LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  June 2003

ARSCLIST June 2003

Subject:

Re: ELBERG MD12

From:

Bradleys <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:34:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (139 lines)

Responding to Stephen Sutton's comment and Don Cox's post about advantages
and disadvantages of listening to mono-music in stereo versus mono:

Some may wonder how it could be possible in stereo to hear sound from other
than being at a speaker or between speakers. How could it be to the left or
right beyond a speaker? How could it be above, below, behind or in front of
the line between the speakers? Such a thing can happen and can be a most
entertaining experience if listening using head phones if the recording was
made using mics that are in positions that simulate the ears of a human
being. This setup may be known as stereophony sound. But even with ordinary
sound, even coming from a single speaker, sound can be thrown to appear to
come from another place. If one speaker, that throw would normally be above,
below, in front of or behind the speaker. I am not sure about or how it
could appear to come from the left or right of a single speaker. Similarly I
am puzzled by a suggestion that stereo playback of a mono recording of any
could seem to come from in front of the speaker lineup, unless that was also
experienced with the setting in mono-mode.

About throwing the position of sound? We have two ears. We can imagine
easily how we might detect sound to the left or right or centered (the
intensity reaching the ears would vary) but how can we tell if sound is in
front of us or behind us (or above or below us). Most of us realize and
experience that usually we can. How do we do that? How could that happen
with a recording? The shape of our ears produces some very small delayed
"echo" sounds to sound being received by our auditory system. Somehow our
"slow neurons" are very fast at detecting and processing such echoes to get
a clue as to the directivity of sound. For example, sound behind us has to
come around the rim of the ear but will not in a usual sense also generate a
strong delayed sound by bouncing from the cut of the ear and entering the
ear canal following a primary (initial sound) that went straight in. That
does happen when the sound enters the ear from in front of us. Even more
subtle effects must allow the analysis of our audio systems to detect that
sound is above or below us. This is all most remarkable that our hearing
systems can do this.

Anything in a sound playback system that creates echo types delays that in
some way resemble the kind of delays produced by our ears and interpreted by
our audio systems as sound positioning could produce such an effect
synthetically. It is my understanding that someone worked out a way to make
sounds move about in video games by such methods and got a patent on that. I
was listening to a recorded broadcast on television once and heard a sound
that came from the back room. I got up and went to the room to check. There
was nothing there. Curious, I replayed the portion of the program several
times. At the same moment on each playback, I heard a sound coming from the
back room. I think it was unintentional (it did not seem to relate to the
content of the program I was watching) but a noise (click or pop) that the
program had generated accidentally had produced the effect of sounding as
though it came from another place.

About listening to recordings though that are nominally mono soundtracks
(although they may have generated nominally equal left and right channels
and can technically be played as stereo), I do not see why it should matter
if the channels are combined and forced to be equal in each of the playback
speakers or if it is played back as stereo. I would expect pops, and clicks
to be equal in the speakers but I would expect the program to be equal as
well--either way. I do not understand why it would matter. I also do not
understand how it could effect where the sound seemed to come from as
regards positioning other than left and right directivity. If someone has an
answer on that I will read it with some interest.

If someone used a stylus to play back a 78 rpm record (perhaps recording
during playback) that was a stereo type stylus except that of course 78 rpm
records were mono-recordings, I imagine that one stereo channel would pick
up most of the program track but that scratches and record imperfections
might well generate a significant signal in the other channel. I would not
be surprised if such differences, provided the detected stylus outputs can
be maintained as separate signals and are not put through stereo decoding,
could be a clue to identifying the part of the recorded sound that is
accidental (a pop or click) from the part that is recorded program sound.
One channel would mainly have pops and clicks. The other channel would have
those as well as the program sound. Sound processing software that could
subtract from the one track from the other (this would be the simplest way
to exploit such an effect) with the track levels adjusted so as to minimize
hearing pops and cracks (as a first approach, that adjustment could be made
manually) could produce a resultant mix that had pops and clicks but not
program recorded sound meaningfully attenuated. This is how it appears to
me. I am interested in such matters but I have not had recent experience
with 78rpm records. I have been receiving posts to this list for only a
short time and I think this is my first post. Is such a method known and
used by those recovering recordings from 78rpm records? If it is a well
known technique, I apologize for bringing it up. If it is not known has it
been tried?

The best implementation of using the two tracks might be to couple of a high
frequency pop and click filter attenuation method with a gate determined by
the pops and clicks on the "wrong track" to signal during digital processing
when to apply the filter. Perhaps even better would be to combine an inverse
recombination of the sound from the second track to the first getting
accordingly a partial negation of the noise by gating as well and doing
attenuation on the residuals. Such gating might allow less distorting
correction of the pops and clicks (or their residuals) leaving higher
frequencies otherwise not attenuated and thereby possibly enabling a
brighter sounding recovered recording from the record.

Best regards,
Family Voices

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Divine Art
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ELBERG MD12

While this may be true for many, I actually find the opposite, and when
listening in stereo the surface sound appears to me to be pushed forward as
well as spread, so I always listen in mono

Stephen Sutton
Director
Divine Art Record Company
8 The Beeches, East Harlsey,
Northallerton, N. Yorks DL6 2DJ, UK
PLEASE NOTE NEW PHONE/FAX NUMBERS:
Tel +44 1609 882062
Fax: +44 1609 882091
web: www.divine-art.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ELBERG MD12


>
> However, it is easier to listen to 78s in stereo than in mono, because
> the noise is then spread across the space between the speakers, while
> the music is centred.
>
> That makes it easier for the brain to ignore the noise than when they
> both appear to come from the same place.
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager