Mono Replay? The Most Musical?
Posted by: u5227470736789439 on 13 November 2007
Dear Friends,
As nine year old I first encountered “music” as something discrete – a phenomenon significant of itself – enjoyment which was not merely an appendage to life, but seemed to immediately become a major reason to enjoy it. This was in my first week at a boarding school when all but the first form was expected to listen quietly to the Latin Master lecture on classical music with portions played on the large and very fine school gramophone. I was nine and very unhappy being away from home, and quite unsettled by my mother leaving home months earlier.
In January 1971 the gramophone was a valve based mono machine in the corner of a room that would sit fifty people without it being crowded. The Music was Elgar’s First Symphony, the Master, utterly terrifying! I was completely enthralled! A few weeks later we progressed onto the Great C Major Symphony of Schubert, followed after Easter by the Third Piano Concerto of Beethoven played by Claudio Arraw …
In December I was given my first LPs: Elgar’s First, Philharmonia/Barbirolli, The Great C Major, Halle/Barbirolli, The Pastoral, Philharmonia/Klemperer, and the Unfinished Symphony, RLPO/Groves, for my tenth birthday.
Within eighteen months I had played and learned all the records in the LP library, and could identify any of the pieces contained in over 100 LPs. I then taught myself to read the music scores, firstly with the records and subsequently in silence. There were something like 3000 78s, which provided further material over the following years…
By the Autumn of 1973, my complete absorption in the music was noticed and after the summer holidays in the shortening days of the Autumn I was being taken to concerts in Malvern and Worcester, which still resonate in my memory. So music was something I loved but was in my own view not good at playing. I still am a dreadful pianist! Much later I would take up the double bass, and surprise myself, by graduation to the level of freelance professional, and even teaching the instrument, though I never took a grade exam beside theory!
This is the background to my views on replay of music. In 1973 we got a stereo set at home, which I thought was terrible. The issue was not tonal quality, though it did not match the big school gramophone for purity, but the fact that it was stereo. I knew from listening to mono records that little is lost of musical significance, but with stereo the effect was far more divorced from my concert attending experience than the undoubted artificiality mono …
In 1983 I bought my own first set [all Sony] and set about finding a way of reducing the false issue of stereo. I gradually moved the speakers closer and closer together till I was getting something that sounded like the concert experience. Of course there is quite lot about concerts that you would not want to actually reproduce from records, such as people eating sweats and the focus dulling effects of the Hall or Church acoustic. I even conceived a scheme of recording that would entirely do away with Hall acoustic that would not be possible, but it can and is usefully reduced in any case in recordings.
My point is that in my view stereo is a terrible idea in the issue of recording natural instruments in classical music. There are a handful of great works that have antiphonal effects, such as the Monteverdi Vespers, but it amounts to less than one piece in fifty. Also I soon learned when playing ensemble that every effort is made to reduce to the minimum possible the space between players, The aim is as compact a sound as possible so that ensemble is better kept [by means of listening while playing – not everything comes off the conductor’s baton] – and chording becomes lucid and well bound together, rather separated and ill-focussed.
Thus I am going to propose the notion that the pursuit of stereo is a non-musical development with huge disadvantages and no redeeming features - something to be suppressed at every opportunity!
In recent times I have reverted to using my speakers very close together facing out from the corner of the room, and have been forcibly reminded that I have spent the last twenty odd years trying to comply with the false notion of stereo replay for no good reason.
I am sure that this post will cause a few raised eyebrows.
Any thoughts on this would be gratefully read by me…
ATB from George
As nine year old I first encountered “music” as something discrete – a phenomenon significant of itself – enjoyment which was not merely an appendage to life, but seemed to immediately become a major reason to enjoy it. This was in my first week at a boarding school when all but the first form was expected to listen quietly to the Latin Master lecture on classical music with portions played on the large and very fine school gramophone. I was nine and very unhappy being away from home, and quite unsettled by my mother leaving home months earlier.
In January 1971 the gramophone was a valve based mono machine in the corner of a room that would sit fifty people without it being crowded. The Music was Elgar’s First Symphony, the Master, utterly terrifying! I was completely enthralled! A few weeks later we progressed onto the Great C Major Symphony of Schubert, followed after Easter by the Third Piano Concerto of Beethoven played by Claudio Arraw …
In December I was given my first LPs: Elgar’s First, Philharmonia/Barbirolli, The Great C Major, Halle/Barbirolli, The Pastoral, Philharmonia/Klemperer, and the Unfinished Symphony, RLPO/Groves, for my tenth birthday.
Within eighteen months I had played and learned all the records in the LP library, and could identify any of the pieces contained in over 100 LPs. I then taught myself to read the music scores, firstly with the records and subsequently in silence. There were something like 3000 78s, which provided further material over the following years…
By the Autumn of 1973, my complete absorption in the music was noticed and after the summer holidays in the shortening days of the Autumn I was being taken to concerts in Malvern and Worcester, which still resonate in my memory. So music was something I loved but was in my own view not good at playing. I still am a dreadful pianist! Much later I would take up the double bass, and surprise myself, by graduation to the level of freelance professional, and even teaching the instrument, though I never took a grade exam beside theory!
This is the background to my views on replay of music. In 1973 we got a stereo set at home, which I thought was terrible. The issue was not tonal quality, though it did not match the big school gramophone for purity, but the fact that it was stereo. I knew from listening to mono records that little is lost of musical significance, but with stereo the effect was far more divorced from my concert attending experience than the undoubted artificiality mono …
In 1983 I bought my own first set [all Sony] and set about finding a way of reducing the false issue of stereo. I gradually moved the speakers closer and closer together till I was getting something that sounded like the concert experience. Of course there is quite lot about concerts that you would not want to actually reproduce from records, such as people eating sweats and the focus dulling effects of the Hall or Church acoustic. I even conceived a scheme of recording that would entirely do away with Hall acoustic that would not be possible, but it can and is usefully reduced in any case in recordings.
