What is "Sound Stage?"

[RogerD]

I found this on the web

http://www.isomike.com/joe.html

 

[Steve williams]

Steve, if you don't mind, would you be so kind as to list just a few of them....perhaps a gem or two, please?

checking his webpage I am seeing that the ones I really liked are "sold out"

TBH, any album esp SACD done in Isomike technique is a real experience

it is worth having one or two to understand this interesting technique

 

[NorthStar]

I bought several CD's and SACD's at CES last month recorded with Isomike technique and they are darn good with great examples of soundstage height

Now you're talking, Doc. :b

And if I'm not mistaking Steve,
your rig is a Stereo system including a top notch pair of loudspeakers (Wilson) right?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Okay, sorry if I'm a bit short fused Tim. Lot's of stuff going on right now. Remember that old career? Looks like I'm getting pulled back in.

What I've been trying to tell you is that while the examples are extreme, at the mixing desk where we get dry, direct mic feeds that as you correctly stated don't exactly sound right due to shortcomings of microphones themselves, mixing engineers do need to do quite a bit of massaging to make them sound closer to the real thing. Mixing is my true love. I've said so in my introduce yourself thread. I'm quite passionate about it and wished I had been able to pursue it. When assembling a simulation of an actual space where musicians are supposed to sound like they are actually playing together in that same place. We run into problems with spatial constriction. Just try to picture looking at a typical band lay out. Singer in front, drummer behind him, lead and rhythm on the far sides of the stage. Where does the bassist go? Typically inside the two guitars and his amp close to the drummer. For best rhythmic effect the bassist has to be presented in conjunction with the kick. More than any other combination, these two guys have to play tight and they should be played back as tight. This means we have to stack then vertically down the center along with the vocalist. While the lowest notes of the bassist will overlap and blend with the lower tones of the kick (starting at 50-60Hz), we can cut some of the bassist's output leaving an impression that they are still separate despite the same pan position and not overlayed which affects definition of his middle range. The 50-60Hz and below range is no accident either since this is the range where sound is omnidirectional. Obviously you don't want your guitars flying around so you just try to massage them so they sound balanced, hence normal height. We do like stuff like flanging flying sometimes gets tweaked. Anyhow stacking the bassist and kick is one of the first things you are taught. It's a basic.Then again, you have been listening to a lot of Jazz from the early days of stereo where all instruments with the exception of the occasional Rhodes or whatever were acoustic and Acoustic Bass radiates far differently from a bass amp so upright bass can be positioned not back and center. That however is the minority rather than the majority. So yes, height manipulation is definitely common.

Peace

Perhaps I'm slow today. I didn't read anything there that had anything to do with manipulation of height, unless, by cutting some of the bassist's output to prevent him from overlapping with the kick drum, you shifted the sound of the bass up to the midrange speakers from the woofer. Not sure that's a good thing, the bass popping up and down. Nor am I sure it's a good thing that you can hear those two speakers -- woofer and midrange -- as so clearly separate from each other. And Lord knows I still don't understand how any of that can translate to an electrostatic panel or play as planned on something like the Dynas Micro posted, where everything is flipped over. I do understand everything you're talking about. I get carefull eq to make sure the bass and the kick drum don't step on each other. I've watched it done and had it explained to me by more than one engineer. But I always thought it had to do with maintaining clarity and separation of instruments. Can't say I ever remember anyone mentioning "height."

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Mark

you know better than this. Taking cheap shots at the poster rather than the post serves no purpose. You and I are friends Mark but I won't allow any further cheap shots. You get my drift

It's ok, Steve, Mark's right to a point. My monitors certainly project an image that is taller than the tops of their cabinets. In that sense, I have soundstage "height." But because they are small, 2-way, and a well-implemented example of that design, their drivers become a coherent whole before they reach my ears. So the "height" information that is a result of different FR info from different drivers at different heights -- deliberate or otherwise, is lost on me. He is also correct that my speaakers begin rolling off at about 60 hz. I experience no deep bass in my speaker system at home. What he is failing to tell you, however, and he knows all to well from conversations we've had in PM, is that I sold hifi for a couple of years, including his own speaker choice, Definitive Technology, and heard full range every day. As I've told him, I do know what I'm missing. What' might be even more important, is that I also know what he's missing.

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

OK let's call it a draw and move on guys.

 

[NorthStar]

I luv this thread very much so, because everyone's bringing a bunch of very interesting points. :b

This is the type of thread from which we all share and learn from our experiences
on Soundstage's Width, Depth & Height.

* Almost like Analog vs Digital; or analog Albums vs digital Downloading.

Music to our ears is the ultimate destination; in its overall pleasantness,
and techniques employed in contributing to that auditive & sensorial & pleasurable 'perception'.

 

[fas42]

Sounds like a few more experiments need to be done. I've already mentioned placing a microsphone setup on a boom and raising and lowering it: a variation on that will be to take an echo free recording of an instrument, and add echoes time displaced to match the extra distances that sound paths take if bouncing off a floor, and a ceiling, combing direct and attenuated 2 echos. And do that for various "virtual" heights. The latter will be relatively easy to play with in a audio workstation. Other people will have better setups for trying this, but if no-one else volunteers I'll try this myself.

Frank

 

[JackD201]

It's ok, Steve, Mark's right to a point. My monitors certainly project an image that is taller than the tops of their cabinets. In that sense, I have soundstage "height." But because they are small, 2-way, and a well-implemented example of that design, their drivers become a coherent whole before they reach my ears. So the "height" information that is a result of different FR info from different drivers at different heights -- deliberate or otherwise, is lost on me. He is also correct that my speaakers begin rolling off at about 60 hz. I experience no deep bass in my speaker system at home. What he is failing to tell you, however, and he knows all to well from conversations we've had in PM, is that I sold hifi for a couple of years, including his own speaker choice, Definitive Technology, and heard full range every day. As I've told him, I do know what I'm missing. What' might be even more important, is that I also know what he's missing.

Tim

You're oh so close Tim. That separation is achieved by separating their perceived vertical spacing. That's why it works with line sources, two way point sources and dynamic single driver speakers too.

 

[JackD201]

Sounds like a few more experiments need to be done. I've already mentioned placing a microsphone setup on a boom and raising and lowering it: a variation on that will be to take an echo free recording of an instrument, and add echoes time displaced to match the extra distances that sound paths take if bouncing off a floor, and a ceiling, combing direct and attenuated 2 echos. And do that for various "virtual" heights. The latter will be relatively easy to play with in a audio workstation. Other people will have better setups for trying this, but if no-one else volunteers I'll try this myself.

Frank

It's all been done Frank. Like I said, it's taught in schools. There are two guys here that have done it on regular basis'. If you want to still try it out for yourself, knock yourself out.

 

[treitz3]

.....If someone could volunteer some particular recorded tracks where this effect appears to be repeatable, (preferably in jazz recordings) I'd like to see what happens on playback here.

Bill, of the jazz recordings I've listened to so far, there is not much height information offered. At best, maybe a 1/2 a foot above the speakers and rare at that. The family just arrived, so I can not commit all attention to observing at this time. That said, as time allows, I'll be glad to offer some tracks.

Until then, enjoy the music and thanks.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You're oh so close Tim. That separation is achieved by separating their perceived vertical spacing. That's why it works with line sources, two way point sources and dynamic single driver speakers too.

You use eq to raise the bass up to a higher vertical plane than the drums, physically separating them at playback by height. And the illusion has nothing to do with the FR of the drivers and how they're arranged vertically in the cabinet. It works just as well on panels and point sources as stacked driver arrays? OK...

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I guess I just don't like misinformation, Greg. Microphones don't work the way you imagine they do. Most of them don't capture all of the frequency information needed for a credible reproduction of music. None of them capture height information. Some hear sound coming at them from different angles with a slightly different FR, but they have no capacity to tell from which direction that angle is coming and stereo systems have no ability to decode any information into height.

The illusion of height we experience in stereo is mostly achieved through the emphasis, deliberate or otherwise, of specific frequencies, by driver units placed at physically different heights.

Your MLs don't have those different drivers at different heights. Pretty simple.

You could still get the part of the illusion created by phase manipulation, but in spite of what Jack says, I just don't think studio engineers are manipulating phase in the mix to create the kind of parlor trick illusion of height that exists on the Chesky demo. I think what most audiophiles hear as height is discrimination between the frequencies being produced by the drivers, and it is arguably not a good thing. It reveals a lack of coherence that is not necessarily surprising in behemoth speakers that spread multiple drivers out along a vertical plane that is five, six feet hight and often only 10 feet from the listening position.

As to why you feel like we've been here before, it's because we have. There are a handful of you on this board, and armies on most audiophile boards, that keep bringing us back to the same misinformation over and over again. They look at a white piece of paper and insist that it is pink. The few realists in the hobby keep giving them the color temperature readings, explaining the theory and the reality, giving them every possible tool to be able to see the white that is right before their eyes; they insist that it is pink. They see pink, by God. Fine. Enjoy your rose-colored glasses. But if you want the realists to stop repeatedly telling you that the paper is white, stop stomping your feet and repeatedly insisting that it's really pink and pink is correct. Just enjoy your color.

Tim

Tim it's not what you think or what you think of me that is irritating. What bothers me Tim is that someine will read what you say and think that the things thier stereo lacks is normal and unobtainble. That would be a shame. Because a good recording and stereo system would easily prove my point. A visit to a good high-end emporium easily settles this argument.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Bill, of the jazz recordings I've listened to so far, there is not much height information offered. At best, maybe a 1/2 a foot above the speakers and rare at that. The family just arrived, so I can not commit all attention to observing at this time. That said, as time allows, I'll be glad to offer some tracks.

Until then, enjoy the music and thanks.

Try the 45 rpm of Benny Carter Jazz Giant. I have the original, AP reissue and 15 ips tape. If you can't hear the height and 3D of the instruments as well as the feeling of the musicians being in the same room with you, then there's something really amiss

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim it's not what you think or what you think of me that is irritating. What bothers me Tim is that someine will read what you say and think that the things thier stereo lacks is normal and unobtainble. That would be a shame. Because a good recording and stereo system would easily prove my point. A visit to a good high-end emporium easily settles this argument.

And what bothers me, Greg is that someone might read what you say and conclude that there is something desperately wrong with their listening experience, and believe that they can get a four channel horizontal and vertical image from a two channel stereo system, if only they spend enough money.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

And what bothers me, Greg is that someone might read what you say and conclude that there is something desperately wrong with their listening experience, and believe that they can get a four channel horizontal and vertical image from a two channel stereo system, if only they spend enough money.

Tim, all due respect but not one person in this discussion has said this. Not one.

 

[Gregadd]

For all non-beleivers that the world is flat i will be conducting continous tours. For those who beleive the moon landing was a farce Vote for Newt Gringrich. Smile

 

[fas42]

It's all been done Frank. Like I said, it's taught in schools. There are two guys here that have done it on regular basis'. If you want to still try it out for yourself, knock yourself out.

Which, Jack? Raising and lowering the mics, or playing with phase interference effects. If the latter, it has to be subtle, the echos would be attentuated by many 10's of dBs, and should take frequency dependent absorption into account. The closer you could fake the real thing the more significant the results ..

As an aside, googling microphones and "height information", it appears that sound engineers have absolutely no problem with using two mics sitting next to each other pointing at different angles "magically" capturing all the height info you want, but as soon as you use just one mic to do this, all bets are off. It's the first time I understood that mics have blinkers on, anything not coming directly in front of them is completely invisible -- I'm amazed that conference mics work at all ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, all due respect but not one person in this discussion has said this. Not one.

Well, actually, here is the comment from Greg, which started the exchange that ended above:

planar speakers have height almost exact to there own physical dimensions. Yet the height of the individual instrument being played can mimic the real thing.

If they can mimic the position of the instruments being played, that is imaging. If they can do it vertically, then they can do, without up/down channels and up/down speakers what a lot of decent stereos/rooms, with the appropriate left/right speakers/channels struggle to accomplish with any precision horizontally. And Greg is not the only one in this thread to have described precise vertical imaging. Have they put it the way I did? No. But I think you and I are discussing semantics at this point.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

Jack I was saying the same for Track 2 of Into The Labyrinth where in my system the sound is heard well above my left speaker and extending all the way down the top of my left wall which is 12 feet high. In fact Jack I am almost positive I played it for you and Jim when you were at my house

I die for sound like that. My Vac 140's and 70's have it. The darndest thing I have ever heard,it comes up and a long both walls. I get it now but it has taken a lot of work with my SS mono's. The most consistent I have ever heard that quality is on 35mm film soundtracks. Maybe Jack can talk about 35mm film sound. It has a bloom quality and blackness that is deer in the headlights,instant nirvana.