What's wrong with stereo?
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
That's part of it. I want to state again that I do not have much motivation for extensive involvement in this thread.
As a follow up, something simple and straightforward: Kitaro, ambient music. This should throw up a massive soundstage behind the speakers: it's all artificial, of course, but the effect should be clearly there. The better the system the bigger this becomes, and at a good volume should completely take over the house, as it projects forward. The complexity of the texturing should be quite overwhelming at these higher sound levels, and the concept of whether it is MCH or stereo should seem meaningless ...
Frank
Frank
Wherever the spirit moves me. This thread does not induce me to discussion because I do not think there is anything wrong with stereo. It is what it is. Also, I have discussed and written about the technical and esthetic advantages of multichannel many times already.
I am with Kal on this.. There is nothing inherently wrong with Stereo. it is a compromise as everything in life. Within its limitation it does provide surprisingly good results, the same way a cellphone despite its abysmally low fidelity compared to any Hi-Fi system provide good results, enough in most cases to recognize people voice...
TO that extent stereo provides a modicum of hall ambiance. The best way to capture however a sonic even is through mufti-channel. Present days realization are all over the map and given the public indifference to music MC (the want HT multichannel though) I am reasonably certain we will not see a lot more MC recording (thus systems) in the here and now. It should be understood that two front speakers cannot adequate the musical field we experience in a live event and that what 2-ch stereo attempts and fail at. MC is not perfect but well done it surpasses 2-ch as it should be.
TO that extent stereo provides a modicum of hall ambiance. The best way to capture however a sonic even is through mufti-channel. Present days realization are all over the map and given the public indifference to music MC (the want HT multichannel though) I am reasonably certain we will not see a lot more MC recording (thus systems) in the here and now. It should be understood that two front speakers cannot adequate the musical field we experience in a live event and that what 2-ch stereo attempts and fail at. MC is not perfect but well done it surpasses 2-ch as it should be.
Last edited:
Well I think the questions is, as raised earlier, is what if we had really gone with three channel instead of two channel? That's why many of the early stereo recordings were done in three channel (and then had to be mixed to two channel for stereo
).
That is a great question. It also could be broken down to many so-to-speak smaller questions (subparts?) that could be interesting threads all on their own.
That is a great question and I have 2 answers:Well I think the questions is, as raised earlier, is what if we had really gone with three channel instead of two channel? That's why many of the early stereo recordings were done in three channel (and then had to be mixed to two channel for stereo
1. Stereo would be even better as those of us who have listened to classic 3 channel recordings can attest.
2. It would still not endow stereo with the additional capabilities possible with additional channels.
Taurus, my good fellow -- I have it on good authority that I am an almost perfect representative of that race; you know, stubborn as a bull, etc, etc ...
Frank
Same here. ...Which month Frank? ...April myself.
Taurus people are very practical and hard workers with a lot of stamina (energy & endurance).
They are also down to earth! :b
I have had the opportunity to make some observations on a trinaural setup and while some folks liked it, I did not. Stereo did a better job of imaging. Much better in my book. We had a handful of trinaural recordings and the one thing I kept hearing [quite often] was the transfer of the image of the human voice from R to center and back [for example and same for the L channel/center] while the physical location of the singer did not move that much, nor did they move that quickly. While it did some things well, this alone was too much of a distraction for me. I tried listening to it again over the course of a couple of days and my observations were consistent. After double checking and verifying that all phases were in fact correct and the trinaural system was hooked up properly, it became apparent to me why the 3 channel system may not have caught on.Well I think the questions is, as raised earlier, is what if we had really gone with three channel instead of two channel? That's why many of the early stereo recordings were done in three channel (and then had to be mixed to two channel for stereo
Another thing that I noticed was the prominent spatial locational cues of the middle speaker. No, not the image. The speaker itself. Transparency is something that unfortunately, I did not observe with the trinaural setup. I'm always willing to give it another whirl but I just thought I'd chime in with my own observations of a 3 channel system and why it may not have caught on.
First, trinaural is an inappropriate term for this since it means, literally, three ears. This is, in this context, 3 channel stereo. (BTW, trinaural is used to mean other things such as Jim Bongiorno's "Trinaural" processor with which "the stereo composite signals are algebraically revectorized into three front channels." )
Second, I am surprised at the specific issues you raise as problems since those are precisely the areas in which I find that discrete 3channel is an improvement over 2channel stereo. In fact, there is no reason why a voice should wander from center to left (or right) any more than it should wander from left to right with a 2 channel source and, in my experience, it is the very stability of the center voice that is a hallmark of 3channel.
Third, 3channel stereo never failed. It was simply never really offered to the public.
Kal
What was the reasoning behind that Kal? I thought that orginally stereo was based on 3 channels?
Hello, Kal. I believe that you are in fact correct. There was some sort of processor involved. Not quite sure what kind but I do remember it being blue. Perhaps this is why my observations don't quite match yours. I do remember the host having specific music for three channel though...or at least he said that he did. I never really bothered to verify this as I wasn't really that interested in listening to it after hearing it for the first time. As far as trinaural? That's what he kept referring to it as. It's been a couple of years since I heard this setup so I'm kinda vague on the precise information concerning the gear but I do distinctly remember what it was that I didn't quite like about it. Thanks for the clarification!
Similar threads
