What is "Sound Stage?"

[RogerD]

Bill,
As most of the time, things are not so easy. One of the best speakers I have owned in a enthusiasm that did not last for tool long, as my listening room at the time was also a family room and the best listening position was the dining table , was the fantastic Dynaudio Consequence. And height information, when existing, was very correct ...

My custom speakers use Dynaudio drivers with custom crossovers, they produce a amazing sound stage. Very capable of producing space and time on any recording.

 

[RogerD]

'splain that you no-height knuckleheads.

 

[JackD201]

Pick up Rene Olstead's second Album. On track three or four the song starts with a futzed recording made to sound like a victriola (obviously mono). The apparent source is tiny but when she and her big band get going it turns into a virtual wall of sound. In that CD there are trumpet solos. One comes in over her head which is in my case seated height and another that comes from directly over my right speaker. Everything else height wise is consistent in this album. If you don't hear it. I give up on you two.

 

[Steve williams]

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

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Pick up Rene Olstead's second Album. On track three or four the song starts with a futzed recording made to sound like a victriola (obviously mono). The apparent source is tiny but when she and her big band get going it turns into a virtual wall of sound. In that CD there are trumpet solos. One comes in over her head which is in my case seated height and another that comes from directly over my right speaker. Everything else height wise is consistent in this album. If you don't hear it. I give up on you two.

So maybe I would hear it. Maybe it is one of those rare audiophile recordings in which the engineers decided to deliberately manipulate phase and eq to create the illusion of height on those trumpets. Maybe they even created a reasonable facsimile with the rest of the instruments, though I doubt it. That is probably your perceptions, filling in the blanks. But these manipulations do not exist in most recordings; it's not what most of these believers are hearing, most of the time.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

Pick up Rene Olstead's second Album. On track three or four the song starts with a futzed recording made to sound like a victriola (obviously mono). The apparent source is tiny but when she and her big band get going it turns into a virtual wall of sound. In that CD there are trumpet solos. One comes in over her head which is in my case seated height and another that comes from directly over my right speaker. Everything else height wise is consistent in this album. If you don't hear it. I give up on you two.

I listened to KOB last night....Miles wanted Bill Evans to underplay on the album. Not only was Bill's playing exquisite, but the position of the piano gives much depth to the recording,as it should. To think that a good system can't produce space and time on any level is a mistake. Even Cannonball's sax is portrayed correctly with much bloom and wafting. Some systems just get it right,and others pale in comparison.

 

[mep]

Jack-It's time to step back and realize that Tim knows it all. And he's probably right-if you listen to headphones like he does, there is no height. If you sit at a desk with your speakers on top of the desk, there is no height.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Not ours to explain. We have pretty thoroughly explained what you can be hearing, and what you must be imagining, according to our reality. With the exception of some rare phase and eq manipulation to create a parlor trick on audiophile disks, what has not been credibly explained is the other side of the argument.

How do microphones hear direction?

How is that direction encoded into stereo media?

How is it decoded and played back on stereo playback equipment?

As Ricky Ricardo would say, "You got some 'splainin' to do."

By the way, I acknowledge that I'm not hearing this in my system and probably wouldn't, even if I played back your example, Jack. My speakers are simple enough to function as a point source. There is, effectively, no audible separation between the drivers. That is not the point or the reason why I'm still in this mind-numbing thread. It's because no one, regarding normal stereo recordings has been able to answer the simple question how? And I'd just love to see that one answered.

Tim

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Finally got myself to chime on the Height issue. it is clear to me that microphones cannot provide height information. I do believe however that through mastering manipulations, a sensation of height can be perceived in a recording. Whether it is accurate or not is a different debate. Without the manipulations , I believe, we fill-n the blanks: There is a strong psychological trick going on here, since we already know where the instruments are supposed to be in term of elevation...We know a singer with a guitar cannot be lying on the floor thus we elevate them .. there is also an interesting point brought in by one of the posters, I think bblue and/or Soundproof... The height of the different drivers determine where the sound is coming from and since tweeters are usually placed higher ... This brings another very interesting aspects which for me is paramount and yet poorly understoofd by audiophiles: The seating position... Audiophiles wil arrange their speakers with respect to the back walls with infinite precision only to seat themselves at the wrong position... Often the speakers' drivers do not merge into one point.. Subject for another thread? Anyhow .. I would also add that treble frequencies are called "high" because they usually seem to emanate from high .. Same thing for "bass" or "lows" they seem to come from the base, from down low ...

