Is imaging the same as "sound stage" and does it require cleaner electronics?

[Phelonious Ponk]

A bit late for this now, but may be useful to reference:

From J. Gordon Holt's An Audio Glossary ...

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it

Frank

Being one who believes the only objective of a playback system is to reproduce the recording, I agree with Mr. Holt's definitions, but would point out that his sound staging is only possible with binaural or very simple, 2-mic stereo recordings. And how many of those do we have?

The moment you place a microphone in front of a mouth or an instrument, or even over a string section or a choir, "the size, shape and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space" are not what the recording will capture. Then you're left with imaging, "sound stage" is just what your speakers do with the recording in your room. That's fine, but it is an effect, an illusion (as is imaging). It has nothing to do with the original space or the recreation of an original event, and we're back to choices over how much we control our listening space or allow it to contribute to the illusion.

In the end, the audiophile hobby is so subjective not because there is nothing objective to listen for and evaluate, but because we choose to listen for and evaluate that which is so subjective.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Just curious, Tim, do you have any, or possibly many recordings where you DO feel that the "acoustical characteristics of the original recording space" have been captured to any degree? What you say there implies that you feel that soundstaging is ALWAYS an artifact of the sound playback environment. Am I am correct here?

Also, any thoughts on my headphones IS speakers post?

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

A bit late for this now, but may be useful to reference:

From J. Gordon Holt's An Audio Glossary ...

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it

Frank

Frank I should have warned you. Any reference to JGH's Glossary is punishable by 30 days listening to top forty hits on an ipod.

 

[fas42]

Any reference to JGH's Glossary is punishable by ...

Oh dear, oh dear, it appears I've ventured into "spawn of the devil" territory. So, so, sorry ...

Oh, by the way, why is it so ...

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

Being one who believes the only objective of a playback system is to reproduce the recording, I agree with Mr. Holt's definitions, but would point out that his sound staging is only possible with binaural or very simple, 2-mic stereo recordings. And how many of those do we have?

The moment you place a microphone in front of a mouth or an instrument, or even over a string section or a choir, "the size, shape and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space" are not what the recording will capture. Then you're left with imaging, "sound stage" is just what your speakers do with the recording in your room. That's fine, but it is an effect, an illusion (as is imaging). It has nothing to do with the original space or the recreation of an original event, and we're back to choices over how much we control our listening space or allow it to contribute to the illusion.

In the end, the audiophile hobby is so subjective not because there is nothing objective to listen for and evaluate, but because we choose to listen for and evaluate that which is so subjective.

Tim

I respectfully disagree. See this link http://www.deltamedia.com/resource/s...echniques.html .that I have previously posted which details how to capture the ambiance of the recording venue. The techniques have been widely used but are not universal as Tim correctly points out. It does appear inconsistent to be a fidelity to the source guy and argue against accepting what that source has produced. Furthermore while the whole binaural thing is interesting, I just don't get it. Whose ears are we picking. Where are they located? Do we sit in the band or orchestra? 0r are located in the audience? What pattern microphones do we use? Do we put a microphone inside our ear? If its' outside the ear, what direction is it pointed.

 

[fas42]

Gregadd, that link you posted didn't come through cleanly (Hmm, I think he should tweak the electronics in his computer a bit more ...)

Frank

 

[Gregadd]

Gregadd, that link you posted didn't come through cleanly (Hmm, I think he should tweak the electronics in his computer a bit more ...)

Frank

Something is wrong. You'll find it in post #20 this thread. it works fine from there.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I respectfully disagree. See this link http://www.deltamedia.com/resource/s...echniques.html .that I have previously posted which details how to capture the ambiance of the recording venue.

The link was not live, but it doesn't matter. My position is not that the ambiance of a recording venue cannot be captured, but that it seldom is.

It does appear inconsistent to be a fidelity to the source guy and argue against accepting what that source has produced.

But I didn't argue against accepting what the source has produced. In my view, the source is the recording, and I accept it. But I accept it for what it is instead of altering it with electronics/transducers/room ambiance in an attempt to re-create an original event that was never created originally.

Furthermore while the whole binaural thing is interesting, I just don't get it. Whose ears are we picking.

Have you listened to binaural recordings through good headphones? There is little question that they create a more real sense of space than stereo, probably because the differences between ears are tiny compared to the differences between listening spaces.

Where are they located? Do we sit in the band or orchestra? 0r are located in the audience? What pattern microphones do we use? Do we put a microphone inside our ear? If its' outside the ear, what direction is it pointed.

You just made a great argument against your belief in the "original event."

Tim

 

[microstrip]

IMHO , this debate could be much more useful if people could illustrate their views with examples from specific know recordings that highlight their points.

One of my preferred CDs to test pin point imaging is Reference Recording Stravinsky "Soldier's tale" CHICAGO PRO MUSICA. You can tune a system to be almost holographic with this recording.

For soundstage I prefer the Decca series Shostakovitch symphonies conducted by Bernard Haitink. The stage must spread outside the room dimensions, and the orchestra sections should have the proper relative widths , not just the position.

 

[Gregadd]

It's difficult to say something does not work for me w/o offending the people who like it. Binaural was a hot topic some time ago. I don't have any experience with binaural recording.
I continue to point out that you cannot disprove a rule by citing an example where the rule was perverted.

My statement that I want to have a trumpet sound like a trumpet or a piano sound like a piano somehow got translated into my demanding a perfect reproduction of the live event. I do not know how that happened.

IME two channel stereo can recreate a scary sense of space. If headphones do better for less that's great.

Finally not everything I say is an argument for a particular position. Sometimes I'm just "kicking the can." Hence the term "Discussion Post"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Also, any thoughts on my headphones IS speakers post?

Frank

Well, headphones are playback transducers, so...close. As far as testing them AS speakers, it's just not practical. Even very inefficient dynamic headphones operate under loads of headroom when fed just a few hundred milliwatts. Playing them loud enough to have any idea of what they sound like "as speakers" would destroy them. The opposite experiment is equally futile, I'm afraid. If I got my head close enough to speakers to listen to them "as headphones," I'd be listening only to one driver, not the system. And if I wanted to avoid hearing damage, the volume would be too low to properly energize most speaker drivers. The whole point of headphones is the removal of the room, the proximity of the transducers, and the limitations that all of the above removes from the design. Hold a pair of Sennheiser HD650s in your hand, just inches from your ears, and you have no bass at all. Put them on your head and you'll have more than most speaker systems.

Perhaps I didn't understand what you were getting at.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

]IMHO , this debate could be much more useful if people could illustrate their views with examples from specific know recordings that highlight their points.

I can appreciate that, but it is difficult because there are so few records made with capturing the ambient space of the venue as an objective, mostly because capturing the space is usually at odds with capturing the music with any reasonable fidelity. Bill Evan's Village Vanguard recordings come to mind as non-classical recordings that attempt to capture the ambience of the room, but, while I don't know this, I'd guess that itself is an illusion, that there were microphones in the audience picking up the "room" and microphones on stage, capturing the instruments directly. It wouldn't sound as good as it does if it were recorded only "from the room."

Except for classical recordings made from the seats of halls (Are any really made this way? With no mics on or over the stage?), I suspect that "the ambience of the venue" is an illusion created by recording technique, which brings us right back to reproducing the recording as accurately as possible. Then, if you want the added ambience of your room, more power to you. Enjoy.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Rather than steal this thread from Tim I created a new thread discussing how the great labels tried to recreate the live event as best they could. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2513-Great-recording-labels&p=32578#post32578

 

[mep]

Well, headphones are playback transducers, so...close. As far as testing them AS speakers, it's just not practical. Even very inefficient dynamic headphones operate under loads of headroom when fed just a few hundred milliwatts. Playing them loud enough to have any idea of what they sound like "as speakers" would destroy them. The opposite experiment is equally futile, I'm afraid. If I got my head close enough to speakers to listen to them "as headphones," I'd be listening only to one driver, not the system. And if I wanted to avoid hearing damage, the volume would be too low to properly energize most speaker drivers. The whole point of headphones is the removal of the room, the proximity of the transducers, and the limitations that all of the above removes from the design. Hold a pair of Sennheiser HD650s in your hand, just inches from your ears, and you have no bass at all. Put them on your head and you'll have more than most speaker systems.

Perhaps I didn't understand what you were getting at.








Tim

Tim-The way you described your listening setup was that you sit one meter (approx. 3') from your speakers and your speakers are 1 meter apart. I think that is about as close as you can come to speakers used as headphones as you can get. It sounds like your stereo is set up on top of your computer desk and you just push your chair back a bit. Is this the case or are you speakers stand mounted in open space in room and you have a chair situated so that you are sitting 3' from the speakers?

 

[microstrip]

I can appreciate that, but it is difficult because there are so few records made with capturing the ambient space of the venue as an objective, mostly because capturing the space is usually at odds with capturing the music with any reasonable fidelity. Bill Evan's Village Vanguard recordings come to mind as non-classical recordings that attempt to capture the ambience of the room, but, while I don't know this, I'd guess that itself is an illusion, that there were microphones in the audience picking up the "room" and microphones on stage, capturing the instruments directly. It wouldn't sound as good as it does if it were recorded only "from the room."

Except for classical recordings made from the seats of halls (Are any really made this way? With no mics on or over the stage?), I suspect that "the ambience of the venue" is an illusion created by recording technique, which brings us right back to reproducing the recording as accurately as possible. Then, if you want the added ambience of your room, more power to you. Enjoy.

Tim

Tim,
I think you are too pessimist about recordings. IMHO, happily talented sound engineers know about their job and many times our systems can recreate the soundstage ambiance they perceived in the local of recording and they want us to perceive.

Remember that according to Gordon "soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it" . I do not expect to be able to go in the soundstage with my laser meter and check positions of performers and walls, and I do not thing that he meant that! But there are some clues that I expect - e.g the soundstage of a chamber performance is very different from that of a big orchestra. It is just my imagination? Perhaps but some systems trigger it much better.

Any way, you admitted the existence of a "few records made with capturing the ambient space of the venue as an objective" - we can always use those ones for our debate.

 

[fas42]

But I accept it for what it is instead of altering it with electronics/transducers/room ambiance in an attempt to re-create an original event that was never created originally

Tim, agree with you 100%

My statement that I want to have a trumpet sound like a trumpet or a piano sound like a piano somehow got translated into my demanding a perfect reproduction of the live event

Gregadd, agree with your sentiments 100%

As regards recordings for testing system performance I use a variety, especially really, really "bad" ones. They make it obvious when the system is not up to scratch: from my point of view there is no use to trying to compensate in other ways if the system is fundamentally flawed, that is, generating too much distortion -- here we are back to the cleaner electronics this thread was attempting to focus on.

As examples, at the moment a compilation of classic early 30's big band swing, Franck and Faure Quartets by the Medici Qt, Essential Odetta (60's at Carnegie Hall). I need to be able to put each one of these on one after the other and be emotionally completely immersed in the event. If I'm not, then the system ain't right!

The human voice, as many have said, is perfect for this. If there is one thing people know how it sounds, it has to be the human voice! Odetta, very low level recording, I have to run this at system maximum volume to get a decent rendition (which by the way is an excellent answer to people claiming that CD can't handle low level stuff; at this volume with a current pop recording my eardrums would be shrivelling up!) is excellent for this, the voice should be totally together, no harshness. Also Billie Holliday, a perfect test: if system is not right then she sounds "weird", a kid squawking with something in its mouth, what people make fun of; as the system improves she turns into a human being, the voice becomes warm and rich and engrossing and you understand what all the fuss was about at the time.

Frank

 

[muralman1]

I think the best CD that highlights my point is the, the "Nutcracker," by the Kirov Orchestra conducted by Valery Gergiev. At the wounding of the Nutcracker, there is a pistol shot. If it doesn't make you jump, you haven't got it.

 

[fas42]

I'd be listening only to one driver, not the system. And if I wanted to avoid hearing damage, the volume would be too low to properly energize most speaker drivers.

This, Tim, is why systems never sound real 99.9% of the time. Why, because they are not loud enough! Real music, real sound events are loud, and our ears are designed to cope with it. My brother plays the saxophone: he plays a good burst right next to me, the sound almost picks me up and pushes me sideways! If I went and immediately listened to a typical high-end system doing the same thing I would probably laugh my head off. But I didn't suffer instant ear damage from that great burst of sound a few seconds ago! Why, because it was CLEAN sound and that is the big, big difference!

So, sorry to say, as soon as people say, I am worried about hearing damage, my brain translates this to: that system is generating too much distortion, ear/brain overloads, so turn the volume down, hmm, system doesn't sound real, just as I thought ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

At the wounding of the Nutcracker, there is a pistol shot. If it doesn't make you jump, you haven't got it

Vince, spot on! You've just echoed my last post perfectly!

Frank

 

[fas42]

Oh dear ...

Vince, I think we've lost them all! It appears they have all run away to this thread, as started by Gregadd above: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...2578#post32578

But we tried, we did try ...

Frank