Recently moved, stereo is now in a 11×19 basement room with carpet and dense sound proof ceiling tile. The room is very dead sounding, I hated it at first then after about a week I really started to enjoy it. I sit about 10-12 feet away and the imaging is so clear and alive, the speakers are about 3 feet from the wall. The sound just washes over you with almost no reflections. I am always amazed how the room is really the key too your stereos sound.
@@raynewcomb337 - Yes. A good room is lovely. My perspective is: The room is, 99.9% of the time, the one system component which has NOT been designed and constructed to give the best sound possible (at a given price point).
@@rb032682 old drywall which is alot thicker then today's stuff.... I am really loving this dead room, it's like I never heard my stereo before if you get what I mean.
All of this is why, after years of “purist” (and some very expensive) 2-channel systems, with considerable room treatments, I finally switched to a vintage Meridian 5.1 system which has Trifield processing. Bingo. No more “hole” in the middle of the soundstage, because there is a physical centre speaker. Interestingly, this is how stereo was originally designed, with three speakers (it was dropped down to two because the consumer media of the time couldn’t hold more than two channels of information). Having listened this way for a while, I doubt I could go back to two channels again, it’s just too good and so much less room dependent, especially with rears providing subtle ambient information too. Added bonus - you hear true multichannel recordings (and movies) in their native format, which sounds much better.
Imaging issue not usually considered; height of floor standing speakers off of floor. I raised mine 7.5 in off floor on block and then hdf foam (yoga blocks banded together) ʻpedestalsʻ. It raised the overall imaging up in relation to the room and the projection screen. Also use reflection dampening on walls and use rug/furniture arrangement for overall bass dampening. Still the biggest factor in imaging is the speaker, amp and sound source quality. Use of center and rear speakers helps to pull and place the sound in any given room. Mono recording can be very revealing and charming as well, but one has to increase the listening volume a bit to add to the dynamic.
I have always put absorption on the wall behind my speakers. To me, this is the single, best and easiest of room tweaks to improve imaging & transient clarity. In every home system I've had, the rear wall is just 1-2 feet behind the speakers, and I will build or buy a pair of absorber panels. 2'x4' is a decent minimum size, and at least 2" thickness. If you mount 2" foam or fiberglass absorbers on 2" spacers behind them, you get an effective 4" of absorption off the rear wall, which absorbs down to around 500 Hz. They don't have to be ugly either.... with wood frames and decorative fabrics, they can look really nice.
My solution, play the music outside. Ancient Rotel & Hafler electronics, BIC Beam Box antenna, and Baby Advent IIs in the garage gets moved outside to face my patio making an outdoor listening 'room'. I've taken great care in setting it up properly. Much less reflected sound. Doesn't play loud (good thing since I have neighbors ;) but imaging is really dreamy at times. Listening to the university station (90FM) over the air (that Beam Box really works) is the best. Try it if you can.
An easy way to test speaker interaction with the room is walking around clapping your hands listening for the changes which can be significant. One manufacturer I recall put out a CD with a Clap Track on it so as not to spank the hand that feeds you.
Agreeing with J.Atkinson's observation. Listening from a distance tends to feel like "distant monaural", although a sense of ambience is retained. A marching band heard from several blocks away has a definite feel of "ambiance" even if one cannot define each instrument's location.
I didn’t read that column from John Atkinson, but he does have a point. 😉 If you seat in a equilateral triangle between two speakers, you should have a good stereo image and separation. If you move closer to the center of those two loudspeakers, you will have a greater sense of stereo, even if you sacrifice imaging, the phantom center, and tone (you only get 100% stereo with headphones, since there’s no crosstalk between the two ears and individual audio channels). If you’re in a big room and you go further away from two loudspeakers (even maintaining the center axis between them), sound will become increasingly mixed between the left and right channel, up to the point that (if you have the distance), you’ll end up listened both channels mixed, which is the same as mono. You can clearly hear this effect on small stereo portable speakers, where you can only get a sense of two channels if your nose is up against the speaker. At 1 meter away, you’re listening in mono again, unless the small loudspeaker has some kind of side firing loudspeakers that allow them to behave like many soundbars do in regards to the left and right channel. In a regular concert hall, it’s very easy to get a similar effect, unless you’re closer to the stage. 🙂 Yes, reflections rarely sound “mono”, but if you can’t separate the instruments on the right from the left, it means that you can’t localize then audibly left to right, which is… …mono! Most vocal recordings have some sort of stereo reverb or delay on them in order to keep them wider in the mix/soundstage. But as long as there’s only one vocalist and no overdubs, the vocal is always mono. The effect might be in stereo, not the vocal (which is tracked with only one mono microphone on more than 90% of rock, pop, jazz, etc.
My understanding of this is, we have two ears, each one of them capable of identifying different sounds and their origin/location therefore, we put ourselves in a disadvantage when we listen to mono. Those who insist on mono recordings and/or equipment are more than likely interested just in the music itself (the actual notes, noise, whatever..) rather than re creating a live event with all its ambiance and holographic presentation. Let alone, they seem to stick their finger up the latest technology available for sound and/or event reproduction. It takes many kinds...
Thanasis Manolopoulos I don’t think anyone is really insistent that mono is better anymore. Some recordings are better in mono than their stereo conversions.
I have 30-38cm(12-15inch) thick rockwool absobtion that covers all front side walls and ceiling to get all first reflections and it really helping to get that super focused Phantom center sound and like you said the regular stereo is also spoton. Problem now is were ever I go and listen to other stereos the never have that stereo image i am justed to.
As I listen to mono, the small image that Steve describes is initially present. In a short time the image broadens as my brain processes the sound. I find that solo pianos often have a more realistic image in mono. I suspect other folks experience the same broadening. From Steve's description, it appears this does not happen for him.
Live music becoming a "mush": yes I could not agree more. Most of the sound in a large venue isn't really 3D, it's just a mush of sounds reflecting in all directions at once. And that is why I think stereo is okay, even though I am always trying to tell people that stereo isn't ever really 3D sound. Stereo can do that mush pretty well. I can get a good tight stereo image, but it falls apart the minute you move around. I can get a wider soundstage too, and that is less susceptible to breaking up with movement, but then it's less precise too. I enjoy stereo because it "fills the room" better in my opinion. I like to listen to mono music once in a while, but stereo is much more interesting to me, even though I don't think it's really much more lifelike.
Most of my listening is on JBL 305P monitors, sitting at a desk. I have a mono button on the monitor controller. Hitting it always amazes me. The music moves to the center of desk. Moving the speakers small amounts, fractions of an inch, moves this center, which is tightly focused.
Nicely explained. The listening room itself has the biggest effect on sound. What with standing waves, room nodes and furnishings. It can be challenging finding best speaker locations for that "just right" sound experience. There's an old adage; how do you get to Carnegie Hall?? Practice, practice, practice. It's the same with audio placement. Experiment, experiment, experiment. Really is the cheapest way to improve your hifi's sound.
I bought a Mercury Living Presence (f:35) Xavier Cougat MONO LP because I was interested in the recording technology (35mm film). It sounds unbelievable!! The image is huge, with depth & spectacular dynamics, and NO tape hiss! I cannot believe it's mono, but it is. While it's not my usual genre of music to listen to, I have grown to like it very much! I recently purchased another f:35 pressing, and the sound is nothing special.... so I think I got lucky with the Cougat LP..... maybe it's a first pressing?
Another great vid. In my 11x13 living room I have Klipsch Fortes and a 15" passive subwoofer on one side, Klipsch Heresys on the other side, and my 17" high '70's Sony bookshelf speakers in between (my desktop, where I mostly sit). Let me tell you, it produces a ginormous 'mono' sound that fills the room at low volume levels. But within that mono there's still a tremendous amount of stereo going on. Is it just a big car stereo inside a living room? Who knows? But it sounds good to me. I like being surrounded by the sound and experiencing the stereo experience in a not-strictly right/left way. I like feeling like I'm on stage trading licks with Keith Richard, rather than being in the audience listening to him trade licks with someone else. I like being able to simply step across the room and sit in a different chair and suddenly Bonham is playing drums behind me, Plant is singing in front of me, John Paul is all around me and I'm right in the middle playing the part of Jimmy Page
After taking your advice and then trash talking a low cost speaker for tubby bass, I took your OTHER advice to change location and also to decouple them from the stands. Huge improvement. So I apologize, Steve, for jumping to a conclusion before experimenting with what the speakers “needed.”
I've never understood why people state that real-life sessions gives spot imaging, the best of reference, like. You sit in a church and you listen to a concert. You can be happy enough if you can point out the trumpet. The whole sound picture booms towards you from the whole volume above the altar. That's your aural hearing, that's life mate. In hifi you listen, in the best of worlds - to sound given by the mics. It's so simple, why do people miss that. Your hifi set gives you the mics version, AB stereo, panned or whatever, and we truly love it; how difficult can it get?
i very very well recorded mono the phase and recorded reflections can not only convey height and depth, but also sideways distance from center. thats of course identical left and right, but still gives a feeling of width to mono. elvix presleys jailhouse rock mono recording does that pretty well. a deliberate differential eq on the stereo speakers (one is tuned to represent more trebble, one more bass)(electronic, so it can be deactivated) can then create anm artificial stereo instrument seperation, with piano& drums moving to one side, vocals staying in the middle, and guitar & bass moving to the other.
Not sure about your assessment of Mono recordings Steve. I recently picked up a 1959 Mono Recording by Columbia of The Dave Brubeck Quartet ‘ Gone With The Wind’ CL1347. It sounds absolutely fantastic, the depth and sound stage is unbelievable. Anytime friends are over I play it for them to demonstrate how good a 60 year old in Mono can sound. They are always in disbelief. Maybe I lucked on this copy but if I ever see another I’ll jump on it as well. Thanks
Yesterday, Paul at PS Audio did a video of why is hifi a male dominated hobby. If anyone wants to know--this video is why. Women could care less about this---they just want to hear the music. Guys like to talk about and listen to this kind of tech talk (like cables, etc). Its a fun video but I couldn't help but think about that video while listening to this. I love this stuff---as an audiophile newbie, I have learned so much from Steve's videos and his followers. I just found this quite amusing. Thanks!
Dwight R people inside a group talk this way about their interest. I assume women would talk that way about fashion, or shoes, or other things. Stuff that people outside the group would think is overly self indulgent
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Yup, I agree. Paul had made a point that women just aren't into the gadgets, buttons, etc. Cynthia is really cool and it's great to get opinions/reviews from her. If you find anymore female audiophiles, please post their videos. Thanks again for the fun videos.
I have never had this problem always have placed my speakers where I want and it sounds great I must be the only one because I did not know this was an issue.
My sweet spot at a concert was middle balcony first row. Seen Kansas twice, but I took my gal to the second one, asked for second row center, I was really mad when they took me to second row middle of the left side. But the singer loved that side right in front of us the whole time. Felt bad for the rest. Very strange. Ever notice that the echo in the bathroom at a concert had a nice effect?
Hey Steve, you should do a video on being accused of being an audio snob. My family thinks I am crazy when I complain about built-in TV speakers and when I tell them how much I spent on my audio gear. And I certainly do not have an expensive audio system in comparison to what is available.
Hi Steve...on a related topic....we all wonder how we can improve the sound our our speakers and systems. For what it’s worth, the best way to do this is to listen to well recorded music. I am ever so aware of this as 90% of the music / artists I listen to are in shuffle mode, which clearly exposes the vast variability in recording engineer styles and quality. One one track, the system sounds tremendous, the next it sounds acceptable, one track sounds loud, the next needs volume and so on. Try it sometime...make a playlist of various music favorites across genre’s and recording ages and the answer will be quite clear. It’s all about recording quality at the end of the day. A great recording can make less than optimal kit sound much better and a bad recording will humble any state of the art speaker / system.
Oye. No, the best way is not to listen to the best recorded music, I mean, that's groovy if that is the music you like... but most people who know their sh#t would argue that acoustics is the best way, as bad acoustics will make the best system sound like sh%t, no matter the recording. When you have the acoustics sorted out them a good system will play everything in it's best light (very few people reach that place with their systems, it takes very very serious acoustics work)
@steve: maybe you can share your take on sounstage between bookshelves projecting big soundstage (like LS50) vs big speakers with low rating (rated ~50w per box with12" woofer).
Such a simple bit of advice - get your mono sorted. If the bass isn't all in the middle, then it's just not going to work. No Peter Belt product will put that right for you!
Your next step if you haven't already is to run Dirac or REW and get your speakers properly balanced and set up to eliminate as many of the undesirable room modes as possible. But yeah, more channels is better, stereo is great and very enjoyable but if you want to try to emulate being there, there's no substitute for more channels in my opinion. One problem is that a system that's great for home theater will not be great for music, and vice versa.
Never heard a live venue that can even approach my system! Live music generally sux! Attending MANY concerts formed this opinion. The recording engineer IS your best friend!
I have the great good fortune to live a mere three miles from the Franklin Palais in southern Tasmania. When a string quartet of musicians from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra played there some years ago, shortly after it had been renovated, I asked them what they thought of the venue. They said it was without doubt acoustically the best venue in the state. It was built in 1912. The ceiling looks flat at first glance, but has a subtle curvature. Whoever designed it really knew what they were doing. Mostly I agree with you though. I'd be starved for music if I relied entirely on live performances at the Palais.
If we put science into it, isn’t really imaging depending from room conditions as well? I think about how sometimes you have certain frequency ranges popping out of the waveform depending on the room shape and surfaces..., could not be that corresponding to these frequencies are certain instruments/portions of the orchestra, and then you get those frequency slightly off, but just right? Or is it all created in our brains? If it is so, then i imagine any two speakers should provide the same stereo imaging... but that’s not always the case so science doesn’t agree with the brains being the sole responsible for imaging imho
An example of the ultimate in diffusion, Blackbird Studio C: www.blackbirdstudio.com/studio-c/ @Steve - Yes GIK Acoustics makes some nice products. I have a pair of GIK 48" x 12" corner bass traps, very effective. I have four GIK 6" bass traps with thin wooden "scatter plates" cut in a fancy pattern and glued to the front of the boxes to prevent complete absorption of high frequencies. I also have a pair of GIK skyline diffusors, Gotham N23, which are well-made and seem effective. I only have one pair of the 1ft x 1ft N23 diffusors. I also have some "diffusors" from another company which are more like scattering devices but they seem to work well. It is very difficult to do A/B testing with acoustic treatment. 🤣
"I don't think I ever had Mono." I didn't hear a vinyl record until I was 12 years old. Up until then, it was all 78s. Stereo had to await 1970 when I was 19 years old. First hi-fi I heard was in 1968 and it was mono reel-to-reel at 15 inches per second.
Physics. Two sound sources crossing paths results in sound wave doubling and cancelling and everything in between, thus different sound. The more speakers, the worse it is.
I think mono sometimes sounds better than stereo for example I have the original mono UK help . Jimi Hendrix bold as axis love mono Canadian original and doors Strange day u.s. mono pressing and they sound better than the stereo versions
Steve love the dynaudio confidence c4 in the video cover. I just picked up the confidence c1 and a hegel h360 for a really good price. I am really happy with them. Have you listened to the confidence series before?
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac what did you thi k of them. I am truly pleased by them with the hegel. I am pairing them with a metrum onyx. The dac in the hegel is good but I am really liking the r2r nos sound of the metrum. I saw you at the headphone section of axpona. You seemed really busy so I didn't want to bother you. I just bought the ab-1266 phi tc and am loving. Best headphone on the planet hands down. I am pairing it with the mscaler monoprice liquid platinum and it sounds divine.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac steve as pleased as I was with the dynaudio c1 I recently upgraded to what will hopefully be my endgame speaker for a while. I picked up a pair of Magico S1mkii in coat finish. To me the really outshine the dynaudio c1. The bass is so much more controlled this probably is due to them being a closed speaker. The top end is also much more detailed. Loving them so far. Now I just need to save for the upcoming d'agostino progression integrated.
Take a low priced pair ( approx $100/pr ) set of bookshelf speakers, get some speaker pedestals of at least a couple feet in height and walk that into your back yard. A sufficiently large empty back yard grass on the ground. Use even cheap electronics and source mp3 files from a smartphone. Listen to your speakers on a quiet evening, don’t disturb the neighbors. You’d be astounded at the image field.
Shahid Iqbal, i have a felt curtain on a curtain rod over my large screen TV which I pull over when I am listening to music, and the back when I am watching it. BIG difference in stereo imaging because of the large and very reflective surface of the TV. This method can be used o. Bare blank reflective walls as well.
Comment about mono doesn’t make sense unless your also blocking one ear. The sound from one speaker is also received in reflections just as a live performance. All this pedantic stereo positioning ends up in a ridiculous focused sweet spot and what Herb Reichert describes as $100k systems sounding like a radio from another room.
I think mono can sound really good if the recording is a good one. The presence of instruments on a couple of Classic Records reissues of Blue Note records that I own in Mono is very very good.
Holographic sound is just a clear focused stereo image with height width and depth. $100 speakers, $100 subwoofer, $30 amplifier, $10 cables, good UA-cam clip, placed in the right spot in a room with some curtains, and a $100 DSP are enough to get the job done. When I worked at a hi-fi store we had a listening room with flagship Focal speakers (no subs), Mcintosh amplifier, thiccc cables, and a high-end record player. They had all of this great equipment but there was no treatment and no DSP. It sounded veiled and there was no clear stereo image because of the way it was set up. You've got to hit all the bases, you can't just do one part of it really well, that's like using amazing ingredients and then burning your food.
I agree with you - stereo adds more life to performance like moving of artists, sounds, instruments . But I've already lost hope that exact unusual sound may be sold all together with the gear. I rather share opinion that making satisfactory sound with gear is not much repeatable state of art
3D in either visual form or acoustic form is only a product of our brains perceptual processes. The pattern of light on our retina is only two dimensional. The brain uses biological ques and information stored in mental models of the world or Schemata to make a 3D perception.
@@billybunter3753 Thanks for your comments. The different images entering our eyes is called "retinal disparity " and is one of the biological ques I spoke about. That doesn't alter the fact both images on our eyes are " flat " no depth! Our brain overlaps these two images and concludes, if the images are significantly different then what we are viewing is close to us. When the " image or pattern of light " on both eyes isn't that different, then what we are looking at must be far away. With distant images our brain uses a process called " constancy scaling " and artificially boosts the size of the image. Try viewing the Moon high in the sky and again when it's near Mountains or the horizon. When viewed near the horizon the image appears huge! Infact both images are the same size! Both can be covered with a disc with the same size diameter. This is a example of perception versus reality.
Stereo wasn't created for music at all. It was created for movies to make the sound follow the action on the screen. Mono would be MUCH more realistic to reproduce a single person playing an instrument, or even a person playing an instrument while singing. Stereo can only do, at best, 180 degrees of image. You can simulate 3D sound digitally by changing the frequency balance because things that are behind you have reduced treble, and similarly with things above or below you the frequency balance is different and your brain can recognize that and tell you where things are coming from even though you only have two ears that should only be able to distinguish between things on a line - left and right only. Also, you unknowningly move your head when you listen and your brain uses the slight changes in timing and frequency response to confirm and refine your sense of sound direction. None of that is aided by two channel reproduction. 3 channel reproduction isn't perfect either, but I feel that even simulated 3 channel audio would be a massive improvement for imaging in most people's homes. Clearly 5, 6, 7 and 9 channel audio makes a very lifelike 3D audio image, but to do so with really good equipment would be amazingly expensive, not to mention there aren't many really well recorded 9 channel music sources.
that's the room acoustic reflection problem making the speakers sounding different one from the other. Maybe a little more highs toward one side giving a stereo effect.
