Why Stereophonic or Binaural Reproduction?

[kfbkfb]

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/50s/Audio-1953-Jan.pdf#page=10^^^
Spatial (binaural and stereophonic) reproduction must come in for some questioning if these views are accepted.


I was wondering if the transition from Mono to Stereo during the mid to late 1950s had similarities to the (attempted) Stereo to Quad transition in the 1970s, looks like it was controversial too.

Interesting comment that the listening room acoustics are likely to mess up the Stereo effect.

(posting here because Stereo is multichannel )


Kirk Bayne

 

[Kal Rubinson]

(posting here because Stereo is multichannel )

And multichannel is stereo (just more so).

 

[Sonik Wiz]

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/50s/Audio-1953-Jan.pdf#page=10^^^
Spatial (binaural and stereophonic) reproduction must come in for some questioning if these views are accepted.


I was wondering if the transition from Mono to Stereo during the mid to late 1950s had similarities to the (attempted) Stereo to Quad transition in the 1970s, looks like it was controversial too.

Interesting comment that the listening room acoustics are likely to mess up the Stereo effect.

(posting here because Stereo is multichannel )


Kirk Bayne

That was an interesting letter to the editor, for sure. The author looked at several aspects from multiple points of view, see sawing from one thesis to antithesis & then making a conclusion. Thanks for the link it's a real time capsule.

When a friend passed away in the early 80's I inherited complete volumes of Audio Engineering magazine from early 50's to late 60's. I probably have your linked mag somewhere around here. Anyway this time frame includes the transition from tube to transistor, mono to stereo. Both as you said were controversial . In one article by Ed Canby (who had moved up from strictly record reviews) he investigated the practical problems of early stereo & it's relative lack of acceptance.

He commented that music loving audiophiles were after the nirvana of an a simulated orchestra in their house & much of the stereo material was ping pong bouncy effects that failed to impress. This gave rise to many output amps having a variable L+R mono control to add a center front speaker to compensate for excessive width. They called this three channel stereo which Canby took strong difference to as the program source was only two ch stereo. What was need he claimed, was better recording techniques not an added third channel.

He also noted that if you want to enjoy the benefits of high quality stereo you must make a commitment to high quality stereo. Many people were buying a non matching preamp/power amp combo or "stereo control center" and try to make this all work together. And folks frequently bought a non-matching speaker for the additional stereo ch & did not have the slightest idea how to set up & position them properly.

Some of this is to be expected. There's always going to be a learning curve & a lot of experimenting going on with something as radical as new audio format. Yeah,as you said, just like the transition to quad. And beyond.

 

[markshan]

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/50s/Audio-1953-Jan.pdf#page=10

Interesting comment that the listening room acoustics are likely to mess up the Stereo effect.

Room acoustics are also likely to mess up live music. Are we supposed to listen to everything, recorded or live, in an anechoic chamber?

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.rha-audio.com/blog/future-of-audio-implants^^^
Audio Tooth Implant...Using bone conduction, sound can be received by the inner ear...


Maybe this technology is the answer. The Audio Tooth would eliminate room, speaker and headphone issues when listening


Kirk Bayne