Ideal characteristics of a hifi system and do we have the solution?

Hi Behram,

Welcome to the world of Valves.

Now U know why Manek is so keen on a Valve Headphone amp...

So even if mono & stereo may sound the same (in terms of quality - not imaging) - we are likely to HEAR stereo better.

Yes, we do hear and like stereo better BUT...why do we bring dynamics here...it could be because of many other things like more realism, something that we could correlate with...But not dynamics..there is simply no reason I could think of to bring dynamics here...

May be I need to clarify a few things in my head. I have 2 questions:

1. Do you think a given system will continue to perform as well no matter how complex the audio signal?
2. Has complexity of the audio signal NO effect on the dynamics of the system?

If information of both the channels of a stereo signal is passed through one channel the complexity & congestion of signal is increased. And I think that this DOES affect the performance of the system - keeping everything else the same.

Regards

Sanjay

Good points doc...

If information of both the channels of a stereo signal is passed through one channel the complexity & congestion of signal is increased. And I think that this DOES affect the performance of the system - keeping everything else the same.

Are we talking about incapable speakers here ?

the discussion is driven into a complete different direction... hmm lets see where does this saga ends...

cheers,
Sandeep

Hi sandeep,

Me thinks I hijacked this thread ...

I would also love to take up the points you made on Headphone listning.

I had been an ARDENT Headphone fan for years... BEFORE SONY introduced Headphone listning to the world with the Walkman portable cassette players....

SDhawan schrieb:

If information of both the channels of a stereo signal is passed through one channel the complexity & congestion of signal is increased. And I think that this DOES affect the performance of the system - keeping everything else the same. Regards Sanjay

maybe we can see if we are talking of the same thing from the below example .. I have a feeling we are talking two different things !


What I have been trying to say was,
Let us assume there are two channels L & R which are fed in to the stereo amp

Stereo L1 into Channel L and R1 into Channel R hence L and R are amplified and fed to a speaker pair.

Now suppose I have a stereo preAmp that can create a Mono (Mine actually does it)

It feeds L1+R1 /2 into L and L1+R1 / 2 into R ie it mixes and creates a Mono ie th exact opposite of the FM stereo transmission explained by Amp Nut

hence as above 2 different Mono Channels being fed into the amp.

I really am not sure if the amp will differentiate between the L and R inputs and give any problem with dynamics.

If I have a Mono recording in a CD. both L and R actually contain the exact same signals (as above) hence it will be the same as Above.

That is what I was trying to say above..but from you quoted answer I get a feeling what you are trying to say is on a different topic ! are you talking about Monoaural amps by any chance ?

Even in stereo R and L are not really different in complexity. if suppose we are talking of a simple recording with say a flute and a drum. let us take a very very simplified analogy for purely nillustrative purposes

In stereo, Both R and L signals will contain both the flute and the drum but the L might be 80% stronger in the flute track and the R might be 80% stronger in the Drum track to give a visual image of they being presented in two different places.

In Mono both will have 50% in both L & R. giving a central image

hence complexity of the passages are the same in stereo and mono hence ..

And my assertion (continuing on your example) is that the complexity does not remain the same. Now the each channel had to reproduce both the flute & the drums with equal weightage - and THATS what can affect the dynamics.

A better system will be able to handle greater comlpexity but beyond a certain limit it will crumble.

I think it would be worthwhile if someone could conduct an objective study using different levels of equipment and different degrees of complexity of signal, and then comparing stereo vs. mono performance.

One more point about the physiology of human hearing - two ears also influence sensitivity of eachother - making the issue further perplexing.

Regards

Sanjay

i am not sure if i am getting it

anyway I have tried the mono a lot in my int amp I was doing a study sometime back to see if my Tube Buffer was balancing both the channels correctly and other than imaging could not really find much of a difference.. i was using the chesky demonstration cd as that is my "reference disk"

if someone else can corroborate it would be nice..but theoretically unless the amp is compromised in
anyway i dont forsee any problems of that nature..

Hi Guys,

I hope this is a theoretical debate.

Who wants mono? We need 2ch/5ch/6ch/7ch/8ch stereo, the more the merrier

Enjoy more channels,
- Debu

P.S: Coming to headphone, I really dont want the sound to come from my head, sorry

Debu schrieb:

Hi Guys, I hope this is a theoretical debate. Who wants mono? We need 2ch/5ch/6ch/7ch/8ch stereo, the more the merrier Enjoy more channels, - Debu

Finally a sensible post in this entire thread.

