Sorry I didn't read all these replies, but was the BSG QOL Completion Device mentioned? That thing will do just what the OP is talking about.
Why don't more recordings have soundstage outside of speakers
I always enjoy it when the recording has mixing that the instruments are well outside of the speakers. I think it's really cool and what justifying spending extra dollars for the sound. I just wish more recordings would do that. Most of them would just have the sound from in between the speakers.
What are some of your favorite recordings that have an enveloping soundstage well outside of the speakers?
What are some of your favorite recordings that have an enveloping soundstage well outside of the speakers?
109 responses Add your response
Amendment! I should have said: ...everything matters, from the recording, stylus or LASER, to your room and the shape (acuity AND pinna) of your ears. Then: there's what the brain does with all that info: https://pstnet.com/auditory-spatial-perception/ https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA563540.pdf Some got, some don't! That's just the science of the whole thing, which (of course) some seem to hate. |
"Everything matters" and "Too many variables" should be the most posted thoughts in this thread! ie: My son brought the above mentioned Amused To Death (on CD), to the house, when it first came out and a few times afterward. It DID amuse me, with all it's effects: probably the most striking was the horse drawn wagon or sleigh, that started well behind my left shoulder, ending up far in front and right. One SHOULD have the impression, they could hop aboard and take a ride, as it passes their listening position. If I remember correctly: a phone ringing (I may have that confused with what's on my Heart vinyl), or was it an AM radio playing, somewhere to my immediate left, in the next room and a dog barking, on my (90 degree) right, outside, on the street. I didn't know that dog was on the recording, until I played the CD again and the pooch was back. Anyway: I ordered the exact same Columbia disc: according (scrupulously) to every bit of it's label info. It was devoid of ANY of those effects. Same exact system, same exact room with nothing changed, but: somehow, a different pressing. Another example regarding interconnects: I'd been using Silver Audio Hyacinths (between pre and main amps) and enjoyed a spacious sound stage and precise imaging, with them, BUT; there were glowing recommendations, regarding new generations of cables, out there. Maybe it was time to move on? Tried a pair of Wireworld's, then current, Platinum Eclipse interconnects, which gave me a nice uptick, over the Hyacinths, in tone, texture and inner detail (NO: not brightness), but; the width of stage shrank to between my main speakers' outer edges. HMMMM! Kept them on hand (for direct comparison) and ordered a pair of Synergistic's Tesla Apex, which provided me with an equal dose of the above improvements (I was somewhat surprised at how alike they sounded, in that regard), but; my sound stage width was accurately back to whatever was on the recordings I'd made, personally. I could detail how various NOS phase splitter and driver tubes, in my Cary monoblocks, have affected my system's depth of stage. Go on and on, with a plethora of further examples, regarding what I've found (over the past 5 decades) make a difference, ad nauseum, but... YEAH: everything matters, from the recording, stylus or LASER, to your room and ears. If anyone's actually interested in removing the variables, far as the multitude of differences in recordings, at least; try your system's presentation with the tracks on this Chesky CD (especially the LEDR test): https://www.amazon.com/Chesky-Records-Sampler-Audiophile-Compact/dp/B000003GF3 https://cheskyrecords.bandcamp.com/album/chesky-records-jazz-sampler-audiophile-test-vol-1 |
Why don’t more recordings have soundstage outside of speakers It’s more in how the recording was done, sure having nothing (obstructions) on the outside of speakers help also, get hold of Roger Waters "Amused to Death", it’s done in Q sound, and some of it comes from behind you, and the barking dog at the beginning the first shocker comes form your right shoulder. What I was told by recording engineer if I remember right. To get the image happening outside the speakers, you a get right channel only signal (say voice), and if to want it to seem like it’s outside the right speaker you add the same "but out of phase" right channel sound into the left channel", this then shifts it from the right only to outside right. Cheers George |
@sounds_real_audio , you are absolutely correct, most speaker do suck even the better ones. Andy2, You can by reflecting sound off the side walls. The reflected sound can throw instruments that are hard left or right beyond the speaker. This is a distortion and a sign of poor system/room management. This is not to say that the ambience in the recording can not seem to come from everywhere, it frequently does. The ambience is at a low level to start with and in the smaller rooms we listen in the reflected sound can compete with sound coming directly from the speakers creating the sensation of venue ambience. Very cool. |
Pragnmus, what are you talking about. I mention the delay. It is not as important for localization as relative volume. Studies have confirmed this and you can prove it to yourself with one control. The one that says "Balance" With a system that really images you will have to make small adjustments in balance with most records. Like 0.5 dB or so. |
