|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
47.188.98.139
In Reply to: RE: Stereo vs mono posted by tesla on October 06, 2016 at 06:47:53
Think about it from an acoustical physics perspective.The whole idea of "stereo" is to create an artificial "sound stage". Several methods are employed to do that: Widely spaced omnidirectional mics (A-B), "coincident" pair (X-Y), ORTF (typically 8 - 12 inch spacing), Decca tree, among others for simple - but often excellent - stereo. Close micing of individual instruments is often employed in studios and various live performances, usually to provide the engineer and musicians with more control, whether over the artistic goals or because of various acoustical environment constraints.
Way back in the day, I did something like you asked about, except that it was for a live performance. An orchestra, with narrator, was performing Prokofiev's "Peter And The Wolf". I had minimal recording equipment available to me. The narrator needed to be mic'd for the auditorium, and I had two - count 'em, two - mics for recording. So I took two Cabasse hifi speakers and placed them next to each other (below stage level), angled somewhat away from each other, to form a single - but louder - version of the narrator, and used a Beyerdynamic mic for his voice. Then, I took the two Schoeps condenser mics and set them up as an ORTF stereo pair. It worked very well. I still have that recording, and am still very happy with it, especially considering it was a one-off night-of-the-performance recording.
Back to your playback question...
The whole point of stereo is to create an artificial soundstage in a room which isn't the original room (if there even was one!). To accomplish this, the recording and mixing engineers use various methods to fool the brain into thinking the sound isn't what the sound is. This is one area of the field of psychoacoustics. EQ, reverb and delay are OFTEN (always?) employed to accomplish this. To top it off, the reverb (each channel separately) is also EQ'd differently than the direct sound.
As an example of excellent engineering and soundscape design, listen to Linda Ronstadt's "Hurt So Bad" on her "Mad Love" album. She has other examples for audio engineering groupies, as does Carly Simon. Some of the engineering work on her albums is just amazing. And then there's Joe Cocker and Tower Of Power, whose albums have a different kind of soundscape than Linda and Carly, but are equally excellent. I could listen to Cocker's "You Can Leave Your Hat On" all day long. Heck, I'm gonna put it on right now.
So why on Earth would you want to destroy the work which they worked so hard to create?!
Another of the things which creates the stereo illusion is time difference between the ears. Look it up.
:)
Edits: 10/19/16Follow Ups:
Inmate:I was not suggesting it's better or worse, I was trying to get other inmates perspectives, especially people who prefer or like mono, perhaps they could try it with their stereo system, and give us their opinion, comb filtering and all. I thought it might be an interesting thought exercise.
Obviously you also attended Audio Engineering training in some capacity ;)
Proudly serving content-free posts since 1984.
Edits: 10/06/16
primary goal is to evaluate the accuracy of their system. In this mode, a mono signal is preferred as a stereo signal "complicates" your brain's ability to perceive. the previous post is right, the whole prospects we enjoy in this hobby is to enjoy or improve upon the illusion created by the producers of the recording, the playback room and equipment.I dabble in loudspeaker design, the listening process I use in development is always in mono, whether the source is music or test signals, I'll place two speakers side by side, as you suggest switching between one, at a time. There are times I'll mess up my switching (using a mixer) and have both speakers playing at the same time. on a mono signal they should blend seamlessly but even slight head positions will change the frequency balance compared to either of the speakers, I imagine. The same experiment with a stereo signal playing would have similar or even greater anomalies depending on the producers mix.
Producers use of level, equalization, phase and delays very dramatically , even in live mixes, during their mastering sessions. very few would use a side-by-side monitor placement to perform their mastering so in most cases I would imagine
I like youe idea of experimenting. It's amazing the things you can do and still fool your brain into "believing" the illusion. Things I've tried:
(1) change your speakers so they face backward or the side walls
(2) Place obstacles in the direct path of the sound reaching your ears. I've tried record (LP) jackets , my hands, and Basketballs.
(3)turn your speakers upside down.
(4)place you speakers on the floor facing up! change the orientation(tweeters in the rear, forward, inside or outside.One things that come out of this exercise is how important the sound power is in listening (As well as the direct sound) - (hat's off to Omar Bose and Floyd Toole). And another thing is how relatively poor our listening memory is. I think both of these effects relate to how strong the brain "try's" to fill in the gaps for us based on expectations. See link below for another example of filling in expectations
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
Edits: 10/07/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: