From: someone@anywheret.net   
      
   "JimD"  wrote in message news:2018092316553975770-email@nowherecom...   
      
   > I like stereo, even for live shows. Maybe they aren't the best for big   
   > deal stadium concerts. Don't care.  I don't work shows like that. If I   
   > did, I wouldn't be the one providing the pa, in any case.   
      
   I'm into stereo myself - we both come from a time when stereo was really a   
   big thing, and it is. After all, it's an effect that's well appreciated when   
   there are two working ears able to perceive it ;)   
      
   While ordinarily, I don't visually see stereoscopically, I most certainly do   
   hear hear it - it gives a sense of dimension to audio!   
      
   Which brings up a very important point...stereo sound REproduction, which is   
   a matter of Fidelity, insomuch as two mics have recorded an event, like a   
   concert, is a lot more critical than sound production without two mics.   
      
   Also consider that a stereo system, like the great ones from the '60s and   
   '70s, were usually set up in a living room or even a bedroom, with   
   relatively small, 'cramped' volumes, as in dimensionally - space, the stereo   
   effect could easily REproduce the sound dimensions of a huge concert   
   hall...as could decent stereo headphones!   
      
   Mono is more or less a relative sensation as large amps, cabs, and PAs,   
   depending on where they're placed, can definitely produce stereo effects   
   even though they may lack the ability to control left and right levels via   
   electronic controls.   
      
   To me, mono means receiving Exactly the same signal in each ear   
   simultaneously whereas stereo, in the truest sense, is ANY change whatsoever   
   between what each ear receives, whether via reflection, or a control knob.   
      
   As for changing SPL relative to each ear, I've never been able to consider   
   that as 'panning' - that's more something to do with cameras...but adjusting   
   SPL between Left and Right, particularly the control used to do it is more   
   accurately known as Balance.   
      
   And without such factors as diffraction, or reflection, mono is the only   
   sensation to be heard. Yet, even minute changes in the levels and/or   
   frequency, such as caused by Doppler shift, will produce a profound stereo   
   effect.   
      
   I have a few demo songs recorded in such a way that they seem to start out   
   in part of their intros about as 'dry' mono as can be - until the rest of   
   the sounds come in with it - then it practically explodes with with the rich   
   dimension of stereo.   
      
   That's another reason why I so totally Love the Rhodes suitcase model   
   electric pianos' stereo, "ping-pong" tremolo, an Awesome effect because it   
   literally 'bounces' back and forth between left and right speakers - like no   
   mono tremolo ever can! Leslie tone cabs have a profound stereo effect too!   
      
   > There are endless audiophile videos online that  say  mono, mono, mono.   
   > Whatever.   I like stereo :-)   
      
   If done correctly, that may not be too bad, and a very easy way to *test*   
   that is to stereo record it and listen to the recording!   
      
   > The main argument these mono nuts offer is that people in the audience   
   > won't hear a " perfect " stereo field.   
      
   It's possible to actually produce a custom designed stereo field...but it   
   could be a little weird if not done right.   
   For example, not all stereo is practical. Case in point being an acoustic   
   piano...or my Casio CDP-130...which has an 8 Watt stereo amp driving a small   
   speaker on the left and one on the right...totally Useless for performance -   
   only useful to the player - because low notes are more easily heard through   
   the left speaker, where the low notes radiate from on an acoustic piano, and   
   for the high notes, there's more output from the right speaker, the side   
   where the high notes come from...but only the  person playing the piano   
   would notice this because of their close proximity to it when seated at the   
   keyboard.   
      
   Imagine sending *that* particularly stereo signal out to speakers at   
   opposite sides of the stage...kind  of weird! And if the player is   
   positioned sideways on stage ;)   
      
   > So they fix that by going mono, destroying any location or panning effects   
   > at all.  I guess they prefer no sound distribution over imperfect panning.   
      
   That kind of 'panning' reminds me of the Led Zeppelin tune "What Is And What   
   Should Never Be", near the end of the song where Jimmy Page gets his   
   distorted strums 'bounced' first from one side, then the other.   
      
   > How would music sound if there was no pa at all ?   
      
   Do you mean if there was no amplification, or only no amplification that   
   used two speakers, each carrying the same signal?   
      
   > Would it sound mono to the audience ?  No.   Or, would it be the horrible   
   > situation such that if I were more off to one side of the stage I'd hear   
   > instruments on that side better ?   Same as a stereo setup would behave.   
      
   Sure - stereo or 'mono', Balance is still critical   
      
   > Nope, mono mono mono is all they scream.  I know why.  Mono is cheaper,   
   > and it's what they grew up with.   
      
   Mono isn't cheaper - Behringer has some amazingly affordable stereo power   
   amps.   
      
   Since there are no longer any awesome home stereo components around, I'd   
   been wanting to build my own stereo system, which would be awesome at home   
   for sound  REproduction, or on stage for sound  production.   
      
   It would be so Awesome to be able to build a stereo field on stage, complete   
   with "derived center channel" or any other channel sensation. That would  do   
   wonders for letting everyone hear everything without having to go deaf   
   trying!   
   ---   
      
   > Because of physics, humans can't localize the source of low frequency   
   > sound.   
      
   I'm not aware of any creature that can because wavelengths at low   
   frequencies tend to diffract when contacting anything smaller than they are,   
   and with the exceptions of walls and large objects, that  includes just   
   about everything. Not only that but they almost seem to exhibit isotropic   
   radiation patterns, even with 18" or even larger speaker cones, which is why   
   using the quarter space is so important to making the  wave front more   
   directional...either that or use lots of raw brute force extreme power, such   
   as by the Intersonics devices.   
      
   > That's why a single subwoofer can be paired with some small HF speakers   
   > and it works well enough.  No reason to seperate the low over multiple   
   > speakers. Doing that doesn't help stereo imaging. If fact, it makes things   
   > worse, creating phase cancellation issues all over the place.   
      
   Definitely. And while I'm usually not a fan of subwoofer cabs, mostly   
   because I've seen, and more importantly heard, larger full range speakers,   
   particularly when placed in the quarter space, that had 15" woofers that   
   could knock the walls down while the rest of the drivers produced sparkling   
   midrange and high frequency response ;)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)