What points have you made? That mono is preferable? That stereo is ghey?
I'm missing your big picture here.
You seemed to get it yesterday.
If I were you, I'd look back a few posts and find where I reduced the crux of my argument to four words.
Quote:
The fact that you still run front stage (in stereo I assume) and no rear fill says that your argument is pretty empty.
Your logic is borked. I'm also a pretty strong proponent of ported enclosures, but I haven't run one in the car in nearly 10 years. I think the so-called "augmented wideband" approach is a great front stage solution for a number of different people, but I've never personally run one in the car.
Just because I don't presently have rear fill speakers doesn't say anything about my argument. I already told you in this thread WHY I don't run rear fill. You seemed to accept it. Now you don't.
Your approach to this issue is just very confusing to me. It's a rather complex issue, but you and VP seem to think that you have it completely solved. That suggests to me that you don't fully understand it.
lol this thread is funny people get so worked up about silly things ima go listen to my awful sounding stereo now with the fade set all the way to the back.
. It's a rather complex issue, but you and VP seem to think that you have it completely solved. That suggests to me that you don't fully understand it.
It's not a complex issue at all. You volunteered that you don't like stereo. Maybe you were joking, but I didn't get that you were.
The fundamental difference seems to be that I consider stereo a fundamental part of high fidelity - not the most important part, not the only important part, but a fundamental part - and you don't.
Not only do you not like it, you go out of your way (apparently, if I'm reading you right) to avoid creating the "stereo illusion".
I just don't get how someone who rejects stereo is really a high-fidelity enthusiast. I think stereo recording and playback was one of the most amazing advances of the 20th century, and despite several attempts to displace it (Quadraphonic, the latest digital multi-channel formats) stereo has remained the "gold standard" for musical recordings. I haven't seen a musical recording come out in mono - at least admittedly - in a very long time. Is that a judgment on my part? Yes, it is.
Obviously you feel differently.
So given that you don't like stereo, and you do like many of the approaches you list which your current system doesn't use, I'm curious - would you do your next system in mono?
Who's to say we should try to reproduce what the recording engineer intended? Most records I own (literally), I'm usually trying to deviate from what the recording engineer is trying to do. I can't think of very many albums where me and the recording engineer are on the same page...and the ones that are, usually place planar imaging as an afterthought. ...
In my car setup, I try to emulate LIVE sound, which means bloated lower midrange, enhanced sub bass, high output, and... engulfing sound. Imaging be damned.
But that's not to assume he prefers mono over stereo. I think his point was exaggeration, if anything...to make his point. Tone, especially sarcasm, is very hard to communicate through text on a screen
Rather than assume what he meant, if you doubt he meant what he said, you should ask him.
But let's leave Mark out of this for a moment.
We know that stereo imaging is inherent in the definition of stereo.
We know that our ears create the stereo illusion optimally when the sound comes from in front of us.
We know that if we have the same sound coming from multiple point-sources, with different arrival times, and without advanced compensation circuity, the stereo image is damaged.
So if you like rear speakers enough to damage your stereo image, whether you want to listen in mono or not, you certainly don't like stereo too much - judging by your actions.
Some people aren't so experienced with grammar and its use
For those who unknowingly set up rear fill inappropriately, well we know they're not exactly part of the SQ group. Labels are confused all the time because definitions skew between individuals.
We happen to know what stereo and hifi represent. I think the problem stems from the typical best buy customer who puts all his money in rear speakers and destroys his sound stage. Now, anybody who makes claims for "rear fill" is quite possibly that BB consumer we can't stand.
Quote:
Rather than assume what he meant, if you doubt he meant what he said, you should ask him.
I never assumed anything really, just pointing out that he never made the claim mono was better. If you listened to the rest of what he wrote he stated he had the standard stereo set up in his vehicle...L and R channels. So maybe we're all talking in circles because so many in the forum don't understand the difference between proper rear fill and what they think is rear fill.
The last few pages happen to be a lot of bad communication from what I've read.
Rather than assume what he meant, if you doubt he meant what he said, you should ask him.
He has it right.
Quote:
But let's leave Mark out of this for a moment.
