Thinking outside the (Speaker) Box - Does Stereo Ruin sound?

[Scytales]

"The original idea of stereophonic reproduction suggested a whole line of microphones arranged along one wall of a studio or hall where the orchestra or other group performs and, to correspond to it, a similar line of loudspeakers (Fig. 111) to be placed along one wall of the listening room. Each separate loudspeaker would relay the channel of sound picked up by its corresponding microphone. The result of this "electronic orchestra" was that the exact form of the sound wave reaching the wall of microphones was reproduced in the listening room. Considerable improvements were noted in this idealized system, which endeavored to "remove" the double wall between the studio and listening room".

This little text and the accompanying sketch are excerpts of "The Story of Stereo, 1881 -" by John Sunier printed in... 1960 !

I have stressed the points which seems the most important to me in bold. If we acknowledged that stereophonic sound means that the goal is to reproduced a three-dimensional sound, then stereo sound should never be confused with two channels reproduction.

Earlier in time, William B. Snow have been even more precise in the description of this ideal stereophonic recording and reproduction system in his "Basic Principles of Stereophonic Sound" (Journal of the SMPTE, vol. 61, November... 1953 !) :

I think that what should be readily apparent from the latter schematics is that each and every microphone take a sample of the direct sound pulse of the original source and that the corresponding screen of loudspeakers reproduce each sampled sound pulse, that add themselves in the listening room to form a replica of the original sound wave.

To my mind, that is the key to understand stereo sound as far as faithfully record and reproduce an original, natural, sound event is concerned.

The underlying mathematics behind this ideal system is the Huygens-Fresnel principle.

Properly done, two channels stereo is no more than a reduction of the above principle to only two channels.

Far from ruining the sound, stereo recording and reproduction do preserve it, and that is known since the inception of stereophonic sound, as can be learnt from the above mentioned excerpts.

I should stress that this ideal stereophonic system does not originally apply to artificialy created sound tracks (electronic music, mixed recordings, etc...), although there is no fundamental obstacle to create artificial sound contents to be reproduced with a well laid stereophonic system.

 

[DJNX]

Putting a woofer here, a midrange there, a tweeter s'here? It does not make ANY sense. Did he actually ever try it?

That's quite easy, although unconventional, to do in a line array system.

 

[617]

I was thinking something like this:

Trinaural Processor — SST

Closer to the Live Event TRI-CHANNEL PROCESSOR The Trinaural Processor is a totally unique device that addresses what Jim Bongiorno considered an inherent flaw in the traditional music playback system—specifically, that it only produces sound in two channels. According to Jim, there is

www.sst.audio

Implemented as dsp preferably.

I like some of my avr's surround music modes, they're a bit overdone at times but they can be nice.

 

[abdo123]

I thought this was a given?

As long as the right ear hears the left speaker a two channel recording can never faithfully represent the sound field 100% faithfully.

 

[ahofer]

I thought this was a given?

As long as the right ear hears the left speaker a two channel recording can never faithfully represent the sound field 100% faithfully.

I think that would only be true of binaural recordings. If you have a mic pair or trio over the orchestra, like so many recordings, I’m not sure this is important. Rather the amplitude and phase on each side makes the difference.

 

[pseudoid]

Is there really a "soundstage" created (or otherwise) by those house speakers in live events?
Especially pertaining to rock concerts and recordings thereof.
Which belies the question about where it really comes from, to begin with.

 

[abdo123]

I think that would only be true of binaural recordings. If you have a mic pair or trio over the orchestra, like so many recordings, I’m not sure this is important. Rather the amplitude and phase on each side makes the difference.

well stereo recordings do not represent what people actually hear in the venue at all.

 

[levimax]

well stereo recordings do not represent what people actually hear in the venue at all.

Agreed when I go to any popular music concert it is just "mono" from big PA's no "depth" or "side to side" at all. Live classical maybe but not live amplified music.

 

[MCH]

I never understood wanting music to sound "real".

It's like wanting a paiting to be indistinguishable from looking out the window or for a movie to just be a filmed play.

Neither do I. Most of the music I listen to was not recorded live in the studio anyways. No original performance to be reproduced really...

The folks not wearing headphones don't even know what is going on there

 

[youngho]

I know this is going to be controversial. But am hoping we can have a constructive conversation about the conventional wisdom of Audio Speaker designs today versus are we pursuing the right path for actual reproduction of the Original performance? Enjoy, have fun and discuss.

The path for more accurate reproduction of an actual physical environment would probably involve a multichannel array like https://www.genelec.com/-/bang-olufsen-chooses-genelec-for-its-virtual-reality-laboratory, but it would also require suitable recording techniques to take advantage of the playback system, so may not be sufficiently backwards compatible, just varying approximations through processing.

 

[MattHooper]

Putting aside realism, I find stereo immersive and entertaining. So just taking it that way, it's good enough for me.

Mentally/visually, it’s a question of “finding my seat”. Once I have a plausible aural+imagined audience position, I can forget about the stereo. It’s much like ‘suspension of disbelief’ when you are watching actors do impossible things on film. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was something we could do to lower our own thresholds to achieving that state?

I suppose that required quality level to “find your seat” is different for different people and..horrors…may move upwards with our system’s capabilities, perpetuating the upgrade cycle. Unfortunately, there are many flawed recordings out there that may cause misattribution to the system.

Yes, exactly the sentiment I've expressed too.

Much of what I listen to is not meant to be documentarian and realistic per se. But I do appreciate the ability of my system to allow me to sink in to an illusion of live with some material. Strangely enough it's actually symphonic music that often manages this pretty well - unintuitive given the scale of a symphony orchestra vs a pair of floor standing speakers. But insofar as my speakers "disappear"as apparent sound sources, and seem to create a fairly vast sonic space (if on the recording), it becomes an issue of, as you say, "picking my seat" and depending on the recording I may imagine my seat to be further away - e.g. back of hall, balconey, or closer. I take my cue from the sound "what distance seems reasonable to make the scale of this sound seem right?" Often enough, meeting the illusion 1/2-way can result in some quite amazing and satisfying listening experiences. (Actually, I was listening to some of my favorite recordings of the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet the other night, and the sensation-with-eyes-closed of peering in to the recording space at a seemingly life-sized array of classical guitars was very cool).

 

[theREALdotnet]

well stereo recordings do not represent what people actually hear in the venue at all.

They come pretty close, though. At least if the venue is quiet (no other audience members making noise) and the ensemble is small.

 

[ahofer]

This is Alan Shaw:

 

[ahofer]

"Stereo" seems only to be a smallest common denominator to allow sound imaging. Not the only denominator, just the smallest.

and recording media and track coordination was a lot more expensive when it was invented.

 

[posvibes]

This isn't a bullfight, but it evokes one.

 

[RayDunzl]

Sometimes, stereo provides a semblance of realism. This may occur more often during a "live" recording, where there are extraneous clues in the sound.

Other times, just a separation of instruments and voices. This is more common with studio recordings.

I can be sonically satisfied by either condition, first assuming listening to the composition is worthwhile.

 

[Blumlein 88]

"The original idea of stereophonic reproduction suggested a whole line of microphones arranged along one wall of a studio or hall where the orchestra or other group performs and, to correspond to it, a similar line of loudspeakers (Fig. 111) to be placed along one wall of the listening room. Each separate loudspeaker would relay the channel of sound picked up by its corresponding microphone. The result of this "electronic orchestra" was that the exact form of the sound wave reaching the wall of microphones was reproduced in the listening room. Considerable improvements were noted in this idealized system, which endeavored to "remove" the double wall between the studio and listening room".

View attachment 237924

This little text and the accompanying sketch are excerpts of "The Story of Stereo, 1881 -" by John Sunier printed in... 1960 !

I have stressed the points which seems the most important to me in bold. If we acknowledged that stereophonic sound means that the goal is to reproduced a three-dimensional sound, then stereo sound should never be confused with two channels reproduction.

Earlier in time, William B. Snow have been even more precise in the description of this ideal stereophonic recording and reproduction system in his "Basic Principles of Stereophonic Sound" (Journal of the SMPTE, vol. 61, November... 1953 !) :

View attachment 237925

I think that what should be readily apparent from the latter schematics is that each and every microphone take a sample of the direct sound pulse of the original source and that the corresponding screen of loudspeakers reproduce each sampled sound pulse, that add themselves in the listening room to form a replica of the original sound wave.

To my mind, that is the key to understand stereo sound as far as faithfully record and reproduce an original, natural, sound event is concerned.

The underlying mathematics behind this ideal system is the Huygens-Fresnel principle.

Properly done, two channels stereo is no more than a reduction of the above principle to only two channels.

Far from ruining the sound, stereo recording and reproduction do preserve it, and that is known since the inception of stereophonic sound, as can be learnt from the above mentioned excerpts.

