2. speakers
  3. 151799-293

The sonic rightness of a mono system.

Many conventional stereo systems are producing smaller shortened indistinct soundstages that one must sit dead center of while sounding poorly off-axis. So I wondered is the small loudspeaker in stereo the equal to a large one in mono? So I have pursued that line of thought and have come to the conclusion that no a small speaker in stereo is not equal to the large one in mono. I've tried this with some of the most advanced loudspeakers available and they all failed when running up against one large horn in mono. The large loudspeaker just always had a more physical solid presentation the sound stages near the same in size while the stereo always had this tiring artificial sound that the mono system did not. Maybe our brain gets fatigued trying to fill in for what is missing stereo is an artificial technology designed to fool the ear brain system maybe that in itself is the problem. Mono just sounds right. If I had the choice one large horn in mono is what I would select over any 2-way bookshelf no matter what its cost. Nice thing about mono is its ease of entry give it a try you may have all the needed gear stored about. It's also an excuse to buy that cool solo collectable speaker you know the one that is too big to house 2 of. As always YMMV and this is my opinion after much research and we all have a bias I keep that in mind when I do such things but am human and can not fully escape my human limitations.
128x128johnk
nonoise's avatar
nonoise
10,884 posts
 
I have no qualms about stereo. It doesn't take much, or long, to get to where you're satisfied. After all, it is your room you're dealing with so setting it up should not be a problem.

Having said that, one of the finest, if not the finest, recordings I heard were some mono recordings on a stereo. I know it's a different kettle of fish, but I can see where a mono set up in some smaller digs would work just fine.

All the best,
Nonoise
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,819 posts
 
IMO, a better analogy than black & white photography to mono sound is black & white film, which I myself great prefer to color (for a glorious example, see The Coen Brother's "The Man Who Wasn't There"). Mono recordings must be reproduced in mono, of course, so the interesting question is whether they sound "better" heard via one loudspeaker rather than two.
cd318
2,636 posts
 
@bdp24, I much prefer colour film to black & white yet somehow virtually all of my favourite films happen to be in black & white (The General, Sunrise, Kane, Casablanca, Wuthering Heights, Psycho, The Last Picture Show, Manhattan etc)!

As for the number of speakers for mono, nowadays it’s got to be two. Don’t forget that ’small’ mono speakers used in the 50s and early 60s would now be deemed large. Their bigger brothers I’m guessing might now be called wardrobes.

@prof , Yes that closed-in effect does happen with some mono recordings. For me the worst example was the 2009 CD Beatles remasters in mono. I expected a lot more but they just sounded somewhat hemmed in and sat on in a way I’m sure that would have horrified the folks back at Abbey Road in the days when England was swinging.

On the other many, many mono recordings from the 40s and 50s can still sound sublimely and expansively alive. I think it depends more upon the recording than anything else.
johnk's avatar
johnk OP
1,975 posts
 
 On a large loudspeaker, you have a large soundstage that is what we try to replicate with 2-smaller loudspeakers.                                                       One could always try something different or not and be content with all the experience they gained not doing so. And it's not like mono is blk and white and a no color sound to me that analogy is very far off from anything I am hearing. I hear natural music reproduction with realistic size scale and dynamics I never hear that out of small loudspeakers. 
Post removed 
More to discover