Soundstage Width and Depth

Heaudio123 wrote: "The source "appearing" outside the speakers is "encoded" in the music with either mixing methods or microphone techniques, but and it is a big but, how that appears on playback is highly dependent on speaker, listening position, microphone or mixing technique and very important the listener themselves."

Thanks for adding this, as I know virtually nothing about microphone or mixing techniques.

Heaudio123 again: "Keep in mind that how this works is... by tricking the brain with a delayed signal from the other speaker hitting the opposite ear to generate timing information that the brain may perceive as equivalent to the timing information of a sound wrapping around the head to determine direction."

Very interesting! This "reflection timing = direction/angle" information is related to why cabinet edge diffraction is generally more detrimental to imaging on a wide cabinet than on a narrow one: The longer the time delay for the diffracted signal, the greater the angle (the further around to the side) of the false cue it conveys. So a narrow cabinet’s diffraction cues indicate a narrow false angle, while a wide cabinet’s cues indicate a wider false angle and thus blur the correct image more. However if the cabinet is sufficiently wide the Precedence Effect may start to mask those false angular cues. One of the reasons for flush-mounting studio monitors is to eliminate edge diffraction entirely, which makes the imaging more trustworthy.

Regarding height cues out in the "real world", my understanding is that the way sound diffracts around the head and outer ear (the pinna) from above is what gives us height cues. I have read papers and articles about encoding these "head and pinna transforms" into a signal to convey height information, but to really do it right, the equalizations would have to be tailored to each individual’s head and ear shape. (One possible application would be in the helmets of fighter pilots, so that an audible threat warning could convey complete directional information, including azimuth. Head position tracking would have to be included because fighter pilots swivel their heads a lot.)

I don’t see how height information could be encoded in a normal two-channel recording... BUT something weird happened to me years ago:

I bought a new CD that had just been put out by a musician I was friends with, Coco Robichaux. Listening over my SoundLab electrostats (floor-to-ceiling fullrange single-driver line-souce-approximating speakers), I heard his voice coming from normal height on most songs but on one song in particular his voice came from the bottom of the speaker, down at the floor! I played the song for others and some heard it coming from down near the floor and some did not.

So I asked Coco about that song. What he told me was very interesting: The recording process had been rushed, and on THAT song, the microphone had been incorrectly positioned ABOVE his head in the recording booth! So relative to the microphone location, his voice WAS coming from the direction of the floor.

I can only speculate about HOW this accidental height information was included: Perhaps the signal that the microphone picked up was altered by its location above his head, and upon playback my brain interpreted that as something it was familiar with, namely height information. Maybe my head and ears were sufficiently similar to Coco’s, at least from that angle. 

Duke

Yes, this it the most current knowledge and there are no indication it is incorrect, but even with these cues, it can be difficult to accurately assess height. I spent a number of years doing R&D on hearing aids and similar audio "devices". Our group believed we were one of the first to look at how the design of the hearing aid could be improved with the goal of preserving positional cues most take for granted. Unfortunately that R&D was abandoned after I left as well as other programs to pump up the balance sheet before selling. It was a bit contentious at the time as well. It indicated issues with signal processing delay differences masking timing cues.

"Technically",  just as you have indicated, frequency filters that mimic the pinna, can provide a sense of height in head-phonic playback and encoded in only two channels. There has been a fair amount of research done with HATS (head and torso simulators) for recording, but, as you indicated, it requires tailoring to the individual to work properly. If you attempt that technique with speakers, you get not only the HATS transform, plus the listener ... and two pinnas are not better than one.  W.R.T. your particular situation, making a wild ass guess, the microphone above his head, if not omni and not pointed at him, created a filtering effect that simulated height with pinna filtering. Curious if the wavefront from the electrostats is less impacted by torso/head/pinna than would normally occur with dynamic speakers.  Interesting!  I may have to pick up a pair now and do some testing.


Speaking of interesting, to the last post about difficulty of creating a stable image outside the speakers, have you done much research on ambiphonics?

Regarding height cues out in the "real world", my understanding is that the way sound diffracts around the head and outer ear (the pinna) from above is what gives us height cues. I have read papers and articles about encoding these "head and pinna transforms" into a signal to convey height information, but to really do it right, the equalizations would have to be tailored to the individual's ears. (One possible application would be in the helmets of fighter pilots, so that an audible threat warning would also convey the direction. Head position tracking would of course have to be included.)  

I don't see how height information could be encoded in a normal two-channel recording... BUT something weird happened to me years ago.

I’m speechless that people still talk about being surprised by sound outside the speakers. You’ll have to excuse me but isn’t that a little archaic? As in 1970s? Come on, guys. The best and easiest way look at soundstage imho is that the better the output signal the larger the 3 dimensional sphere of the recording venue will be presented. When you finally get your system working the expanding sphere of soundstage should be well-defined in width, depth and height. A wonder to behold. 🤗

“An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.” - old audiophile axiom

Heaudio123, I have not delved into ambiophonics to the point of understanding it, but at least for a while Ralph Glasgal was using SoundLab speakers. I am under the impression that with ambiophonics the listener’s position is critical, and I’m more inclined towards wide-sweet-spot presentations. 

Somebody - might have been Ralph? - once used SoundLab speakers as microphones... not very practical, but from what I was told the results were pretty good, at least when played back through the "microphones".  

Duke

@geoffkait wrote: " The best and easiest way look at soundstage imho is that the better the output signal the larger the 3 dimensional sphere of the recording venue will be presented. "

I’ll concede that what you propose is the "easiest" way to look at soundstage, but I’m not sure it’s the "best" because it is incomplete.   Neither does it tell us anything about how or why, nor offer guidance as to how we might make improvement. 

Duke