Speaker Testing: why mono is better

[amirm]

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 started to sum them when I was doing AB testing at my workstation between left and right channels. There, the two had to be identical and hence the mono conversion.

But these days I just listen to one speaker from one channel. I don't do any mono conversion.

 

[bunkbail]

I started to sum them when I was doing AB testing at my workstation between left and right channels. There, the two had to be identical and hence the mono conversion.

But these days I just listen to one speaker from one channel. I don't do any mono conversion.

I see. I don't enjoy listening to summed channels at all, they image weird to me. Probably a preference thing? Anyways, thanks for the chiming in.

 

[thewas]

I see. I don't enjoy listening to summed channels at all, they image weird to me. Probably a preference thing?

That depends also on the way the recording/mix was created, intensity stereophony is mono compatible, time-of-arrival stereophony is not.

 

[bennybbbx]

I see. I don't enjoy listening to summed channels at all, they image weird to me. Probably a preference thing? Anyways, thanks for the chiming in.

every music record use a reverb and have a nice room attached. this is also in rock music but with less and short reverb.on ealry days they use plate reverb. when you mix it to mono then strange sound happen to the reverb. hear only 1 channel i think is better than mix to mono.in this video can hear how reverb sond.

hear it with headphones and speakers. if the reverb on speaker in stereo sound not so big as in this example then maybe your speakers mid range is too slow

 

[beagleman]

I think it widely depends on the recording.

Some stuff sounds fine summed, some creates cancellations. Some ambiance and stuff in pop/rock recordings is created intentionally by having phase shifts from left to right channel, and never sound "Same" when summed. In fact they actually cancel each other.

 

[bunkbail]

I think it widely depends on the recording.

Some stuff sounds fine summed, some creates cancellations. Some ambiance and stuff in pop/rock recordings is created intentionally by having phase shifts from left to right channel, and never sound "Same" when summed. In fact they actually cancel each other.

Yeah I think this is the case. Acoustics and live orchestral music sounded good in summed mono, whereas modern recordings sounded meh in my setup.

 

[dasdoing]

OT can one have Trifield outside of a Meridian System , I use it all the time .

how?

 

[Art of sound]

Did harmon have a subwoofer in their anechoic chamber? I'm curious.
Mono is for getting the best tonality and technicality experience but audio is always going to be subjective on some level.

If Amir doesn't like Monoprice, apple, jdslabs etc and doesn't recommend some products, he isn't manipulating results or avoid posting results like those completely subjective reviewers could easily get away with. Judgement is on you.

Your contention should be testing related if you're in this forum.
That's why I'm here.

 

[krabapple]

Did harmon have a subwoofer in their anechoic chamber? I'm curious.

Harman didn't do listening tests in an anaechoic chamber. It would be a terrible idea to do so.

 

[Art of sound]

Harman didn't do listening tests in an anaechoic chamber. It would be a terrible idea to do so.

Okay.
1) how about measurements?
2) Why not if they went with 2.0 setups for listening and conducting research on listening tests.

 

[krabapple]

I suggest you buy and read Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction (3rd edition).

 

[Art of sound]

I suggest you buy and read Floyd Toole's book Sound Reproduction (3rd edition).

Okay. Love the basics. Got it on kindle. Contrasts well with what I'm reading now.
Thanks again.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Okay.
1) how about measurements?
2) Why not if they went with 2.0 setups for listening and conducting research on listening tests.

The chamber kills all reflections and in no way emulates a real room.
Likely nothing in there would sound very good to most folks. Might be a cool experience but that is it.
Besides real world listening was Harmans subject.
They did all listening testing in real rooms in order to discover what speakers sound subjectively best in real rooms and used the data collected from the subjective evaluations to improve manufacturing consistently good sound in rooms.
The chamber is only for objective testing.

In fact Harman and Tools have essentially concluded that it is best to use the room reflections to mediate excellent audio reproduction. Especially as the total sound of the reflections exceeds the direct sound.
That is part of why Harman has all the excellent waveguides, so that direct and indirect sound have a mutually beneficial relationship.

 

[Art of sound]

The chamber kills all reflections and in no way emulates a real room.
Likely nothing in there would sound very good to most folks. Might be a cool experience but that is it.
Besides real world listening was Harmans subject.
They did all listening testing in real rooms in order to discover what speakers sound subjectively best in real rooms and used the data collected from the subjective evaluations to improve manufacturing consistently good sound in rooms.
The chamber is only for objective testing.

In fact Harman and Tools have essentially concluded that it is best to use the room reflections to mediate excellent audio reproduction. Especially as the total sound of the reflections exceeds the direct sound.
That is part of why Harman has all the excellent waveguides, so that direct and indirect sound have a mutually beneficial relationship.

So no subjective tests with a sub, one way that explains why the market refused to make budget 2.1 amplifiers.
I got a Sub once i realized the massive difference in amir's speaker ratings and judging my preferences.

 

[Art of sound]

If Mono > Stereo (measurements) ? by how much
If 1.0 > 2.0 (listening tests) ? why not 2.1

To explain with an example:
Mav vs windows (arm), both platforms consider the app as universal whether its x86 or arm during launch. Difference is that apple built in a translation layer that compiles the respective arm code when you install the x86app and i believe its built into the cores itself making it best use the hardware curating for consumers as they usually do. MS went the route of emulating the apps with a software layer targeting extreme compatibility whilst putting performance as an afterthought as they do with anything in the company to make their developers happy irrespective of their skills (technical and behavioral). Thats how i see it. Its not the idea. Its the implementation.

