STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation.
Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded music.
Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone criticizes it.

Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
_monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years, most
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on a
single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range finders
for sound, as do two eyes seeing a single object. Thus, most music, whether
played by symphony orchestra, solo pianist, or bagpiper, is heard _binaurally_,
whether the sound source is an ensemble or a single voice. "Stereophonic"
refers to the source, rather than the receptor. "Monaural", as applied to
musical listening, is a misnomer. It means "head by only one ear", a condition
exclusively to the aurally challenged.

If a sound source is stationary, it will be heard emanating from its point of
origin. This applies to any ensemble, as well as single sound. Stereo
supporters proclaim that each instrument of an orchestra can be defined and,
thus, better appreciated. They obviously listen to music for analysis rather
than enjoyment. The dynamics of music require a balance of melody, harmony, and
rhythm. When a homogenization of the three elements occurs, as with Stereo
reproduction (and even more democratically with digitally processed Stereo), a
great performance becomes a clockwork chatter. Every nuance is heard with equal
clarity, yet there is no strength of character provided by key passages cutting
through a harmonious wash. A flute becomes as stentorian as a trumpet,: a
triangle as distracting as a timpani roll. That is not listening to music. It's
listening to individual sounds quarreling with each other to be heard. More
than anything else though, it gives a consumer an opportunity to demonstrate
his expensive equipment.

The scam of Stereo was sold by proving its worth, which was a simple matter
when presented to simple consumers. The sounds of passing trains, pipe organs
(the only musical instrument capable of being played _and_ heard
stereophonically), birds, storms, race cars, swarms of crickets, troops passing
in review, and ping pong matches, convinced anyone who had two functioning ears
that just about _anything_ sounded better in Stereo (or quadraphonic or
octaphonic, for that matter). And it does. Just about anything, that is, but
singing, speaking, or music.

I find it interesting that of all audible sounds, the overall quality of the
aforementioned three has significantly declined since the advent of Stereo. Is
it coincidence, or a cultural tradeoff?

I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

"R78Skijoo" wrote in message
...
STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation.

Disagree. It brought about the dawn of the age of more realistic sounding
recordings.

Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded music.

Allowing people to hear more accurate playback of music.

Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio
tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism.

Sorry, it was more realistic to hear something that when properly set up,
could sound like live music. Music in 3 dimensions.

Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone criticizes
it.

Sure they do, they criticize the choices the engineers and mixdown people
make all the time.

Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
_monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
individually.

Not all music is orchestral.

Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
monophonically.

Sorry, just not true. If you have more than one instrument, particlulary if
not amplifed, you hear placement, and you hear ambient sound, that gives you
location.

Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years, most
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on
a
single head, attached to one body.

That's right TWO ears. If we only had one ear there'd be no such thing as
stereo.

Ears working in a pair act as range finders
for sound, as do two eyes seeing a single object. Thus, most music,
whether
played by symphony orchestra, solo pianist, or bagpiper, is heard
_binaurally_,
whether the sound source is an ensemble or a single voice. "Stereophonic"
refers to the source, rather than the receptor. "Monaural", as applied to
musical listening, is a misnomer. It means "head by only one ear", a
condition
exclusively to the aurally challenged.

If a sound source is stationary, it will be heard emanating from its point
of
origin. This applies to any ensemble, as well as single sound. Stereo
supporters proclaim that each instrument of an orchestra can be defined
and,
thus, better appreciated. They obviously listen to music for analysis
rather
than enjoyment. The dynamics of music require a balance of melody,
harmony, and
rhythm. When a homogenization of the three elements occurs, as with Stereo
reproduction (and even more democratically with digitally processed
Stereo), a
great performance becomes a clockwork chatter. Every nuance is heard with
equal
clarity, yet there is no strength of character provided by key passages
cutting
through a harmonious wash. A flute becomes as stentorian as a trumpet,: a
triangle as distracting as a timpani roll. That is not listening to music.

It ain't driving a car.

It's
listening to individual sounds quarreling with each other to be heard.
More
than anything else though, it gives a consumer an opportunity to
demonstrate
his expensive equipment.

How do you explain why purist microphone techniques give the most realistic
presentation of a recording. Two mikes, placed properly andyou get a sense
of where instruments are and how big the venue was, even how big the
instrumnents are.

The scam of Stereo was sold by proving its worth, which was a simple
matter
when presented to simple consumers. The sounds of passing trains, pipe
organs
(the only musical instrument capable of being played _and_ heard
stereophonically),

Piano? Harp? More than one of any instrument.

birds, storms, race cars, swarms of crickets, troops passing
in review, and ping pong matches, convinced anyone who had two functioning
ears
that just about _anything_ sounded better in Stereo (or quadraphonic or
octaphonic, for that matter). And it does. Just about anything, that is,
but
singing, speaking, or music.


In your opinion.

I find it interesting that of all audible sounds, the overall quality of
the
aforementioned three has significantly declined since the advent of
Stereo.

In your opinion, not in mine and not in reality. The quailty of what's
capable of being recorded and the media for playing it back, not to mention
the hardware, (speakers) have all gotten much better, much more accurate.

Is
it coincidence, or a cultural tradeoff?

It's an opinion.

I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers
singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank
you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little
speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.

If you want to hear things in mono you can play them that way and just buy
music recorded in mono and set your FM to mono. Personally, it all sounds
better and more real in stereo. YMMV.

This is a posting of an internet article by Anton LaVey, the Church of
Satan "High Priest". There's no evidence he had any knowledge of
electronics or acoustics , although he knew a great deal about getting
publicity.

R78Skijoo" wrote in message
...


STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical appreciation.
Before Stereo, there was High Fidelity: an enhancement of recorded music.
Hi-fi brought new realism to recorded music. Stereo brought new audio tricks
but _less_ (italics in original) musical realism. Stereo is such a given, so
accepted and _expected_, that no one questions it, let alone criticizes it.

Unless one is sitting in the midst of an orchestra, there is invariably a
_monophonic_ source of any music heard, performed either collectively or
individually. Live music may be performed stereophonically, but it's heard
monophonically. Though music has been recorded in Stereo for many years,
most
live music is heard from a single definable origin, by two ears mounted on a
single head, attached to one body. Ears working in a pair act as range
finders
for sound, as do two eyes seeing a single object. Thus, most music, whether
played by symphony orchestra, solo pianist, or bagpiper, is heard
_binaurally_,
whether the sound source is an ensemble or a single voice. "Stereophonic"
refers to the source, rather than the receptor. "Monaural", as applied to
musical listening, is a misnomer. It means "head by only one ear", a
condition
exclusively to the aurally challenged.

If a sound source is stationary, it will be heard emanating from its point
of
origin. This applies to any ensemble, as well as single sound. Stereo
supporters proclaim that each instrument of an orchestra can be defined and,
thus, better appreciated. They obviously listen to music for analysis
rather
than enjoyment. The dynamics of music require a balance of melody, harmony,
and
rhythm. When a homogenization of the three elements occurs, as with Stereo
reproduction (and even more democratically with digitally processed Stereo),
a
great performance becomes a clockwork chatter. Every nuance is heard with
equal
clarity, yet there is no strength of character provided by key passages
cutting
through a harmonious wash. A flute becomes as stentorian as a trumpet,: a
triangle as distracting as a timpani roll. That is not listening to music.
It's
listening to individual sounds quarreling with each other to be heard. More
than anything else though, it gives a consumer an opportunity to demonstrate
his expensive equipment.

The scam of Stereo was sold by proving its worth, which was a simple matter
when presented to simple consumers. The sounds of passing trains, pipe
organs
(the only musical instrument capable of being played _and_ heard
stereophonically), birds, storms, race cars, swarms of crickets, troops
passing
in review, and ping pong matches, convinced anyone who had two functioning
ears
that just about _anything_ sounded better in Stereo (or quadraphonic or
octaphonic, for that matter). And it does. Just about anything, that is, but
singing, speaking, or music.

I find it interesting that of all audible sounds, the overall quality of the
aforementioned three has significantly declined since the advent of Stereo.
Is
it coincidence, or a cultural tradeoff?


Ok, maybe the whole Stereo scene is a cultural trade-off. Recording musical
events is art.


I recognize certain limited applications of Stereo. If I want to listen to
Alpine horns blowing on a glacier with my left ear, and the villagers
singing
down below with my right ear, then I can really appreciate stereo, thank you
very much. Otherwise, give me one nice big speaker, one nice little
speaker,
and sufficient power to drown out unwanted conversation, and I'm perfectly
satisfied. And one thing i almost forgot: good music.


I do not believe however that Stereo is Scam of the Century. For it to be,
you have to sensibly and realistically define what is:


1. real music appreciation.

2. enhancement of recorded music with regard to High Fidelity in 2nd
paragraph.

3. attaining musical realism of a live performance -- during playback.

wrote in message
oups.com...
This is a posting of an internet article by Anton LaVey, the Church of
Satan "High Priest". There's no evidence he had any knowledge of
electronics or acoustics , although he knew a great deal about getting
publicity.

That seems obvious. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...



This is a posting of an internet article by Anton LaVey, the Church of
Satan "High Priest". There's no evidence he had any knowledge of
electronics or acoustics , although he knew a great deal about getting
publicity.


He's commenting about ways to monophonically record live music that
are performed stereophonically. He support the idea that listening
binaurally from a single source during playback leads to musical realism.

I suppose that he prefers to be transported back into the live performance,
but I don't see any pure strategy from the scheme above. Well, I guess
we need more sample of ways to listen binaurally. Know of any?

"JBorg" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
oups.com...



This is a posting of an internet article by Anton LaVey, the Church of
Satan "High Priest". There's no evidence he had any knowledge of
electronics or acoustics , although he knew a great deal about getting
publicity.


He's commenting about ways to monophonically record live music that
are performed stereophonically. He support the idea that listening
binaurally from a single source during playback leads to musical realism.

I suppose that he prefers to be transported back into the live
performance,
but I don't see any pure strategy from the scheme above. Well, I guess
we need more sample of ways to listen binaurally. Know of any?

Ask the Devil.

"R78Skijoo" wrote in message

STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation.

Nice troll. Next thing you know you'll be ranting about how the vinyl LP and
magnetic tape ruined recorded music.

"JBorg" wrote in message
m

He's commenting about ways to monophonically record live music that
are performed stereophonically.

Shows how vanishing small your knowledge of audio really is, Pseudo-Borg.
Music is performed in multichannel - a minimum of one channel per performer.

He support the idea that listening
binaurally from a single source during playback leads to musical
realism.

While most recordings present a soundstage with far more separation then the
corresponding live event, it is not uncommon for live events to have some
audible separation and clearly audible soundstaging of musical sources. With
a stereo or mulitchannel recordings it is possible to create audio signals
with less, and therefore more appropriate levels of separation. However,
with a mono signal you are pretty well stuck with absolutely zero separation
of sound sources.

It is possible to take a mono signal and add some degree of natural
spaciousness. Basically, you play it through speakers in a room with a fair
amount of hopefully euphonic natural reverberation. Or, you something
similar electronically. Then you re-record it in some flavor of
multichannel, perhaps even just stereo. Mix the re-recorded sound with the
origional to suit, and on a good day you might even fool some listeners into
believing that the soundstage-trashing mono step never happened.

I suppose that he prefers to be transported back into the live
performance, but I don't see any pure strategy from the scheme
above.

Agreed.

Well, I guess we need more sample of ways to listen binaurally. Know of
any?

Try headphones or earphones, mixing down from a multichannel master. I do it
all the time, and its really pretty nice.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:14:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"R78Skijoo" wrote in message

STEREO: Scam of the Century?


The birth of Stereo brought about the death of real musical
appreciation.

Nice troll. Next thing you know you'll be ranting about how the vinyl LP and
magnetic tape ruined recorded music.

No, that's *your* line.

Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
JBorg" wrote in message
m




He's commenting about ways to monophonically record live music that
are performed stereophonically.

Shows how vanishing small your knowledge of audio really is, Pseudo-Borg. Music is
performed in multichannel - a minimum of one channel per performer.


This doesn't have anything to me. Why are you telling me how music is
performed, tell him.


He support the idea that listening
binaurally from a single source during playback leads to musical
realism.

While most recordings present a soundstage with far more separation then the
corresponding live event, it is not uncommon for live events to have some audible
separation and clearly audible soundstaging of musical sources. With a stereo or
mulitchannel recordings it is possible to create audio signals with less, and
therefore more appropriate levels of separation.

Ok, but the article is really not discussing these types of "appropriateness" in
levels of separation.


However, with a mono signal you are pretty well stuck with absolutely zero separation
of sound sources.

Duh.

It is possible to take a mono signal and add some degree of natural spaciousness.
Basically, you play it through speakers in a room with a fair amount of hopefully
euphonic natural reverberation. Or, you something similar electronically. Then you
re-record it in some flavor of multichannel, perhaps even just stereo. Mix the
re-recorded sound with the origional to suit, and on a good day you might even fool
some listeners into believing that the soundstage-trashing mono step never happened.

Why don't you reread the article and find out how absurdly irrelevant these
early droppings from Michigan.


I suppose that he prefers to be transported back into the live
performance, but I don't see any pure strategy from the scheme
above.

Agreed.

Well, I guess we need more sample of ways to listen binaurally. Know of any?

Try headphones or earphones, mixing down from a multichannel master. I do it all the
time, and its really pretty nice.


I'm thinking that the author wants a point source that is not attach to the body.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"JBorg" wrote in message
m

He's commenting about ways to monophonically record live music
that
are performed stereophonically.

Shows how vanishing small your knowledge of audio really is,
Pseudo-Borg.
Music is performed in multichannel - a minimum of one channel per
performer.


Amazing. Just about every time you try to show us how smart you are you
show us just how stupid you are. Now you are confusing musicians with
audio channels. Amazingly stupid.


He support the idea that listening
binaurally from a single source during playback leads to musical
realism.

While most recordings present a soundstage with far more separation
then the
corresponding live event, it is not uncommon for live events to have
some
audible separation and clearly audible soundstaging of musical
sources.

Another amazingly stupid comment. You would think some one who has even
a little bit of recording experience such as yourself would know better
than to make this idiotic claim.


With
a stereo or mulitchannel recordings it is possible to create audio
signals
with less, and therefore more appropriate levels of separation.


As if you had any idea what would be appropriate.


However,
with a mono signal you are pretty well stuck with absolutely zero
separation
of sound sources.

Wow, you got one thing right. But even a monkey with a typewriter.....



It is possible to take a mono signal and add some degree of natural
spaciousness.

Wrong.


Basically, you play it through speakers in a room with a fair
amount of hopefully euphonic natural reverberation.

The Ferstler school of unnatural reverb? Bad idea. Aint natural
*sounding* at all.



Or, you something
similar electronically. Then you re-record it in some flavor of
multichannel, perhaps even just stereo. Mix the re-recorded sound
with the
origional to suit, and on a good day you might even fool some
listeners into
believing that the soundstage-trashing mono step never happened.

I guess you are unfamiliar with the ill-sorted history of rechanneled
stereo. Oh well.

Scott Wheeler