Debu schrieb:

P.S: Coming to headphone, I really dont want the sound to come from my head, sorry :(

Indeed yes Sir! Even I have come across a few cases of “heads emitting sound”. Would you amazing one head even had a triode transplant surgery!

And my assertion (continuing on your example) is that the complexity does not remain the same. Now the each channel had to reproduce both the flute & the drums with equal weightage - and THATS what can affect the dynamics.

Hi Doc,
I seriously doubt this complexity issue...
A recording engineer wont be weighing complexity and stuffs like that while creating the stereo recording. All he would be interested in is creating a proper image (according to what he percieves as proper). If we are talking about decent high-end speakers and a particular sound track...either they can handle the track (if they are upto the job) or they cant...I have never seen a pair of speakers being able to handle the track in stereo but crumbling in mono...
And as Arj has already pointed out, in stereo both the speakers play all the instruments but "VARY" in percentage of each instrument (for the sake of imaging) while in mono the percentage is "CONSTANT" at 50...just not possible to conclude that mono is a more complex load.....

Debu schrieb:

Who wants mono? We need 2ch/5ch/6ch/7ch/8ch stereo, the more the merrier

funnily I found the very old recordings I have of Lata, mukesh et al to sound better in the mono mode ..maybe someone screwed up the channels while converting these to CD digital.

The imaging is center perfect in mono while not clearely definable in one spot in stereo !

No again I am not an imaging freak, but a consistant and clear image is a way of ensureing that all components are in phase and "doing their job well"

Anyway to me "More the merrier" definitely does not hold true.. the less the better is more like it.. Daamned if i am going to spend more on good speakers to go above a stereo. I really cannot afford a high quality 5 channel..leave alone a 3 especially since I have just about managed a 2

While on this topic of Mono Vs Stereo, I have an aquaintance of mine who has a Fender Valve Guitar amplifier(Mono). Its about the size of a computer rack with 2 ten inch, full range drivers at the base of the cabinet. This amp also has a line mixer where he feeds his Yamaha Synthesizer Organ. This same person has a normal mid fi stereo setup consisting of a Sherwood Integrated amp 100W/channel into 8 ohms and a pair Of Wharfedale Floor standers. (Dont remember the model). Being a gifted person, he plays the organ very well. I have heard the organ thru the Fender (Mono) and also thru his Stereo Setup, and there is a jaw dropping difference.

First -->

Fender is well known brand and his set up is entry level which no way compares to the former. If you heard it on stereo please elaborate how he recorded his organ? What kind of microphome was used? Did he use a trated room to play his organ?? BTW when you talk about mono amplifier it is used to ampify when he plays it live and nothing can match that.

But not dynamics..there is simply no reason I could think of to bring dynamics here...

Why do you think we can't bering dynamics here?? it's your beleif which you refuse to come out from. I mentioned dynamics of music when heard and if who ever try to contradict this please raed all my posts and then post here. I'm just telling you all folks that when a stereo muxic played on a mono set up won't give you the complete dynamics, If you refuse try it for yourself.

Sub Boss wrote

First --> Fender is well known brand and his set up is entry level which no way compares to the former. If you heard it on stereo please elaborate how he recorded his organ? What kind of microphome was used? Did he use a trated room to play his organ?? BTW when you talk about mono amplifier it is used to ampify when he plays it live and nothing can match that

The Yamaha Organ has an internal memory and a floppy drive which can be used for recording. This was a strict A / B comparison since the XLR cord at the ouput of the organ goes directly into the Fender Mono amp and the same cord can be hooked to the Line In of the Sherwood Amplifier. I've heard the floppy drive recording, both thru the Fender and thru Sherwood.

No microphone is needed for recording.

Debu wrote: Hi Guys, I hope this is a theoretical debate. Who wants mono? We need 2ch/5ch/6ch/7ch/8ch stereo, the more the merrier Enjoy more channels, - Debu Finally a sensible post in this entire thread.

If you felt Debu's post is the only post which is sensible and ignored the rest or written it off as insensible ( thats what your post screams about )then I guess you haven't read the thread or understood what's written.

