CDs sound better than vinyl . . .

[oldbuckster]

Do they make MONO cassettes?????....with automatic reverse...............

[Allan Songer]

The only good way to listen to mono is through one speaker.

That's only the beginning. To really optomize your mono playback you should have a mono cartridge with a mono tonearm, a mono preamp and a single, mono amplifier. Merely flipping the mono switch on your preamp and removing one speaker from the mix isn't really enough. You are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

.

[Parrot]

Of course it still doesn't adequately explain your personal refusal to remove one speaker from the mix. I seem to recall you didn't want to reposition yourself on your couch. You have a mono cartridge with dedicated arm and yet for some unknown reason insist on trying to make a two-channel experience out of it. The imp of the perverse, as Poe said, perhaps.

We both know you'll do it the right way eventually, so why not start today? You'll thank me for it.

[garymd]

What's wrong with listening to mono on 2 speakers?

[Rivendell61]

What's wrong with listening to mono on 2 speakers?

Gary,

Attached is a link to a 'single post' from Hoffman Forum. Re using two speakers for mono causing tonal problems. The boxed area of the post is an explanation from Robert Greene (Absolute Sound):

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=838351&postcount=80

Mark

[DrWho]

Why not mono on two speakers? For all the same reasons you don't use two speakers on each side for stereo. And the same reason properly implemented three channel stereo sounds better too.

[Parrot]

What's wrong with listening to mono on 2 speakers?

Give one speaker mono playback a fair, unprejudiced chance and you'll know. I've read that what's going on has to do with eliminating phase problems, but I don't care about the technical explanation. All I know is that, once you get over the jolt of listening to only one speaker, you can get more "into the music." Just turn it up a little.

Also consider that 1950s records and early 1960s, which is primarily what we're talking about, were monitored with one speaker. The amount of bass you'd hear would be boosted improperly with two speakers playing it back (I think).

[Allan Songer]

What's wrong with listening to mono on 2 speakers?

Nothing, really. I have experimented with single speaker mono many times, as long ago as the late 1980s. Yes, there are advantages. Are they huge? No. The mono cartridge had more of a benefit than using a single speaker in MY system in MY room. I sit about 12 feet from a pair of Corwalls that sit 8 feet apart, slightly toed in. When I disconnect one speaker and move my position there is very little difference--certianly the are no issues with "tone."

Now, with Khorns 18 feet apart that's a whole other ball of wax. I can see there would be quite the advantge in turning one of them off.

[Allan Songer]

What's wrong with listening to mono on 2 speakers?

Also consider that 1950s records and early 1960s, which is primarily what we're talking about, were monitored with one speaker. The amount of bass you'd hear would be boosted improperly with two speakers playing it back (I think).

That's silly.

[Parrot]

I think Allan's experience is due to him sitting on his couch, facing phantom center, but listening to just one speaker. That gives you a weird feeling because one side of you is getting much more speaker effect than the other side. But all anyone who isn't EXTRAORDINARILY lazy has to do is shift his old bones a few inches in his seat and face the single speaker he has playing. Then everything will be good.

[garymd]

Since my Khorns are only 12-13 ft apart, I haven't experienced any phase issues. Occasionally when I'm sitting in the sweet spot, I'll move over a few inches to get a different soundstage (as opposed to dead center).

Right now I'm listening to Sarah Vaughan's 1955 "In The Land Of Hi-Fi" with Cannonball Adderly and I have to say, I can't imagine it sounding better with only one speaker. I've been known to be wrong once or twice however.[]

[Parrot]

Right now I'm listening to Sarah Vaughan's 1955 "In The Land Of Hi-Fi" with Cannonball Adderly and I have to say, I can't imagine it sounding better with only one speaker. I've been known to be wrong once or twice however.[]

Okay, here is what you do: Turn off one of the VRDs, turn your BlueBerry switch to the mono position, forget about what ol' opposite-of-whatever-Parrot-says Allan recommends, and enjoy mono the way God intended it, through one speaker.

[edwinr]

Now you could take this mono thing to the extreme and listen with one ear! Maybe that's what Allan is trying to do... []

But more seriously, listening with one speaker would be okay if that speaker is set up as carefully as we would set up a two channel system. Just listening to one speaker which forms part of a stereo pair, may not be ideal. In fact I wonder if other speakers in the room might have a detrimental effect on the overall sound. It would take a leap of faith to set up a dedicated single speaker system.

I've always tried mono with one speaker which was part of a stereo system. I must say the sound has always sucked. Now, Paul, you've issued a challenge. How far are you prepared to go in the pursuit of the mono dream? Are you prepared to set your room up to accomodate the one speaker? I will try it. My Heresys are available, I have a monobloc amp, and I have a turntable that will play mono records via a phono preamp. I reckon I'll tire of it very quickly... [|-)]

[oldbuckster]

I'll probably get trampled here in the land of giants but correct me if I'm wrong HI-FI was a one speaker system...period....or are you guys so young you don't remember HI-FI, before Stereo came along? One speaker with a tweeter and woofer in one cabinet.................

[pauln]

Back to the topic...

Was wondering just the other day what influence some of the differences between phono and digital might actually have on the sound.

Channel separation, for example; in a good cartrige this might be greater than 20dB overall, 25dB in the midrange. I don't have CDs, so what is the channel separation with them (is it potentially perfect?) What is the sound of less than perfect channel separation, or is this something that gets confounded by the mixing/mastering process? If there is a distinct difference, does it disappear with single speaker mono?

Stylus intermodulation; this is usually less than 1%. I don't suppose CDs have this do they? What does this sound like, or is this masked by the greater intermodulation of the speakers?

