Check it ---> STEREO: A MISUNDERSTANDING (http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html)
This article was very surprising to me as I was not aware of the flaws in stereo sound.
I'm actually starting to prefer mono playback when I'm not in the correct position for true stereo.
What do you guys think?
After reading some of the other stuff (http://www.anstendig.org/CD-tragedy.html) on that site, I'd say it's just a step above the Time cube (http://www.timecube.com/) in credibility.
After reading some of the other stuff (http://www.anstendig.org/CD-tragedy.html) on that site, I'd say it's just a step above the Time cube (http://www.timecube.com/) in credibility.
The time cube that was very weird, and that guy seemed very mad. But yes the article you linked to did seem exaggerated. Although our ears supposedly can do no better than 44.1 KHz, 48 KHz, or whatever, there is no real limit for everyone. Just because the majority of our ears can't discern sample rates above 44.1 KHz doesn't mean everyone's can't, and I think that was more or less his point in the article. Which would validate his point of CD's, with their sample rate, may not be the best way to preserve music. Although I don't believe the most important and essential musical content lies only in sample rates near 300,000 KHz (like the article implies) and I do think CD's are sufficient for music reproduction; I wouldn't consider the article a complete falsification.
Anyway, back to the original article. Does the article you linked discredit mine for you? What I'm saying is do you find any truth in the article I linked, or just lies? What parts could you agree with and what parts could you reject?
Although our ears supposedly can do no better than 44.1 KHz, 48 KHz, or whatever, there is no real limit for everyone.
Yes there is. Your hearing maxes out at about 20kHz when you're very young, and then drops off pretty quickly as you reach adulthood. Check google, hearing tests are easy enough to find.
Anyway, back to the original article. Does the article you linked discredit mine for you? What I'm saying is do you find any truth in the article I linked, or just lies? What parts could you agree with and what parts could you reject?
I don't think anyone doubts that you can hear a difference between stereo and 5.1 audio, so yes, I would say stereo is not sufficient for transparent reproduction of spatially varying sound fields. Hence in the 30 years since that was written we have developed multichannel audio.
Of course there limits or "flaws" in 2-channel stereo. That's why 5.1 surround is better!!!!
He seems to be saying that mono is more accurate than stereo. I'd generally disagree... I think most audio experts & professionals would also disagree. I'd say stereo is usually closer to reality... That's assuming a good stereo recording that's
supposed to sound real... Most modern-popular recordings are not supposed to sound "real" or "live", they are recorded/mixed/produced to sound "good" (an artistic judgment).
Perhaps mono is more accurate with a solo singer/instrument, but as an alternative you could use just the center channel of a 5.1 setup.
But since most of our living rooms are not concert halls, we can benefit from some stereo-spacial reverb in the recording even with a single "mono" instrument or singer. If you wanted to reproduce a piano in a concert hall, a single speaker near the piano location is probably better than a stereo pair. (Most concert halls have
more than a pair of speakers for sound-reinforcement, and often that includes distributed-delayed speakers.)
Just because the majority of our ears can't discern sample rates above 44.1 KHz doesn't mean everyone's can't, and I think that was more or less his point in the article. Which would validate his point of CD's, with their sample rate, may not be the best way to preserve music.
I don't know what the statistical distribution looks like. Maybe one in a million people can hear up to 25kHz, or maybe there's no one in the world who can hear that high.... Maybe one in a billion people is 9-feet tall... Maybe the one person with the best hearing in the world doesn't listen to music or care about sound quality....
The frequency-limit is not a statistical normal-distribution.... It's skewed
down. i.e. If the average or median limit is 15kHz (just a made-up number), there are far-more people who
can't hear above 10kHz than
can hear above 20kHz.... There are plenty of people who are hearing impared or deaf, and far-fewer people with super-human hearing. (20kHz is not the
average limit. 20kHz is the generally accepted approximate limit for young people with good hearing.)
But it also turns-out that with music, the highest frequencies are very-low level and are masked by higher-power lower frequencies. So, even if someone can hear to 25kHz (under laboratory conditions), and if there are harmonics up to 25kHz on the recording the listener can't hear those high frequencies while music is playing... You can filter-out everything above 20kHz or so and the listener can't hear the difference... Maybe you can hear a fly buzzing around, but you can't hear a fly buzzing around during a rock concert (unless it flys into your ear). The sound of the fly is still there, but it's masked (drowned-out) by the music and no matter how good, or how sensitive, your hearing is, you can't hear it.
One thing I'm sure of... There are more people who
think that CD is not good enough than can actually hear a difference in an ABX test!
It seems that the author of that site has never heard of binaural recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording), which can accurately record audio as perceived by the listener.
Oh, and they essentially say that you should wear tin-foil hats to avoid bad vibrations radiating from unhappy people:
We not only absorb vibrations, we also radiate them. For this reason, people in erratic physical states can affect others aro]und them adversely. This may sound cruel, but whenever possible, one should avoid other people who are physically agitated or erratic in their movements. We all have had the experience of being affected by others who were upset, nervous, agitated, lethargic, listless, or in some other undesirable state, but we seldom realize that it is because we are actually being physically affected by the vibrational patterns these people are radiating. It is interesting to note that dentists, who spend the most time around people who are either strongly apprehensive and frightened or in great pain, have the highest rate of suicide among the professions. In this respect, wearing a suitable garment (undershirt, vest, or jacket, for instance) of reflective material, such as the silver material developed by NASA for astronauts, could be of help in isolating oneself from unsettling vibrations in one's immediate environment, especially vibrations from other people, when it would be cruel or professionally impossible to avoid them. We have tried various possibilities, among which are undershirts of reflective material and actual outer garments made of such material (there is an excellent reversible jacket made of the cloth developed by NASA available from Norm Thompson of Portland, Oregon). It is also possible to incorporate reflecting lining in garments such as jackets and vests. This has the distinct advantage of unobtrusiveness, but has many problems to overcome, not the least of which is finding a firm willing and able to work with this difficult-to-handle material (available at better fabric stores or most theater supply stores). The Anstendig Institute will gladly make our experience in this matter available to those interested in this possibility and would appreciate hearing impressions and experiences of others who investigate it. We have also found the use of mirrors or reflective silver foil (commercial aluminum foil, with the reflective, shiny side facing away from oneself) to be effective (on the walls, for instance, to isolate oneself from the influence of neighbors[/b], etc.). Our Institute has found this particularly helpful, since the nature of our work demands observing and being sensitive to extraordinarily fine and delicate nuances that are easily degraded by the effects of outside influences on us.
http://www.anstendig.org/ImproveVibrations.html (http://www.anstendig.org/ImproveVibrations.html)
It seems that the author of that site has never heard of binaural recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording), which can accurately record audio as perceived by the listener.
And if the OP and/or anyone reading is interested, here are some examples (http://www.head-fi.org/t/511850/awesome-binaural-albums).
Oh, and they essentially say that you should wear tin-foil hats to avoid bad vibrations radiating from unhappy people:
That article was hilarious, thanks for sharing.
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.
When two microphones are used, each channel is a single, complete monophonic signal documenting every bit of the particular sound event, but each from a slightly different position (in theory, only about as far apart as our two ears, i,e., the width of a human head).
I don't really know why saying that the two channels from stereophonic sound are mono themselves invalidates the notion of a stereo pair. Furthermore, most accepted recording practices don't feature a distance that is derived from the width of a human head: ORTF is close, but that is merely a coincidence (http://www.schoeps.de/documents/Mikrofonbuch_komplett.pdf), a Decca-tree has a spacing of several meters, XY has no spacing at all. In fact, a few of the very first stereo recordings (Mercury's Living Presence and RCAs Living Stereo) were done with Decca-tree like setups, so with large microphone spacing.
It is not, nor can it ever be, a duplication of the hearing process.