I should stress that this ideal stereophonic system does not originally apply to artificialy created sound tracks (electronic music, mixed recordings, etc...), although there is no fundamental obstacle to create artificial sound contents to be reproduced with a well laid stereophonic system.

Yeah, that was the Bell Labs approach. The Blumlein stereo method counting on intensity/timing of stereo and how human hearing worked to create virtual imaging won out instead.

Bell Labs eventually determined almost all the benefit of that big line array could be reproduced with 3 channels across the front. Hence why 2 channel stereo won out. There were a few different ways to encode two channels, but other than 3 channel tape, nothing for 3 channels. 3 channels would have been quite an upgrade over stereo. The stereo 2 channel method was almost too good in that it sort of becomes a dead end in the evolution of sound reproduction.

 

[HighImpactAV]

I've been following Dave Rat's articles, AES presentations, and videos for years. He was the live sound engineer for Red Hot Chili Pepper's for 26 years and also worked for several other bands. He currently does the complete audio system setup and runs all the stage for Coachella.

Dave's comments are related directly to live sound (concerts, etc), but also apply to multi-channel systems. It does not apply to recordings of live sound. In live sound, you have very few people actually sitting in a location for "stereo" listening. Microphones are capturing everything in mono and most instruments are also in mono. Keyboards and some electric guitars will have stereo output, but these are sometimes dual mono. If you send all the same channels to any speakers that have overlapping coverage, you get comb filtering throughout the listening area. Also, the intelligibility of each speaker is reduced when sending multiple inputs into the same output channel. At home, one has no control over any of this so it doesn't really apply to a stereo system.

In order to increase intelligibility and have even coverage across all seats in a live sound event, Dave sends uncorrelated sound to each speaker. This is done by having a separate speaker for the instruments and a second speaker for the vocals. This is called the Double Hung System since two line arrays are hung next to each other on each side of the stage. In the area where the left array and the right array overlap, there is no comb filter because he also double mics instruments with one mic going to the left array and the other going to the right array. The mics are located in slightly different positions and may even be different models. This provides decorrelated sound to all the speakers and eliminates the comb filtering and reduced intelligibility.

He also designed floor monitors (that are now produced by Electro-Voice) that let him use multiple monitors with different input busses routed to each monitor. This increases intelligibility for on-stage musicians and lets them hear the vocals clearly without other instruments affecting the sound quality.

In multi-channel home theaters, this concept applies to either upmixing or speaker remapping. With upmixing, Dolby Atmos has properly not provided upmixing to the wide channels. This is because wides are closest in proximity to the mains. When more than one channels gets content, it reduces the sound quality. It order to maintain the sound quality of the mains, they have so far eschewed upmixing to the wides. Due to consumer demand, even if incorrect, they may add it in the future.

Speaker remapping is an attempt to place a phantom image of a sound between several speakers by producing sound from the multiple speakers. However, this only works for one seating position. It also reduces sound quality at that position. Sound from a single speaker has better clarity when by design (Atmos, DTS-X, Auro-3D) the sound is supposed to be in that single speaker.

 

[pablolie]

To me, something being "stereo" clearly doesn't make anything a better recording, but it can provide the foundation for a recording that sounds far more involving. Most recordings are garbage, stereo or not.

That said, I honestly have never enjoyed a mono recording. I know they are sometimes sold as special audiophile editions, but to me that's the lazy way out of dealing with the complexity of competently engineering a better recording. It sounds static and un-involving to me. Mind you - I also hate completely artificial stereo effects (we discussed that in "The Truth about Piano Audiophile Recordings" thread).

As in many things, some balance is the key to excellence.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Is there really a "soundstage" created (or otherwise) by those house speakers in live events?
Especially pertaining to rock concerts and recordings thereof.
Which belies the question about where it really comes from, to begin with.

Not the same thing, but I've done experiments where I record a few musicians close miked. I then give everyone their own channel feeding their own speaker. I put 5 speakers in the front of a large room about where the musicians were. This kind of playback is pretty terrific. You get more of a "they are here" effect than you do an "I am there" sound reproduction. It actually sounds genuinely much more real than stereo. Yes, I know directionality of instruments and microphones and speakers are corrupting it in all kinds of ways. Nevertheless, just having 5 real sound sources for 5 musicians eliminates problems with multiple virtual sound sources from stereo.

Of course Atmos claims to be able to replicate this effect. I haven't heard music with Atmos except at movie theaters.

EDIT to add: You probably could add some rear channels that recorded out the hall sound to the above and get real images in what sounds like another space. Which is what the rest of Atmos is with the ceiling and surround speakers.