Is the seated-centered solo listening to music a dated tech?


Is the seated-centered solo listening to music a dated tech? Is the design of modern loudspeakers that facilitates stereo wrong? Are we surfing a compromised tech please recall early 3 channel was superior they used stereo because it was a compromise? I have worked with a research group that used MRIs and sound to light up areas of catatonic people’s brains the research showed that higher quality playback lit up more areas but that stereo caused the brain to work harder is this a source of listening fatigue? After all, we are processing 2 unnatural sources that trick the mind into perceiving a sound field wouldn’t it be better to just have a sound field that actually existed? Stereo is a unnatrual way to listen to music its something that sound doesn’t do. Real music floods a space in all directions stereo design requires beaming and narrow dispersion to form an image is this just wrong? Mono had benefits over stereo modern loudspeaker design can make one speaker with a 360d radiation pattern that can form a soundstage for listeners almost anywhere in a room yet we still sit mostly alone seated dead center not wanting to move much because the image collapses just all seems wrong to me today. The more I experiment with non-traditional sound reproduction the more right it feels to me and those hearing it. Music should exist in a real space not a narrow sliver of it.

128x128johnk

Basic fact: The speaker closest to you will always sound louder. Always...there is no technology from any speaker designers that will track where you are and adjust itself. Consequently, a stereo mix that's well done always sounds better from the middle...period. Sorry...alleged wide dispersion, tweeters on the back of the speaker, omni directional drivers, clearly incompetent drivers, etc., etc.,...uh, no.

That video of the balloon guy was amazing.

I have never heard mono that can remotely match the depth and location information that a stereo speaker set can. 

Dear Johnk, very interesing question(s). Since this early morning, I'am busy with putting my reflections into words. Here's the result🤗

BDW, I am working in a project where music is used to light up areas of catatonic people’s brains. It is a way to activate these people, getting into a kind of conversation. And it works! Using a specific music title as an anchor. They show a reaction when hearing a tune which is memorized in their brain and than we try to get a conversation started.

Binaural hearing is hearing with two ears. Since ever, this helps human beings to orientate in the physical environment and eventually recognize potential danger. So, our hearing is kind of a 'survival gear'.  To be able to listening to music in 'stereo' is added value, imo. But, isn't stereo reproduction artificial? It is not possible to have the exact sound field that actually existed during the recording or the live concert in your home (or anywhere else than the original location of recording).

Coincidence? Yesterday I have readjusted (not the first time..) the place and direction of my 2 speakers because some night critters 👹👿 must have been moving them (again..). Some 30 minutes later, I was delighted with the sound quality when sitting in the sweet spot, listening (not only hearing) to music. To me, for example some tracks from Buddha Bar are sounding really nice in stereo under 'good' stereo listening conditions (including sweet spot). But then, it's electronic music, artificial. A play with sounds. And with an artificial sound stage.

During the past years I have figured out, that I like stereo listening most the less instruments are in play (vocal and 2 to 4 instruments). What I do reckon - it's mainly the 'quallity' of the recording and mastering which brings the listener as close as possible (which imo is still far away) to the sound field that has been produced by the environment when recording. For example, listen to Norah Jone's 'Little Room'. Or David Klein Quartett 'My Marylin. And 'Chanchullo' from Ruben Gonzáles. Then you might know what I mean. Listening to these records, not sitting in the sweet spot is not the same pleasure to me. In this case, 👍for me to stereo and seated-centered solo listening.

I own some records from the fifties which are incredible to listen to, with a very good sound stage (I use a mono cartridge with a mono preamp, including a shorting plug for one input channel to get 'real mono'). Basically, I should use as well only one loudspeaker to have realreal mono.

I have figured out that listening to mono recordings can be less tiring than listening to low quality stereo recordings (some jazz recordings from the beginning era of stereo recording). But for good stereo recordings, there should be no listening fatique per se. Basically, if in good health, I believe our brain is very well capable of processing that many information in question.

Basically, I agree with your comments. I guess we need to live with some compromises when listening to music at home.

Cheers!

eagledriver

 

 

 

 

 

I'm moving everything out of my listening room and am ordering a LazyBoy recliner for the sweet spot this week.     It will have that and a beanbag chair...  thats it

The absence of punctuation in the OP caused me reading fatigue:))

Aside from that, if the music in question is pretty much any genre outside of acoustic music, recorded since the 1970's, what we are listening to is, in fact "the sound field as it originally existed", since that sound field was created by the engineers of the recording.

Listening to music is a cognitively complex process, so it's hardly a revelation that the increased musical information provided by a stereo recording caused an increase in brain activity.

The logical fallacy is in the speculation that more brain activity = listening fatigue.

More brain activity might equal more pleasure.