|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
137.145.235.19
In Reply to: RE: 2nd row, 15' from the quartet. Ansel Adams: bettered by digital photography? posted by tinear on October 13, 2014 at 08:29:45
Although the science and technology talk would exceed your ability to understand, just know that to actually reproduce what you heard would be exactly the opposite of mono.
You actually need a sound source recorded and ability to be reproduced at every single sound source location(instrument, voice, chair squeek, room reverberation, etc)
Stereo is far better at that than mono, but falls well short of optimal.
Follow Ups:
the less equipment and engineering, the better the result. Unless, of course, you'd care to argue that tinkering improves on the original or that more electronics, wires, and engineering decisions actually can improve what is played?
I'm not talking about spatial effects, exaggerated separation, etc. Splitting sound up into channels isn't "natural."
Then by your reckoning, we'd better all get back to our tin cans and string. ;-)
Sounds eminating from multiple locations in a live event are more suited to be replicated by a device(s) in a multichannel world than ever in a mono world.
Your hung up on the "more is worse" ideology/emotion than the technical reality of what it would physically take to reproduce that live event.
Mono would be the last approach, unless you sat 200 yards away, not row 15.
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: