Stereo vs. Mono

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy2sticks
  • Start date Start date
RAK said:
I think Wikipedia has established itself as a viable informational database.
Click to expand...
The only people amongst which Wikipedia has "established itself" is amongst those with a bent for the open source/socialist philosophy to begin with.

Talk to serious researchers from library science professionals to research scientists to private detectives to corporate information commandos and find out with just how little esteem they hold Wikipedia. Is it a source they check? Sure. It's too easy and fast not to add to one's search spyder script. Is it authorative or trustworthy? Not on any kind of even-keeled basis.

But this is getting waaaay to off-topic. My apologies for even bringing it up.

G.
 
Farview said:
Dude, I wasn't arguing about the speakers (why I didn't bring it up)


Of course, your point about having to hear the stereo image is kind of like the tree falling in the woods question. If you are deaf in one ear, does that mean that the stereo image doesn't exist? Or does it mean you just can't hear it. You are talking like stereo is a perception that comes and goes depending on who is listenening to it.

You can certainly capture a stereo image, then choose to play it back on one speaker. That would be a stereo recording played back in mono. The recording is not effected by the playback system any more than the playback system effects the recording.
Click to expand...

The stereo field is a perception. We percieve a stereo field because of the way our ears and our brain work. Just like we percieve a phantom center within that field (depending on phase and volumel levels)

And if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? NO. It does disturb the air pressure, but sound only exists when you percieve it. Now this is not a new debate, that's just the side I fall on. So if we disagree on that, there's no where else to go.

The definition of sterephonic is 2 microphones, 2 speakers.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
The only people amongst which Wikipedia has "established itself" is amongst those with a bent for the open source/socialist philosophy to begin with.

Talk to serious researchers from library science professionals to research scientists to private detectives to corporate information commandos and find out with just how little esteem they hold Wikipedia. Is it a source they check? Sure. It's too easy and fast not to add to one's search spyder script. Is it authorative or trustworthy? Not on any kind of even-keeled basis.

But this is getting waaaay to off-topic. My apologies for even bringing it up.

G.
Click to expand...

Have you talked to these people? the internet is general is a little shady to use as a source for serious research, but if you check your facts and ultimately site Wikipedia, what's wrong with that? If Jimmy2Sticks sees a defintion that he knows to be true, and that's where he found it, so what?
Seems like a good source of information that at Michigan State University has decided is academic enough. (no MSU jokes please from you Wolverine Fans)
 
RAK said:
Have you talked to these people? the internet is general is a little shady to use as a source for serious research, but if you check your facts and ultimately site Wikipedia, what's wrong with that? If Jimmy2Sticks sees a defintion that he knows to be true, and that's where he found it, so what?
Seems like a good source of information that at Michigan State University has decided is academic enough. (no MSU jokes please from you Wolverine Fans)
Click to expand...

i think the point is that positing any "fact" you find from one source as truth is suspect at best. Any competant researcher must always corroborate sources to find if the fact is valid.

So citing wikipedia for anything is 1/2 way there, but you would then need to corroborate it against other sources. So for instance, citing wikipedia, and then say articles written by Acoustic Engineers on the definitions of stereo and mono would go a long way to establishing "the truth".
 
NYMorningstar said:
Nah, it wasa POC Sony mic but the VP88 shure looks good, how does it sound?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the VP88 does look good but I think
I heard it's pretty light on the bass.
 
RAK said:
..but if you check your facts and ultimately site Wikipedia, what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing.

You'll notice that I keep referring to the problem as being those that cite Wikipedia as an authorative source and/or that don't second source that information. What worries me is that the multitudes of lazy people (I don't mean you or J2S at all) on the Internet are going to use only Wikipedia as their go-to source for information and the masses will be filled with the same misinformation.

Yes, I have talked to corporate PIs (I have an old friend who's father is a corporate PI) and have seen and read interviews and pieces in magazines and on TV, with people with a lot more credentials that I have, including an interview with the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, all talking about this subject.

Wales himself admitted that Wikipedia was still in a nacent form and they
were still working out the bugs and that "in a few years" they might have the wrinkles ironed out.

In the time I have been on this board there are a handful of times where a thread got deep and required doing a little homework before continuing with the next post. I'd say that there have been maybe a half dozen times where I have done this. I'm not sure how many of those times I referenced Wikipedia, but it was certainly not all 6 times, maybe four of those times. Let's be generous, though and say it was all 6 times. Twice I found glaring errors in the Wikipedia entry. One had to do with Wikipedia's treatment of the origins of FireWire where they got the history backwards. I can't recall what the other instance was; I've been trying to search threads to find it but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. Anyway, that is a minimum 33% error rate for me for using it as a source for audio engineering information, which is so far beyond unacceptable as to be laughable.

Look, RAK, I don't mean to slight your sister and her project. And I'm not saying that Wikipedia is worthless. There are some subjects where they are spot on and solid, others where they get very in-depth. But they are uneven and unreliable to the degree that unless one knows the subject better enough themselves to be able to seperate the signal from the noise, they are not going to know just how much of what they are citing is signal and how much is noise. And when you have a potential 33% noise level, that's a pretty serious problem.

G.
 
NYMorningstar said:
Nah, it wasa POC Sony mic but the VP88 shure looks good, how does it sound?
Click to expand...

Dude, the VP88 is an awesome sounding mic. I love that thing. It's pricey, but well worth it.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Absolutely nothing.

You'll notice that I keep referring to the problem as being those that cite Wikipedia as an authorative source and/or that don't second source that information. What worries me is that the multitudes of lazy people (I don't mean you or J2S at all) on the Internet are going to use only Wikipedia as their go-to source for information and the masses will be filled with the same misinformation.

Yes, I have talked to corporate PIs (I have an old friend who's father is a corporate PI) and have seen and read interviews and pieces in magazines and on TV, with people with a lot more credentials that I have, including an interview with the creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, all talking about this subject.

Wales himself admitted that Wikipedia was still in a nacent form and they
were still working out the bugs and that "in a few years" they might have the wrinkles ironed out.

In the time I have been on this board there are a handful of times where a thread got deep and required doing a little homework before continuing with the next post. I'd say that there have been maybe a half dozen times where I have done this. I'm not sure how many of those times I referenced Wikipedia, but it was certainly not all 6 times, maybe four of those times. Let's be generous, though and say it was all 6 times. Twice I found glaring errors in the Wikipedia entry. One had to do with Wikipedia's treatment of the origins of FireWire where they got the history backwards. I can't recall what the other instance was; I've been trying to search threads to find it but it's like finding a needle in a haystack. Anyway, that is a minimum 33% error rate for me for using it as a source for audio engineering information, which is so far beyond unacceptable as to be laughable.

Look, RAK, I don't mean to slight your sister and her project. And I'm not saying that Wikipedia is worthless. There are some subjects where they are spot on and solid, others where they get very in-depth. But they are uneven and unreliable to the degree that unless one knows the subject better enough themselves to be able to seperate the signal from the noise, they are not going to know just how much of what they are citing is signal and how much is noise. And when you have a potential 33% noise level, that's a pretty serious problem.

G.
Click to expand...

You didn't offend me at all. You said that citing Wikipedia is one of the "seven signs of the apocolypse." To me, that was a lot like saying it was worthless, which I disagree with, and it seems you do to.

At no point did anyone claim Wikipedia is the be all and end all of information. It's a public works project, of course it's going to have some issues, particularly in the early stages, that goes without saying.

Besides, doesn't Wikipedia itself often link it's listings to outside, more academic, sources such as society journal articles.

Jimmy2sticks liked the definition they gave so he cited it. He liked the defiinition because he already knows the answer and thought this was a good explanation, and then it got attacked. That seemed a little off to me
 
brendandwyer said:
i think the point is that positing any "fact" you find from one source as truth is suspect at best. Any competant researcher must always corroborate sources to find if the fact is valid.

So citing wikipedia for anything is 1/2 way there, but you would then need to corroborate it against other sources. So for instance, citing wikipedia, and then say articles written by Acoustic Engineers on the definitions of stereo and mono would go a long way to establishing "the truth".
Click to expand...

How do you know AES members aren't contributing to Wikipedia? Look at the sources for the wikiepedia entery on "stereo," one of them is an IEEE journal.
 
RAK said:
You didn't offend me at all. You said that citing Wikipedia is one of the "seven signs of the apocolypse." To me, that was a lot like saying it was worthless, which I disagree with, and it seems you do to.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe "worthless" is a bit strong, I wouldn't say that it's worthless. It is a very interesting social expiriment, if nothing else. And beyond that, yes it does contain plenty of good and useful information.

My own problem with Wikipedia is the general idea upon which it is based; that the general public can be trusted to police itself well enough to put out a quality product. The idea that any Walters with a modem and a keyboard can go ahead and make entries and edits into the Wikipedia database and that the lion's share of the policing is left to everybody else with a modem and keyboard (and no other guaranteed qualifications) just sends shivers of worry down my back. Sure, Wiki has some good volunteer fact-checkers that work on this stuff full time, and I don't want to knock them, but because of the sheer logistics involved, they are about as effective as the US Border Patrol (who's members I also am not knocking) at keeping out the problem. And even when they do find a correction, that doesn't stop simple vangalism from repeating itself like graffitti on a freshly whitewashed wall.

A key illogic to the Wiki system is that it requires someone of more or better authority on a subject to do a relaible job of fact-checking and quality control. Outside of pure voluenteerism or philanthropy, the number of experts on, say, coal mining who are going to need to look something up on coal mining on Wikipedia - and therefore find an error which they will correct - is relatively small. Hell, in at least 2 out of 6 times I checked what Wikipedia had to say about something having to do with audio engineering, I found errors, and I am not anything close to a PhD on the subject. I have to wonder how many more there may have been that I took for truth just because I didn't happen to already know any better.

Attribution and responsibility would go a long way to helping. If one had to take credit (or blame) for any mods they made to Wiki information, if there were an author assigned to every article that basically became the ID'd "moderator" for that article, that would add an extra level of self-responsibility and policing that would increase the quality of the product. Perhaps Wiki might move more in that direction, but I doubt it will by much; that is just so against the spirit that's currently behind it.

RAK said:
Besides, doesn't Wikipedia itself often link it's listings to outside, more academic, sources such as society journal articles.
Click to expand...
Better to eliminate the public middleman and go straight to those journals.

RAK said:
Jimmy2sticks liked the definition they gave so he cited it. He liked the defiinition because he already knows the answer and thought this was a good explanation, and then it got attacked. That seemed a little off to me
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if it came off as an attack on Jimmy or his post. That's not what I meant at all. I tried to avoid that impression in my OP by saying I agreed with Jimbo's thread start and purpose.

My problem lies with Wikipedia itself. And even more so, perhaps, with the trend that it's becoming insome fashons the new Google. By that I mean it's fast becoming the Wal*Mart of information recourses, the cheap and easy one-stop and only-stop for information. It's fast becoming the Internet authority for all things encyclopedic, much as Google has very unfortunately become for many the one-stop shop for all things searchable.

I didn't intend to jump on J2S in the least bit. I apologize, Jimmy, if it came off that way. I appreciate your contribution to the debate and the attempt to put some perspective into it.

But when I hear phrasing along the lines of "let's settle the debate by going to Wikipedia" - which is close to how J2S put it - there come those spine shivers again. I really worry that Wiki is perceived as becoming the authority, the judge, the jury for all facts Internet, when the truth is, Wiki is statistically and fundamentally one of the least qualified places to go for an authorative answer on any given randomly-selected subject.

G.
 
I don't disagree with the rest of what you said. There are definetly errors I've found too, and it should not be taken as the be all and end all of factual information.

SouthSIDE Glen said:
Better to eliminate the public middleman and go straight to those journals.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what this forum is though, a public middleman?
 
Last edited:
RAK said:
I don't disagree with the rest of what you said. There are definetly errors I've found too, and it should be taken as the the be all and end all of factual information.



Isn't that what this forum is though, a public middleman?
Click to expand...

Southside - I asked you this question intially and never got an answer. This forum is open source at it's best. What is the difference? We make mistakes on here, others correct us. Pool of knowledge.
 
RAK said:
Isn't that what this forum is though, a public middleman?
Click to expand...
And anybody who trusts this forum as their authorative source for audio engineering information is a fool. The signal to noise ratio on this forum is about that of a 100mW CB radio in a hailstorm. This place makes Wikipedia look like it was chisled out onto stone tablets by a firey bush :D.

This forum is a fine resource as far as it goes. It's just that it doesn't go all that far. You don't see anybody say - at least I sure HOPE you don't - "Lets settle this question by going to HomeRecording.com." ;)

G.
 
jimmy2sticks said:
Southside - I asked you this question intially and never got an answer. This forum is open source at it's best. What is the difference? We make mistakes on here, others correct us. Pool of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Jimmy, I must have missed that post. I'll let my above response to RAK serve as the response to this as well.

G.
 
No, you don't here people saying lets go to homerecording to settle this (or do you?), however, just like this forum, I have used other forums for different topics to get where I need to be. Five years ago I knew nothing about Linux. Using google and user forums I am now the proud father of a webhosting and email company running all Linux servers. Yes, there were some posts that were total BS, however, I made it through and I understand how to use it. I also used wikipedia for terminolgy I didn't understand. It's the same here, there is crap that isn't true, but there is also valuable information.

I never said let's go to wikipedia to answer this, I only posted the llinks to two valuable definitions on there. I could have written that exact thing in a post instead of posting a link, and since the information for Stereo and Mono at wikipedia is correct, you would have never known. You would have accepted my defintions. If the information is correct, what is wrong with it?

And just to point out, nothing is actually 100% accurate. There will always be misinformation. No matter what source. School books are a great example of this. I learned some lies at a young age about history, directly out of school books, but we aren't getting rid of that, right? I think wikipedia would have taught me much better. :)
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
And anybody who trusts this forum as their authorative source for audio engineering information is a fool.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't this be a place for authorative, or at least accurate, scientific information regarding audio engineering. At least I assumed there would be some of that. Maybe it's because my training and education as both a musician and audio engineer has been through academic learnin', that I assumed this board would be a place for those with similar backgrounds (or really any background) to come together to share ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top