Subject:stereo vs. mono

Posted by: whitepony

Date:10/2/2002 12:03:49 AM

what exactly is the difference between true stereo and mono?

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: joylay83

Date:10/2/2002 12:56:06 AM

in mono, the speakers on the left n right have the same sound. they're usually used for speeches. in stereo, they don't have the same sound, n are usually used for songs. eg. the singer's voice come from the left, the music come on the right. thus you may listen to the music without the voice and vice versa by varying the volume of the individual speakers. hope that answers your question.

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: sk

Date:10/2/2002 1:37:50 AM

Wow. This was a very timely post for me. Because for the first time ever, an mp3 that I d/l'd turned out to be in mono. Surprisingly, it sounded pretty good; it was Elvis singing "That's Alright Mama". I figured: "No sweat; I've got SF with the Channel Converter utility; I'll just crank out an even better sounding 'pseudo-stereo' version". Which I did. And it sounded like sh*t. So then I did a 'mono to stereo with no sliders' option. And it sounded better than the pseudo stereo, but I wasn't so sure that it sounded better - or even as good - as the original mono version. So I made a test CD with all the different options, and listened to them on my reference system. And somewhat to my total amazement, the one that I ended up liking the best; the one that had the fullest, most consistent sound, was the original mono version. I was going to post something here asking for people's input about the whole mono/stereo question, when I saw this post. I'm even more interested now in hearing people's takes on this.

sk

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: inspector

Date:10/2/2002 9:10:04 AM

It could be that the Elvis song was originally recorded in mono. Records have not always been stereo...

Steve

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: whitepony

Date:10/2/2002 11:06:43 AM

i was kind of wanting to know something more along the lines of, what is the difference in a stereo and mono signal. if mono has one signal that goes to both left and right channels, and stereo has and individual signal(of the same sound) for the left and channels, wouldn't it sound the same?

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: vanblah

Date:10/2/2002 12:02:55 PM

Yes, a mono recording of a non-moving mono source should sound (relatively) the same as a stereo recording of a non-moving mono center-panned source.

But, there is a difference between true stereo and two-channels. Two-channels does not always mean stereo. True stereo is comprised of two independent signals with the intent to reproduce a close approximation of the original source. Even so-called monaural sources (like a voice) can have stereo properties, such as a musical where the singer walks from one side of a stage to another.

Simply put: Mono and two-channel systems do not take into account directional cues or instrument placement and true stereo does. That's why taking a mono recording and converting it to "pseudo-stereo" does not always sound good.

There is so much more to stereo than what I have written here, but maybe this answers your question ...

Doug

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: sk

Date:10/2/2002 9:11:38 PM

I'm sure it WAS originally recorded in mono. And while the sound-stage seemed to be very narrow and very obviously 'centered', if I didn't KNOW already it was a mono source, I don't think I would have picked up on it and said: "Hey, that's mono, not stereo". What I could hear was that I liked the original mono much better than the pseudo stereo. And consequently, it made me wonder why the option for 'pseudo-stereo' is even there in the first place.

sk

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: vanblah

Date:10/3/2002 9:50:18 AM

My guess is that they include a pseudo-stereo setting for single sound mono sources (two channel). It's interesting what you can do with a vocal line when you apply this effect ... if that's what you're looking for. They are all tools we use to achieve the sound we are looking for anyway ...

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: whitepony

Date:10/3/2002 1:40:15 PM

thanks doug

where can i learn more

Subject:RE: stereo vs. mono

Reply by: vanblah

Date:10/3/2002 3:59:44 PM

I don't really have any book titles for you. I can say that you might start by searching the web for titles and then ordering books or go to the library and get whatever material you can find.