What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Ah come on people there is always a sweet spot .. A place, position in the the room where everything falls in place.. it can't be any other way.. Regardless of speakers .... You go to a concert and your seat is on the complete side off a wall .. it can't be sweet ...
You get yourself in the middle seat in the first third of the hall in most instances things gets great ...Sweet.
Saying there is no sweet spot in a concert hall is like telling me you get the same view at the cheapest seats than at court of field level .. it simply ain't so .. but.... , but since we are audiophiles and very opiniated this may end up being the subject of a new thread
You get yourself in the middle seat in the first third of the hall in most instances things gets great ...Sweet.
Saying there is no sweet spot in a concert hall is like telling me you get the same view at the cheapest seats than at court of field level .. it simply ain't so .. but.... , but since we are audiophiles and very opiniated this may end up being the subject of a new thread
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
you call it how it is Frantz. I agree completely
My biggest question that I am struggling with is that a member yesterday said that soundstage and imaging mean nothing to him. Am I missing something or what?
My biggest question that I am struggling with is that a member yesterday said that soundstage and imaging mean nothing to him. Am I missing something or what?
If it’s stereo, there is a sweet spot. I think we all agree (did I just say that?) that some speakers have a wider sweet spot than others. There is only one person on this forum that I’m aware of who insists that his stereo system images perfectly across every room in his house. Everyone else believes in the laws of physics and the limitations of rooms and two channel stereo. So of course there is a sweet spot. The only question is “how wide is your sweet spot” and not “do you have one.”
As for live music, two years ago a friend of mine and I went to see Steely Dan. What I didn’t know was how terrible our seats were until we arrived. We were way off to the left of the stage and it sounded pretty bad. We saw them again last year and this time we had seats that were in the center of the stage and it was a totally different experience. If I’m in a club listening to live music and I have a choice, I’m going to try and be somewhere close to the center of the stage.
As for live music, two years ago a friend of mine and I went to see Steely Dan. What I didn’t know was how terrible our seats were until we arrived. We were way off to the left of the stage and it sounded pretty bad. We saw them again last year and this time we had seats that were in the center of the stage and it was a totally different experience. If I’m in a club listening to live music and I have a choice, I’m going to try and be somewhere close to the center of the stage.
Part of the problem is that of mis-communication (who would've thought it ...). There are 2 separate issues here, the first is soundstaging and imaging, and the second is the quality of realism. I have heard systems which do very impressively in the first category, but poorly in the second, so the two are not the same thing.
Now Roger and I are chasing the quality of realism, which, automatically, as a by-product, creates excellent soundstages and plenty of imaging if we choose to focus on that. But we are not "fixated" on the latter, it's all part of the package. Plenty of people here have already posted about how live, real sound can have terrible soundstaging, so if that doesn't demonstrate that there is a disconnect between realistic sound, and soundstaging and imaging, I don't know what will.
The posts here certainly show that people listen differently to music: if I listen to live music I enjoy the texture and the dynamic clout of the real thing; if someone asked later what was the soundstaging like I'd have to give him a blank stare ...
So when I say the music sounds good in the way that I have talked about it here, that is the "angle" that I'm coming from: I have had hifi heads come and not "get it": they're too busy listening for technical elements -- that level of silibance is excessive -- and not realise that the sound is not intended to be "in your face hifi", it's meant to sound natural.
Frank
Now Roger and I are chasing the quality of realism, which, automatically, as a by-product, creates excellent soundstages and plenty of imaging if we choose to focus on that. But we are not "fixated" on the latter, it's all part of the package. Plenty of people here have already posted about how live, real sound can have terrible soundstaging, so if that doesn't demonstrate that there is a disconnect between realistic sound, and soundstaging and imaging, I don't know what will.
The posts here certainly show that people listen differently to music: if I listen to live music I enjoy the texture and the dynamic clout of the real thing; if someone asked later what was the soundstaging like I'd have to give him a blank stare ...
So when I say the music sounds good in the way that I have talked about it here, that is the "angle" that I'm coming from: I have had hifi heads come and not "get it": they're too busy listening for technical elements -- that level of silibance is excessive -- and not realise that the sound is not intended to be "in your face hifi", it's meant to sound natural.
Frank
Check out the drums on this one, for what's possible, when the person doing the recording does just that, in a venue he knows, and then posts the recording in 24-bit FLAC for all to enjoy. Live concert.
http://www.archive.org/details/garaj2005-03-24.flac24
http://www.archive.org/details/garaj2005-03-24.flac24
IMHO comparing the sweet spot in sound reproduction and in live events is completely meaningless, as its meaning is completely different in the two cases.
And even in these separate cases there will not be agreement about what is the sweet spot meaning in each of them.
The use of sweet spot expression should be reserved to sound reproduction - using it to define your preferred auditorium seat or the best place in the theater will introduce more confusion in this debate - YMMV.
And even in these separate cases there will not be agreement about what is the sweet spot meaning in each of them.
The use of sweet spot expression should be reserved to sound reproduction - using it to define your preferred auditorium seat or the best place in the theater will introduce more confusion in this debate - YMMV.
Dots & thoughts ...
Same here.
I truly believe that we can perceive 'Height' in recordings from the mic recording technics (proper positioning), plus the reverbs (reflections) coming from the ceiling, and recorded by the mic(s).
These sound delays are indeed a very good indication of height,
and some people's set of ears are more apt than others to hear it.
Bill, I appreciate your direct involvement, by listening recently to some music material I suggested.
And I understand exactly what you are saying regarding our own room's walls and ceiling reflections.
Also the confinement of our drivers in their boxes (loudspeaker enclosures). Plus the back wave from those boxes coming right back into the drivers (tweeters).
These are all true facts. But our ears are fantastic machines that are well oiled in combination with our brains. And from that combo we can hear into the music recordings themselves.
And with experience we can tell the size of the venue (live hall or club, or studio), and the mic positionings, plus in certain recordings the height of the ceiling. ...And right on the recordings, and our rooms and loudspeakers (quality ones of course) can reproduce that sense of space and height (plus width & depth of the soundstage, in that live venue, or in the studio arrangement ...).
It is from attentive listening to some great quality recordings (intended or accidental), that we can hear (from the grooves of the vinyl, or the pits of the compact disc) directly from the recording session, and through the mikes that witnessed the event.
As much as I trust the reproducers in my system, I also trust the sources, and the mediums, and the sound engineers (the good ones of course).
Ambisonics is a great method in reproducing Height. But you do need the required loudspeakers for that, plus it is just that, a technical method of recording, and not necessarily representative of the realistic recordings themselves. But nonetheless it has its place in our discussions about soundstage.
I like that! You brought a very good point to our equation: our ears. Because like you said they come in all various shapes and forms.
And because of that it is essentially important in our discussions about Audio, SoundStage, Height, and all that Jazz of our Sound hobby. :b
I respectfully disagree.
I used to work in a major concert hall in my hometown near Montreal where I'm originally from.
I was an assistant Sound & Light engineer; and we were analysing the sound quality from all the hall's sections, even in the rear and in the balconies.
I encountered (and even talked and exchanged friendship) with some international artists (singers & musicians).
I agree that in a concert hall there are seats that are much better than others, and the sweet spots are more numerous than at home. Perhaps good for even a hundred people or so, if not much more in the best halls of the world.
The full scale of a Classical Orchestra is roughly 60 feet wide by 30 feet deep, and some are even much larger than that! So the sweet spots are now much more wide.
And with some great acoustically built concert halls, the good seats are almost everywhere!
Even in the balconies. All the surfaces are acoustically optimized for best sound.
And even without or with people in the hall! Because few thousands people in a room sure do absorb quite bit of sound energy; and at some audio frequencies of the spectrum more than others.
Think about that too ...
Ron, I too assisted to several live music concerts in all type of venues, and I'm also a seasonal musician (non-pro though, but I did jam with some amazing ones).
And I fully agree with you in the width & depth & height of the sweet spot depending of the size of the venue. ...Eg.; In a recording studio versus in a big concert hall versus in our own room.
* With today's constantly improving technologies on sound acoustics and room correction & EQ systems, yesterday is pretty much gone on many aspects of soundstage and imaging, I truly believe.
I agree. Sitting near walls can't be good for imaging and soundstaging (reflections, delays, ...).
At home or at a concert hall. The rear is awful! Never, and I mean never sit near the rear wall.
It is very important to make the difference between home (two-channel stereo listening from one pair of stereo loudspeakers), a full blown multichannel surround sound system (with up to 11 speakers, or even more, and multiple subwoofers), a Jazz or Blues small venue (100 to 400 seats or so), and a full blown Classical orchestra in a large concert hall (up to 5,000 seats or more).
And to reproduce a large venue (stadium with 100,000 seats) in our living room, is futile! Indeed!
DSP effects? Forget it!
I believe it's all about physics and realistic approaches. ... In my own living room, Jazz & Blues sound most realistic (because of my speakers and the size of my listening room).
When I listen to a symphonia, I surely love it, but the scale, even if I'm completely immersed and transfixed in the soles of my soul, it just ain't the same as if I was at that live concert from a good seating position.
_______________________
_______________________
*** This thread is one of the very best here at WBF. :b
Same here.
I truly believe that we can perceive 'Height' in recordings from the mic recording technics (proper positioning), plus the reverbs (reflections) coming from the ceiling, and recorded by the mic(s).
These sound delays are indeed a very good indication of height,
and some people's set of ears are more apt than others to hear it.
Bill, I appreciate your direct involvement, by listening recently to some music material I suggested.
And I understand exactly what you are saying regarding our own room's walls and ceiling reflections.
Also the confinement of our drivers in their boxes (loudspeaker enclosures). Plus the back wave from those boxes coming right back into the drivers (tweeters).
These are all true facts. But our ears are fantastic machines that are well oiled in combination with our brains. And from that combo we can hear into the music recordings themselves.
And with experience we can tell the size of the venue (live hall or club, or studio), and the mic positionings, plus in certain recordings the height of the ceiling. ...And right on the recordings, and our rooms and loudspeakers (quality ones of course) can reproduce that sense of space and height (plus width & depth of the soundstage, in that live venue, or in the studio arrangement ...).
It is from attentive listening to some great quality recordings (intended or accidental), that we can hear (from the grooves of the vinyl, or the pits of the compact disc) directly from the recording session, and through the mikes that witnessed the event.
As much as I trust the reproducers in my system, I also trust the sources, and the mediums, and the sound engineers (the good ones of course).
Ambisonics is a great method in reproducing Height. But you do need the required loudspeakers for that, plus it is just that, a technical method of recording, and not necessarily representative of the realistic recordings themselves. But nonetheless it has its place in our discussions about soundstage.
I like that! You brought a very good point to our equation: our ears. Because like you said they come in all various shapes and forms.
And because of that it is essentially important in our discussions about Audio, SoundStage, Height, and all that Jazz of our Sound hobby. :b
I respectfully disagree.
I used to work in a major concert hall in my hometown near Montreal where I'm originally from.
I was an assistant Sound & Light engineer; and we were analysing the sound quality from all the hall's sections, even in the rear and in the balconies.
I encountered (and even talked and exchanged friendship) with some international artists (singers & musicians).
I agree that in a concert hall there are seats that are much better than others, and the sweet spots are more numerous than at home. Perhaps good for even a hundred people or so, if not much more in the best halls of the world.
The full scale of a Classical Orchestra is roughly 60 feet wide by 30 feet deep, and some are even much larger than that! So the sweet spots are now much more wide.
And with some great acoustically built concert halls, the good seats are almost everywhere!
Even in the balconies. All the surfaces are acoustically optimized for best sound.
And even without or with people in the hall! Because few thousands people in a room sure do absorb quite bit of sound energy; and at some audio frequencies of the spectrum more than others.
Think about that too ...
Ron, I too assisted to several live music concerts in all type of venues, and I'm also a seasonal musician (non-pro though, but I did jam with some amazing ones).
And I fully agree with you in the width & depth & height of the sweet spot depending of the size of the venue. ...Eg.; In a recording studio versus in a big concert hall versus in our own room.
* With today's constantly improving technologies on sound acoustics and room correction & EQ systems, yesterday is pretty much gone on many aspects of soundstage and imaging, I truly believe.
Ah come on people there is always a sweet spot .. A place, position in the the room where everything falls in place.. it can't be any other way.. Regardless of speakers .... You go to a concert and your seat is on the complete side off a wall .. it can't be sweet ...
You get yourself in the middle seat in the first third of the hall in most instances things gets great ...Sweet.
Saying there is no sweet spot in a concert hall is like telling me you get the same view at the cheapest seats than at court of field level .. it simply ain't so .. but.... , but since we are audiophiles and very opiniated this may end up being the subject of a new thread
I agree. Sitting near walls can't be good for imaging and soundstaging (reflections, delays, ...).
At home or at a concert hall. The rear is awful! Never, and I mean never sit near the rear wall.
It is very important to make the difference between home (two-channel stereo listening from one pair of stereo loudspeakers), a full blown multichannel surround sound system (with up to 11 speakers, or even more, and multiple subwoofers), a Jazz or Blues small venue (100 to 400 seats or so), and a full blown Classical orchestra in a large concert hall (up to 5,000 seats or more).
And to reproduce a large venue (stadium with 100,000 seats) in our living room, is futile! Indeed!
DSP effects? Forget it!
I believe it's all about physics and realistic approaches. ... In my own living room, Jazz & Blues sound most realistic (because of my speakers and the size of my listening room).
When I listen to a symphonia, I surely love it, but the scale, even if I'm completely immersed and transfixed in the soles of my soul, it just ain't the same as if I was at that live concert from a good seating position.
_______________________
_______________________
*** This thread is one of the very best here at WBF. :b
Last edited:
Enlightening thread – my thanks to Tim and Bill.
Tomelex/Tim – in regard to manipulating the third center speaker – I’m sure you’ve aware of the Trinaural Processor by James Bongiorno – this has always held my interest – but doesn’t receive much love – any thoughts on the concept?
Tomelex/Tim – in regard to manipulating the third center speaker – I’m sure you’ve aware of the Trinaural Processor by James Bongiorno – this has always held my interest – but doesn’t receive much love – any thoughts on the concept?
Thanks Frank, I simply shared my honest opinion, based on my own personal life experience
with various microphone recording technics, and from my readings on some of the very best sound recording engineers in the bizz (Mapleshade recording studio, ECM recording studios, Reference Recordings studios, Water Lily Acoustics, etc.). ...Nagra recording machines, and several type of microphones, and their critical and accidental positioning.
But stay tuned, much more is to come ... :b
with various microphone recording technics, and from my readings on some of the very best sound recording engineers in the bizz (Mapleshade recording studio, ECM recording studios, Reference Recordings studios, Water Lily Acoustics, etc.). ...Nagra recording machines, and several type of microphones, and their critical and accidental positioning.
But stay tuned, much more is to come ... :b
I'm not familiar with the concept, Jonathan. I"m getting really solid phantom images between the speakers, but I'd love to hear something do even better.
Tim
Thanks for the link, Soundproof, nice material to investigate: even sounds good on the PC speakers! Out of interest, tried resampling to 24/384, definite improvement, not as dramatic as with other material, but worthwhile ...
Also of interest for those who like to play musical treasure hunt, in the first track, 'Jam', can you pick what the electronic glitch is that occurs, and when it comes and goes?
And further: the drums' waveform is highly asymetrical, and "appears" to be reverse polarity on that track -- perhaps a good test with those who can switch easily.
Frank
I don't want to sound like a broken record (no pun) but individual microphones, though they can hear the various delays and reverberations in a room, they can NOT tell which direction the sounds come from. They hear all sound as if it comes from directly in front of them. This is a fact. Therefore, with two mics in a horizontal array, any comparison of delay times and reverberation can only be made laterally, between the mics as positioned, and therefore presented to the speakers for lateral reproduction in the same way.
The apparent dimensions of the room as heard on the speakers would be width and depth only, as a product of sound heard from all directions of the room summed together at the mics. You can not determine how high the ceiling might be, separately from the width and depth. That information is not uniquely preserved in any form. Now if you already knew how wide and deep the room was, you might be able to infer the height based on some knowledge of acoustics, but that's it. Anything else is strictly a product of your imagination.
... as a dual point, forward only representation of the event.
How can you trust something which you have no intimate knowledge of the total electrical path from point a (mics) to point b (speakers) on a given recording? Numerous changes can (and will) be made along the way without your knowledge.
Not limited to:
1. tape recording (including effects of tape saturation, noise reduction (if used), machine alignment. Mics used, preamps? Spacing?
2. tape playback (as above) plus did the same machine play the tape? Sonic characteristics of playback machine.
3. equalization during preparation of the master (if the original tape was not used as-is)
4. compression (if any, how much and what type)
5. Quality of electronics in the 2-3-4 chain
6. And many other factors, some subtle, some not. .e.g., Stereo field width manipulation for effect.
If the original tape was just edited and then mastered as first generation, there are still a variety of processes that can (and will) be done in real time during mastering (2-6, above).
There are many things (a little here and a little there) that will not be disclosed on many recordings as they are a normal part of post production and/or mastering, so it's not possible to believe exactly what is heard as exactly what the mics picked up in the first place.
--Bill
One of my vintage amp's has a very sophisticated circuit. It was released in 1967, solid state, and came with L/C/R speaker OUT. The L and R channels are completely independent of one another, and phase inverted, and the C channel is created by joining the L and R signals. Due to the design, the three-channel reproduction of two-channel is in correct phase, and adjustable through the use of a separate sound stage controller.
http://www.beolab.dk/box-uk.htm
Pretty advanced for its time, that.
http://www.beolab.dk/box-uk.htm
Pretty advanced for its time, that.
Now it is my time to be sound like a broken record.
, but I am curious. What is the knowledge of acoustics we must have to infer height?
Now it is my time to be sound like a broken record.
What is the knowledge of acoustics we must have to infer height?
Reverberation characteristics.
But the height inferred is not that of a source placement, but of the performance space volume.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |