Actually Blumlein described it quite well 90 years ago. Since his technique is the main MO for true stereo recordings, no need to elaborate.
Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I'm so gripped by this discussion of soundstage that dominates this thread for pages! But, I'm a bit confused or lost after so much has passed. So, does having a 3D soundstage make the high end gear worth the money? Or is it still worth the money without it? Frankly, in all the excitement, I lost count.... (How many angels dancing on the head of that pin?)
The funny thing is depth and imaging were described by Blumlein 90 years ago. So i see the discussion of whether it exists or not as 100% moot: it does and that really is the end of it (whether people want to admit that or not is a different matter). If you don't know history...
I don’t think there’s a debate about whether or not it exists. The discussion is about its overall value and varying quality. Does it always increase realism or only sometimes? To what extent does the effect we hear from our systems in our rooms resemble what we experience listening to live music?
Sorry, but I found his post offensive (and completely off topic).
@hopkins - Thing is, this is not your forum and it is not your job to control the narrative or discussion. Thread drift is normal and the recent discussions have everything to do with high end audio (albeit boring or irrelevant for some).
The fact that you find it offensive and completely off topic is irrelevant. Also, trying to moderate the forum yourself is also against the Terms of Sevice of the forum.
You have to remember, this is not your sandbox. Play accordingly.
Tom
The fact that you find it offensive and completely off topic is irrelevant. Also, trying to moderate the forum yourself is also against the Terms of Sevice of the forum.
You have to remember, this is not your sandbox. Play accordingly.
Tom
I'm not trying to moderate anything, I understand that's your job.
When I read this...
"It's claimed that this ominous but somehow not describable 3D imaging is immensely important for music reproduction, but none of you even begin to talk about music or how you perceive and understand music."
Followed by this...
"What is the focus when you listen to music? Hopefully not on halls and bedrooms, cables, amps, speakers .."
...I find it offensive (and off topic). Sue me for saying it!
His comments could be added to any thread discussing equipment or sound on this forum - what would be the point of doing that? What is implied here is that people who discuss "sound" don't know anything about "music". Lol.
Last edited:
It would be great to have a "not relevant to thread" designation for posts. And a feature to filter them out. Wait! What am I saying? Most of my posts would be filtered out. Never mind!!!
Thanks. Will stream the high resolution version to check it out. Have the 44/16 CD but haven't listened to it in a while. That is one downside of constantly discovering new (to me) music via streaming. Sometimes I forget other great music already in the library.
The problem with his post is that he is lecturing as if everyone who he is debating with think soundstage and image are the only thing they care about in reproduction. This pretence that he is providing deep understanding that no one else is thinking of comes through in the lecturing tone and missing the obvious that just because we are focused on a particular topic doesn’t mean we aren’t aware or concerned about other important topics. It’s quite arrogant.
Then stating things like no one can define soundstage and imaging to where I even agree with Ralph for once!
Not so much. But its pretty obvious from his work where actions speak louder:
https://www.cnet.com/science/meet-alan-blumlein-the-man-who-invented-stereo/
When you run out of arguments, you get personal. However, after your previous disrespectful comments, I expected nothing less.
I know; that´s the reason for stating it´s phase and level a few pages earlier.Actually Blumlein described it quite well 90 years ago. Since his technique is the main MO for true stereo recordings, no need to elaborate.
Last edited:
Thanks. The link offers a brief bio of Alan Blumlein though not much about his views on 3D imaging.
I found a 1981 Stereophile article that talks about Blumlein's discoveries and the topic of sound source location, then gets into microphone placement.
The article talks about defining a lateral soundstage and image depth. Best as I can read it makes no mention of three-dimensional images.
The Stereo Image
The author demonstrating stereo microphone techniques at an English audio show in 1981.
www.stereophile.com
Ron, to me the real question is who gives a sh-t?
I’m a boomer. I grew up with a soundtrack to my life. I’ve had my own stereo since my sophomore year in college when I bought a used KLH-11. With my first paycheck out of graduate school I bought my first “real” stereo. It lasted for almost twenty years until, then married with two young kids and reasonably successful, I attended a performance of Don Giovanni at the Metropolitan Opera. I was hooked on the whole experience, but truly fascinated with live sound in real space without amplification. How could I get that at home? So began my quest in audio leading to mono-block amps, tube pre-amps, moving coil cartridges on big (for the time) turntables, SACD at the highest level, falling for Franco Serblin’s approach to speaker design and his SF Extremas. Nuttiest of all: top of the line audio note silver interconnects and speaker cables which seemed to be the final touch to make my system in a relatively small space, reach for perfection. I’ll let everyone else here argue about the infinite reasons some systems are magical and others less so, and what precisely is the difference. But I've two things to say in response to this youtube video and your question:
Was it worth it? Beyond any doubt. My children (now 36 and 34) grew up with music constantly in the background. They sat at the dinner table fielding questions from me about which opera was playing and what part in the opera were we listening to. Of course they have their own musical taste but they know the difference between quality and not. What price that? Yes, I spent a lot of money on it (nothing compared to some here, but six figures). I enjoyed a huge percentage of my non-working but still awake hours listening to music. Worth it? There is NO question. The answer is yes, and f—k anyone who questions my choices in the matter.
The second thing I must share that faced with an unexpected and serious diagnosis, I sold EVERYTHING I had accumulated in order to put together a simpler system my wife might enjoy when I’m gone. Selling was much easier than I had anticipated. The resulting system is on a side trail and no longer on the path to the mountain top, but I’ve been there and can still appreciate others’ journey without judgment.
3D = lateral + depth.Thanks. The link offers a brief bio of Alan Blumlein though not much about his views on 3D imaging.
I found a 1981 Stereophile article that talks about Blumlein's discoveries and the topic of sound source location, then gets into microphone placement.
The article talks about defining a lateral soundstage and image depth. Best as I can read it makes no mention of three-dimensional images.
The Stereo Image
The author demonstrating stereo microphone techniques at an English audio show in 1981.
It seems that the perception of depth (distance) is not something that is well understood (scientifically).
However subtle it may be, our ears do evaluate distances based on a number of different auditory cues. This is true even when the sound source is visible. In fact, it seems that our hearing enhances visual evaluation of distances. So if you are sitting in a concert hall, even if you don't know it, chances are that you are recognizing different layers of sound, and not to a "wall" of sound.
As we know, our perception of sound in a live venue is necessarily going to be different than through a recording, but it is hard to argue that there are no cues embedded in a recording.
But you may still find that your system sounds more "natural" when it delivers a similar - subtle - sense of depth than what you consciously or unconsciously experienced in a concert hall.
Does any of this matter? Up to you to decide.
Are some systems better than others at reproducing this? I would assume that it's part of the "package" - a more transparent system should be better at this, as it should be better at other things as well... All this is embedded in the signal, so when your loudspeakers, your amplification, and your source, introduce less distortions, you should expect that this would "come along for the ride"?
Last edited:
Of course Jeff Dorgay's title question is substantially rhetorical. Very few people would buy something, and then buy it again, and then keep buying, and then spend more money on it if they did not feel that what they were getting in return for their dollars was "worth the money."
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |