I don't care about stereo imaging - am I alone. (Poll)

[JktHifi]

I prefer the Hi Res setting in Apple Music app than Dolby Atmos. The music is much more enjoyable in old traditional stereo.

 

[Chrispy]

Mostly I just wonder how imaging has possibly hurt the OP.

 

[jsilvela]

Late to this thread but I have views in a similar line to OP:

- for listening to youtube talks or for zoom calls, I've recently found that a single speaker delivers much better clarity. I don't seem to mind stereo at all for vocals in regular music, but when listening to a colleague, stereo seems much less realistic than *single speaker* (as opposed to mono phantom center)

- I like recordings with good imaging. E.g. I notice this in Yo La Tengo albums. This pleasant feeling of being surrounded by sound, and sound not coming from the speakers. But the vivid descriptions of imaging I sometimes see, with precision down to the centimeter it would seem, leave me as perplexed as if they were talking about the myriad flavors in a glass of wine. Dr Toole mentions that often, we have "mono left, mono right, mono center", and this is close to my experience of stereo much of the time.

 

[antcollinet]

Mostly I just wonder how imaging has possibly hurt the OP.

It hasn't. I never said it had. I'ts just of little interest.

 

[Talisman]

However, I believe that some are making a bundle of all the grass. It has come to talk of mono versus stereo, but I think the OP's point was different (mine sure is).
Stereo recording is not disdained at all, nor is it repudiated. Simply certain considerations on an almost visible three-dimensional sound image, with instruments that appear fixed at different depths, different heights, with instruments a little further on, a little further back, at the bottom left, the singer moving one meter walking, etc. etc are not so crucial to the enjoyment of music nor do I feel the need to spasmodically seek this level of refinement.
But what is broadly the feeling of spaciousness of the stereo for me is well appreciated, but they are two different points.

 

[okok]

Amir tests speaker in mono, means there's no image

 

[IAtaman]

I'm a sucker for a 3D-like sound illusion...

On a hopefully related topic, why it is that the 3D perception of sound is called an illusion? We don't call our depth perception an illusion, why is it what I understand to be the audio equivalent of stereo vision gets this treatment?

 

[jsilvela]

On a hopefully related topic, why it is that the 3D perception of sound is called an illusion? We don't call our depth perception an illusion, why is it what I understand to be the audio equivalent of stereo vision gets this treatment?

I don't have an answer to your question but your post made me think:

For vision, we can estimate depth from two pictures taken from different angles. This is called "vergence", and it's not hard to write it in code (no A.I. voodoo involved).

For sound, I would imagine that in an anechoic chamber, we could get reproducible depth computation/perception.
But in rooms, given all the phase and amplitude distortions induced by reflections, would the perception of depth not be completely room-dependent?

 

[IAtaman]

For sound, I would imagine that in an anechoic chamber, we could get reproducible depth computation/perception.
But in rooms, given all the phase and amplitude distortions induced by reflections, would the perception of depth not be completely room-dependent?

I dont think you need an anechoic chamber. I am not sure what our brains are capable of but I believe it would be possible to distinguish direct sound from reflection because A. seems like a Klippel NFS can do it in a normal room and B. bats can do it in a cave, so maybe to an extend, so can we, and most certainly math can.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Thank you @tonycollinet for creating this great thread and for all the participants to demonstrate one more time that even though, on the surface , listening to stereo recordings in the intimacy of our home may appear at first like a well define activity, in the reality, it is almost as diverse as being down to each individual preferences.
We might want to keep this in mind, every time we read from a member that this or that is that way or this way, or that we write it. It is all in the perspective, to such an extend, that determining what is up or down is up for debate.

So next time I see a picture of a set up of a member in this forum, instead of thinking to “help”, judging from my perspective that stereo image is a beautiful thing, hence why my speaker and listening seat are set in the middle of a fairly big dedicated room, I will not judge anymore or even advice, as in reality, I have no clue on what that member is really after when listening to a stereo recording or what his priority might be.

Either way, we are on our own to enjoy what we enjoy and find ways to make it even more enjoyable. As tempting as it would be, when seeing a picture of a set of speakers in the middle of a listening room from someone who also indulge in vinyl record, to think, we might be after the same experience, until we can really seat down there and listen, nothing might be further from the truth.

In any case, I hope all of you, out there, find as much pleasure, satisfaction and enlightenment listening to stereo recordings as I have for the last 40 years and still do today. Among all the activities that make up my life, it easily makes the top 3 for me at this period of my life.

 

[KSTR]

On a hopefully related topic, why it is that the 3D perception of sound is called an illusion? We don't call our depth perception an illusion, why is it what I understand to be the audio equivalent of stereo vision gets this treatment?

Illusion as in creating an illusion of an real 3D event without actually being one technically. Simplest example is mono center image produced by two speakers playing the exact same signal. Copies of real 3D events are only possible with full wave field synthesis (WFS).

 

[jsilvela]

I dont think you need an anechoic chamber. I am not sure what our brains are capable of but I believe it would be possible to distinguish direct sound from reflection because A. seems like a Klippel NFS can do it in a normal room and B. bats can do it in a cave, so maybe to an extend, so can we, and most certainly math can.

Here I disagree. Both the Klippel and the bat are getting back the reproduction of signals *they* have created.
In music listening this would not hold.
Though, for near-field, I could very well buy the argument, given the reflections would be so much lower.

 

[thecheapseats]

one of the most interesting discussion threads I've read in my very short time here... and yes, thank you so much @tonycollinet for your 'thought' impulse which excited the room (pardon the poor acoustics pun)... I'll be quiet now...

 

[Muddywaters]

Why bother with two speakers? Use a great ASR single speaker. Set output to mono or use a y cable to sum the signal. Can save $$$. Not for me but it's a wide world.

I listen and love music no matter the presentation equipment format but I very much value the envelopment of a stereo image, orchestral, chamber works and great jazz recordings all are more alive with a proper image with depth and spread with stability. Even with excellent mono recordings the depth and ambiance of the studio or location appears enhanced to me too.

Sometimes when I've had music on in the background but working on something else or at my computer desk in the room I have to get up and move to the mlp. I get sucked into it like a black hole

 

[pkane]

On a hopefully related topic, why it is that the 3D perception of sound is called an illusion? We don't call our depth perception an illusion, why is it what I understand to be the audio equivalent of stereo vision gets this treatment?

As others already said, the reproduction of a true 3-D sound field can't be done with two speakers. At best, it's a very rough approximation. Another reason it's often an illusion is that the depth/position cues in most recordings come from artificially created positions by pan-pots, added reverb, and phase manipulations during the mastering process, i.e., not real, but a manufactured illusion

 

[fpitas]

Of course, everyone knows that having tweeter at ear height is the ideal alignement, that is a compromise some of us don't like, especially if you are spending mega dollars for a set of speakers. Full range electrostatics are a good alternative with different trade off of course, also line source speakers can have as many as a dozen tweeters, that solves the ear level tweeter problem, again with other trade offs.

Line arrays may not be the panacea you think. The vertical dispersion is usually quite limited.

 

[IAtaman]

i.e., not real, but a manufactured illusion

So like every recent hollywood movie?

As others already said, the reproduction of a true 3-D sound field can't be done with two speakers.

Ok. I think I get the point. We call it an illusion becasue It is more like a movie projected on 2D surface but looks 3D due to fancy effects rather than an actual hologram of some sort. Appreciate all the explanations.

I think it is still a bit unfair to audio. Movies call themselves 3D and VR headsets for example, they are not called 3D illusion headsets either. Every reproduction in that sense is an illusion. What is real anyway?

 

[Emlin]

So like every recent hollywood movie?


Ok. I think I get the point. We call it an illusion becasue It is more like a movie projected on 2D surface but looks 3D due to fancy effects rather than an actual hologram of some sort. Appreciate all the explanations.

I think it is still a bit unfair to audio. Movies call themselves 3D and VR headsets for example, they are not called 3D illusion headsets either. Every reproduction in that sense is an illusion. What is real anyway?

All perception is an illusion. We cannot experience reality directly, but instead have to put up with our brains' best guess at it based on limited and flawed information from our sensory organs.

 

[Galliardist]

So like every recent hollywood movie?


Ok. I think I get the point. We call it an illusion becasue It is more like a movie projected on 2D surface but looks 3D due to fancy effects rather than an actual hologram of some sort. Appreciate all the explanations.

I think it is still a bit unfair to audio. Movies call themselves 3D and VR headsets for example, they are not called 3D illusion headsets either. Every reproduction in that sense is an illusion. What is real anyway?

Most audiophiles expect too much. It seems to me like I see descriptions of systems where the movie equivalent would be having the bullets actually flying around you or to be injured yourself in the car crash. All this amazing stuff I don't get... but then next week they've already changed their Ethernet switch or something and now the sound is even more amazing.

But then again, I've never seen an orchestral or band concert that has that kind of audio magic either.

For me, enough separation is a requirement that I can tell in an early music recording how many musicians are playing the same line. I got a few surprises when I bought my current speakers in that regard. So I guess I'm happy now.

 

[goat76]

So like every recent hollywood movie?


Ok. I think I get the point. We call it an illusion becasue It is more like a movie projected on 2D surface but looks 3D due to fancy effects rather than an actual hologram of some sort. Appreciate all the explanations.

I think it is still a bit unfair to audio. Movies call themselves 3D and VR headsets for example, they are not called 3D illusion headsets either. Every reproduction in that sense is an illusion. What is real anyway?

Unfournantly, to call the stereo image an illusion is a bit problematic as some people seem to associate the word illusion with "magic" tricks.

On one hand, stereo reproduction of sound is a trick on our hearing with two speakers playing the same recorded sound object which will then appear to be coming from points somewhere between those two speakers. But on the other hand, if the recording was indeed capturing a real sound event, all the captured cues are as real as the distance and placement of the microphones used for the recording, there's no illusion used for that capturing part.