pragmus and anyone else who thinks stereo systems should image outside of the loudspeakers:Your science is staggering! Your ignorance also! You are like first of the class that learned the formula by heart without knowing what they means concretely... You forgot to experiment with anything save an electronical equalizer tool... Acoustic is not about volume only but about timing of different volume and frequencies....Acoustic is about the GENESIS of TIMBRE and IMAGING linked together....The 2 are not reducible to playing with frequencies only....REAL TIMING in the room with EARS is necessary... Not only timing for the room specific character but for the ears/head/brain located in the room not in a millimeter location but in a location stretching for the size of an head.... Then forget microphone feedback selected frequencies for a millimeter ONLY if their value can be useful... Out of this millimeter range the response is gone AMOK.... Acoustic is about diffusion.... Diffusing the right frequencies , damping some others....Not only by acoustical panel surfaces on walls but with Resonators that can do the TWO functions at the same time....Yes the 2 functions at the same time.... Acoustic is about MARKING OUT the 2 first wavefronts coming from EACH speaker for EACH ears and timing the 2 wavefronts in relation with the head distance.... How to mark out the wavefronts for each ear? Using resonators near the driver of one speaker and resonators near the tweeter of the other speaker.... With asymmetrical resonators located at first reflecting point GUESS WHY? If you cannot guess why and agree with it you can also exit here and stay with your pityful sound between speakers thinking that must be so, because the user manual of an electronical equalizer said so.... I guess you was first of your class when young... 😊 I was last but was accepted to top college without the usual good grades... I was accepted to doctorate also without having complete a first year of university....I am creative not a sheep... I am tired of your rant against evidence and against everybody testimonies here...And your dismissing of anything that is out of the orthodox and any experiments... All the people enjoying sound filling the room are not in an hallucination but they are wiseful enough to use other ways than electronical equalization for solution to all acoustic problem.... Then dont give them lesson...Listen first.... Try to buy a book about acoustic, i will send you one free (800 pages) if you send me your mail.... Begin with this short video of an acoustician saying what i try to say to you for almost months now: Room Correction Deception: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljfts9k5OBw&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_A5BFgnV1w5wNNfnks3u0oL&index=12 Electronic equalization is not a solution ONLY a secondary tool in acoustic... Helmholtz resonators grid are PART of the room.... |
Mijostus - You ability to determine where a sound is coming from depends mostly on where the loudest sound in coming from and the delay between getting to one ear to the other.You then go on to talk about relative amplitude and don't mention the delay again at any point in your thought experiment. If you listen to a binaural recording through headphones it is immediately apparent that there's more going on than just 'the left is louder so it must be over there'. People talking about music - Tom Waits' Rain Dogs LP has a nice sound stage too. |
I forgot to mention dipole users. If angled correctly dipoles can bounce sound off the front wall, then the side wall next to the speaker to the listener and the reflected sound can throw instruments to the outside. But, this is also a distortion and should be dampened out. This is probably a good reason why many people do not get decent imaging because reflected sounds can play havoc with it. |
pragmus and anyone else who thinks stereo systems should image outside of the loudspeakers: You ability to determine where a sound is coming from depends mostly on where the loudest sound in coming from and the delay between getting to one ear to the other. If you do not agree with this you can stop right here. The volume of the sound coming from a point source speaker decays at the cube of the distance. If you do not agree with this you can also exit here. lets set up two microphones each one connected to it's own speaker in another room 10 feet apart left and right. I'm going to have a trumpet player walk up to the left channel microphone and play a tune. The listener in the next room is going to hear the trumpet coming from the left channel speaker and maybe a tiny bit from the right channel speaker as the right channel mic is on and it will pick up the trumpet but at a much lower level. In short you hear the trumpet coming from the left channel speaker directly and not to either side because the sound to either side drops of at the cube of the distance and you only hear the trumpet coming from the loudest source which is directly from the speaker. The same will be true in opposite if the trumpet is played into the right channel mic. If I put the mics together and play into both on them the trumpet is going to appear as if were coming out of thin air directly between the speakers. You can read her for the theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound Never does the sound come from beyond the speakers and this holds for an entire symphony orchestra. If a sound is coming from outside the speakers there are only three ways that can happen. 1st is there is another speaker such as a surround sound set up playing. Next is a studio phasing trick where you get cancelation in front of the loudest source throwing the sound out to the side like Roger Waters does on Amused to Death. Last is the speaker is right next to a wall and the first reflection is loud enough to move an instrument beyond the speaker. This is a distortion as I pointed out earlier. All first reflections should be dampened so this does not happen. Imaging outside the speakers is a sign of poor room control. The ambiance of a recording can be outside the speakers as it is a product of late reflections but that is it. |
