Oh...that conversation! Sorry, I forgot about that one, we've been talking about height information for so long I almost forgot this thread was about sound stage.
Tim
What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Oh...that conversation! Sorry, I forgot about that one, we've been talking about height information for so long I almost forgot this thread was about sound stage.
Tim
I take it that microphones recording sound waves that have travelled different distances to the diaphragm is "obviously bogus" ...?
Frank
It's very simple Tim; as long that there is an interest being fuelled from another perspective(s),
and in audio there are many perspectives indeed, then no one can really predict when it all started and when it will all ended. It is a constant work in progress ...
Of course, we are talking about Stereo Sound Stage, right? Which was the original start of the discussion and what we can bring to the table in that aspect of our own definition, interpretation.
In the process we learned (I did anyway), on several attributes of microphone's recording technics, their directivity in capturing sounds, the effects of Stereo in a manipulated environment, the loudspeaker's functions on sound propagation, and the restraints (or limitations) of the general development in realistic sound stage.
Stereo by itself, we are condemned, we are its slaves; because we cannot expand our brains far enough, over the financial burden of the world that we created.
Our soundstage (in stereo) will always remain limited by its own demise (restricted mass consumption; or insufficient practicality in mass market homes, or unrentable gain benefits).
But there are some of us who are willing to go much 'higher' than that; and that's who we are some of us; except the ones who are still religiously addicted to yesterday 2-channel stereo from only a single pair of loudspeakers, and their own restricted soundstage created from their own imagination in combination with the stereo manipulation from several music recordings.
It is tough to give up our addictive habits in this audio hobby. We adapted for so many years to be pleased with our restrictive world. We like what we play, and we are from the complex universe.
Some of us adapt better to new changes, and others simply won't never give up on what they already have, and learn how to love even more day after day ...
- You want to keep going with this thread, as in a higher truth? Ok, let's all give a stab at it! :b
Last edited:
Nope. I take it that you haven't followed the thread. Not that I blame you...
But, if you're saying that the fact that those sound waves have traveled different distances to reach the diaphragm in any way causes the mic to capture "height" information, we're back to square one again...sigh...
...From the shape of our ears to our brains' transmission.
No, the height information possibly, from the point of view of our ears, is effectively encoded at the microphone by those different paths, replayed hopefully correctly into our listening enviroments, and then the ears decode that waveform as representing height. In the same way as 2 vertically displaced speakers should be able to do so, fed with the right inputs
In other words, two different ways to achieve the same end goal, perception of height. The loudspeaker way is simply a way of exaggerating the effect, spotlighting it as intensely as need be, to get the message across ...
Frank
Gentlemen of this thread...Can I please ask you of one thing? Please keep the topic.....well, on topic. It seems that some have taken this thread and just started to post whatever was on their mind at the time. This is not good for the betterment of understanding or discussion to those who would like to know what the answers may be. There have been questions and thoughts posed by some very knowledgeable folks that could prove beneficial to this thread topic.
I invite you to re-read what has been posted pages ago and offer something more valuable to this thread than what has recently been posted. Respectfully said to both sides of the discussion/debate/argument.
Until then, enjoy the music.
I invite you to re-read what has been posted pages ago and offer something more valuable to this thread than what has recently been posted. Respectfully said to both sides of the discussion/debate/argument.
Until then, enjoy the music.
Yes, but from what we have learned so far; height is NOT in the recordings,
but in our own brain's translation. And it is derivated from stereo effects.
So that soundstage's perception of 'height' might just be ephemeral.
I can hear it myself, but I won't argue with Soundproof on what he said.
I'm easy; if it is my imagination, then be it, just like I said before.
And as far as the few links relating to height recordings from floor reflections in relation to the instruments, singer voice and the various mic heights, I'm not sure anymore ...
I let myself open to what I truly believe in addition to other's expertises.
but in our own brain's translation. And it is derivated from stereo effects.
So that soundstage's perception of 'height' might just be ephemeral.
I can hear it myself, but I won't argue with Soundproof on what he said.
I'm easy; if it is my imagination, then be it, just like I said before.
And as far as the few links relating to height recordings from floor reflections in relation to the instruments, singer voice and the various mic heights, I'm not sure anymore ...
I let myself open to what I truly believe in addition to other's expertises.
Not entirely certain I follow. I joined the thread late, when height had been brought up by several as an element of the sound stage, there were already several misperceptions as to what microphones do, and the systems had been declared flawed if they couldn't reveal sources at will.
Tim posed the following question early on, to which a needlessly complex explanation was offered, one that also makes component quality dependent of the technique used during recording, which can't be right:
Frank's proposed explanation for component differences unfortunately makes component quality dependent upon recording technique, which seems an odd route to take.
A better answer to Tim's question than what's been marked in bold above is that manufacturers play around with the component's Output Voltage, with a number of DACs having extremely high V RMS compared to the industry standard of 2 V RMS. (Check out what certain lauded manufacturers do, for instance. They wisely state it in dB DIN, to avoid making it clear what they are up to).
That has the effect of being able to go to 11, and everyone knows that's better than 10. The DAC with the higher V RMS rating will seem to be able to create a larger, wider sound stage because it can go beyond the volume rating of the weaker DAC, which has been foolishly set to the recognized standard.
Frank's proposed explanation for component differences unfortunately makes component quality dependent upon recording technique, which seems an odd route to take.
A better answer to Tim's question than what's been marked in bold above is that manufacturers play around with the component's Output Voltage, with a number of DACs having extremely high V RMS compared to the industry standard of 2 V RMS. (Check out what certain lauded manufacturers do, for instance. They wisely state it in dB DIN, to avoid making it clear what they are up to).
That has the effect of being able to go to 11, and everyone knows that's better than 10. The DAC with the higher V RMS rating will seem to be able to create a larger, wider sound stage because it can go beyond the volume rating of the weaker DAC, which has been foolishly set to the recognized standard.
Last edited:
Audio tricks then, hmmm... Well we know some, and then we know some ... :b
Various volume levels can have an influence in height's perception then I presume ...
And same with loudspeakers' positioning, and the height of their drivers.
Wider spread between stereo speakers = wider soundtage.
Nothing between and perfect toe-in = great imaging.
And some speakers are better than others at reproducing depth.
So here you go; great realistic soundstage reproduction.
...And then came multi-channel music reproduction ... with discrete height channel (Chesky).
Plus derived Audyssey DSX Front Height stereo channels, from algorithms of all the other five main channels.
Various volume levels can have an influence in height's perception then I presume ...
And same with loudspeakers' positioning, and the height of their drivers.
Wider spread between stereo speakers = wider soundtage.
Nothing between and perfect toe-in = great imaging.
And some speakers are better than others at reproducing depth.
So here you go; great realistic soundstage reproduction.
...And then came multi-channel music reproduction ... with discrete height channel (Chesky).
Plus derived Audyssey DSX Front Height stereo channels, from algorithms of all the other five main channels.
One more time with feeling -- "those different paths," the distance information, are encoded by the simplistic mechanics of the microphone as delay. Can you hear that as "height?" Sure. If I turn on the reverb on my guitar amp, you may well be able to close your eyes and hear it as "height," but the thing is still sitting on the floor. Is that your ears decoding distance as height or just your imagination getting it wrong? If you're enjoying it, I'm not sure it matters.
Tim
OK. Let's look clearly at what a microphone does. It's a transducer - it converts one form of energy to another. It turns sound waves into an electrical signal.
At any one point in time, the amount of sound energy received will bend the diaphragm so that it creates motion across the wound coil that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy.
The energy impact received by the diaphragm causes it to move accordingly. It doesn't matter to the diaphragm where the energy that makes it move comes from, it just moves - and when it moves, its motion is converted into an electrical signal with the use of a wound coil and a magnet. That's it. The microphone doesn't think or evaluate or discern between the origins of the energy that makes it act as a transducer of sound waves into an electrical signal. It just responds to the motions of the diaphragm by creating a signal.
Then, depending upon how we use the microphones, we can use two or more to register an energy differential relative to the sources of sound. Two microphones, placed a little apart, will respond differently to the sound waves generated by a source. The closer it is, the stronger the electrical signal, the farther away, the weaker (when the sound created is at the same level).
When we record the electrical signal generated by the two microphones, in a manner that ensures that their output is synchronized, we are taking an electronic snapshot of the sound stage the microphones "heard".
When we play back the two electrical signals, sending their energy to the driver of a loudspeaker, we are creating an imitation of the sound energy that was released into the recording room by the sources.
As the two microphones perceived the amount of energy emitted by the sources differently, due to their distance from the source, we get a recreation of varying strength, and that variation lets us place the sources along the lateral plane, because the speakers we listen to are next to one another.
Last edited:
OK. Let's look clearly at what a microphone does. It's a transducer - it converts one form of energy to another. It turns sound waves into an electrical signal.
At any one point in time, the amount of sound energy received will bend the diaphragm so that it creates motion across the wound coil that converts mechanical energy to electrical energy.
The energy impact received by the diaphragm causes it to move accordingly. It doesn't matter to the diaphragm where the energy that makes it move comes from, it just moves - and when it moves, its motion is converted into an electrical signal with the use of a wound coil and a magnet. That's it. The microphone doesn't think or evaluate or discern between the origins of the energy that makes it act as a transducer of sound waves into an electrical signal. It just responds to the motions of the diaphragm by creating a signal.
Then, depending upon how we use the microphones, we can use two or more to register an energy differential relative to the sources of sound. Two microphones, placed a little appart, will respond differently to the sound waves generated by a source. The closer it is, the stronger the electrical signal, the farther away, the weaker (when the sound created is at the same level).
When we record the electrical signal generated by the two microphones, in a manner that ensures that their output is synchronized, we are taking an electronic snapshot of the sound stage the microphones "heard".
When we play back the two electrical signals, sending their energy to the driver of a loudspeaker, we are creating an imitation of the sound energy that was released into the recording room by the sources.
As the two microphones perceived the amount of energy emitted by the sources differently, due to their distance from the source, we get a recreation of varying strength, and that variation lets us place the sources along the lateral plane, because the speakers we listen to are next to one another.
Correct. And this seems to be the heart of the dispute:
Some people in this discussion seem to think that their systems or their ears can tell when the distance between the microphones is vertical, even though the playback of that differential is only horizontal. It's completely illogical, but they persist. Some even seem to think it only takes one microphone, picking up room reflections as well as direct sound (which it will do, of course) and that somehow their system/ears can "hear" whether or not the reflection came from the ceiling, floor or the walls. A mono mic becomes quadraphonic playback, miraculously. A few seem to have accepted that the argument is, at least, unsupportable with anything other than foot-stomping insistence, and moved on. Either that or we've just worn them down. I'm good with either one if it gets the damn fairy dust out of the air. The stuff is toxic.
Tim
Well, actually a little sad, because it adds another reason for people who know the technology to smile at the general willingness of audiophilia to peddle in imagined effects, rather than what is actually there.
There are clear reasons why the Barenboim/Zukerman recording sounds cramped and small, and fits well inside the speakers; and clear reasons why the Argerich/Repin recording of the same Kreutzer Sonata sounds expansive, realistic and vast, and seems to take over the listening space. It would be a lot more beneficial to discuss those reasons, than to have to see comments about lousy systems, bad hearing and silly claims of sentient microphones that sense an n-field number of dimensions.
The high-priests of audiophile delusion might want to consider what's happening to recruitment to the hobby ... and what's happening to the average age of the adherents.
There are clear reasons why the Barenboim/Zukerman recording sounds cramped and small, and fits well inside the speakers; and clear reasons why the Argerich/Repin recording of the same Kreutzer Sonata sounds expansive, realistic and vast, and seems to take over the listening space. It would be a lot more beneficial to discuss those reasons, than to have to see comments about lousy systems, bad hearing and silly claims of sentient microphones that sense an n-field number of dimensions.
The high-priests of audiophile delusion might want to consider what's happening to recruitment to the hobby ... and what's happening to the average age of the adherents.
OT
I feel the same about our hobby too and it truly saddens me. High End Audio is retreating into an increasingly high priced niche while the average age of its adherent is increasing... and their number decreasing. There are not many other ways to spell S-U-I-C-I-D-E. A few will get rich at this it isn't however sustainable
I'm not going to present any arguments. I just think that it is sad that any audiophile would beleive that height perception is a myth. If you follw Tims arguments, that he is entileted to make, there would be no high -end. Maybe Tim thinks that's a good thing. I for one think it would be sad.
We'll have to count John Culshaw, one of the chief architects behind present day stereo recording, and his entire staff of acoustics engineers and recording engineers at Decca, counting hundreds of people over the years of Culshaw's reign, as being non-audiophiles, then. In spite of their having created the most coveted of recordings in audiophilia.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |