The Joy of Stereo

Dear Droo!

I have just enjoyed your post! Naturally I cannot actually hope to make a constructive comment beyond saying that stereo is as much a matter of taste as anything else. It is neither inherently better or worse in the main in my view, though I suspect my personal view is known by now! I don't think I am necessarily right or others necessarily wrong. But sometimes it is good to actually think about it ...

A fine debate is a wonderful thing!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

I especially recommend this musical experience late at night, whilst sipping absinthe, after having slaughtered a virgin.

Marilyn? Is that you?

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Anyway, tell me about your favourite stereo moments!

Kate Bush 'The Dreaming' does not sound right in mono akin to washing your feet with your socks on...

Personally i would prefer to hear the music i appreciate regardless of whether it's stereo or mono.
Just a thought, but perhaps pre-1960's music and classical orchestrated music is or was generally recorded for good reproductive enjoyment regardless of how many speakers one will use for playback... and pop/rock/jazz is more oriented towards a stereo outcome for marketing purposes?
I mean, why sell the people one speaker, when you can sell them two?
Out of an admitted act of mental laziness, i tend to go with the flow of a reference system, and i notice naim-auido doesn't offer a top-notch mono system.....

It would be interesting to know what it would be like if they did offer a well crafted mono cdp, mono tuner, mono amp and 1 x 5 meter length of naca5 to one speaker... oh! and one triple-power-supply to convert 230v AC into 3 x 1 channel of 24v DC for the cd,tuner and amp. If this set up worked really well, it would be a marketing disaster for Stereo! : )

Kind Regards
nymph

I'm with you, Drood on the thread title.

One of my favourites is Elgar's Introduction and Allegro, written for string orchestra with a string quartet. My favourite version is played by the London Philharmonic Orchestra with Adrian Boult on the Classics for Pleasure label. Boult divides the 1st and 2nd violins left and right, and this makes the interplay between the orchestral sections and the quartet very clear.

I've no wish to listen to this in mono sound. Hearing it as if from a point source is for Luddites and masochists.

Ken

"I've no wish to listen to this in mono sound. Hearing it as if from a point source is for Luddites and masochists. Ken"

Dear Ken,

This is an interesting form of argument. Denigrate people who disagree with you whilst showing no reason why there might be some logic for your preference beyond that it is your personal preference. This is very much like the man in the art gallery who says that he knows nothing of art, but knows what he likes, and then expounds as an authority.

The Elgar Introduction and Allegro is not, and was not conceived as, an antiphonal piece. Elgar told WH Read [leader of the LSO, very fine violinist, and close friend] that the piece was much misunderstood: "It is a sort of modern Concerto Grosso, such as Handel or Bach might have written in our time." The concertante element is the string quartet, and Elgar’s Mastery of string writing [he was a more than passable violinist, and could play all the strings including the double bass] meant that even in a big hall the balance and tonal differences of the Concertino and Tutti group remain clear. There is absolutely no attempt to separate the distinct musical lines in counterpoint, but rather to create a contrapuntal piece in a modern style with all the vertical integration that was apparent in Bach and Handel, when they wrote counterpoint!

Appreciating the music in this way makes complete sense of minimising the false, and in a hall inaudible, antiphonal/stereophonic separation emphasised in misguided employment of multi-channel recording techniques. Mono has the great advantage of making the contrapuntal element inevitable, and Elgar perceived that his contemporary audience had completely misunderstood his work. The concentration antiphonal/stereophonic aspects, rather than the contrapuntal element which Elgar intended by his own admission to Reed, would seem to indicate that nothing has changed in some quarters in the last century since the music was first performed. If you want to read about Elgar's perplexed reaction to the music's reception I would suggest you read Reed’s book on Elgar, titled "Elgar As I Knew Him." [Victor Gollanz]

Elgar wrote one big piece that in early performances used an antiphonal layout, and this is The Dream Of Gerontius, where, in Hereford Cathedral, there was the chance to have the orchestra, soloists, and main choir at the West End, and the semi-chorus at the Crossing. Dissatisfied with the fact the neither satisfactory ensemble nor good musical balance proved possible with this arrangement, Elgar decided to put the two choirs together at the West End. This left another problem in the Cathedral however as the great [one of the great Romantic organs in the World] Father Willis Organ was very near the crossing.

So keen was Elgar to reduce the problems brought about by the organ's position relative to the rest of the performing forces that between him and Sir Percy Hull, a second great organ was constructed, which is movable and resides at the West End for performances [it was specifically designed to have the compass necessary for Gerontius as well as work well even for Bach] when the orchestra and choir are not under the Crossing.

If you had lit upon the Monteverdi Vespers I would agree that the antiphonal effect is actually part of the conception. In Elgar in one instance he experimented it and rejected it. Otherwise as a practical music he delighted in creating the most compact and focussed sound possible. The antithesis of the recorded stereo conception of the music.

I have no problem with you using a crutch to help appreciate great music, but calling people who have no such need or wish, "Luddites and masochists," is indeed going too far. I thought we did not indulge in name calling in the Music Room, and I am surprised to see it cropping up with no justification other than you personally, and without any academic underpinning, like something that is nothing to do with the music in concept or expressive nature.

In other words I could not get too worried that like the effect of stereo, but I think calling me and others "Luddites" is simply too bad.

ATB from George

George,

I defer to your superior scholarship, though I'm not sure that one report of a composer's intention should define how listeners should percieve a piece. To me, my individual perception of the result is of more relevance.

I apologise if I went too far in name-calling. I was concentrating on the "point source" aspect, and I still find it incomprehensible that anyone listening to a large group of musicians apparently compressed in this manner should find the effect more musical than having a more spread-out sound source. I find the "double mono" effect I get from mono recordings played through a stereo system quite acceptable.

Perhaps we expect and look for different things.

Regards,
Ken

quote:

I'm not sure that one report of a composer's intention should define how listeners should percieve a piece.

I was going to say that, but I already had the debate with George on a Bach thread a while ago (remember my music = landscape analogy?).

Glad the name calling was nipped in the bud though!