Mightily grateful for you taking that first pitch and hitting it out of the park.
💥💥💥👏🏻👏🏻🍿 |
@rodman99999,+1 for the reference.
Who is Cylinder? 🤔 |
It’s often helpful to read the original post, including the cited article, before jumping to conclusions and apparent attacks on my mental health. Lol |
Stereo reproduction is an enigma by default. Original performance is not in stereo, but the reproduced performance is in stereo. If we have two ears to detect true sound imaging and soundstage, then by default we are deluding ourselves in believing that reproduced sound is a facsimile of the original.
Both Bob Carver and James Bongiorno created products to address this issue. Yet, here we are, still on the path of delusion that reproduced sound can possibly recreate the illusion of the original performance.
|
Thankfully, I listen to my audio system with a double-barreled shotgun in my lap. All good. |
Funny how folks skip over the main point of my penultimate post: Original performance is not in stereo, but the reproduced performance is in stereo.
☝🏻That’s the enigma. |
Two legs, two arms, two eyes and two ears...yet one brain having two hemispheres that are cross-wired for interpreting sound. Go figure mono might have been the ideal sonic reproductive medium rejected by those who apparently knew better. And those who were wiser recommended quadraphonic sound, yet we all know where that led... |
Those expressing confusion about my original post should try placing my post into the context of the link I provided. Yes, it requires one to click a link and read an article. If one has the energy to type a response and click the “post” button, then one would likely have sufficient energy to read the Stereophile article. Soundstaging and imaging are both discussed and differentiated there.
I suspect the trolls won’t expend that energy, as the energy expended on posting their hit piece was likely sufficient for their purposes. |
I saw one post in another thread where somebody claimed the need for a larger room to accommodate the expansive soundstage of reproduced sound from their audio system.
Think about that that comment for a few minutes. |
Thanks for the correction. My recall matches your ratio: 8 rear drivers and 1 front driver. |
If someone wants to use a tricked-up stereo test disk or LP to demonstrate "where I am standing is to the right of, to the left of, in front of, behind of, under or above the right speaker," then have at it and be convinced that imaging exists.
The point of the Stereophile article is whether soundstaging is real in an audio recording played back via a stereo reproduction system. The article is sufficiently cogent to express the view that the answer depends on many things.
Recall Bose 901’s? That ratio of 1 (direct) to 9 (reflected) reproduced sound model was based upon acoustic hall characteristics in several well-known halls. A lot of audiophiles rejected the concept, suggesting that certain illusions are not accepted as adequate facsimiles of the "real thing" for all things.
|
Wharf: The poster didn’t comment about the size of his audio system to that of his listening room. He specifically focused on the reproduced soundstage in his listening room.
Had the poster said something about a frequency aberration in the room, like too much booming bass, then I would have concluded it was something about the sound system being out of kilt in the room.
Yet the poster suggested the room was “cutting off” the soundstage of reproduced sound. |
I’m a hopeless believer in imaging and soundstaging. In reproduced music via a 2-channel audio system, it’s likely none of us fully understands the original recordings in terms of the original recording notes. That’s the critical issue: absent detailed knowledge of the original recording, how would one proceed to fully appreciate the accuracy of reproduced sound on one’s audio system? |
So it might be more about ignorance than about a delusion. I’m not sure which is worse. |
