Ideal characteristics of a hifi system and do we have the solution?

You would need dedicated headphone amps to produce quality sound as the small speakers have very different impedence and physical dynamics. These amps should also be equipped with delay circuits or processor to avoid the sound from coming from insode your head. Or you need to have true binaural recordings.

Please note that headphones sound good because the spl required is low, interference with ambient noise is reduced, and room acoustics have no impact. But this last reason also make them sound unnatural. We are used to listening to sounds direct & reflected - minus the reflections they sound unreal. And in HiFi the idea is to reproduce the reality as it was recorded.

Regards

Sanjay

Not sure of the question ? Headphones and 2 channel usage, characteristics and context are far too different to compare


BTW whats the reasoning for the characteristics for the speakers ? last i checked up the jury was still out in that one

Sonic Master,

You forget one requirement - the speakers should make music!

Viren.

1. Each channel should have single driver and must be very efficient in extending the frequency range.. 2.There shouldnt be any crossover 3.The distrotion and noise figurs of the amp should be extremely low 4.The driver should be very fast i mean its transient response should be very good.. 5.The amp should hold the driver very tightly...( damping factor should be more ) 6.The room acoustics should be well designed i mean the room acoustics shouldnt effect alot.. 7.Very minimum excursion of the driver in order to minimise the non linear charcteristics of the driver.. 8.The amp should have minimum number of stages and must be very simple so which kind of system is available which suits to the above character?

Yeah, but what should it SOUND like ?

Which characteristics do you find most desirable ?

To me, Spatial Imaging is the MOST important in a Stereo setup. Frankly isint that the reason why we spend DOUBLE in ALL Stereo systems ? 2 Amps, 2 speakers, and Left & Right sections in a CD Player, phono stage & phono cartridge.

ALL the otrther characteristics of a GOOD stereo can be achieved with a Single channel.

ALL the otrther characteristics of a GOOD stereo can be achieved with a Single channel.

This really got me thinking...

To me, Spatial Imaging is the MOST important in a Stereo setup

To me dynamics is very very important coupled with seperation and ofcourse imaging follows.. if it isn't I don't even care to spend a second listening.

one of the cons would be while watching the movie the bass would not be such impacting as the big subs does...

Any HT is half done wothout a sub.

ALL the otrther characteristics of a GOOD stereo can be achieved with a Single channel. This really got me thinking...

It's simple!! If your genre is only vocals without music then use a mono set up and place the speaker where you would imagine the singer is performing!! Or instaed spend on a stereo and struggle to get the singer in center..

[quote="SUB_BOSS
It's simple!! If your genre is only vocals without music then use a mono set up and place the speaker where you would imagine the singer is performing!! Or instaed spend on a stereo and struggle to get the singer in center.. [/quote]

It's simple!! If your genre is only vocals without music then use a mono set up and place the speaker where you would imagine the singer is performing!! Or instaed spend on a stereo and struggle to get the singer in center..

On a more serious note even dynamics and tonal accuracy can be achieved from a single (Mono) speaker. We use stereo just for the image ?
Thats something so basic but still sounds like a revealation..

On a more serious note even dynamics and tonal accuracy can be achieved from a single (Mono) speaker.

No impossible dynamics needs a stereo....

Sub Boss said: No impossible dynamics needs a stereo....

Can you elaborate on that ?

I dont follow....

Thanks

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

On a more serious note even dynamics and tonal accuracy can be achieved from a single (Mono) speaker. No impossible dynamics needs a stereo....

Even I am curious to know the reason !!!

Can you elaborate on that ? I dont follow.... Thanks

Even I am curious to know the reason !!!

Talk about the dynamics of music and you'll undetstand why a mono can't give you what stereo delivers. So you are better off with stereo to enjoy orchestral pieces, cresendo's etc etc.Just imagine you play Sforzando or Rinforzando you'll never know whether it's a piano or keyboard.... If you feel you can still enjoy dynamics of music in mono then congrats you are saving money on one speaker and a speaker cable and ofcourse some space too...

So you are better off with stereo to enjoy orchestral pieces, cresendo's etc etc.Just imagine you play Sforzando or Rinforzando you'll never know whether it's a piano or keyboard....

What is it that a stereo adds to the dynamics in this case that a mono cant ??
Also distiniguishing a Piano from a Keyboard has a lot to do with Tonal accuracy rather than dynamics.
So what should stop a mono from reproducing a Piano well ?

No you have mistaken,
A piano will sound like one, but when heavy passages in music are played you need stereo imaging to create the soundstage and in mono it's impossible as you hear speakers coming from one direction.

BTW dear Abhi if you weren't a fan of speakers disappearing and imaging you would be happy with mono ... And talking of music unless a soundstage is created it's impossible to get dynamics.
I know and you know it's impossible hence please rest after your meal and allow me to....

Hi Sub Boss,

I remain unconvinced that mono Cannot deliver dynamics, and the tonal character of instruments such as a piano..

Switch your amp into mono mode ( Many amps have that facility, even High End one, like ML, to set the centre image ).

The tonal character of a piano does not shift to that of a keyboard or make it in-distinguishable from a keyboard, in mono !

Infact during some equipment reviews, the Reviewer sometimes refers to a past Mono Record he has... and how well it plays ( tonally).

Difficult music can be tonally resolved equally well in mono..... such as 2 low notes on a Bass guitar, or 2 drummers playing similtanously....

In your post you have said :

A piano will sound like one, but when heavy passages in music are played you need stereo imaging to create the soundstage and in mono it's impossible

I think that bring its back to what I was saying ..... That Imaging is the ONLY thing Mono cant deliver.

Hi,

The best way to check the difference this could be listening to the FM radio channel which allows u to switch between stereo and mono modes.

the quality might not be upto the mark but at least u can figure out the so called 'dynamics' in music.

regards - sunil

Coming back to my statment about Piano sounding like Keyboard is it sounds lifeless and not about tonality.. Tonality is the character of speaker and how neutral it can play without adding it's own crap to sound..

Switch your amp into mono mode ( Many amps have that facility, even High End one, like ML, to set the centre image ).

I think you are on a diffrent plane.. I'm talking about mono set up and yuou are talking about mono mode..

Difficult music can be tonally resolved equally well in mono..... such as 2 low notes on a Bass guitar, or 2 drummers playing similtanously....

Well I'm pointing towards listening and I stll stand by my statemnmet it's impossible to get dynamics of music in mono ( set up ).
BTW you have only referred to usage on mono for setting centre image or tonal resolving, but lets talk about listening here ...So Why not play some heavy orchestral pieces ,set your amp in mono or use a mono amp and single speaker then let me know what you feel about dynamics in music. If you feel you have lost nothing then I'm off..

Coming back to my statment about Piano sounding like Keyboard is it sounds lifeless and not about tonality.. Tonality is the character of speaker and how neutral it can play without adding it's own crap to sound so monmo or stereo it will do it's job..

Switch your amp into mono mode ( Many amps have that facility, even High End one, like ML, to set the centre image ).

I think you are on a diffrent plane.. I'm talking about mono set up and you are talking about mono mode..

Difficult music can be tonally resolved equally well in mono..... such as 2 low notes on a Bass guitar, or 2 drummers playing similtanously....

Well I'm pointing towards listening and I still stand by my statemnmet it's impossible to get dynamics of music in mono ( set up ).
BTW you have only referred to usage on mono for setting centre image or tonal resolving, but lets talk about listening here ...So Why not play some heavy orchestral pieces ,set your amp in mono or use a mono amp and single speaker then let me know what you feel about dynamics in music. If you feel you have lost nothing then I'm off..

I think that bring its back to what I was saying ..... That Imaging is the ONLY thing Mono cant deliver.

What about the transient attacks??? You gotto to drive music to insane levels in mono and one speaker would fart all the way to glory in a corner or center where you would choose to place,but will reproduce it.

As far as Dynamics is concerned, what I understand is Dynamics is the difference betweeen the loudest and the most silent passages in a sound track...

Why should that be affected between Mono and Stereo ?
In mono the loudest passage will still sound the loudest (lets forget about spacing between the instruments for now) and the most silent passage will continue to be as silent as well then where is the issue of mono not re-producing the dynamics ?

What about the transient attacks??? You gotto to drive music to insane levels in mono and one speaker would fart all the way to glory in a corner or center where you would choose to place,but will reproduce it.

Mohan, why are we talking about single speaker here ?
We are talking about mono vs stereo....Our discussion should be regardless of whether it is played on multiple speakers or a single speaker (for stereo 2 speakers are minimum though).

Lets discuss it in a more generic scenario...
Lets consider that multiple speakers are sharing the load (but all are connected in mono).

As far as Dynamics is concerned, what I understand is Dynamics is the difference betweeen the loudest and the most silent passages in a sound track...

Dynamics is indeed what you have faintly described, but Mono may reproduce , but how good????. This is like even a 100 buck radio will reproduce jazz, but how good is the question???.

We have graduated to a level to discuss how good things are here instead of whether they will reproduce or not!!!!.If not there would be no audiophiles as all speakers reproduce sound and there wouldn't have existed many designs and as well as discussions about them.
try this experiment play your music with wide dynamic range and do an A/B ( your fave )and then let me know.

Lets consider that multiple speakers are sharing the load (but all are connected in mono).

No it cannot as you need a left and a right signal to get the dynamics right as a single instrument sounds diffrent on each channel i.e louder on one and fainter on another..

No it cannot as you need a left and a right signal to get the dynamics right as a single instrument sounds diffrent on each channel i.e louder on one and fainter on another..

As far as I understand...the purpose of "Louder on one and fainter on the the other" is "Imaging" and not "Dynamics"...
My guess is you enjoy those Dynamics better only when there is a good image to support thats the reason you find stereo to be more dynamic...but mono lacks the image hence even if you hear the dynamics you dont enjoy it as much hence you find them lacking in dynamics....but in actual "Dynamics" was equally present in both..
I am still thinking..

Dynamics is indeed what you have faintly described, but Mono may reproduce , but how good????. This is like even a 100 buck radio will reproduce jazz, but how good is the question???. We have graduated to a level to discuss how good things are here instead of whether they will reproduce or not!!!!.If not there would be no audiophiles as all speakers reproduce sound and there wouldn't have existed many designs and as well as discussions about them. try this experiment play your music with wide dynamic range and do an A/B ( your fave )and then let me know.

Even I am talking from a audiophile perspective.

As far as I understand...the purpose of "Louder on one and fainter on the the other" is "Imaging" and not "Dynamics"...

Dude don't come other way round!!! Yes as they differ form each channel and hence you don't get dynamics and this is the job of recording engineer who places a freq equal on both and it gets dead centre and sways it to one channel to create imaging. So my take is you need stereo to enjoy dynamics, transient attacks. And as far as imaging being a supportive factor for stereo it can also be argued that dynamics make up imaging and not other way round.

but in actual "Dynamics" was equally present in both..

Whats the point in having it there and not enjoying it???
As I wrote in my prev post we gotto discuss how good or bad it is and not whether it is present or not.

Even I am talking from a audiophile perspective.

Heheheh the most abused and over used crappy word ever existed.

Look...what we like is subjective...lets not take anything away from mono. For example a guy who loves multichannel sound may hate stereo but that doesnt take anything away from stereo. Similarly whether we enjoy or not if the dynamics are equally present on a stereo and mono setups then amp_nuts initial assumption is true that its only the imaging that stereo does extra...

Now that imaging being a vital factor in enhancing our enjoyment factor is a different issue (thats the reason mono is almost extinct)...but the point that the "Dynamic content" can be equally present in stereo and mono still holds its own.

Heheheh the most abused and over used crappy word ever existed.

I am trying ever-hard to find an alternative but still cant..

Look...what we like is subjective...lets not take anything away from mono. For example a guy who loves multichannel sound may hate stereo but that doesnt take anything away from stereo. Similarly whether we enjoy or not if the dynamics are equally present on a stereo and mono setups then amp_nuts initial assumption is true that its only the imaging that stereo does extra... Now that imaging being a vital factor in enhancing our enjoyment factor is a different issue (thats the reason mono is almost extinct)...but the point that the "Dynamic content" can be equally present in stereo and mono still holds its own.

I never told you I hate mono..For the last time I will write it here.

As stereo recordings have varibale levels for instruments in each channels and using Mono you are losing it and hence lose dynamics.

but the point that the "Dynamic content" can be equally present in stereo and mono still holds its own.

If dynamics are equal in both channels then it's not stereo recording at all in first place and it doesn't matter you use one or hundred speakers.

I am trying ever-hard to find an alternative but still cant..

For time being you are a monophile and me a stereophile.

uh..the thread has got very confusing.. the only difference between Mono and stereo is in Imaging Nothing more nothing less..

Regarding the Original posting on this thread about characteristic, I found Virens question the most pertinent ie Does it create music

That question is ststill important for you no matter what ie if you are a audiophile or a misicophile or a anything-o-phile wanting to listen to music.

everything else comes later..and is too personal and varied

Now if one wants to define a music lover or Musicality, yes there can be a lot of objective factors..but in the end it is like defining love.. Everyone knows it is about Pheromones and Hormones and biochemical reactions, but while you are in the middle of it , Who gives a F#&*in' Damn

uh..the thread has got very confusing.. the only difference between Mono ans stere is in Imaging Nothing more nothing less..

Uh thats what I have been trying to tell everone here and had to bring dynamics here to make things simpler.

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

uh..the thread has got very confusing.. the only difference between Mono ans stere is in Imaging Nothing more nothing less.. Uh thats what I have been trying to tell everone here and had to bring dynamics here to make things simpler.

Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.....................


Chalo..let it go...
Lets see what amp_nut has to say

the only difference between Mono and stereo is in Imaging Nothing more nothing less..

That gets me thinking how much imaging has brought into the art of music-making...

Dynamic range = the ratio of the loudest possible undistorted sound to the quietest.

In music, dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest volume of a instrument, part or piece of music.

Different hifi systems differ in its capability to reproduce this dynamic range without distortion. So the dynamic range or “dynamics” is a function of the inherent design of the components that makeup a system and its setup. It has nothing to do with ; “ stereo or mono”. What you achieve in stereo is sterophonic sound or “stereo imaging”, nothing else. Eveything else remains the same.

Two speakers with low dynamic capability connected in stereo will not give you any dynamics. It will give you double of the same non-dynamic sound.

square_wave schrieb:

Dynamic range = the ratio of the loudest possible undistorted sound to the quietest. In music, dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest volume of a instrument, part or piece of music. Different hifi systems differ in its capability to reproduce this dynamic range without distortion. So the dynamic range or “dynamics” is a function of the inherent design of the components that makeup a system and its setup. It has nothing to do with ; “ stereo or mono”. What you achieve in stereo is sterophonic sound or “stereo imaging”, nothing else. Eveything else remains the same. Two speakers with low dynamic capability connected in stereo will not give you any dynamics. It will give you double of the same non-dynamic sound.

I would love to agree with you here...
Thats what I have trying to put all throughout.
Imaging can only make our listening more pleasurable, cant increase or decrease the dynamics the system reproduce.

Two speakers with low dynamic capability connected in stereo will not give you any dynamics. It will give you double of the same non-dynamic sound.

What if those non dynamics crappies are thrown aside and dynamic speakers used... As per your post it translates to that in stereo dynamics are better than mono.

Different hifi systems differ in its capability to reproduce this dynamic range without distortion. So the dynamic range or “dynamics” is a function of the inherent design of the components that makeup a system and its setup. It has nothing to do with ; “ stereo or mono”. What you achieve in stereo is sterophonic sound or “stereo imaging”, nothing else. Eveything else remains the same.

Lets not get set-up's here which are inherently capable or incapable to produce dynamics.
Please read my post again as I'm tired of putting things again for the umpteenth time. In recordings the level of each instrument varies in channels and thus by using mono you are missing it, so it reduces the overall dynamics.