The article is built on the notion that stereo is an illusion. That's right, stereo is an illusion that can be tampered with, and is usually not a true representation of what happened. But then, neither were all monophonic recording (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html) before the introduction of stereo, because even in the pre-stereo era, multiple microphones were used, so the 'sound' you got wasn't an exact duplication of what happened.
It seems the rant states that when using stereo, it has to be perfect. All or nothing. It is not explained why. While there is some truth in the article, it seems the author wasn't happy with the introduction of stereo (like there are people now against introducing 3D-TVs I presume?) and tries to find facts that support his/her opinion.
Of course there limits or "flaws" in 2-channel stereo. That's why 5.1 surround is better!!!!
Next step is to eliminate those awful subwoofers.
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.
Well it is 30 years old . . .
I don't think anyone doubts that you can hear a difference between stereo and 5.1 audio, so yes, I would say stereo is not sufficient for transparent reproduction of spatially varying sound fields. Hence in the 30 years since that was written we have developed multichannel audio.
Hmm 5.1 didn't really even cross my mind. I was just looking at it in terms of what's better to listen to if you can't be in the best position for stereo, mono or stereo? Say, if you're in a large room and often moving around (small party, playing pool, etc.). In which case I would think that 5.1 and stereo would not be the choice since you're not always facing the same direction or standing in the same spot. How would you prefer to listen in those situations? But yeah, the age of the article might have something to do with the problems in it
Of course there limits or "flaws" in 2-channel stereo. That's why 5.1 surround is better!!!!
He seems to be saying that mono is more accurate than stereo. I'd generally disagree... I think most audio experts & professionals would also disagree. I'd say stereo is usually closer to reality... That's assuming a good stereo recording that's supposed to sound real... Most modern-popular recordings are not supposed to sound "real" or "live", they are recorded/mixed/produced to sound "good" (an artistic judgment).
The frequency-limit is not a statistical normal-distribution.... It's skewed down. i.e. If the average or median limit is 15kHz (just a made-up number), there are far-more people who can't hear above 10kHz than can hear above 20kHz.... There are plenty of people who are hearing impared or deaf, and far-fewer people with super-human hearing. (20kHz is not the average limit. 20kHz is the generally accepted approximate limit for young people with good hearing.)
But it also turns-out that with music, the highest frequencies are very-low level and are masked by higher-power lower frequencies. So, even if someone can hear to 25kHz (under laboratory conditions), and if there are harmonics up to 25kHz on the recording the listener can't hear those high frequencies while music is playing... You can filter-out everything above 20kHz or so and the listener can't hear the difference... Maybe you can hear a fly buzzing around, but you can't hear a fly buzzing around during a rock concert (unless it flys into your ear). The sound of the fly is still there, but it's masked (drowned-out) by the music and no matter how good, or how sensitive, your hearing is, you can't hear it.
One thing I'm sure of... There are more people who think that CD is not good enough than can actually hear a difference in an ABX test!
That's the problem that stuck out in my mind, the recordings were mixed/produced to sound good, not duplicate the original sound. To play devils advocate; so even if the sound is there (20kHz+) and we can't hear it, should it not be included? What if subconsciously it has an effect?
It seems that the author of that site has never heard of binaural recording (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_recording), which can accurately record audio as perceived by the listener.
Oh, and they essentially say that you should wear tin-foil hats to avoid bad vibrations radiating from unhappy people:
People giving off bad vibes man.. totally ruining my tunes. /s
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.
When two microphones are used, each channel is a single, complete monophonic signal documenting every bit of the particular sound event, but each from a slightly different position (in theory, only about as far apart as our two ears, i,e., the width of a human head).
I don't really know why saying that the two channels from stereophonic sound are mono themselves invalidates the notion of a stereo pair. Furthermore, most accepted recording practices don't feature a distance that is derived from the width of a human head: ORTF is close, but that is merely a coincidence (http://www.schoeps.de/documents/Mikrofonbuch_komplett.pdf), a Decca-tree has a spacing of several meters, XY has no spacing at all. In fact, a few of the very first stereo recordings (Mercury's Living Presence and RCAs Living Stereo) were done with Decca-tree like setups, so with large microphone spacing.
It is not, nor can it ever be, a duplication of the hearing process.
The article is built on the notion that stereo is an illusion. That's right, stereo is an illusion that can be tampered with, and is usually not a true representation of what happened. But then, neither were all monophonic recording (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html) before the introduction of stereo, because even in the pre-stereo era, multiple microphones were used, so the 'sound' you got wasn't an exact duplication of what happened.
It seems the rant states that when using stereo, it has to be perfect. All or nothing. It is not explained why. While there is some truth in the article, it seems the author wasn't happy with the introduction of stereo (like there are people now against introducing 3D-TVs I presume?) and tries to find facts that support his/her opinion.
You bring up some good points. But yes, it does seem like the author wasn't happy with the introduction of stereo for some reason.
I'm really surprised to read such a rant. As noted earlier, it seems the writer has no clue about current recording practices.
Well it is 30 years old . . .
Beat me to it
Not surprisingly, the author also considers CD to be inadequate for sound reproduction (http://www.anstendig.org/sound_quality,%20TVs,%20computers.htm).
the Time cube (http://www.timecube.com/)
Whoever wrote that must be taking an INSANE amount of drugs.
the Time cube (http://www.timecube.com/)
Whoever wrote that must be taking an INSANE amount of drugs.
Exactly what I was thinking. That was one of the oddest things I've come across on the Internet lol
What if subconsciously it has an effect?
There are a lot of things one might entertain from the fanciful world of
What If.
I'm more interested in things you can prove than things you can dream-up.
Well it is 30 years old . . .
You're right, I didn't notice that. I'm actually surprised stuff like this existed before the internet came round, I thought that the phenomenon of people writing large rants like this was something of this generation, but it seems it isn't...
But, to get back to the point it was trying to make, as I haven't been walking this earth for that long, I don't know what recording techniques were well established back then, but Decca tree like was one of the first, evolving from the similar multi-mike-to-mono settings that were used back then, according to http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html (http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html) That's my point, there's no relation between the width of a human head and most stereo recording techniques. The article says stereo recording tries to emulate human hearing, but it clearly doesn't.
To play devils advocate; so even if the sound is there (20kHz+) and we can't hear it, should it not be included? What if subconsciously it has an effect?
To play devils advocate:
What if the subconscious effect was to induce one to go on a mass killing spree?
The article says stereo recording tries to emulate human hearing, but it clearly doesn't.
Nowadays it doesn't... since there's no point any more with "artifical" music mixed on a computer from individual unrelated sources. Not sure why you guys apparently believe the article is largely outdated or even nonsense. The author makes it quite clear:
- He talks about classical music, i.e. acoustical music performed in a concert hall or so, and
- he IMHO rightfully claims it's impossible to reproduce such performances with two (or more!) speakers regardless of listener physique or location.
- The Beatles album uses a stereo loudspeaker setup quite well since it uses direction in an artistic manner, not to replicate an actual live Performance.
- He obviously talks only about loudspeakers. Like Rotareneg mentioned, headphone reproduction and, in particular, binaural recordings seem unknown/un-interesting to him.
To the guys above claiming, "that's why we developed 5.1 audio": you clearly haven't understood the article, have you?
Chris
What if subconsciously it has an effect?
There are a lot of things one might entertain from the fanciful world of What If.
I'm more interested in things you can prove than things you can dream-up.
I agree, just let my mind wonder there for a minute.
To play devils advocate; so even if the sound is there (20kHz+) and we can't hear it, should it not be included? What if subconsciously it has an effect?
To play devils advocate:
What if the subconscious effect was to induce one to go on a mass killing spree?
Well then we should probably be sure to keep cutting out tones above 20kHz
He talks about classical music, i.e. acoustical music performed in a concert hall or so, and
I was talking about classical music too. The Decca tree I was talking about is used only for orchestral recordings.
he IMHO rightfully claims it's impossible to reproduce such performances with two (or more!) speakers regardless of listener physique or location.
That's true, and I even supported that claim, stereo is an illusion. However, the claim that *therefore* stereo is rubbish is weird. The paper has an all-or-nothing approach, you either listen to a perfect stereophonic reproduction (which is impossible) or to monophonic sound and the paper doesn't state why. It says the problems of stereo recording slowed down the progress of microphone development, but I don't see any evidence for that.
Nowadays it doesn't...
It has never! It would be stupid. Stereo recordings are made such that, when listened on loudspeakers, they sound
like the original. It doesn't emulate human hearing, it just creates a certain illusion. [edit: of course these techniques are based on certain things we know of human hearing, so we know how to fool it, how to create that illusion, but it is in no way emulating it] That becomes clear when you look at recording techniques like Decca tree, as I already mentioned. It doesn't even look anywhere near a human head! I just made an illustration to make this clear. It's an illusion, not some way to emulate human hearing, otherwise there would be no point in surround sound.
(http://www.icer.nl/misc_stuff/stereo-illusion-decca.png)
If, after making the recording as described in the diagram by ktf, you were to replace the performers in the listening venue by the two speakers and then played the performance again to the listener in the venue . . . . . What do you think he/she would hear? Would this created illusion have a chance of being called an emulation?
If the recording engineers did not process the mix to allow for the compound effect of recording the resonant frequencies of the room and then playing back into the room again, then I suppose the sound will not be exactly like listening to the performers.
An artist named Alvin Lucier made a recorded experiment of such an aural phenomenon; I think the work is called "I Am Sitting In A Room".
As I was walking up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away...
And commune with his friends -
. the ultrasonic components so important to our subconscious listening pleasure
. the missing information between samples
...
...have all been argued and summarily shot-down many times over.
If there was some way to get noobs to wade their way through the dozen or so 10+ page "discussions" on these things so they can see how pointless it is to argue faith on a science-minded forum in the hopes that they don't attempt to repeat them yet again.
headphone reproduction and, in particular, binaural recordings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs)
WOW! That's really impressive !
Funny how well it holds up even with audible lossy artifacts. Well not really all that funny unless you prescribe to the idea that soundstage is so fragile that it is the first thing to be destroyed by the evils of lossy compression. What's more, the recording is still impressive with cheap ear buds.
...have all been argued and summarily shot-down many times over.
If there was some way to get noobs to wade their way through the dozen or so 10+ page "discussions" on these things so they can see how pointless it is to argue faith on a science-minded forum in the hopes that they don't attempt to repeat them yet again.
I'm not sure how this thread drifted into the various other articles from the site I linked and the false claims in them. I started the thread with the simple question in mind of whether mono sound is better to listen to when you're out of the sweet spot for stereo or have several speakers not aligned properly to create a stereo image. I guess I should have stated it more explicitly. Either way, the thread did go in a direction I had not intended it to.
headphone reproduction and, in particular, binaural recordings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYdIidUIbAs)
Thanks for this, I had actually never heard a binaural recording before. Pretty cool indeed. I'm a bit confused with the differences between binaural recording and the 3 channel method used in the "Living Presence" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Records#Mercury_Living_Presence_series) series. Can anyone elaborate on this?
I started the thread with the simple question in mind of whether mono sound is better to listen to when you're out of the sweet spot for stereo or have several speakers not aligned properly to create a stereo image.
Speaking for myself personally, I grew up in a time when everything was mono, and since the first time that I heard music in stereo I have never wanted to go back. As long as sound is coming out of two speakers playing some kind of stereo material, regardless of how poorly the speakers are placed or where I am in the room, it is still a vast improvement over mono.
For a party situation I'd go for mono, but I don't think my guests would much care.
Regarding the off-topic stuff, it's a fallacy to use other writings to impugn the article. At the same time I think entertaining Devil's Advocacy with one of the typical tired placebophile arguments needed to be shot down as troll-bait.
OT: It's impugn.
I started the thread with the simple question in mind of whether mono sound is better to listen to when you're out of the sweet spot for stereo or have several speakers not aligned properly to create a stereo image.
Speaking for myself personally, I grew up in a time when everything was mono, and since the first time that I heard music in stereo I have never wanted to go back. As long as sound is coming out of two speakers playing some kind of stereo material, regardless of how poorly the speakers are placed or where I am in the room, it is still a vast improvement over mono.
Interesting, could you possibly go into detail as to what specifically makes it better? What if you were using 4 or even 6 speakers? I'm 20, so it's likely that the majority of music I've heard in my life has been in stereo. It hasn't been long since I've become an "audiophile" and started to learn as much as possible about sound technology; and I can say that in the time that I've actually known the difference between mono and stereo, I've been listening almost exclusively in stereo.
However, after reading this article I tried some mono listening at the times I described above and I feel like the music is more complete. With stereo, I feel like when I'm in different positions in the room, some tones are more prevalent than others, at different times. But with mono every speaker is playing the same thing so you hear more of everything. I only tested briefly though so I'll go back and do some more extensive listening.
For a party situation I'd go for mono, but I don't think my guests would much care.
This. This is more or less the conclusion I was hoping to reach with the thread. Using mono for parties and other similar situations. But yes, I'm sure guests wouldn't even notice, much less care.
Regarding the off-topic stuff, it's a fallacy to use other writings to impugn the article. At the same time I think entertaining Devil's Advocacy with one of the typical tired placebophile arguments needed to be shot down as troll-bait.
I understand and would have to agree.
I started the thread with the simple question in mind of whether mono sound is better to listen to when you're out of the sweet spot for stereo or have several speakers not aligned properly to create a stereo image.
Speaking for myself personally, I grew up in a time when everything was mono, and since the first time that I heard music in stereo I have never wanted to go back. As long as sound is coming out of two speakers playing some kind of stereo material, regardless of how poorly the speakers are placed or where I am in the room, it is still a vast improvement over mono.
Interesting, could you possibly go into detail as to what specifically makes it better? What if you were using 4 or even 6 speakers?
I've never experienced more than 2 speakers so I can't make any comparison there. I only know that it seems very unnatural to have an entire symphony orchestra compressed down to a point. Any added directionality is a plus, even if it does not accurately reproduce anything like the original sound stage, not that I would know what the original sound stage sounded like.
However, after reading this article I tried some mono listening at the times I described above and I feel like the music is more complete. With stereo, I feel like when I'm in different positions in the room, some tones are more prevalent than others, at different times. But with mono every speaker is playing the same thing so you hear more of everything. I only tested briefly though so I'll go back and do some more extensive listening.
Please do! I'm about to become 20 as well so I can relate to your experience, however it never even crossed my mind to "go back" to mono, as regardless of the advantages it may have to stereo in some specific situations (like sound perception changing according to your relative position to the speakers if you're walking around the room) the music loses most of its charm IMHO, if not all of it. However, if the original recordings were mono and stereo versions are either not available or were made later without the artist's input (eg. The Beatles' early catalog), then I have no problem with it at all.
Well it is 30 years old . . .
You're right, I didn't notice that. I'm actually surprised stuff like this existed before the internet came round
It goes back a long way. I remember back in the 1960's reading old British Wireless World magazines in our local public Library, and the argument that acoustic 78 record players using thorn needles were much "truer to the music" than those newfangled L.P.s with their nasty diamond needles raged on in the letters column for several years.
I haven't read the entire article, but the fact is that human is equipped with "imagination", including the one that can place us into imaginary halls/places (so we are slightly more interesting than a dumb mic/speaker) invalidates the article imho, basically it is a freaking bs (At least the first part that I read).
In order to know if a system's reproduction of spatial relationships is accurate, one would have to know if the reproduction matches those relationships exactly as they were at the microphones during the recording. Since heads are differently shaped and no one can be in exactly the same place as the microphones, the spatial effects of direction, depth, etc., will be different for each person in the room.
Yeah, my head is banana shaped, now what?