Talk:Stereophonic sound

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Motion pictures

message: 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)
thread_title: To come

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turn-of-the-century unintentional stereophonic cylinder recordings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  As it relates to popular music 

message: 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)
thread_title: Theatrophone image

message: Tell me wat the history is? — 139.130.97.98 19:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Stereo wat is it? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging stuff form microphones 

message: * spaced microphones array (multiple microphones each connected to it's speaker or with pan-pot techniques combined into two channels)
* faulkner array and use of accent (close) microphones
* Stereo-180 (hypercardioids, 145°, 46mm)
* bidirectional microphones with baffle (bidirectional, about 90°, 20-30cm, separated with absorptive baffle - square 30cm)
* OSS array - Optimum Stero Signal (omnidirectional, -, 16cm, seprated with 30cm Jecklin disc)
Also techniques should be grouped:
* intensity (coincident): XY and MS
* phase difference (I'm not sure how to call it in english): spaced microphones, AB, faulkner
* quasi-coincident: ORTF, NOS, Stereo-180, bi with baffle, OSS
This links should help:
* http://psbg.emusician.com/ar/emusic_double_pleasure/index.htm
* http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/mar97/stereomictechs2.html
Maciej "Nux" Jaros **drop a note** 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing techniques 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Transparent microphone placement diagrams assume browser with white background 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your brother is closer to being right. The root of 'stereo' as used today is more like "three-dimensional" than 'solid', 'firm' or 'hard'. Its saying that a stereoscopic photograph and a stereophonic recording are perceived in greater dimension than otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I'm closer to being right in a practical sense (as indeed there are two pictures in stereoscopy, and headphones always have two speakers), but that's beside the point. The point is that the article describes it misleadingly as 'solid' when 'spatial' would be more appropriate - or maybe there is even more precise term to translate 'stereo'? ...Any Greeks here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.215.114 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the word 'stereo' in 'stereo sound'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yup. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Decca Tree

message: 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 spatial relationship but the recommended style would be more like . Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline link to undisplayed image 

message: 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)
replies: text: I added a link to vinyl record. More improvement is needed but I hope this helps. --Kvng (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is 'Vinyl records' section so named? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Binaural Recording 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is; the different directions of the physical sound sources (speakers) are used to create an illusion of, potentially many, sound sources that are perceived to be emanating from different locations between the speakers.Quickfix333 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Illusion?" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stereophonic sound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080331024716/http://ecmc.rochester.edu:80/ecmc/docs/hyperprism1.5.5/stereo.HTM to http://ecmc.rochester.edu/ecmc/docs/hyperprism1.5.5/stereo.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071206065506/http://cec.concordia.ca:80/econtact/8_3/gauthier.html to http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/8_3/gauthier.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stereo vs multi-track 

message: 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)
replies: text: If it has never been discussed by any reliable source it should not be in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, random facts or trivia. You should discuss these concerns on the article talk page. Dartslilly (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's self-evident that the etymology does not limit its definition to two channels. When I first read the preexisting paragraph, it took me some time to understand what it was getting at. I thought that my addition only clarified the point. I understand that Wikipedia is not for random facts or trivia, but you've offered no explanation as to why something that's self-evident needs to be sourced.Quickfix333 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Additionally, wouldn't it be better form to add "citation needed", rather than undo? If my addition doesn't belong, then that leaves the original issue that motivated me to make the edit in the first place; clarification is needed. Does anyone have a better way to clarify this paragraph? I see that there is another discussion on this page concerning the etymology of the word "stereo", in which, as with everything else I've seen on its etymology, the only reference to "two" seems to stem from the fact that we humans, usually, have two eyes and two ears. A minimum of two may be implied by the physical requirements of accurately perceiving three dimensions, but I've seen nothing that implies any maximum. I still say that my addition to this paragraph is self-evident, and therefore does not need sourcing.Quickfix333 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to clarify 'Common usage' was undone

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stereo vs. surround 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Zitteriophonic sound" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]