Surely only one penneth worth  ;-)

C.

With reference to my post yesterday in the Fantasies on going Vintage thread:

I do remember when most things were mono, and having heard of stereo my first exploits at just about teenage years included taking a speaker from a junk valve radio, putting it in a box, and linking it to a working (valve) radio - ok, improvement (because of the box). Then playing with making amps, Iand messing about with microphones, I discovered that if I put a single microphone in a room and listened from the next room, if people were talking and the radio or TV was on it was hard to pick out the conversation. But with two microphones and listening on stereo headphones I could ignore the radio and follow a conversation because of the spatial information. 

Then I made a stereo HiFi system, and never looked back. Other than people unfortunate enough to have only a single working ear, why would anyone want to lose the spatial information of stereo??? 

I'm curious to understand why you feel that stereo is entirely unsuited to musical replay in the home. That is quite contrary to my own experience of both mono and stereo, and my ongoing appreciation of the wide soundstage compared to a point source - even when a room layout prevents 'proper' speaker and listener placement (at least provided that the volume level can be smewher approaching correct as opposed to one speaker in your ear and the other far away without a balance control).

When I heard a pair of ESL57s, phase effects were very apparent, with the tone changing markedly if I moved my head. In most other respects they were exquisite on recordings of acoustic instruments, though rather a dead loss for playing Hawkwind (this was some time ago). Using just one of them seems a good move given your apparent musical taste.

The mono button on my 282 does have a slight dulling effect and though it's useful for those records where vertical movement wasn't controlled during the cutting process I prefer not to use it if the record is stereo compatible mono. That software solution could be worth comparing to a summing preamp.

Yeti,

the phase effects you may well be describing is one of the ESLs well-reported weaknesses, the tendency of the HF panel to "beam" so you need to be in a particular position to hear at its best and can change markedly if you move your head or positioning.  Some will find this more annoying than others.  And if the HF panels are past their best, you may not even notice it any more (but there won't be much HF either).  

George, I'm sure Audirvana running on the Mac Mini will have access to an Audio Unit that converts whatever you are playing to mono. It also has an iTunes integration mode. Would save having to use a different pre-amp.

Or you could simply connect the left and right (analog) outputs from the source into one channel of your preamp, either by rewiring the two wires yourself into one of the plugs, or a 2 into 1 adaptor may be available (they are for RCA/phono).

However the channels are combined, whether hard-wired or using software in the digital domain, if there are signals present in the two channels that are out of phase there will be cancelling, in a way that might not happen through two speakers in the listening room, so all approaches are a compromise on recordings not originally mixed into mono, and so likely to affect at least sound balance.

you'd need to use a lead wired as a resistive combiner at the very minimum, or the stereo outputs from the two preamps would cross load each other.

I wonder, is some people looking for some peace of mind or for some piece of mind?

N

Chris! Very good. I almost spat my coffee out at that. trying suppress my laughter!

ATB from George

Thanks George. Not long after I joined the forum I think you were running your Royd Minstrels about six inches apart (perhaps less?). Where you are now seems to be the logical conclusion to that, albeit with an electrostatic. (And a lot less Lack tables).

Cheers, C.

Dear George,

I just know that I instantly found stereo more satisfying than mono, and as my system has evolved it has managed the illusion of a live performance in a way that I can't imagine a point source doing - though I admit that I haven't made a comparison with my now much higher level equipment than my first experiences in the 1960s: perhaps I should.  Of course, there are so many factors at play, most particularly rooms and speakers, and I note the observations that may be relevant to your ESLs (which I've never heard).

As for my listening to conversations, that was a 12 year old or so boy experimenting with electronics and audio, rather than a fledgling spy! 

And regarding your question about which system would sound finer, if you mean a mono system costing the same as a stereo system, and if by finer you mean the absolute sound quality emanating from the speaker/s, of course the mono has the potential for better sound quality because more could be spent on each component, though probably not double as apart from power amps where monoblocks are available, most other components made in the last 40 years are only available in stereo, and even speakers tend not to be sold singly. But whether I would perceive that as sounding better is another matter, for the reasons already mentioned.

It is of course all a matter of personal preference and perception, so as always 'each to his own'. For my part I was just trying to understand why you should even want to try mono ...and I recognise and respect the same curiosity in reverse from you.

Regards, IB

I forgot to add, it is likely also to depend in music preference - I can see how a single speaker might work better for a solo instrument or unaccompanied solo singer, assuming the recording doesn't seek to include too much of the reverberation of the venue/studio, whereas the convers would seem to hold considering large ensembles/orchestra.

"stereo is entirely unsuited to musical replay in the home."

George

On the strength of your irresistible logic, I have stacked my speakers vertically and cut off my right ear.

Certainly makes a difference.

"As for my listening to conversations, that was a 12 year old or so boy experimenting with electronics and audio, rather than a fledgling spy!" 

I made my first [amd only coned loudspeaker at about that age - the cone was formed of a doped filter paper!

Also a microphone which was equally entirely my making where the diaphragm was a piece of climb film, with the very smallest magnet carefully applied to the centre acting on a small coil fixed behind. I worked surprisingly well. You had to speak into it like a phone, but I made some recordings of speech that way, and also of ,music, but putting right infant of a loudspeaker and also down the horn of a 78 gramophone, where it was exceptionally good for some reason!

At about that time my father got a "stereo" record player and I thought it was dire! I could no value at all in stereo even as a twelve year old.

But as you say we all listen for fifferent things or at least we listen differently.

Best wishes from George

The singular ESL from 1960.

ATB from George

Lionel 

van Gogh

perhaps!

ATB from George

Interesting, George, that your microphone (from all those years ago) with its piece of clingfilm and magnet doesn't seem so very far removed from your electrostatic.

C.

I recall some years ago reading accounts of the improvement stacking pairs of those ESLs, including increasing the bass response, so before removing your second one entirely, maybe its something to try, (as long as it is protected from falling down that stairwell)

Dear Innocent Bystander, 

The one thing I need no more of [speaking as a retired bass player] is more bass. 

Most people are enamoured of a big bass sound in replay. It is not my cup of tea. Just articulate, and lucid on pitch is what I ask of replay.

I am preparing a youtube of [ten minute part of] Radio Three's evening concert, and this shows that there is plenty of bass from a single ESL. I would not want to add to it.

It may be tomorrow before I get the editing of the photographic element right. And the sonic is marred by a certain crudeness of the camera microphone, but it gives a hint.

ATB from George

I have gone mono

George,

I only wonder what took you so long.

Somewhere Klemperer must be smiling down on you.

And now you have freed some books to be used for their intended purpose.

Enjoy!

The first movement of Schubert's Octette

Leak Trough Line 3 onto PAP 100 [one channel only] onto a 1960 Quad ESL. It does not get much simpler than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2do9w1BEPA

The little Cannon Ixus introduces a lot of noise and false tone in the violin, but otherwise the recording gives a nint of the balances. Bass is firm and clear, horn tones are different from those of the bassoon. The cello is clearly not a double bass and also the other way round.

It seems that one ESL actually drives the room better than two, which is not quite what you might expect, but one speaker in the right place is a lot lot better than where neither is optimal ...

I would guess that there is only one Forum member who will ever have the chance to test the real thing [or possibly two], but for me this is getting right back to the last point where I was not distracted by silly effects rather than a direct replay of music. The last time I was in a position to listen to this style if replay was in 1975. I have struggled with eliminating stereo ever since.

I have now finally dome it! No reason for any radical change for the next two decades, but which time it will not matter.

ATB from George

Dear Chris,

My wishing to diminish stereo has now been fulfilled completely, and very good it is!

Now all I need to do is trade one ESL for a Leak 12.1. and get the Mac to output dual summed mono.

Then the V1 can feed a mon amplifier.

As a note on mono compatible stereo. Compatible stereo is basically a mono recording with a difference channel, added to one side and added as a negative [subtracted in other words] from the other. The great era of pure mono compatible stereo recordings ended in the 1960s when spot microphones came into play. These real havoc with mono summing as they produce the comb-filter effect when summed, so that some frequencies are diminished and some enhanced so that the result is very strange.

Fortunately I have very few recordings like this. A handful out of 600-ish CDs. Modern [clasical music] productions [more or less in the last few years], have often gone back to the simple mono compatible stereo recording style and so work splendidly when played as single summed channel mono ...

ATB from George

Just listened to it George with a coffee before going out the door to work.

Absolutely enchanting.It nicely dovetails our UK weather at the moment.

What a great thread this is.Its full of vintage charm !