all, I'm sure, know of my preference - everything being equal - of
CD over vinyl.

Same here.

But that preference is as *nothing* compared to my preference for a good
listening room.

If you can get your hands on one, sure.

I cant, so I'll settle for nice equipment...

--
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 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 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.

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.