What is "Sound Stage?"

[microstrip]

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

Tim,

It seems I am not being successful making you understand my point . There is strong difference between the localization process in the X-Y and the Z plane (elevation) - we need much more than wikipedia to go through the details and I do not know enough about the subject to educate on it in a single post. I was hoping that the articles in the links I posted were clear. Sorry.

BTW, your funny comment about microphones not behaving like ears seems to forget that ears are connected to brains, not recorders.

Anyway, for me the most interesting part is this thread is learning from different opinions and views on these matters. I would love to have also the opinions from other professional speaker designers to complement our views.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

BTW, your funny comment about microphones not behaving like ears seems to forget that ears are connected to brains, not recorders.

It may seem to forget, but it doesn't. The brain has to interpret all the directional information it receives; it turns subtle delays and alterations of frequency response into "above," "below," and "behind." The point is that much of those delays and alterations are created by the head and outer ears, and a microphone can't pick them up, because it doesn't have the mechanisms. Can it "hear" a delay/alteration from a floor or ceiling reflection? Yes, but it cannot differentiate between them. You want a microphone that can do that? Here...

...this will get you pretty close. This?

...not even in the same ballpark. The brain is miraculous. But there is still a difference between it's processing of actual information and it's ability to imagine what it knows it is supposed to be hearing.

Tim

 

[bblue]

I suppose then this will do little to settle anything in this thread. There are countless acounts 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 audiohilpe terminolgy and perceptions that have stoked the fires of thier disbeleif. Unfortunately that will detract audiophiles from the real dicussions

I love the effect of big omni-directional speakers and I congratulate your ownership of them and your use of verisimilitude in a sentence. Very nice. But this thread, at least for me, has little to do with terminology other than finding the line between imaging and soundstage. And the sub-issue of "vertical" imaging has absolutely nothing to do with terminology. It has to do with knowing enough about the basic technology of stereo to know that you guys are not hearing what you think you're hearing. Particularly you guys listening to panels. You're hearing height, alright. You're not hearing vertical differentiation of sounds. You're imagining that part, and good for you.

Tim

Thanks for that, Tim.

While I agree with gregadd that larger speakers can produce a more realistic and dynamic presentation simply because of physical size, the fact that they may produce sound omni-directionally can only serve to reduce the significance of the original soundstage, by adding all sorts of room characteristics to it. Because the speakers radiate 360 degree does NOT mean that an instrument with a 360 degree radiation pattern recorded in conventional stereo is going to be any more realistic. Probably less so. People who's hearing interprets it that way are simply being fooled by all the local reverberation in their room.

Likewise with height display. The more I read descriptions of people's height hearing justifications, it is clear that some/many of them are actually describing the height effect generated by driver placement. They just don't realize that, and somehow liken it to distance between the floor and the instrument in the original recording. The ears are still not sufficiently trained. Still others are holding on to the notion that you can position a mic x number of feet from the floor, vary its height during stereo recording and hear the height change on playback. You'll hear A change, but not one of height.

It seems to me that most of the followers of preserved-height information displayed by their systems, are and remain completely ignorant of how microphones work, despite accurate descriptions presented by you, me and others (soundproof). Many are also unaware of how much processing CAN'T be down in a studio on a mix board, pertaining to height. It's an unknown to them and therefore it can be or do anything. It's magic!

But I guess anything is possible if you don't know any different and refuse to logically sort it out.

--Bill

 

[Soundproof]

It may seem to forget, but it doesn't. The brain has to interpret all the directional information it receives; it turns subtle delays and alterations of frequency response into "above," "below," and "behind." The point is that much of those delays and alterations are created by the head and outer ears, and a microphone can't pick them up, because it doesn't have the mechanisms. Can it "hear" a delay/alteration from a floor or ceiling reflection? Yes, but it cannot differentiate between them. You want a microphone that can do that? Here...

...this will get you pretty close.

Tim

And it's worth pointing out that ideally, the pinna of the ears (the folds) should be cast from your ears, if you want to be able to achieve improved localization. That might be a nice high-end product, with audiophiles getting recordings made with their own ears ...

If you block up or change the structure of the folds in the outer ear, or change the angle of the ear relative to the skull, then it takes up to a month for the brain to relearn precise localization with the new structure.

 

[bblue]

Tim,

It seems I am not being successful making you understand my point . There is strong difference between the localization process in the X-Y and the Z plane (elevation) - we need much more than wikipedia to go through the details and I do not know enough about the subject to educate on it in a single post. I was hoping that the articles in the links I posted were clear. Sorry.

BTW, your funny comment about microphones not behaving like ears seems to forget that ears are connected to brains, not recorders.

A single ear has the capability to discern direction because it's not a single unit with one output (to the brain). There are a myriad of sensors in and around the ear which through multiple channels of information to the brain convey the information. This is completely different than a single element microphone (or multiple elements with one output) preserving the signal to a single recorded channel. Likewise, recording 'heads' that use a single microphone for each ear have no capability of discerning height. As long as the ears are maintained laterally and the speakers reproducing the 2 channel field in stereo are on the same lateral plane to each other, there is no height other than what is produced by the speaker itself as a result of the placement of drivers.

Anyway, for me the most interesting part is this thread is learning from different opinions and views on these matters. I would love to have also the opinions from other professional speaker designers to complement our views.

I can't imagine any competent speaker designer that also understands microphones and the recording process would have anything positive to say about recorded height reproduction in speakers.... Unless he was supporting a marketing angle designed to make unaware listeners prefer his design by suggesting it could do more than it really can.

Speakers are as dumb as microphones, meaning they produce sound one general direction only (on axis, with some off-axis response, linear or non-linear). Onmi-directional speakers radiate that one on-axis sound in all directions, not based by anything in the recording.

--Bill

 

[microstrip]

It seems to me that most of the followers of preserved-height information displayed by their systems, are and remain completely ignorant of how microphones work, despite accurate descriptions presented by you, me and others (soundproof).
--Bill

Bill,

And most of the non-followers seem to ignore that some people state that most of the cues for height (elevation) are not directional, but mostly frequency related and are very week, needing to be complemented by listener knowledge. And as audiophiles are usually knowledge people, those can be significant and can explain a lot. May be by luck or because the sound engineers knew of it or just tried to preserve as much as the information as possible, some recordings in some systems have a higher probability of success in this task. We can either try to understand it or claim that it is not true.

I can easily accept that any of our members with great experience considers that I am an ignorant in these matters, but I have equal consideration by the audio scientists or developers who present work in audio conferences and write papers in proceedings evidencing different positions. I only hope I am not misrepresenting them when I quote them.

 

[Gregadd]

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

I did not mean to suggest a box speaker(point source ) is incapable of reproducing height. I find point sources to be exceptional "imagers." I used the planar or line source as an example because some seemed so confused. I thought it represented an undisputable example.

 

[microstrip]

The ears are still not sufficiently trained. Still others are holding on to the notion that you can position a mic x number of feet from the floor, vary its height during stereo recording and hear the height change on playback. You'll hear A change, but not one of height.
--Bill

Yes, but trained listeners (aren't we all training since we were born) that know the singer most probably is not doing his omnidirectional gymnastics during the recording, and could associate these changes with height information and perceive them as something changing height. The more detailed is the information he receives , the more easy it is to create the illusion. After all we are not looking for accurate location, just a faint perception of elevation. I suppose that no one wants to shoot the violin during playback!

 

[Soundproof]

You might want to check out Linkwitz' theories on the need for lateral reflections, microstrip, and to see how his loudspeaker designs parse with your own preferences.

And, no, I don't think audiophiles are better suited at interpreting possibly extant auditory cues that provide height information. As stretches go, that's a wide one - particularly as audiophiles are allergic to properly reproduced treble, considering it too bright - something that I would consider was a prerequisite for what we are discussing, if possible.

And "trained listeners" is a dodgy card to pull. When Harman Kardon's Sean Olive tested listeners, hifi-reviewers and audiophiles were bottom of the barrel in acuity.

 

[Gregadd]

Thanks for that, Tim.

While I agree with gregadd that larger speakers can produce a more realistic and dynamic presentation simply because of physical size, the fact that they may produce sound omni-directionally can only serve to reduce the significance of the original soundstage, by adding all sorts of room characteristics to it. Because the speakers radiate 360 degree does NOT mean that an instrument with a 360 degree radiation pattern recorded in conventional stereo is going to be any more realistic. Probably less so. People who's hearing interprets it that way are simply being fooled by all the local reverberation in their room.

Likewise with height display. The more I read descriptions of people's height hearing justifications, it is clear that some/many of them are actually describing the height effect generated by driver placement. They just don't realize that, and somehow liken it to distance between the floor and the instrument in the original recording. The ears are still not sufficiently trained. Still others are holding on to the notion that you can position a mic x number of feet from the floor, vary its height during stereo recording and hear the height change on playback. You'll hear A change, but not one of height.

It seems to me that most of the followers of preserved-height information displayed by their systems, are and remain completely ignorant of how microphones work, despite accurate descriptions presented by you, me and others (soundproof). Many are also unaware of how much processing CAN'T be down in a studio on a mix board, pertaining to height. It's an unknown to them and therefore it can be or do anything. It's magic!

But I guess anything is possible if you don't know any different and refuse to logically sort it out.

--Bill

I for one am not an expert on microphones. I have however presented information on microphones to prove a point different form the one argued here. Research b me has done little to disuade others about points that should be obvious. if the ear is what you claim it is I can only thank god that we have reached the top of the food chain. My ears could tell me whther the leopard is in the tree or on the ground. Thus helping me avoid me being eaten.

I await your explanation. If a speaker can discern horizontal dimensions, why can it not discern vertical dimensions? Simple geometry tells us that the sounds coming from different distances reach the microphone at different times. These clues can give us image height.

 

[Soundproof]

Simple geometry tells us that the sounds coming from different distances reach the microphone at different times. These clues can give us image height.

@ greggad, no they can't. Simple logic, of which geometry is full, tells us that. The sound stage is suspended laterally between two speakers, but there is nothing extending it vertically. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Niente. Nichts.

The lateral suspension described by the speakers mirrors the lateral relationship of the microphones used to record. The engineers are working to describe a relationship between sound sources from left-to-right, not from top-to-bottom. You don't have the equipment required in your listening room to allow them to define vertical imaging. The day you have loudspeakers relating to each other in a top-to-bottom axis, then they can place microphones that collect the discrete information required for these loudspeakers to be able to create a vertical portion to your sound stage.

BTW - I recommend Harman Kardon's free and professional grade listening course. It's a revelation:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2011/03/harman-how-to-listen-listener-training.html

 

[microstrip]

You might want to check out Linkwitz' theories on the need for lateral reflections, microstrip, and to see how his loudspeaker designs parse with your own preferences.

And, no, I don't think audiophiles are better suited at interpreting possibly extant auditory cues that provide height information. As stretches go, that's a wide one - particularly as audiophiles are allergic to properly reproduced treble, considering it too bright - something that I would consider was a prerequisite for what we are discussing, if possible.

And "trained listeners" is a dodgy card to pull. When Harman Kardon's Sean Olive tested listeners, hifi-reviewers and audiophiles were bottom of the barrel in acuity.

Yes, I have read them before - and I think Tim as well, as I am not the only one sharing this preference: (see post #310, that send me be back to the Linktwiz pages after a long rest)

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3577-Your-quot-World-s-Best-Audio-System-quot-.-.-.-2012-Edition/page31

I was using the word trained exactly with the opposite meaning of Sean Olive - I consider that we all are naturally aurally trained, as we contact reality daily. I am one of those who takes the "trained" results with a grain of salt.

BTW, besides sound engineers, who loves "properly reproduced treble"? Youngsters with cans at high volumes?

 

[Gregadd]

http://www.shure.com/idc/groups/public/documents/webcontent/us_pro_micsmusicstudio_ea.pdf

Check page 26 You will see the microphones clearly respond in the horizontal and vertical plane. Pictures!

 

[Robh3606]

Check page 26 You will see the microphones clearly respond in the horizontal and vertical plane. Pictures!

That's just a representation of the polar response of the different types. Same as polars for speakers. It's just a graphical representation of the pick-up pattern. That has nothing to do with encoded vertical height in a stereo recording.

Rob

 

[Gregadd]

There is none so blind as those that will not see. I'm out.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is none so blind as those that will not see. I'm out.

He just told you the plain truth about what your reference said about microphones. Evidently that's not what you want to see. A deep breath and a bit of clarity should tell you that every one of those pictures shows a pick-up pattern that is just as sensitive directly above and below as it is in front (it's not, really, but it's pretty close). So a sound comes up from the floor, down from the ceiling. straight from the front. How does the microphone, with a single diaphragm, creating a single signal, differentiate which direction it came from and how could a lateral, two-channel playback system use that information, even if it could be recorded (which it cannot)?

Simple questions. Easy to answer. The answer just doesn't fit your established belief.

I can't help but notice that Bruce has avoided this topic.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

He just told you the plain truth about what your reference said about microphones. Evidently that's not what you want to see. Out is good.

I can't help but notice that Bruce has avoided this topic.

Tim

What you have done is repeat the same thing without a shred of proof.

 

[Robh3606]

There is none so blind as those that will not see. I'm out.

The issue clearly is a complete misunderstanding of how a microphone works and what those patterns represent. It's rather basic information that anyone serious in this hobby should have a basic understanding of. It amazes me how technically challenged people can be who are unwilling to educate themselves about the basic tools used in their hobby.

I see just fine

Rob

 

[Soundproof]

There is none so blind as those that will not see. I'm out.

You'll benefit from having a look at microphone directivity, and understanding what that implies.
Tim's point is valid, there is no way to include where a soundwave comes from as the microphones you linked to translate the energy in the sound wave into electrical energy.
Earlier in the thread we saw a type of microphone with several diaphragms, each could be made sensitive in specific directions. This microphone solves the problem of direction, since the sound energy it is sensitive to comes from a specific direction. If they want, the engineers can use this data to recreate directional sound, if the listener has a speaker set-up that corresponds.
But with two-channel stereo that microphone is mostly used to try and reduce the phase problems associated with microphone placement, the data collected can not be reproduced as directional information beyond the lateral plane in a two-speaker system.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What you have done is repeat the same thing without a shred of proof.

You provided the proof yourself. You pointed to it and gave us a page number. Mine is not a weaker case, nor is yours a stronger one because you do not understand your own evidence.

Tim