 

[tvrgeek]

My experience is for evaluation, mono is probably more revealing as your brain has less to focus on. Stereo starts to have much larger dependence on the environment.

Speakers are all so bad, fancy automated behind a screen shuffling may be valid for voicing one speaker, but between different designs, the differences are so gross I do not believe it is needed. Accurate eq is far more significant. Speakers are bad enough I can get the "signature" just in a store and when I find it in another, that memory holds. Electronics are far harder. Back in the old days, we had a remote control relay board to swap out components in a crossover for "voice by group and wine" sessions. Test equipment back end was out of reach of all but major corporations. I hope some day speakers will catch up, but materials science is not encouraging. The engineering going into large membrane, multiple drivers is making leaps and bounds due to the OLED market.

I never see much on which recordings are used for evaluations as far as why. I have a select set of cuts that I know emphasize defects in the speakers and amps ( and now DACs) I have other music that on about everything, you just chill and listen ignoring the differences. My most reveling tend to be very simple orchestration. Single female voice, single classical guitar, single piano, dominant trumpet solo etc. Easier to get lost in a full symphony to good old rock and roll.

 

[Art of sound]

My experience is for evaluation, mono is probably more revealing as your brain has less to focus on. Stereo starts to have much larger dependence on the environment.

Speakers are all so bad, fancy automated behind a screen shuffling may be valid for voicing one speaker, but between different designs, the differences are so gross I do not believe it is needed. Accurate eq is far more significant. Speakers are bad enough I can get the "signature" just in a store and when I find it in another, that memory holds. Electronics are far harder. Back in the old days, we had a remote control relay board to swap out components in a crossover for "voice by group and wine" sessions. Test equipment back end was out of reach of all but major corporations. I hope some day speakers will catch up, but materials science is not encouraging. The engineering going into large membrane, multiple drivers is making leaps and bounds due to the OLED market.

I never see much on which recordings are used for evaluations as far as why. I have a select set of cuts that I know emphasize defects in the speakers and amps ( and now DACs) I have other music that on about everything, you just chill and listen ignoring the differences. My most reveling tend to be very simple orchestration. Single female voice, single classical guitar, single piano, dominant trumpet solo etc. Easier to get lost in a full symphony to good old rock and roll.

To answer your question: "Stereo starts to have much larger dependence on the environment."

copy pasting Rooskie's comment:
"In fact Harman and Tools have essentially concluded that it is best to use the room reflections to mediate excellent audio reproduction. Especially as the total sound of the reflections exceeds the direct sound."

 

[Art of sound]

A Scientific hypothesis by definition should be refutable. So we don't need to worry about who is doing the experiment and more people can get into science and humans make progress. that's actually what's happening in the last 200 years of industrial revolutions.

The most important thing is to combat false pattern recognition. Not efficacy. That's all science is designed for. Therefore the existence of Scientific journals.

Example:
Having something resembling a control makes things easier. Haven't we learned nothing from Hubble launch debacle.

 

[tvrgeek]

To answer your question: "Stereo starts to have much larger dependence on the environment."

copy pasting Rooskie's comment:
"In fact Harman and Tools have essentially concluded that it is best to use the room reflections to mediate excellent audio reproduction. Especially as the total sound of the reflections exceeds the direct sound."

But that is not the point of evaluating a speaker in it's pure form as no two rooms are the same! Are you going to build the exact room Harmon did so they sound the same? No. You need a way to compare like to like to like INDEPENDENT of the room. Then it is up to you to manage the room or know if one product or another best suits it. You could make all the measurements in my living room you want, and the results would be terrible in yours. Just as nearfield measurements are only useful for selecting a driver for a build. Useless for design.

Some companies use anechoic chambers to know what the speaker, and only the speaker, does. Not sure it is useful either as it would require a known target of what works in various real rooms. You are fighting the basic problem of selling HALF of the speaker into an unknown other half.

Then add in the various cultural, biological and experience preferences of people. We are all different. What bothers us is different. What clues we pick up to convince out brains what we hear is music is different. That does not even touch the placebo effects.

We DIY speaker builders have an advantage. We know the room! My speakers were tuned for may last house in a much larger room. They are too bright for this one. I may adjust the crossovers a bit. Or build one more pair.

 

[Art of sound]

But that is not the point of evaluating a speaker in it's pure form as no two rooms are the same! Are you going to build the exact room Harmon did so they sound the same? No. You need a way to compare like to like to like INDEPENDENT of the room. Then it is up to you to manage the room or know if one product or another best suits it. You could make all the measurements in my living room you want, and the results would be terrible in yours. Just as nearfield measurements are only useful for selecting a driver for a build. Useless for design.

Some companies use anechoic chambers to know what the speaker, and only the speaker, does. Not sure it is useful either as it would require a known target of what works in various real rooms. You are fighting the basic problem of selling HALF of the speaker into an unknown other half.

Then add in the various cultural, biological and experience preferences of people. We are all different. What bothers us is different. What clues we pick up to convince out brains what we hear is music is different. That does not even touch the placebo effects.

We DIY speaker builders have an advantage. We know the room! My speakers were tuned for may last house in a much larger room. They are too bright for this one. I may adjust the crossovers a bit. Or build one more pair.

Why do you think we came up with directivity index being critical for recommending speakers using klippel.
or
harman curve for headphones,iem's etc.
That's the safeguard or the control. psychoacoustics is the subjective part but good directivity means resonances can somewhat be tackled.