[quote="SUB_BOSS"][quote] I'm just telling you all folks that when a stereo muxic played on a mono set up won't give you the complete dynamics, If you refuse try it for yourself.[/quote]


If you measure the difference between the faintest and loudest sounds in both these setups, they will be the same. So theoretically there is no difference in dynamics. The difference is in the spatial - stereophonic effect and imaging which makes the sound more enjoyable and gives a perception of ‘more dynamics”.

If you measure the difference between the faintest and loudest sounds in both these setups, they will be the same. So theoretically there is no difference in dynamics. The difference is in the spatial - stereophonic effect and imaging which makes the sound more enjoyable and gives a perception of ‘more dynamics”.

Dynamics theoritically are same indeed , but when you hear there are more dynamics and this goes like a cdrom vs good transport, both do the same job on paper and in theory, but you need to listen to distiguish them and they are worlds apart. Hope you agree Vinny

square_wave schrieb:

If you measure the difference between the faintest and loudest sounds in both these setups, they will be the same. So theoretically there is no difference in dynamics. The difference is in the spatial - stereophonic effect and imaging which makes the sound more enjoyable and gives a perception of ‘more dynamics”.

You probably missed an earlier post: Dynamics is not JUST about the difference between the faintest sound and the loudest sound that a system can reproduce with a certain degree of fidelity - it's about these sounds being produced at the SAME TIME and still heard as being distinct and retaining their character.

I believe that sound engineers & music composers do keep in mind the question of dynamics & complexity of the music track, otherwise why would all the mass market recordings would have compressed dynamics. Moreover, it's only after the advent of stereo that the dynamics in the recordings have been enhanced.

The stereo recordings on CDs, etc. are not like FM stereo - it carries 2 discrete channels. And the information in the two channels is very different with some degree of overlap. And not the other way round that they are similar with minor difference.

I won't mind if I were grossly wrong and if you were to correct me with logic & evidence

BTW I really enjoy mono recordings of old Hindi music - be it Talat Mehmood, Mukesh, Rafi, Kishore, Manna Dey, Lata or S D Burman. Great music - really melodious & immensely enjoyable. But technically speaking - very simple music & with very basic dynamics - vocals are more prominent & music runs softly in the background and surfaces only in between the vocal passages. Am I right ?

Regards

Sanjay

Hi Guys,
I was talking about the theory only. Strictly technical / measurable differences between the two setups.
I totally agree with you about the endless possibilities and beauty of stereo. Stereo rules

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

If you felt Debu's post is the only post which is sensible and ignored the rest or written it off as insensible.... snip, snip

Groucho Marx I’m certainly not. So subtle, black humour is not my forte

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

....you haven't read the thread or understood what's written.

Duhh….but I’m just a curious newbee leaning so much here

Groucho Marx I’m certainly not. So subtle, black humour is not my forte

But black humour is indeed my forte..

Duhh….but I’m just a curious newbee leaning so much here

Everyone is a newbie here and just learning something new everyday!!! Enjoy

SDhawan schrieb:

The stereo recordings on CDs, etc. are not like FM stereo - it carries 2 discrete channels. And the information in the two channels is very different with some degree of overlap. And not the other way round that they are similar with minor difference. I won't mind if I were grossly wrong and if you were to correct me with logic & evidence

dr saab, you are talking of stereo recording Vs Mono recording.
A mono recording will have only 1 track hence a longer playing time. but a mono can be recorded as stereo with 2 trackes with the same info..in that case it is the same as stereo but without the resulting imaging.


the issues here is Stereo playback Vs Mono Playback. one test which is done by a recording engineer is usually to listen to in mono and stereo to see if there is a difference.

ill quote from a Pro recording site..not an expert site but the only place i could find it. this was mentioned in another forum but could not find the link.
http://www.customrec...J_mix_for_vinyl.html

Try listening to your tracks in mono, ideally there shouldn't be a big difference when listening to your tracks in stereo vs mono, if there is especially at the bottom end you might have a problem. If you switch between stereo and mono, kick/bass should stay in the center.

[quote="SUB_BOSS"]
[/quote]
But black humour is indeed my forte..
[quote]
I' m sure it is
Its just that you slipped a bit that time around

[quote="Arj"]

the issues here is Stereo playback Vs Mono Playback. one test which is done by a recording engineer is usually to listen to in mono and stereo to see if there is a difference.

[/quote]


I have some old Armstrong LPs marked "Simulated Stereo" is this what you are referring to?

square_wave schrieb:

Hi Guys, I was talking about the theory only. Strictly technical / measurable differences between the two setups. I totally agree with you about the endless possibilities and beauty of stereo. Stereo rules

Thats it...
In theory there is no difference between Stereo and Mono as far as dynamics are concerned. In practice Music has endless possibilities which can be really difficult to justify.
If those extra things that we cant justify but hear seems to be dynamics to one person...doesnt necessarily mean they are dynamics in reality and also doesnt mean they would be considered as dynamics by someone else. So its certainly an uncertain/subjective area we are discussing and I would tend to believe what theory says, because there are definitely good reasons for the theory to be rock solid in this case.

Shahrukh schrieb:

Arj schrieb: the issues here is Stereo playback Vs Mono Playback. one test which is done by a recording engineer is usually to listen to in mono and stereo to see if there is a difference. I have some old Armstrong LPs marked "Simulated Stereo" is this what you are referring to?

i presume it is a single track Mono recording which was "Remixed" from the original as stereo..just to make sure that there is 2 channel info..

usually a lot of crossfading and other mixing techniques are used to the simultaneous audio feed such that if you mix both you get the original mono feed.

so if there is a sound of say Horses in the track, thru crossfading the simulation can be done so that the left signal gradually decreases with time anbd the right increases such that L+R= original mono signal..to get the panning effect of horses running from left to right..

it is called simulated only because the miking technique used was that of a Mono mike instead of a stereo configuration.

similiar to the L+R/2 into each channel kind of example..

because there are definitely good reasons for the theory to be rock solid in this case

In audio 80% theory is shit floating on piss, hence the statement Trust your ears only was coined as theory was very contrasting to practicality.

So its certainly an uncertain/subjective area we are discussing and I would tend to believe what theory says,

I simply fail to understand your understanding of the concept and your inclination towards belief in theory. Anyway to each his own and enjoy!!!!. BTW if you still feel mono set up can reproduce dynamice as good as stereo let me tell you there are very few recordings with good imaging, so you better off buy another amp and use one speaker from stereo to boast two set up's... .. You monophile!!

perhaps Dr Saab can back me up in this fact..our pair of ears is in actuality not a 2 channel system but a 24 channel system per ear ie a 48 channel system

thats how we are able to spatially place objects in 3D by soundand also selectively hear specific stuff in spite of so much of sound/noise around you..

so "Theoreticall" 2 channel is about as compromised as Mono and even 5/6/7/8 .1

SUB_BOSS schrieb:

BTW if you still feel mono set up can reproduce dynamice as good as stereo let me tell you there are very few recordings with good imaging, so you better off buy another amp and use one speaker from stereo to boast two set up's... .. You monophile!! :D

Hi Sub, Mono does not have to mean a Single channel amp with 1 speaker.

It can mean a 2 channel amp with 2 speaker but both channels being fed the same signal..

The stereo in a 2 channel is not about 2 speaker but about 2 Different channels

(In fact.. stereo does not even mean 2 channel..it means 3D and solid..it is just that we chose to achieve that using 2 channels..so even a 6Channel is a stereo if it provides a 3D image)


Even if you feed these 2 channels to 4 speakers ..it is still 2 channel (It can actualy make up a good surround.. may AVRS have the setting ie All ch Stereo)

if you want to have a good read on what stereo really means try this

http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html

i have been searching for this instiute but kept misspelling it !
lots more stuff on audio and the phsychology of hearing in this site

THEORETICALLY :

-Solid state amps are better than tube amps (which is an outdated design of 1950s)
-SET amps are the worst - look at their test results
-All cables are the same as long as they have same impedence or conductance
-All CD transports are the same because all of them read & transmit digital data
-12" vinyl & smaller vinyl sound the same. And the tracks on the outer side or inner side sound exactly the same.
-CDs, being digital, sound better than Vinyl
-All DACs are the same if they have the same sampling rate & bit size
-The more the power, the better the sound
-DVD player & CD player should sound the same

PRACTICALLY:


I'm lovin it

Sanjay

Arj schrieb:

if you want to have a good read on what stereo really means try this http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html lots more stuff on audio and the phsychology of hearing in this site

I just read this article. A few notable points:

-Hearing is NOT the most important sense in the body - it's the vision (unlike what the author suggests). Sounds are just supposed to alert / alarm - its the vision which provides actual information to the brain. In the process of evolution the language developed very late and probably by accident. Animals don't have a language (apparently).

