I really think our subconscious expectations play a major role in the construction of the sound stage. Add to that the engineer's ability to inject the correct sonic cues, ie: tone, distance, decay, and viola, things are just where they should be.
Is soundstage just a distortion?
Years back when I bought a Shure V15 Type 3 and then later when I bought a V15 Type 5 Shure would send you their test records (still have mine). I also found the easiest test to be the channel phasing test. In phase yielded a solid center image but one channel out of phase yielded a mess, but usually decidedly way off center image.
This got me thinking of the difference between analog and digital. At its best (in my home) I am able to get a wider soundstage out of analog as compared to digital. Which got me thinking- is a wide soundstage, one that extends beyond speakers, just an artifact of phase distortion (and phase distortion is something that phono cartridges can be prone to)? If this is the case, well, it can be a pleasing distortion.
This got me thinking of the difference between analog and digital. At its best (in my home) I am able to get a wider soundstage out of analog as compared to digital. Which got me thinking- is a wide soundstage, one that extends beyond speakers, just an artifact of phase distortion (and phase distortion is something that phono cartridges can be prone to)? If this is the case, well, it can be a pleasing distortion.
- ...
- 68 posts total
Al, Are you able to rule out the room acoustics in your tests as a factor? That would seem to be a logical explanation for hearing different test tone frequencies at different heights. Anything about your room's acoustics that might account for it? How about more sound absorbent carpeting and obstructive/reflective room furnishings on floor combined with a more reflective and unobstructed ceiling region? Maybe listening with headphones would be a good test to see if hearing alone produces the effect? Or an SPL meter reading up high and down low might help confirm if top of the room is more "lively" than the "bottom" and if that might help account for things. I suspect that is often the case in many peoples rooms, but have nothing to prove it. |
Hi Mapman, Are you able to rule the room acoustics in your tests as a factor?I would think that listening from 2 feet away, directly in front of the tweeters, pretty much rules out room acoustics as being responsible for the effect I described. Maybe listening with headphones would be a good test to see if hearing alone produces the effect.I would assume that the acoustic effects of the pinnae (the part of the ear that is outside of the head) are a major contributor to the effect I described. Headphones pretty much bypass the pinnae, and of course fire into the ears from the sides rather than from the front, so I'm not sure that headphone listening would provide any meaningful insight with respect to the effect I described. Best regards, -- Al |
"I would assume that the acoustic effects of the pinnae (the part of the ear that is outside of the head) are a major contributor to the effect I described. " I see. Could be the shape of the ear is a factor, larger area above to gather more higher frequency sound, less below. Cupping the hands behind the ear is the best free tweak, after all. Maybe try that as a test with the tones and see? If the room is lively, and a warble tone is used, I could see where reflected sound could be a factor, perhaps enough so for our sensitive ears to pick up on. Hard to say for sure. PErception of higher frequencies coming from higher up than others is certainly not an unusual phenomena though I would say, whatever the contributing factors. |
Traditional microphone techniques, both mono and stereo, do not encode significant height info. Interesting article by John Atkinson. |
- 68 posts total