What is "Sound Stage?"

[Soundproof]

I have Q-sound effects flying above my head whenever I play those. These rely on controlled phase-shifts of mono-signals in order to create the 3D displacements.

I also sit and enjoy the perception of voices and sources coming from off the vertical plane when I'm in my listening room - but a little thought tells us that this is more likely to be a function of our apparatus of perception than the actual system. Where does the time shift information come from (stereo relies upon the time and level differential between signals registered in the horizontal plane by microphones used to record a source. For there to be a similar ordering of sources in the vertical plane, we would need microphones placed accordingly; and similar speakers placed accordingly in the vertical plane in our listening rooms, dedicated to the signals from the vertical mic's.)

 

[RogerD]

Well the vertical aspect of a sound stage is clearly fascinating to me,maybe others that make sound reproduction in the business and home their livelihood can expand on the topic.

 

[microstrip]

(…) Personally, I don't believe on a two channel system, that the room should play any role in enhancements to try and recreate another environment which then adds to whatever is played. That is an exercise in futility and only very vivid imaginations will think that it sounds like the real thing.
The room should get out of the way and allow what is being presented by the system to stand on its own. THAT is the soundstage that is created by the engineer. It's primarily between the L and R channels. If there is any height of image involved it's either because the speakers are very tall, or the room is reflecting higher frequencies. As you start getting into out of phase signals you'll get the impression that the image might extend beyond the edges, behind you, over your head, but that's pretty much it.
But if you understand that, you'll appreciate what some engineers create and others destroy. It can be vary impressive and believable as an art form, but in no way representing an accurately portrayed live performance, recorded in a concert hall or equivalent.
My viewpoint and preferences come from an engineering and mixing background and point of view, and a realization of what is and isn't possible in two channel. Having a beautifully presented mix and sound stage layout ruined by room acoustics adding echo, reverb and other random effects, is a really disappointing experience. (…)
--Bill

Bill,

IMHO, your comment The room should get out of the way should be read with some care. The engineers prepare the recording to sound good in your room and they anticipate a typical room – some mysterious and non standard thing. They know you will not listen in an anechoic room or in the middle of the desert. You need reflections in the room to create the spaciousness needed to create a 2D illusion from 2 speakers.

I think no one here believes that the room pretends to create an acoustical environment per se– it should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions. But no room will be entirely neutral – it is why no two rooms sound similar. Some will enhance features as soundstage and spaciousness, others accuracy and dynamics - and we debate it!

Can I ask you to explain more precisely what you mean with the primarily word in the sentence THAT is the soundstage that is created by the engineer. It's primarily between the L and R channels.

 

[NorthStar]

Great thread! :b

About 'microphone capture'? Both Soundstage, Imaging & Ambience, in a three-dimensional Space ...

 

[fas42]

more likely to be a function of our apparatus of perception than the actual system

Yes, excellent discourse. I agree it is a "function of our apparatus of perception" to allow our brains to experience the illusion of height, etc. It is not our system that is doing that, by generating extra information beyond that which has been recorded, unless the listener has very deliberately set up the environment for that to happen, like using the Lexicon of the now-dead project to extract and emphasis these elements, or the room naturally or deliberately accentuates it. Also if a recording is made which exaggerates the effect, to demonstrate what occurs.

No, where the "actual system" comes into it is that if it clearly, without distortion, reproduces that out of phase, echo information that was picked up by the microphones in the recording venue. Then your ear/brain will do the decoding to allow the illusion to have the aspects of height, width, etc, of the recording space, not the listening space "distorted" versions thereof.

Of course, a system will have to have very low distortion, a very low noise floor, be very high resolution, however you wish to describe it, for this to occur ...

Frank

 

[Simon Templar]

To get back to the original question....what is the difference between 'Imaging' and 'Soundstage'?

To be honest, I never really thought much about it....at least not in any depth...until this thread brought the matter up. I always intuitively seemed to know the difference so I never really bothered to analyze it.


Now that you have forced me to do so I would say that, to me in this context, the difference is that of verb vs noun. 'Imaging' is the verb, the actual action of the system portraying a virtual space....while 'Soundstage' is that portrayed virtual space itself.

Your preamp and amps have wonderful imaging properties...while the soundstage they create is wide and deep.


Perhaps I am off in the weeds with this one?



.....sT

 

[Gregadd]

Soundstaging was most dramtically demonstrtaed forme when I put my ML CLS on stands. The music was raised to the height of the stands. I could not locate any music below that floor.

 

[NorthStar]

* Soundstage is the full width of the stage, where artist musicians are performing.
And it also includes depth, and height as well.
Gives you the real hints as to where the performance is taking place.
A sense of ambience with visual clues as to the actual size of that space in front of you.
A wide soundstage.

__________________

* Imaging is the pictures created between two loudspeakers.
It situates the musicians in their own specific and original realistic space, or soundstage.
Gives you the picture from where the musicians are standing.
And it also includes width and depth, and height as well.
An holographic 3D image.

__________________

They both go hand in hand together.

>>> This is my own personal interpretation. :b
{Feel entirely free to elaborate furthermore or to come up with your own personal 'visions'.}

P.S. You got it Simon. :b

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To get back to the original question....what is the difference between 'Imaging' and 'Soundstage'?

To be honest, I never really thought much about it....at least not in any depth...until this thread brought the matter up. I always intuitively seemed to know the difference so I never really bothered to analyze it.


Now that you have forced me to do so I would say that, to me in this context, the difference is that of verb vs noun. 'Imaging' is the verb, the actual action of the system portraying a virtual space....while 'Soundstage' is that portrayed virtual space itself.

Your preamp and amps have wonderful imaging properties...while the soundstage they create is wide and deep.


Perhaps I am off in the weeds with this one?



.....sT

No, I think that's about right.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Also, the words themselves express what they mean: the "soundstage" is the sense of the stage in or on which the performance takes place; "imaging" is the perceived image, the sense of something physical being in a certain place that's creating a sound.

Frank

 

[bblue]

What I hear on this disc linked above is clearly height, though. It takes a signal and [properly set up, of course] offers you the image starting about 4 or so feet past the L speaker and slowly raises the image upward to about 4' above your speakers [provided the room interactions don't cancel it out] in a half circle type pattern, moving over to 4 or so feet past the R speaker. I'm not discounting what it is you are saying, rather trying to understand more why there shouldn't be height, when clearly there is.

I'll put it to you this way. If I were to take a laser and pinpoint where the image is during the height test, it would make a perfect half circle [again, providing that the rig is set up properly and the sound is not cancelled out from reflections]. Then there are the recordings that I'm sitting below the stage and some I'm horizontal to the stage and others I'm above the stage. *scratches head*

Again, there is no notion of height produced by a loudspeaker. None.

What you're describing in the first paragraph is an out-of-phase pan from left to right. You ears are hearing height when in fact the signal is simply out of phase. Some will hear it as having no particular 'place', some will hear it as behind them. Out of phase signals in live recordings are a product of reveration signals of the room adding and subtracting, they don't imply height. Often, special effects on pop recordings will include some phase shifting/out of phase panning for effect. Again, no height implied. In some sessions, out of phase signals are a mistake -- the engineer didn't recognize them for what they are and correct them, or liked the effect. Most likely to occur in drum sets that have many mics.

I checked all the Chesky test discs track list and explanations of the test. There are NO references to height, except the seating height of the listener. There are a variety of others, including phase sweeps, out of phase channels, etc.

So if you're hearing height during playback:

1. Your ears could be (mis)interpreting the out of phase signal as height,
2. Your speakers are misaligned or positioned incorrectly,
3. It's a room artifact based on where/how you and the speakers are situated.

But be thankful you're hearing *some* effect. I've known studio engineers that could not even hear phase, or out of phase speakers. That's a sad state.

--Bill

 

[Soundproof]

Your preamp and amps have wonderful imaging properties ... while the soundstage they create is wide and deep.

I like this distinction very much, where the verb is used to describe the capabilities of the components, and maybe also the room interplay of speakers; while the result perceived by the listener is the soundstage. (And people would be surprised by how differently we perceive soundstages ...)

 

[bblue]

IMHO, your comment The room should get out of the way should be read with some care. The engineers prepare the recording to sound good in your room and they anticipate a typical room – some mysterious and non standard thing. They know you will not listen in an anechoic room or in the middle of the desert. You need reflections in the room to create the spaciousness needed to create a 2D illusion from 2 speakers.

micro, "The room should get out of the way" is my opinion and preference. When I just listen I only want to hear the environment created during mixing. Not as it might sound (for better or worse) in a typical non-treated room. In a way it's a Holy Grail, because few rooms are perfect, and none are anechoic.

Having been a recording/mix engineer for over 15 years I can honestly say that I have never heard of an engineer 'anticipating a typical room'. That would be impossible. Instead, they assume (sometimes incorrectly) that the control room in which they are mixing is properly designed and 'voiced' to represent a balanced, full range environment. They simply make the mix sound 'right' on that system and in theory it should sound 'right' in most reasonable listening environments. Now I'm not talking about mix engineers that do everything with lots of high end eq to make it sound 'good' on the radio. I'm talking about the intention of being a well balanced full range mix.

If you listen to a wide variety of music recorded/mixed in different studios, you'll note a very wide range of sound balance; too narrow, too wide, bass heavy, shrill, distorted (unintentional) and other attributes. Some of this can come from mixing rooms that aren't as well designed as they should have been, and/or mix engineers used to mixing in studios with a particular sound (say Westlake systems), going to a different studio with a completely different room/monitor sound (say UREI's). They want to hear what they've become used to, and mix to get that sound, but end up with quite different results because of the different room characteristics. Fortunately, the real pro's that work in various studio designs are able to shift their reference based on where they are -- usually successfully.

But there's no 'secret formula' for home listening mixing as you suggest.

I think no one here believes that the room pretends to create an acoustical environment per se– it should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions. But no room will be entirely neutral – it is why no two rooms sound similar. Some will enhance features as soundstage and spaciousness, others accuracy and dynamics - and we debate it!

Can I ask you to explain more precisely what you mean with the primarily word in the sentence THAT is the soundstage that is created by the engineer. It's primarily between the L and R channels.

Other than the effects of reverb, or phased signals, there seldom is much, if any, beyond the L and R speakers. Mostly, that effect is created by listening rooms. To create an effect beyond the speakers, it's often done with carefully aligned reverb systems and playing with phase on some tracks.

--Bill

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

the room ..... should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions.

Oh my. The things we will believe to continue believing in the things that we believe in.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Oh my. The things we will believe to continue believing in the things that we believe in.

Tim

Tim,
Please do not change the sense of my sentence cutting part of it:

the room ..... should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions.

is not

I think no one here believes that the room pretends to create an acoustical environment per se– it should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions.


Any way, my idea is that during mastering the sound is often tailored for a different sound environment, in order to better recreate the sound experience in the final consumer room. (or unhappily for most of us for the car or kitchen radio) .

Some people spend their lives studying sound reproduction. They write articles and books on it and some even write there things like Readers will undoubtedly find conflicts between the recommendations in this book and the ideas published or promoted elsewhere Some others just know the truth by other means. I currently have made my choice which school I prefer, may be someday I will change ...

 

[bblue]

I think no one here believes that the room pretends to create an acoustical environment per se

No? It seems to me that a lot of folks do.

it should conjugate with the recording to recreate the sound engineer’s intentions.

How would it do that? Telepathy? Seriously, how would/could it do that? The only way is to be treated to neutralize it as much as possible. ...Get it out of the way...

But no room will be entirely neutral – it is why no two rooms sound similar. Some will enhance features as soundstage and spaciousness, others accuracy and dynamics - and we debate it!

But some are debating it as if the recording itself is in question, or producing that sound. The more a room influences the recording, the further off it is from the intended sound. And that would apply to almost every room that is not effectively acoustically treated.

Some rooms I've heard (not very treated) enhance certain recordings spectacularly, but still quite inaccurately. And you can not expect the same treatment with another recording.

It is possible for engineered rooms, or those with exceptionally well done after-acoustics treatments to sound quite similar. But most are miles apart. The results end up as an evaluation of the recording (or even the equipment) to many listeners.

--Bill

 

[microstrip]

(...) Other than the effects of reverb, or phased signals, there seldom is much, if any, beyond the L and R speakers. Mostly, that effect is created by listening rooms. To create an effect beyond the speakers, it's often done with carefully aligned reverb systems and playing with phase on some tracks.

--Bill

And you we should think that is by fortuitous hazard that in some rooms, some of the recordings we consider coming from great sound engineers can achieve this effect systematically ? That these people were not aware of this capability of stereo? Should we consider that this picture, from
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm
is an exaggeration and the orchestra should be squeezed in half, between the speakers ?

BTW, the soundstage exceeds the speaker to speaker distance in the recording of Belafonte at Canegie Hall , both in CD or LP. in many systems. Any special reason for that?

 

[microstrip]

No? It seems to me that a lot of folks do.

OK, but I am not addressing what a lot of folks wrongly do.

How would it do that? Telepathy? Seriously, how would/could it do that? The only way is to be treated to neutralize it as much as possible. ...Get it out of the way...

I see it is now a semantic point. Neutralize in what sense? Make it predictable? Get it out of the way in the sense we do not have to think about it?

But some are debating it as if the recording itself is in question, or producing that sound. The more a room influences the recording, the further off it is from the intended sound. And that would apply to almost every room that is not effectively acoustically treated.

Effectively treated is a broad definition that can cover anything. The room always influences the recording, as it exists. It can be either positively or negatively. Only an anechoic room can be neutral, I do not consider that sound engineers tailor their recordings expecting such a listening space.

Some rooms I've heard (not very treated) enhance certain recordings spectacularly, but still quite inaccurately. And you can not expect the same treatment with another recording.

IMHO now it is a question of statistics. If the room enhances most of the recordings of its owner we have to consider it is positive.

It is possible for engineered rooms, or those with exceptionally well done after-acoustics treatments to sound quite similar. But most are miles apart. The results end up as an evaluation of the recording (or even the equipment) to many listeners.

May be very true. But is part of audiophile life!

 

[mep]

You know, if I started believing some of the things you guys have said, it wouldn’t be that far of a leap to say that stereo actually reproduces no sound and its but a figment of our imagination that we hear anything at all.

 

[Soundproof]

Stereo-phonic -- solid-sound. We're lazy, so we're calling it stereo, sticking to the solid part. It became solid because one reproduced the impression of sound from more than one direction. Blumlein would have preferred L/C/R, but the first stereophonic LPs could only accommodate two channels, and we got stuck with that.

The impression of sound was solidified, because the information comprising the details in the soundstage were delivered from more than one direction, giving body to the tone. Measurements and subjective impressions from the world's best concert halls point to the fact that it is the ability to create body to the music which helps us distinguish between the best concert halls and the rest. Almost without fail, the best venues are smaller, the width narrower, facilitating lateral reflections, that are crucial to the staggered delivery of direct sound, early and late reflections.
In a concert hall, the sound expands from the stage, and becomes larger than the physical extension of the orchestra - while many systems close the sound in between the speakers, which I find a strange taste. My own goes towards Radialstrahlers, Acoustic lenses and similar principles that open up and extend the performances. I don't get the claim that such systems reduce pin-pointing, at least not to any level that doesn't match that of the concert experience.