What's wrong with stereo?

[cjfrbw]

Explaining ambience to audiophiles is an exercise in frustration. I got so tired of repeating myself about it that I wrote a monograph, which I have since lost or is buried in an old computer, and usually just stopped talking about it.

There is nothing "wrong" with stereo sound. Standard stereo sound can be great to listen to. However two speaker sound tends to be incomplete, a sort of dissected partial experience due to its inherent limitations.

I am of the opinion that a lot of audiophile nervosa of two channel listeners is a result of this partial experience that they try to resolve by improving the component chain without ever addressing the fundamental limitations of two channel sound. It would be a lot cheaper to implement a basic, effective ambience recovery system using common speakers than trying to achieve the impossible with increasingly expensive two channel systems.

Most ambience is edited out of stereo sound because it creates an unnatural, megaphone like wind tunnel effect when projected from the front speakers. Two channel stereo is mostly direct sound with an often reasonably nice sound stage.

A good room will often fill in the ambience, but tends to be a one size fits all solution to the vast array of music and acoustics present in recordings and generally only has short reflections that the ear interprets as part of the main stereo image rather than a larger acousitc.

I have been using ambient recovery/synthesis since the late 70's using the Advent SoundSpace control and four large Advent speakers, at a time when I could barely afford food. I have used ambient recovery in my stereo systems ever since.

Most implementations of ambient recovery require care and feeding of multiple speakers and amplifiers. The irony is that home theater provides these, but is used instead for sonic ping pong and sound effects.

I do find that an ambient sound field is much more immersive and involving than "straight stereo", that is why I have used it for decades, but it is a tough sell. Trying to get most audiophiles past the "Haas effect" and the idea of largely unphased surround ambience or discussions of acoustics is usually more trouble than it is worth, and most remain unconvinced anyway, clinging to the idea that two speakers can effectively convey both a primary as well as secondary and tertiary acoustics to create larger space than the listening room.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

This is offered not to inflame but to amuse:

John Curl exhumed the following quote from a mid-1960s letter to Stereophile, originally published in Vol. No. 4: "Sirs: I say that stereo is a first class fake and the biggest fraud ever put out by American Mfr. I have never found anyone who knows audio engineering or music that did not agree with this. All those who disagree just don't know enough to know the truth or they are liars engaged in selling stereo equipment. The only reason that most people have gone for stereo is that they have not had time, and will not take the time to get all the facts, so they are victims of advertising, the biggest con game in the world, and I am not so sure that they don't deserve what they get."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Gregadd]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/ There's always a skeptic.

 

[MylesBAstor]

This is offered not to inflame but to amuse:

John Curl exhumed the following quote from a mid-1960s letter to Stereophile, originally published in Vol. No. 4: "Sirs: I say that stereo is a first class fake and the biggest fraud ever put out by American Mfr. I have never found anyone who knows audio engineering or music that did not agree with this. All those who disagree just don't know enough to know the truth or they are liars engaged in selling stereo equipment. The only reason that most people have gone for stereo is that they have not had time, and will not take the time to get all the facts, so they are victims of advertising, the biggest con game in the world, and I am not so sure that they don't deserve what they get."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Yes I have friends who still swear by mono recordings sounding better, esp in the case of solo instruments like a guitar. Ivor swore by mono recordings! Me can't quite agree because always hear a wooden, hollow sound to these monos. Maybe if I heard them with a mono cartridges, they would sound better!

 

[fas42]

It is hard to make almost any domestic room sound like a concert hall.

What I have experienced when my system works at the highest level is the illusion that the end wall effectively becomes an open space, and the listening environment becomes an extension of the performance area. The "event" does not happen in my room, I never get images of the performers, singers or instruments in front of, or even between the speakers; they are always some distance beyond the speakers. To explain it another way, the illusion matches quite precisely how it would sound if you transported your room/house to the middle of the concert hall, and then sliced off the wall behind the speakers. You would hear all the sound echoes and ambience of that concert hall clearly, since you have an "open window" to the space, and there would be an added contribution for you from the fact that you're sitting with walls to the side and back, typically. But, the acoustic of the hall would certainly reign supreme in such a situation.

Frank

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Maybe if I heard them with a mono cartridges, they would sound better!

Try using one ear!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

What I have experienced when my system works at the highest level is the illusion that the end wall effectively becomes an open space, and the listening environment becomes an extension of the performance area. The "event" does not happen in my room, I never get images of the performers, singers or instruments in front of, or even between the speakers; they are always some distance beyond the speakers. To explain it another way, the illusion matches quite precisely how it would sound if you transported your room/house to the middle of the concert hall, and then sliced off the wall behind the speakers. You would hear all the sound echoes and ambience of that concert hall clearly, since you have an "open window" to the space, and there would be an added contribution for you from the fact that you're sitting with walls to the side and back, typically. But, the acoustic of the hall would certainly reign supreme in such a situation.

I have had such illusions but they never get me far into the concert hall with stereo. I am always somewhat aware of the lack of a large acoustic space behind me, regardless of how large the listening room is.

 

[Steve williams]

Try using one ear!

Now that's funny

 

[MylesBAstor]

I have had such illusions but they never get me far into the concert hall with stereo. I am always somewhat aware of the lack of a large acoustic space behind me, regardless of how large the listening room is.

Try a top notch original Haddy, Wallace and Wilkinson Decca opera recording. Or you really want to hear hall sound, try the RR Arnold Overtures on 15 ips tape. There's more than enough hall there for even the most jaded MC enthusiast

You have far more experience than I with MC Kal, but everytime I hear MC it sounds totally unnatural to me. Maybe you're more immersed in the sound but everything seems paper thin to me, not unlike today's 3D movies. Not like anything I've ever experienced live; it's wowy, zowy, and spectacular but real?

 

[kach22i]

Most instruments are directional (in varying degrees) but they do come from just one spot in space. The rest of the sound comes from the room (stage, whatever).

Let's go though a list of instruments to test this idea. I attempt this because I believe most instruments are rather omni direction with spherical sound waves. This would account for the engagement of adjacent room surfaces which you mention.

Strings: the violin, viola, cello, and bass
I'd argue that the body sings and resonates creating much of the sound, but the strings are also generating spherical sound wave patterns as they radiate out.

Woodwinds: flute, oboe, clarinet, and bassoon.
The bell mouth end on most of these are directional, not so much with the flute though. It seems to spherically radiate somewhat, they all do somewhat really. I'd call it near 50/50 but will admit I'm wrong if someone can post/link something on the topic.

Brass: trumpet, French horn, trombone, and tuba.
I'd say these share something with the above, but the larger and lower the frequency, the more spherical or omni-directional they act. Still, I know which end is the loud end, so I'll stick in the 50/50 range.

Percussion: drums of all sizes and kinds, Timpani, cymbals, gongs, xylophone
Again we seem frequency dependent, but these in practice are the most omni-directional of the lot.

List source:
http://cnx.org/content/m11897/latest/

.....................................................................................

Put them all together within an acoustical shell or bandshell and it's a furry thing, all bundled up and not directional at all other than you know the band is in front of you.

This argument may give credence to omni-directional speakers, dipoles, bi-poles, tension membrane/bending wave loudspeakers and the like.

 

[jazdoc]

Yes I have friends who still swear by mono recordings sounding better, esp in the case of solo instruments like a guitar. Ivor swore by mono recordings! Me can't quite agree because always hear a wooden, hollow sound to these monos. Maybe if I heard them with a mono cartridges, they would sound better!

Myles,
I have many older jazz recordings in both stereo and mono. With rare exceptions, the mono recordings almost always sound better. This isn't surprising; the musicians and engineers knew and felt comfortable with mono and could optimize the sound quality. Stereo was new and the techniques had yet to be worked out. Even recordings by labels most fanatical about sound quality such as Contemporary, the mono release sounds much more realistic than its stereo counterpart.

This is also true for many pop/rock recordings in the 1950's and 1960's. The Beatles engineer, Geoffrey Emerick wrote in great detail ("Here, There, Everywhere") how the Beatles records up to and including Sgt. Pepper were optimized for mono. Stereo was a marketing afterthought and oft times hurriedly mixed as a release deadline approached. I have yet to hear a stereo release rival an early Parlophone pressing of Rubber Soul, Help! or Revolver. The Stones records up to Exile on Main Street are uniformly better in mono (look for the early red label, un-boxed Deccas). Now no one would consider the early Stone's LPs audiophile quality, but the mono releases of Aftermath, Let It Bleed, and Beggar's Banquet are remarkably better than the stereo releases.

I do think that the advantage of mono is more pronounced with small jazz ensembles and chamber music. Stereo is absolutely essential for capturing the essence of symphonic music.

You haven't experienced mono until you've heard it with a dedicated cartridge. The noise floor drops and many of the pops/ticks in the vertical plane of the groove are no longer tracked. Good mono recordings have great front/back image depth. To my ears, a good mono recording immerses me in the tonal quality and emotion of the music...

Obviously, stereo has been and will continue to be the standard for the foreseeable future. I've always been sorry that multi-channel music never made a commercial go of it. I own some stereo recordings that are eerie good, but all too often the spatial effects are exaggerated, i.e. the drummer with a 15' wingspan playing cymbals in both channels and detracts from enjoying the recording.

As always, one man's opinion...YMMV, etc.

 

[DonH50]

I at least mildly disagree with most of that but haven't time to follow up in detail... Strings emit strongly from the strings and body cavity (hole), woodwinds and brass are pretty highly directional (flute from the mouthpiece and end hole, making them a pain to close mic for soloists), drums least directional due to placement and by their physical design. This is only near the instrument, of course; from the audience you don't notice since it all goes forward (except the French horns, of course ). From that standpoint we agree; 30 feet (10m) out, the room's the thing.

Anybody sitting in an orchestra or band can tell you pretty quickly which instruments they do not want to be in front of (me the trumpet player raises hand; the bassoons and clarinets are careful to move a little if they are in the direct line of fire on a big brassy piece, or even if I am playing solo on picc tpt).

I don't really care for omnidirectional speakers, rather deal with the ambiance in the recording (the old source vs. playback argument). To me, omni's tend to blur the image and give a falsely big soundstage, though it does sound impressive. At least initially, until you realize violins aren't eight feet wide...

YMMV - Don (have to run to orchestra rehearsal, as a matter of fact!)

 

[mep]

I own several jazz mono recordings and I think they all sound great. I don’t have a mono cartridge and yet all of my LPs are very quiet. The imaging from mono is interesting. Sometimes you almost feel like you are getting a fairly big spread and not just hearing pinpoint images coming from the between your speakers. And like Doc, I’m no fan of 15’ drum kits that you sometimes hear in stereo and aren’t realistic by anyone’s standards.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Try a top notch original Haddy, Wallace and Wilkinson Decca opera recording. Or you really want to hear hall sound, try the RR Arnold Overtures on 15 ips tape. There's more than enough hall there for even the most jaded MC enthusiast

Perhaps but its not in the right place.

You have far more experience than I with MC Kal, but everytime I hear MC it sounds totally unnatural to me. Maybe you're more immersed in the sound but everything seems paper thin to me, not unlike today's 3D movies. Not like anything I've ever experienced live; it's wowy, zowy, and spectacular but real?

The problem is hearing MCH. I have only heard it in a few places and none of them were at dealers (I know that) and I cannot recall any at shows. I remember Peter McGrath bemoaning the situation some years back and nothing has changed.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I own several jazz mono recordings and I think they all sound great. I don’t have a mono cartridge and yet all of my LPs are very quiet. The imaging from mono is interesting. Sometimes you almost feel like you are getting a fairly big spread and not just hearing pinpoint images coming from the between your speakers. And like Doc, I’m no fan of 15’ drum kits that you sometimes hear in stereo and aren’t realistic by anyone’s standards.

If you get a chance, listen to the TTP release of Sonny Rollin's Saxophone Colossus. The spread is very un mono-ish.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Perhaps but its not in the right place.

You're welcome to visit and listen to the stereo RR tape Tell me where it is. All I can tell you is that you can hear the all the hall boundaries and reflections, though one might attribute that somewhat to KOJ use of touch up mikes. But we're talking a great hall here too.

 

[treitz3]

I own some stereo recordings that are eerie good, but all too often the spatial effects are exaggerated, i.e. the drummer with a 15' wingspan playing cymbals in both channels and detracts from enjoying the recording.

As always, one man's opinion...YMMV, etc.

Please allow me to slide in here for just one second if those who are involved in this discussion don't mind. This statement caught my attention like a baseball bat to the head. I have always wondered why, in stereo recordings, they do this. I have some recordings to where everybody is where they are supposed to be on all 3-D aspects [or the closest approximation stereo can provide], yet the drums are not. Yes, on some of those same recordings, you can almost point a laser to where the kick drums are in relation to the top hat, the high hat, the tom drum, etc. and when a drum roll happens you can almost reach out and say that each specific drum is "here" *points finger at image* but when comparing the drums to the rest of the playing field, the drums almost always take the entire scope of the sound stage. When in reality, they may only take up 1/3 to a 1/4 of the sound stage. Think "Little Feat", Waiting for Columbus.

So with that said, it's just not one man's opinion. This is something that has distracted me since I was seemingly knee high to a duck. Personally, I just so happen to agree and IMO, you are correct. It does detract from the recording. Now, as to whether that is a fault of the "stereo" or the recording? That is something that I can not answer. I do, however, happen to agree with you on this matter.

I think I'll slide back out now....

 

[cjfrbw]

It is impossible for two front channels to "hear the hall". The best you can do in this regard is to present some stage depth with an attenuated hall reflection which is inconspicuous and adds a bit of echo to the stage presence.

This mixture of primary sound and brining so that it plays on two channels without sounding unnatural is kind of an art in the mix down and microphoning. This is because un-phased sound presented through the front two speakers can only be heard as a sonic halo around the primary sound as a tunnel effect, not properly dispersed into the listening area as is heard in a natural space.

If an ambience system calls attention to itself, it is not properly set up.

The couple of mono vinyls I have compared to the stereo sound good. Mono substitutes intensity for reality, much like very close-miked instrumentals and vocals have a quality of hyper-reality. I would call that a matter of listening preference i.e. intensity vs. spatial reality. I don't have a mono cartridge. It seems to be the high fashion in vinyl to have an expensive mono cartridge, which just sounds like exclusionary bullsh** to me. I really wonder how many audiophiles are actually routinely listening to mono sources rather than just commenting on them.

However, I still prefer the stereo mixes. Mono "Surrealistic Pillow" is nice because the vocals are so intense. A mono Henry Mancini "Peter Gunn" on RCA, however, is just killed by the stereo version.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I at least mildly disagree with most of that but haven't time to follow up in detail... Strings emit strongly from the strings and body cavity (hole), woodwinds and brass are pretty highly directional (flute from the mouthpiece and end hole, making them a pain to close mic for soloists), drums least directional due to placement and by their physical design. This is only near the instrument, of course; from the audience you don't notice since it all goes forward (except the French horns, of course ). From that standpoint we agree; 30 feet (10m) out, the room's the thing.

Anybody sitting in an orchestra or band can tell you pretty quickly which instruments they do not want to be in front of (me the trumpet player raises hand; the bassoons and clarinets are careful to move a little if they are in the direct line of fire on a big brassy piece, or even if I am playing solo on picc tpt).

I don't really care for omnidirectional speakers, rather deal with the ambiance in the recording (the old source vs. playback argument). To me, omni's tend to blur the image and give a falsely big soundstage, though it does sound impressive. At least initially, until you realize violins aren't eight feet wide...

YMMV - Don (have to run to orchestra rehearsal, as a matter of fact!)

If you want to see the directional patterns of musical instruments, see Harry F. Olson: Music, Physics and Engineering (formerly Musical Engineering), 2nd Ed., Dover Publications, Old Colony, pgs. 231-241. There's also a great description of how each instrument is constructed and works along with its fundamentals and overtones.

From John Borwick: Microphones: Technology and Technique, Focal Press, 1990.

pg. 178-79.

Directivity

Because of their often complex shapes, many musical instruments radiate sounds in a directional manner which varies so much with frequency as almost to defy analysis. Considerable experience is therefore needed-plus a live balance rehearsal-if the angular relationship between a solo instruments and the microphone is to be adjusted for optimum pick-up of the peak energy and the characteristic timbre.

An intelligent guess as to an instrument's basic directional radiation pattern behaviour can, of course, be made from a knowledge of the range of fundamental frequencies (and therefore wavelength) which it produces in relationship to its physical diameter D. As discussed in Chapter 2, so long as D/wavelength is less than about 0.1, the instrument will radiate almost equally in all directions. As D/wavelength increases for higher frequencies, the radiation pattern progressively narrows. For the highest frequencies the radiated energy will be confined to a narrow beam centred on the main axis. Positioning a microphone on this axis may seem the obvious approach for best balance. However, some instruments such as the violin comprise twin radiating surfaces (the front and back) separated by a time lag, and so the true axis is not the physical one but is skewed at some angle which varies with frequency.

As a rule, putting the microphone precisely on-axis does introduce problems since the highest overtones and such unwanted accompaniments as a finger squeaks from a guitar or wind noise from a trumpet may appear on-axis at a much higher relative level than they are usually heard by the audience. It also presupposes that the performer will keep the instrument virtually motionless while playing [I hear this on so many recordings esp. solo cello pieces and it drives me nuts!--MBA]; otherwise any slight movement may make a considerable difference to both level and timbre, particularly in the case of close-miking. For various reasons a slightly off-axis microphone position is usually best, at least where classical music is concerned.

 

[NorthStar]

I have had such illusions but they never get me far into the concert hall with stereo. I am always somewhat aware of the lack of a large acoustic space behind me, regardless of how large the listening room is.

Kal, ever sat at the very back of a concert hall?