"Am I crazy?" How would we know? :-) Seriously though, our hearing is _very_ sensitive to timing and reflected sounds reach our ears later than direct sounds.
Steve Hoffman gave some advice on optimizing speaker position using a mono recording and out-of-phase speakers: forums.stevehoffman.tv/goto/post?id=5909024#post-5909024
Interestingly, stereo imaging shouldn't/doesn't really sound like being there. Live sound is almost always mono. The FOH engineer tries not to feed one thing to the people in front of the left speakers and another to those on the right. And yes, the room blends all the sound together anyway. What stereo does is recreate the what we see - the guitar player is on the left, the keyboards on the right. That isn't what you're usually hearing coming from a stage. It's a phenomenon caused by confusion of two senses - sight and sound.
Errata: no "the" what we see. Also, it would be interesting to go to a concert blindfolded and then try to guess the position of the players (no orchestras, since the arrangement of the sections is pretty standardized). Furthermore, my pet peeve: "stereo" piano. Only the player can arguably hear the low strings to the left (sort of) and the high to the right (sort of). And it's all coming off the same sound board. To the audience, a piano is a mono sound source like all others encountered in life except maybe stereo keyboards and stereo playback systems. Our hearing is binaural; not stereo. Binaural hearing is useful for localization left to right, almost not at all up and down. And in conclusion, for total crankiness, let me ask: should the drums be stereo from the audience or drummer's perspective ? (Hint, it get's done both ways.) Yipes!
You can get a good sense of instrument locality in small acoustic environments (e.g., small acoustic jazz clubs), larger non-sound-reinforced outdoors environments, and in certain (e.g., orchestra-center-front) symphony hall seats. Where there is a lot of sound reinforcement (most contemporary venues), you are correct.
@@gr500music6 Have you never heard leaves fluttering and birds twittering overhead? How about airplanes aloft? Our senses of hearing provide directional cues encompassing a "bubble" 360 degrees around us laterally. and nearly 360 degrees around us vertically. This isn't critical to enjoyment of music, but is a huge part of our awareness of the world (particularly the outdoors) around us.
Hi. Yes, I was aware that we perceive sound from all around. What I was referring to is this: Sound reinforcement installers have known for some time that if you have one speaker and you place it to the left or right of a podium, the audience will perceive speech as coming from the left or right of the podium. If you place it up at the ceiling, they will perceive the speech as coming from the speaker's lips. We're not alone in this, it's one reason deer hunters in this neck of the woods get up in trees; so do big cats and other ambush predators.
@@gr500music6 I agree with everything you are saying about sound reinforcement. My comment was intended to address the fact not all of what we should expect from recorded sound has typical sound-reinforced venues as its basis. By the way, as a Pennsylvanian, I live in the middle of deer-hunting country. Smart tree-stand hunters usually try to be as quiet as mountain lions when in their stands. My dogs will look upward if they hear certain (definitely not all) sounds coming from above.
No, no, no, The best Mono lps that I love much better than their stereo counter part are from Capitol. The older ones that have the dark gray solid color labels, like Nat King Cole, fantastic sound and almost a stereo imaging is there. Colunbia, 6-eye Mono are second best.
when u said audiophiles have a thing for mono recordings i was like - what? -- seriously though dude u gotta talk to mixing engineers and mastering engineers (those are the real audiofiles); they certainly use mono, but it's not nearly as fun to listen to
Recently moved, stereo is now in a 11×19 basement room with carpet and dense sound proof ceiling tile. The room is very dead sounding, I hated it at first then after about a week I really started to enjoy it. I sit about 10-12 feet away and the imaging is so clear and alive, the speakers are about 3 feet from the wall. The sound just washes over you with almost no reflections. I am always amazed how the room is really the key too your stereos sound.
@noob - Yes. The room is an essential component which is usually misunderstood or not even considered.
What materials make up the walls in your room?
It's taken me a long time to realize that the room is the most important factor.
@@raynewcomb337 - Yes. A good room is lovely. My perspective is: The room is, 99.9% of the time, the one system component which has NOT been designed and constructed to give the best sound possible (at a given price point).
@@rb032682 old drywall which is alot thicker then today's stuff.... I am really loving this dead room, it's like I never heard my stereo before if you get what I mean.
@@w3rdnama1 I am loving it....
Just added dual subs...... it's like I never heard my stereo before. Its unreal.
All of this is why, after years of “purist” (and some very expensive) 2-channel systems, with considerable room treatments, I finally switched to a vintage Meridian 5.1 system which has Trifield processing. Bingo. No more “hole” in the middle of the soundstage, because there is a physical centre speaker. Interestingly, this is how stereo was originally designed, with three speakers (it was dropped down to two because the consumer media of the time couldn’t hold more than two channels of information). Having listened this way for a while, I doubt I could go back to two channels again, it’s just too good and so much less room dependent, especially with rears providing subtle ambient information too. Added bonus - you hear true multichannel recordings (and movies) in their native format, which sounds much better.
Imaging issue not usually considered; height of floor standing speakers off of floor. I raised mine 7.5 in off floor on block and then hdf foam (yoga blocks banded together) ʻpedestalsʻ. It raised the overall imaging up in relation to the room and the projection screen. Also use reflection dampening on walls and use rug/furniture arrangement for overall bass dampening. Still the biggest factor in imaging is the speaker, amp and sound source quality. Use of center and rear speakers helps to pull and place the sound in any given room. Mono recording can be very revealing and charming as well, but one has to increase the listening volume a bit to add to the dynamic.
I have always put absorption on the wall behind my speakers. To me, this is the single, best and easiest of room tweaks to improve imaging & transient clarity. In every home system I've had, the rear wall is just 1-2 feet behind the speakers, and I will build or buy a pair of absorber panels. 2'x4' is a decent minimum size, and at least 2" thickness. If you mount 2" foam or fiberglass absorbers on 2" spacers behind them, you get an effective 4" of absorption off the rear wall, which absorbs down to around 500 Hz. They don't have to be ugly either.... with wood frames and decorative fabrics, they can look really nice.
Steve, thanks for always being there to help us improve our experiences listening to music and tinkering with our gear!
My solution, play the music outside. Ancient Rotel & Hafler electronics, BIC Beam Box antenna, and Baby Advent IIs in the garage gets moved outside to face my patio making an outdoor listening 'room'. I've taken great care in setting it up properly. Much less reflected sound. Doesn't play loud (good thing since I have neighbors ;) but imaging is really dreamy at times. Listening to the university station (90FM) over the air (that Beam Box really works) is the best. Try it if you can.
Smart! Quiet warm day would be amazing
An easy way to test speaker interaction with the room is walking around clapping your hands listening for the changes which can be significant. One manufacturer I recall put out a CD with a Clap Track on it so as not to spank the hand that feeds you.
Agreeing with J.Atkinson's observation. Listening from a distance tends to feel like "distant monaural", although a sense of ambience is retained. A marching band heard from several blocks away has a definite feel of "ambiance" even if one cannot define each instrument's location.
I didn’t read that column from John Atkinson, but he does have a point. 😉
If you seat in a equilateral triangle between two speakers, you should have a good stereo image and separation.
If you move closer to the center of those two loudspeakers, you will have a greater sense of stereo, even if you sacrifice imaging, the phantom center, and tone (you only get 100% stereo with headphones, since there’s no crosstalk between the two ears and individual audio channels).
If you’re in a big room and you go further away from two loudspeakers (even maintaining the center axis between them), sound will become increasingly mixed between the left and right channel, up to the point that (if you have the distance), you’ll end up listened both channels mixed, which is the same as mono.
You can clearly hear this effect on small stereo portable speakers, where you can only get a sense of two channels if your nose is up against the speaker.
At 1 meter away, you’re listening in mono again, unless the small loudspeaker has some kind of side firing loudspeakers that allow them to behave like many soundbars do in regards to the left and right channel.
In a regular concert hall, it’s very easy to get a similar effect, unless you’re closer to the stage. 🙂
Yes, reflections rarely sound “mono”, but if you can’t separate the instruments on the right from the left, it means that you can’t localize then audibly left to right, which is…
…mono!
Most vocal recordings have some sort of stereo reverb or delay on them in order to keep them wider in the mix/soundstage.
But as long as there’s only one vocalist and no overdubs, the vocal is always mono.
The effect might be in stereo, not the vocal (which is tracked with only one mono microphone on more than 90% of rock, pop, jazz, etc.
My understanding of this is, we have two ears, each one of them capable of identifying different sounds and their origin/location therefore, we put ourselves in a disadvantage when we listen to mono.
Those who insist on mono recordings and/or equipment are more than likely interested just in the music itself (the actual notes, noise, whatever..) rather than re creating a live event with all its ambiance and holographic presentation. Let alone, they seem to stick their finger up the latest technology available for sound and/or event reproduction.
It takes many kinds...
Thanasis Manolopoulos I don’t think anyone is really insistent that mono is better anymore. Some recordings are better in mono than their stereo conversions.
@@amysarg
Totally agree. Some of the old Beatles 'remastered' vinyl is terrible. Better to listen to their mono recordings.
I have 30-38cm(12-15inch) thick rockwool absobtion that covers all front side walls and ceiling to get all first reflections and it really helping to get that super focused Phantom center sound and like you said the regular stereo is also spoton.
Problem now is were ever I go and listen to other stereos the never have that stereo image i am justed to.
That is some serious absorption. (12 - 15"). That room probably has some very sweet, and clean, bass. Just guessing.
As I listen to mono, the small image that Steve describes is initially present. In a short time the image broadens as my brain processes the sound. I find that solo pianos often have a more realistic image in mono. I suspect other folks experience the same broadening. From Steve's description, it appears this does not happen for him.
When you go to a concert and don't have assigned seats sit near the guy mixing in the middle.
Kirk Barlow good advice, I set right behind the mixing console at Yes concert in 72, best sound ever.
Kirk Barlow ... spot on. The best seats at a concert are always those nearest to the sound desk. Best view for lighting too.
Live music becoming a "mush": yes I could not agree more. Most of the sound in a large venue isn't really 3D, it's just a mush of sounds reflecting in all directions at once. And that is why I think stereo is okay, even though I am always trying to tell people that stereo isn't ever really 3D sound. Stereo can do that mush pretty well. I can get a good tight stereo image, but it falls apart the minute you move around. I can get a wider soundstage too, and that is less susceptible to breaking up with movement, but then it's less precise too. I enjoy stereo because it "fills the room" better in my opinion. I like to listen to mono music once in a while, but stereo is much more interesting to me, even though I don't think it's really much more lifelike.
i love the chaos in the background
Most of my listening is on JBL 305P monitors, sitting at a desk. I have a mono button on the monitor controller. Hitting it always amazes me. The music moves to the center of desk. Moving the speakers small amounts, fractions of an inch, moves this center, which is tightly focused.
Nicely explained. The listening room itself has the biggest effect on sound. What with standing waves, room nodes and furnishings. It can be challenging finding best speaker locations for that "just right" sound experience. There's an old adage; how do you get to Carnegie Hall?? Practice, practice, practice. It's the same with audio placement. Experiment, experiment, experiment. Really is the cheapest way to improve your hifi's sound.
I bought a Mercury Living Presence (f:35) Xavier Cougat MONO LP because I was interested in the recording technology (35mm film). It sounds unbelievable!! The image is huge, with depth & spectacular dynamics, and NO tape hiss! I cannot believe it's mono, but it is. While it's not my usual genre of music to listen to, I have grown to like it very much! I recently purchased another f:35 pressing, and the sound is nothing special.... so I think I got lucky with the Cougat LP..... maybe it's a first pressing?
Another great vid. In my 11x13 living room I have Klipsch Fortes and a 15" passive subwoofer on one side, Klipsch Heresys on the other side, and my 17" high '70's Sony bookshelf speakers in between (my desktop, where I mostly sit). Let me tell you, it produces a ginormous 'mono' sound that fills the room at low volume levels. But within that mono there's still a tremendous amount of stereo going on. Is it just a big car stereo inside a living room? Who knows? But it sounds good to me. I like being surrounded by the sound and experiencing the stereo experience in a not-strictly right/left way. I like feeling like I'm on stage trading licks with Keith Richard, rather than being in the audience listening to him trade licks with someone else. I like being able to simply step across the room and sit in a different chair and suddenly Bonham is playing drums behind me, Plant is singing in front of me, John Paul is all around me and I'm right in the middle playing the part of Jimmy Page
After taking your advice and then trash talking a low cost speaker for tubby bass, I took your OTHER advice to change location and also to decouple them from the stands. Huge improvement. So I apologize, Steve, for jumping to a conclusion before experimenting with what the speakers “needed.”
If we as community would obsess over our listening spaces as we do our gear we would be much healthier and productive.
A big part of the fun is the acquisition of new gear.
I thought everyone did it this way. I've been using FM in mono to place the image since I was a kid.
Good insights as usual! In my case, the challenge is finding the optimal position yet keeping my leaving room livable... ;-)
I've never understood why people state that real-life sessions gives spot imaging, the best of reference, like. You sit in a church and you listen to a concert. You can be happy enough if you can point out the trumpet. The whole sound picture booms towards you from the whole volume above the altar. That's your aural hearing, that's life mate. In hifi you listen, in the best of worlds - to sound given by the mics. It's so simple, why do people miss that. Your hifi set gives you the mics version, AB stereo, panned or whatever, and we truly love it; how difficult can it get?
i very very well recorded mono the phase and recorded reflections can not only convey height and depth, but also sideways distance from center. thats of course identical left and right, but still gives a feeling of width to mono. elvix presleys jailhouse rock mono recording does that pretty well.
a deliberate differential eq on the stereo speakers (one is tuned to represent more trebble, one more bass)(electronic, so it can be deactivated) can then create anm artificial stereo instrument seperation, with piano& drums moving to one side, vocals staying in the middle, and guitar & bass moving to the other.
Not sure about your assessment
of Mono recordings Steve.
I recently picked up a 1959 Mono
Recording by Columbia of The Dave Brubeck Quartet ‘ Gone With
The Wind’ CL1347. It sounds absolutely fantastic, the depth and
sound stage is unbelievable.
Anytime friends are over I play it
for them to demonstrate how good a 60 year old in Mono can sound. They are always in disbelief. Maybe I lucked on this
copy but if I ever see another I’ll
jump on it as well. Thanks
Yesterday, Paul at PS Audio did a video of why is hifi a male dominated hobby. If anyone wants to know--this video is why. Women could care less about this---they just want to hear the music. Guys like to talk about and listen to this kind of tech talk (like cables, etc). Its a fun video but I couldn't help but think about that video while listening to this. I love this stuff---as an audiophile newbie, I have learned so much from Steve's videos and his followers. I just found this quite amusing. Thanks!
Dwight R people inside a group talk this way about their interest. I assume women would talk that way about fashion, or shoes, or other things. Stuff that people outside the group would think is overly self indulgent
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Yup, I agree. Paul had made a point that women just aren't into the gadgets, buttons, etc. Cynthia is really cool and it's great to get opinions/reviews from her. If you find anymore female audiophiles, please post their videos. Thanks again for the fun videos.
Three-channel: left, right, center with the center amp adjusted depending on the type of music.
Steve - in your place it appears the walls really do have ears (well at least the one to your left) 👂
I have never had this problem always have placed my speakers where I want and it sounds great I must be the only one because I did not know this was an issue.
My sweet spot at a concert was middle balcony first row. Seen Kansas twice, but I took my gal to the second one, asked for second row center, I was really mad when they took me to second row middle of the left side. But the singer loved that side right in front of us the whole time. Felt bad for the rest. Very strange. Ever notice that the echo in the bathroom at a concert had a nice effect?
By the way, totally love your videos, have learned so much
Hey Steve, you should do a video on being accused of being an audio snob. My family thinks I am crazy when I complain about built-in TV speakers and when I tell them how much I spent on my audio gear. And I certainly do not have an expensive audio system in comparison to what is available.
Hi Steve...on a related topic....we all wonder how we can improve the sound our our speakers and systems. For what it’s worth, the best way to do this is to listen to well recorded music. I am ever so aware of this as 90% of the music / artists I listen to are in shuffle mode, which clearly exposes the vast variability in recording engineer styles and quality. One one track, the system sounds tremendous, the next it sounds acceptable, one track sounds loud, the next needs volume and so on. Try it sometime...make a playlist of various music favorites across genre’s and recording ages and the answer will be quite clear. It’s all about recording quality at the end of the day. A great recording can make less than optimal kit sound much better and a bad recording will humble any state of the art speaker / system.
Oye. No, the best way is not to listen to the best recorded music, I mean, that's groovy if that is the music you like... but most people who know their sh#t would argue that acoustics is the best way, as bad acoustics will make the best system sound like sh%t, no matter the recording. When you have the acoustics sorted out them a good system will play everything in it's best light (very few people reach that place with their systems, it takes very very serious acoustics work)
@steve: maybe you can share your take on sounstage between bookshelves projecting big soundstage (like LS50) vs big speakers with low rating (rated ~50w per box with12" woofer).
Such a simple bit of advice - get your mono sorted. If the bass isn't all in the middle, then it's just not going to work. No Peter Belt product will put that right for you!
Annnd, another must-have shirt!
As far as getting closer to the speakers,depends on the speakers. Some you need space for proper integration of drivers,eg Theil CS 9s
Steve Tllsdaleys I thought it was 9s, whatever those totl behemoths model number was, they needed space
I don't care if it's mono or stereo as long as it's well recorded it will sound Good being either .
2:21. Some direct sound and a lot of reflected sound,,,Bose 901! Ha!
Hey Steve, could you please recommend some tracks that show depth really well?
I would hate to mess with my sound with that type of equipment. Just saying...
@Frank Winkhorst Surely this would add depth as in room size for everything but not in instrument depth?
I took the easy way out I use 5.1 surround with a bigger room would go 7.2 (two subs)
Your next step if you haven't already is to run Dirac or REW and get your speakers properly balanced and set up to eliminate as many of the undesirable room modes as possible. But yeah, more channels is better, stereo is great and very enjoyable but if you want to try to emulate being there, there's no substitute for more channels in my opinion. One problem is that a system that's great for home theater will not be great for music, and vice versa.
Never heard a live venue that can even approach my system! Live music generally sux! Attending MANY concerts formed this opinion.
The recording engineer IS your best friend!
I have the great good fortune to live a mere three miles from the Franklin Palais in southern Tasmania. When a string quartet of musicians from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra played there some years ago, shortly after it had been renovated, I asked them what they thought of the venue. They said it was without doubt acoustically the best venue in the state. It was built in 1912. The ceiling looks flat at first glance, but has a subtle curvature. Whoever designed it really knew what they were doing.
Mostly I agree with you though. I'd be starved for music if I relied entirely on live performances at the Palais.
i take it you don't go to the opera
Hard to believe Brian Wilson was deaf in one ear and mixed some of the great stereo recordings
He didn't.
If we put science into it, isn’t really imaging depending from room conditions as well?
I think about how sometimes you have certain frequency ranges popping out of the waveform depending on the room shape and surfaces..., could not be that corresponding to these frequencies are certain instruments/portions of the orchestra, and then you get those frequency slightly off, but just right?
Or is it all created in our brains? If it is so, then i imagine any two speakers should provide the same stereo imaging... but that’s not always the case so science doesn’t agree with the brains being the sole responsible for imaging imho
An example of the ultimate in diffusion, Blackbird Studio C: www.blackbirdstudio.com/studio-c/
@Steve - Yes GIK Acoustics makes some nice products. I have a pair of GIK 48" x 12" corner bass traps, very effective. I have four GIK 6" bass traps with thin wooden "scatter plates" cut in a fancy pattern and glued to the front of the boxes to prevent complete absorption of high frequencies.
I also have a pair of GIK skyline diffusors, Gotham N23, which are well-made and seem effective. I only have one pair of the 1ft x 1ft N23 diffusors.
I also have some "diffusors" from another company which are more like scattering devices but they seem to work well.
It is very difficult to do A/B testing with acoustic treatment. 🤣
Hey Steve,
Great shirt! Where can they be purchased?
Thanks
BTW, I don't think I ever had Mono. Lol
It's a Cardas t-shirt, www.cardas.com/merchandise.php
Steve Guttenberg Audiophiliac your cardas is badass 👍🏽
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Thanks, Much appreciated. Keep on keeping on.
"I don't think I ever had Mono."
I didn't hear a vinyl record until I was 12 years old. Up until then, it was all 78s. Stereo had to await 1970 when I was 19 years old. First hi-fi I heard was in 1968 and it was mono reel-to-reel at 15 inches per second.
Nice, Steve...
Still hoping for a review of the Klipsch RP600M with subwoofer. Possible? 🙃
how about mono from 2 speakers ? mono from 1 vs 2 speakers sounds very different to me.
Physics. Two sound sources crossing paths results in sound wave doubling and cancelling and everything in between, thus different sound. The more speakers, the worse it is.
Todd Robbins I prefer mono on a good mono setup
On my system, forward firing PLUS rear reflecting, mono is a huge point of sound.
Depending on the source, at times, a barely perceptible difference.
I think mono sometimes sounds better than stereo for example I have the original mono UK help . Jimi Hendrix bold as axis love mono Canadian original and doors Strange day u.s. mono pressing and they sound better than the stereo versions
It is because Jimmy Hendrix albums(well most of them) are pretty badly recorded material. No offence to Jimi though :)
Steve love the dynaudio confidence c4 in the video cover. I just picked up the confidence c1 and a hegel h360 for a really good price. I am really happy with them.
Have you listened to the confidence series before?
creditingkarma Yes I lived with C1s for years.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac what did you thi k of them. I am truly pleased by them with the hegel. I am pairing them with a metrum onyx. The dac in the hegel is good but I am really liking the r2r nos sound of the metrum.
I saw you at the headphone section of axpona. You seemed really busy so I didn't want to bother you. I just bought the ab-1266 phi tc and am loving. Best headphone on the planet hands down. I am pairing it with the mscaler monoprice liquid platinum and it sounds divine.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac steve as pleased as I was with the dynaudio c1 I recently upgraded to what will hopefully be my endgame speaker for a while. I picked up a pair of Magico S1mkii in coat finish. To me the really outshine the dynaudio c1. The bass is so much more controlled this probably is due to them being a closed speaker. The top end is also much more detailed. Loving them so far. Now I just need to save for the upcoming d'agostino progression integrated.
I hang my speakers from my ceiling (facing the floor) and I lay on my back on the ground to listen.
Batman does the opposite.
I just stand on my head, it's much easier...
I put the speakers on the floor facing up, and listened from the top rung of a 7-foot ladder, facing the ceiling. Eliminates all grain!
You guys are crazy cats
The shirt rules.
Take a low priced pair ( approx $100/pr ) set of bookshelf speakers, get some speaker pedestals of at least a couple feet in height and walk that into your back yard. A sufficiently large empty back yard grass on the ground. Use even cheap electronics and source mp3 files from a smartphone. Listen to your speakers on a quiet evening, don’t disturb the neighbors. You’d be astounded at the image field.
Hey Steve! Understanding sound travels and is reflective, I’ve been thinking does it reflect off each other?
Let him reflect on it a while...
Good question! I would doubt it, but you didn't ask me. 😁
Where can i get that T-Shirt? .Gotta wear one of those next time i attend an audio show!
oliver beard it’s a Cardas t shirt
Just had a thought, would curtains be an inexpensive way to reduce reflections?
It would depend on their thickness and density as well as location in the room
Generally, yes.
And, good heavy curtains are not cheap 😁
Shahid Iqbal, i have a felt curtain on a curtain rod over my large screen TV which I pull over when I am listening to music, and the back when I am watching it. BIG difference in stereo imaging because of the large and very reflective surface of the TV. This method can be used o. Bare blank reflective walls as well.
Nice thick curtains? Definitely!
Comment about mono doesn’t make sense unless your also blocking one ear. The sound from one speaker is also received in reflections just as a live performance. All this pedantic stereo positioning ends up in a ridiculous focused sweet spot and what Herb Reichert describes as $100k systems sounding like a radio from another room.
Great shirt ! I want one
I think mono can sound really good if the recording is a good one. The presence of instruments on a couple of Classic Records reissues of Blue Note records that I own in Mono is very very good.
What is holographic sound like vs what you described here? Do i really need equipment that costs more?
Holographic sound is just a clear focused stereo image with height width and depth. $100 speakers, $100 subwoofer, $30 amplifier, $10 cables, good UA-cam clip, placed in the right spot in a room with some curtains, and a $100 DSP are enough to get the job done.
When I worked at a hi-fi store we had a listening room with flagship Focal speakers (no subs), Mcintosh amplifier, thiccc cables, and a high-end record player. They had all of this great equipment but there was no treatment and no DSP. It sounded veiled and there was no clear stereo image because of the way it was set up. You've got to hit all the bases, you can't just do one part of it really well, that's like using amazing ingredients and then burning your food.
I agree with you - stereo adds more life to performance like moving of artists, sounds, instruments . But I've already lost hope that exact unusual sound may be sold all together with the gear. I rather share opinion that making satisfactory sound with gear is not much repeatable state of art
Really good one. :)
I want that shirt!
Love the shirt.
Two eyes for 3D and two speakers for stereo.
Doug G hence stereo creates 3D placement of instruments in front of you.
3D in either visual form or acoustic form is only a product of our brains perceptual processes. The pattern of light on our retina is only two dimensional. The brain uses biological ques and information stored in mental models of the world or Schemata to make a 3D perception.
@@karltodd2518 exactly :)
Yes and two eyes for stereo photography!
@@billybunter3753 Thanks for your comments. The different images entering our eyes is called "retinal disparity " and is one of the biological ques I spoke about. That doesn't alter the fact both images on our eyes are " flat " no depth! Our brain overlaps these two images and concludes, if the images are significantly different then what we are viewing is close to us. When the " image or pattern of light " on both eyes isn't that different, then what we are looking at must be far away. With distant images our brain uses a process called " constancy scaling " and artificially boosts the size of the image. Try viewing the Moon high in the sky and again when it's near Mountains or the horizon. When viewed near the horizon the image appears huge! Infact both images are the same size! Both can be covered with a disc with the same size diameter. This is a example of perception versus reality.
Most audiophiles' speakers are either too far apart, not exactly equidistant from the rear wall and too close to the side walls.
Or all of the above.
Where can I get that shirt?!?!?
Stereo wasn't created for music at all. It was created for movies to make the sound follow the action on the screen. Mono would be MUCH more realistic to reproduce a single person playing an instrument, or even a person playing an instrument while singing. Stereo can only do, at best, 180 degrees of image. You can simulate 3D sound digitally by changing the frequency balance because things that are behind you have reduced treble, and similarly with things above or below you the frequency balance is different and your brain can recognize that and tell you where things are coming from even though you only have two ears that should only be able to distinguish between things on a line - left and right only. Also, you unknowningly move your head when you listen and your brain uses the slight changes in timing and frequency response to confirm and refine your sense of sound direction. None of that is aided by two channel reproduction. 3 channel reproduction isn't perfect either, but I feel that even simulated 3 channel audio would be a massive improvement for imaging in most people's homes. Clearly 5, 6, 7 and 9 channel audio makes a very lifelike 3D audio image, but to do so with really good equipment would be amazingly expensive, not to mention there aren't many really well recorded 9 channel music sources.
Get closer and ESL speakers would minimize reflected sounds
Many of us listen with in wrong phase without any idea
What about a mono recording on a stereo system? I still hear seperation. Am I crazy?
The mono affect is real.
that's the room acoustic reflection problem making the speakers sounding different one from the other. Maybe a little more highs toward one side giving a stereo effect.
"Am I crazy?"
How would we know? :-)
Seriously though, our hearing is _very_ sensitive to timing and reflected sounds reach our ears later than direct sounds.
Steve Hoffman gave some advice on optimizing speaker position using a mono recording and out-of-phase speakers: forums.stevehoffman.tv/goto/post?id=5909024#post-5909024
a rock band's pa is mono
Can't say with any speakers/headphones I've heard depth front to back. Left/right? Yes
Interestingly, stereo imaging shouldn't/doesn't really sound like being there. Live sound is almost always mono. The FOH engineer tries not to feed one thing to the people in front of the left speakers and another to those on the right. And yes, the room blends all the sound together anyway. What stereo does is recreate the what we see - the guitar player is on the left, the keyboards on the right. That isn't what you're usually hearing coming from a stage. It's a phenomenon caused by confusion of two senses - sight and sound.
Errata: no "the" what we see. Also, it would be interesting to go to a concert blindfolded and then try to guess the position of the players (no orchestras, since the arrangement of the sections is pretty standardized). Furthermore, my pet peeve: "stereo" piano. Only the player can arguably hear the low strings to the left (sort of) and the high to the right (sort of). And it's all coming off the same sound board. To the audience, a piano is a mono sound source like all others encountered in life except maybe stereo keyboards and stereo playback systems. Our hearing is binaural; not stereo. Binaural hearing is useful for localization left to right, almost not at all up and down. And in conclusion, for total crankiness, let me ask: should the drums be stereo from the audience or drummer's perspective ? (Hint, it get's done both ways.) Yipes!
You can get a good sense of instrument locality in small acoustic environments (e.g., small acoustic jazz clubs), larger non-sound-reinforced outdoors environments, and in certain (e.g., orchestra-center-front) symphony hall seats. Where there is a lot of sound reinforcement (most contemporary venues), you are correct.
@@gr500music6 Have you never heard leaves fluttering and birds twittering overhead? How about airplanes aloft? Our senses of hearing provide directional cues encompassing a "bubble" 360 degrees around us laterally. and nearly 360 degrees around us vertically. This isn't critical to enjoyment of music, but is a huge part of our awareness of the world (particularly the outdoors) around us.
Hi. Yes, I was aware that we perceive sound from all around. What I was referring to is this:
Sound reinforcement installers have known for some time that if you have one speaker and you place it to the left or right of a podium, the audience will perceive speech as coming from the left or right of the podium. If you place it up at the ceiling, they will perceive the speech as coming from the speaker's lips. We're not alone in this, it's one reason deer hunters in this neck of the woods get up in trees; so do big cats and other ambush predators.
@@gr500music6 I agree with everything you are saying about sound reinforcement. My comment was intended to address the fact not all of what we should expect from recorded sound has typical sound-reinforced venues as its basis.
By the way, as a Pennsylvanian, I live in the middle of deer-hunting country. Smart tree-stand hunters usually try to be as quiet as mountain lions when in their stands. My dogs will look upward if they hear certain (definitely not all) sounds coming from above.
I want to buy the shirt
Great video! Where do I get that shirt!?
Cardas Audio merch
I like shirt nice.
No, no, no, The best Mono lps that I love much better than their stereo counter part are from Capitol. The older ones that have the dark gray solid color labels, like Nat King Cole, fantastic sound and almost a stereo imaging is there. Colunbia, 6-eye Mono are second best.
You take way to long to get to the point. Had to shut the video off part way into it, completely lost interest
Clicked on the video with the C4 dynaudio in the thumbnail. Kinda click baity.
when u said audiophiles have a thing for mono recordings i was like - what? -- seriously though dude u gotta talk to mixing engineers and mastering engineers (those are the real audiofiles); they certainly use mono, but it's not nearly as fun to listen to