Dynamic range = the ratio of the loudest possible undistorted sound to the quietest.

This is a elementary defintion, but when we discuss about dynamics while listening to music you tend to lose vital information when a mono set up is used. Please for information of all read my earlioer posts and my constant reference to mono set up and not mono modes.

I would love to agree with you here... Thats what I have trying to put all throughout. Imaging can only make our listening more pleasurable, cant increase or decrease the dynamics the system reproduce.

Please read I'm referring to mono set up from beginning and not bothered about how much you love statements made by others. If you feel mono set up's can equal dynamics of a stereo lets take this further.. or else I'm out as I don't want to discuss as i'm on the right plane and someone who barges into the thread after his siesta in office just to fart here...

The question is mono vs stereo for dynamics using the same speakers, right ? If you increase the number of speakers, the only variables are loudness (of the whole spectrum of which dynamics is a subset) and imaging. Dynamics remains the same. It gets more enjoyable though due to stereophonic presentation.

Hi !

What Sub_boss says is not completely without substance. Here are a few points to ponder about:

-Two ears not only provide the stereo imaging but also affect the quality of sound perception - at least the loudness. Sounds heard by one ear appear fainter.
-Speakers use two/three drivers with cross-overs to distribute frquencies for optimal response & dynamics. Stereo also distributes sound signals among two speakers.
-In the mono years the recording principles were different and limited by the equipment capabilities. Old mono orchestra recordings are not as good as stereo. They had to compromise on dynamics to take care of limitations of audio equipment.
-Piano Vs. Keyboard - Keyboard may be able to simulate sound quality & harmonics of a piano but it's sound it unidirectional whereas the sound & harmonics of a piano are spread over its entire width.
-You would need double the amp power or double the speaker sensitivity to match the sound amplitude from one speaker to that of two/Stereo.
-Dynamics is not just about the difference between the loudest & the faintest sound reproduced by the speaker - its also about the difference between the loudest & faintest sound reproduced at the SAME time and yet heard as distinct. It also depends on the subjective sound discrimination - which is certainly better in a stereo setup than in mono.

What started as somewhat confused thread is becoming really interesting

Regards

Sanjay

SDhawan schrieb:

Sounds heard by one ear appear fainter.

hi,

On this one even i agree.

I am forced to hear the FM channels in mono rather than stereo mode due to obstructions in recieving signals. And i can feel that the dynamics get suppressed to some extent in mono mode. where as in stereo it increases along with depth.

My experience is not so much with mono sounds, but this my what i have experienced.

I dont know how the mono recordings sounded, maybe doc or amp_nut or even Mr. viren could comment on this.

I am forced to hear the FM channels in mono rather than stereo mode due to obstructions in recieving signals. And i can feel that the dynamics get suppressed to some extent in mono mode. where as in stereo it increases along with depth. My experience is not so much with mono sounds, but this my what i have experienced.

That means that you are receiving a Poor Signal at your Stereo FM Receiver.

As a result, the Stereo difference signal is not received at all.

A direct implication is that you are Not Even Receiving A 100% Good Mono Signal.

Comparing the audio quality of a poor reception Mono signal, to that of a well received stereo signal, is not comparing apples with apples....


P.S; An explanation on How FM Stereo is Broadcast:


FM radio began with Monoaural ( mono ) broadcast. A Mono signal is a sigle signal, ie equivalent to the Left + Right channels of a stereo signal ( L+R)

When Stereo FM Radio transmissions were planned, they HAD to be compatible with all the existing Mono FM radios already in consumer's homes.

As a result, the RM Stereo signal consists of 2 parts :

1. A Momo Signal ( Left + Right)

2. A L_R or Difference signal, that carries the difference between the 2 channesls.

The Left & Right Signal can be easily obtained by:

Mono + Diff Signal and Mono - Difference signal.

ie

L+R + (L-R) = 2L ie 2 times Left Channel Signal

L+R - (L-R) = 2R ie 2 times Right Channel Signal

The difference signal ( L-R) is only a small amount of info, and is carried seperately on a 19 KHz tone that is modulated with the L-R signal.

