On Monday, November 4, 2013 12:22:08 PM UTC-8, news wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message=20
=20
...
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
There is no "the" ideal sound system. I can tell you what *my* ideal so=
und=20
=20
system would be. It's just a few steps up from what I already have. B=
ut=20
=20
without getting specific for me the ideal playback system consists of=
=20
=20
full range electrostatic speakers with tremendous dynamic range for t=
hat=20
=20
technology in a near field stereo pair in a near acoustically dead=20
=20
playback room with OTL amps that have the juice to drive the speakers,=
a=20
=20
tube preamp. A universal digital playback component. And a euphonicall=
y=20
=20
colored high end TT rig.
=20
=20
=20
That is *my* ideal in fairly broad terms. If you want me to name specif=
ic=20
=20
components I could do that as well. Koetsu, Forsell, Oppo, ARC, Joule=
=20
=20
Electra and Soundlab
=20
=20
=20
My ideal may not be other peoples' ideal. We all have unique tastes in=
=20
=20
music an in sound. Those aesthetics are going to affect our preference=
s.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Well, I was hoping it was more scientific than that.
You might want to include that in the question next time. Although I would =
have been quick to make the same point. Ideals in sound are personal.=20
You ideal system sounds=20
=20
like giant headphones=20
No, it doesn't. Assuming that is, that giant headphones sound like,well, he=
adphones. My system sounds nothing like headphones. The imaging is very lif=
e like on the right source material. On weak source material the soundstagi=
ng is still out where one would expect such a stage. Headphones image mostl=
y in my head with conventrional stereo recordings, even the best ones. Nope=
, my system sounds nothing like headphones.
- some sort of recording engineer's dream system, a=20
=20
system for one person, but not real good for an audience or someone who=
=20
=20
wants to move around.
That is true. There is only one good seat in the house. But that works for =
me. Again, ideals are personal.=20
I would also be concerned that you would get an IHL=20
=20
(Inside the Head Locatedness) problem, especially if you did it in an=20
=20
anechoic environment.
Nope. But let's get real. Not suggesting an anechoic chamber for a listenin=
g room.=20
=20
=20
=20
Would you want some crosstalk cancellation with such a system?=20
No!!!!! that would make it into giant headphones. Cross talk is a coloratio=
n that in the right doses goes a long way towards compensating for the inhe=
rent problems of stereo recording and playback. I strongly suspect that the=
cross talk one gets from certain flavors of high end cartridges are doing =
much the same thing to enhance the imaging. That is what I suspect at least=
.. But we know this much, completely eliminate cross talk with a conventiona=
l stereo recording and you get headphones. No thanks.
That would=20
=20
really pin you down in one spot, but would also be incorrect with=20
=20
stereophonic recordings.
It would be a bad thing IMO.
=20
=20
=20
The real idea of stereo is not to put "signals into your ears" but rather=
to=20
=20
reconstruct sound fields in your listening room.
Well there you are just plain wrong. I strongly suggest you read up on some=
of the literature on the subject written by to folks who actually invented=
and developed stereo recording and playback.
http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/i=
ndex.php/Alan_Dower_Blumlein
"In December of 1931, Blumlein patented a remarkable new system of recordin=
g that he called =93binaural sound.=94 Binaural sound was similar to what w=
e would call =93stereo=94 today. It used two microphones, recorded two sepa=
rate recordings, and reproduced them from two separate loudspeakers. It was=
intended to duplicate the way we hear sounds through our two separate ears=
.."
You PLACE the recorded=20
=20
soundstage at the front of your room, establish the left to right spread =
and=20
=20
depth of the instruments, and let the recorded early reflections happen i=
n=20
=20
your room the same way and for the same reason they did live. If you do i=
t=20
=20
right, with speaker placement, D/R ratio, and not killing all of the soun=
d=20
=20
around the speakers, you get a very realistic soundstage that you can hea=
r=20
=20
from anywhere in the room and walk around and get different perspectives =
on=20
=20
the performers.
You may like that but that is not how stereo was ever *designed* to work.=
=20
=20
=20
=20
THAT is the way the system was designed to work, bringing the performance=
=20
=20
into your room and making your room take on the ambience of the recorded=
=20
=20
space - NOT sticking signals from two channels into your ears and "foolin=
g"=20
=20
you into hearing another space. That would be a binaural system, which ha=
s=20
=20
its own problems or else it might become the standard.
=20
=20
=20
Sorry Gary but these threads always get hijacked by you into these bizarre =
debates about what you personally think stereo ought to be. It's well docum=
ented what stereo is and how it works. You can argue against that reality a=
ll you want but it won't change it. If you like bouncing the sound off your=
walls then more power to you. But these arguments that fly in the face of =
a well documented history of the development of stereo sound are just the s=
ame old same old.=20