General Asylum

General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories.

Return to General Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Stereo vs mono

99.149.238.6

Posted on October 6, 2016 at 06:47:53
tesla
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: San Diego County, California
Joined: October 25, 2000
has anyone tried this?

Take your stereo pair of speakers, and put them next to each other.

I wonder if that is better or worse than true mono.


Proudly serving content-free posts since 1984.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 6, 2016 at 07:38:21
Tadlo
Audiophile

Posts: 1925
Location: midwest
Joined: March 8, 2003
Have you considered trying it?

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 6, 2016 at 07:50:54
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005

Try it an report back......don't wait for others to do it....

 

Google "comb filter"., posted on October 6, 2016 at 07:58:04
Oh, shee-yit. I'll do it for you...

PS: It is more than likely that you'll have some comb-filtering going on when you put two speakers right next to each other, even with a dual mono signal. Room acoustics is the issue. Sound arrival times from two identical speakers won't coincide in the majority of cases, even when the speakers are right next to each other.

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 6, 2016 at 08:16:35
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.

:)

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 6, 2016 at 08:59:41
tesla
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: San Diego County, California
Joined: October 25, 2000
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.

 

RE: Google "comb filter"., posted on October 6, 2016 at 09:26:03
tesla
Audiophile

Posts: 3180
Location: San Diego County, California
Joined: October 25, 2000
Are you sure your not talking about the Bose 901? :P
Proudly serving content-free posts since 1984.

 

LOL! (nt, posted on October 6, 2016 at 09:42:45
.

 

There are so many variables besides the two you list.. as to make asking it meaningless., posted on October 6, 2016 at 10:33:38
The sort of room. where the speakers are in the room. Your listening position..
For every respondent, the conditions I mention would be different. And thus change what they would experience.

If you are asking theoretically, in general..
Then too it would depend on the recording used to judge...

 

I've tried it, posted on October 6, 2016 at 19:07:49
1973shovel
Audiophile

Posts: 10110
Location: Greenville SC
Joined: February 25, 2007
I became curious about experimenting with mono when I got the Beatles mono box set, first CD, and then the LPs when they were finally released.

My speakers (Horn Shoppe Horns) are designed to work in the corners of the room, so I took the left speaker and placed it next to the right, in the right corner of the room.

While it sounded good in many respects, the placement of the sound emanating from one corner of the room drove me nuts. It was like I had bad seats to a concert, sitting far left of stage, and had to turn my head to the right.

Perhaps if I had more conventional speakers I would have tried moving them both to the center of the room, and enjoyed "mono" that way. I wasn't willing to give up the bass my Horns derive from corner loading, so I moved the left speaker back where it belonged.

I still get plenty of "soundstage", or rather a Wall Of Sound via the two spaced speakers when listening to the mono recordings. That may not be the correct way to listen to mono, but I gave up doing what is right, and went back to doing what I enjoy in this hobby a long time ago.

 

I need a speaker history lesson, posted on October 7, 2016 at 10:40:51
tcell
Audiophile

Posts: 585
Location: Maryland
Joined: September 5, 2003
When did audio systems start using two speakers? Was it only after stereo recordings became available or before? Or did people in the 50's listen to mono with two speakers? If so, did it come to pass because listeners wanted to "spread" out the sound in the room even if there was no discreet left-right info? Just curious. Thanks

 

RE: I need a speaker history lesson, posted on October 7, 2016 at 10:55:21
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17263
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
"When did audio systems start using two speakers? "

To the best of my knowledge no one used 2 speakers for mono before stereo came along.

Tre'


Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: I need a speaker history lesson, posted on October 7, 2016 at 10:56:48
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12430
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002

Very few used more than one. However, I was greatly influenced by an older neighbor who had, at first, 2 Brociner Corner Horns for mono and, later, 4 AR1s for stereo and mono. This was in the early 50s and his stereo source was a 2 channel Magnecord Binaural.

 

Some people in this hobby, posted on October 7, 2016 at 14:00:50
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
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

 

Thanks!, posted on October 7, 2016 at 16:22:46
tcell
Audiophile

Posts: 585
Location: Maryland
Joined: September 5, 2003
I've just never seen a system from back then. I guess I'll try listening to some mono recordings through a single speaker and make America sound "great again"!

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 8, 2016 at 11:12:30
erik_sq
Audiophile

Posts: 150
Location: San Francisco Bay
Joined: September 28, 2016
A single speaker will sound differently than 2 speakers at an angle to your centerline. I've experienced this and there's scholarly work on the subject.

Subjectively there's more presence and brightness. Also, listening to a speaker that is in front of you vs. to the sides makes a difference as well.

The 2 speakers playing the same sound at an angle cause a loss in the midrange due to comb filtering. Turn one off, and the midrange loss goes away. Turn your head towards your speaker and you'll hear the full sound.

If you listen to stereo carefully you'll hear this as well. Instruments and voices placed to the sides will sound brighter and more present than instruments in the center.

The best solution I've found is a center channel with Neo6:Music mode. Not worth crusading over, but if you ask which is better, there you have it. :) Of course, you may prefer whatever you prefer, make yourself happy.

Of course, it's possible that modern re-masters take the fact that we are listening to mono recordings with 2 speakers into consideration and do in fact compensate for this effect in the mastering process. The only way to tell would be to ask the engineers or compare the original mono to the re-master.

Best,


Erik

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 18, 2016 at 10:03:08
J. Phelan
Audiophile

Posts: 810
Joined: May 12, 2009
Listen to a stereo rec., then unplug one speaker and compare that to a mono version of the same LP. Guess what ? Stereo (one-speaker) sounds better. More 'openness' around a voice and more depth.

Why is this better ?

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 19, 2016 at 13:16:31
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
"Why is this better ?"

Cross echo. Some components of the mix are fed to an echo machine or reverb during the mixdown and fed to the output out of phase. Therefore that part of the signal nulls out if the channels are summed by switching to mono.

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 19, 2016 at 14:28:30
J. Phelan
Audiophile

Posts: 810
Joined: May 12, 2009
Interesting. But this improvement also occurs with vocal music from the 50s.

Were they 'mixing' back then ? What was wrong with straight-stereo, as it was just coming out.

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 19, 2016 at 18:40:58
JURB
Audiophile

Posts: 2056
Location: North Ohio
Joined: May 29, 2016
"Interesting. But this improvement also occurs with vocal music from the 50s."

Do you mean to listen to it from one speaker, or to just feed the stereo with mono ? There is a difference. However we already know that mono records sound better on a mono cartridge or a stereo one wired for mono rather than playing it in stereo.

"Were they 'mixing' back then ? What was wrong with straight-stereo, as it was just coming out."

They were mixing in the studios even before stereo came out. When stereo came out, for the beginning at least, the recording engineers tried to make sure the music would still sound good on a mono system. One of the major reasons was that most people were still listening on AM radio which was not stereo at the time.

I really have trouble thinking of "straight" stereo. Do you mean with no effects like echo or whatever ? No separate EQ for the channels ? No pan pots or digital delay ? I would say that there is nothing wrong with that and a bunch of musicians who are either dead or older than dead would agree. I think Les Paul started it all. (my Uncle took guitar lessons from him) Paul pretty much invented overdubbing. And the electric guitar was not intended to be an acoustic guitar with a microphone in front of it, it was a different thing. Similar like a harpsichord, piano, accordion and so forth are quite different. (reminds me I have to get an amp)

What I want mono is movies and TV shows. Frikken turn it up to hear the dialogue and then a car blows up and the neighbors call the cops. And even then you still can't hear the words. Plus it sounds like the sound is coming through a fifty foot drainpipe sometimes.

Yes, mono is alright with me. Mono is the way it should be. Someone write something with a plot dammit ! These days all it is is effects. I used to own a Moog synthesiser, I have an electric piano (88keys, weighted and touch responsive and sounds like a real piano), three guitars, a trumpet, an accordion, a violin, and I think that's it but to be sure I would have to look. OK there is a mini keyboard down in the basement. I think that is all. I can make sound.

Enough rant. Suffice to say I am sick of it. Even my Grandfather was, saying "How come the music is so loud in these movies ?". And he has been dead for a long time. The fact is that even back then Hollywood treated movies like a sort of opera where the music is important. They have ALWAYS been wrong. Movies used to be made from good selling books that people read. Yes, people used to read books. And every one of them who did has said the book was better than the movie. In all my life, seriously.

Now it is special effects to dazzle the kids. It seems music, if you can call it that, has taken the same direction. One vestige is hillbilly music but I can't just listen to that and nothing else.

The RIAA whines about losing money over P2P. Bullshit. I have had good tape decks for most of my life. We could always record this stuff and the quality was not so bad. I have had three head cassette decks with Dolby HX and adjustable bias. You could not tell the tape from the original.

The problem is not that we have lossless recording, it is that they are not putting out anything worth buying. The mixing board is more musical than what they promote as artists.

 

RE: Stereo vs mono, posted on October 20, 2016 at 10:46:07
J. Phelan
Audiophile

Posts: 810
Joined: May 12, 2009
Feeding (1) speaker with stereo sounds more 'open' than a mono feed (to that same speaker). To add, vocals have more 'clarity'.

Even on headphones - compare Sinatra-stereo vs. Sinatra-mono.

And yes, 'straight' means no echo, no EQ. It looks like stereo needed help, much like digital 'needed' dither (in the 80s, before 20-bit recording).

 

Page processed in 0.041 seconds.