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?

It's hard to beat the Barbettas. I particularly like the 31Cs. Even though they are smaller than the 32Cs, I prefer their sound.
If I ever go away from the Bose, it would be back to them.
DonM

Al,

The speed of sound is the same (depends on temperature and density) in the medium, e.g. air. The higher frequency results in shorter wavelength, and conversely, lower frequency sounds have longer wavelengths.

Donny, that writeup from Mackie is a bunch of BS. The difference in distance between the horn and bass to the front of the speaker is negligible. If anything, it would have been easier corrected by physically placing the woofer deeper inside the speaker.

In reality, when one plays guitar (or any other string instrument), the low-frequency notes are made by the entire string, while the higher ones are made by a short portion of the string. There is easily half a foot of difference between the two, but to our ear they sound pretty natural.

While you will quite possibly find coils and capacitors in the other speakers, they are used as filters/crossovers, rather than time delays.

While Mackie does use high-quality electronic components, they also use a fair dose of bull, which makes me suspect that they are not nearly as technologically advanced as they claim to be (or charge for).

Nonetheless, I hope you enjoy yours.

Regards,
Alex

Ed I forgot to mention that I have also owned and performed with the Barbettas 32c's and they are exceptional also...great flexability....with the mixer in the rear too....nothing is for sure but next week I will have a pair of something right now I'm using a vintage Silver ROLAND 100KB CUBE I borrowed from Fran Carango & my Yorkville 100 KW .....Im performing 4 days straight and wont be able to get to a store till Mon Morning ....more to come

Alex, do you have any recomenndations for powered speakers ....you sound very knowledgable.

Thanx

Donny,

Trust your ears. If you like Mackie, go with them, just don't believe all the techno-babble they may be putting into their marketing brochures.

I like Yorkville too - I think their stuff sounds good and is very reliable, not like the older SRM 450s which used to go into thermal shutdown if you did not place them right. Hopefully, the new Mackies don't do that anymore.

Regards,
Alex

EV SxA360, a bit pricy, but 500 Watts and only 16,5kg. And great sound!

If anyone thinks that Stereo doesnt make a difference in the sound when playing a T2 I beg to differ.After just doing 3 big gigs the last few days all in stereo with two speakers which sound outstanding wit the T2....Today I played at two different gigs ....First one was a small family 50th anniversary in a restaurant upstairs so I only used my (1) Yorkvile 100 KW mono Boy what a difference!!! The T2 became lifeless, Pianos were lacking body, & the overall sound in general was much different then the past few days I performed with Two Powered speakers in stereo......later on in the evening I played at a church affair wih 300 people and used Two speakers on stage and I was in heaven again!!.....the T2 shined like a champ soundwise... The T2 IMO wa created & designed to be played in Stereo plain & simple, between the efx, SA Sounds, styles etc, etc, it really makes a big difference....after todays senario I will NEVER play the T2 in MONO again....I will get a small stereo system FOR INTAMATE GIGS & another big stage sound system to play the big jobs...asap. This is what my ears tell me .....try it your self



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-07-2006).]

This is a topic of interest to me. I have been gigging for years as a one-man band with Yamaha PSR boards (630/2000/3000) going directly through a lone Motion Sound KT-80 (100 watts) 2-way amp. It does not have a pole mount and as such I normally place it on the floor either directly in front of my keyboard or to the side where necessary. Recently the idea of selling the amp and replacing it with a full-blown stereo system (perhaps with subwoofer) has been floating in and out of my mind but as of yet I have not felt any impetus to make the switch. I'm quite comfortable with the one-amp setup because 1) it's MUCH easier to shelpp and setup with the one amp compared to a stereo setup (which in any case would likely include a powered mixer of some sort) and 2) while I as a musician obviously hear and "care about" the loss of stereo imaging in the sound that the audience hears, I really can't help but wonder how much of a difference it makes to the audience. We're not talking about concerts -- I do mainly reception and dinner-type event where people spend most of the evening eating or listening to speeches. Some events do involve dancing but I get the impression that people care more about having a beat to move their feet to than whether or not the guitar and horn parts are coming to their ears from the same direction. In addition, many of the venues I see have what can only be described as poor acoustic qualities, and besides for the lucky few seated within reasonable range of the speakers, it doesn't seem that the stereo effect would carry throughout most of the room. I guess ultimately the question for me boils down to 1) will I get more business with a stereo setup and 2) if yes, is the increase worth the extra expense/bother of having a stereo setup? Your thoughts are appreciated.

I cant agree with you ....its like saying if you were a Chef that you would put out sub par quality food to the patrons of your restaurant because its cheaper & you dont think they notice the difference?......why not go A/B your Motion sound against a good stereo setup & tell me it doesnt sound better.....but believe me Im doing this 35+ years dont underestimate your audience they definitly know what they hear.....& deserve your best music every performance
@ 200%...I also see many acts that shouldnt even be called musicians & are just there for the Bucks, but on the other hand, Im glad they are out there working because every time they play it means MORE WORK FOR ME because my friend hey will not get hired again



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-07-2006).]

MarcK,

I don't know what the audience hears, but I agree with Donny, that the first person who must like the sound is myself - when my music sounds good to me, I can entertain my audience better, even if the audience does not know the difference between mono and stereo.

As for one-box setup, I have a Motion Sound KP100, which I am considering selling (and just sticking with my large system). The KP series of Motion Sound is designed to reproduce stereo sound from a single box (I am sure you can find many posts here on this topic). I find that my gigs are mostly in front of larger audiences, and most involve dance music, which is why I find that I am not using the KP100 lately.

The other single-box solution used to be Fender Keyboard SFX - really nice stereo separation, 160 watts. I heard it in a music store, and liked it, even though it was kind of expensive. Fender stopped making them, but you can still find them on Ebay sometimes. I have not heard anything negative about them, other than the fact that it is on a heavy side (but has wheels).

Regards,
Alex

I'm totally with Donny...Stereo does make a huge difference to the sound quality of today's samples. I would NEVER EVER go back to a MONO setup unless I'm playing a Stadium or Arena gig.

Last year when I opened for Huey Lewis and then the Doobie brothers, we still ran STEREO to the board. What they did with the output is beyond me, but I sent both left and right to the board. I'm sure they summed the two signals somewhere, but listeners in the audience said everything was crystal clear.

Alex: I own the Fender SFX 200 keyboard amp. I love it and will not part with it. Excellent stereo imaging, great controls. I use it as a back up amp and for rehearsals.

Wow!!
I'm impressed!
You lucky soag!
Your band is doing well I take it!

Well I now have a pair MACKIE SRM450's
http://www.mackie.com/products/srm450/

to go along with my New T2 I'm a happy camper! Cant wait to play tommorows gig,
Oh Yeah!

L8tr..........

Here's another 'single-box' stereo solution that looks interesting. Anybody heard it?
http://www.roland.com/products/en/SA-300/index.html

Congrats, Donny... you're gonna sound fantastic, even without the Ketron drums.

The 450s sound great, but heavy... 51 lbs

Donny, enjoy!

Glenn, Thank you for posting this link. It does look pretty interesting. However, I wonder how they achieve stereo separation. Motion Sound KP series do this by using a stereo separation circuit (essentially, a phase shifter). Fender SFX does it by using a side-firing speaker employing a very sophisticated algorithm.

With two speakers placed side by side, the stereo effect is minimized, and is only observable up close. I think 350 watts is too much power to have at close range.

Are there any users of this amp? What are your experiences?

Reading some of these posts I have one thought to add:

It's all very noble to worry about what the audience hears but IMHO the most important audience is the player. I have to enjoy what I hear and get the most direct benefit from the sound... that's a lot of why I play. I'm not going to get hung up on whether that couple on the back of the room are getting the full benefit of the stereo separation. Often I go further by combining the internal speakers of my keyboard with my Motion Sound KP-200s behind me for a full surround-sound experience. The audience gets an acceptably good sound and a happy performer on stage.

Stereo 4 life.

Yesterday I played a double using the T2 w/ the Mackie SRM450's......I gotta say that it sounds AWESOME.....crystal clear & powerful beyond belief IN STEREO, w/ great covereage & the T2 just sounds amazing.....I didnt realized I missed my old Mackie 350's & 450's sound so much ....

And how did you like lifting those 51-pound beasts up on the poles?
DonM

Ouch!
I purchased a pair of the impressive sounding SRM-450's but RETURNED them the next week. Not only were they heavy, but their slick slippery surface & bad ergonomic balance (much heavier at one end than the other) made it too awkward for me to transport and manuveur. I traded them for a pair of Electro Voice SxA100's (lighter & much more ergonomically weight balanced), and have remained (for over 4 years now), satified with this PA setup. If I were to UPGRADE, I'd probably opt for the EV SxA360 (36 lbs ). I've auditioned them & was impressed not only with their terrific bass response, but accurately 'smooth' response throughout the entire frequency range.

Scott

Scott, Donny A, B'd The Mackies with your EV model...He had no choice but to buy the better sounding, more powerful 450's..

Scott I checked the bass response data..the 360 goes down to 60hz..Hardly enough to suit me..Even your model goes down to 50hz..Still not low enough..

Scott it looks like Donny may follow your footsteps...He thinks the Mackies are too powerful..Have you tried the 360 EV...He is looking for suggestions..

Donny, just get two Barbetta 31Cs. They are plenty powerful and sound BETTER than the 32Cs.
Light-weight, small, versatile, almost perfect.
DonM

I do have the EV SXA360s, and they sound full, punchy and they are tighter in the sound compared to the SRM 450's which I have also owned.

I've been using the 450's for the last 10 gigs in different variations.......it took a while to get the T2 sound I wanted by making some personal EQ & internal adjustments which are critical to make the T2 sound the way I want on stage.....Yes they are super powerful speakers, with a great Searing sounds all across the dance floor thru 200 people, I can see a clear difference from my old SRM 350's of which I needed a Powered Sub to get some more bottom end on big jobs but not with these baby's & now Im very happy with the sound after last nights peformance which really proved what the Mackie SRM450's are all about & capable of sounding like in STEREO with a T2!!!

I'm in the process of trying out some small systems for my little jobs also.....right now Im just using my Yamaha MS50's w/Sub which all fits nice into a small Protege` traveler luggage tote suitcase w/ handle I got at Walmart for $24.99
For now its ok, but I'll always be looking for the perfect solution for MY needs!

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 05-12-2006).]