 

[JackD201]

So maybe I would hear it. Maybe it is one of those rare audiophile recordings in which the engineers decided to deliberately manipulate phase and eq to create the illusion of height on those trumpets. Maybe they even created a reasonable facsimile with the rest of the instruments, though I doubt. That is probably you perceptions, filling in the blanks. But these manipulations do not exist in most recordings; it's not what most of these believers are hearing, most of the time.

Tim

How could you even begin to assume that much less make such a blanket statement? Besides I said FR manipulation and phase manipulation for height motion, frequency response manipulation for static placement. I also explicitly said that the tricks ARE about psychoacoustic principles that are well established in scientific fields.

1. Microphones don't hear any more than amps are emotional. You answered your own question when you mentioned the frequency deviations in various angles of their polar patterns. People have frequency deviations when objects are not equidistant from both ears. STop thinking in Mono Tim unless you've got only one ear and it's on your forehead.

2. How many times do we have to tell you? If you don't believe is go and enroll in a recording school. It's not like we've got any agenda you know. I respect that you are a musician. That doesn't mean you understand everything that happens on the other side of the glass.

3. You try and recreate the inverse.

There, I saved Ricardo the trouble.

@Frantz, small correction there. There's nothing much you can do at the mastering stage with regards to the height of individual events. It's done in the recording and mixing stages whether separately on multitrack studio sessions or in tandem in minimalist recording sessions because riding faders changes FR perception due to hearing sensitivity to different frequencies depending on amplitude. Also Bill's exposition about tweeter position does not explain why we perceive the same sense of height with linesources or the C5 Micro posted.

 

[RogerD]

So maybe I would hear it.
Tim

Did the sea just part!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How could you even begin to assume that much less make such a blanket statement? Besides I said FR manipulation and phase manipulation for height motion, frequency response manipulation for static placement. I also explicitly said that the tricks ARE about psychoacoustic principles that are well established in scientific fields.

I agree with you, Jack. Where we are apart is on how much of this kind of manipulation is out there, on audio recordings (not movies). Not much, I suspect, and, well, I could be wrong, but I'm getting the impression from most of the guys in this argument that they are hearing a clearly differentiated vertical image as their normal listening experience (do I have the wrong impression?). And yes, you said FR manipulations for static placement. How does that work in Greg's Martin Logans and Micro's upside down Dynas? Last but not least, that's a heck of a lot of manipulation. I don't think it's happening, or has ever happened as an everyday part of making music recordings. But my apologies if I overstated that point, because I could be all wrong..... Bruce?

Tim

 

[JackD201]

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

Yes you did Steve. I heard it at your place. I hear it in mine. I hear it at Jim's and I've heard them on tiny Parsifals.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Did the sea just part!

No need for drama, Roger. I agreed, long ago, that a rough illusion of height can be created through the kinds of manipulations Jack has talked about. What I believe is not happening is a clearly defined vertical image. And what I know is not happening is vertical information being conveyed by microphones and decoded by stereo systems. If you're hearing the occasional vertical movement, my congratulations to the recording engineers on those rare recordings. If you're hearing a vertical separation of frequencies that emulates vertical information, ok, fine. But that's a nice trick that is indicative of problems with your speakers and/or their placement. If you're hearing a clearly differentiated vertical image, again, how? Explain that one to me.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

How do microphones hear direction?
Tim

Tim,

Microphones do not hear direction, unless they are directional (you should ask CIA or the KGB about that, they are specialists at this subject )

But you are asking the wrong question if you want to discover the truth.

We should ask - how does my hears (not my eyes) know about the height of a sound source in a live event? Is this information dependent only on the direct sound or also on floor and ceiling reflections? If the reflections influence it, how significantly?

Only after you perfectly sure about this you can go to the next level of questions.

 

[mep]

At what point does a debate about something no longer become a debate among reasoned men and devolves into feeding a troll? I think we may be there. We have pulled aside the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, but he seems oblivious to the fact that we see him mashing all of the buttons and pushing the levers.

 

[RogerD]

No need for drama, Roger. I agreed, long ago, that a rough illusion of height can be created through the kinds of manipulations Jack has talked about. What I believe is not happening is a clearly defined vertical image. And what I know is not happening is vertical information being conveyed by microphones and decoded by stereo systems. If you're hearing the occasional vertical movement, my congratulations to the recording engineers on those rare recordings. If you're hearing a vertical separation of frequencies that emulates vertical information, ok, fine. But that's a nice trick that is indicative of problems with your speakers and/or their placement. If you're hearing a clearly differentiated vertical image, again, how? Explain that one to me.

Tim,


Tim

With all the arguing that goes on, I just wanted to add some levity to the subject,and with respect to you,that was my intention.

 

[JackD201]

I agree with you, Jack. Where we are apart is on how much of this kind of manipulation is out there, on audio recordings (not movies). Not much, I suspect, and, well, I could be wrong, but I'm getting the impression from most of the guys in this argument that they are hearing a clearly differentiated vertical image as their normal listening experience (do I have the wrong impression?). And yes, you said FR manipulations for static placement. How does that work in Greg's Martin Logans and Micro's upside down Dynas? Last but not least, that's a heck of a lot of manipulation. I don't think it's happening, or has ever happened as an everyday part of making music recordings. But my apologies if I overstated that point, because I could be all wrong..... Bruce?

Tim

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

 

[microstrip]

Hi

Finally got myself to chime on the Height issue. it is clear to me that microphones cannot provide height information. I do believe however that through mastering manipulations, a sensation of height can be perceived in a recording. Whether it is accurate or not is a different debate. Without the manipulations , I believe, we fill-n the blanks: There is a strong psychological trick going on here, since we already know where the instruments are supposed to be in term of elevation...We know a singer with a guitar cannot be lying on the floor thus we elevate them .. there is also an interesting point brought in by one of the posters, I think bblue and/or Soundproof... The height of the different drivers determine where the sound is coming from and since tweeters are usually placed higher ... (...)

Frantz,

I think you were used to Magnepan, large Martin Logans and Soundlab panels, (vertical line sources) as well as Quad ESL63 (point sources, with 2PI symmetrical radiation). Curiously, both types of speakers seem to discriminate the vestige of height information in recordings very well, better than most cone array type speakers.

 

[treitz3]

.......but I'm getting the impression from most of the guys in this argument that they are hearing a clearly differentiated vertical image as their normal listening experience (do I have the wrong impression?).

Hello, Tim. You have the right impression. I am currently listening to Millage Gilbert. It's his "Three Faces" CD. As I listen, it is extremely clear and distinct to me where the height information lay. I can tell with the utmost of precision exactly where the stick strikes the high hat. This is right at about three feet up off the floor. The ride cymbal is right smack dab at the top of my speakers which are a little over 4' high. The two are in distinct locations and are as crystal clear and precise as you can get.

To answer your question of why? I couldn't even begin to tell you why and quite honestly, I could care less. I just know what I hear. I can stop the music, start it back up and you know what? The images are in the same exact location every time. The only time this changes is if I move out of the sweet spot, then all bets are off. [You are sitting in the sweet spot, right?] Some albums do the height better than others, admitted, but it most assuredly is there and not just on one or two albums either. No doubt about that. If you do not hear this, I feel for you and your listening enjoyment, as this is a wonderful aspect of the reproduction.

Let me clarify one thing as well, I know what they are talking about when they say that the phase manipulation can take the sound and place it in no particular spot. It just seems to wrap above you, around you and fill the entire room. I have heard that very thing place sounds at my right ear [freaked me out first time that happened as it was a human voice and I was the only one home] and place the sound behind me as well. This is not what "height" information I'm talking about.

I don't need the Chesky disc to tell me there is height but admittedly, it does a much better job at height than most of the music I have heard. I listened to it again last night and the height test [the image thereof] placed the image almost exactly 6 feet above the tweeter....which is about a foot and a half into the ceiling. I can't at the moment recall listening to any album or CD going quite "that" high without the obvious phase manipulation [or whatever other tricks they use to produce such an image].

A good example of the phase manipulation [and whatever other tricks the mixers/engineers added to the mix] I'm talking about would be Enya's "A Day Without Rain" album. Pretty much throughout the album [or CD], you can hear the phase manipulation and it just envelopes you and places sound everywhere.