We know that stereo imaging is inherent in the definition of stereo.
It can be. Stereo has the capability of using certain tricks to form certain spatial relationships. That doesn't mean it DOES use those tricks. It has to actually be present in the recording first.
Keep in mind that I haven't really referred to it consistently as "imaging" in this thread. A few times I've referred to it more generally as the "stereo effect". I think the distinction is important because the "image", if it exists in a particular recording, doesn't necessarily add much information. It's also not a given that the information that is added is all that useful either. A lot of it is merely to add some electronic effect that's nothing more than for wow factor.
Again, as you acknowledged in an earlier post, some musical genres make better use of this effect than others. So where do you prioritize those effects? Well, I think that largely depends on the recording in question and on the importance a user places on the effect. Sorry, but there ain't such a thing as a standard list of priorities in audio.
Every word of what I've written above I've already said in this and in other threads. But I think it's important for me to write it again considering so much of it has apparently been misinterpreted into other things.
Quote:
We know that our ears create the stereo illusion optimally when the sound comes from in front of us.
We know that if we have the same sound coming from multiple point-sources, with different arrival times, and without advanced compensation circuity, the stereo image is damaged.
So if you like rear speakers enough to damage your stereo image, whether you want to listen in mono or not, you certainly don't like stereo too much - judging by your actions.
Faulty logic. Using a mono rear fill and a stereo front stage does not mean you prefer mono. In fact, it means you prefer stereo (especially since it's usually not hard to turn a stereo signal into a mono one). The addition of rear fill simply means that you're trying to achieve some other effect (whatever it may be) usually at the expense of the width of the stage. Does the stereo effect remain in the presence of rear fill? Abso-frickin-lutely.
In other words, adding rear fill does NOT mean you're converting your playback to mono.
It can be. Stereo has the capability of using certain tricks to form certain spatial relationships. That doesn't mean it DOES use those tricks. It has to actually be present in the recording first.
Actually, the fact that it's recorded in 2 channel at all means that it does. Your own faulty logic here assumes that because you think you don't hear overwhelming stereo effect, that it's not there. Even books on tape use the stereo effect to place the narrator firmly in the center, albeit with little to no work to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Keep in mind that I haven't really referred to it consistently as "imaging" in this thread. A few times I've referred to it more generally as the "stereo effect". I think the distinction is important because the "image", if it exists in a particular recording, doesn't necessarily add much information. It's also not a given that the information that is added is all that useful either. A lot of it is merely to add some electronic effect that's nothing more than for wow factor.
Wow factor that simulates live music? Have you listened to anything in mono recently? It sounds pretty flat and lifeless. Live sound has lots of reflections that stereo helps to recreate. Car drivers don't radiate in a 360 degree pattern like a natural instrument/vocalization would. Car drivers generally don't radiate in a 180 degree pattern well either. Stereo helps with this, but is admittedly not perfect. As VP said though, it's been the standard for a long time now, and denying it's usefulness and advantages is just silly. Also, I don't think a single person using rear fill is doing so because they don't care about stereo, more that they don't understand it fully, and don't realize that they are undoing it's effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Again, as you acknowledged in an earlier post, some musical genres make better use of this effect than others. So where do you prioritize those effects? Well, I think that largely depends on the recording in question and on the importance a user places on the effect. Sorry, but there ain't such a thing as a standard list of priorities in audio.
Right, some music makes better use of this, but that doesn't mean that those that don't make the most of stereo's abilitys are not using them at all. Again, faulty logic on your part.
There may not be a written "standards list", but the fact that so many here have the same goals, and try to acheive a "sound stage" and "imaging" or even just the stereo effect, means that those goals must have some merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Every word of what I've written above I've already said in this and in other threads. But I think it's important for me to write it again considering so much of it has apparently been misinterpreted into other things.
Here you go assuming that because you've written it multiple times, that it's got some merit to it, or that it's gospel.
I don't follow how people disagree'ing with you = it's been misinterpreted. Are you that unclear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Faulty logic. Using a mono rear fill and a stereo front stage does not mean you prefer mono. In fact, it means you prefer stereo (especially since it's usually not hard to turn a stereo signal into a mono one). The addition of rear fill simply means that you're trying to achieve some other effect (whatever it may be) usually at the expense of the width of the stage. Does the stereo effect remain in the presence of rear fill? Abso-frickin-lutely.
In other words, adding rear fill does NOT mean you're converting your playback to mono.
Nope, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that you understand stereo, or are looking to maximize it's benefits either. By adding rear fill, you are doing far more harm than good without proper processing.
The long and the short of this is that I understand that some people don't care about stereo (I don't think those people prefer mono). I realize that many don't even understand stereo. I beleive that if people understood what stereo actually does, and what it's effects are, that there would be far less people here adding rear fill. IE: those who add rear fill have never experienced a good stereo recording, and have never been enlightened as to what it can do for the music.
Your main argument seems to be based on people having different desires when it comes to music reproduction. That doesn't mean that someone that desires a single 3.5" speaker in the center of their dash can't go and do that to his car. However, he can't come in here and pretend to care about sound quality. I liken this to rear fill people. You are entitled do listen to your stereo the way you want to, this is America. However, preaching the benefits of rear fill on an SQ forum seems counterproductive. Especially when accounting for the goals that 99% of the members here share.
EDIT* BTW, in the world of home theater, do you prefer Pro-Logic to Dolby Digital as well? Do you think the same people arguing for rear fill would argue for Pro-logic?
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
lol this thread is funny people get so worked up about silly things ima go listen to my awful sounding stereo now with the fade set all the way to the back.
Make sure you add the new 180 degree neck crank feature!
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
Actually, the fact that it's recorded in 2 channel at all means that it does. Your own faulty logic here assumes that because you think you don't hear overwhelming stereo effect, that it's not there. Even books on tape use the stereo effect to place the narrator firmly in the center, albeit with little to no work to do so.
I'm afraid that's just not true. 2ch != stereo. And, even when stereo cues are used, it can not only be not overwhelming, but it can also be subtle, confusing, gimicky, or just plain poorly done. And that ain't the exception to the rule, either!
Quote:
Wow factor that simulates live music?
No. Just wow factor. Stereo, and recordings in general, aren't made to simulate live music. We went over this.
Quote:
Have you listened to anything in mono recently? It sounds pretty flat and lifeless.
I actually have, although not intentionally. It can sound flat and lifeless. Or...it doesn't. It depends on what you're listening to.
I've bolded and italicized that because it's been the underlying theme in this thread.
Quote:
Live sound has lots of reflections that stereo helps to recreate. Car drivers don't radiate in a 360 degree pattern like a natural instrument/vocalization would. Car drivers generally don't radiate in a 180 degree pattern well either. Stereo helps with this, but is admittedly not perfect. As VP said though, it's been the standard for a long time now, and denying it's usefulness and advantages is just silly. Also, I don't think a single person using rear fill is doing so because they don't care about stereo, more that they don't understand it fully, and don't realize that they are undoing it's effects.
That's fair enough. And it makes me wonder why VP brought up the whole mono issue to begin with. I've been pretty clear in saying that it doesn't have much to do with rear fill. I certainly never said anything like "rear fill helps you achieve mono", or whatever else is being implied in this thread. Really, I think the mono discussion is another one entirely. Dig up one of abmolech's or werewolf's old threads on the issue maybe.
Quote:
Right, some music makes better use of this, but that doesn't mean that those that don't make the most of stereo's abilitys are not using them at all. Again, faulty logic on your part.
You're right. That's not what it means. How can it be faulty logic if I never said it? It seems you're basically trying to support the null hypothesis here.
Quote:
There may not be a written "standards list", but the fact that so many here have the same goals, and try to acheive a "sound stage" and "imaging" or even just the stereo effect, means that those goals must have some merit.
So many here don't have the same goals. And even if they did, does that mean that people whose goals differ should try to be like everyone else? I guess I don't understand the "majority" argument. Especially since you may actually be wrong about which way the real majority swings.
Quote:
Here you go assuming that because you've written it multiple times, that it's got some merit to it, or that it's gospel.
I don't follow how people disagree'ing with you = it's been misinterpreted. Are you that unclear?
Because, when you disagree with something I didn't say but present it as if I did, then by definition you're misinterpreting things. Hope that clears it up.
Quote:
Nope, it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that you understand stereo, or are looking to maximize it's benefits either. By adding rear fill, you are doing far more harm than good without proper processing.
Harm to what? The stereo image, perhaps. Now we've come around full circle. And you're not really saying anything new. You're again arguing that the "image" trumps all other goals, which is something I've rejected since post 1.
Quote:
The long and the short of this is that I understand that some people don't care about stereo (I don't think those people prefer mono). I realize that many don't even understand stereo. I beleive that if people understood what stereo actually does, and what it's effects are, that there would be far less people here adding rear fill. IE: those who add rear fill have never experienced a good stereo recording, and have never been enlightened as to what it can do for the music.
Or tend not to listen to music that uses it properly or places strong emphasis on it. Or prefer another spatial "effect". Or recognize that stereo persists even in the presence of a mono rear, and are willing to compromise stage width for some other reason. All those things (mine and yours) are common. Neither of us should cherry pick.
Quote:
Your main argument seems to be based on people having different desires when it comes to music reproduction. That doesn't mean that someone that desires a single 3.5" speaker in the center of their dash can't go and do that to his car. However, he can't come in here and pretend to care about sound quality. I liken this to rear fill people. You are entitled do listen to your stereo the way you want to, this is America. However, preaching the benefits of rear fill on an SQ forum seems counterproductive. Especially when accounting for the goals that 99% of the members here share.
99%
Your analogy is apples and oranges. Nobody -- not a single person that I can remember in this forum -- has said "I prefer the tinny sound coming from a single 3.5 inch speaker in the dash".
Although, frankly, I see nothing inherently wrong with that if there was a mystery person who wanted a weird FR. Let's not pretend that we all listen to things flat, here. Maybe he listens to some weird shit that doesn't actually have any bass in it. I know, it's far-fetched, but so is your analogy.
EDIT* BTW, in the world of home theater, do you prefer Pro-Logic to Dolby Digital as well? Do you think the same people arguing for rear fill would argue for Pro-logic?[/QUOTE]
No, I actually stick with 2 channel. I don't watch a ton of movies that make good use of surround effects. Familiar theme, eh?
I'm afraid that's just not true. 2ch != stereo. And, even when stereo cues are used, it can not only be not overwhelming, but it can also be subtle, confusing, gimicky, or just plain poorly done. And that ain't the exception to the rule, either!
2ch certainly = stereo. I don't know of any modern mono recordings. Even the most basic 2ch recording is "stereo". I also never said they couldn't be poorly done, you're taking me out of context here. Even a poorly done stereo recording can sound better than a mono recording.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
No. Just wow factor. Stereo, and recordings in general, aren't made to simulate live music. We went over this.
Maybe not "live", but realistic, or at least representative of the artist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
I actually have, although not intentionally. It can sound flat and lifeless. Or...it doesn't. It depends on what you're listening to.
I've bolded and italicized that because it's been the underlying theme in this thread.
I don' think the material has anything to do with it. Bold and Italicize all you want. Again, it doesn't make it so. Regardless of material, stereo sounds better to most people. Even recordings that have few stereo cues are still stereo.
IE It does not matter what you are listening to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
That's fair enough. And it makes me wonder why VP brought up the whole mono issue to begin with. I've been pretty clear in saying that it doesn't have much to do with rear fill. I certainly never said anything like "rear fill helps you achieve mono", or whatever else is being implied in this thread. Really, I think the mono discussion is another one entirely. Dig up one of abmolech's or werewolf's old threads on the issue maybe.
I think he brought up mono because you said stereo imaging and staging are not traits that are important to you. This leaves the alternative to stereo... mono.
That being said, if you care about imaging, and stereo reproduction, you do not like mono. Also if you care about imaging and stereo, you would likely not want to damage it, or undo it. Rear speakers undo the stereo effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
You're right. That's not what it means. How can it be faulty logic if I never said it? It seems you're basically trying to support the null hypothesis here.
You don't have to say it to insinuate it. Where does null hypothesis come in to this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
So many here don't have the same goals. And even if they did, does that mean that people whose goals differ should try to be like everyone else? I guess I don't understand the "majority" argument. Especially since you may actually be wrong about which way the real majority swings.
Hmmm... at the top of the page, it shows that 2/3 here do not use rear fill. I would be willing to bet that of the remaining 1/3, 50% or more beleive that their front stage is far more important than their rear fill.
I'd say that shows that there is a like mindedness on this subject. I don't see anyone else supporting your "stereo is not important" beleif, not even the rear fill supporters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Because, when you disagree with something I didn't say but present it as if I did, then by definition you're misinterpreting things. Hope that clears it up.
Seriously? What did I disagree with that you did not say? You have a way of twisting words, and insinuating things without saying them, only to retreat to "I never said that" when someone disagree's with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Harm to what? The stereo image, perhaps. Now we've come around full circle. And you're not really saying anything new. You're again arguing that the "image" trumps all other goals, which is something I've rejected since post 1.
So image is not important, which is basically to say that stereo is not important. So mono is desired?
Clarify your argument here please. You can't pick and choose the benefits of stereo. Imaging comes along with the whole package.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Or tend not to listen to music that uses it properly or places strong emphasis on it. Or prefer another spatial "effect". Or recognize that stereo persists even in the presence of a mono rear, and are willing to compromise stage width for some other reason. All those things (mine and yours) are common. Neither of us should cherry pick.
Stereo may persist, but it's still negatively affected by rears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
99%
Your analogy is apples and oranges. Nobody -- not a single person that I can remember in this forum -- has said "I prefer the tinny sound coming from a single 3.5 inch speaker in the dash".
Right, i've also not seen a single person other than yourself supporting the rear fill argument with "I don't care about stereo, or stereo imaging"
It seems as though you assume that's why people are arguing for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
Although, frankly, I see nothing inherently wrong with that if there was a mystery person who wanted a weird FR. Let's not pretend that we all listen to things flat, here. Maybe he listens to some weird shit that doesn't actually have any bass in it. I know, it's far-fetched, but so is your analogy.
Like ween? lol
Preference does not make it ideal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkZ
No, I actually stick with 2 channel. I don't watch a ton of movies that make good use of surround effects. Familiar theme, eh?
Why 2 channel? Why not mono?
BTW, there are ton's of movies that make great use of surround effects. IMO, you are missing out.
"Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy." - Sir Isaac Newton
“The wise understand by themselves; fools follow the reports of others”
Tibetan Proverb quotes
I was toying with the idea of using the center channel out (summed L and R) on my active xover to feed the rear fill. Its not like they currently sound bad, or really detract from the soundstage, I'm curious if by some weird chance it will help bring the front soundstage out further....
At first my stereo sounded better without the rears on, voices sounded clearer. Then I upgraded the rears (Focal 165v1 to 165k2p) and after a little tuning I prefer the sound with the rear fill as apposed to just the fronts. So yes, I use rear fill in both my stereos.
so if we use a mono rear-fill with a 20-30 milisecond delay, we are adding our own processing to a stereo recording...does that mean we aren't using stereo, but instead, what? dual-panned monophonic with a twist? Stereo, as I understand it, is not only 2 speakers, but 2 speakers forming an equilateral triangle with the listener, which is not possible in a car without a really long pole mounting the left speaker in the middle of the left lane....
So what is it then? When I had imprint processing a center channel, I had perfect staging and excellent seperation but was told by one of our elitists that "that's not stereo" so I ask...what is, in a car? And if the rear speakers are at all delayed, isn't that processing, and not stereo processing?
I use rear speakers, but i have a delay and i think my system sounds good. the imaging is still definitely from the front too- i have to really lean backwards to change the imaging to the rear. I have a kenwood kdc-x993 that has lots of delay features.
Re: Rear Fill: do you use it?
[SIZE5"]Power kills speakers ... not waveform shape. ~ werewolf[/SIZE]
Linear Mode
