@hombre- The thread’s been dead, for going on three years. You apparently felt it sufficiently, "important" to resurrect. Get a life!
Soundstaging and Imaging: The Delusion about The Illusion
Soundstaging in a recording—be it a live performance or studio event—and it’s reproduction in the home has been the topic of many a discussion both in the forums and in the audio press. Yet, is a recording’s soundstage and imaging of individual participants, whether musicians or vocalists, things that one can truly perceive or are they merely illusions that we all are imagining as some sort of delusion?
https://www.stereophile.com/content/clowns-left-me-jokers-right
https://www.stereophile.com/content/clowns-left-me-jokers-right
75 responses Add your response
celander That’s the critical issue: absent detailed knowledge of the original recording, how would one proceed to fully appreciate the accuracy of reproduced sound on one’s audio system?That's why there's no substitute for making your own recordings. And with today's equipment, it's easier than ever to do that and get outstanding results. |
I’m a hopeless believer in imaging and soundstaging. In reproduced music via a 2-channel audio system, it’s likely none of us fully understands the original recordings in terms of the original recording notes. That’s the critical issue: absent detailed knowledge of the original recording, how would one proceed to fully appreciate the accuracy of reproduced sound on one’s audio system? |
Trying to get the soundstage correct without a methodology is like trying to solve a bunch of simultaneous equations with more unknowns than the number of equations. Moving the speakers a little and listening a little is doomed from the start. To compound the problem, when you improve room acoustics and or improve the system, what then? Move a little, listen a little? 😛 |
@bdp24 - i heard that system a few times with the original big Tympani panels. When I bought my SP 3 and Dual 75a back in the day, the dealer demo’d the units I bought on just such a system. And I got to meet William Zane J in the early days as well when he was making the rounds- he was a pretty intimidating guy judging by how the dealer wanted to make sure he was happy. I wasn’t old enough, or invested enough in the ’business’ of the stuff (I slung gear as a kid and was an enthusiast) to care what he thought, other than that it was cool to meet him since he had already achieved legendary status, thanks in part to Harry Pearson, but man, that stuff sounded so good compared to most of the other gear around then. One interesting anecdote on records. I’ve long had copies of "Way Out West," a sort of classic jazz warhorse that gets played periodically because, well, Sonny Rollins. I never found a clean early pressing for reasonable money, so relied on remasters. The original Analogue Productions cut, which I think was cut by Doug Sax, sounded pretty good, but it had a giant hole in the middle- very typical of early stereo hard panning. I eventually got a 45 cut that Hoffman and Gray did and it had an image in the middle. I asked Hoffman what was up with that - he said that the resolution of that cut was so much better (whether source tape, mastering chain or technique, I dunno) that I was hearing a center image because of the sound bouncing off the back wall of the room where it was recorded. I’ve still got an original stereo cut on my ’list’ for that one..... Back to our regularly scheduled program.... |
Wharf: The poster didn’t comment about the size of his audio system to that of his listening room. He specifically focused on the reproduced soundstage in his listening room. Had the poster said something about a frequency aberration in the room, like too much booming bass, then I would have concluded it was something about the sound system being out of kilt in the room. Yet the poster suggested the room was “cutting off” the soundstage of reproduced sound. |
Regarding tostadosunidos comments on the topic of the ability of a pair of speakers to reproduce depth: I first heard the effect on the occasion of hearing a true high end system for the first time, a system being delivered and set up by Bill Johnson at his new ARC dealer in Livermore California (Bill was a pilot, and flew his own plane to dealer locations). It was a pair of the Magneplanar Tympani T-1 loudspeakers (which ARC was then distributing) bi-amped with a PC-1 passive x/o and D51 and D75 power amps, source a Thorens TD-125 Mk.2 turntable/ARC prototype arm/Decca Blue pickup into an SP-3 pre-amp. Bill put a British EMI pressing of Holst’s The Planets on the table, and when the Jupiter movement played, there it was---the front row of the orchestra instruments were on the plane of the Tympanis, the back row (percussion) waaaay back from that plane. I had closed my eyes as the movement began, and at the shock of hearing the extreme depth of field opened them. I found myself looking at the wall behind the speakers, amazed by how much closer the wall was than the back of the orchestra appeared to be. The back of the orchestra appeared to be further away than the wall! When an orchestra is recorded with a very small mic set-up (I believe EMI engineers employed the Decca 3-mic "tree" technique---3 mics facing the orchestra), the sound from the instruments furthest away from the mics are picked up by the mics later in time than those closest to them. When played back, that time differential is reproduced as the difference in distance. In contrast, a recording of an orchestra made employing close mic’ing contains no such depth information, so should be reproduced without it as well. |
Absolutely no illusion, you would hear the same thing I'm hearing in a given room where there is "holography" meaning a 3 dimensional image. I first heard this 30 years ago in a high end emporium, the speakers were B&W, I don't remember the electronics; and then again in another high end emporium. I recall the components the second time, they were all top of the line Audio Research electronics, including CD player and the speakers were Thiel. It took 30 years, but I have recreated this illusion in my listening room. While you can get good imaging with decent electronics, I don't believe you can get "holography" with less than Class "A" electronics. The first thing to do is get a good audio image; left, right and center. Although you may believe that everything depends on your components, and how you set your speakers up, that's not the case. The final phase depends on room treatment, and it's the most difficult to get. I got it right by following others suggestions, and sheer luck. Since every room is different, all I can tell you is, "Good luck". |
| Post removed |
I’m pretty sure I can break this deadlock. Reverberant decay, echo, acoustic reflections, and any other naturally occuring dynamic acoustic phenomena found in the recording venue for live recordings are captured by the microphones and form the basis of the venue’s “soundstage” when played back on a reasonably good system. This soundstage information is contained in mono and stereo recordings. “A Reasonably good system” obviously being subjective. 🤗 In fact, as I’ve written, the actual Time-Space of the recording is captured on the recording but that’s beyond scope and best saved for another day. 😛 |
@celander - your last post suggests that you don't believe imaging exists in a reproduction system. I don't need "test" recordings to establish what I hear. It is a "real illusion" to me, that depends on the recording. The Bose example is interesting. Did you know that Bose sued Consumer Union for a bad review? What is your position, now that we've given you our (various) views? |
If someone wants to use a tricked-up stereo test disk or LP to demonstrate "where I am standing is to the right of, to the left of, in front of, behind of, under or above the right speaker," then have at it and be convinced that imaging exists. The point of the Stereophile article is whether soundstaging is real in an audio recording played back via a stereo reproduction system. The article is sufficiently cogent to express the view that the answer depends on many things. Recall Bose 901’s? That ratio of 1 (direct) to 9 (reflected) reproduced sound model was based upon acoustic hall characteristics in several well-known halls. A lot of audiophiles rejected the concept, suggesting that certain illusions are not accepted as adequate facsimiles of the "real thing" for all things. |
In contrast to all that has been said, I must admit to really digging the occasional formative tune on my trucks sound system! Imaging is meaningless and rarely thought of in such circumstances but does not diminish the aural pleasure in the least. If the music is tight, and you are feeling right...well, ya know what I mean:) |
Imaging is science. Our stereos are using our own physiology to trick us into believing that a sound is coming from a certain direction and distance by juggling phase and volume. This only occurs in a line perpendicular to the axis between the speakers exactly midway between the two. When in the right position the image locks in and magically appears....if the system is set up correctly which is the fun of this hobby, making our systems sound whatever we think "right" is. Getting a system to image correctly is not easy. First reflections have to be dampened and the speakers have to have exactly the same frequency response which they hardly ever do. If one speaker is louder than the other at 400 Hz the image will smear to that side. Then there is the talent of the recording engineer as others have mentioned. I love the drummer with 9 foot arms. We have all heard him, Tom on the far left, cymbal on the far right. Most popular live shows are recorded from the sound board. What you get is a studio recording with all the musicians playing at the same time and muted background applause. To gauge your systems ability you have to fall back on classical and some live jazz. I to believe Waiting for Columbus is the greatest live R+R record of all time done by, as Bonnie Raitt claims the greatest R+R band of all time. I hope you all enjoy this hobby as much as I do. Music is the way. |
BTW, I read the poorly written article. It would appear the author is as confused as most of the posters here. We are animals, who by design need to make sense of our experiences. No matter what technology, source or venue supplies the stimulus, we instinctively try to figure out as much as we possibly can. No reproduction is accurate, but if it supples more cues or information for us to determine the why, what, where and how about an event...acoustic or otherwise, then our brains are happier! I agree that it is poorly written (don't have time to fully read it now), I did a quick look for a better source but haven't turned one up yet. I do think that the article identifies the cues used, and I believe that sight can be a big part of placing distance. |
BTW, I read the poorly written article. It would appear the author is as confused as most of the posters here. We are animals, who by design need to make sense of our experiences. No matter what technology, source or venue supplies the stimulus, we instinctively try to figure out as much as we possibly can. No reproduction is accurate, but if it supples more cues or information for us to determine the why, what, where and how about an event...acoustic or otherwise, then our brains are happier! |
Recordings are actually 360degrees. When you place the speakers in front of you that's what gives you the frontal stage. 2 speakers can easily give you the 360 sound, it's the room you're hearing keep in mind. Right, so by recording reverberations and all you should still have all of the auditory cues outlined in the above study that I posted. But I think you would have to look at that paper and consider yourself blind. I would expect that having experienced a performance live and being familiar with the venue would help in deciphering the information available in a 2 channel recording. No being into classical music, I don't really have a lot of relevant personal experience. |
Just skimmed so far. Auditory distance perception in humans: a review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744263/ |
Soundstaging implies a 3 dimensional representation of a musical event. It can acoustically compensate for our inability to localize sound through a “stereo” via the eye-ear-brain connection. The result is more satisfying because it helps orient our brains into making more sense of an auditory stimulus. |
I’ll accept that it might be possible for two ears to perceive the location of a source in relation to distance, but I’m not sure that the effect can be recreated with only two speakers. I’ve seen lots of mixing boards with a knob for right and left placement in the mix but never one with near and far or high and low. Probably because there is no way to do those. |
Addendum to previous post on Soundstage 3 dimensions. Not only is the soundstage on mediocre systems not three dimension, the dimensions are not recreated as they were recorded. The soundstage evolution as one progressive improves the system, including speaker placement, room acoustics treatments, isolation, tweaks, what have you, the soundstage expanding sphere of all three dimensions should, ideally, approach 🔜 the room dimensions of the recording venue, including a more organized, less congealed and more detailed panorama of all the musicians. As signal to noise + distortion ratio is improved the soundstage height should go through the roof. |
celander says: Those expressing confusion about my original post should try placing my post into the context of the link I provided. Yes, it requires one to click a link and read an article. If one has the energy to type a response and click the “post” button, then one would likely have sufficient energy to read the Stereophile article. Soundstaging and imaging are both discussed and differentiated there. If they're confused, maybe it has something to do with the way you confused the issues in your original post? Because the word you used, "delusion", never appears in the Stereophile article. Instead, its just another rather straightforward classic John Atkinson piece on recording, playback, and loudspeaker technical evaluation: You have to cut through this philosophical confusion by using a recording not of music, where you don't know the provenance, but of an artificial signal such as the dual-mono pink noise I created for Stereophile's Test CDs. This signal should be perceived as an infinitely narrow point of sound at all frequencies midway between the loudspeakers. If that's how it sounds, then by inspection you know absolutely that the information on all recordings will be produced without spatial distortion. If the pink-noise image isn't narrow or consistent with frequency, then, even before you listen to music, you know that the loudspeaker has problems, regardless of your preferences. Seems to me you liked the sound of "delusion about the illusion" so much you went and used it even though it has nothing to do with the article. You made it sound like anyone hearing imaging is deluded. Or even worse, that its deluded to think that soundstaging and imaging even matters. Maybe next time try a little less clever and a lot more clear? |
Just to mention that soundstage has three dimensions, not just depth. It has depth, width and height. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. Nobody said it’s easy to get Boston Symphony Hall to magically appear in your room. If it was easy everybody could do it. Once you can get all three dimensions in their full measure you will feel as free and happy as a Swedish teenage girl. |
If I understand the specific question you ask about the individual participants appearing distinctly, that seems to be how well placed the microphones are to catch the differences in intensity and reflections within the recorded space. The disbelief factor I get from the sense of depth of layering makes me go for your illusion description. I believe delusion is when someone insists that their sense of reality is real when others disagree. I get the biggest chills from the distance front to back I perceive, not width or left-right distinction that stereo was originally consumed with proving. Stereo played in mono still gives a greater sense (illusion) of depth of field than mono recordings to me. Many listeners I know like a forward sound that seems closer to them (more intimate), where I prefer the depth illusion (but not at the cost of dynamics). Because I heard recorded music many years before attending a live symphony, I prefer to sit front row to maybe a few rows back at most. But that interesting depth of field effect from stereo reproduction is where stereo magic lies for me. |
Those expressing confusion about my original post should try placing my post into the context of the link I provided. Yes, it requires one to click a link and read an article. If one has the energy to type a response and click the “post” button, then one would likely have sufficient energy to read the Stereophile article. Soundstaging and imaging are both discussed and differentiated there. I suspect the trolls won’t expend that energy, as the energy expended on posting their hit piece was likely sufficient for their purposes. |
| Post removed |
dMaybe this will add some clarity.... OP asks: is a recording’s soundstage and imaging of individual participants, whether musicians or vocalists, things that one can truly perceive YES! depending.... can we actually, from a recording only, determine different musical instruments? of course. if not, we desperately need to upgrade our systems, or we ought to take up building ships in botles or fishing. can we differentiate between vocalists, instruments, and their relative locations on stage or in the venue? with decent hearing, and a reasonably well setup system, of course. can we localize where these instruments are on stage from any recording? depending on the integrity and ability of the recording engineer and the equipment he or she used., with respect to the aforementioned and while in possession of some sembalence of sanity and good hearing, very likely. OP also asks: ...or are they merely illusions that we all are imagining as some sort of delusion? I was, and have been, delusional but I got better. were I delusional listening to 'Harlem Nocturne' could be 'precieved' as perhaps, a Wooly Mamoth seeking a mate in the shadows of a moon lit night. or a storm of mellon sized flagelant butterflies coming thru the walls of my house while singing Frankie Goes To Hollywood tunes. .... were I truly delusional all bets are off. there is art in commercial recordings and why some recording engineers are sought after and some are not. there are techniques in mastering recordings and in the setup or approach as to the locations of microphones not dedicated to individual instruments or vocalists which help capture presence and artifacts of the venue. the tricks are in the mix. maybe another insightful theme could address should live venue recordings identically or very closely emulate the original concert in order to be considered a quality recording? in some cases it seems this latter notion contains things impossible to properly mix down into the final product. some aspects or things simply should not or can not logistically be promoted to specific locations. take the Moody Blues for example. They add from time to time, an orchestra presentation aiding their own artistic content, and they are not the only ones that do this. The Beatles. Rolling Stones.spirit. Pink Floyd. Quicksilver messenger Service. Spyra Gyra. ' Zepplin. Willie Nelson. Sinatra. Striesand. etc. should the orchestra be placed in front of the group, behind them, or under them? if Firesign Theater made every recordign mono would their albums involve the listener nearly as much? Effects! tricks. techniques. they all add up to the experience we enjoy as a habit, er, uh, pastime. reproducing and as such, acquiring the 'illusion' with as much inherent organic . tangibility as is possible is the goal for an audio system to routinely exhibit. we are seeking goose bumps. Jaws on floors. utter disbelief in hearing what we know for a fact is not real, but the presentation has propelled us beyond the threshold of disbelief. Being deluded can NEVER be a component in qualifying or quantifying these hair raising experiences. well, not accurately. as for the idea live concerts are all mono exploits I strongly disagree and ask, Have you ever been to a Pink Floyd show? ever heard a live symphony? heard a Barber Shop Quartet? in fact, from the rear of the hall it might sound like a monaural demonstration but right down front it is not. I think the underlying and more important theme here is 'was the recording enjoyable or not?" indeed, some 'live' concert recordings are not front to back at just one venue, recordings. Little Feat 'Waiting for Columbus' was a compilation taken from various shows during one of their tours. . I so dig that album. |