When you receive the 19 KHz signal, you get stereo. If the sinal is weak, then only the L+R ie the mono signal is received... and under poor receiption conditions, even the L+R is not reveived well ( Noisy and distorted )

Sorry for the long post .....

Hi,

Thanks amp_nut for the informative post. Now I know a little bit more of FM transmissions.

My comparing the FM mono tranmissions with the normal mono sounds might not be the best ones, but in todays world of surround sound it is hard to listen to mono.

And for a newbie like me this is the only source for mono, that is why I called upon u veterans to shed some (more) light.

regards - Sunil

Dear Sunil,

For mono try following:

- AM Radio
- TV
- Old Mono Recordings
- Old Hindi Film Music

There is still plenty of mono material worth listening to.

Regards

Sanjay

right

Hey Guys !

Just a reminder.... I am NOT a mono fan !

As I said at the beginning of this thread, I am a Stereo IMAGING freak....

What started as somewhat confused thread is becoming really interesting

DrJee it was indeed a very interesting thread, but some confused it!!.

its also about the difference between the loudest & faintest sound reproduced at the SAME time and yet heard as distinct. It also depends on the subjective sound discrimination - which is certainly better in a stereo setup than in mono.

Thank goodness atleast you reflected my thoughts...

Hi Doc,
Here are my 2 cents on what you have written:

-Two ears not only provide the stereo imaging but also affect the quality of sound perception - at least the loudness. Sounds heard by one ear appear fainter.

Are you saying if we hear a sound equally loud on both ears the overall loudness will be lesser than if we hear the same sound a bit fainter on one ear?

Speakers use two/three drivers with cross-overs to distribute frquencies for optimal response & dynamics. Stereo also distributes sound signals among two speakers.

We are considering a mono sound being played through the same set of speakers (both channels driven)...hence the sound is distributed in mono as well except that they are equally distributed.

In the mono years the recording principles were different and limited by the equipment capabilities. Old mono orchestra recordings are not as good as stereo. They had to compromise on dynamics to take care of limitations of audio equipment.

The limitation of equipment capabilities were not only with the listener but also with the composer, even they didnt have as good equipments/technologies to capture and record the sound tracks as is available today. The quality suffered from the studio itself. It was not because a mono setup cant deliver but it was because they didnt have the technology to do it better. For that matter even many old-time stereo recording is pathetic (e.g hindi classics)...the limitation was lack of technology in the studio.

You would need double the amp power or double the speaker sensitivity to match the sound amplitude from one speaker to that of two/Stereo.

Please dont limit mono to a single speaker..we are considering similar power (both channels of the amp firing) and same TWO speakers performing but in mono...

Dynamics is not just about the difference between the loudest & the faintest sound reproduced by the speaker - its also about the difference between the loudest & faintest sound reproduced at the SAME time and yet heard as distinct.

Loudest and the faintest sound in a stereo will still remain the loudest and the faintest in mono as well.
The only difference in stereo will be the placement of the sound (what you call as imaging). Please note that I am considering the speakers to be apart by the same distance in both stereo and mono presentation.

It also depends on the subjective sound discrimination - which is certainly better in a stereo setup than in mono.

Discrimination of sound certainly makes stereo more enjoyble but how do you conclude that the enjoyment is because of better dynamics ???

IMO its simply because you find the sound more real and natural and that gets you hooked. That natural feeling is brought about by the imaging and not by dynamics.
You can always hear those dynamics with a good high-powered amp and a pair of dynamic speakers but what you miss is the image that you would have heard and seen if you were there live and hence you find the sound to be lacking in involvement (sounds artificial) (Dynamics though plays a vital role in making things real...but its not related to the image.)
And its not that one speaker cant deliver or one amp would require double the power and all that...You can add as many drivers and as many speakers along with all those huge power amps (all in mono) but still you would miss what you missed initially...so its not dynamics but the image.
I still remain convinced about this.

I still remain convinced about this

Good, But stop using my style of dissecting a post into bits and replying. It's purely my taste and I don't think imitation in any form is flaterry for me.

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

I still remain convinced about this Good, But stop using my style of dissecting a post into bits and replying. It's purely my taste and I don't think imitation in any form is flaterry for me.

Prove it....

Amp_Nut schrieb:

I am a Stereo IMAGING freak.... :)

I think you're an Amp Nut!

Mono = Same signal coming from Both speakers. If everything is right and ignoring all reflections, imaging at the middle of the speakers

Stereo = each speaker having a different signal. sound interference creates a perception of spread out imaging.

Loudness, dynamics, transparency etc etc remain the same in both

may pre amps have a Mono button which miwes the L & R signal of a stereo ouput. it is an excellent way to check if botht eh channels are "synchronised" in power or if you have any doubt in 1 speaker.

Mono = Same signal coming from Both speakers. If everything is right and ignoring all reflections, imaging at the middle of the speakers Stereo = each speaker having a different signal. sound interference creates a perception of spread out imaging. Loudness, dynamics, transparency etc etc remain the same in both

Hi Arj,
Thanks for reinforcing my belief..

Hi !

Without sounding adamant, I'd like to say that there IS a sublte difference in sound quality between stereo & mono setup (regardless of stereo imaging). And this difference is both due to TECHNOLOGY & PHYSIOLOGY

TECHNOLOGY: The signal processing, amplifying and transducing load is shared by two channels in a stereo setup. In mono setup (one or multiple speakers) each channel is loaded the same amount of audio signal. So in stereo setup each channel is at a certain advantage just like some systems perform very well with simple music where there are not too many instruments or sounds but when you subject them to complex music full of complete orchetral performance they buckle under the load.

PHYSIOLOGY: All our senses including hearing develop based on our real life experience. Therefore, our brain resolves sound better based on cetrain discrepancy in the signals from the two ears - difference in amplitude, phase, time delay, etc. So even if mono & stereo may sound the same (in terms of quality - not imaging) - we are likely to HEAR stereo better.

I hope I was able to make my point clear.

Regards

Sanjay

Amp_Nut schrieb:

I am a Stereo IMAGING freak.... :)

Me too...
I am a big fan of "Dissapearing feat of the speakers"

SDhawan schrieb:

Hi ! Without sounding adamant, I'd like to say that there IS a sublte difference in sound quality between stereo & mono setup (regardless of stereo imaging). And this difference is both due to TECHNOLOGY & PHYSIOLOGY TECHNOLOGY: The signal processing, amplifying and transducing load is shared by two channels in a stereo setup. In mono setup (one or multiple speakers) each channel is loaded the same amount of audio signal. So in stereo setup each channel is at a certain advantage just like some systems perform very well with simple music where there are not too many instruments or sounds but when you subject them to complex music full of complete orchetral performance they buckle under the load. PHYSIOLOGY: All our senses including hearing develop based on our real life experience. Therefore, our brain resolves sound better based on cetrain discrepancy in the signals from the two ears - difference in amplitude, phase, time delay, etc. So even if mono & stereo may sound the same (in terms of quality - not imaging) - we are likely to HEAR stereo better. I hope I was able to make my point clear. Regards Sanjay

I do not think I have really understood the point on technology. I donot think the amplifier channels really knows or cares as to what it is getting is different from the other channel (It is very possible that i have misunderstood your point !)

Phsychology: may be true..but real life is all Mono ! we hear mono and see it with our eyes and imagine the stereo. Since an Audio cd only has sound,stereo is a kind of a " representation " of the real life in audio so one can "feel" the setup as it really was in auditory terms.. as in those days there was no TV (Its true..)

unfortunately it does not really mean much in recordings these days as the "Soundstage" is a farce created by the recording engineer ! very often different "tracks" are recorded at different times and mixed together by the recording engineer who creates an artificial soundstage !!! and we swear by it

Thats is the reason Live recordings that generate the real soundstage are often a very prized recording.. a la Jazz at the Pawnshop as you can tune your system with it !

I very often put my int amp on mono and i see no difference in anything other than a sharp imaging at the very center ! and that tells me that both signals from my amp are equally strong