-Sound localization is not even one tenth as acurrate as visual localization

-Agree that in real like sound localization is not done like in stereo. It is based on the phase difference & time delay of the sound between the two ears. sterephonic sound is just a simulation of stereophonicity - just like 3-D photographs or movies simulate 3-D vision. BTW 3-D vision or stereopsis is based on retinal disparity - that is the subtle difference is view of the two eyes.

-Shape of the external ears helps only to some extent in sound localization. And that is basically minimizes localization of sounds coming from behind and enhances that of sounds coming from in front. Otherwise there would be confusion.

-The author of the articles goes on to rubbish mono and in fact is a proponent of Quadraphonic recordings.

Regards

Sanjay

In audio 80% theory is shit floating on piss, hence the statement Trust your ears only was coined as theory was very contrasting to practicality.

Frankly, it looks more like an excuse sub_boss...
Dont you look at specs while buying/discussing an amp/speaker/cdp ?? Though we know specs may not be true but dont we still form an opinion about the product just by looking at the specs ? Dont you believe that a 4 ohm load is more difficult to drive than a 8 ohm load or 92db sensitivity speaker sounds louder than a 86db ?? All these are theories...and these are not always true as well, but still we read them, and dont shit them away. Infact most theories are like that IMO...
"Trust your ears" is certainly an important aspect but its also as subjective. One cant challenge what he hears, to be law especially in this case where there is no theoretical background. You are free to form opinion but thats it...
Someone else may hear and percieve things differntly.
And one more thing, the reason that you have given for stereo to have better dynamics (one speaker sounding fainter than other) doesnt prove anything...so what if one speaker reproduces a tone fainter than the other...how do we conclude that improves dynamics ??????
We need more in depth analysis on this buddy.

BTW if you still feel mono set up can reproduce dynamice as good as stereo let me tell you there are very few recordings with good imaging, so you better off buy another amp and use one speaker from stereo to boast two set up's... .. You monophile!!

As Arj has mentioned, dont confuse mono with single channel amp and one speaker...look at it in the broader sense having mutiple channels and speakers but all playing in mono.
Moreover, music is not just about dynamics...theres lot more to it (I believe you know this)...so what if mono can reproduce all the dynamics of stereo..theres "lot more" that stereo brings in that mono cant...that "lot more" I would call "realism". And my opinion is, the realism is not broght in due to dynamics but due to the "TYPE" of effect we get from stereo which is very close to what we hear in our daily life.

-Solid state amps are better than tube amps (which is an outdated design of 1950s) -SET amps are the worst - look at their test results -All cables are the same as long as they have same impedence or conductance -All CD transports are the same because all of them read & transmit digital data -12" vinyl & smaller vinyl sound the same. And the tracks on the outer side or inner side sound exactly the same. -CDs, being digital, sound better than Vinyl -All DACs are the same if they have the same sampling rate & bit size -The more the power, the better the sound -DVD player & CD player should sound the same

Doc, first of all, all these examples are not valid
e.g more the power better the sound is not in theory..instead its more the power louder the sound.
similarly there are others which are not valid in theory as well..

But my point here is...wherever there is a deviation we know the reason for that as well...we know why CDs dont sound as good as vinyls and why DVDP and CDP dont sound the same etc etc...but in our topic of discussion we are yet to find a logical/scientific reason for any deviation from theory (if at all). Just because its a theory and many theories have deviations doesnt warrant us to dis-belief this theory or assume that even they have audible deviations.
Even I am open to get corrected...As I have stated, IMO its the TYPE of effect that we get in stereo makes the whole thing more real and not exactly dynamics.

I may not be able to post for the next 2 weeks as I am out of town....you guys carry on and I would love to read the conclusion (which I believe is not easy to arrive at)

Frankly, it looks more like an excuse sub_boss... Dont you look at specs while buying/discussing an amp/speaker/cdp ?? Though we know specs may not be true but dont we still form an opinion about the product just by looking at the specs ? Dont you believe that a 4 ohm load is more difficult to drive than a 8 ohm load or 92db sensitivity speaker sounds louder than a 86db ?? All these are theories...and these are not always true as well, but still we read them, and dont shit them away. Infact most theories are like that IMO... "Trust your ears" is certainly an important aspect but its also as subjective. One cant challenge what he hears, to be law especially in this case where there is no theoretical background. You are free to form opinion but thats it... Someone else may hear and percieve things differntly.

