Hello All
I have noticed in quite a few posts people mentioning about which is better for live playing, Mono, Stereo or Surround, so I thought I would add a few details for everyone to ponder over. (This overview does not relate to instrument sound quality)
In the early days, the only way you could listen to music was by going to a live performance.
An invention then came out that allowed sound to be recorded, and allowed anybody with a suitable playback unit, to hear the music anywhere at any time, however as it was only Mono all the sounds came from one position, which was great in its day, but as the Human Being can hear sound from all around them, it was still pretty limited.
A 2 channel system was then developed which they called Stereo, which allowed the sounds to be spread out in front of the person, as if he was listening to the band, orchestra etc, directly in front of him. So good was it, that if you moved towards the left speaker you heard more of the band, orchestra etc from the left with less from the right, (And vice versa) which is exactly what happens when you walk to the left or right of a real concert venue.
To most people this was all that was needed, but it still only allowed the person to here sounds from in front of him, not from all around.
Surround sound was then developed which added more independent channels, so allowing speakers to be placed all around the person, thus allowing a more realistic impression of the real world, (Above and below is still missing) as with stereo if you stood closer to one speaker you heard more from this then from the others, exactly the same as if you were walking around a real concert hall.
Taking into account the above, if you wish to try and convince your audience that they are listening to a real band, orchestra etc, then the player needs a sound system that can replicate the spread of sound that the person hears normally.
In reality, only fixed venues can normally offer this, however due to the acoustics of the various venues, in most cases a good approximation can be achieved by just using stereo, (Most people expect the sound to come from in front of them) which for OMB is absolutely brilliant, as it requires the player to carry less equipment around, and also have a speedier setup.
I am sure many people with have comments on the above, and look forward to your replies.
Enjoy.

Bill

I agree that if you want to sound live, then stereo is the way to mix. When I mix my backing tracks, I make sure to pan when I have multiple instruments. The difference in the live feel is huge. Just listen to any commercial record through a set of headphones and you will hear how much they pan to preserve the sparation between instruments. In most cases a panning of 40-50% is enough, which means you still get some sound in the "unpanned" speaker. I'd rather have someone dance in front of me getting a live feel as they move from one speaker to the other, than to lose that in a mono set-up.

When your speakers are 6-8 feet apart..The stereo image is fine in just about any room..Naturally there is a sweet spot, and when I set up ..the sweet spot is where I stand..
When speakers are this distance, the audience can still get the stereo image as with a real band..They will hear everything.

In certain situations , as when speakers are 20 plus feet apart, because of a wide room...mono may be the better choice..People far left and far right would definitely have an unbalanced hearing of the music..

You are absolutely correct! Keep in mind, however, that with conventional sound systems, stereo and mono, the closer the audience member gets to a particular speaker the louder the sound. Consequently, when performing in a larger venue, one where there may 200 to 400 audience members, a conventional sound system, both stereo and mono, would be too lound for those closest to the stage, and not lound enough for those at the far end of the room. This is the case even when the speakers are positioned on poles well above the audience head level. This is why I switched to the Bose PAS. The Cylindrical Radiator distributes the sound equally throughout the venue, individuals close to the stage hear pretty much the same as those at the far end of the room, and the distribution of sound is such that a monitor is no longer needed.

Unfortunately, there is no good way to achieve this using conventional mono or stereo sounds system--that's why concert halls and an increasing number of upscale restaurants that provide nightly entertainment have switched to the Bose PAS, or a 5.1 surround sound system. Before making any snap judgements, I suggest taking a careful look at the Bose Forum and perusing through these very informative posts. And, as those of us who have recently purchased the PAS are aware, you can buy the PAS directly from Bose with a 45-day-trial, with a no-risk, no-questions-asked, return policy. Give it a try--you'll like what you hear!

Cheers,

Gary

------------------
Travlin' Easy

While many worry about wide spread stereo speakers' problems with audience perception close to one stack or another, it is fair to say that the majority of an audience are still in the 'sweet spot', and those THAT close to one stack or another aren't getting a balanced sound, even in mono, because of positional differences of the different speakers (unless you are using a VERY small PA) and subs - which usually take several feet to develop properly.

The one HUGE advantage of stereo rigs is the use of stereo reverb and effects, imparting a sense of three-dimensionality to what can feel closed in and artificial if done in mono. We don't need to pan drums and instruments to the corners - this will definitely impact those close to the stack, and I feel that any keyboard manufacturer should place width controls on pre-panned sounds and drumkits, but having the reverb go out to the corners, even if all the sounds are panned dead up the middle, imparts a sense of spaciousness and reality to an inherently artificial sound.

I no longer have the Bose PAS... which does a fine job as you already know by posts on the SZ...

But now that I have a T2.......I will probaby be getting (2) of improved model Mackie 450's for these reasons.... http://www.mackie.com/products/srm450/index.html

"Electronic Time Correction for Simultaneous Sound Arrival and Correct Phasing.

To understand why onboard Time Correction is important, one need only consider the basic physics involved in typical 2-way loudspeakers. In this type of loudspeaker, the compression driver that actually reproduces mid- and high-frequencies is located deep inside the speaker enclosure. Once sound is produced, it must travel from the compression driver through the horn to the listener. On the other hand, the LF driver (i.e. the "woofer") is much closer to the front of the speaker.

The result, put simply, is that bass arrives at listeners' ears sooner than treble. To solve this, you need a way of correctly timing the arrival of electrical impulses at each kind of transducer. In other words, the compression driver needs a "head start" over the LF transducer so the differences in sound generation speed can be accounted for, and both sound signals arrive at the listeners' ears simultaneously.

Some passive speaker systems use a coil (and/or capacitor) in an attempt to delay the signal. But this can degrade the signal.

In contrast, sophisticated electronics inside the SRM450 allow precise alignment among the system components without any audio signal degradation. This is especially important as distance from the loudspeaker decreases; the closer you get to the loudspeaker, the greater effect Time Correction has on the quality of sound, and your fans deserve the best, right?

In the SRM450, additional time correction accuracy is achieved via separate Linkwitz-Reilly 24dB-per-octave crossover circuits for the woofer and HF driver. This same electronic system also helps combat phasing problems.

So what's in it for you? Glad you asked. When the signal you hear is completely in phase, you get imaging, depth of field and real definition. When it's not in phase, you get inconsistent sound with lots of muddy artifacts that change the listening experience as you walk around the room.

So the result of the SRM450s onboard electronic Time Correction is audibly clearer sound that stays consistent over more of your room."


Also under consideration is the
Yorkville Nx25p/Nx55p
http://www.yorkville.com/products.asp?type=29&cat=22

More to come..........

DNJ I use the Mackie 450s together with Martin Audio bass bins and they are great.
I used to use the EV SX500's with the MA bass bins but they got too heavy to carry about every night on my own.

Wow! I always thought low frequencies traveled at a lower speed / Sine wave than higher frequencies and thus it was the other way around; low frequencies lag behind high frequencies. Is the effect that measurable that it creates a noticable difference in the sound?

wow...

Believe me MACKIE has done their homework & these speakers KICK BUTT!!!
Ive owned the opriginal 45's when they came out a few years ago...they had some heat sink issues & overheating due to the design but have since rediesigned their units to eleviate the problem.....I also performed with a pair of 350's....a bit smaller & lighter great for smaller venues but I found I needed a Powered Sub for the big events......if you get a chance check out the SM450's you wont go wrong!!

Donny,
You being a fan of the Barbetta product, why not something like the Barbetta Sona 32's or the 41's? They are about 10lbs/cabinet lighter, they are a bit more expensive though.

Based on Pro reviews on these Barbetta models, I myself would be looking hard at them.

Is it the SRM450's for sure?