No. Any chance of lateralisation perception with non mono bass will be above 40hz. Any chance of lateralisation with mono bass is zero (or delusion)
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Stereo Sub Vs Dual Mono
- Thread starter My adventures in stereo
- Start date
Thanks, I did read that the first time around, didn't realize it was the same one. Thanks for referring to it again!
I didn't actually say it wasn't a thing.
Based on the study it is a thing for parts of the frequency area in the bass if you have set up your system very carefully in the room to achieve it, and dependent upon certain recording techniques so not present in the way demonstrated in the study on all recordings.
I still maintain that the effect of this is likely not great in most setups, especially at the expense of both linearity and capacity. If one has both been able to set up their system in a room to benefit of this and listen to recordings where this is present, that's great.
That doesn't mean that mono bass is suddenly bad advice for most people in most situations.
thanks!
thanks, clear!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2021
- Messages
- 646
- Likes
- 1,415
I don't think anybody said mono bass is bad advice, just that stereo bass is absolutely better if you have the layout, gear, and skill to set it up. Just because something is better doesn't make the other thing bad. There are only benefits to be had when set up effectively, and stereo bass is also far more pervasive in recordings than people admit or are aware of.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2018
- Messages
- 837
- Likes
- 638
I agree. Particularly with modern electronic music. I think that mono will be fine for those with a low enough crossover and listening to music where the lower frequencies are not panned. This panning happens frequently in modern electronic music, so I want to hear it properly, in stereo.
There's a new video with Todd Welti on the Audioholics youtube channel. It covers topics including stereo bass. Its main purpose is to discuss a new Denon and Marantz feature that allows "directional bass", which extends the stereo bass idea to multi-channel.
Although they don't mention it specifically, it made me recognize certain rhetorical aspects of the online discussions regarding stereo bass. This feature is presented implicitly as something that confers only benefits, as if there were no downside whatsoever. There is a downside though. With stereo bass, you give up on modal control (which requires mono bass). Modal control is essential to reduce seat-to-seat response variation, which can become extreme.
Edit: One might make the argument that if you're only concerned with a single seat, there's no advantage to mono bass. But consider a single listening position, the MLP, using two subs. Let's say one of those subs gives a response suckout the MLP at some frequency, while the other has a strong response at that frequency at the MLP. When combined, one sub "fills in the gaps" of the other at the MLP, giving a moderate response dip and making the summation much easier to equalize. But for this summation to work properly, mono bass is required, so this argument breaks down as well. The advantages of mono bass are not limited to the multiple listening position scenario.
One amusing part of the video occurs when Matthew Poes describes some discussions he had about stereo bass with David Griesinger. Apparently, David had Matthew set up multiple subs in his bathroom in an attempt to demonstrate some aspect of stereo bass. I got a kick out of that.
Although they don't mention it specifically, it made me recognize certain rhetorical aspects of the online discussions regarding stereo bass. This feature is presented implicitly as something that confers only benefits, as if there were no downside whatsoever. There is a downside though. With stereo bass, you give up on modal control (which requires mono bass). Modal control is essential to reduce seat-to-seat response variation, which can become extreme.
Edit: One might make the argument that if you're only concerned with a single seat, there's no advantage to mono bass. But consider a single listening position, the MLP, using two subs. Let's say one of those subs gives a response suckout the MLP at some frequency, while the other has a strong response at that frequency at the MLP. When combined, one sub "fills in the gaps" of the other at the MLP, giving a moderate response dip and making the summation much easier to equalize. But for this summation to work properly, mono bass is required, so this argument breaks down as well. The advantages of mono bass are not limited to the multiple listening position scenario.
One amusing part of the video occurs when Matthew Poes describes some discussions he had about stereo bass with David Griesinger. Apparently, David had Matthew set up multiple subs in his bathroom in an attempt to demonstrate some aspect of stereo bass. I got a kick out of that.
Last edited:
Another discussion I recently ran across: http://www.filmaker.com/papers/RM-2SW_AES119NYC.pdf
Igor Kirkwood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2020
- Messages
- 109
- Likes
- 238
The question of mono bass vs. stereo bass is one of the most interesting questions posed by High Fidelity reproduction.
Am Igor Kirkwood sound engineer and of course I know that the result of the different types of sound recording strongly impacts the reproduction of music.
To illustrate my point and pay homage to John Eargle I would choose one of my favourites: track 8 Shostakovich 8th symphony 3rd movement.
Remember that John Eargle mainly uses 2 omnidirectional microphones very far from each other.
When comparing subs/mono Vs stereo subs, the latter wins by far, with a remarkable 3D sound image.
If we take 2 subs/stereo measurements Vs 4 mono subs, the result of the curves is however better in mono sub =8.9/10 in mono and in stereo = 8,4/10
Paradoxical in High Fidelity ! !
Note the phase opposition of the 2 stereo subs à la Griesinger, which further increases the stereophonic effect when listening.
STEREO 2 SUB (GRIESINGER) CURVES
4 SUBS MONO CURVES
Am Igor Kirkwood sound engineer and of course I know that the result of the different types of sound recording strongly impacts the reproduction of music.
To illustrate my point and pay homage to John Eargle I would choose one of my favourites: track 8 Shostakovich 8th symphony 3rd movement.
Remember that John Eargle mainly uses 2 omnidirectional microphones very far from each other.
When comparing subs/mono Vs stereo subs, the latter wins by far, with a remarkable 3D sound image.
If we take 2 subs/stereo measurements Vs 4 mono subs, the result of the curves is however better in mono sub =8.9/10 in mono and in stereo = 8,4/10
Paradoxical in High Fidelity ! !
Note the phase opposition of the 2 stereo subs à la Griesinger, which further increases the stereophonic effect when listening.
STEREO 2 SUB (GRIESINGER) CURVES
4 SUBS MONO CURVES
Last edited:
The only thing such an apples to oranges comparison shows is that spatial averaging works. Not exactly news.
Now try >2 subs on each stereo side spatial averaging, then apply EQ (down) to any excessive peaks only.
That's right where the "sub" is in stereo playback and coincidentally where the most advanced audio systems put "subs", like our perceptual luminary JJ' proprietary system (NOT stereo!) as a starting point for perceptual reconstruction of actual events. A lot of forum nonsensical myths arose from misreading the Welti paper.
The loudspeakers below the TV screen has 5 coaxials bass/mid + tweeters same as the one in the Kef Q900
Following Griesinger's recommandations, we tried to place subwoofers (grouped front+left, back+right) so to excite different low frequency modes but keeping L+R summation relatively flat, see picture (L is blue, R is red, L+R is black)
Last edited:
Similar threads
