Confessions of an Audiophile Junky-I Got Center Stage With Pitch Perfect Sound

Steve Williams said:

Hi Peter

The easier question first.......these are not designed for under speakers. Whether Joe designs one specific for speakers I am guessing is locked somewhere in that brilliant mind of his.

As for Stillpoints, yes I was heavily invested in Stillpoints throughout my entire system. I don't want to get into a direct comparison here but suffice it to say that the mode of action of CS is vastly different
than that of Stillpoints and IMO vastly superior to Stillpoints at a fraction of the cost of the Ultra 5's and Ultra 6's which is what I used

There is no sound immersion with Stillpoints and in fact if anything, IMO Stillpoints rob the listener of the ambient sound which is so vital to the presence of any piece of music.

Simply put the CS is in a league of its own IMHO. There is no other foot in the market that does what it does. There are several CS users now who are now ex-Stillpoints users

Click to expand...

I am really happy you have found the CMS footers to be fantastic and I believe they may well prove great but tend to figure while you vastly prefer them to stillpoints that doesn't exactly translate to vastly superior in any absolute terms. They work better for you in the context of your system.

I feel less than ideal application of Ultra 5s can have issues and unfortunately I find if the system is well balanced to start with then it requires even application of them throughout. But the comment on ultra 5s and ultra 6s robbing the listener of ambient sound is just one I don't sign on to at all and exactly the opposite of everything I find. Revealing low level information and resolution along with extension is absolutely their strengths but I do find them not universally applicable and also aren't good with gear and systems that have fundamental imbalances or rely on the gear not being pushed and exposed beyond certain limits and then left with weaknesses exposed. When hardness is mentioned I can only add that I have Magnepan ribbon tweeters and pure silver signal cables and am very sensitive to glare and hardness and can only attest that isn't the case at all if the rest of the setup isn't hiding some top end issues. I do find speakers like Harbeth don't benefit from ultra 5s as they extend them past their happy place and as a speaker are largely at their best already.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about other footers as I genuinely love that there is an exciting new product out there that is clearly worth trying but when the vastly superior line is thrown in for me it creates more doubt than anything that part of the excitement might require the appearance of the hyperbole polizia.

I usually don't buy into the which is best footer debate simply because it is so context related. But clearly for some Shun Mooks are the go and I love that these new footers that you are marketing may be brilliant and really great value and I may well try them myself on my second system one day... just jokin again. I am open to preferences changing and to add to my system if they can help me enjoy the music even more.

BruceD said:

Allow me to say how refreshing it is to hear Mr.Lavrencik "balance" his observations in an understanding manner regards to alternative products--Kudos indeed

Footers /feet/tweaks /etc is a minefield we've all been immersed in -whether we like it or not--ha! The impressive reaction to these CS footers is thought provoking and invokes

observing with interest other plaudits as they make there way into other members systems--as along time (25 yr) Harmonix/ Mooky/Marigo user---yes I'd certainly like to try them--gotta find a dealer-!

Good one

BruceD

PS: Sadly I have to agree with Steve on Stillpoints--they added a Hardness to my sonics--but I'm sure others have found them to their liking they are superbly made and Bruce Jacobs is always

obliging in conversation re his products--I wish their continuing success .

Click to expand...

Hi Bruce

Thank you for the kind words.

I think Bruce Jacobs is a brilliant man. He works hard, builds a great product and has elevated this hobby. We benefit from his presence.

DaveyF said:

Hi Joe,
I think maybe you are missing my point. I am not asking you to accept that Harmonix works or doesn’t work, I am also not discussing the SQ of CS, as I have not actually heard them. Steve stated that CS is superior to all ALL footers. To this, I pointed out that in order to make this claim, one would had to have heard all footers on the market and to have inserted all of them into ones system to determine that. Not even remotely possible, imo.
You state that your design is different than what is used in Harmonix...to which I say I don’t know how you would know this, as Harmonix are not disclosing their technology and the science behind their footer. You are essentially doing the same thing, and so we as the consumers have really no idea as to the technology...of either product!
You then give me some rational, that Morricab calls into question, and proceed to defend your position, while all the time not fully disclosing the technology behind your product....except to say that it acts as a “insulator “ as best as I can determine. Which, BTW, all of the similar devices exhibit the same characteristics.

Nonetheless, I do have an open enough mind to not completely dismiss this product until I have actually heard it, and in my own system...

Click to expand...

Davey, I understood your point. I agree that it is very difficult to claim that one particular product/component is the "best" without having actually directly compared it to all other possible alternatives. This seems fairly obvious. I appreciate that you make this point, but I don't think that Steve was actually proclaiming this, though it did come across this way, if read literally.

Perhaps as the marketer for these new footers Steve should have simply written that in his experience, primarily within his own system context, that he prefers these particular footers over all others that he has directly compared them to. This is what I assume he meant. That alone, given the quality of his system, should be enough to interest some potential customers into auditioning them.

Now, I find the claim that these footers have the effect of placing the listener within the center of the stage to be interesting. Is the listener's perspective shifted from a few rows back in the center of the audience to that of a musician on stage or the conductor at the podium? If this is the claim from the ad copy, how is this effect possible? How is the recording perspective picked up from the microphones suddenly shifted to a different location? Do we listeners want to experience the music from this perspective? Is the implication that the direct sound of the instruments and the hall ambiance are all around us like in a multi-channel listening experience?

Could someone clarify this claim as perhaps I am misinterpreting the ad copy, and if it is indeed the claim, how is it possible to create this effect?

From the ad: a photograph from above spotlighting the center of the stage with the words "Total Immersion Effect". And from Steve's first post: “I was now transported from those first three rows in the orchestra to sitting “Center Stage”.

Throughout my years in the hobby, I have strived to recreate a listening perspective in my room of that which I experience when listening to live performances, which is usually in the orchestra center within the first fifteen rows or like that in an intimate chamber setting or jazz club. Of course, that is if the information is on the recording and if it is the engineer's intent. It seems that a transparent system recreates what is on the recording rather than shaping the listener's perspective. This "center stage" is a new concept for me as a desirable listening perspective and goal. I have heard systems which allow the music to envelope the listener with the sound of the instruments, but that sound is directional and originating from imaginary instruments positioned in front of the listener and at a distance. Systems which can pull that off are usually the most engaging for me.

joelavrencik said:

Hi morricab
Thank you for your comments. I would never argue that CS excludes the 1st Law. Perhaps I’ve appeared to do so. I apologize for that. I’d like to bring your attention to the point where you say; this heat would contribute to the delta S of the universe, but not necessarily to the local system. I completely agree. The amount of heat transferred would indeed permeate into the universe (it must), and of course this would make the task of measuring the delta virtually impossible with accuracy. It seems to me that it would be virtually impossible to measure this delta outside of a vacuum. But this doesn’t mean that the transfer cannot occur. The benefit of CS is not specifically derived from its effect on metals. In fact, I’ve never thought of it that way (maybe, I should).

Let’s look inside the component. Gain, relative permittivity and the efficiency of electrical devices can be expressed as dimensionless numbers. For a moment, think of electricity as dimensionless energy moving through 3 dimensional pathways; printed circuit boards, resistors, capacitors, inductors, power supplies, wire, transformers, etc. When vibration is introduced into the atmosphere at the front baffle of the loudspeakers, vibration becomes a 3-dimensional form of energy that can only dissipate by permeating into 3-dimensional objects causing an unnaturally high state of mechanical excitation to occur within them; the objects vibrate the electrical pathways. This, in conjunction with naturally occurring resistance within the signal path creates heat which further accelerates naturally occurring electrical entropy. These 3-dimensional pathways will continue to vibrate when music is playing and eventually establish a relatively constant state of unnaturally high equilibrium that is well known to degrade the performance of audio components.

Looking back over 17 years of developing damping systems, I’ve steadily improved the performance of CMS filter systems and, by extension, the performance of components. But after 17 years, I realize that I missed something. The feet of the component impose a significant penalty on the performance of components. I don’t know how I could have missed this. CS is the first device I’ve developed that MUST be placed in intimate contact with the bottom of the component to be effective. It is also the first device I’ve developed that requires a full 10 days of intimate contact with the component to realize the beginnings of its full potential. If you prefer to think the improvement is strictly 1st Law, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s that simple, particularly since the 2nd Law is fundamental to all forms of vibration isolation and damping systems. A person could place their components on our most expensive (effective) rack systems, and still CS would ratchet the performance up in measure similar to placing the components on a wood shelf………this, 10 days later. By logical extension, it seems to me that the 2nd Law must be present, if not dominant.

Click to expand...

As you say the laws of thermodynamics are general enough to be applied to any audio device - but can see we will need a lot of imagination to refer to the zeroth and the third ...

Anyway for me the critical point is defining what is a "microscopic" discrete state in an audio component.

Have you analyzed the active versus passive isolation according to your criteria?

DaveyF said:

Hi Joe,
I think maybe you are missing my point. I am not asking you to accept that Harmonix works or doesn’t work, I am also not discussing the SQ of CS, as I have not actually heard them. Steve stated that CS is superior to all ALL footers. To this, I pointed out that in order to make this claim, one would had to have heard all footers on the market and to have inserted all of them into ones system to determine that. Not even remotely possible, imo.
You state that your design is different than what is used in Harmonix...to which I say I don’t know how you would know this, as Harmonix are not disclosing their technology and the science behind their footer. You are essentially doing the same thing, and so we as the consumers have really no idea as to the technology...of either product!
You then give me some rational, that Morricab calls into question, and proceed to defend your position, while all the time not fully disclosing the technology behind your product....except to say that it acts as a “insulator “ as best as I can determine. Which, BTW, all of the similar devices exhibit the same characteristics.

Nonetheless, I do have an open enough mind to not completely dismiss this product until I have actually heard it, and in my own system...

Click to expand...

Hi Davey,

Of course, I can’t respond to Steve’s statement because I’m not Steve, but let’s come back to that.

Let’s go to our favorite subject Harmonix tells you how they do it when they say theirs is a hybrid metal and wood construction. CS is not that, and so it is different. Harmonix, in my opinion, has the right and privilege to protect their intellectual property. This is reasonable and customary. Protecting their IP allows them to remain competitive and to evolve and to provide you with the high-quality product you enjoy. Having said this, I believe that if they revealed their hybrid design by putting the pieces and parts in your hand, you would have the right and privilege to be just as frustrated as you seem to be right now. The pieces and parts would not answer the question, “why?”.

Vibration control is complicated. My neighbor ran the particle accelerator at Fermi Labs for 30 years until he retired. He’s a smart guy. He once said that the one thing he couldn’t get his head around was thermodynamics. He said he didn’t even understand how anyone could pretend to understand it……..I agree and proudly include myself in that category.
Water, with some exceptions, flows downhill. Electricity is invisible and dangerous in its raw form, but we know we can find it in a wall plug. We also know that we can route raw electricity into network devices that convert it into a useful and elegantly, beautiful signal called music. Vibration doesn’t follow the same rules. It goes into everything. The only thing that can stop it is a vacuum and this condition does not occur naturally where we live.

Vibration is invisible and works at the molecular and sub-molecular level. The constituents of an Harmonix device (and CMS and all) possess, among other things, something called an elastic modulus and a thin rod speed. These attributes are predictors of reflection and transmission. And, they change the way music comes out of your loudspeakers by affecting the way vibration impacts your components.

Let’s take tungsten carbide as an example. WC comes with your choice of a 6% cobalt matrix or a 6% nickel matrix. No matter your choice, tungsten carbide is called tungsten carbide. Cobalt and nickel appear next to each other in the periodic table and are differentiated by 1 electron. If you choose the correct matrix, WC will likely be a benefit to your listening experience. But if you choose the wrong matrix, WC placed in the mechanical signal path of your system would run you out of the room. This is because the 6% matrix changes the EM and TRS. With the wrong choice, the EM goes down and the TRS goes up resulting in a mechanical energy spike that wants to shoot into the gut of the component and mess everything up. Harmonix has figured this out in their own fashion and they have presented you with a workable solution to a complex problem. I think that’s pretty cool.

Let’s get back to Steve. Obviously, he can’t try everything, but a seasoned listener can forecast the general sonic attributes of a broad spectrum of choices by grasping the intended sonic effect of the design which could then lead to a fairly accurate categorization of broadly similar devices. I expect you to push back on that, and that’s ok. Please understand that I have been trying to provide a sensible response to your statements and that I recognize I may have still failed to do so. At this point, I have to be okay with that.

So, all of that aside………Fantastic!!!! I’m glad you can be open minded and will try CS. My recommendation is to take all such devices out and allow your system to degrade into whatever state of equilibrium it chooses. After settling occurs (maybe hours?), place CS under your source component (if possible) and see what happens after 10 days of listening. Then, replace CS with H and see what happens. Please let me know. I’m very interested.

PeterA said:

... Is the listener's perspective shifted from a few rows back in the center of the audience to that of a musician on stage or the conductor at the podium? If this is the claim from the ad copy, how is this effect possible? How is the recording perspective picked up from the microphones suddenly shifted to a different location? Do we listeners want to experience the music from this perspective? ....

From the ad: a photograph from above spotlighting the center of the stage with the words "Total Immersion Effect". And from Steve's first post: “I was now transported from those first three rows in the orchestra to sitting “Center Stage”.

Click to expand...

The more discussions on this issue the more backfires.

Tang

PeterA said:

Davey, I understood your point. I agree that it is very difficult to claim that one particular product/component is the "best" without having actually directly compared it to all other possible alternatives. This seems fairly obvious. I appreciate that you make this point, but I don't think that Steve was actually proclaiming this, though it did come across this way, if read literally.

Perhaps as the marketer for these new footers Steve should have simply written that in his experience, primarily within his own system context, that he prefers these particular footers over all others that he has directly compared them to. This is what I assume he meant. That alone, given the quality of his system, should be enough to interest some potential customers into auditioning them.

Now, I find the claim that these footers have the effect of placing the listener within the center of the stage to be interesting. Is the listener's perspective shifted from a few rows back in the center of the audience to that of a musician on stage or the conductor at the podium? If this is the claim from the ad copy, how is this effect possible? How is the recording perspective picked up from the microphones suddenly shifted to a different location? Do we listeners want to experience the music from this perspective? Is the implication that the direct sound of the instruments and the hall ambiance are all around us like in a multi-channel listening experience?

Could someone clarify this claim as perhaps I am misinterpreting the ad copy, and if it is indeed the claim, how is it possible to create this effect?

From the ad: a photograph from above spotlighting the center of the stage with the words "Total Immersion Effect". And from Steve's first post: “I was now transported from those first three rows in the orchestra to sitting “Center Stage”.

Throughout my years in the hobby, I have strived to recreate a listening perspective in my room of that which I experience when listening to live performances, which is usually in the orchestra center within the first fifteen rows or like that in an intimate chamber setting or jazz club. Of course, that is if the information is on the recording and if it is the engineer's intent. It seems that a transparent system recreates what is on the recording rather than shaping the listener's perspective. This "center stage" is a new concept for me as a desirable listening perspective and goal. I have heard systems which allow the music to envelope the listener with the sound of the instruments, but that sound is directional and originating from imaginary instruments positioned in front of the listener and at a distance. Systems which can pull that off are usually the most engaging for me.

Click to expand...

Hi Peter

Thank you for your perspective and questions.

If I am reading your paragraph of questions correctly, I think the answer is, yes, to the last question, if and only if this is on the original recording. I think the answer is, no, to the other similar questions.

The question of "how" could be answered by saying......by lowering the noise floor. I'm not sure if that's sufficient enough for you. I've tried to address this in previous posts and hope that you might read them as time permits. If you have any other questions afterwords, I'd be glad to try and answer them.

The term, "Total Immersion Effect" actually does a pretty good job of describing the intended effect of the feet. But, this effect is limited to the ambiance on the recording.

Your 2nd last sentence in your last paragraph also describes the effect, if I'm reading it correctly.

I hope this helps.

microstrip said:

As you say the laws of thermodynamics are general enough to be applied to any audio device - but can see we will need a lot of imagination to refer to the zeroth and the third ...