Differrence in the bandwidth limit; this I think could make a difference. As mentioned in an earlier post, the upper frequency limit of hearing is determined by testing with sin waves, but there may be high frequency sounds that we don't hear as tones or sounds so much as they may be providing spatial information about the immediate source and distance of sounds. I have read of testing that leads one to conclude that the leading edge of sounds is processed and perceived somewhat differently than the rest of the sound. The fast first part of the sound is checked for where it is and how close before the tone, pitch, and other characteristics are sensed - this is adaptive for survival, somewhat like a reflex that initiates before you even feel what set off the reflex. Perhaps a good part of the content of this information is derived from the frequencies a bit above what the CDs can pass, and a bit above what general hearing tests would suppose that you could 'hear'.

Non-linearity of the cuttinghead (and may so too the stylus on playback); this too would seem to be something that the CDs in principle should not be passing through into the signal, or are there non-linearities in the digital to analog converters? If so, is it the same kind, and what do they sound like?

Phase maintenance between the channels; I suppose this is perfect for CDs, but one of the problems with the difference between how the cuttinghead (a contact line knife edge) cuts the groove and how a stylus that is conical tracks the groove is that the imaginary line from the cuttinghead edges between the right and left points of contact in the groove stays perpendicular to the orientation of the groove and it's walls, whereas a conical (and even an eliptical) stylus makes an error in the phase relationship between the two channels. The only times in the groove's wiggle that the imaginary line between the right and left contact points of a conical stylus is perpendicular to the groove orientation is at the extreme inner and outer edges of the groove's wiggles. When the groove is passing from on e extreme to the other (viewed sideways they would look like local maxima and minima on a graph), one channel will be in advance of the other, both alternating depending on the direction of travel. Because the cuttinghead stays perpendicular, the groove is wider at the extreme excursions and narrow when traveling between them - this is the actual distance between the groove walls independent of orientation to the cutterhead or the record itself. It you hold two pencils together to simulate the cutter head and draw a groove you will see that the places where the groove turns makes a wider gap. Since the stylus does not 'know' what the intended angle of the imaginary line was supposed to be, it picks up the left and right channels from the closest parts of the groove with which it is in contact. If you run your finger along the groove you drew, you will realize that the phase of the right and left channels are swinging back and forth with every wiggle of the vinyl. This is why modern styli went to eliptical to reduce this effect, and why many highend styli attempt to utilize a line contact diamond to imitate the cutterhead and mimic the original correct geometry. I have a line contact stylus as well as some eliptical ones and I do hear a difference, but I can not claim it is this presence or absence of phase modulation that makes the difference.

Pauln

[DrWho]

Channel seperation of the digital format is perfect, but will be

limited by the gear to which it is connected. Most studio gear I've

come across or read about claims around 90dB of channel seperation for

all the analog components, so assuming that is the case then you'll be

looking at right around 90dB of channel seperation on a digital format.

Intermodulation also does not exist in the digital format. This is the

kind of distortion PWK hates and is one of the key reasons for going

with horns. Intermodulation distortion is a function of output level,

size, and bandwidth of a particular driver. Most studios are listening

in the nearfield with direct radiating type speakers which means there

is going to be a little bit of intermodulation distortion that becomes

part of the recording - so perhaps a little intermodulation with the TT

helps bring those distortions back to where they were in the studio?

Distortion is only additive so any intermodulation in the speakers is

only going to add to the problem.

The non-linearity of the cutting-head is attempted to be compensated

for by introducing a transport function before the cutting and then

reversing the transport function on the playback. I'm not exactly sure

how one would quantify the linearity of digital, but in theory the

output will be identical to the input. In practice, I'd say you are

within +-0.1dB over its bandwidth.

Digital has perfect phase coherency.

[oldbuckster]

This is the most dragged out thread I've ever seen on here, This is old news, No one is going to win, No one's view is going to change, some stubborn people who have their minds made up, What is the point of keeping this going anyway? Let this subject rest, take a break................

[colterphoto1]

Did we cover the presumed dynamic range of the CD versus the actual very compressed sound? Seems that many of my LP's actually have a better dynamic range because they weren't squeezed into nothingness in order to be as loud as possible.

[seti]

This is the most dragged out thread I've ever seen on here, This is old news, No one is going to win, No one's view is going to change, some stubborn people who have their minds made up, What is the point of keeping this going anyway? Let this subject rest, take a break................

I like both as I've heard good cd rigs and LP rigs good and bad cds good and bad LPs. I do believe that people that repeatedly bash vinyl just haven't heard a good setup.

Lets wrestle over it !

Nah Lets talk about high quality power cords.

[oldbuckster]

This is the most dragged out thread I've ever seen on here, This is old news, No one is going to win, No one's view is going to change, some stubborn people who have their minds made up, What is the point of keeping this going anyway? Let this subject rest, take a break................

I like both as I've heard good cd rigs and LP rigs good and bad cds good and bad LPs. I do believe that people that repeatedly bash vinyl just haven't heard a good setup. Lets wrestle over it ! Nah Lets talk about high quality power cords.

Ok I'll wrestle you, Where and when, if that will put an end to this, You either like it or you don't, what's with all the technical stuff?If you assume I have never heard or owned a good vinyl rig, you would be mistaken. What I haven't owned is a $1000.+ turntable and cartridge, or a set of modified Khorns,Belles, Lascalas that play so loud that I can't hear any defects, if that's the standard, your right, and I'm wrong.................So when do you want to wrestle? One question, Do you mind if I bring a Boom-box so I can listen to my chrome tapes while we fight?????????????