An illusion is precisely what it is. It may be worth you doing some reading about how hearing works!
For example, if you look up stereo on Wikipedia it uses the word 'illusion' in its first sentence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound
SRX Vinyl 2019 Blue Note Reissues, total Audiophile P.O.SHIT!!
- Thread starter ddk
- Start date
An illusion is precisely what it is. It may be worth you doing some reading about how hearing works!
For example, if you look up stereo on Wikipedia it uses the word 'illusion' in its first sentence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound
The characteristics the room would be useless and ignored if your brain was not able to process it, using its experience with similar situations. The sound engineers add microphones and process the signal to enhance depth.
You are being very general here. I have hundreds of live recordings that were just captured with 2-3 microphones to either cassette, reel or digital tape. No post processing. These recordings sound different when recorded in different buildings.
I really don't know what you are saying about one's brain being able to process it.
The link I posted above is a good starting point if you want to understand how this works.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
All I was saying is that a good stereo recording played back on good system will produce a sound stage different than a mono one. If you think that is fake or an illusion, so be it. There are some recordings that sound better to me in stereo.
I also have hundreds of live recordings with no processing which give me a sense of the room in which they were recorded. If that is fake too, oh well.
All I was saying is that a good stereo recording played back on good system will produce a sound stage different than a mono one. If you think that is fake or an illusion, so be it. There are some recordings that sound better to me in stereo.
I also have hundreds of live recordings with no processing which give me a sense of the room in which they were recorded. If that is fake too, oh well.
Well obviously mono and stereo sound different and no-one is arguing anything to the contrary.
And I really don't think 'that's all you were saying'. What you seem to be in denial about is that soundstage is largely in the mind, an illusion caused by electronic trickery. Pleasant though such an illusion can be with the right equipment and a bit of imagination to appreciate it.
I am not in denial. I have heard it. I have heard audience recordings of concerts that I have attended. There is no trickery here. 2 mics set up in the audience recording the show and then played back later.
Where is the trickery in that?
Mono vs. Stereo preference may just be psychoacoustic variation in individuals. I would never hazard the proposition that one is 'better' than the other per se, that gets into religious territory. Of course 'really' to appreciate mono, one needs an exclusive and dedicated mono setup, so it gets into the fiddle dee dee of country club squabbling over chromed objects d' highendcost.
I have the mono and the stereo versions of 'Night At The Blackhawk', and suffice it to say they are different experiences from each other. Sure, if you want a kind of drilled down intensity to the sound, the mono is nice. However, when you hear the distribution and play of the instruments in stereo, you realize that the stereo version gives a much better impression of the subtle way the musicians interact with each other. The spatial distribution is necessary for that. Horses for courses.
I have the mono and the stereo versions of 'Night At The Blackhawk', and suffice it to say they are different experiences from each other. Sure, if you want a kind of drilled down intensity to the sound, the mono is nice. However, when you hear the distribution and play of the instruments in stereo, you realize that the stereo version gives a much better impression of the subtle way the musicians interact with each other. The spatial distribution is necessary for that. Horses for courses.
The trickery is that at home you aren't in a concert, and your brain is assembling the output of two recorded channels through two loudspeakers to give you the illusion of a soundstage.
Jeeez I can't tell here if you are acting dumb/trolling or if you just don't understand a simple concept?
Jeeez I’d say that someone who has been a member of this board for less than a month and is making that kind of very rude comment toward someone who has been a member for more than 7 years is probably more likely to be considered the troll. But hey, rock out with your big ego man. You do you.
I do thinking this is getting monotonous and people are winding each other up, so let's step back and listen to our illusions.
Last edited:
Honestly, you are the troll. Obviously our brains are processing the sound and my room isn't the same as the hall in which it was recorded.
For that matter this holds true for 99% of the stuff one listens to.
Maybe being that you are new here you should approach others with a bit less attitude.
It is not a simple concept, but it is fundamental to debate such soundstage issues. It explains why, stereo, such a flawed system can be so successful, although in part unpredictable and listener dependent in many aspects. We debated the "illusion" long ago in WBF, others members and I wrote some long posts on it. However I do not feel happy to re-enter the subject in an agresive ambient.
I will just quote from the F. Toole book:
Distance— a component of a recording delivered to only a single loudspeaker is perceived at the distance of that loudspeaker. If simulated or real reflections of that sound are added, it is possible to create the illusion of greater distance. It is exciting to perceive sounds originating outside the boundaries of a room or car. Under special conditions, it is also possible to create the impression of great intimacy, of proximity; it is also a worthy attention-getting device. However, it is a complicated perception, involving learning and adaptation in real circumstances which makes creating illusions that are reliably perceived especially difficult.
Stage coherence isn't really possible with early "stereo" that lacked crossfeed. I can certainly see the preference for good mono instead. It just depends. Trios in pseudo stereo work fine. And despite its depth, mono's comparatively compressed width just doesn't do it for me either. Oh, and if stereo is an illusion, then mono's depth is likely also fake. Either way, I still prefer stereo, even bad stereo. Horses for courses.
Last edited:
One is either mature or infantile the betwixt is a chasm of woe;
Kindest regards,G.
Kindest regards,G.
Dear General,
Your Oxford English is beyond me sir. But that is one good sounding system. Vintage and oldrecords keep attracting me more and more. They could really do a time warp transporting a listener to different places when done right.
Kindest regards,
Tang