This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
The stethoscope seems like a bad example to use for an article about stereophonic sound. Although it has ear pieces for each ear, the sound comes from one source, and is thus monophonic. — Walloon 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to include something about the pioneering work into steo by Alan D. Blumlein, his 128 stereo patents , and links to the page about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 ( talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I will preemptively note that a 1934 sound version of the 1927 silent feature Napoleon, presented in Paris by director Abel Gance, did not have true stereophonic sound. The 35mm film strip had notches that switched the monophonic soundtrack from one set of speakers to another.
Likewise, Warner Bros. used something called Vitasound on a few features in 1939-1940. Often incorrectly called a stereophonic process, Vitasound actually combined a standard, variable-width monophonic soundtrack with a second, variable width control track, located between the soundtrack and the sprocket holes, that increased loudness for certain scenes by switching on additional amplifiers and speakers. Walloon 09:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I plan to add a section on the 1958 Westrex single-groove recording system and how it finally brought stereo to the ordinary consumer, and then I'll probably be done for the time being. Quadraphonic and surround sound could be added to the article since they are really just extensions of stereophonic sound... Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Stereophonic cannot be anything other than sound - this page should simply be Stereophonic.
stereo (sound)?! You're kidding aren't you? :) Well, anyway, worry ye not. Stereo is stereophonic sound to 99.9% of the population 99.9% of the time, which makes dab pages irrelevant. I've redirected stereo here and plonked a {{ Redirect}} template onto this page, which takes care of any disambiguation issues. If at any time there's a desire to actually move this article into the stereo slot, it's easily done. -- kingboyk 21:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm going nuts because I actually found one of these somewhere on the archive.org website, but I can't find it now... or a good reference... so I'm just going to mention it here.
Before a molding process for cylinder recordings was devised, cylinder recordings were made in batches of about 250 at a time. About ten phonographs--the number depending on how loud the source was--were placed around the talent to make the recording. From each of these ten originals, about twenty-five copies could be made via a "pantograph." Performers were hired to repeat the same performance over and over again, each performance yielding only 250 copies.
Anyway.
Because the ten or so originals were recorded at the same time by phonographs at different locations in the room, each performance was in fact recorded (unintentionally!) in ten-channel stereophonic sound, and if it is possible to locate two cylinders from the same batch of 250, but copied from different originals, it is theoretically possible to combine them to produce stereo, and some researchers have done this.
Now, a month or so ago, I ran into a recording on archive.org with no explanation, which said only that it was a stereophonic cylinder recording. However, the two channels were poorly synchronized, and I actually have to wonder whether this was just an issue of speed variation or whether whoever made the recording had failed to secure two cylinders from the same batch.
If I (or someone else) can find it again, it's a worthwhile note for the "history" section. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings...the recording you mention exists in Internet Archive, it is labeled Casey Jones, by billy murray, and it notes STereo Remake. My ear analysis says it consists of two completely different takes of the song. Perhaps whoever cooked the mix even took the trouble to synchronize somehow the phrases, giving or taking some seconds from one track or the other, but heard through speakers or headphones are a curious and interesting experience. Look under Billy Murray. The search is totally worthwhile. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.50.46.67 (
talk) 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please excuse me for not signing. Please do take hugozabre@hotmail as signature. Thank you. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.50.46.67 (
talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think there needs to be some information about how music artists experimented a bit with stereo to broaden the experience (like separating vocals and instruments, or different vocalists, into the left and right channels). This was done a lot in the 1960s: Mamas & Papas is a good example. I thought that was cool because you could use the audio balance to selectively hear more or less detail. Since the 1970s, the ambience of stereo seems to be almost identical no matter which album you listen to... listen to the left channel, then the right channel, and a song will sound exactly identical. It would be great if this train of thought could be fleshed out into a paragraph... I'd do it but I don't have enough knowledge to comment on this outside of my own observations. - Rolypolyman 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Many people refer to this as "multi-channel mono." In the world of popular music, stereo sound is rarely used to create any type of aural realism. There's no value judgment there--just an observation. 24.161.86.156 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Mention MP3 players etc. modern things too. Jidanni ( talk) 01:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am somewhat unable to precisely pinpoint my source information, but this might lead towards it. As a small child I read a huge pile of AUDIO and Hi Fi magazines from the 50s. A very nice history of the phonograph, in about 10 or so installments appeared on such magazines. Concerning cylinders, a picture was shown, and the copy stated that a certain maker of phonographs and cylinders, and it might well be Columbia, marketed that apparatus, playing a two grooved cylinder, with two reading diaphragms coupled to two horns, said cylinder recorded using two recording horns coupled to two recording styli, recording on the same cylinder. The looks of the cylinder reminded me of the language course cylinders Edison marketed, with two visible "tracks" dividing the cylinder more or less in half, like an extended play 45 with two songs. The copy stated that, being a simultaneous two point pickup recording, discrete all the way, it efectively was a stereophonic pair. What about it? The same history pictured another phonograph, disk, playing simultaneusly four discs, via four horns. One small, two medium and one extra large. Woofer, midrange and tweeter......but the four discs were identical. Imagine the problems stacking the pile, and synchronizing them perfectly....
By the way, I have seen Cook stereo disks circa 1952,and they look like a normal lp with two tracks,a wide land between with no lead in grooves and I also remember having seen the advertisement for the playback adaptor, with two headshells separated, and here my memory fails if it was 1.25, 1.5 or 1.75 inches apart. At about the same time "staggered" heads competed against "stacked" heads in tape stereo.....again 1.25 or so inches apart......If it is possible, it must be fairly simple to check said magazines between 1950 and 1954 mostly. I have been unable to locate pdfs in the internet, but they must exist physically in the United States in many libraries. It is rather unfortunate that the magazines I read were lost in the 1984, or was it 1985? earthquake in Mexico City. Also my collection of around 250 edison diamond discs....and the cooks.... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
190.50.46.67 (
talk) 23:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Excuse the impoliteness, that is, not signing. Not knowing how, take hugozabre@hotmail as a good signature. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.46.67 ( talk) 23:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone with better editing skills than I get the image of the Thetarophone to work in this article? Here is the image: Theatrophone. Thanks. — Walloon 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell me wat the history is? — 139.130.97.98 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we illustrate the types of sterophonic recording (XY AB etc?). Very difficult to visualise on a casual first reading
The info in this article is mostly doubled by info in Microphones#Conventional stereo recording for loudspeakers. Can someone please merge those two into this article and delete the info form microphones (and simply add a link to this article). -- Maciej "Nux" Jaros ** drop a note** 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely there is a distinction here between stereo recording and stereo playback. The info in the microphones article should remain, as this article primarily concerns stereoponic playback, whist the other concerns microphone recording, which should include all forms, monophonic or otherwise. 81.178.85.225 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Also techniques should be grouped:
This links should help:
Maciej "Nux" Jaros ** drop a note** 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
e.g., 60px-XY_stereo.svg.png looks terrible in my dark olive background emacs-w3m browser. Jidanni ( talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How come no-one asked this question thus far? We see that the word 'stereo' derives from Greek ('στερεό') and means 'solid'. I mean - maybe there are some other meanings of the word 'στερεό' in Greek language - because 'solid' seems inappropriate when sound is in question... I see that when the term 'stereophonic' was coined it referred to 'stereoscopic' (vision), but what perceiving the third dimension of a solid object (or gaseous or liquid!) has to do with hearing sound. So I ask - what is the official logic (be it correct or false; if any!) behind the use of word 'stereo' in this case?
(My motivation to write this: some time ago when my arrogant brother asked me what 'stereo' means when we talk about sound or vision I unsuspectingly in a strict practical sense (non-etymological) said: "Well, it means when there is two of something." (like two cameras recording stereoscopic image or two microphones recording sound, or two speakers; two eyes, two ears after all), but then he pompoused it out that it in fact means 'spatial' - but here I see it means 'solid' - so what's the deal here?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.215.114 ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as though the Decca tree is a major stereo recording technique (very common when recording orchestras and ensembles), could it be included on this page? PyrE ( talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed an undisplayed image pipe link of a concert orchestra layout because hiding such an image where a text link would be expected is jarring to the reader.
The guide for image links, Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Images, shows that an undisplayed inline image is made clear by its pipe link text, and that the parameter media: precedes it. The link I removed was formatted [[:File:Orchestra layout.svg|spatial relationship]] but the recommended style would be more like [[Media:Orchestra layout.svg|image of orchestra layout]]. Binksternet ( talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
According to issue of New Scientist 19/26 December 1985, pages 59-61, first accidental stereo recordings are of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" performed by Leopold Stokowski in 1929, not two medleys by Duke Ellington. I think it should be mentioned in article as well (although I still haven't found any info about that particular recording) 83.238.201.91 ( talk) 14:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is section 6 ("Vinyl records") so named? It does not mention vinyl during the section at all. There's no clue in the whole passage as to whether the medium used to record the stereo is vinyl or shellac or whatever else. It also has a too-technical description of things that seem to have nothing to do with the recording medium, making the whole passage seem out of place? Or not out of place? who can tell? I can't! Pete Hobbs ( talk) 22:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The section on binaural recording has information in it that not only contradicts the main article, but that makes no sense. For instance, that recordings are made with headphones on a dummy to capture the room in which the dummy head is... Anyway, someone might want to correct that. Jack mcdowell ( talk) 20:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is the directional sound really an "illusion" when it requires two speakers which are in fact in different directions? Herr Gruber ( talk) 02:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Stereophonic sound. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
In the early 1960s it was common for instruments to be recorded on different tracks and mixed down at different volumes for a mono mix. Should a distinction be made to clarify that that the original 2 track tape is not technically stereo but a multi-track recording? 22yearswothanks ( talk) 03:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In common usage, a "stereo" is a two-channel sound reproduction system, and a "stereo recording" is a two-channel recording even though the etymology of the word stereo does not limit its definition to two channels. This is cause for much confusion, since five (or more)-channel home theater systems are not popularly described as "stereo".
My addition in the above of "even though the etymology of the word stereo does not limit its definition to two channels." was undone by Dartslilly as "Unsourced".
I don't understand why this needs to be sourced as it only clarifies the existing statement. Also, the etymology given near the top of the page supports the statement and I've found no other etymology that negates it. Please explain. Quickfix333 ( talk) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead spends an undue percentage of its time making the point that stereo can be more than two channels (and is a superset of surround sound). This doesn't seem right to me. What sources do we have that support this assertion? ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Zitteriophonic sound. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Zitteriophonic sound until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 06:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)