2. misc-audio
  3. 156585-138054

Soundstage Width and Depth

I’m curious about what your systems produce when it comes to soundstage. My speakers are about 8’ apart and I sit about 10’ from the front plane of the speakers. The speakers are toed in so that they each are pointed at a spot about 8” from my ears on each side. (Laser verified) My room is treated with bass absorption and diffusers.

In many recordings my soundstage is approx 28’ wide and, although this is tougher to determine, I would say on most recordings I’m hearing sounds 10’-15’ further back than the speaker plane. Some sounds, usually lead guitars, are presented slightly in front of the plane of the speakers. There are also recordings that produce height in the soundstage. Some fill the room floor to ceiling, while others are more on the same plane about 5’ from the floor. I do get layers usually in about the same order, guitars, lead singer, bass guitar, drums, violins and backup instruments and singers in order front to back. Again this is recording dependent. Intimate recordings that feature a singer playing a guitar usually has all of the sound between the speakers. Is this what everyone experiences? Could the depth be deeper? Do many of you hear sounds in front of the speaker plane? Do you have any recordings that accentuate the front to back soundstage?
128x128baclagg
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
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
audiokinesis
2,753 posts
 
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
audiokinesis
2,753 posts
 
@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
heaudio123
689 posts
 
Ambiphonics:  I would start with this:   https://cdn.website.thryv.com/7b2b654758d449b08935c9dfa207e8f9/files/uploaded/Ambiophonics_Book.pdf

Then read this article on methods that are more robust:  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ahrens2013a.pdf

While there is criticality of listener position, it is much more robust than ops "fluke" that requires perfect everything to "maybe" work.
cat_doorman
237 posts
 
There a couple of Stanley Clarke tracks that are just electric bass and Gregory Hines tapping for percussion. You can feel the size of the stage and follow steps he takes.

Another track that never fails to amaze me is by The Propellerheads and starts with a skateboarder. While I fully expect to hear the panning back and forth, hearing the depth of the half pipe below my floor is always a surprise. I kinda get how speakers can sound forward or laid back, how the soundstage can extend beyond the speakers left or right, but up and down is mystifying.
More to discover