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.