What is "Sound Stage?"

[NorthStar]

Of course. Record vertical channels and play them back through a vertical system, and you'll get a vertical image. Anybody out there have left/right high/low speakers in their system? Are you making your own recordings to take advantage of it?

Tim

Hello Bob, if you will.....please re-read the post. Pay close attention to the rotation part.

Yeah, I got that in the first place; I was simply quoting Tim, with emphasis on that short sentence. :b

I know exactly what he was referring too; and you can do similar by turning your head 90 degrees towards the ceiling, and by having two center speakers positioned vertically at different heights.

 

[NorthStar]

Earlier I was listening attentively to John Rutter - Requiem five anthems,
with the Turtle Creek Chorale & The Women's Chorus of Dallas, and conducted by Timothy Seelig.
On Reference Recordings (RR-57CD), and [HDCD] encoded, and decoded.
...From an active audiophile's perspective, in my own room and from my two loudspeakers.

It is obvious the grandeur and the sense of height from the organ played by Joel Martinson.

Also, the width, and the depth in particular, are prominent.
Listen to the cello for example; played by Christopher Adkins.

Listen to the momentum (climatic escalation; crescendo) of the organ in conjunction with the Chorale and the women's Chorus; it envelops you with a great sense of spacious Height.
No doubt about it.

You can tell that engineer Prof Keith O. Johnson did an excellent job of capturing the spaciousness and height, and depth, and width of the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center Hall, in Dallas.
The Organ is so omnipresent, at all times, and the pipes gain height with volume level rising.
Same with the choirs who surround you from all around and everywhere, and in height.
* Roger, I read you very well indeed. :b

And that this type of music is a good example of that rendition.

Don't just take my word for it; go and listen for yourself.

-> Stay tuned; more musical selections to come ...
From Jazz clubs, to Classical concerts, to live acoustic Blues, etc. ...

P.S. If I may add; I am using my two subwoofers with this recording (as Mono, not Stereo).

 

[Soundproof]

The madness is strong in this thread.

There's something about audiophile hifi that makes for curious study. In fact, anthropologists have studied hifi, and have ascribed religious aspects to it. No wonder. From miracles to skepticism towards science, it's all there.

Because sound-waves are propagating in three dimensions, through the medium of air, the dissipated energy is considerable. This is what makes stereo work, even with microphones that are placed quite close, but made to cover an assigned area. The registered energy differential between them, of the same signal, delivers discrete information that when recreated through our speakers, seems to assist localization of the source in the sound stage that we listen to.

Depending upon how the microphones are placed, and how our speakers are placed and used, we can have a mono soundstage, or a distributed soundstage. This distribution can take many forms, regular two-channel lateral stereo, surround, ambisonics, etc.

I get the impression that a number of thread participants would find it useful to listen to a mono source first from either L/R speaker, and then from both, and then spend time thinking empirically about the experience - before graduating to listening to a good stereo source from either speaker, and then from both.

 

[fas42]

In the context of what is being talked about at the moment I just "stumbled upon" this concept, and website: http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/Group2/abregm1/web/asa.htm, Auditory Scene Analysis. I'm aware that links to material about such have already been posted by Gary and Amir, but it may be of benefit to point to it again, here.

From the home page:

We use our sense of hearing to understand the properties of sound-producing events. Often, we are interested in a single stream of events, such as a violin playing, a person talking, or a car approaching. In a natural listening environment, however, the acoustic energy produced by each event sequence is mixed, at the listener's ears, with all the energy arising from concurrent events.​

In our research we wanted to understand how the brain could build separate perceptual descriptions of sound-generating events despite this mixing of evidence.​

It appears that the first thing it does is to analyze the incoming array of sound into a large number of frequency components. But then it is left with the following problem: which combination of these components has arisen from a particular source of sound, such as the voice of a particular person continuing over time? Only by putting together the right set of frequency components over time can the identity of the signals be recognized. Otherwise, for example, the recognizer might combine the syllables of two talkers to make a spurious word.​

Frank

 

[Soundproof]

 

[bblue]

What might have been interesting, if 3-channel had become standard, would have been to dedicate the center-channel to vertical information, by raising this speaker above the L/R speakers.
Depending upon what kind of performance was recorded, one could create a sound stage that had width along a lateral axis, and height in the center. The center-microphones would be dedicated to capturing a portion of the performance that realistically would emanate from this level.
As singers, violins and wind instruments commonly are worked at head-level, this might have created a rewarding reproduction of actual verticality in sound reproduction, rather than today's imagined.

But if you did it that way, the presence of height information would follow an inverted V pattern across the soundstage. Not something you'd want at all.

--Bill

 

[Soundproof]

But if you did it that way, the presence of height information would follow an inverted V pattern across the soundstage. Not something you'd want at all.

--Bill

Exactly, that would be a potential problem, unless you created two discrete soundfields, one for the lateral information, and one for selected height-related information (a singer, instrumental soloist).

Personally, I don't see a need - my mind does an excellent job of painting a sound picture with the aural information available to it.
In home theatre surround sound systems there are three discrete soundfields at work at the same time - Front L/R, Center, Surround L/R - without that seeming to befuddle people too much.

 

[NorthStar]

The madness is strong in this thread.

I don't know if I would call it 'madness' myself; perhaps 'difference'. :b

There's something about audiophile hifi that makes for curious study. In fact, anthropologists have studied hifi, and have ascribed religious aspects to it. No wonder. From miracles to skepticism towards science, it's all there.

Sounds 'bout right. :b

I get the impression that a number of thread participants would find it useful to listen to a mono source first from either L/R speaker, and then from both, and then spend time thinking empirically about the experience - before graduating to listening to a good stereo source from either speaker, and then from both.

I'll be doin' just that. ...And I already know that it's goin' to be borin'. :b
But for experimenting in search of discoveries I can easily make that sacrifice.

 

[Gregadd]

***
With close to sixty square feet of radiating surface, front and back, the 20Rs can move air, and, since they do radiate front and back, they move that air through an angle of virtually 360 degrees-just like musical instruments do. When you couple a very large radiating surface and virtual 360-degree dispersion with unenclosed, nearly massless drivers of extraordinary speed and integrity, you end up with one of the most naturally-sized soundfield, peopled with the most naturally-sized and naturally-detailed instruments, you'll ever hear.

It's not just that instruments are realistically larger, or the soundstage broader, deeper, and higher, than what you usually get through even a very good hi-fi system; it's that everything within the soundfield moves air in more realistic proportions. Through the 20Rs, a bass drum isn't a compact little item at the back of the stage, imaged with laser-like definition and reproduced with the sharp percussive crack of a handclap, but a huge hollow-bodied instrument that, when struck hard, sends forth waves like a dam bursting on a valley town. Through the Maggies, that drum'll make you jump, all right, but not because the speakers "go so deep" (although the 20Rs definitely do-flat to 25 Hz in my room), or "image so tightly," or have "lightning-like transient response." None of that covers what I'm talking about. That drum'll make you jump because it sounds more like a bass drum, because the physical size and shape of the instrument and the sheer volume of air it moves when struck hard are being reproduced with greater verisimilitude.

I hate to beat this poor dead horse again, but, in life, no instrument is the sonic equivalent of a wallet-sized snapshot-a sharp little image neatly tucked beside other sharp little images. It's a big, supple, three-dimensional thing that changes dramatically in shape, color, size, and impact with changes in the way it is being played. The very idea of trying to "reproduce" a grand piano (or a triangle, for that matter) realistically through your average-sized box speaker is laughable. It's like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a thirteen-inch Samsung.

***
http://www.magnepan.com/review_MG201_Best_Buy_Part_III

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

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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

 

[NorthStar]

Imagination, imaging ...

Low bass frequencies, spaciousness ...

Dimensional, soundstage ...

Directional in all the latitudes, 3D perspective ...

Sound envelopment, soundscape ...

Recordings, reproductions ...

Auditive aura, holographic, quantum gravity ...

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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

Tim,

I ask ten different people about opinion concerning relative sound height of a piano and voice in my panel speakers with a certain recording. They all say that the voice seems at a higher plane than the piano.

Next I play another recording of much lower quality. They all say that all sound comes from the middle of the panel and there no elevation feeling or any differentiation.

Sorry, but I do not call it imagination. And IMHO most audiophiles do not call it imagination also. And even those who call it imagination will enjoy it!

BTW, supreme heresy, amplifiers and preamplifiers can affect sound elevation in some recordings. And please do not tell me that it is because the frequency response is tilted!

I have no certitudes on any of these aspects. But, when I have a few minutes left, I am looking for information elsewhere than WBF. And when I read an expert as Siegfried Linkwitz on these matters, I understand that I need more time to read his opinions more carefully. I suggest that you read these two parts I quote and take your time to read the full articles on his site.

1.3 Real Sources and Phantom Sources
While anechoic conditions are necessary to isolate and study hearing phenomena they are extremely uncommon in normal life situations. Our hearing has adapted to work in spaces with very different reflective properties, forests and grass lands, indoors and outdoors, and with few or many sources of sound, and in different locations, coming and going. I have experienced the quietness of sitting in a kayak on a lake in dense fog and far from shore or standing alone in a pine forest after a heavy winter snowfall. I have noticed that I am highly alert in such situations to pick up the slightest sound. Unlike in an anechoic chamber we live and listen with a reflective plane underneath our feet. As we grow up we change our height above this plane and thus the delay of the floor reflection of a source that has not changed. The spectrum changes, but does the source sound different? We certainly perceive when there is no floor in front of us, like when we come to the edge of a cliff. I suspect that we use the floor reflection relative to the direct sound to judge the elevation of the source, but I am not aware of a formal study.

(from another page)
The floor reflection can be perfectly cancelled with DSP for one point in space, and with the potential penalty of creating an incorrect response for every place else. The floor reflection cannot be corrected with a parametric equalizer or a third-octave equalizer because it is an interference phenomenon involving delay. It has been claimed that removing the floor reflection unmasks the true image height information that may be contained in the recorded material. I had an opportunity to test this at the 2006 CES. The recording of Track 4 on the Sound Demonstration CD has a piano up on stage and considerably above the microphone yet relatively close. The Lyngdorf Audio room and floor corrected loudspeaker system placed the piano at tweeter height. Playing the same track on a tall Dali line source speaker without room correction did place the piano at about the elevation angle as it had been heard live.

I have found many others, some not easy to neophytes in sound perception as me. And sometimes PhD audio experts do not agree.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I ask ten different people about opinion concerning relative sound height of a piano and voice in my panel speakers with a certain recording. They all say that the voice seems at a higher plane than the piano.

Next I play another recording of much lower quality. They all say that all sound comes from the middle of the panel and there no elevation feeling or any differentiation.

Sorry, but I do not call it imagination. And IMHO most audiophiles do not call it imagination also. And even those who call it imagination will enjoy it!

BTW, supreme heresy, amplifiers and preamplifiers can affect sound elevation in some recordings. And please do not tell me that it is because the frequency response is tilted!

I have no certitudes on any of these aspects. But, when I have a few minutes left, I am looking for information elsewhere than WBF. And when I read an expert as Siegfried Linkwitz on these matters, I understand that I need more time to read his opinions more carefully. I suggest that you read these two parts I quote and take your time to read the full articles on his site.

1.3 Real Sources and Phantom Sources
While anechoic conditions are necessary to isolate and study hearing phenomena they are extremely uncommon in normal life situations. Our hearing has adapted to work in spaces with very different reflective properties, forests and grass lands, indoors and outdoors, and with few or many sources of sound, and in different locations, coming and going. I have experienced the quietness of sitting in a kayak on a lake in dense fog and far from shore or standing alone in a pine forest after a heavy winter snowfall. I have noticed that I am highly alert in such situations to pick up the slightest sound. Unlike in an anechoic chamber we live and listen with a reflective plane underneath our feet. As we grow up we change our height above this plane and thus the delay of the floor reflection of a source that has not changed. The spectrum changes, but does the source sound different? We certainly perceive when there is no floor in front of us, like when we come to the edge of a cliff. I suspect that we use the floor reflection relative to the direct sound to judge the elevation of the source, but I am not aware of a formal study.

(from another page)
The floor reflection can be perfectly cancelled with DSP for one point in space, and with the potential penalty of creating an incorrect response for every place else. The floor reflection cannot be corrected with a parametric equalizer or a third-octave equalizer because it is an interference phenomenon involving delay. It has been claimed that removing the floor reflection unmasks the true image height information that may be contained in the recorded material. I had an opportunity to test this at the 2006 CES. The recording of Track 4 on the Sound Demonstration CD has a piano up on stage and considerably above the microphone yet relatively close. The Lyngdorf Audio room and floor corrected loudspeaker system placed the piano at tweeter height. Playing the same track on a tall Dali line source speaker without room correction did place the piano at about the elevation angle as it had been heard live.

I have found many others, some not easy to neophytes in sound perception as me. And sometimes PhD audio experts do not agree.

These are interesting observations regarding how humans hear position information in a physical environment. They say nothing relevant about how a lateral, two-channel recording and playback system would capture and reproduce that information. I'm sure you think you hear the voice above the piano, micro and I do not mean to condescend. If you could explain to me how the midrange information that represents the human voice is place in a vertical image above the midrange information that represents the piano, in a system that only reproduces two point sources, in a lateral plane, I would love to read it.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Might have to do with the tones of a human voice versus the ones from a piano,
and from the different design patterns of the microphones used in that recording.

Plus the legs of a piano and the legs of a singer in relation to the sound transmission from the floor.
As these legs are anchored to the floor and some are made of wood while the others are made of human flesh (better isolation means better reproduction; height included).

And of course the reproduction from the loudspeakers in conjunction with the room's acoustics from where they are installed, and with their precise positioning.

But I truly believe that height is captured by the mics from not only reflections from the floor but also from the walls and ceiling.
And furthermore, the first, the second, and the third reflections.

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Soundproof. The issue with the McGurk effect and this discussion is that it doesn't really relate to speakers. You can't see what the speakers are saying and there are no visual distractions to trick your ears. Height, or the illusion thereof, within my rig, does not change when I look or when I close my eyes. It stays the same. It only changes when I leave the sweet spot.

I must admit, I am having a hard time finding any jazz album with considerable height or illusions. I have heard sounds coming from the extreme left side of me [at almost a 90 degree angle] and to the extreme right [outside on my back patio and at about a 80 degree angle] but no more than maybe a half a foot to a foot at best above the tops of the speakers with the jazz albums so far. I do not have that many more jazz albums to go through. Other genres of music are much easier and more common to get a good sense of "height" in the recording. Makes me wonder why one of the gentlemen here asked me to find something with regards to height within a jazz recording.

 

[microstrip]

These are interesting observations regarding how humans hear position information in a physical environment. They say nothing relevant about how a lateral, two-channel recording and playback system would capture and reproduce that information. I'm sure you think you hear the voice above the piano, micro and I do not mean to condescend. If you could explain to me how the midrange information that represents the human voice is place in a vertical image above the midrange information that represents the piano, in a system that only reproduces two point sources, in a lateral plane, I would love to read it.

Tim

Sorry the second paragraph deals with reproduced sound (unless we thing DALI is a piano brand)

And, as far as I can understand, part of the system is based in the fact that real objects are always moving vertically, and the weak information about relative height comes from the frequency spectrum, not from delays as suggested by Linkwitz in the first quote.

BTW, if you oversimplify and analyze the problem of sound elevation considering two perfect ears at the same height you will conclude that you can not perceive sound source height in most real conditions.

 

[Soundproof]

Hello, Soundproof. The issue with the McGurk effect and this discussion is that it doesn't really relate to speakers. You can't see what the speakers are saying and there are no visual distractions to trick your ears. Height, or the illusion thereof, within my rig, does not change when I look or when I close my eyes. It stays the same. It only changes when I leave the sweet spot.

I must admit, I am having a hard time finding any jazz album with considerable height or illusions. I have heard sounds coming from the extreme left side of me [at almost a 90 degree angle] and to the extreme right [outside on my back patio and at about a 80 degree angle] but no more than maybe a half a foot to a foot at best above the tops of the speakers with the jazz albums so far. I do not have that many more jazz albums to go through. Other genres of music are much easier and more common to get a good sense of "height" in the recording. Makes me wonder why one of the gentlemen here asked me to find something with regards to height within a jazz recording.

I would say the relevance of the McGurk effect is that it demonstrates very clearly how susceptible our sense of hearing is to manipulation.

 

[mep]

I would say the relevance of the McGurk effect is that it demonstrates very clearly how susceptible our sense of hearing is to manipulation.

But that manipulation is due to visual clues. We are also susceptible to having our pockets picked due to physical manipulation.

 

[Soundproof]

But that manipulation is due to visual clues. We are also susceptible to having our pockets picked due to physical manipulation.

There are numerous cues at work. Where we expect things to be, how we imagine instruments to be arranged on stage, our knowledge that singers rarely sit down.
And then we can add a little bloom to the singers' voice while keeping the orchestra in the background drier, thus making the voice appear to be taller.

Here's a nice exercise: check out where you think a source is located and then see how far you can move it with your mind, that is, try to move the source down, up, left and right. Note what happens, without my writing here what I think you'll discover.

 

[microstrip]

And then we can add a little bloom to the singers' voice while keeping the orchestra in the background drier, thus making the voice appear to be taller.

Soundproof,
And why does a little bloom make the voice appear to be taller?