• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Speaker Testing: why mono is better

Andysu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
527
Likes
286
Playing Mono - Airport '77, airport terminal pack region 1 DVD. Mono / Lucasfilm Ltd THX Sound System - mono at 1500kw with sub bass extension 3000kw - total system 38.000kw when fully used with Dolby atmos PlusIIIx.

Real JBL triple blind listening test!

 

Andysu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
527
Likes
286
Every serious audiophile knows that trinaural is best. ;)
I can play mono at single channel and this is behind the projection screen. also as duel mono which is sort of common most cases you may even yourself done few times with a DVD mono movie as some are not often encoded as 1.0 most are encoded 2.0 and the receiver will only automatically d what it is programmed to do, unless your aware and manually select Dolby pro-logic / or that rubbish Dolby surround, now fitted on these rubbish avr that behave like a cheap pc computer.

I can even play the mono as three screen or five screen with ether the horns switched off on left and right so only the horn is active at centre while rest of the bass on LCR LF extends down a bit lower or use five and have five bass LF running with HF centre On or do it with all the five active. Anything now is doable or have the Mono playing on all the speakers in the room all nearly 156 JBL all at once.
 

Andysu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
527
Likes
286
A bit more of Mono listening with Airport '77 in Lucasfilm Ltd THX Sound System. The movie is the number 1 mono movie in this JBL THX cinema.

 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,809
Location
Oxford, England
There are omni's that exist that, although designed or implemented incorrectly, can sound amazing

You may have even heard some

However, a correctly designed and implemented set of omni's are truly unbeatable

It's a matter of personal preference.
Omnis and horns (quasi-fullrange narrow directivity) are opposing the extremes (I prefer the latter), and probably most people will prefer something in between.
 

Bullwinkle J Moose

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
217
Likes
83
It's a matter of personal preference.
Omnis and horns (quasi-fullrange narrow directivity) are opposing the extremes (I prefer the latter), and probably most people will prefer something in between.

Personal Preference is not even a consideration when designing a system that is indistinguishable from reality

If I close my eyes, I can tell your (quasi-fullrange narrow directivity) horns are speakers

The sweet spot does not cover the entire room

The comb filtering and crosstalk reduce the midbass to mud

Tell me more about them and I'll tell you what else is wrong with them
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,809
Location
Oxford, England
Personal Preference is not even a consideration when designing a system that is indistinguishable from reality

If I close my eyes, I can tell your (quasi-fullrange narrow directivity) horns are speakers

The sweet spot does not cover the entire room

The comb filtering and crosstalk reduce the midbass to mud

Tell me more about them and I'll tell you what else is wrong with them

Real stereo (1 channel to 1 track to 1 speaker) over a pair of speakers (or even 5) is unable to reproduce the original soundfield. That is a fact.
So regardless of whether you use horns, dipoles, omis or flat-sided boxes, stereo is always distinguishable from reality.
If you don't acknowledge that then you are deluding yourself...or you've not listened to reality.

And because stereo is flawed, we each pick the version we find less damaged, or is able to produce a more credible illusion, according to one's personal preference. The lesser of two evils.
 
Last edited:

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,323
Likes
868
Location
Sweden
Real stereo (1 channel to 1 track to 1 speaker) over a pair of speakers (or even 5) is unable to reproduce the original soundfield. That is a fact.
So regardless of whether you use horns, dipoles, omis or flat-sided boxes, stereo is always distinguishable from reality.
If you don't acknowledge that then you are deluding yourself...or you've not listened to reality.

And because stereo is flawed, we each pick the version we find less damaged, or is able to produce a more credible illusion, according to one's personal preference. The lesser of two evils.

Just curious, are there links to such experiments where is a listening lounge and a scene with an orchestra playing vs speakers, blinded using curtains? I've heard only of one such trial.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,809
Location
Oxford, England
Just curious, are there links to such experiments where is a listening lounge and a scene with an orchestra playing vs speakers, blinded using curtains? I've heard only of one such trial.

The most famous were by Quad/Wharfedale and Acoustic Research

AR-demos_1.jpg
AR-demos_2.jpg
AR-demos_3.jpg
AR-demos_4.jpg
AR-demos_5.jpg
AR-demos_6.jpg
live-vs-recorded_1.jpg
live-vs-recorded_2.jpg
live-vs-recorded_3.jpg
live-vs-recorded_4.jpg
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,323
Likes
868
Location
Sweden
Ok thanks. These were rather old ones with open sessions. I was thinking more of listening with single persons at sweet spot and blinded. The one I've heard about did that with recordings alternating with orchestral playing.
 

Bullwinkle J Moose

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
217
Likes
83
Real stereo (1 channel to 1 track to 1 speaker) over a pair of speakers (or even 5) is unable to reproduce the original soundfield. That is a fact.
So regardless of whether you use horns, dipoles, omis or flat-sided boxes, stereo is always distinguishable from reality.
If you don't acknowledge that then you are deluding yourself...or you've not listened to reality.

And because stereo is flawed, we each pick the version we find less damaged, or is able to produce a more credible illusion, according to one's personal preference. The lesser of two evils.

You are once again incorrect!

That is a fact.

Saying that "horns, dipoles, omis or flat-sided boxes, stereo is always distinguishable from reality.", and then pointing to research that showed 9 reviewers were unable to detect the switchover from live to reproduced sound does not help your case

The fact that these tests were performed in a large concert environment using flawed methodology, with flawed reproduction equipment using outdated ideas does not help your case one bit

When nearfield reproduction in a small room, without concert hall reverberations finally becomes indistinguishable from "your" reality, then we can agree that others have finally done what I have been doing for the past 40 years

If not, then we can all agree that you are a very disagreeable person
Again, another fact!
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,775
Likes
2,809
Location
Oxford, England
You are once again incorrect!

That is a fact.

Saying that "horns, dipoles, omis or flat-sided boxes, stereo is always distinguishable from reality.", and then pointing to research that showed 9 reviewers were unable to detect the switchover from live to reproduced sound does not help your case

The fact that these tests were performed in a large concert environment using flawed methodology, with flawed reproduction equipment using outdated ideas does not help your case one bit

When nearfield reproduction in a small room, without concert hall reverberations finally becomes indistinguishable from "your" reality, then we can agree that others have finally done what I have been doing for the past 40 years

If not, then we can all agree that you are a very disagreeable person
Again, another fact!

I didn't point to any research, I merely stated a fact (see image below).
I posted the live vs. reproduced tests in reply to someone else's question (post #472), it had nothing to do with "our" discussion, and it's not related.

How people "perceive" realism is a personal matter.
Maybe this image will help:

ZEMizNN.gif
 

Thomas_A

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
1,323
Likes
868
Location
Sweden
I didn't point to any research, I merely stated a fact (see image below).
I posted the live vs. reproduced tests in reply to someone else's question (post #472), it had nothing to do with "our" discussion, and it's not related.

How people "perceive" realism is a personal matter.
Maybe this image will help:

ZEMizNN.gif

If I want to transfer the situation to another listening room, I have to make a choice. Do I want to be tranferred to the hall or do I want my room to be transferred to the hall acting as a lounge? This will lead to very different setups, the first being a fully damped room filled with a huge number of speakers. If I see it as a lounge with the speaker wall as an opening against the event, the speaker front wall need to be acoustically invisible.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,240
Likes
6,224
There has been plenty of research into imaging since the 1980's

I would know since it was my research

The problem with great imaging is that it would require a special mic technique and speaker methodology to achieve great results

You will never get great imaging when mastering from a mixing console in a studio, then played through "ANY" pair of speakers

Recording, and playback must be a matched system for realistic imaging

Crosstalk and comb filtering MUST be eliminated for the best results

Mono information must NEVER be reproduced from two or more locations

Omnidirectional speakers also give the best results

Every commercial song you play has a different playback requirement for imaging and width which makes marketing a perfect system impossible

I can create an unbelievably realistic image, but mass production from record to playback is simply not feasible

Every single pair of speakers available are wrong for great imaging as are the recording techniques

They are "good enough" for consumer mass marketing and nothing more

End of Story!

I was with you until the Omni part :p. Never heard an omni that images to a degree that I would even call "decent". I have liked what I've heard there overall, but imaging is the biggest downside to my ears.

Best imaging I ever heard was a Danley SH50, which is fantastic (imo) due to its very narrow(50x50) dispersion pattern.
 

bunkbail

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
483
Likes
588
Hi @amirm, when you listen to mono, do you sum both channels together? I do that on my PC, they don't sound good at all. I find it very weird if we listen to mono but not downmix the channels together.
Screenshot from 2021-07-13 14-48-22.png
 
Top Bottom