Anyway for me the critical point is defining what is a "microscopic" discrete state in an audio component.

Have you analyzed the active versus passive isolation according to your criteria?

Click to expand...

Hi microstrip,

To be quite honest, I don't look at it as, my criteria. If I understand the essence of your question, then I would have to say, no.

Tango said:

The more discussions on this issue the more backfires.

Tang

Click to expand...

Seems to be the case. However, 'if' the music was originally recorded from a position that would put the mikes in the center of the stage ( or the studio) then that is what a great system should be able to re-create in the home. OTOH, I know of no reason why anyone would want to do that, unless you were trying to create an 'enveloping' sense of surround sound. The old fashioned 'Quad' LP's ( BTW, does anyone have a collection of these, they were for a time quite collectable) were trying to emulate this artifact ( surround sound). I agree with Peter, the most transparent system recreates what is on the recording rather than shaping the listener's perspective. If the system in question is exclusively placing one in the center of the stage and not recreating the traditional stage in front of the listener as well....then I would say something is drastically wrong.

DaveyF said:

Seems to be the case. However, 'if' the music was originally recorded from a position that would put the mikes in the center of the stage ( or the studio) then that is what a great system should be able to re-create in the home. OTOH, I know of no reason why anyone would want to do that, unless you were trying to create an 'enveloping' sense of surround sound. The old fashioned 'Quad' LP's ( BTW, does anyone have a collection of these, they were for a time quite collectable) were trying to emulate this artifact ( surround sound). I agree with Peter, the most transparent system recreates what is on the recording rather than shaping the listener's perspective. If the system in question is exclusively placing one in the center of the stage and not recreating the traditional stage in front of the listener as well....then I would say something is drastically wrong.

Click to expand...

Hi Davey,

Great observation. The traditional stage in front of the listener is recreated. If your concern were indeed the case, Dr. Williams, Dr. Wax and Dr. Ferstandig would have sounded the alarm during the beta-testing period and CS would not be available.

A footer is not going to change the soundstage due to artifacts like some digital filters, etc...

What is all too common is a combination of missing harmonic information that doesn't get from the recording to the speakers combined with typical acoustics of cone 'n' dome speakers smearing the information if it does indeed make it to the speakers.

To achieve a level of performance where the soundstage is not constrained by these issues takes a lot more than following Harman's science and recommendations. Things like interconnect cables and vibration management are key to preserving this information in the playback chain.

Not many systems are capable of this kind of performance, but imo it is a large part of what separates the best systems from all the rest.

joelavrencik said:

Hi Davey,

Great observation. The traditional stage in front of the listener is recreated. If your concern were indeed the case, Dr. Williams, Dr. Wax and Dr. Ferstandig would have sounded the alarm during the beta-testing period and CS would not be available.

Click to expand...

Hello Joseph. If the traditional stage in front of the listener is recreated, then what do you mean by the expression "center stage" and the ad copy in the first page of this thread which to me implies that the listener is transported to a new listening perspective which is now a placement at the center of the stage in among the musicians? This does not seem to be the same as the stage being positioned in front of the listener. The described effect of these footers seems a bit contradictory to me. I guess I'm confused by the claim implied by the ad copy and the name of the product.

Tango said:

The more discussions on this issue the more backfires.

Tang

Click to expand...

Tang, what do you mean?

PeterA said:

....the ad copy in the first page of this thread which to me implies that the listener is transported to a new listening perspective which is now a placement at the center of the stage in among the musicians? ... guess I'm confused by the claim implied by the ad copy and the name of the product.

Click to expand...

Peter, to be honest the ad copy takes a few liberties. Let's be realistic. These devices do not "put you in the middle of the stage" or any other similar descriptor that suggests the listener perspective is dramatically different than what the engineer intended on the recording. The perspective of the listener is determined by the microphone selection, microphone placement, and the engineers preferences during the recording process. The CS footers did however, provide a noticeable increase the width, depth and resolution of the sound stage that was a pleasant surprise and a benefit in comparison to the sound I and others hear without them. Of course, as in all things audio, YMMV but you just might be duly impressed as well. I'm willing to allow some liberty in naming the devices accordingly, as long as we realize the name mainly tries to successfully convey the benefits provided by the footers as metaphor, as opposed to a literal descriptor of where you will feel like you are positioned while listening to every recording in your collection.

Tango said:

The more discussions on this issue the more backfires.

Tang

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

Tang, what do you mean?

Click to expand...

not speaking for the Honorable Tang, but this reminds me of the Mastersound thread, where attempts were made to exactly define what was suggested by marketing hyperbole reacting to assumed well intentioned skeptics (like a red flag to a bull), which (that hyperbole) is something not so definable or even intended to be defended with precision.

the more you dig (attempt to defend), the deeper you are in the hole, and the dirt is now falling back on top of the digger.

so quit trying to defend the un-defendable. this is a tweak for god's sake, and as feedback collects those interested will want to try it. but proof (or even complete dot connecting) will be very hard to come by. as much as a few of us desire it.

I want to try it and hopefully have 8 of these incoming at some point.

Mike Lavigne said:

not speaking for the Honorable Tang, but this reminds me of the Mastersound thread, where attempts were made to exactly define what was suggested by marketing hyperbole, which is something not so definable or even intended to be defended with precision.

the more you dig, the deeper you are in the hole, and the dirt is now falling back on top of the digger.

so quit trying to defend the un-defendable. this is a tweak for god's sake, and as feedback collects those interested will want to try it. but proof will be very hard to come by. as much as a few of us desire it.

I want to try it and hopefully have 8 of these incoming at some point.

Click to expand...

Mike, I don't know if this is addressed to me or not, but if it is, let me say that I am not trying to defend anything. I am trying to understand the claims made by those marketing the product. Spiritofmusic and I attempted to ask basically the same question a few times regarding listening perspective and whether or not these devices effect the perception of where one is seated in the soundfield. Having finally finished reading the entire thread, it is now pretty clear to me that the CS footers have nothing to do with putting the listener in the center of the stage, despite the quotes that Steve wrote in the opening post and the ad copy. I can be a bit slow and often need things explained clearly to me.

This post from Marty does just that. Thank you Marty.

marty said:

Peter, to be honest the ad copy takes a few liberties. Let's be realistic. These devices do not "put you in the middle of the stage" or any other similarly descriptor that suggests the listener perspective is dramatically different than what the engineer intended on the recording. The perspective of the listener is determined by the microphone selection, microphone placement, and the engineers preferences during the recording process. The CS footers did however, provide a noticeable increase the width, depth and resolution of the sound stage that was a pleasant surprise and a benefit in comparison to the sound I and others hear without them. Of course, as in all things audio, YMMV but you just might be duly impressed as well. I'm willing to allow some liberty in naming the devices accordingly, as long as we realize the name mainly tries to successfully convey the benefits provided by the footers as metaphor, as opposed to a literal descriptor of where you will feel like you are positioned while listening to every recording in your collection.

Click to expand...

PeterA said:

Mike, I don't know if this is addressed to me or not, but if it is, let me say that I am not trying to defend anything. I am trying to understand the claims made by those marketing the product. Spiritofmusic and I attempted to ask basically the same question a few times regarding listening perspective and whether or not these devices effect the perception of where one is seated in the soundfield. Having now finally finished reading the entire thread, it is now pretty clear to me that the CS footers have nothing to do with putting the listener in the center of the stage, despite the quotes that Steve wrote in the opening post and the ad copy. I can be a bit slow and often need things explained clearly to me.

This post from Marty does just that. Thank you Marty.

Click to expand...

no; I've not read all the posts and had no one in particular in mind, and absolutely not you.

only that the direction reminded me of that other thread, and that when I hear marketing words relative to tweaks or cables, I just ignore them. the product may be stellar, but why it's stellar is just not important to me, and the odds of actually being able to sort out the facts of why it works, and then prove it on a forum is very remote. and these thread directions can get heated since you have the manufacturers and distributors involved.

i'm not saying that why tweaks work should be off limits at all; only that one should be very reticent in attempts to defend these positions and lean toward the experience, and not the proof side.

and when we get some techies throwing conflicting techie jargon around, i'm off to do some serious focused listening.

Hi guys. Sigh....

With all due respect might I please point out how recordings are made. I posted this in Davey's thread but it was simply ignored by the OP. To this day there is this notion that soundstages are like movie screens and that they should be confined to the speaker plane with some depth of field. Okay, we are primarily visual as a species so perhaps this influences that idea. We think in straight lines the way light travels. That is not how sound travels. Stereo was invented to add an immersive factor just as surround sound was after it. I am reposting here what went ignored by Davey. Let's not get hung up on the frigging product name so literally. Suffice it to say, if you prefer a movie screen presentation, fine. Following your preferences is your right. Just be aware that this is NOT the way your recordings were constructed. Nor is it the way sound pressure reaches you in a live setting as Peter knows having much experience in intimate performances. Some food for thought. DO take the time to hit the link for the pictures.

repost now....



I think we have to get past quite a few truisms born mainly out of endless iteration. I guess I've always been much less obsessive about "live" vs "constructed" for a number of reasons. Stereo is an artificial construct but less seen is how it is constructed. Let's take the Decca tree or EMI blumlein as examples. Many see the picture of microphone diagrams and assume that they are vertically oriented. In fact they are more horizontal and are flown, center stage (pun intended).

The common idea is that a soundstage should resemble a movie screen and so people set their systems up to give this type of wide presentation with depth of field like you would see from a camera lens. If one looks at acquisition for minimalist recordings and panning on constructed soundscapes however these are performed with an arc not a flat plane. See the photos here https://proaudioclube.com/2016/04/09...ets-engeneers/ for Decca. You'll see not only the orientation of the tree but also how the musicians are oriented around the tree and how outriggers are positioned as well. It is a much more severe arc than that for playing to an audience. Here, the microphones are the audience. The equilateral triangle placement for stereo monitoring likewise sets an arc while visually it may appear like straight lines. We all know that beam width varies with frequency. The straight lines then apply only to high frequencies while lower down there will be summing and cancelations to go along with differing arrival times to create the stimuli to create the illusion of localization.

From this perspective live or constructed is a moot point. Of course we want the instruments to sound like real instruments but as far as placement goes, in both cases sound is optimized for a specific area within that arc very different from sound for motion pictures where sound is attempted to be optimized for a wider area. Since we are talking about music especially music for the home we go with the former.

The question now is have a lot of people been setting their systems up wrong. Well I wouldn't be so harsh. Preferences are preferences. I would go far as saying that one of the purposes of stereo like surround sound after it is to give a more immersive experience without having to give up too much of the direct impact of true mono. This is only my opinion but it is what it is. For me, the more realistic soundstage is that of the walk in variety. It is also truer to the vast majority of commercial recordings given how they were made or constructed. They were made to have the listener smack down the middle and surrounded close to his field of view. It is an experience in itself and again IMO should be appreciated as such as opposed to being compared to abstract concepts forced down our collective throats.

The information in the recording, particularly the cues, tonal shifts created by relative distance, reverberation, et al are there. Getting them unmasked by noise is another story provided the noise isn't on the medium itself. Normally when one says dynamic range, loudness is the first thing that comes to mind. It is at the heart of the word length debate in digital. The last few decades however has had the industry and listeners have been looking at the other direction. How do we increase dynamic range without having to go louder? The answer is simple, make quiet quieter. Something the analog guys have had to deal with all along. We just have to deal with acoustical, mechanical and electrical noise.

Mike Lavigne said:

the more you dig (attempt to defend), the deeper you are in the hole, and the dirt is now falling back on top of the digger.

so quit trying to defend the un-defendable. this is a tweak for god's sake, and as feedback collects those interested will want to try it. but proof (or even complete dot connecting) will be very hard to come by. as much as a few of us desire it.

I want to try it and hopefully have 8 of these incoming at some point.

Click to expand...

Dear Peter,

I meant exactly what Mike said. I was using your quote Peter, but was not directing my words to you. No bad intention. I always wish everyone success in their business..(except for my direct compettitors). They were just words of caution. Some time too much marketing can just backfire at the product. And I, like MikeL, will have these feet under my gears at some point...just to keep my ears open.

Kind regards,
Tang