Real vs. Artificial Depth of Soundstage

[RBFC]

I recently heard a system that exhibited (upon first impression) tremendous depth of soundstage. After a few moments of listening, I decided that the cavernous soundstage was not entirely natural. The entire presentation had a reverb-type quality to it, and there were no instruments or singers located near or at the plane of the speakers.

I remember achieving this same type effect when I played around with positioning of the big Apogee panels. I pushed them into a "toed-out" configuration. The soundstage took on great depth behind the speakers, but much of the immediacy and life left the sound. This experience clearly illustrated for me how we can become "lost" when searching for one quality of reproduction, concurrently sacrificing other qualities in the process.

So, I thought I'd ask the gang what recordings they use for evaluation of depth reproduction. These recordings should, to me, have content at the plane of the speakers and content back into the soundstage.

Thoughts?

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I recently heard a system that exhibited great depth of soundstage. While impressive upon first listening, I soon realized that the cavernous soundstage had a "reverb-like" effect, and that no instruments were located on or near the plane of the speakers. It became obvious that the setup had been performed to emphasize depth in (what to me seems) an artificial way.

I remember back when I was messing with the positioning of my big Apogee panels and achieved a similar effect by "toe-out" orientation of the speakers. Depth was incredible, but much of the life and immediacy of the music was lost. This drab sonic picture was mirrored with my experience of the system mentioned above.

With this in mind, do you all have any recommended recordings that unequivocally demonstrate REAL depth of image, where there is content at the plane of the speakers AND content located obviously behind the front rows? I have some favorites, but thought it would be interesting to see other opinions!

Lee

I would think that depth of soundstage would be a function of mic placement and mix, and that if your speakers are set up to image properly in the left-right plane, they would do all they are capable of doing front to back, but maybe I'm missing something.

P

 

[RBFC]

I would think that depth of soundstage would be a function of mic placement and mix, and that if your speakers are set up to image properly in the left-right plane, they would do all they are capable of doing front to back, but maybe I'm missing something.

P

I was hoping to get some recommendations on other folks' recordings that they feel can best demonstrate the layering of the soundstage I attempted to describe.

I don't completely believe that left/right single-plane imaging setup always optimizes depth qualities. Control of backwave and reflections, distance from the front wall, and relative seating position may all affect depth when the L/R spread can sound sufficient.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I was hoping to get some recommendations on other folks' recordings that they feel can best demonstrate the layering of the soundstage I attempted to describe.

I don't completely believe that left/right single-plane imaging setup always optimizes depth qualities. Control of backwave and reflections, distance from the front wall, and relative seating position may all affect depth when the L/R spread can sound sufficient.

Lee

You're right, of course. speaker placement is critical to imaging. To answer your question, I find that some of Van Morrison's albums from the 80s and early 90s have remarkable depth -- Into The Music, Enlightenment and No Guru, No Method, No Teacher come to mind.

P

 

[JackD201]

Laer Meg a Kjenne from Sissel's self titled album

Its a musical version of a pick up basketball game. The pianist was noodling around and she happened to join in. Unbeknownst to the duo and others inside the studio, the engineer was recording. It doesn't hurt that the song itself is hauntingly beautiful.

Enjoy!

 

[JackD201]

For a really good test of how immersive your set up is, try Mathilda from Harry Belafonte at Carnegie Hall. It not only helps with depth and width but also in stage height. Calypso, Calypso!

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Lee. Was there any particular genre you were looking for with regards to depth in a recording?

Tom

 

[Bill Hart]

Didn't the Opus 3 label have a demo record called 'depth of image' or something like that?
One of the records i used to like as a 'check' was the Ave Maria on the Mission soundtrack, because you could hear the placement of individual voices if the system was set up properly. It was not hit you in the face 'deep' imaging, but pretty impressive it the system is right.
I'm sure there are a bunch of other records that I have used in the past that had great 'soundstaging,' what i like about my current set up is that its not like a faux image between speakers, it's more 'in the room' without sounding forward or playing 'at' you, as some (badly set up) horn systems will do.By contrast, when my main system was Crosby Quads, the imaging was more critical, in part because they were so good at that attribute and it made up for other things that were missing.

 

[microstrip]

By contrast, when my main system was Crosby Quads, the imaging was more critical, in part because they were so good at that attribute and it made up for other things that were missing.

Quad ESL63 can give you an incredibly deep soundstage. I remember that they were great in some opera recordings - you could have the singers in front of the speaker plane and the whole orchestra layered at the back in a large and deep section.

 

[flez007]

I have some friends that place tonality well over soundstaging in their systems and preferences, I like them both!, and that is why I like my Avalon speakers so much. The ECM label captures the recording venue in such a perfect way that is captivating, try any of the live recordings from Keith Jarret Trio as a fine example of good soundstaging.

 

[Soundminded]

At a live concert most of the performers are approximately the same distance give or take 15 or 20 feet or so from any one seat in most of the audience. All of the musicians should therefore seem approximately the same distance away. The further they seem at a given loudness, the more powerful they are perceived to be. In fact it increases with the square of the distance. This is why I think imaging is so important to many people. At a concert, most of the audience is anywhere from about 20 or 30 feet away from the musicians to as much as a hundred feet or more. In a cathedral it can be even greater. But when all of the reverberant sound comes from the same direction as the source, it sounds like they're inside the Holland Tunnel and you are on the outside. In a large reverberant room you are surrounded by reflections, they come at you from all directions in rapid succession. In a stereo sound system they come from a narrow angle in front of you, the same direction as the players. In a surround sound system they may come from all around you but so do the instruments. With binaural recordings it all comes from inside your head. None of these systems work.

flez007"I have some friends that place tonality well over soundstaging in their systems and preferences"

Unfortunately you cannot duplicate the tonality of musical instruments heard at a live venue unless you duplicate the reverberation as well. This is because as the sound dies out, the higher harmonics die out faster (about twice as fast by 8khz) as the fundamental and lower harmonics. This alters the perceived tone.

 

[GaryProtein]

At home you can get great sound and imaging but you cannot duplicate the sonic characteristics of Avery Fisher Hall with a volume of over 700,000 cubic feet in a 6000 cubic foot (30' long x 20' wide x 10' high) or smaller living room. It just isn't possible.

 

[Soundminded]

At home you can get great sound and imaging but you cannot duplicate the sonic characteristics of Avery Fisher Hall with a volume of over 700,000 cubic feet in a 6000 cubic foot (30' long x 20' wide x 10' high) or smaller living room. It just isn't possible.

"It just isn't possible."

That's right, a least not the way anyone has gone about it so far. They can't record it, they can't play it back to do the same thing if they could. An entirely different approach is needed if it is to be made to work at all.

The first thing you'd need to do is understand exactly what the large room of hundreds of thousands of cubic feet is doing to sound. So far we're not there yet. That's where the basic science of acoustics needs more research, better models, more real knowledge.

Then you have to invent a way to do the same thing by different means in a small room. That's where engineering comes in. I've met the people on both sides of the problem. I've read what they have to say, what they know (and what they don't know.) Take my word for it, the current crop aren't up to the task. Not even close. It's simply beyond them. It's like the puzzle of the nine dots. They haven't gotten outside the box in their minds yet. Maybe people who will come along in the future but not the people we hear of working on it now. The problem has simply beaten them. They're completely baffled by it. So instead they sell what they can do...which isn't nearly good enough....a least for me. Worst of all, they either dismiss their shortcomings as irrelevant or proclaim that they've conquered the world with every new variant of their preposterous products. I think if you find that you can't knock a brick wall down by hitting your head against it no matter how many times you do it or no matter how hard you hit it, there should come a point where you stop, step back, and consider that if you are going to get past it, there might be a better way that works.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I recently heard a system that exhibited (upon first impression) tremendous depth of soundstage. After a few moments of listening, I decided that the cavernous soundstage was not entirely natural. The entire presentation had a reverb-type quality to it, and there were no instruments or singers located near or at the plane of the speakers.

I remember achieving this same type effect when I played around with positioning of the big Apogee panels. I pushed them into a "toed-out" configuration. The soundstage took on great depth behind the speakers, but much of the immediacy and life left the sound. This experience clearly illustrated for me how we can become "lost" when searching for one quality of reproduction, concurrently sacrificing other qualities in the process.

So, I thought I'd ask the gang what recordings they use for evaluation of depth reproduction. These recordings should, to me, have content at the plane of the speakers and content back into the soundstage.

Thoughts?

Lee

i'm no expert; but here are some random observations on this subject based on my experiences;

depth can be an artifact of too much toe in, and when that is the case typically you also have reduced image height and width. sort of a 'tunnel' effect. it can also come from too much absorbtion beside and behind speakers in a smallish room.

the perception of the relationship between depth, height, width and center image focus is much involved with speaker set-up, specifically toe in.

but real depth (in the sense of how the music was recorded and mixed) is much more than speaker positioning.

it starts with high resolution sources, and high quality analog sources go further that the digital ones. next is a great power grid, and overall low noise as well as low ambient noise intrusion. when you have high resolution and low noise the ambient sound field will define a much deeper soundstage. we see this this typically when we tweak things which result in a lower noise floor or more dynamic contrasts, or maybe even change cables. all these things can bring us more depth.

next is low frequency linearity and extension. when a recording has that foundation of 'air' and your speakers and amps can define it correctly the room will pressurize and you will be aware of the space. the combination of low noise, high resolution, and low bass power will make the ambience of the recording real.

then you have the room itself, it needs to be live enough to retain the energy and have enough diffusion of first reflections for image focus. is there enough space behind the speakers to allow for the perception of space?

even after all these factors are considered; depth should vary from recording to recording......this is the proof of performance. the more variation in depth from recording to recording the more it is real to the recording and not an artifact/characteristic of your system. one thing i've really noticed with my new speakers is how much more defined and variable the soundstage is on every recording. they go deeper and are higher resolution.

as far as how the depth of the recording compares to the actual depth perception of the live event recorded that is a whole different subject.

YMMV and all that stuff.

 

[dallasjustice]

My experience:

Get the speakers as far away from the the front wall (wall facing listener) without losing bass linearity. Easier said than done; most efficiently done with a microphone.

Be careful not to use too much HF absorption, especially on the side of the room closest to the font wall. (limit fiberglass absorption)

High quality source component is critical.

Depth coupled with excellent low level resolution and articulate bass will most accurately put the venue into your listening room.

Any quality live recording that attempts to capture a large stage of complex instruments in a high quality venue will be best. I very much enjoy all of Keith Johnson's recordings of the Dallas Wind Symphony for example. "Garden of Dreams" is my favorite.

 

[edorr]

High quality source component is critical.

The amount of "depth" added through the EMM Labs DAC2X upgrade was astounding. More so than going from Avalons to Evolution Acoustics MM3. I might add that - although abhorred by some - Digital Room Correction can also be extremely beneficial in creating more depth of soundstage.

 

[tony ky ma]

believe it or not

A multi amps system can more easily to give you a better sound stage than a single amp system
tony ma

 

[Robh3606]

Take my word for it, the current crop aren't up to the task. Not even close. It's simply beyond them. It's like the puzzle of the nine dots. They haven't gotten outside the box in their minds yet. Maybe people who will come along in the future but not the people we hear of working on it now. The problem has simply beaten them. They're completely baffled by it. So instead they sell what they can do...which isn't nearly good enough....a least for me. Worst of all, they either dismiss their shortcomings as irrelevant or proclaim that they've conquered the world with every new variant of their preposterous products.

Hello Soundmind

I will try to remember that the next time I have Avatar or Adelles Live DVD playing in my HT. They simply have no clue.

At home you can get great sound and imaging but you cannot duplicate the sonic characteristics of Avery Fisher Hall with a volume of over 700,000 cubic feet in a 6000 cubic foot (30' long x 20' wide x 10' high) or smaller living room. It just isn't possible

Hello Gary

Stereo certainly can't get you there. Multichannel you have a much better chance of pulling it off.

Rob

 

[edorr]

Stereo certainly can't get you there. Multichannel you have a much better chance of pulling it off.
Rob

Absolutely. The best stereo cannot hold a candle to a good MCH recording in terms of recreating the illusion of being in the original acoustic space. Case in point is the Adele Blu Ray you mentioned. Especially when she is talking to the audience, the space she is in sounds huge.

 

[Soundminded]

Hello Soundmind

I will try to remember that the next time I have Avatar or Adelles Live DVD playing in my HT. They simply have no clue.

The reason the overwhelming majority of audiophiles don't listen to music with an HT system is that they feel they are less accurate than a 2 channel stereo system. HT is very similar to the failed quadraphonic technology of the 1970s. Seeing performers or videos of them may add synergistically to hearing a recording but when you close your eyes, it's clear to most audiophiles that what they're getting is not particularly convincing sound, in fact not as good as 2 channel reproduction.