Ohh how much do you want to deviate now to get your point straight??. I have written theories are shit and not specs..and 80% theoires are still shit! Why did you confuse with specs.. SO dude read careful before you post and this is been told by me umpteenth time.

And one more thing, the reason that you have given for stereo to have better dynamics (one speaker sounding fainter than other) doesnt prove anything...so what if one speaker reproduces a tone fainter than the other...how do we conclude that improves dynamics ??????

Why doen't my point that if a speaker is fainter can't provide dynamics is pointless to you?? is it not self expalinatory?/ Do you post just for the sake or do you read things carefully??

Fine now you prove to me if a speaker is faint and the dynamics are better and I will shut my rump up. Hey if a speaker reproduces a freq faint where the hell will you hear dynamics??..You need full fledged sound to hear and feel the dynamice.. If this is confusing to you then you I'm out.

As Arj has mentioned, dont confuse mono with single channel amp and one speaker...look at it in the broader sense having mutiple channels and speakers but all playing in mono.

I was form the beginning talking about mono set up and if you have read my posts casually you can find it and it's evidential. FYI all my posts and opinions are based on them and if you guys get something diffrent into the equation and try to write something it's you I would accuse of deviating....Why the hell should I look at it with broader sense and more speakers.. my point is one and it has been said in many ways in this thread.

Moreover, music is not just about dynamics...theres lot more to it (I believe you know this)...so what if mono can reproduce all the dynamics of stereo..theres "lot more" that stereo brings in that mono cant...that "lot more" I would call "realism". And my opinion is, the realism is not broght in due to dynamics but due to the "TYPE" of effect we get from stereo which is very close to what we hear in our daily life.

BTW what was the need to bring in this???
For me music is more of dynamics and it means just that to me. What do you mean "TYPE" of effect which is close to daily life?? If it has to sound real it has to be dynamic and if it ain't it's something else.

that "lot more" I would call "realism". And my opinion is, the realism is not broght in due to dynamics but due to the "TYPE" of effect we get from stereo which is very close to what we hear in our daily life.

As mentioned by you "realism" can be acheived if music is rich in dynamics and everyone agrees to it. So you have need to have stereo to get dynamice and not mono. You have agreed too in your statement below.. Realism = Stereo and the whole world calls it Realism = Dynamics.

theres "lot more" that stereo brings in that mono cant...that "lot more" I would call "realism".

Guys,
If you convert your Stero recording to a Mono and if you lose dynamics that means either the amp or the Speaker is compromised since there is a phase difference or some other sort of cancellations between two "Identical signals"

One test a recording engineer does after he records a stereo is to actually play it back in Mono to see if there is any loss/difference.

By Mono I mean 2 speaker and a 2 channel amp.

I am not talking theory here..as I mentioned My int Amp has the option of "Monoising" a stereo signal and I have heard no difference in dynamics or anything else even with my old klipsch speakers which have been blamed for many things but never for lack of dynamics.

Anyway I think we have beaten and buried this poor Horse to death and I guess there may not be much more to say at least from my side as I think I have started repeating points !!

Even I am open to get corrected...As I have stated, IMO its the TYPE of effect that we get in stereo makes the whole thing more real and not exactly dynamics.

Now this is enough.. Have you conducted an experiment?? Have you done an A/b... Just don't post for sake of posting. Contol yourself. Read what doctor has written and his beautiful examples before you let out your barrage of words. It looks like none of your posts seem to address what doctor has beautifully explained. It looks to me you are very confused.. take a bit and relax and stop crazily browsing E-Bay for IC's and rest.. holy cow

By Mono I mean 2 speaker and a 2 channel amp.

Good Sir! That was your take and you were clear as you had evidence....

ABP how will you prove your butt..

By Mono I mean 2 speaker and a 2 channel amp.

Nope I meant a complete mono set up from beginnning and many confused it.. added their own thoughts.. theories.. shifted the discussion from one dimension to another.. but I just had to keep repeating my points... I never knew some had trouble in reading things..huh wasted my precious time in making me write things again and again.. Huh anyway Dr.Saab I liked your examples it even made a elementary Boom Box buff to understand facts, but I wonder why some don't realise.. Maybe too much time after E-bay browsing makes them yawn here...

Thanks Sub !

But you must agree that we are all learning and none of us is an infallible expert on the subject or can ever be.

We have had a very lively discussion here. All that remains to be done is an objective AB testing and in such testin pushing the system to its limit.

Regards

Sanjay

a very interesting read on this topic here.

NO conclusions here, but the info is really nice.


http://www.regonaudio.com/Mono.html missed out the link in my usual bright way

Just read this thread right now haven't gone through the whole thing but I'll chime in with my thoughts.

I too love imaging in any given setup but at the same time tone is king a setup might image superbly but if it sounds off theres no point to listening to it.

I was just thinking about it when listening (actually LISTENING) to a setup we hardly hear the TONE at-least I think I was like that until recently, I used to listen or rather look forward; to image, sound-staging, depth, size........ but in the very recent past that all has changed for me.

My setup images very very well but lacks depth at the moment BUT the tone is SUPER totally unimpressive just music very very neutral (I Eat my words with regards to liking color ) its a different experience but the reproduction is super natural.


Regards,

Satyam.

Sub is right! Stereo produces better dynamics. Do your arithmetic folks and you will find out why.

Ohh how much do you want to deviate now to get your point straight??. I have written theories are shit and not specs..and 80% theoires are still shit! Why did you confuse with specs.. SO dude read careful before you post and this is been told by me umpteenth time.

If specs are not theory then please let us know what it is...92db speaker sounds louder than a 88db speaker (keeping other params same) or say 4ohm speaker is a more difficult load than a 8 ohm speaker...are these not theories ?? Dont we conclude accordingly when we look at the specs ??
It would be better if you answer to the point instead of Policing around (that too typical Indian Policeman, rude and harsh).

Why doen't my point that if a speaker is fainter can't provide dynamics is pointless to you?? is it not self expalinatory?/

It is NOT self-explanatory else this thread would have died long back.

Do you post just for the sake or do you read things carefully??

Dont write things which are irrelevant and contributes in making this forum unpleasant for discussion...

First you wrote:

No it cannot as you need a left and a right signal to get the dynamics right as a single instrument sounds diffrent on each channel i.e louder on one and fainter on another..

Now you wrote:

Hey if a speaker reproduces a freq faint where the hell will you hear dynamics??..You need full fledged sound to hear and feel the dynamice..

I dont know why you contradicted yourself but till now what I have understood is, one instrument/frequency sounding fainter on one speaker contributes to imaging...how does it help improve dynamics ? Does it sound louder than in Mono ?

I was form the beginning talking about mono set up and if you have read my posts casually you can find it and it's evidential. FYI all my posts and opinions are based on them and if you guys get something diffrent into the equation and try to write something it's you I would accuse of deviating....Why the hell should I look at it with broader sense and more speakers.. my point is one and it has been said in many ways in this thread.

I think it has been repeatedly brought into notice that we need not consider a single speaker + single amp here.
If we do that then how do we do an A/B with Stereo ?
To do an A/B and come to conclusion we atleast need 2 speakers and 2 amp sections. Look at the below quote that I had written long back...

Mohan, why are we talking about single speaker here ? We are talking about mono vs stereo....Our discussion should be regardless of whether it is played on multiple speakers or a single speaker (for stereo 2 speakers are minimum though). Lets discuss it in a more generic scenario... Lets consider that multiple speakers are sharing the load (but all are connected in mono).

Why didnt you object then and there...we could have been on the same plane.

As mentioned by you "realism" can be acheived if music is rich in dynamics and everyone agrees to it. So you have need to have stereo to get dynamice and not mono. You have agreed too in your statement below.. Realism = Stereo and the whole world calls it Realism = Dynamics.

Realism = Stereo I understand but Realism = Dynamics ???????? Please dont represent the whole world because me being a part of this world totally disagree with such extreme statements.
YES, dynamics do play a part in bringing realism but thats just one of the parameters. Tonal Balance, Placement of sound, Staging, Dynamics together bring in REALISM
IMO. If tonal characteristics are wrong, you totally miss the realism, same with Image of sound and same with Dynamics. Its entirely my subjective opinion...you are free to differ.

Now this is enough.. Have you conducted an experiment?? Have you done an A/b... Just don't post for sake of posting. Contol yourself.

Are you not loosing control over yourself while you write such unacceptable comments ? I would repeat, please maintain the sanity of the forum and refrain from writing such filthy statements. Its unexpected from you.

BTW I HAVE conducted tests (though unknowingly) and all I have found is a dead center image without any loss in dynamics. I have done this at multiple places BTW.
Now I would request you to stop assuming things while posting about someone else.
And the question that you have asked so abusively, I would like to throw it back to you. Have YOU ever done an A/B before reaching to such drastic conclusions ? If YES then how were the configuration settings in each case, Stereo and Mono ? What were your conclusions after the test ?

Read what doctor has written and his beautiful examples before you let out your barrage of words. It looks like none of your posts seem to address what doctor has beautifully explained. It looks to me you are very confused.. take a bit and relax and stop crazily browsing E-Bay for IC's and rest.. holy cow

Ok...if you feel my post didnt address Docs explanations, its your personal view. The way you normally disect the posts and reply, you didnt do it for my explanation to Docs views. I was expecting a reply from Doc on my explantion to his statements...but..anyways here it is:

Doc, first of all, all these examples are not valid e.g more the power better the sound is not in theory..instead its more the power louder the sound. similarly there are others which are not valid in theory as well.. But my point here is...wherever there is a deviation we know the reason for that as well...we know why CDs dont sound as good as vinyls and why DVDP and CDP dont sound the same etc etc...

Its a simple explanation, if anyone wants to add/contradict on this is most welcome...we can discuss.

By Mono I mean 2 speaker and a 2 channel amp. Good Sir! That was your take and you were clear as you had evidence.... ABP how will you prove your butt..

First of all are you interested to learn the facts or just argue and prove a point ?
Do you agree with Arj's explanation that a 2 speaker + 2 channel amp working in mono will have same dynamics as the same setup working in stereo ???? Eagerly waiting for an answer to this sub_boss.

Nope I meant a complete mono set up from beginnning and many confused it.. added their own thoughts.. theories.. shifted the discussion from one dimension to another.. but I just had to keep repeating my points... I never knew some had trouble in reading things..huh wasted my precious time in making me write things again and again..

Instead of blaming others for wasting your precious time, please take some responsibilities on yourself for wasting yours and other's precious time as well. Thats because all throughout Arj, myself and Doc have emphasized that lets not limit this discussion to single channel amp + single speaker combo, lets discuss it in more generic scenario where we have multiple speakers and amps but if you chose not to be flexible even when the topic demanded it (and after repeated notifications from others) then why blame others ?

Doc and Sub,
Here is something I would like to put it straight with some examples.
Imaging and Dynamics are independent of each other IMO.
To prove this here are few illustrations:
1. There are many speakers which are pretty dynamic in nature but lack heavily in Imaging. Most of the entry-level floorstanders suffer from this disease. They sound dynamic but you can hardly point out placement of instruments and even vocals. They are playing in stereo but like two big speakers staring at you and performing without any synchronised image. You still find them dynamic.

2. Here is the reverse case. There are many speakers which lack dynamics but are very accurate in imaging. Typical example are bookshelf speakers (barring exceptions). They image picture-perfect but lack dynamics.

All I want to say is Dynamics and Imaging are independent of each other and one can heavily exsist while other is absent/heavily lacking.

If you agree with 1 and 2 then here is what I derieve.

Stereo is much more real than mono because it brings in imaging (that we all have agreed long back). The point is can imaging affect dynamics...I say NO, since imaging and dynamics are two independant entities...they shouldnt affect each others presence/absence.

Anyway I think we have beaten and buried this poor Horse to death and I guess there may not be much more to say at least from my side as I think I have started repeating points !!

Even I am getting bored out of this now...Getting too monotonous and unncessarily dirty.
If someone can throw in a fresh ray of light into this it would be interesting else...
Manek, Bombaywalla, Bhagwan69, Deaf etc...where are you guys. Could you throw in something more insightful ?

In my prev Enbee amp there were 5 output options-Stereo,Reverse(L&R reversed), Left, Right& Left+Right.
I did notice that ,while playing a stereo recording,if I switched from the stereo button to the L+R button, there was no loss in the sound volume, or the dynamics(Range of levels in the recording, from the lowest to the highest)-just the image became centred between the two speakers,whereas,on playing a mono recording, there was no difference perceived in dynamics whichever of the 5 buttons was pressed, only the volume went up on pressing either stereo/reverse/L&R.

Kamal schrieb:

only the volume went up on pressing either stereo/reverse/L&R.

i would hazard a guess that this is more due to the recording in mono being done at a higher db