Do we use our ears?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Well all you need to do to relive the experience is use a decent surround set-up and replay them. As an example get out the SACD's of the 3 channel Living Presense recordings and have a listen. They surely do sound fantastic.
Rob
Exactly. Yet there's a lot of resistance to that 3-channel alternative from us audiophiles.
And just to make matters clear, I include myself when I write "people" in the earlier posts, so to make it crystal clear, I've changed the phrasing to:
So to answer the question: No, we do not listen with our ears, but with our pre-programmed expectations.
And this is just one of legion examples of the same - it's quite OK, it's just the way we relate to stimuli, and it makes us individual. That's cool.
So there was 3-channel stereo back in the day and perhaps some recordings are available, but they aren't today, so bringing it up is a moot point and better discussed in a dedicated thread. I don't think it has anything to do with not using our ears.
Disagree
Two channel is exactly how our brains process sound.
I recently attended a vocal and piano recital in a very wide room. The piano was stage right, the vocalists were stage left.
I closed my eyes and I heard distinctly from the right the piano and distinctly from the left the vocalists. There was a bit of blending in the middle.
No amplification by the way.
The MOST artificial sound I have ever heard is high end multi channel.
Mono to be is utterly a joke. Baby boomers who grew up on early mono rock n roll records still cling to it.
Two channel is not in any way a compromise. There seems to be this myth that we process sound in some sort of 360 degree manner.
Two channel is exactly how our brains process sound.
I recently attended a vocal and piano recital in a very wide room. The piano was stage right, the vocalists were stage left.
I closed my eyes and I heard distinctly from the right the piano and distinctly from the left the vocalists. There was a bit of blending in the middle.
No amplification by the way.
The MOST artificial sound I have ever heard is high end multi channel.
Mono to be is utterly a joke. Baby boomers who grew up on early mono rock n roll records still cling to it.
Two channel is not in any way a compromise. There seems to be this myth that we process sound in some sort of 360 degree manner.
Bruce B
WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member
I've never experienced listening to a a 3-track tape, so I can't concur. However, if I'm ever in Seattle...mind if I give you a call so that I can?
Applying 3-channel techniques today would be very simple, and once savored, there's really no comparison.
The point is that we are not really listening with our ears in a mode where we are true judges of the experience. If so, then how on earth could people be ecstatic about early 78 rpm Shellac, with steel styli depressing at 8 pounds onto the poor record, and the "amplification" happening through a funnel? The mind added what was missing ...
Which we keep doing - also aided by our personal predilections, dislikes and prejudices. How else to account for people judging a set-up inferior because of the music that's being played on it, rather than by how that music is recreated?
It's not a big issue, but it's fun to register how incensed people become. Again - it's Bob Ohlsson, a famous Motown engineer, pointing out the AES-test setup that clearly demonstrated what was lost because of market expediency. (Vinyl's two-channel, too expensive to make a commercially available consumer 3-channel product, the higher cost of tape, the faster vinyl pressing ...) One of many instances where we end up with an inferior result because we either accommodate to inferiority, or don't know any better.
The point is that we are not really listening with our ears in a mode where we are true judges of the experience. If so, then how on earth could people be ecstatic about early 78 rpm Shellac, with steel styli depressing at 8 pounds onto the poor record, and the "amplification" happening through a funnel? The mind added what was missing ...
Which we keep doing - also aided by our personal predilections, dislikes and prejudices. How else to account for people judging a set-up inferior because of the music that's being played on it, rather than by how that music is recreated?
It's not a big issue, but it's fun to register how incensed people become. Again - it's Bob Ohlsson, a famous Motown engineer, pointing out the AES-test setup that clearly demonstrated what was lost because of market expediency. (Vinyl's two-channel, too expensive to make a commercially available consumer 3-channel product, the higher cost of tape, the faster vinyl pressing ...) One of many instances where we end up with an inferior result because we either accommodate to inferiority, or don't know any better.
i have lots of 3-channel SACD's and agree 3 channel is good; but Soundproof's comments that....
is total baloney. i think he made that stab to grab a reaction, and then used the 3-channel idea for cover. lots of 'stab and slide' going on around here lately.
there is not a big difference between 2 and 3 channel listening. 3 can be better, but give me the right 2 channel and i'll prefer it to moderate 3-channel efforts. and how much 3 channel software can you find? it's not real world. and i've done high level multi-channel.....the theory does not match the reality.
"pre-programmed expectations" relating to 2-channel listening......that kind of comment makes me want to find another forum.
is total baloney. i think he made that stab to grab a reaction, and then used the 3-channel idea for cover. lots of 'stab and slide' going on around here lately.
there is not a big difference between 2 and 3 channel listening. 3 can be better, but give me the right 2 channel and i'll prefer it to moderate 3-channel efforts. and how much 3 channel software can you find? it's not real world. and i've done high level multi-channel.....the theory does not match the reality.
"pre-programmed expectations" relating to 2-channel listening......that kind of comment makes me want to find another forum.
Last edited:
i prefer the DCC Nat King Cole 33 rpm vinyl sourced from the 2-track tapes, to the AP 45 rpm versions sourced from the 3-track tapes.
i've not heard the 3 track tapes so i can't directly comment on those.
i have lots of 3-channel SACD's and agree 3 channel is good; but Soundproof's comments that....
is total baloney. i think he made that stab to grab a reaction, and then used the 3-channel idea for cover. there is not a big difference between 2 and 3 channel listening. 3 can be better, but give me the right 2 channel and i'll prefer it to moderate 3-channel efforts. and how much 3 channel software can you find? it's not real world.
"pre-programmed expectations" relating to 2-channel listening......that kind of comment makes me want to find another forum.
I agree with you, Mike. Anyone who listens with "pre-programmed expectations" isn't listening at all, IMHO. Furthermore, to state that all of us do this is preposterous. Maybe Soundproof does do this, which is a pity as IF that is the case, that would lead him to dismiss much great music and gear
. I guess HMMV
I agree with you, Mike. Anyone who listens with "pre-programmed expectations" isn't listening at all, IMHO. Furthermore, to state that all of us do this is preposterous. Maybe Soundproof does do this, which is a pity as IF that is the case, that would lead him to dismiss much great music and gear
Bingo!
I find the tone of this thread and several other recent threads really depressing. Personally, I am unable to fathom why some people are intolerant of someone else enjoying music and audio if it differs from their own unique perspective. There is a not so fine line between passion and close minded intolerance that IMO, is being crossed repeatedly when once is way too often.
Just for the record I
a) rarely buy or sell equipment
b) don't care if you get your rocks off buying, selling and listening to all manner of audio equipment
c) enjoy my system even though at best, it's only a pale facimile of the real thing
d) listen to all kinds of live music
e) spend an inordinate amount of time on music websites and trying to score LPs on Ebay
End of rant.
Just for the record I
a) rarely buy or sell equipment
b) don't care if you get your rocks off buying, selling and listening to all manner of audio equipment
c) enjoy my system even though at best, it's only a pale facimile of the real thing
d) listen to all kinds of live music
e) spend an inordinate amount of time on music websites and trying to score LPs on Ebay
End of rant.
I don't quite understand why I would need anything "for cover," Mr. Lavigne? 3-channel/2-channel is just one of many dimensions where actual experience falls short of what's possible - but we are very good at adapting to conditions. When in our cars, we listen with our memories, given the amount of ambient noise present - the music just cues our memory of the music, and the brain supplies the rest.
We are masters at deluding ourselves when listening, thinking we are listening to one format/signal/chain/component, when it's a completely different one we are hearing, for instance. Lots of instances of that happening.
We are masters at deluding ourselves when listening, thinking we are listening to one format/signal/chain/component, when it's a completely different one we are hearing, for instance. Lots of instances of that happening.
The only thing I ever bought sight unseen was the Oppo DV-980H. No one I knew had one, but I felt comfortable enough with the reviews and the return policy of our local Canadian distributor to take a chance.
multi-channel and 3 channel are vastly different animals. apples and oranges.
one (3 channel) can be analog, the other (5.1) only digital as a consumer format. and experiencing 3 channel as a consumer means the SACD format. after 18 months of having multi-channel executued at a high level in my system; i fired it! even 3-channel SACD's did not keep up with the overall performance of vinyl 2-channel in my system. the additional fidelity of the vinyl overcame the slight advantage of the 3rd center channel. combine that with 10,000+ Lps and 3-channel and multi-channel got the boot. and the full 5.1 channel did not come close to the vinyl. the vinyl out-multi-channeled the multi-channel.
no doubt if you have a 3 channel 15ips 1/2" RTR tape player i'll agree that will have an advantage over the 2-channel. but there are very few with that as an option to listen to. and very tiny samples of software to listen to on it.
While I totally agree that 3-channel and multi-channel "are vastly different animals, apples and oranges," I have no idea why you make that point relative to my comment.
because you used multi-channel as your justification for your comment of 'pre-programmed expectations', not 3-channel, and particularly not early 50's and 60's 3-channel analog recordings.
i guess we can give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions; maybe describe your 3 channel analog system along with sources and software that you have used to form these opinions so we can all understand how unfair i was in my assumptions.
You'll have to point out exactly where I have mentioned "multi-channel" in this thread, beyond where I asked you to clarify that point. You must have pulled that out of some preconceived notion as to what you thought I was writing.
As to my intentions, they are quite benign, though I do sense some mystifying push-back here. As well as the standard "if Soundproof listens in that way, then pity the fool."
Our sense of hearing is easily manipulated, and we do quite a bit of the manipulation ourselves.
Soundproof, surely when you post a blanket statement such as this, you should expect a certain amount of 'push back'
. I assumed that your intentions were benign, but for the life of me, I couldn't understand what your post had to do with my OP. Secondly, it would seem to me that IF you are saying that everyone has a "pre-programmed' expectation of what all new gear is going to sound like, then you are way out of line, obviously, just IMHO.Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |