What is "Sound Stage?"

[treitz3]

Here's a nice exercise: check out where you think a source is located and then see how far you can move it with your mind, that is, try to move the source down, up, left and right. Note what happens, without my writing here what I think you'll discover.

I have done this many times over the years. Many times, you can take the perceived image and move it considerably. On some recordings, the perceived image remains high and it is clear as to where they are located with none of the image "blur".

 

[Soundproof]

Soundproof,
And why does a little bloom make the voice appear to be taller?

Because relative to the drier orchestra, it appears to be occupying more space, with the help of reverb. Simple trick that is very effective.
(Acoustics: wet - more reverb; dry - less reverb)

 

[fas42]

Soundproof, would you believe, firstly that reflections from surfaces in a real environment help or don't help an individual locate a sound source vertically; secondly, if they do, is recording equipment capable of picking up that reflection information, and thirdly if the recording has that information encoded on it and it is replayed correctly in the room, that ear/brain can't decode it so that the mind interprets sound souces as having various heights?

Frank

 

[microstrip]

Because relative to the drier orchestra, it appears to be occupying more space, with the help of reverb. Simple trick that is very effective.
(Acoustics: wet - more reverb; dry - less reverb)

Yes and no! Just occupying more space is not enough - it seems to me you still have the problem have to make the growth asymmetrical in Z , otherwise I do not see as it will not be perceived as having increased height.

 

[NorthStar]

Soundproof, would you believe, firstly that reflections from surfaces in a real environment help or don't help an individual locate a sound source vertically; secondly, if they do, is recording equipment capable of picking up that reflection information, and thirdly if the recording has that information encoded on it and it is replayed correctly in the room, that ear/brain can't decode it so that the mind interprets sound souces as having various heights?

Frank

Exzellent question(s) Frank.

_________________

--> http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Spinning-Tonight&p=92230&viewfull=1#post92230

 

[microstrip]

Also from Siegfried Linkwitz : Hearing Spatial Detail in Stereo Recordings

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TMT-Leipzig%2710/TMT-Hearing%20spatial%20detail.pdf

2.2.1. Localizing sound from a single loudspeaker
Stereo recordings are played back over two loudspeakers in rooms of various sizes and shapes. Let us first listen to a single loudspeaker in a room, playing back, for example, the same single microphone recording of a jazz quartet that I had heard in the head-tracking demonstration.

The sound unmistakably originates from the single loudspeaker in the room, outside of my head. Even if I cannot see the loudspeaker I can localize it, especially when it is free-standing in the room. The distance from me to the jazz quartet sound is the same as to the loudspeakers and possibly more. As I hear the reverberation of the instrument sounds in the recording venue, I have a sense of space surrounding the instruments and also of depth. If the group had been recorded in an anechoic chamber, I would hear them as sounding very dry. The width of the presentation is too narrow for the quartet, but would be just right if the loudspeakers were small and reproduced a single voice. The acoustic center of the loudspeaker should be at the height of the listener?s ears for the sound to appear coming from the front and not from above or below. We recognize source height and distance by the floor reflection and other cues.

 

[NorthStar]

What I love about this Audio bizz is that each person hear differently, and regardless of the same measurements (graphs); but certainly not in our different rooms with different loudspeakers.

And the difference between science and reality is only a fraction from the shape of our brains and ears. But as minimal that it seems to be, it can also be quite revealing.
The absolute sound? Which one; yours, mine, theirs?

 

[fas42]

What I love about this Audio bizz is that each person hear differently, and regardless of the same measurements (graphs); but certainly not in our different rooms with different loudspeakers.

And the difference between science and reality is only a fraction from the shape of our brains and ears. But as minimal that it seems to be, it can also be quite revealing.
The absolute sound? Which one; yours, mine, theirs?

Even in the same room they hear differently; there is so much information in the soundfield people can very easily focus on different aspects of that acoustic picture, still feel they're hearing the real picture; but it's totally different from what's in the head of the person next to them. I have listened to extremely unbalanced sound over the years, a million miles from sounding "real", but the person next to me is happy because what he's hearing meets certain criteria for what he expects of good audiophile sound ...

Frank

 

[NorthStar]

If only more people would respect these simple facts of life, we'd be much better off. :b

 

[fas42]

I hate to beat this poor dead horse again, but, in life, no instrument is the sonic equivalent of a wallet-sized snapshot-a sharp little image neatly tucked beside other sharp little images. It's a big, supple, three-dimensional thing that changes dramatically in shape, color, size, and impact with changes in the way it is being played. The very idea of trying to "reproduce" a grand piano (or a triangle, for that matter) realistically through your average-sized box speaker is laughable. It's like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a thirteen-inch Samsung.

Sorry, Greg, I'd have to dispute that: agreed, it is easier to create the illusion on a standard audio system with that type of speakers, but if the box speakers don't make it happen it's a shortcoming of the system as a whole. The point is that as the quality of the setup overall is brought up to a sufficient standard then the soundstage automatically "expands", the speakers themselves completely disappear out of the picture.

I've heard top of the line panel speakers sound extremely impressive on the right recording in the way you describe, and dismally collapse in quality when a conventional recording is played, as the weaknesses elsewhere in the system undermine the replay standard. Having such a speaker helps in many ways, but is not a substitute for sorting out all the problem areas ...

Frank

 

[treitz3]

***
With close to sixty square feet of radiating surface, front and back, the 20Rs can move air, and, since they do radiate front and back, they move that air through an angle of virtually 360 degrees-just like musical instruments do. When you couple a very large radiating surface and virtual 360-degree dispersion with unenclosed, nearly massless drivers of extraordinary speed and integrity, you end up with one of the most naturally-sized soundfield, peopled with the most naturally-sized and naturally-detailed instruments, you'll ever hear.

It's not just that instruments are realistically larger, or the soundstage broader, deeper, and higher, than what you usually get through even a very good hi-fi system; it's that everything within the soundfield moves air in more realistic proportions. Through the 20Rs, a bass drum isn't a compact little item at the back of the stage, imaged with laser-like definition and reproduced with the sharp percussive crack of a handclap, but a huge hollow-bodied instrument that, when struck hard, sends forth waves like a dam bursting on a valley town. Through the Maggies, that drum'll make you jump, all right, but not because the speakers "go so deep" (although the 20Rs definitely do-flat to 25 Hz in my room), or "image so tightly," or have "lightning-like transient response." None of that covers what I'm talking about. That drum'll make you jump because it sounds more like a bass drum, because the physical size and shape of the instrument and the sheer volume of air it moves when struck hard are being reproduced with greater verisimilitude.

I hate to beat this poor dead horse again, but, in life, no instrument is the sonic equivalent of a wallet-sized snapshot-a sharp little image neatly tucked beside other sharp little images. It's a big, supple, three-dimensional thing that changes dramatically in shape, color, size, and impact with changes in the way it is being played. The very idea of trying to "reproduce" a grand piano (or a triangle, for that matter) realistically through your average-sized box speaker is laughable. It's like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a thirteen-inch Samsung.

***
http://www.magnepan.com/review_MG201_Best_Buy_Part_III

I suppose then this will do little to settle anything in this thread. There are countless accounts of imaging similar to this. But it is nit ignorance to these claims that fuels this argument. In fact it is these very clams that have stirred the detractors. It is rather the general disdain for audiophile terminology and perceptions that have stoked the fires of their disbelief. Unfortunately that will detract audiophiles from the real discussions

Hello, Greg. I would like to talk more about your observations if you wouldn't mind. I find many of them interesting to me, to say the least. We can do this offline or whatever method you choose. While I may agree that there is no replacement for displacement, it can be at times overrated. The grand piano I get. The triangle on the other hand I most certainly do not.

What volume are you listening too when you offer your observations?

 

[Soundproof]

Soundproof, would you believe, firstly that reflections from surfaces in a real environment help or don't help an individual locate a sound source vertically; secondly, if they do, is recording equipment capable of picking up that reflection information, and thirdly if the recording has that information encoded on it and it is replayed correctly in the room, that ear/brain can't decode it so that the mind interprets sound souces as having various heights?

Frank

You are forgetting that most recordings these days (after the 1970s) are close miked, that these microphones are used to capture the direct sound at a distance of inches, and that reverb and room tone is added later. How goes your theory now? They don't want the reflections of which you speak to be recorded.

 

[Soundproof]

I have advocated listening in mono for a couple of days and then listeneing to stereo. You will first notice how "odd" stereo sounds but after even 5 or 6 songs your brain will have adapted. But, until you do this experiement you will not truly understand that that image between your speakers is being created in your ear/brainb interface due to the stereo reproduction.

Tom

@Tomelex. Yes, it's a quite shocking lesson in psychoacoustics, and it explains why mono lasted years after stereo was introduced. I am set up for mono reproduction, both through my phono variable eq step-up stage, and in my pre-amp for non-vinyl sources.

 

[NorthStar]

Pity most don't have a full featured pre-amp or even minimal with a mono button.

Tom

Just need a Mono recording that's all (got few of those).

* My pre/pro even have a Full Mono audio mode.

 

[fas42]

You are forgetting that most recordings these days (after the 1970s) are close miked, that these microphones are used to capture the direct sound at a distance of inches, and that reverb and room tone is added later. How goes your theory now? They don't want the reflections of which you speak to be recorded.

I'm just talking of whether, if the recording was done in such a manner as to pick up these reflections, this information would be passed through to the listener. So if we forget recordings deliberately engineered to eliminate this extra capture, and look at "naturally" recorded pre-70's albums, what would we see, or rather hear?

Frank

 

[fas42]

I have advocated listening in mono for a couple of days and then listeneing to stereo. You will first notice how "odd" stereo sounds but after even 5 or 6 songs your brain will have adapted. But, until you do this experiement you will not truly understand that that image between your speakers is being created in your ear/brainb interface due to the stereo reproduction (notice i did not say recording because it is manimpulation of time and phase and intensity of any signal and thus you can take mono channels and run them through an engineers mix console etec and create stereo) characteristics.

Pity most don't have a full featured pre-amp or even minimal with a mono button.

Tom

Just to remind you, Tom, I have numerous mono recordings to play with, a high percentage of my "difficult" albums are such; and there is no magic difference for me between mono and stereo. For mono there is a big soundstage behind the speakers, without any particular noticeable lateral displacement : at lower volume it is just like listening to a live performance well back in a conventional hall, there is no dramatic stereophonic effects with real music listened to this way.

Frank

 

[Soundproof]

Just to remind you, Tom, I have numerous mono recordings to play with, a high percentage of my "difficult" albums are such; and there is no magic difference for me between mono and stereo. For mono there is a big soundstage behind the speakers, without any particular noticeable lateral displacement : at lower volume it is just like listening to a live performance well back in a conventional hall, there is no dramatic stereophonic effects with real music listened to this way.

Frank

And Tom is not claiming that either, you must have imagined it.
He is saying that after prolonged exposure to mono only, with a properly treated mono signal, something happens when you return to stereo. And as a result you may be better able to evaluate how sound stages are created.

 

[NorthStar]

I will be listening to Mono for the next couple days; and then switch to Stereo.

And I will report my findings. ...Right here, about that soundstage's difference.. :b

 

[Soundproof]

Originally Posted by Soundproof:
You are forgetting that most recordings these days (after the 1970s) are close miked, that these microphones are used to capture the direct sound at a distance of inches, and that reverb and room tone is added later. How goes your theory now? They don't want the reflections of which you speak to be recorded.

I'm just talking of whether, if the recording was done in such a manner as to pick up these reflections, this information would be passed through to the listener. So if we forget recordings deliberately engineered to eliminate this extra capture, and look at "naturally" recorded pre-70's albums, what would we see, or rather hear?

Frank

Of course, the cut-off between open and close miked recording techniques didn't happen overnight, and we're now seeing various companies returning to the open technique. Yet for a long time close-mike has been considered more efficient, for a variety of reasons. Dry recording of music and singing gave the engineers the opportunity to perform more discrete edits, and to mix contributions from people who weren't playing together. Many of today's releases actually have performers playing in different cities, to guide-tracks, with the final performance being joined together in the mix.

Which means that if you hear height-information in any such recording, it's definitely not because of the reflections you believe are helping you localize along the vertical axis.

Then, what about recordings that are open - where the room interaction is a part of the final sonic signature?
First you would have to be certain that there was a room to interact with. I'm reading a lot of posts in this thread that just assumes there's a floor to reflect off, and a ceiling to provide the same. That definitely doesn't have to be the case, and in a majority of instances isn't - that's why the microphones are very often suspended above the performers, and considerably above, too.

This achieves two results. The floor reflection becomes negligible, because of the angle of reflection and the drop-off in sound energy from any reflection that should reach the microphones - and the ceiling reflection, if any, becomes indistinguishable from the direct signal, but is usually dampened or sorted by the same "trick of angle of reflection". (Combined with mic-directivity).

Still, people claim to hear independent source height in these recordings, that have been made with microphones pointing down at the performers.

Here are a couple of typical set-ups. Note that the microphones are above the performers - this is done almost as a rule, it is extremely rare to see microphones below an instrument, it is usually above, "looking" down at the instrument, with very rare exceptions. Now, as that's a general rule, how does the microphone capture height again?

And consider the singers we believe are "towering" in the sound stage, and dominating it - how did they relate to the microphone? A majority sang straight into it, their mouths inches from the microphone, and this sound was then added either directly to that of the orchestra, or mixed in later. How did microphones register "height" in this instance? They didn't - the height perception is a result of how the voice is treated relative to the orchestra - and the verticality happens in our heads.

Lammermoor/Ricordi/La Scala - three microphones.

Krips/Concertgebouw

Solti/Decca/Sofiensaal
Three main microphones looking down, but also a number of microphones scattered about the Sofiensaal, assigned particular regions of the orchestra, while the singers' voices are picked up by the main microphones. All microphones "looking" down at either the totality or its particular region.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry the second paragraph deals with reproduced sound (unless we thing DALI is a piano brand)

I thought he was a surrealist painter.

BTW, if you oversimplify and analyze the problem of sound elevation considering two perfect ears at the same height you will conclude that you can not perceive sound source height in most real conditions.

Only if I oversimplify ears into drums suspended inside metal screens, without all the hairy, fleshy, bony things that delay, alter frequency response, and allow human ears to create direction and distance information that microphones do not have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

Note the section labeled "Sound localization in the median plane." Take particular note of the critical role of the outer ear, head and torso in the localization process. Microphones don't have these.

Tim