My point is that in my view stereo is a terrible idea in the issue of recording natural instruments in classical music. There are a handful of great works that have antiphonal effects, such as the Monteverdi Vespers, but it amounts to less than one piece in fifty. Also I soon learned when playing ensemble that every effort is made to reduce to the minimum possible the space between players, The aim is as compact a sound as possible so that ensemble is better kept [by means of listening while playing – not everything comes off the conductor’s baton] – and chording becomes lucid and well bound together, rather separated and ill-focussed.
Thus I am going to propose the notion that the pursuit of stereo is a non-musical development with huge disadvantages and no redeeming features - something to be suppressed at every opportunity!
In recent times I have reverted to using my speakers very close together facing out from the corner of the room, and have been forcibly reminded that I have spent the last twenty odd years trying to comply with the false notion of stereo replay for no good reason.
I am sure that this post will cause a few raised eyebrows.
Any thoughts on this would be gratefully read by me…
ATB from George
Posted on: 13 November 2007 by u5227470736789524
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Thus I am going to propose the notion that the pursuit of stereo is a non-musical development with huge disadvantages and no redeeming features - something to be suppressed at every opportunity
ATB from George
George,
While not disagreeing with foundations of your essay, this comment goes a little further than I would agree with. As with you, "stereo" is not important to me, but there are many on this forum for whom soundstaging, imaging, stereo seperation and such are an integral part of their enjoyment of sound, and by result, music.
My time line starts with a Zenith mono hifi on which my father always had music playing. He ran an extension speaker to his living room chair, but for no other effect than having the music closer to him. In the fifties, music making devices were as much furniture (WAF?) as they were, well, music making devices.
My father died in 1962 when I was 13, a most profound moment in my life. But he had already planted the seeds of music and sound in me, for which I will be eternally grateful as it brings me great joy I get nowhere else save my singular love of my life relationship.
As a teen in the Sixties, we had "moved up" to a Zenith console stereo, in the dining room, again, furniture to the household as much as a sound source (these devices carried some "status" back then).
I did not enjoy life with my father gone, living with my mother and older sister. So I sought refuge in music and spent most of my teen recreational time laying on the dining room floor, one ear pressed against the right speaker, the volume low so I didn't disturb the others. Ultimately I got a Zenith Circle of Sound stereo for my room, and until I left home, after returning from college and the miltary, continued my joyous solitude there, the two speakers less than three feet apart, softly playing the music I loved.
I say whatever works for somebody is fine, as long as they are receiving the joy of the music and sound so obviously loved by those here in the Music Room.
best regards
Jeff A
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by JohanR
A note is that music recorded in stereo often has ambient information that is out of phase between the channels. When mono-ing this stereo recording, this part of the ambience is canceled out and lost.
If it's a mono recording to begin with, there is of course no such problem.
I myself do most of my listening from another room than where the HiFi is, and in that case all stereo location information is lost (but not all of the out of phase ambience). The enjoyment of the music, on the other hand, is not lost! So I tend to go with George here. Stereo is mostly silly.
JohanR
If it's a mono recording to begin with, there is of course no such problem.
I myself do most of my listening from another room than where the HiFi is, and in that case all stereo location information is lost (but not all of the out of phase ambience). The enjoyment of the music, on the other hand, is not lost! So I tend to go with George here. Stereo is mostly silly.
JohanR
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by BigH47
My only response to this is we have 2 ears for a reason.Not for listening to music I admit locating prey and enemies avoiding buses, so a sense of "space and direction" is in built.
Saying that some mono recordings just do the right thing.
If stereo is "silly" then do a Van Gogh. It's a stereo world out there.
Saying that some mono recordings just do the right thing.
If stereo is "silly" then do a Van Gogh. It's a stereo world out there.
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by JohanR
quote:If stereo is "silly" then do a Van Gogh. It's a stereo world out there.
Van Gogh is remembered as a great painter. I will never be that, even if I cut off an ear.
Still, stereo in the HiFi world is, if you ask me, mostly silly. Thats what we are discussing here.
JohanR
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by Guido Fawkes
How did Van Gogh cope with headphones after doing that?
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by Geoff P
My thoughts...
Initially Stereo was a 'new thing', just like today perhaps multichannel music (SACD & DV-A) is a novelty.
As with any opportunity to re-invigorate a stable and perhaps slow growth industry the introduction of stereo opened a bright new horizon for the industry of music production and reproduction to sell a whole raft of new products to the public all the way from the 'software' thru' to the speakers. A classic example of a set of manufactureres 'feeding' each others financial growth. A modern day example being the whole computing, memory, software, storage, media device, display food chain).
This is a repeating strategy which promotes 'inventions / concepts' a bit like the 'Dragon's Den' entrepeneurs of today. Sometimes it works wonderfully, sometimes it falls on stony ground. More so today because the general public is now offered such a plethora of 'new' things it has become much more critical and less easily swayed. Obvious examples being SACD and DVD-A.
Taking a reasonable intial growth time line Stereo turned into a roaring success for the whole music reproduction industry and once the first seed bore some fruit the whole PR machine geared up and rolled into action. You have only to look at the LP sleeves from early stereo pressings. Each company had it's own name for stereo and included pamphlets or back cover notes explaining how this marvellous new concept done their way was the best. As with all new approaches, the techniques used evolved over time and to some extent their evolution can be charted by listening to stereo recordings from different points on the timeline till the present day.
The theme throughout has been to make stereo sound different. Just playing dual mono through two channels would be perfectly acceptable for the electronics industry since they still get to sell twice as much of all their original 'mono' components. Unfortunately on any reasonably designed system dual mono does not sound much different from single mono with a single speaker in the 'middle' position. That was not going to 'sell' so the idea of having two 'different' segments of the total music which had naturally captured out of phase information in them as left and right channels produced a different and admittedly audibly attractive sound that could be 'sold' as superior to mono in just the same way as today we are sold the subtlties of stereo such as sound staging, stereo separation etc as improvements.
I have quite a lot of early stereo era Jazz recordings and the thing about these which is at first disconcerting is that they do not set out to create a centrally and evenly spread soundstage. Recording engineers then were experimenting with this 'new' way of recording by placing a few high quality microphones and because they did not have the complex mixing capabilities of today laying down what came across pretty much 'as is'. Often in small trios the piano and bass is hard over in one channel and the drums hard over in the other. When horns are added they take up positions in or close to one channel or the other and when each instrument solos effectively you get a mono sound from the appropriate channel. Once you get over the listening adjustment you begin to recognise that the clarity and involvement of these 'solos' ,each in turn, comes through beautifully as a mono sound.
Returning to todays much more sophisticated sound stage, often mixed from individual tracks that may have been recorded in different studios , but at least in different 'rooms' in a studio, its artificiallity is immediately obvious and in some way that is not obvious but nevertheless dissapointing there is a 'deadness' that isn't there in the simple unsophisticated earlier recordings. This is not a CD only thing it is evident to my way of hearing on modern LP's aswell. Somehow the neatness with which it is all spread in a sound field with dominant emphasis on a the center and the artificiality of that in comparison with a live performance is what takes away some magic from the recording.
I agree that for a single instrument or voice there is nothing to beat a 'mono' sound but I do feel that the interplay between elements in the music benefits from simple stereo recording techniques as found on early Jazz and BTW classical stereo LP's. This approach works as a pseudo mono listening experience in combination with our 'stereo' hearing, perhaps in a way that today's 'full on' attempts at the staging of music don't for me.
regards
Geoff
Initially Stereo was a 'new thing', just like today perhaps multichannel music (SACD & DV-A) is a novelty.
As with any opportunity to re-invigorate a stable and perhaps slow growth industry the introduction of stereo opened a bright new horizon for the industry of music production and reproduction to sell a whole raft of new products to the public all the way from the 'software' thru' to the speakers. A classic example of a set of manufactureres 'feeding' each others financial growth. A modern day example being the whole computing, memory, software, storage, media device, display food chain).
This is a repeating strategy which promotes 'inventions / concepts' a bit like the 'Dragon's Den' entrepeneurs of today. Sometimes it works wonderfully, sometimes it falls on stony ground. More so today because the general public is now offered such a plethora of 'new' things it has become much more critical and less easily swayed. Obvious examples being SACD and DVD-A.
Taking a reasonable intial growth time line Stereo turned into a roaring success for the whole music reproduction industry and once the first seed bore some fruit the whole PR machine geared up and rolled into action. You have only to look at the LP sleeves from early stereo pressings. Each company had it's own name for stereo and included pamphlets or back cover notes explaining how this marvellous new concept done their way was the best. As with all new approaches, the techniques used evolved over time and to some extent their evolution can be charted by listening to stereo recordings from different points on the timeline till the present day.
The theme throughout has been to make stereo sound different. Just playing dual mono through two channels would be perfectly acceptable for the electronics industry since they still get to sell twice as much of all their original 'mono' components. Unfortunately on any reasonably designed system dual mono does not sound much different from single mono with a single speaker in the 'middle' position. That was not going to 'sell' so the idea of having two 'different' segments of the total music which had naturally captured out of phase information in them as left and right channels produced a different and admittedly audibly attractive sound that could be 'sold' as superior to mono in just the same way as today we are sold the subtlties of stereo such as sound staging, stereo separation etc as improvements.
I have quite a lot of early stereo era Jazz recordings and the thing about these which is at first disconcerting is that they do not set out to create a centrally and evenly spread soundstage. Recording engineers then were experimenting with this 'new' way of recording by placing a few high quality microphones and because they did not have the complex mixing capabilities of today laying down what came across pretty much 'as is'. Often in small trios the piano and bass is hard over in one channel and the drums hard over in the other. When horns are added they take up positions in or close to one channel or the other and when each instrument solos effectively you get a mono sound from the appropriate channel. Once you get over the listening adjustment you begin to recognise that the clarity and involvement of these 'solos' ,each in turn, comes through beautifully as a mono sound.
Returning to todays much more sophisticated sound stage, often mixed from individual tracks that may have been recorded in different studios , but at least in different 'rooms' in a studio, its artificiallity is immediately obvious and in some way that is not obvious but nevertheless dissapointing there is a 'deadness' that isn't there in the simple unsophisticated earlier recordings. This is not a CD only thing it is evident to my way of hearing on modern LP's aswell. Somehow the neatness with which it is all spread in a sound field with dominant emphasis on a the center and the artificiality of that in comparison with a live performance is what takes away some magic from the recording.
I agree that for a single instrument or voice there is nothing to beat a 'mono' sound but I do feel that the interplay between elements in the music benefits from simple stereo recording techniques as found on early Jazz and BTW classical stereo LP's. This approach works as a pseudo mono listening experience in combination with our 'stereo' hearing, perhaps in a way that today's 'full on' attempts at the staging of music don't for me.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by KenM
This topic is an old friend. Some of us find that stereo enhances our enjoyment of music. It provides aural clues to the visual experiences which we would have in a live performance. So let us have it. If you dislike stereo, use a Mono switch or place your speakers together.
I know that stereo is not always helpful, I too have CDs on which a solo piano fills the entire width between the speakers. But those are just poor recordings. I remain firmly in the stereo camp.
Ken
I know that stereo is not always helpful, I too have CDs on which a solo piano fills the entire width between the speakers. But those are just poor recordings. I remain firmly in the stereo camp.
Ken
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by Bob McC
quote:How did Van Gogh cope with headphones after doing that?
He used a Bluetooth headset.
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by Timbo
My favourite mono (and live) is Bruckner symphony number 5, Berlin or Vienna Phil (can't remember which) conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler.
Currently have 1945 version of Brahams symphony 2 on order WF conducting of course.
Tim
Currently have 1945 version of Brahams symphony 2 on order WF conducting of course.
Tim
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Tim,
In Bruckner Five if it's the VPO then its live at Salzburg in the early fifties on EMI or if the BPO it's a Wartime recording. I used to have both at one time ...
The 1945 Brahms Secend is from Vienna, I suspect. I still have this one. For once the Symphony is brought out as really a drama, but still serious. Wonderful.
ATB from George
In Bruckner Five if it's the VPO then its live at Salzburg in the early fifties on EMI or if the BPO it's a Wartime recording. I used to have both at one time ...
The 1945 Brahms Secend is from Vienna, I suspect. I still have this one. For once the Symphony is brought out as really a drama, but still serious. Wonderful.
ATB from George
Posted on: 14 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Friends,
I was expecting much more disagreement! I can see why people can enjoy stereo, and I agree with Ken that if it is no obstacle or even a positive thing for people then it is there for the taking! It is just that there is enough quite un-natural stereo recording about [given that I am not going to reposition the set for each recording used] for me to reject it across the board.
On mono recordings placing the speakers quite close together only improves things, and for me the approach rescues the potential in un-natural stereo recordings, while certainly not spoiling good stereo for me!
Thanks for the replies. George
I was expecting much more disagreement! I can see why people can enjoy stereo, and I agree with Ken that if it is no obstacle or even a positive thing for people then it is there for the taking! It is just that there is enough quite un-natural stereo recording about [given that I am not going to reposition the set for each recording used] for me to reject it across the board.
On mono recordings placing the speakers quite close together only improves things, and for me the approach rescues the potential in un-natural stereo recordings, while certainly not spoiling good stereo for me!
Thanks for the replies. George
Posted on: 15 November 2007 by JohanR
quote:I have quite a lot of early stereo era Jazz recordings and the thing about these which is at first disconcerting is that they do not set out to create a centrally and evenly spread soundstage.
I think that these recordings are much more believeable, soundstagewise, than modern "everything must be in the middle" that definately, to my ears/brain, has nothing to do with any reality I have ever heard. I can understand when the horn player is to the left with the drummer a bit behind and the bass player to the right. When everybody is crowding in the middle and at the same place depthwise with more or less only ambience having any stereo information, isn't that mono?
Sorry, I don't get modern "stereo" recordings. To me stereo means that there is different sounds in different channels.
JohanR (Yes, we live in a free world and everybody is allowed to enjoy there view of it)
Posted on: 15 November 2007 by droodzilla
quote:I was expecting much more disagreement!
OK, I disagree.
I don't *violently* disagree - at least as far as classical music is concerned.
But I disagree strongly enough to start a counter-thread!
Posted on: 17 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Yesterday I listened to the new recording of Elgar's Violin Concerto played by Graffin with Handley conducting the Orchestra. What a wonderful performance. The best I have come across, not least because Handley is so wonderful in accompaniment with the orchestra, and so brings out the soloist's intentions so beautifully!
So why post this here on a Thread mostly concerned with replay and apparently not with music. Because the result was completely compelling when replayed as mono. Nothing lost for me, as it sounds most similar to the last time I heard it played live which was with Tasmin Little and Vernon Handley in Hereford! So much so that for a while I was transported back to that lovely warm summer evening completely. No need to suspend disbelief, but merely let the music transport me. A wonderful experience ...
ATB from George
So why post this here on a Thread mostly concerned with replay and apparently not with music. Because the result was completely compelling when replayed as mono. Nothing lost for me, as it sounds most similar to the last time I heard it played live which was with Tasmin Little and Vernon Handley in Hereford! So much so that for a while I was transported back to that lovely warm summer evening completely. No need to suspend disbelief, but merely let the music transport me. A wonderful experience ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 17 November 2007 by Geoff P
Natural interplay between musicians is normally acheived in a tightly spaced group which doesn't take kindly to being separated for stereo recording purposes.
The following quote from a musician in a jazz trio makes this point strongly:
"Recording in a studio is particularlry vexing. The engineers want to spread the trio out to ensure optimum stereo separation. The trouble is that this creates an acoustical lag within the group. If the pianist is too far away from the bassist they have to guess when the other's rhythum is failing. The split second of delay can be critical; it can kill the swing of music. This is very frustrating because as a result my truly good performances are hardly ever captured in recording studios"
The musician speaking was Oscar Peterson!
This is an interesting and thought provoking quote which makes it clear that small groups of skilfull trained musicians want to use each other's pace to keep a sense of unity. In effect a close approach to mono where the players are in their naturally close playing positions is best for them, though it doesn't suit the modern day desire to get a'big' stereo effect for the sound stage fanatics (HiFi Critics).
Interestingly this brings out the point that the role of the conductor in a large orchestra is not just to interpret the pace and rise and fall of the music produced but also to help a large mass of musicians keep time with each other when they cannot hear across to the other side of the large orchestra they are sitting in.
regards
Geoff
The following quote from a musician in a jazz trio makes this point strongly:
"Recording in a studio is particularlry vexing. The engineers want to spread the trio out to ensure optimum stereo separation. The trouble is that this creates an acoustical lag within the group. If the pianist is too far away from the bassist they have to guess when the other's rhythum is failing. The split second of delay can be critical; it can kill the swing of music. This is very frustrating because as a result my truly good performances are hardly ever captured in recording studios"
The musician speaking was Oscar Peterson!
This is an interesting and thought provoking quote which makes it clear that small groups of skilfull trained musicians want to use each other's pace to keep a sense of unity. In effect a close approach to mono where the players are in their naturally close playing positions is best for them, though it doesn't suit the modern day desire to get a'big' stereo effect for the sound stage fanatics (HiFi Critics).
Interestingly this brings out the point that the role of the conductor in a large orchestra is not just to interpret the pace and rise and fall of the music produced but also to help a large mass of musicians keep time with each other when they cannot hear across to the other side of the large orchestra they are sitting in.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 17 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Geoff,
Your observations exactly chime with what Sir Adrian Boult noted on the issue of having a conductor at all!
His proposition is that a conductor can generally be regarded as a bad thing with groups of less than 17 players as the ensemble will actually hold together better without the added need to concentrate on a conductor on top of listening to each other! Listening requires the players to be as close together as is possible. It also requires great colaboration between the first violin [leader] and the principle bass player to hold tempi steady and the sense of flow going.
The odd thing is that in Halls small enough to contain such chamber groups some sense of directionality in a live performance can occur in a good seat near the front, whereas in larger Halls, suitable for a larger more spread out orchestra, any seat where a good balance is to be found [between the musical lines], will generally give next to no sense of directionality between players - only a sense that the players are simply in front and on the stage.
Even in larger groups such as a fully populated symphony orchestra of say 90 players the conductor cannot give all the information required for good rhythm and ensemble. He will give enough to bridge the difficulties of binding the rhythm between far flung groups such as the French Horns, who are always to be found [from the audience perspective at the back on the left as they need a sounding board behind to well realise their tone], and perhaps the second violins at the front on the right.
A good Hall also helps, such as the Musikverein in Vienna, which is blessed with a stage where every section of the orchestra can easily hear every other one in clear immediate sound. This is not the case in most churches or a big Hall like the Albert Hall! Players get accustomed to keeping ensemble in difficult conditions in bad Halls!
Playing in the pit for opera is quite different! The orchestra is mostly closed in and can easily keep emsemble as there is no Hall acoutic to blur the issue, but often the orchestra cannot hear the singers at all! In that case a conductor is vital to keep the pit and the stage in good co-ordination, and damp down the orchestra dynamic to balance the singing! It can go terribly wrong!
ATB from George
Your observations exactly chime with what Sir Adrian Boult noted on the issue of having a conductor at all!
His proposition is that a conductor can generally be regarded as a bad thing with groups of less than 17 players as the ensemble will actually hold together better without the added need to concentrate on a conductor on top of listening to each other! Listening requires the players to be as close together as is possible. It also requires great colaboration between the first violin [leader] and the principle bass player to hold tempi steady and the sense of flow going.
The odd thing is that in Halls small enough to contain such chamber groups some sense of directionality in a live performance can occur in a good seat near the front, whereas in larger Halls, suitable for a larger more spread out orchestra, any seat where a good balance is to be found [between the musical lines], will generally give next to no sense of directionality between players - only a sense that the players are simply in front and on the stage.
Even in larger groups such as a fully populated symphony orchestra of say 90 players the conductor cannot give all the information required for good rhythm and ensemble. He will give enough to bridge the difficulties of binding the rhythm between far flung groups such as the French Horns, who are always to be found [from the audience perspective at the back on the left as they need a sounding board behind to well realise their tone], and perhaps the second violins at the front on the right.
A good Hall also helps, such as the Musikverein in Vienna, which is blessed with a stage where every section of the orchestra can easily hear every other one in clear immediate sound. This is not the case in most churches or a big Hall like the Albert Hall! Players get accustomed to keeping ensemble in difficult conditions in bad Halls!
Playing in the pit for opera is quite different! The orchestra is mostly closed in and can easily keep emsemble as there is no Hall acoutic to blur the issue, but often the orchestra cannot hear the singers at all! In that case a conductor is vital to keep the pit and the stage in good co-ordination, and damp down the orchestra dynamic to balance the singing! It can go terribly wrong!
ATB from George
Posted on: 17 November 2007 by Geoff P
Munch ....I don't know about all of em but a couple I have on Vinyl seem to be well centered.quote:Originally posted by munch:
Does Naim record like that on there stereo recordings?
Munch
The series of Oscar Peterson recordings entitled as a group 'Exclusively for my Friends' (see what are you listening to now) were recorded whilst his trio played in their normal tight group as he wanted. They are excellent. The best I have ever heard a piano trio.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 18 November 2007 by Gerontius' Dream
This topic is firmly in the realm of personal taste.
I would choose a good performance well recorded in mono over a mediocre one in stereo any day, but other things being equal I find that stereo really does enhance my enjoyment of recorded music. It has little to do with sound stage or separation, but just sounds closer to the experience of the concert hall. Mono recordings sound "boxed in" in comparison, even when it is a solo instrument where you might expect there to be very little difference.
I draw the line at recordings transferred from 78 rpm records; I have some, and while they may give a good impression of a particular singer's voice, for example, these fail utterly to convey the essence of the music as a whole. I know there are many people who cherish such recordings but they are not for me.
I would choose a good performance well recorded in mono over a mediocre one in stereo any day, but other things being equal I find that stereo really does enhance my enjoyment of recorded music. It has little to do with sound stage or separation, but just sounds closer to the experience of the concert hall. Mono recordings sound "boxed in" in comparison, even when it is a solo instrument where you might expect there to be very little difference.
I draw the line at recordings transferred from 78 rpm records; I have some, and while they may give a good impression of a particular singer's voice, for example, these fail utterly to convey the essence of the music as a whole. I know there are many people who cherish such recordings but they are not for me.
Posted on: 18 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Dai,
As you say, it is personal taste, but I find that a well done 78 can produce the most musical result of all!
As for boxy sound from mono, I am sure that you will agree that all schemes of recording can produce a boxy sound, and even an over reverberant one. This boxiness or excessive reverberance can be a very real reflection of the Hall acoustic as much as faulty microphone placement.
I could always suggest some 78 recordings that definately from the top draw if you like!
ATB from George
As you say, it is personal taste, but I find that a well done 78 can produce the most musical result of all!
As for boxy sound from mono, I am sure that you will agree that all schemes of recording can produce a boxy sound, and even an over reverberant one. This boxiness or excessive reverberance can be a very real reflection of the Hall acoustic as much as faulty microphone placement.
I could always suggest some 78 recordings that definately from the top draw if you like!
ATB from George
Posted on: 19 November 2007 by Gerontius' Dream
Dear George,
No doubt it is my loss, but that is the way I find them. To take just one example, I was very disappointed by the Ferrier/Patzak/Walter performance of Das Lied von der Erde having read and heard so many enthusiastic opinions about it. Fine, Kathleen's voice is well rendered but Mahler's subtleties are lost in the background noise.
Or have I just got a nasty transfer? It is on the Regis label. If there are better ones I would be very interested to know.
No doubt it is my loss, but that is the way I find them. To take just one example, I was very disappointed by the Ferrier/Patzak/Walter performance of Das Lied von der Erde having read and heard so many enthusiastic opinions about it. Fine, Kathleen's voice is well rendered but Mahler's subtleties are lost in the background noise.
Or have I just got a nasty transfer? It is on the Regis label. If there are better ones I would be very interested to know.
Posted on: 19 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Dai,
That recording was fairly problematic from the start. The transfer on Regis is necessarily made from LPs more than fifty years old to get round the copyright rules. the myth that early LPs were that grand is indeed shown to be a myth by such transfers ...
There is also a terrible recording of Ferrier on Naxos, which is probably the worst recording of anything I have ever heard. What a shame.
I suppose I am lucky that most of my favourite music does not employ a Mahler sized orchestra, and even now very such large forces certainly challenge recording engineers. How do you place the microphones to catch the detail and yet retain a good sense of overal musical balance? A variety of solutions has been attempted, but none is even now completely satisfying in my view. Mahler is one of those composers best enjoyed live in my view ... This scale and balance is not, and has not been, a problem on a Beethoven sized orchestra, even from 1926.
Do you like Mozart? May I recommend the concerto recordings for HMV as reissued by APR of Edwin Fischer! I think you may be adjust your complete dislike of 78 reordings after that. I knew these as a child from the originals, but the CD releases show some of the most wonderful Mozart playing you could ever hope to find. The recording are crystal clear, perfectly balanced, and lovingly hand declicked for a quality of transfer that is not far shy of a modern recording for cleanness. A work of enthusiastic love rather than an economic proposition I would imagine!
http://www.aprrecordings.co.uk/apr2/
ATB from George
That recording was fairly problematic from the start. The transfer on Regis is necessarily made from LPs more than fifty years old to get round the copyright rules. the myth that early LPs were that grand is indeed shown to be a myth by such transfers ...
There is also a terrible recording of Ferrier on Naxos, which is probably the worst recording of anything I have ever heard. What a shame.
I suppose I am lucky that most of my favourite music does not employ a Mahler sized orchestra, and even now very such large forces certainly challenge recording engineers. How do you place the microphones to catch the detail and yet retain a good sense of overal musical balance? A variety of solutions has been attempted, but none is even now completely satisfying in my view. Mahler is one of those composers best enjoyed live in my view ... This scale and balance is not, and has not been, a problem on a Beethoven sized orchestra, even from 1926.
Do you like Mozart? May I recommend the concerto recordings for HMV as reissued by APR of Edwin Fischer! I think you may be adjust your complete dislike of 78 reordings after that. I knew these as a child from the originals, but the CD releases show some of the most wonderful Mozart playing you could ever hope to find. The recording are crystal clear, perfectly balanced, and lovingly hand declicked for a quality of transfer that is not far shy of a modern recording for cleanness. A work of enthusiastic love rather than an economic proposition I would imagine!
http://www.aprrecordings.co.uk/apr2/
ATB from George
Posted on: 20 November 2007 by Steve O
After following this thread over the last week I decided to try for myself. So last night I sat down and listened to some music with the mono button depressed.
It didn't 'do it' for me I'm afraid. I would liken it to one of those evenings when for some unknown reason you sit down for a session and the magic just isn't there. Back to stereo and the enjoyment was back.
i don't know if this was because the music was now being replayed in the manner I am used to or due to the "out of phase ambient detail" mentioned earlier in the thread.
The one CD I thought sounded better in mono was a Hendrix 'best of', where the drums are left speaker, guitar and vocals right speaker and bass in the middle. Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Could probably live with it if the drums were in the middle........
Regards,
Steve O.
It didn't 'do it' for me I'm afraid. I would liken it to one of those evenings when for some unknown reason you sit down for a session and the magic just isn't there. Back to stereo and the enjoyment was back.
i don't know if this was because the music was now being replayed in the manner I am used to or due to the "out of phase ambient detail" mentioned earlier in the thread.
The one CD I thought sounded better in mono was a Hendrix 'best of', where the drums are left speaker, guitar and vocals right speaker and bass in the middle. Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Could probably live with it if the drums were in the middle........
Regards,
Steve O.
Posted on: 20 November 2007 by BigH47
quote:The one CD I thought sounded better in mono was a Hendrix 'best of', where the drums are left speaker, guitar and vocals right speaker and bass in the middle. Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Could probably live with it if the drums were in the middle........
Probably recorded in Mono and converted to "stereo" by dividing the mono tracks over left and right.With a bit of effort they could have had bass and drums spread over both channels and other tracks allocated as took their fancy.
Posted on: 20 November 2007 by u5227470736789439
Quotation from Steve O:
“After following this thread over the last week I decided to try for myself. So last night I sat down and listened to some music with the mono button depressed.
It didn't 'do it' for me I'm afraid. I would liken it to one of those evenings when for some unknown reason you sit down for a session and the magic just isn't there. Back to stereo and the enjoyment was back.
”I don't know if this was because the music was now being replayed in the manner I am used to or due to the "out of phase ambient detail" mentioned earlier in the thread.
The one CD I thought sounded better in mono was a Hendrix 'best of', where the drums are left speaker, guitar and vocals right speaker and bass in the middle. Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Could probably live with it if the drums were in the middle........
Regards, Steve O.”
_______________
Dear Steve,
The problem with electronically summing two musical signals [of a two channel recording of one musical performance] is that unless the scheme used to recording the music sums to perfect mono the results can sound distinctly odd. This because the out of phase content, whether of the Hall acoustic or the actual musical part, can cause what is called the “comb filter effect” or what will be understood as a reduction in certain pitches in certain conditions [explained below], depending of the wavelength of the note sound-wave and microphone spacing used, and so you get an uneven – even a dull sounding - response on the summed recording.
To get good results when summing the two channels of a stereo recording you have to be sure that the recording is what used to be called “mono compatible.” What this means is that the two signals sum to what would be caught by a single microphone called “pure mono,” without phase anomolies reducing certain pitches. Only two systems of stereo recording generally can do this. The pure “figure of eight system” invented by AD Blumlein in the 1930s when he was pioneering stereo recording at EMI, while the other is the single “crossed pair” of microphones. This is because all the information, though directional as recorded, is in fact gathered at what is in practical terms a single point. Though the spaced mono effect of putting one pure mono track in one speaker, another in the other and putting a phantom centre channel in both certainly will sum to a form of acceptable mono as you have found, as there are no phase anomalies as such to cause the comb filter effect in the first place. Clearly this is not an actual genuine stereo recording style in the first place, so much as a multi-microphone style of mono recording - each discrete track being a pure mono recording for all intents and purposes, which allows for subsequent mixing and mastering to gain a pseudo-stereo effect, which is not actually an accurate stereo representation of what could actually happen had all the tracks been layed down with the musicians playing at one time or in the same acoustic setting.
The spacing of microphones means that there will be a time delay in certain instances where the sound wave generator [musical instrument] is not equidistant from each microphone. Where the distance between the microphones equates to [or nearly to] half the wavelength of the pitch the result is the at the time one microphone is picking up a positive phase of the signals the other will be picking the antiphase or something close to it. When these are summed the result is much closer to zero in amplitude[ie quieter] than is natural and the effect becomes obvious. This effect is also known as "phasiness." The equation for wavelength, time, and frequency will show which pitches are worst effected for any particular spacing of the microphones ...
In practice, because there is reflected sound already causing a diffusion phase integrity, summing two microphone outputs for a recording does not eliminate the note or pitch all that much, but it certainly reduces it in comparison to other pitches by enough to produce an unpleasant and clearly un-natural effect.
Velocity equals Frequency multiplied by Wavelength
v = f x l which can be rearranged thus:
f = v / l and l = v / f
My solution to this is not to sum incompatible stereo to mono at the amplification stage but to keep it stereo to the speakers and place the speakers together.
As most of the sound you hear from loudspeaker is direct this summing is not nearly so harmful as the summing at the amplification stage, and the ear can easily discount the phase anomalies like that in practice.
So something akin to pure mono is perceived if not actually reproduced as such by the speakers. With pure mono compatible stereo like the early EMI recording mentioned by Munch no such problem exists, even if you summed them with the mono button at the amp, almost no difference would be perceived if you had the speakers very close together. Strangely these old mono compatible stereo recordings without phase anomalies are the most satisfactory stereo recordings in the first place!
So to really find out how natural a mono incompatible stereo recording can sound you really need to put your speaker close together! A lot of work if it only an experiment, but anyone who comes to my place is confronted with this method, and are generally surprised how irrelevant it shows stereo to be at least on natural acoustic instruments working in a real space…
The best place to put a mono speaker was discovered in the 1930s by Voigt to be in the corner of a room facing out at 45 degrees. This produces anything but a pin point source of sound effect, and gets very close indeed to the effect that will be perceived in the concert hall or venue, and is significantly more natural than any stereo of any sort.
The reasons for the adoption of stereo never were musical! Mostly it was to reinvigourate a record industry that was not growing very fast and allow the marketing men to sell new and allegedly better recordings. Very much the same phenomenon that drove the adoption of CDs and digital recording methods as new inventions in more recent times.
ATB from George
“After following this thread over the last week I decided to try for myself. So last night I sat down and listened to some music with the mono button depressed.
It didn't 'do it' for me I'm afraid. I would liken it to one of those evenings when for some unknown reason you sit down for a session and the magic just isn't there. Back to stereo and the enjoyment was back.
”I don't know if this was because the music was now being replayed in the manner I am used to or due to the "out of phase ambient detail" mentioned earlier in the thread.
The one CD I thought sounded better in mono was a Hendrix 'best of', where the drums are left speaker, guitar and vocals right speaker and bass in the middle. Just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid. Could probably live with it if the drums were in the middle........
Regards, Steve O.”
_______________
Dear Steve,
The problem with electronically summing two musical signals [of a two channel recording of one musical performance] is that unless the scheme used to recording the music sums to perfect mono the results can sound distinctly odd. This because the out of phase content, whether of the Hall acoustic or the actual musical part, can cause what is called the “comb filter effect” or what will be understood as a reduction in certain pitches in certain conditions [explained below], depending of the wavelength of the note sound-wave and microphone spacing used, and so you get an uneven – even a dull sounding - response on the summed recording.
To get good results when summing the two channels of a stereo recording you have to be sure that the recording is what used to be called “mono compatible.” What this means is that the two signals sum to what would be caught by a single microphone called “pure mono,” without phase anomolies reducing certain pitches. Only two systems of stereo recording generally can do this. The pure “figure of eight system” invented by AD Blumlein in the 1930s when he was pioneering stereo recording at EMI, while the other is the single “crossed pair” of microphones. This is because all the information, though directional as recorded, is in fact gathered at what is in practical terms a single point. Though the spaced mono effect of putting one pure mono track in one speaker, another in the other and putting a phantom centre channel in both certainly will sum to a form of acceptable mono as you have found, as there are no phase anomalies as such to cause the comb filter effect in the first place. Clearly this is not an actual genuine stereo recording style in the first place, so much as a multi-microphone style of mono recording - each discrete track being a pure mono recording for all intents and purposes, which allows for subsequent mixing and mastering to gain a pseudo-stereo effect, which is not actually an accurate stereo representation of what could actually happen had all the tracks been layed down with the musicians playing at one time or in the same acoustic setting.
The spacing of microphones means that there will be a time delay in certain instances where the sound wave generator [musical instrument] is not equidistant from each microphone. Where the distance between the microphones equates to [or nearly to] half the wavelength of the pitch the result is the at the time one microphone is picking up a positive phase of the signals the other will be picking the antiphase or something close to it. When these are summed the result is much closer to zero in amplitude[ie quieter] than is natural and the effect becomes obvious. This effect is also known as "phasiness." The equation for wavelength, time, and frequency will show which pitches are worst effected for any particular spacing of the microphones ...
In practice, because there is reflected sound already causing a diffusion phase integrity, summing two microphone outputs for a recording does not eliminate the note or pitch all that much, but it certainly reduces it in comparison to other pitches by enough to produce an unpleasant and clearly un-natural effect.
Velocity equals Frequency multiplied by Wavelength
v = f x l which can be rearranged thus:
f = v / l and l = v / f
My solution to this is not to sum incompatible stereo to mono at the amplification stage but to keep it stereo to the speakers and place the speakers together.
As most of the sound you hear from loudspeaker is direct this summing is not nearly so harmful as the summing at the amplification stage, and the ear can easily discount the phase anomalies like that in practice.
So something akin to pure mono is perceived if not actually reproduced as such by the speakers. With pure mono compatible stereo like the early EMI recording mentioned by Munch no such problem exists, even if you summed them with the mono button at the amp, almost no difference would be perceived if you had the speakers very close together. Strangely these old mono compatible stereo recordings without phase anomalies are the most satisfactory stereo recordings in the first place!
So to really find out how natural a mono incompatible stereo recording can sound you really need to put your speaker close together! A lot of work if it only an experiment, but anyone who comes to my place is confronted with this method, and are generally surprised how irrelevant it shows stereo to be at least on natural acoustic instruments working in a real space…
The best place to put a mono speaker was discovered in the 1930s by Voigt to be in the corner of a room facing out at 45 degrees. This produces anything but a pin point source of sound effect, and gets very close indeed to the effect that will be perceived in the concert hall or venue, and is significantly more natural than any stereo of any sort.
The reasons for the adoption of stereo never were musical! Mostly it was to reinvigourate a record industry that was not growing very fast and allow the marketing men to sell new and allegedly better recordings. Very much the same phenomenon that drove the adoption of CDs and digital recording methods as new inventions in more recent times.
ATB from George
Posted on: 20 November 2007 by andrea
One of my favourite recordings is Beethoven's vioin concerto, David Oistrakh on violin, and Cluytens at the orchestra, Radio diffusion Frnaçaise, His Master's Voice, vinyl.
It is a mono, but sounds just great to me. Definitely one of the best sounding records I havem, among 1300 vinyls.
I bought the cd made after this vinyl recording, just for the sake of it (listening to in the car, at coutry house, giving it to my kids), well, it was "stereophonized", and it was absolutely horrible, totally ruined, lost depth, expression, emotion, like a black and white picture from a colour one (or rather the opposite, since I often do prefere B&W over color . . .)
And some times, there are stereo rec, where things sound just "put apart", o "separated", in a very strange way, like half musicians where on the right side, and half where on the left side, far apart from each other . . .very strange.
Ciao
Andrea
It is a mono, but sounds just great to me. Definitely one of the best sounding records I havem, among 1300 vinyls.
I bought the cd made after this vinyl recording, just for the sake of it (listening to in the car, at coutry house, giving it to my kids), well, it was "stereophonized", and it was absolutely horrible, totally ruined, lost depth, expression, emotion, like a black and white picture from a colour one (or rather the opposite, since I often do prefere B&W over color . . .)
And some times, there are stereo rec, where things sound just "put apart", o "separated", in a very strange way, like half musicians where on the right side, and half where on the left side, far apart from each other . . .very strange.
Ciao
Andrea