View Full Version : Soundstage
Another thread regarding people's interpretation of musicality got me thinking about the term soundstage.
I get the principle but certain comments I've read in reviews and on forums make me wonder how much is real and how much is imagined? (obviously everything is an illusion as however our brains my interpret it differently the fact is that the music is simply coming out of the two boxes)
Something that makes me sway towards the latter is the difference between listening to the same recording through speakers and headphones, if for example when listening through speakers an instrument sounds to be coming from beyond the left of the left speaker when listening to the same track through headphones (which are rotated 45 degrees) that same instrument would sound as though it is coming from behind your left ear.
Any thoughts?
I suppose it's gonna depend on how your brain is coping with the aural information(assuming it's getting the info in first place) as to where anyone places instruments and voices.
Simple things like moving sounds front left to right and back most folk will get but soundstage, a lot of folk don't.
Echos from room can also confuse the brain as well in this department. Separation of instruments is best many will hear
Covenant
15-10-2018, 07:20
I suppose it's gonna depend on how your brain is coping with the aural information(assuming it's getting the info in first place) as to where anyone places instruments and voices.
Simple things like moving sounds front left to right and back most folk will get but soundstage, a lot of folk don't.
Echos from room can also confuse the brain as well in this department. Separation of instruments is best many will hear
Naaa, dont agree with that at all. I have always found that a good system, set up properly produces a nice soundstage if its there in the recording. IMHO of course.
Ali Tait
15-10-2018, 07:24
I think it depends how sensitive you are to phase changes. I have read somewhere that a certain percentage of people can’t hear a soundstage.
Headphones don't have a soundstage anyway.
Nobody mixes and masters for headphone listening. I've never understood why anyone would voluntarily listen to music on headphones.
For me it is the speaker crossover in particular that preserves the soundstage. Phase distortion causes bits of music to hit you at different times, and smears timing, which kills the soundstage.
The recording ultimately dictates it though, you cannot magically make a flat and harsh recording 3D and natural.
As for defining it, for me it is about reproducing the sense of space and rhythm on the recording.
Only binaural recordings can really have a soundstage on headphones. Slapping two mini speakers to your head in stereo gives no space for a soundstage, whereas binaural does.
Headphones don't have a soundstage anyway.
Nobody mixes and masters for headphone listening. I've never understood why anyone would voluntarily listen to music on headphones.
they do actually, especially open backed ones, its just not as obvious.
as i said, imo soundstage and image are mostly down to speaker/room interaction along with ones brain being able to hear it. Sealed speakers will usually have good soundstages. Some think this soundstage should be behind the speaker, but i dont agree, it can start in front as well.
On a good system you can hear Soundstage outside the speakers (width), above and below the speakers (height) and also forwards and backwards (depth), providing of course its on the recording :)
Haselsh1
15-10-2018, 11:04
Yeah soundstage is very important for me. The imaging I currently have is way, way wider than the speakers and has a great depth in the centre. I have noticed the whole thing more with my current system though than with previous systems. My current speakers though are a pain to set up being the pickiest bloody speakers I have ever owned. Oh yeah, of course as already stated, the recording has quite a lot to do with it.
they do actually, especially open backed ones, its just not as obvious.
as i said, imo soundstage and image are mostly down to speaker/room interaction along with ones brain being able to hear it. Sealed speakers will usually have good soundstages. Some think this soundstage should be behind the speaker, but i dont agree, it can start in front as well.
We'll have to disagree. Mixing for soundstage isn't done on headphones. You need speakers to create a soundstage. I don't know what phenomena/illusion you are talking about with headphones but it isn't anything created intentionally in the studio.
Soundstage should always be behind the plane of the speakers as well. Soundstage 'in front' of the speakers is wrong, it shows that the system is not accurate.
I'd be interested in a pointer to any psychological research that shows that some people cannot hear stereo effects (unless their hearing is damaged). That sounds very unlikely to me.
It's something that fascinates me, how people hear things differently, technically all the soundstage effects we hear are nothing but illusions.
Most audiophiles, myself included, refer to soundstage but trying to explain or demonstrate it is difficult. For example if somebody names a specific track and states where a particular instrument appears to be would everybody agree on the placement?
It's something that fascinates me, how people hear things differently, technically all the soundstage effects we hear are nothing but illusions.
Most audiophiles, myself included, refer to soundstage but trying to explain or demonstrate it is difficult. For example if somebody names a specific track and states where a particular instrument appears to be would everybody agree on the placement?
You're talking more about imaging.
Soundstage is the sense of space in a recording, whereas imaging deals with the placement of instruments.
These are not illusions, but are present in the recording, and should be able to be conveyed by the speakers. However, different speakers will preserve soundstage and imaging differently, so comparisons are difficult. If 6 people were listening to the same song on the same system, then they'd probably agree on the placement.
It's interesting that soundstage and imaging as yet have no correlated metrics. Some of the effect probably depends on our own experience of real acoustics and instruments but the lack of measurements is a big hole.
It's interesting that soundstage and imaging as yet have no correlated metrics. Some of the effect probably depends on our own experience of real acoustics and instruments but the lack of measurements is a big hole.
Indeed. One of the areas where the ears are the only real way to measure it.
Headphones don't have a soundstage anyway.
Nobody mixes and masters for headphone listening. I've never understood why anyone would voluntarily listen to music on headphones.
Agree! Which is why I can't understand the silly prices of "headphone amps."
Its a fascinating topic. I listen near field on open baffle speakers and have been stunned how changing just one component in the DAC can push the soundstage from between the speakers to the back of a concert hall.
When I say illusion I mean we may believe that sound is coming from between, in front of, or the sides of the speakers but they aren't, that is an illusion, the sound is actually coming from two boxes and nowhere else.
Thankfully our brains interpret the varying levels as what we call a soundstage.
Its a fascinating topic. I listen near field on open baffle speakers and have been stunned how changing just one component in the DAC can push the soundstage from between the speakers to the back of a concert hall.
To make matters even more confusing, some people like a “front row” presentation and others “mid row”... :D
To make matters even more confusing, some people like a “front row” presentation and others “mid row”... :D
That's true. In my system the speakers are physically close (near field) and it felt really strange to have the sound stage recessed.
I think all systems will do soundstage and imaging providing the room is not intrusive and the speakers are set up properly in relation to the listening position. And the mixing engineer has mixed it to give some illusion of depth etc.
The difference being you have to listen for it with lesser systems. The harder you listen the more it appears. With a really good, well set up system it is just there, you don't have to concentrate. You just sit there and marvel at it.
It's where the room matters most. My room is too narrow. With my present speakers which are pretty tall it's nothing to write home about, when I've had shorter speakers in the past it was better. I really need to treat the room or get shorter speakers or both. My new speakers will be shorter so I'm hoping that will help. When you hear a system that does it really well only then do you realise you want it. For me that was Gordon's system (Halfway Tree on here) with his Linkwitz speakers. I didn't believe it was physically possible to get imaging and soundstage that good until I heard that set up.
Halfway Tree
16-10-2018, 14:59
Thanks, Martin - and you are spot on with the room and the mixing engineer. If the mixing engineer has done a good job then I think the secret sauce for speakers that image well and produce a big soundstage is polar response (ie driver radiation pattern or directivity). The shape of the upper baffle on the LX521 is designed to ensure that the radiation pattern is the same (well, as near as possible) for all frequencies even though there are three different drivers involved. Siegfried Linkwitz, Earl Geddes and Floyd Toole, all designers that I admire, are proponents of constant directivity design for speakers.
Some of the best new speakers I've heard in the last few years are the Kii Threes and the Dutch & Dutch 8Cs. Both are using DSP to control directivity and I've always been impressed by the soundstage and imaging whenever I've heard these speakers. I guess you can say they are a new generation of speakers in a way as they are almost completely self-contained - fully active with amps for each driver in the box, dsp and connectivity for just about whatever source components you want to use. But mix and match they are not so may take the fun out of this hobby for some.
When it comes to soundstage I think the physical size can have a major impact. I've just started experimenting with my Maggies in a 5.1 configuration (MG2.5Rs for L/R, CC2 for centre, MG1s for surrounds) together with the LX521 bass modules. This is as close to what Toole calls envelopment as I've heard. The images are more diffuse than what I get with the LX521, but are positioned nicely in the soundstage. Although the LX521 can throw a big soundtage the Maggie 5.1 system is grander in scale and has a very relaxed, but still detailed presentation. I've never had much desire to go down the multi speaker route, but they have been quite a revelation.
https://i.imgur.com/JDsHhvr.jpg
We'll have to disagree. Mixing for soundstage isn't done on headphones. You need speakers to create a soundstage. I don't know what phenomena/illusion you are talking about with headphones but it isn't anything created intentionally in the studio.
Soundstage should always be behind the plane of the speakers as well. Soundstage 'in front' of the speakers is wrong, it shows that the system is not accurate.
I'd be interested in a pointer to any psychological research that shows that some people cannot hear stereo effects (unless their hearing is damaged). That sounds very unlikely to me.
Depends on the recording: on a few the soloist can apper to be slightly in front of the plane of the speakers.
But in general most of the soundstage should appear to lay behind the speakers. And the width of the soundstage can, and often will, extend beyond the speakers.
As the late Peter Walker of Quad said "somewhere just beyond the plane of the speakers, the walls of your listening room should disappear and be replaced by those of the auditorium ".
This is one aspect that is interesting, most speakers don't project sound backwards so how does the soundstage appear to be behind them?
Idlewithnodrive
16-10-2018, 20:15
[QUOTE
As the late Peter Walker of Quad said "somewhere just beyond the plane of the speakers, the walls of your listening room should disappear and be replaced by those of the auditorium ".[/QUOTE]
Soundstage and imaging are the most important elements in my Hi-Fi replay. The above quote illustrates perfectly how my current set-up performs and is what I aim for. I do listen near field though, which helps, as room reflections are minimal.
mightymonoped
16-10-2018, 20:32
[QUOTE
As the late Peter Walker of Quad said "somewhere just beyond the plane of the speakers, the walls of your listening room should disappear and be replaced by those of the auditorium ".
Soundstage and imaging are the most important elements in my Hi-Fi replay. The above quote illustrates perfectly how my current set-up performs and is what I aim for. I do listen near field though, which helps, as room reflections are minimal.[/QUOTE]
Same [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sq225917
16-10-2018, 21:14
Isn't it a combination if speaker polar response, boundary and reflection, mic placement and head related transfer function.
Everyone hears it differently based on hrtf.
I was at a piano recital on Saturday, Angela Hewitt in the round at the Crucible, there was no soundstage at all, just a piano in the middle of the room with no reflections to speak of, just mono sound coming from a six by ten foot space. Totally unlike any gig I've ever been to.
Lawrence001
16-10-2018, 21:20
No. There's a fundamental difference between headphones and loudspeakers: when listening with headphones the left ear can only hear the left channel, whereas with speakers the left ear can hear both channels. Same for the right ear, obviously. So with headphones there is strict channel separation but with speakers there's a certain amount of "bleed" between channels.
Binaural recordings are designed for headphone playback.
Yes, I agree.There are headphone amps with crossfeed that electronically create the L/R crosstalk, I had a Meier Audio one and liked the facility.
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
There are headphone amps with crossfeed that electronically create the L/R crosstalk, I had a Meier Audio one and liked the facility.
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
Yup jriver does it too
This is one aspect that is interesting, most speakers don't project sound backwards so how does the soundstage appear to be behind them?
This clip answers your question at around 5 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI7DA886-9o
OI7DA886-9o
This clip answers your question at around 5 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI7DA886-9o
OI7DA886-9o
I would disagree with his opinion... Mic placement and varies so much and many mics are not directional.
Music moves outwards from the source. Speakers should reproduce this.
My view on speakers is the better they are, the more 3d or room filling they are.. most speakers do a decent placement or image in 2d( between the speakers) but a decent 3 d oom filling image it seems to go hand in hand with a higher resolution system.
AJSki2fly
19-10-2018, 10:53
Personally I have always found soundstage and imaging of instruments very important to my listening experience for me. A recording that gives good instrument separation and definition and placement I always find more enjoyable than one that presents a rather flat soundscape. A rather good example of this is Paul McCartney's - Press to Play album, for each track there is a diagram showing the placement of each instrument and voices, my system reflects this quite well if I sit in the listening sweet spot. Most of Alan Parson's Project album are well engineered and do so very well.
Some live recordings I find quite frustrating when the soundstage is quiet flat and it seems to be just a wall of sound, I presume this is due to the recording being taken straight from the mixing desk and then not re-mixed properly for the cutting of the record/CD etc.
This clip answers your question at around 5 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI7DA886-9o
OI7DA886-9o
Not really, it doesn't explain how a speaker can project sound backwards.
Speakers project sound forwards so how can what he says possibly be correct?
The speaker doesn't really project sound backwards, it's a combination of the panning and the differences in level between the various tracks on the recording that create the illusion of a 3 dimensional space behind, above and to the sides of the speakers. It's what your brain creates from the various cues set up by this method.
Or in the case of an acoustic recording the reflections from the boundaries of the recording space being captured by the mics, again your brain will use these to create the impression.
The sound isn't actually moving backwards from the speakers, it is moving forward into your ears and being processed by your brain. Only then does it seem like the sound is originating behind the speakers.
The way i see it is that if your system is setup correctly and you play a good recording the sound presented fools you into the perception of a 3D space.
If you close your eyes and listen (disabling one of your senses), you are presented with information that your brain tries to make sense of by creating a mental picture or image
This image is formed using the timing of the sound produced by the speaker, both direct and reflected, the room shape, decor, furniture placement, speaker position, seating position etc. all come into play.
Try to think of the air as water and the sound as ripples/waves, when the waves from each speaker meet they crash together and dependent on phase /frequency will either add together or cancel each other, your ears pick up on this and the picture is formed.
I hope im not rambling...and that some of this make sense to someone else ;o)
This is what I was getting at, as it is all interpretations surely it's fair to say that everybody interprets the "imagined" image differently?
Somebody earlier referred to an album that actually lists instrument placement, what intrigues me is if you got 100 people and asked them to listen to a track from that album, on the same system in the same room, and place the instruments how many would get it right and how many variations would there be?
Experiment for a bake-off anybody?
You’d all have to use the same listening chair of course, and be at the same ear height. It’d be like audiophile musical chairs with booster seats. D
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The speaker doesn't really project sound backwards, it's a combination of the panning and the differences in level between the various tracks on the recording that create the illusion of a 3 dimensional space behind, above and to the sides of the speakers. It's what your brain creates from the various cues set up by this method.
Or in the case of an acoustic recording the reflections from the boundaries of the recording space being captured by the mics, again your brain will use these to create the impression.
The sound isn't actually moving backwards from the speakers, it is moving forward into your ears and being processed by your brain. Only then does it seem like the sound is originating behind the speakers.
Martin, some do Electrostatic panels, Radials and open baffle.
Some so much you need a sally or curtains. I had a large pair of Sound Labs that had to be out 4 ft. from the walls for that reason.
Some Snells and Bose even had rear facing drivers ,silly but true.
Depends on the recording: on a few the soloist can apper to be slightly in front of the plane of the speakers.
But in general most of the soundstage should appear to lay behind the speakers. And the width of the soundstage can, and often will, extend beyond the speakers.
As the late Peter Walker of Quad said "somewhere just beyond the plane of the speakers, the walls of your listening room should disappear and be replaced by those of the auditorium ".
A lot has to do with the phasing of the various elements in a recording as well.
Martin, some do Electrostatic panels, Radials and open baffle.
Some so much you need a sally or curtains. I had a large pair of Sound Labs that had to be out 4 ft. from the walls for that reason.
Some Snells and Bose even had rear facing drivers ,silly but true.
my point was that even the rear wave must bounce back to you for you to hear it. Or it cancels the front wave, either way the sound has to travel towards you at some point for you to hear it, it isn't just doing it's own thing round the back of the speakers.
Light Dependant Resistor
04-11-2018, 09:29
The JR149 is a speaker that seems to get rear radiation correct, sound behind the cabinet see's a round surface
so would appear to assist the sound there to continue without undue reflection and I think to be far more accurate,
as far as reflected sound goes.
Pigmy Pony
04-11-2018, 10:11
Back in the eighties there was a speaker that had a baffle for a top surface, that held several small speakers all pointing in different directions. Queer looking thing, and wouldn't win any beauty contests. I think the name was Sonab.
Light Dependant Resistor
04-11-2018, 10:21
Yes the Sonab speakers, were indeed quite good and carried sound into a room effectively, they were designed by Stig Carlsson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_bPbSaq2yQ
walpurgis
04-11-2018, 10:21
Back in the eighties there was a speaker that had a baffle for a top surface, that held several small speakers all pointing in different directions. Queer looking thing, and wouldn't win any beauty contests. I think the name was Sonab.
Sonabs were at their height of popularity in the seventies. The other name that springs to mind is Shahinian, who have made somewhat similar speakers for many years. Duevel Planets offer much the same too.
Frazeur1
04-11-2018, 10:35
The Larsen line took over where Stig and Sonab left off after his death. The Larsen line made some improvements over the later Sonab/Ortho Acoustics line, and were a good deal better than the earlier Sonab, but they too were a lot of fun.
Having owned a lot of omnidirectional speakers, Ohm Walsh, Shahinian, Larsen and now my Duevel Venus, have to say they just work marvelously well in my room.
walpurgis
04-11-2018, 10:43
Nobody has mentioned the Bose 901 speakers, which had nine small drivers. Eight pointing backwards and one forwards.
The sound was quite spectacular, with very tight, solid bass and a presentation different to anything else. An active equaliser was used to compensate for the otherwise early bass roll-off. It worked!
Here are the original seventies ones with grilles off.
Front http://i67.tinypic.com/opcm1c.jpg
Back http://i66.tinypic.com/28sxbpw.jpg
If your amplifier can handle it, you will be surprised by what you will hear as far as a soundstage is concerned, if you take a feed from the positive speaker terminal of one stereo channel and another from the negative terminal of the other channel, and connect them to a full-range speaker placed behind your listening position. It will only reproduce the out-of-phase components of the recording. This works especially well with Decca Phase 4 recordings which have lots of out of phase content. I used to do this with my Quad mono blocks. Don't know how it would affect other amplifiers. Others here might know.
walpurgis
04-11-2018, 11:19
It's a derivative of the Hafler pseudo quadraphonic circuit, there are many versions.
You need an amp with common output negatives, easy to check with a meter or just look at the circuit diagram. It does not require a full range driver, as most of the information is in the mid and treble so a tweeter works well. Use as high an impedance unit as you can find to avoid upsetting the amp. A capacitor can be used in series to protect the tweeter (and amp). Try a 6uF or smaller.
Light Dependant Resistor
04-11-2018, 11:20
Something which most of us can access or already have in our CD collections are recordings that convey acoustic space
almost regardless of speakers used
Artificially added effects like Q sound, Pink Floyds Pulse and Roger Waters Amused to Death have this Q sound effect added
are not really very accurate, but never the less worth hearing.
Where equalization or tone controls are used these are are not accurate and sadly are a departure from ever hearing what was recorded
properly. The exception is when they are in the form of emphasis and de-emphasis which can assist
Recordings of simple acoustic spaces typically found on the ECM label are far better and IMO convey very accurate information.
What I like is the inside sleeve to show the venue where the recording was made
Artificially added effects like Q sound, Pink Floyds Pulse and Roger Waters Amused to Death have this Q sound effect added
are not really very accurate, but never the less worth hearing.
They are part of the artistic choice in creating the recording so how can they be inaccurate? Inaccurate is when the replay system does not reproduce the recording as it was intended to be heard.
my point was that even the rear wave must bounce back to you for you to hear it. Or it cancels the front wave, either way the sound has to travel towards you at some point for you to hear it, it isn't just doing it's own thing round the back of the speakers.
Fair enough , I get it now.
In the 70s I tried connecting the +ve of each channel to a speaker placed behind the listener, and this derived a differential signal.
If the +ve is connected to a speaker. and the -ve to the other channel's ground, it will be effectively in parallel with that channel
Light Dependant Resistor
04-11-2018, 18:55
They are part of the artistic choice in creating the recording so how can they be inaccurate? Inaccurate is when the replay system does not reproduce the recording as it was intended to be heard.
It is inaccurate because it is an added effect, and not part of the original performance, that is if we view the more exciting possibility of the same
recording made prior to that devices insertion. Quite correctly you point as the artist choice at the time, however we should encompass the
possibility that it is now a decision, made with regret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound#cite_note-2
"QSound is essentially a filtering algorithm. It manipulates timing, amplitude and frequency response to produce a binaural image. Systems like QSound rely on the fact that a sound arriving from one side of the listener will reach one ear before the other and that when it reaches the furthest ear, it is lower in amplitude and spectrally altered due to obstruction by the head. However, the ideal algorithm was arrived at empirically, with parameters adjusted according to the outcomes of many listening tests.
It is inaccurate because it is an added effect, and not part of the original performance,.
But with almost every recording there are numerous effects added post recording and with most there is no 'original performance', it's hundreds of different tracks built up over time and then put together. Even a single guitar solo might be 3 or 4 takes spliced together. There's not that many purist recordings like you are talking about. I suppose there are some in classical music but I wouldn't know about that.
In the 70s I tried connecting the +ve of each channel to a speaker placed behind the listener, and this derived a differential signal.
If the +ve is connected to a speaker. and the -ve to the other channel's ground, it will be effectively in parallel with that channel
Quite correct. I stand corrected. It's the two positives that should be used.
I find it pretty amazing sometimes what recording engineers achieve with regard to soundstage and spaciousness on some recordings.
A while ago I bought a CD called The Lifespring by Clifford White (formerly of the BBC Radiophonic Workshop, who did the original Dr.Who theme music) and on one of the tracks the recording effects produce the most expansive soundstage I’ve ever heard, the track is called Lifestream, some sounds seem to be coming from the side of the listening position as well as level with and behind the speakers, the first time I played it I was totally gobsmacked [emoji55]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Haselsh1
16-11-2018, 16:43
I find it pretty amazing sometimes what recording engineers achieve with regard to soundstage and spaciousness on some recordings.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Hell, me too.
Sherwood
16-11-2018, 18:25
For me, "soundstage" refers to the reproduction of music in such a way as to recreate the actual placement of performers and instruments relative to the microphone and the room in which the performance was recorded. A realistic soundstage requires the use of a single stereo microphone and reveals something about the acoustics of the room in which the recording was made.
When multiple microphones and multi track recording is used what we hear is not a soundstage, it is a "mix". It is the result of the engineer's decisions about how to balance tacks and how much prominence to give them in the mix. Indeed, individual tracks may well have been recorded at different times or even in different locations.
Geoff
Someone here must have done the barber thing on earphones. Sounds coming from all around, very believable ( even in mp3!). I just don’t think music producers think that much about spacial sound effect, they have more important things to consider. It’s probably why Q thingy never really took off.
OK let's put this to the test.
Somebody pick a track and identify where a particular instrument appears to be and we'll see if everybody heads the same thing
Sherwood
16-11-2018, 20:46
OK let's put this to the test.
Somebody pick a track and identify where a particular instrument appears to be and we'll see if everybody heads the same thing
Needs to be a live recording with no overdubs
OK let's put this to the test.
Somebody pick a track and identify where a particular instrument appears to be and we'll see if everybody heads the same thing
The Doors - Riders On The storm - Manzerek's keyboard is down towards bottom left on all the zillion different systems I have owned.
Pigmy Pony
16-11-2018, 21:19
Needs to be a live recording with no overdubs
Surely not to try what Gary is asking, just needs to be the same pressing/issue.
Sherwood
16-11-2018, 21:36
Surely not to try what Gary is asking, just needs to be the same pressing/issue.
Anything that is recorded with multiple mics and then mixed is not a soundstage. The apparent placement of an instrument or performer is the outcome of decisions made by the engineer regarding left-right balance and track volume. The recording will appear to show performers in a 3d space, but it is artificially created. Not a representation of the recording environment and the performers within that environment. There will be no clues either as to the recording environment (i.e. a small room, a large hall, or open air).
Anything that is recorded with multiple mics and then mixed is not a soundstage. The apparent placement of an instrument or performer is the outcome of decisions made by the engineer regarding left-right balance and track volume. The recording will appear to show performers in a 3d space, but it is artificially created. Not a representation of the recording environment and the performers within that environment. There will be no clues either as to the recording environment (i.e. a small room, a large hall, or open air).
There will be cues to the environments the individual instruments were recorded in though. If they were recorded in an acoustic. The engineer can create a 3d soundstage from the individual tracks by panning and adjusting levels. I'd say that it is still a soundstage even if it is artificially created. And I think that does encompass the usual meaning of the word 'soundstage' in the recording industry.
I suppose a definition of 'soundstage' would help as I don't think we are all singing from the same sheet there.
Pigmy Pony
16-11-2018, 21:51
I think I see where you're coming from Geoff, that the apparent "soundstage" heard on a studio recording is actually just a construct of the sound engineer's doing, and the only true soundstage is created by the musicians performing in a live setting.
Only thing is, I have been to so many live events over the years, where sometimes I'm right at the front, right at the back, way over to one side, stuck behind the sound guys with no view of the stage, and in one case (at G-Mex) positioned so that the echo from the back wall was louder than what was coming from the stage.
My point being that 'soundstage' is probably a load of old tosh anyway.
Soundstage is only something you get with a recording, the word has no meaning applied to a live performance.
Not sure many engineers would say that it's a load of tosh given the efforts they put in to create a soundstage on the recording.
https://i.imgur.com/HQF19ht.jpg
All those controls aren't there just to fill up the space!
Sherwood
16-11-2018, 22:14
OK Semantics are important. Soundstage for me is the recreation of a live performance that provides auditory clues as the the relative position of the performers and the acoustics of the recording environment. Conversely, a mix is the editing decisions made by an engineer concerning the left-right balance and volume of individual tracks and any equalisation or special effects applied to those tracks (e.g. reverberation).
I accept that engineers can approximate a soundstage but it is an artificial construction. Indeed, the performers need not even be on the same continent when their inputs are recorded let alone in the same studio at the same time. If we appear to hear a 3D effect, it is because it has been engineered to give that impression. I do wonder sometimes if a track would sound better in mono because the engineering sounds so artificial.
Sherwood
16-11-2018, 22:23
Fascinoma by Jon Hassell and Ry Cooder has what I consider a natural soundstage. OK it was recorded with two mics, but you do get the sense of a performance by live musicians playing off each other in a real space.
Soundstage is only something you get with a recording, the word has no meaning applied to a live performance.
Really? - So all the jiggery pokery that goes on in the mixing booth at a live gig has no effect on which of the copious speakers in the venue pumps out which musicians?
Sound like all those engineers might as well go home after the sound check :lol:
Light Dependant Resistor
17-11-2018, 03:05
The Doors - Riders On The storm - Manzerek's keyboard is down towards bottom left on all the zillion different systems I have owned.
Yes that's where Ray is in the mix, his keyboard sounding like it was recorded in a separate booth of the studio. When Jim starts singing there is as a created delay added
with his vocal being another track of his vocal of approximately 1/10 of a second behind to give the impression of echo. At 2.52 a oh wow is heard. Kreiger on the right and Manzerek
on the left dual each side, the same technique later heard in much of deep Purples work with Lord and Blackmore. Jerry Scheff was the bass player on Riders On the Storm
appearing central in the mix John Densmore's cymbals and drums sounding crisp in each channel.
Pigmy Pony
17-11-2018, 06:29
The Doors - Riders On The storm - Manzerek's keyboard is down towards bottom left on all the zillion different systems I have owned.
I listened to 'Riders on the Storm' last night - surely you mean Manzarek's keyboard is bottom RIGHT? Tried it on both vinyl and CD.
I've recently been reassembling a system and still active in progressing to a near complete set up.
While the reassembling period was going on, I was waiting for the completion of 50% of a Monoblock build.
The completed 50%, was put into to use, as a psuedo stereo set up, split RCA, and shared speaker terminals.
After a period of listening, and being quite impressed by various experiences.
I spoke to the EE about my experiences and enquired about how the second monoblock would influence the sound, as I could not see room for improvement.
The EE, explained that I was listening in a type of mono arrangement, this would allow for a separation to be heard between performers in the soundstage, but the separation will be in line, no left or right. This I agreed with, and can recall commenting on the deep soundstage that was being produced.
I conjecture for this thread that if separation is present, then the height of the soundstage should be noticeable to.
The EE, then went onto explain, when the second Monoblock is introduced, the depth and separation will be maintained, but the stereo effect will introduce width, and the in line separation that has been heard, will move left and right of centre.
The description supplied by the EE, has proved true. A wide soundstage developed, with performers appearing off centre.
He also stated that while attending recording studios, where takes are being recorded in mono, on a very good set up, he can get confused as to listening to a Stereo or Mono recording, he said the Psycho Acoustic Effects
created can be confusing for the brain. I suppose that is something one has to experience to grasp the real meaning.
I personally like a perception of a soundstage to extend in width, past the centre axis of a speaker, as well as have a seamless depth, I find a soundstage that has a boundary that feels it is confined within the space between the speakers, not letting the sound appear to be beyond the outer sides of the speakers, as well as have what appears to be a defined horizon line in the depth, a detractor, usually when sensing these limits,
I find it very hard not to focus on the limitations.
On the other hand, I'll listen to the Laptop built in speakers or CD in a car, thoroughly enjoy the moment, and couldn't give a Hoot :mental:.
The obsession with a systems performance and constant wrestling with the what next ??, exactly what I am trudging through at the moment, IMO, is the real detractor to enjoying our treasured music collections.
Pigmy Pony
17-11-2018, 07:14
Yeah it's a strange one - We like our toys, we like to tinker (well not me, I only have to look at something and it breaks) and we love our music. I like to think that my system is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
But I do sometimes find myself playing something because it sounds good, not just because I want to hear that particular track/album. There I said it. :(
Its a fascinating topic. I listen near field on open baffle speakers and have been stunned how changing just one component in the DAC can push the soundstage from between the speakers to the back of a concert hall.
ive heard the same sort of thing when listening to different interconnects recently,i also listen near field and noticed a big difference in soundstage height and width when i used karma interconnects.how a cable can do this is beyond me??
Really? - So all the jiggery pokery that goes on in the mixing booth at a live gig has no effect on which of the copious speakers in the venue pumps out which musicians?
Sound like all those engineers might as well go home after the sound check :lol:
You adjust levels but your not panning the feeds from left to right are you? Or have you never worked the desk?
I listened to 'Riders on the Storm' last night - surely you mean Manzarek's keyboard is bottom RIGHT? Tried it on both vinyl and CD.
left as you look at it from the listening position. Right hand side from his point of view.
Jamie
Not being a Physician, I can offer a laymans explanation.
It is known as the Elasticated/Ladder Effect, attributed to different cables :scratch:
Yeah it's a strange one - We like our toys, we like to tinker (well not me, I only have to look at something and it breaks) and we love our music. I like to think that my system is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
:(
off topic I suppose but for me it is both. I like to listen to my music but I also like to tinker with the system, try different components, just to see what happens. I sometimes buy kit that I have no intention of making a permanent part of the system purely because I'm interested to see how it sounds. I view it as a completely separate pastime from just listening to music.
Okay so this does mean I have ended up with a house full of equipment that doesn't get used. On the other hand last year when I had a friend who had just moved here from overseas tell me he needed a hi fi I was able to offer him a fairly wide choice of speakers, amps, turntables, cd players, speaker cables and interconnects. He picked out a complete system and is very happy with it.
I view it as a completely separate pastime from just listening to music.
Gotta agree with that Martin :)
For me one of the best soundstage tests is Dead Can Dance - Toward The Within. This is an exquisitely produced live album with a vast sound. If you feel like you’re being pulled into the venue, then you have a good soundstage.
You adjust levels but your not panning the feeds from left to right are you? Or have you never worked the desk?
I guess 1967 and beyond passed you by then :lol:
<"If the joystick was upright, the sound was centered, but moving it diagonally would dispatch the sound to the speaker in the equivalent corner of the hall," Mason writes. "Rick could send his keyboard sounds swirling around the auditorium, or make footsteps — supplied from a Revox tape recorder — apparently march across from one side to the other."
Those footsteps, among other effects, were supplied by the band, who prepped special four-track tapes to feed through the Azimuth Coordinator. The various members recorded passages filled with electronic blips and backwards cymbal crashes. Bassist Roger Waters supplied maniacal laughter and synthetic bird sounds.>
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0512/
.. and yes - I have worked the desk at live gigs.
I guess 1967 and beyond passed you by then :lol:
<"If the joystick was upright, the sound was centered, but moving it diagonally would dispatch the sound to the speaker in the equivalent corner of the hall," Mason writes. "Rick could send his keyboard sounds swirling around the auditorium, or make footsteps — supplied from a Revox tape recorder — apparently march across from one side to the other."
Those footsteps, among other effects, were supplied by the band, who prepped special four-track tapes to feed through the Azimuth Coordinator. The various members recorded passages filled with electronic blips and backwards cymbal crashes. Bassist Roger Waters supplied maniacal laughter and synthetic bird sounds.>
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech-0512/
.. and yes - I have worked the desk at live gigs.
And when you worked the desk were you doing any of what is described above? And how is that in any way similar to mixing a recording for replay on a home stereo system?
Comparing a live performance to the replay of a recording of the live performance on a domestic stereo system is comparing apples to oranges and it seems to generate a lot of confusion on hi-fi forums.
Comparing a live performance to the replay of a recording of the live performance on a domestic stereo system is comparing apples to oranges and it seems to generate a lot of confusion on hi-fi forums.
Only because people assume that there is some kind of 'realistic' link between one very artificial (electronic) situation and another completely artificial (electronic) situation .. as you point out
The only tenable comparison is possibly concerning acoustic sets and recorded renditions of those ... even then mic characteristics and placement coupled with room acoustics can play havoc with any notion of 'realism' (leaving out a whole host of other factors such as instrument projection, playing style, etc, etc,...)
Only because people assume that there is some kind of 'realistic' link between one very artificial (electronic) situation and another completely artificial (electronic) situation .. as you point out
The only tenable comparison is possibly concerning acoustic sets and recorded renditions of those ... even then mic characteristics and placement coupled with room acoustics can play havoc with any notion of 'realism' (leaving out a whole host of other factors such as instrument projection, playing style, etc, etc,...)
Yes, exactly.
Hi-fidelity replay is about accuracy to the recording not accuracy to the live performance, or accuracy to what happened in the recording studio. The finished recording is our starting point, what happened prior to that is totally irrelevant.
Trying to gauge the competence of a hi-fi system by comparing it to a live performance makes no sense whatsoever. It's like trying to assess the quality of a photograph of a strawberry by comparing it with the experience of eating the strawberry. If that makes sense? (Probably not but I can't think of a better analogy right now).
Trying to gauge the competence of a hi-fi system by comparing it to a live performance makes no sense whatsoever. It's like trying to assess the quality of a photograph of a strawberry by comparing it with the experience of eating the strawberry. If that makes sense? (Probably not but I can't think of a better analogy right now).
I get the analogy ;)
I remember yonks ago chatting to a sax player who talked about the difference between 'playing the hall' and 'playing the microphone' - he hated transducers or mics stuffed in his bell because they robbed him of these opportunities ... although hall mixers loved 'em because it gave them the illusion of total control.
I also remember run-ins with sound mixers who always wanted to stuff my bass drum full of blankets (it was already damped) ... killing it dead. One actually asked me if I'd considered replacing it with a sheet of wood :rolleyes:
(although I think he was taking the piss...)
Light Dependant Resistor
17-11-2018, 12:28
Yes, exactly.
Hi-fidelity replay is about accuracy to the recording not accuracy to the live performance, or accuracy to what happened in the recording studio. The finished recording is our starting point, what happened prior to that is totally irrelevant.
Trying to gauge the competence of a hi-fi system by comparing it to a live performance makes no sense whatsoever. It's like trying to assess the quality of a photograph of a strawberry by comparing it with the experience of eating the strawberry. If that makes sense? (Probably not but I can't think of a better analogy right now).
A little bit too fast Martin I think to write off the live performance and comparison of competence of a hifi system. The natural tone and timbre of instruments is key to us learning how to listen to music.
If we fail to correlate comparison to real acoustic instruments played in an acoustic space by learning this - our hifi systems via equipment choices may become subservient to some other false interpretation.
The live performance is key to learning how voice, and musical instruments really sound. A studio recording if its done properly also captures not only the correct sound
of instruments but also the venue in which they were recorded. Recordings like Anouar Brahem Le pas du chat noir , and Astounding eyes of Rita are worth hearing if
live concerts of acoustic instruments are not easily accessible. The infamous Jazz at the Pawnshop is another. also Jan Garbareks Hilliard Ensemble Officium
all are well recorded and contain the natural tone and timbre of acoustic instruments and with some voice.
If however we only know and have learned how Dream Theater sounds, indeed we have learned how electric guitars keyboards bass
drums and amplified vocals can sound. Dream Theater Live at Luna park is IMO one of the best recordings ever made of a electric band
I am staggered how they did it ! But its not how the sound of acoustic instruments sounds. However it can be appreciated all the more
in recognition of it being how amplified music sounds - but the first step is required that is learning, and making real effort to learn how acoustic
instruments actually sound in differing acoustic spaces.
Sherwood
17-11-2018, 13:21
I really am lost in this discussion. All recorded music is an attempt to reproduce the experience of "being there" of creating an impression of the original performance. Realism depends on being able to achieve certain technical parameters relating to tonal accuracy and dynamics (to name but two). Most good hifi systems can make a fair stab at tonal fidelity and being able to go from quiet to loud but they are far from perfect and no one would mistake even the best hifi for a live performance. When stereo sound was conceived in the late 19th century and fully implemented in the mid 20th century it was to add to the realism of a recording by giving the listener a sense of the relative placement of performers in a 3d space (e.g. of having the voice of a film actor track their on-screen movement).
Many modern systems can approximate a 3D sound though much depends upon the room and the placement of speakers within the room. This is hardly surprising since in a live recording placement information depends upon the relative distance of a performer to a stereoscopic mic pair. When playing back that recording the perceived placement of performers may appear different to room reflections or other factors, As an owner of a pair of Rogers LS3/5's for 40 years I know how it is possible to create a hugely impressive 3D "soundstage" with amazing depth, width and even height, and how that impression can disappear with small changes in the position of the listener or the speakers.
Whilst I enjoy the results of clever audio engineering and the pseudo 3d effects created on classic albums like "The Wall" and "Crime of the Century" it is a complete nonsense to treat them as anything other than clever audio engineering. When we play back these albums we are not recreating the performance experience or the relative placement of performers. We are listening to the engineering process.
I concede I may be a bit OCDC on the semantics of this, but I think it is important to differentiate between recordings which can convey a real sense of a live performance and an artificial creation of a pseudo "soundstage"!
As a brief aside, I go very frequently to live music performances. One intimate live venue in Sheffield has a very good sound system and a good resident sound engineer. I would guess the room is about 80ft by 40ft or maybe a little larger. Two large gantry mounted studio speakers provide the sound which is of high SQ: very tight, dynamic, detailed and tonally even. Most of the performers there are either solo artists or small groups with 3 to 4 members. I like to listen about 10 feet from the back in a central position. I have found that whilst I get a sense of 3D sound with my eyes open . when I close my eyes I cannot even guess at the relative placement of the performers. I contrast this with a gig at this venue by Clive Gregson. Half way through the gig there was a technical glitch and the sound system went down. Clive climbed down from the stage and came down into the middle of the room to continue the gig as an acoustic session. The difference in sound quality was amazing but what made the big difference for me was how even a good professional rig was so poor in conveying locational info. On this night the best soundstage was off stage! Boom boom!
Geoff
Many modern systems can approximate a 3D sound though much depends upon the room and the placement of speakers within the room. This is hardly surprising since in a live recording placement information depends upon the relative distance of a performer to a stereoscopic mic pair.
I really can't think of any instance where a professional recording engineer would make use of a 'stereoscopic mic pair' - let alone to reproduce the relative distance of the performers :scratch:
I think some of the confusion may arise from a misunderstanding of how recordings are actually made ....
Here's a simple example of how complex a mic set up can be for the recording of a small (acoustic) orchestra:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LPC0wEdb_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LPC0wEdb_c
And a large scale recording at Abbey Road - see if you can count all the microphones ... and note the different types ....
(see also the drummer in his own little booth ... awww)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcznot5shhY
Sherwood
17-11-2018, 15:35
I really can't think of any instance where a professional recording engineer would make use of a 'stereoscopic mic pair' - let alone to reproduce the relative distance of the performers :scratch:
I think some of the confusion may arise from a misunderstanding of how recordings are actually made ....
The point I'm making is that very few recordings capture a "soundstage" precisely because of the use of multiple mics often close up to the performer or instrument. What we hear on most recordings is the result of mixing decisions.
When I do hear a performance that is very simply miked in a natural acoustic it sounds more real to me.
Geoff
I think some of the confusion may arise from a misunderstanding of how recordings are actually made ....
I think pretty much all of it. I've said before all audiophiles should be made to go to a studio (at gunpoint if necessary) and watch what they do there. It would save a lot of time afterwards.
Pigmy Pony
17-11-2018, 15:44
I think pretty much all of it. I've said before all audiophiles should be made to go to a studio (at gunpoint if necessary) and watch what they do there. It would save a lot of time afterwards.
No need for gunpoint - I'd really like to go, as long as there's biscuits.
The point I'm making is that very few recordings capture a "soundstage" precisely because of the use of multiple mics often close up to the performer or instrument. What we hear on most recordings is the result of mixing decisions.
When I do hear a performance that is very simply miked in a natural acoustic it sounds more real to me.
Geoff
Well it will do but how do you perform 'The Wall' like that? Or pretty much every recording ever made? Just because the soundstage you hear on playback is artificially created doesn't mean it isn't a soundstage. If your set up is not majorly flawed you should get a result pretty close to what the engineer intended.
Recordings are engineered for the sole purpose of being played back on a domestic hi-fi system and the focus is on getting them to sound good on that system. Depending on the programme material that may have nothing to do with trying to preserve any sort of 'live' performance either in terms of the acoustic or the 'sense that musicians are playing together.' I mean what about albums where all the instruments are played by one person?
anthonyTD
17-11-2018, 15:58
On a side note,
I was chatting with a friend of mine recently, who just happens to be concert violinist, and sound engineer, and he was explaining some of the techniques used on some of the recordings he has been involved with.
One particular recording he mentioned involved a recording that was actually recorded live in one studio, and then played back in a church, and then re-recorded, with the natural artefacts/reverberation of the church included!
So, where recordings are concerned all is never as it seems!
anthonyTD
17-11-2018, 16:10
Just to put a few more things into perspective!
https://www.psaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Investigation-High-SPL-Loudspeakers.pdf
This is fascinating
We're discussing a pretty fundamental principle of hifi here, something that enthusiasts and reviewers regularly refer to yet it appears that nobody can agree what it is, if it's real, if it exists in studio recording or exclusively live recordings, and so far only person has actually given a clear example of it.
What does this suggest?
Sherwood
17-11-2018, 20:03
I think the album that I play most that encapsulates my notion of a true soundstage is the Trinity Session by the Cowboy Junkies, released 30 years ago this week. This was recorded live in a Toronto Church with the band circled around a single microphone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_Session
I love the band and their music but this is a special recording. The ambience and scale of the venue is apparent from the opening seconds. If only all recorded music could sound like this.
I listened to 'Riders on the Storm' last night - surely you mean Manzarek's keyboard is bottom RIGHT? Tried it on both vinyl and CD.
Funny you should mention that song, it was in my experience a part in a nearly mind blowing experience one afternoon in the most awesome sound system I ever heard.
It was on a Redbook CD. AN 2 transport into an AN 4 DAC ,All inter connects AN Sogon into an Audio Valve Conductor pre amp then into Audio Valve toasters, The speaker Cables where flat silver ribbons I do not know what they where but It was the first time I saw cables like that. The speakers where Sound Lab Majestic 845's, They where out more than 4 ft. from the rear wall and the walls where treated behind them, they also had a device behind them called a Sally.
This was the first time I ever experienced sound stage in a fully lite room with my eyes open. Not kidding I felt I could walk between the rain drops! That set up really messed with my brain like nothing I have ever heard to this day.
Most of the time I notice sound stage just happening when the room is dark, I'm relaxed maybe a drink or two.
That experience was after a hard day at work in a fully lite room with out a single drop of booze.
After that I bought a pair of sound Labs then my son was born and he got near them a couple times and it scared me so they where sold,nothing like thousands of volts to attract a curious toddler.
They where to big and picky about placement for my condo anyway, oddly my wife still says she loved those speakers!
They where great but they never got loud and Rock music was not what they loved to do, SL Electrostatics are fast and very open sounding with a soundstage that is not picky where you sit, but in hind sight would have been better with a subwoofer if you could get one that could keep up , it would have to be a really fast sub.
IMO a soundstage can only really be obtained from a recording of a live event, and probably using a Blumlein pair, though in the case of a group using electronic reinforcement, the spread of speakers will affect the result.
It is a fact that even this Blumlein method is seriously flawed because each mic captures only a small angle of sound, which is itself including only some source sound and room reverb, and this is later subject to the listening room's reverb.
This artifice is them reproduced by loudspeakers with spaced apart drivers, each producing a part of the spectrum, thus giving a different direction for each to the listener, another distortion, and this ignores imperfect drivers, Xovers and cabinet noise.
But it still can be good; it is worth noting that the BBC used a mono signal for testing speaker stereo capability.
I think that the imaging concept was largely thought up by reviewers, and taken by many to be applicable to studio based recordings. Studio based artificial recordings have no image, and are a result of using technology to create spacious effects.
There is nothing wrong with this IMO and I get great pleasure from this an as art form. It still allows poetical phraseology, melody, harmony, and virtuoso singing and instrumentation. The use of panning, FR adjustment, reverb, chorusing, and phasing as tools is valid to me, the subtlety of use being important, but any image is illusory, and that is fine.
IMO a soundstage can only really be obtained from a recording of a live event, and probably using a Blumlein pair, though in the case of a group using electronic reinforcement, the spread of speakers will affect the result.
It is a fact that even this Blumlein method is seriously flawed because each mic captures only a small angle of sound, which is itself including only some source sound and room reverb, and this is later subject to the listening room's reverb.
This artifice is them reproduced by loudspeakers with spaced apart drivers, each producing a part of the spectrum, thus giving a different direction for each to the listener, another distortion, and this ignores imperfect drivers, Xovers and cabinet noise.
But it still can be good; it is worth noting that the BBC used a mono signal for testing speaker stereo capability.
I think that the imaging concept was largely thought up by reviewers, and taken by many to be applicable to studio based recordings. Studio based artificial recordings have no image, and are a result of using technology to create spacious effects.
There is nothing wrong with this IMO and I get great pleasure from this an as art form. It still allows poetical phraseology, melody, harmony, and virtuoso singing and instrumentation. The use of panning, FR adjustment, reverb, chorusing, and phasing as tools is valid to me, the subtlety of use being important, but any image is illusory, and that is fine.
Pink Floyd Dark side of the moon ,1956 Verve recording Louise Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald studio recording some of the best albums for 3D like imaging and sound-stage and they where not live albums.
You may want to rethink that one Dennis.
Dennis, every time I have made a blanket statement I have always been confronted by exceptions shortly afterward.
My son was 7 and eating sardines in Louisiana hot sauce with soda crackers and he offered some to an 11 year old girl named Holiday.
I said Conner no girl is going to eat that,she is probably grossed out. Here Dad then said Sardines are here favorite, her sister gets candy and she wants a can of sardines!
They ate 3 tins between them. So never ,ever think you have it all figured out.
Pigmy Pony
18-11-2018, 07:52
I think the album that I play most that encapsulates my notion of a true soundstage is the Trinity Session by the Cowboy Junkies, released 30 years ago this week. This was recorded live in a Toronto Church with the band circled around a single microphone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trinity_Session
I love the band and their music but this is a special recording. The ambience and scale of the venue is apparent from the opening seconds. If only all recorded music could sound like this.
A bit off topic Geoff, but I've just looked into this Cowboy Junkies album, and it sounds like just my sort of thing - so it's gone on my Christmas wish list. :)
Sherwood
18-11-2018, 08:31
A bit off topic Geoff, but I've just looked into this Cowboy Junkies album, and it sounds like just my sort of thing - so it's gone on my Christmas wish list. :)
You will probably want to add The Caution Horses to your list. This was their follow up album and IMHO, the songs are even stronger than on the first album.
I can also recommend the Trinity Revisited album where they "revisited" the original recording after 20 years with some guest artists. Comes with a DVD of the performance to as well as the CD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHJg6NkVRO4
Geoff
I don't care if a record has the best production values in the world, if the music doesn't do it for me I won't listen to it. Likewise if the production is terrible but the music does it for me I'll happily listen to it again and again.
I don't care if a record has the best production values in the world, if the music doesn't do it for me I won't listen to it. Likewise if the production is terrible but the music does it for me I'll happily listen to it again and again.
The Stone Roses being a prime example of this. Shocking production, awesome songs.
Sherwood
18-11-2018, 14:02
Musical tastes and preferences and good production are completely separate issues from the OP.
No, I stand by my analysis and categorisation of imaging. DSOTM was a studio based recording and very artificially produced, which is well documented.
It is of course possible to produce a 'real performance in a studio, this being done more many years ago partly because of the unsophisticated technology.
Three D illusions can of course be created, but that is not pure imaging, i9t is artefact.
I think that my post was a comprehensive and accurate description of the state of affairs, and non speculative, and thought out and written with intellectual rigour, but please point out the errors in my thinking.
Musical tastes and preferences and good production are completely separate issues from the OP.
True, but we are on AoS after all. ;)
Musical tastes and preferences and good production are completely separate issues from the OP.
True but you opined that the 'Cowboy Junkies' albums should be some sort of benchmark for production and it occurred to me that I would only listen to them again if I required a cure for chronic insomnia.
There is nothing wrong with this IMO and I get great pleasure from this an as art form. It still allows poetical phraseology, melody, harmony, and virtuoso singing and instrumentation. The use of panning, FR adjustment, reverb, chorusing, and phasing as tools is valid to me, the subtlety of use being important, but any image is illusory, and that is fine.
Any and all 'soundstage' are an illusion - it's in the nature of the beast .... regardless if they are based on a perfect recording of an actual performance or created solely in the studio (with or without the presence of 'natural' instruments)
A 'soundstage' is a phenomena produced by our auditory senses and brain reacting to movements of air - it doesn't actually exist outside of this.
'Tree falling in forest', etc.
walpurgis
18-11-2018, 15:30
I was at a little concert by folk singers accompanied by acoustic intruments and I'd swear the perceived soundstage was genuine.
Sherwood
18-11-2018, 15:47
True but you opined that the 'Cowboy Junkies' albums should be some sort of benchmark for production and it occurred to me that I would only listen to them again if I required a cure for chronic insomnia.
You know that when you start insulting someone's musical taste your arguments lose credibility. Furthermore, what I actually said was that the recording for me represents what I understand as a "soundstage", namely a recording of a live event that captures the relative position of the performers and the acoustic of the recording environment. I am not asking you to like it.
Pigmy Pony
18-11-2018, 17:22
What bit I tried of Cowboy Junkies I liked, but then my collection has all sorts in it, for all sorts of moods. Some of my stuff will probably send you to sleep, some will make you want to sleep with one eye open :)
No, I stand by my analysis and categorisation of imaging. DSOTM was a studio based recording and very artificially produced, which is well documented.
It is of course possible to produce a 'real performance in a studio, this being done more many years ago partly because of the unsophisticated technology.
Three D illusions can of course be created, but that is not pure imaging, i9t is artefact.
I think that my post was a comprehensive and accurate description of the state of affairs, and non speculative, and thought out and written with intellectual rigour, but please point out the errors in my thinking.
What you said makes perfect sense yet , most people with a large collection of recordings and a reasonable stereo knows reality flys in the face of perfect sense .
Hap Uneo was tasked to build a Japanese V twin for Yamaha corporation. The fist thing he did was use a computer program able to create a 3D version of every big American V twin ever built.
To better understand the dynamics of building such a large displacement motor with such a long stroke. The computer model was an exact digital copy of the original 1909 45 degree 49.5 cubic inch V twin.
The computer's results was that the motor would not run, After 3D modeling All of Harley Davidson,Indian and Crocker V twins they changed the Head off set to 75 degrees and in 1981 the Yamaha Virago hit the streets as the fastest production V twin.
The 1909 Harley dose not run according to the scientific computer model, yet it logged a lot of miles on the road and there are still running examples over a hundred years later.
Sherwood
18-11-2018, 22:04
Any and all 'soundstage' are an illusion - it's in the nature of the beast .... regardless if they are based on a perfect recording of an actual performance or created solely in the studio (with or without the presence of 'natural' instruments)
A 'soundstage' is a phenomena produced by our auditory senses and brain reacting to movements of air - it doesn't actually exist outside of this.
'Tree falling in forest', etc.
My experience is that if you record a performance using a stereo pair mic you do hear back an (albeit imperfect) version that recreates the original sense of space and acoustic. Yes, the effect is an "illusion" but one rooted in reality. I have done some recording of my own using a simple cross pair setup and have been amazed at how true the placement of performers sounded to the original. Of course, engineers with access to multitrack facilities can manufacture an image by how they adjust the left-right balance and prominence of a track. They will typically have the lead vocal placed centrally with backing vocalists to one or other or both sides. Other instruments will be mixed to be more or less to one side of centre. Sometimes, exaggerated effects may be used so that a drum kit may appear to be spread over a very wide area or a keyboard recorded in such a way to give the impression that the keyboard is 3m wide. I am sure most people have heard popular recordings from the early 60's where the stereo processing was extremely crude with extreme separation of instruments and voices. It seemed to me that the intention then was to showcase the stereo effect rather than to simulate a 3D soundstage. I am not sure that engineers today set out to simulate a 3D soundstage rather than simply to facilitate the separation of instruments and voices to make it easier to follow what is going on.
Of course, I do realise that most modern albums are multi-mic multi-track creations with huge amounts of editing and post-processing. Unfortunately, on many recordings I find that the editing is not consistent and that the pseudo image and apparent positioning drifts around. I don't object to multi mic recording but I do wish that more care was taken.
Geoff
I fail to see the point of goraman's post, or I do not understand it, but I agree largely with your post Geoff.
Imaging is a concept, derived from our brain's ability to determine the direction from which a sound emanates.
The purest form of this must be siting in a room facing a sound source, perhaps a friend clapping in front, and moving around the room, and with eyes closed being able to pinpoint its direction and where he is.
The brain has learnt from our evolution how to do this, and for survival reasons.
The I/P to the listener is perfect, including all of the information presented to the ears.
A crossed pair is an attempt to simulate this situation, but with a compromised and corrupted amount of information.
A system's ability to recreate sound, such that we can identify positions from a reproducing system, is what we call imaging.
The point I was making is I have experienced the effects of sound stage from studio recordings.
And I have learned in life there are multiple exceptions to every rule.
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 01:35
The point I was making is I have experienced the effects of sound stage from studio recordings.
And I have learned in life there are multiple exceptions to every rule.
This is to be expected. If an engineer "places" drums to the left and double bass to the right, you will perceive them to be in those relative positions. However, that is only because the engineer has chosen to mix them in this way. The 3D perception you experience when playing a multi mic and multi track albums is the creation of an engineer and does not reflect the actual 3D locations of the various performers and instruments.
I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, though often it is, What does irritate me is that many "audiophiles" boasting of the imaging capabilities of their setup seem to be under the illusion that they are hearing the performance in a "real space"!
Some systems recreate the engineers work better than others as does some people's hearing.
It's all much of an illusion anyway with stereo. Placement is also psycho acoustic based on the individual's experience of how real instruments sound. If you want a soundstage with less trickery then use mono in a two speaker setup. Stereo can sound dreadfully artificial for a while after listening to two speaker mono.
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 10:20
Some systems recreate the engineers work better than others as does some people's hearing.
Agreed. My first system with LS3/5a speakers was particularly good in this respect. So too is my current main system with Maggie 1.7 speakers. In both cases, the effect depends very much on the placement of the speakers (i.e. well away from walls, the rear wall in particular).
Spot on in your post 11 Geoff.
It is also important to remember that we hear with our brain, and so it is an individual development/growth process.
Many who have come to hear my stuff say that they are not able to hear fine improvement diffenences, and they are probably right because they have not worked with sound, or paid numerous hours in obsessive devotion to its minor improvement.
They also have not spent hours habituating to a given sound quality prior to any change.
This is to be expected. If an engineer "places" drums to the left and double bass to the right, you will perceive them to be in those relative positions. However, that is only because the engineer has chosen to mix them in this way. The 3D perception you experience when playing a multi mic and multi track albums is the creation of an engineer and does not reflect the actual 3D locations of the various performers and instruments.
I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, though often it is, What does irritate me is that many "audiophiles" boasting of the imaging capabilities of their setup seem to be under the illusion that they are hearing the performance in a "real space"!
I am sure that is true, and in most cases we will never know if instrument placement is right or wrong, but at some point you just have to enjoy what you have. Even if it is not 100% correct.
What I am sure of is I have experienced instrument placement both in depth and width from studio recordings. Correctly in there place ? Who knows? Maybe that is what Dennis was getting at?
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 16:20
I am sure that is true, and in most cases we will never know if instrument placement is right or wrong, but at some point you just have to enjoy what you have. Even if it is not 100% correct.
What I am sure of is I have experienced instrument placement both in depth and width from studio recordings. Correctly in there place ? Who knows? Maybe that is what Dennis was getting at?
As noted earlier, my speakers are very good in terms of imaging, at least when they are pulled well away from rear walls in particular. When I listen to some multitrack recordings the separation of performers is so extreme that I do wonder if they have ever met each other, let alone performed together. I am probably somewhat OCDC on this, but whenever I go to a live event, most of the musicians are towards the centre of the stage and not in the wings! The loudness wars are bad enough but the balance extremists need to be reigned in too! :confused:
As noted earlier, my speakers are very good in terms of imaging, at least when they are pulled well away from rear walls in particular. When I listen to some multitrack recordings the separation of performers is so extreme that I do wonder if they have ever met each other, let alone performed together. I am probably somewhat OCDC on this, but whenever I go to a live event, most of the musicians are towards the centre of the stage and not in the wings! The loudness wars are bad enough but the balance extremists need to be reigned in too! :confused:
I find some very phase coherent / linear speakers do as you say, they expose the layers of the recording, it can be impressive though it can be distracting too. Having the musicians in the centre as in a live gig is what I was getting at in an earlier post. This is very much what you get with mono via a two speaker system. Naturally there's no separation but it can sound very much more like live music than stereo. I'm not seriously suggesting that we listen in mono to modern recordings. I do however find it works really well with 60s processed stereo records or where the stereo is mixed as guitar left and drums right or whatever.
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 16:41
I find some very phase coherent / linear speakers do as you say, they expose the layers of the recording, it can be impressive though it can be distracting too. Having the musicians in the centre as in a live gig is what I was getting at in an earlier post. This is very much what you get with mono via a two speaker system. Naturally there's no separation but it can sound very much more like live music than stereo. I'm not seriously suggesting that we listen in mono to modern recordings. I do however find it works really well with 60s processed stereo records or where the stereo is mixed as guitar left and drums right or whatever.
I have several 1960s albums in both stereo and mono versions (e.g. John Mayall's A Hard Road and the complete Beatles Stereo and Mono Remasters). Generally, I prefer the mono versions. Perhaps not so surprising given that the early Beatles stereo output was something of an afterthought once the "proper" mono version was sorted. Often, the mono version has a greater solidity to it and I have no problems in hearing the various instruments and voices in mono.
I have several 1960s albums in both stereo and mono versions (e.g. John Mayall's A Hard Road and the complete Beatles Stereo and Mono Remasters). Generally, I prefer the mono versions. Perhaps not so surprising given that the early Beatles stereo output was something of an afterthought once the "proper" mono version was sorted. Often, the mono version has a greater solidity to it and I have no problems in hearing the various instruments and voices in mono.
It'll come as no surprise that I totally agree. BTW re the part in bold - what I meant by "no separation" was that the individual instruments don't image, they all come from quite a large area between the speakers, I agree that there are no issues with instrumental separation.
I have several 1960s albums in both stereo and mono versions (e.g. John Mayall's A Hard Road and the complete Beatles Stereo and Mono Remasters). Generally, I prefer the mono versions. Perhaps not so surprising given that the early Beatles stereo output was something of an afterthought once the "proper" mono version was sorted. Often, the mono version has a greater solidity to it and I have no problems in hearing the various instruments and voices in mono.
Pink floyds piper at the gates of dawn is a great example of that,the mono version is great,the stereo version is annoying,I'm pretty sure "Normal" smith is what kick started Syds descent into the abyss,so I possibly have a bit of a downer on him anyway.
Pink floyds piper at the gates of dawn is a great example of that,the mono version is great,the stereo version is annoying,I'm pretty sure "Normal" smith is what kick started Syds descent into the abyss,so I possibly have a bit of a downer on him anyway.
I thought it was him doing LSD like it was going out of fashion? (Which it did eventually).
It's all much of an illusion anyway with stereo. Placement is also psycho acoustic based on the individual's experience of how real instruments sound. .
This is what I was alluding to.
As soundstage is a psycho acoustic illusion isn't it fair to say that it's highly likely people will hear it differently, in the only example given in this whole thread the two people thought the exact opposite regarding an instrument's placement.
That being the case is it a huge leap of faith to say that if person A says a particular piece of equipment, or system, has a good soundstage, person B may think differently?
This is what I was alluding to.
As soundstage is a psycho acoustic illusion isn't it fair to say that it's highly likely people will hear it differently, in the only example given in this whole thread the two people thought the exact opposite regarding an instrument's placement.
I think that is due to confusing stage left and right with normal left and right. Or some of us have our wires the wrong way round. Or they swapped it round on some releases of the album.
I think that is due to confusing stage left and right with normal left and right. Or some of us have our wires the wrong way round. Or they swapped it round on some releases of the album.
Or their speakers are the wrong sides lol
Have you tried to toe in your speaker a little.
This should shrink your sound stage closer to the center.
This was my solution
Or their speakers are the wrong sides lol
or they listen whist facing the opposite way.
It's complicated this left and right business isn't it?
or they listen whist facing the opposite way.
It's complicated this left and right business isn't it?
Or they're in the southern hemisphere where left and right are the other way around?
walpurgis
20-11-2018, 19:34
Or they're in the southern hemisphere where left and right are the other way around?
Is that right? :)
Is that right? :)
Probably.
Or they are on the alternate earth where everything is in mirror image. Like in that Gerry Anderson film.
walpurgis
20-11-2018, 19:45
Probably.
Or they are on the alternate earth where everything is in mirror image. Like in that Gerry Anderson film.
Roger Moore wasn't it?
Pigmy Pony
20-11-2018, 19:50
Or they're in the southern hemisphere where left and right are the other way around?
Perhaps if 'Riders on the Storm' was being performed by the Australian Doors.
Now you guys are really going to hate me, but I should come clean - my post about Ray's keyboard being opposite to Macca's was just a wind up - I wanted to see how long before some one suggested my speakers' left and right needed switching. The answer is: quite a while. Sorry about that.
I'll get me coat.
Sherwood
20-11-2018, 19:53
I thought it was him doing LSD like it was going out of fashion? (Which it did eventually).
It was the stereo mix that drove him to LSD! :drool:
Stratmangler
20-11-2018, 19:56
Perhaps if 'Riders on the Storm' was being performed by the Australian Doors.
Now you guys are really going to hate me, but I should come clean - my post about Ray's keyboard being opposite to Macca's was just a wind up - I wanted to see how long before some one suggested my speakers' left and right needed switching. The answer is: quite a while. Sorry about that.
I'll get me coat.
I thought about it, but couldn't be arsed posting.
Does that make you feel better?
Have you tried to toe in your speaker a little.
This should shrink your sound stage closer to the center.
This was my solution
Left or right toe?
Perhaps if 'Riders on the Storm' was being performed by the Australian Doors.
Now you guys are really going to hate me, but I should come clean - my post about Ray's keyboard being opposite to Macca's was just a wind up - I wanted to see how long before some one suggested my speakers' left and right needed switching. The answer is: quite a while. Sorry about that.
I'll get me coat.
I just thought you were off your head.
Pigmy Pony
20-11-2018, 20:08
I thought it was him doing LSD like it was going out of fashion? (Which it did eventually).
It made a brief comeback up here in 2014, then fell back into obscurity. Kids these days don't know what's good for them. (Take this! BE the soundstage!) :)
Pigmy Pony
20-11-2018, 20:13
I just thought you were off your head.
Not you as well? What's wrong with this world?
Not you as well? What's wrong with this world?
It would be quicker to make a list of what's right with it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.