This topic reminds me of Carver's Sonic Holography. Years ago I had a Carver preamp with the SH built in. It worked but had to be set up just perfectly with your listening position with 1/4 inch distant from each speaker. Many rock recordings are not of the finest engineered. Some use effects which can be fun. I'm not against it. It's all about listening to music you enjoy and having fun. I have some stereo recordings that sound almost mono with all the music squashed in between the speakers and others that the sound can go pretty far beyond or behind and even above and others that pretty much stay within the limits of the speakers. |
Lately I feel my system is dialed in better than ever and is sounding very good on a wide variety of music. This has come at the expense of some "special effects." I put that in quotes because, as was mentioned earlier, playing with tonal response can do some sort of magical things on some recordings, creating intense vividness and a sense of presence in the room - the kind of thing that gives you goose bumps and sometimes brings tears to the eyes. It's beautiful, but it comes at it's own cost of versatility on playback. Most music wasn't recorded to be heard that way or create effects like that so some stuff ends up sounding worse, and we're tempted to say it's just a poorly mixed recording. I was thinking about how much better I've been liking my TV lately for similar reasons - I have the color and contrast set to "calibrated,' and learned that the TV needs to be in it's native color temperature to look best - which is cooler than I thought I wanted and not what the TV defaults to. It defaults to a warmer setting that limits contrast and brightness. Letting the TV be what it naturally is due to the color temperature of it's LCD backlight has made me more satisfied. Similarly, with my speakers, I had to accept the tonality that is natural to the relatively narrow dispersion pattern of the speaker and not try to tweak it to make some things sound more dramatic or present like they might with a wider dispersion speaker. In both cases the answer was to pursue accuracy of tonal relationships - flat, extended response, and let the presentation be what it is. The TV presents a 2D image that can convey a sense of 3D depth but there's no real 3D. With stereo hearing, I don't think that we really hear in 3D like we see with our eyes. It seems like it's really just 2D on a spherical surface surrounding our head. The "depth" perception in hearing comes from similar clues to what we'd see on a 2D spherical screen surrounding our head. We get distance cues from reverb effects in the recording and tonal changes and overall level - nothing explicitly like we do with our eyes by comparing how much we've crossed our eyes to achieve convergence and thereby determining distance. If you had a projection TV, a trick you could do for immersion is to over project some of the image by stretching it's edges on to the floors, ceiling, and sidewalls. That way you would see the image on screen but still detect light and motion changing in sync all around you, giving a sense of immersion by filling your peripheral vision. That's a trick that might be fun and enjoyable at times, but not part of the original artistic intent. At this point in my life I'd rather not be immersed so much in my home environment, but rather have the work presented to me in a clear and accurate manner within the limits of the format, framed and contained in a neat package. 2 channel audio is just 2 channels. It sounds great just like a flat 2D TV that's properly calibrated and has good color depth, contrast, and resolution looks great. You can detect all kinds of information about the original event and be pulled into the music and mood of the occasion thoroughly without a convincing virtual reality effect - as amazing and impressive as that can be at times. That's just my preference, not a statement of absolute truth. I may change my mind at some point. |
There is a song called “Thinking Is The Best Way to Travel” on the LP “In Search of The Lost Chord” by the Moody Blues. I think it’s from 1967. https://youtu.be/ZoYbGPO_KKs It has an effect where the sound goes in circles, around the room, behind your head, completely outside of the plane between the speakers. I think it’s up to the engineer to get things like that into the grooves, but you need the audio system quality that can reveal it. |
I think I'll just react to the OP's last sentence instead of joining any debate. I think that is what he had in mind. Rickie Lee Jones - Pirates and Other Side of Desire are both outstanding. Tim Buckley - Happy Sad (but it's so old it may be hard to find. I only know about the 1969 LP) Peter Gabriel - So, especially Red Rain. I have actually turned over my left shoulder a few times because I thought I heard something behind me! I Have noted a few others in my collection with remarkable staging, but the ones above are those I've noted for surprising me with an "out of speaker" experience. Thanks to those who shared their favorites. I will follow this thread to see if others do. Thanks @andy2 for starting the thread. I hope we get some good suggestions that we can actually buy. |
MC. Agree totally your comments on vibration and resonance control - my system set up is similar. Footers and hft's. Plus diffusion planels at reflection points and resonators, Schumann type, but most of them actually tuned to the room. Interestingly, I found that there is another level of improvement above well thought out springs. Critical mass systems new footers. They work on completely different principles from earlier isolation devices. For both speakers and electronics. Expensive but effective. Hugely so. Just saying...... |
Ya not contributing to this thread Mr. Mahgister. Why don’t more recordings have soundstage outside of speakers. Ya not answering that. Ya off on a tangent. I am not a recording engineer... When i speak about "outside of the speakers" i speak about the DEPTH of the imaging.... The articulation of a soundstage laterally out of the speakers on the left and right with a depth imaging is the exception related to the recording engineer artistry.... Is your room able to reproduce the way the microphones catch the initial event IN HIS OWN WAY is the question to ask...It is always a translation.... My small room is not identical at all to any greater room or even to any other small room .... Doubting that possibility itself, of a sound which is no more between the speakers only speak about YOUR own room limits or understanding, not mine... Study Helmholtz.... 😁 His science is not enough to model mathematically the acoustical concept of "timbre" but is more than enough to understand minimally a room acoustic.... The electronical equalizer is after all only an electronical design which mathematically capture ONLY an aspect of his resonators actions .... But no electronical equalizer seating in a room modify it by the only fact to seat there like the pressure engines called "Helmholtz equalizer" by me or a grid of resonators".... |
Enjoy your coherent working, but ya not contributing to what the topic is about. Ya missing the point.Is arrogance the result of ignorance? or is ignorance the result of arrogance? Egg and chicken .... Who are you to declare after 35 posts that i dont contribute because i explain my view following my experiment? Even if you are the man i know, an audio engineer , even if you are right about me and all i say is only bullshit, i post anyway reference articles and dont insult first like some but discuss; then what you just say is bullshit against me and claiming i miss the point because i say that music sound fill my room if the recording is well done for it is BAD FAITH completely.... I have my way to do it and describe it.... I call that contributing... "Ya " denegrate of others is not contribution, discussing rationally is.... |
Unless your coherent working or whatever ya want to call it can get a reflection from the right speaker to the left ear one head length later than the sound from the left speaker and invert it as well, then it ain’t going to do what you think it does. I can’t make it any simpler for ya.You are so clever...Not only i use reflective and diffusive surface but also the diffusive and dampening properties of the resonators BUT, You miss my important use of the marking out asymmetrically from each bass driver and each tweeter differently by the resonators some of which are very near the driver and the tweeter but in an asymmetrical way, making easier for the brain to compute the directions from each speaker for each ears in the way you just suggested... 😊 No need to compute the equation, just use your ears to tune it like i did successfully with a 10 weeks of listenings experiments .... It is finished....It was fun and rewarding....I call that listenings experiments in acoustic.... By the way the taste is in the pudding....No way to claim anything if you do not do it.....A tuned room-speakers+ ears system is not an electronical equalizer and the brain dont equalize like a tool do it.... Like you said, " I can’t make it any simpler for ya." the brain "taste" the reflections and the direct sound timing and detect the way each waves has worked his way from each speakers differently...Thanks to my resonators locations and tuning....And my use of reflecting surfaces and diffusive devices.... Called that a "trick" if it suit you, like you called my research paper, just an "hypothesis", i call that experiment in acoustic.... Cost: peanuts..... |
I gave ya the answer above. Okay, I gave ya a hint. What happens when the sound from the left speaker reaches the right ear? What happens when the sound from the right speaker reaches the left ear? The sound from the other speaker not gonna magically disappear. The studio tricks aren’t exaggerating stuff, they are just crude noise cancellation, cept the noise is the other speaker. Those tricks let each ear hear only one speaker sort a, just like headphones. Reflections got nothing to do with it cept creating false images. Sounds real good too. Most people like it. Makes it feel like you are there. But get carried away and what’s in front of you, the important stuff, starts to sound like crap.This does not correspond at all to my experience with my room controls.. Sorry for ytour obsession with "tricks".... A coherent working with an optimal timing of the waves for each ears can do magic.... A tuning of the room with resonators distributed relatively to the speakers characteristic bass driver bandwidth and tweeter bandwidth response in the treated room can do magic.... A coherently working magic manifesting itself differently relatively to each recording but always staying coherent is not an acoustical "flaw" it is what i call control AT WILL.... You seem very used to work with TOOLS and digital format processing, but working with a specific room and ONLY mechanical devices and our ears it is not the same experience sorry.... A room acoustic is easier to solve by the ears than by the complex equation describing it....It cost nothing....And if is tuned relatively to the users ears....And timbre is not a sum of frequencies only on a dial, timbre is an experience in a room for some ears.... |
pragmasi, I gave ya the answer above. Okay, I gave ya a hint. What happens when the sound from the left speaker reaches the right ear? What happens when the sound from the right speaker reaches the left ear? The sound from the other speaker not gonna magically disappear. The studio tricks aren't exaggerating stuff, they are just crude noise cancellation, cept the noise is the other speaker. Those tricks let each ear hear only one speaker sort a, just like headphones. Reflections got nothing to do with it cept creating false images. Sounds real good too. Most people like it. Makes it feel like you are there. But get carried away and what's in front of you, the important stuff, starts to sound like crap. |
Actually, many recordings can image outside of speaker boundaries. IMHO listening equipment is just as important as recording quality. My audiophile evolution has in part been driven by a desire for better sound staging and realism. I am now at the point where I frequently hear images outside of my speaker locations. I also hear depth, and height. I primarily listen to vinyl through tubes, including and SET amp. Speakers are ls3/5a monitors and KEF LS50 / both known for their imaging abilities. I am familiar enough with my system that I can hear sonic differences when I change equipment. One of the points I listen for is the ability to hear outside of the boundaries of my speakers. Some changes that I think would be an improvement are not, and vice versa. Equipment is very important, but does not have to be expensive: the first time I really became aware of outstanding image width etc would through a mid level Thorens TT, Stanton 881s cartridge, VanAlstine Super PAS3, a restored pair of Heath W4 monoblocks, and NEAR 10m speakers. Good records are important, but so is carefully chosen equipment. |
Great post.... This is also my experience....If all early reflections are well dampened it is physically impossible for sound to come from beyond the speaker without studio tricksThat’s quite a bold statement... what’s it based upon?.. happy to be educated if there’s some definitive research out there. And all my Helmholtz resonators grid distribution is there to make easier this localization for the brain of the 2 first frontwaves marked out by them coming from the speakers and walls.... Their other function is to adapt, by their fine tuning of the neck lengts/diameters/orientation, the room response to the particular speakers i used.... By the way just this claim about dampening ALL early reflections is the proof of a complete ignorance of concrete acoustic experiment in specific room....All he know is to adapt anything to his electronic equalizer processing.... It is opposite of a sane uitilization of equalization Which cannot replace neither material passive treatment nor active control.... |
If all early reflections are well dampened it is physically impossible for sound to come from beyond the speaker without studio tricksThat’s quite a bold statement... what’s it based upon?.. happy to be educated if there’s some definitive research out there. The studio tricks are just an exaggeration of an effect that exists in nature which is that if a source of noise is closer to one ear than the other then our brain is able to detect the phase difference to help identify the point in space from where the sound came. If these differences are recorded to the left and right channels they can be reproduced by the loudspeakers. From your listening position each ear can hear a bit of each channel so I agree you can’t expect a 360˚ holographic stereo image. But I also don’t see why the stereo image should be bounded between the speakers - if our brains only used relative amplitude to locate the sources of sounds then it would make sense, but it’s not that simple. |
What you are hearing when you hear imaging beyond the speakers is poor control of room acoustics.You are wrong... Each recording is different.... If i was listening something totally incoherent and tricky all the times you would be right... But it is not the case.... half of my classical recording present itsef an image that can be not only outside of the speakers laterally but also filling the room halfway to me or sometimes completely... It is related to the recording process and to the way my acoustic settings are distributed and tuned... I can modify that at will.... Then imaging beyond the speakers, which is my experience at least half the time is an evidence of this total control of my room... I already "enjoyed" what you described when my passive treatment were incomplete and with no active mechanical control....I lived through that like a limitation and the impossibility to experience myself "there".... And in these times my acoustic situation was exactly like you describe... A manual of equalization is not an acoustic experiment manual at all... A few panels are not an adequate passive treatment either.... By the way i just listen to the 5th concerto of Beethoven with Boston symphony now and the orchestra fill half of my small room... The image does not exceed the speakers laterally in this case, like it is the case in some other recording i own, but the distribution of instruments and the soloist are in a depth distribution and not only between the speakers but in front of them and in the rear.... |
@simonmoon , It is not about the recording method Simon, it is about the playback. The symphony orchestra is so wide and so deep. At a live concert the sound of each instrument appears to comes directly from that instrument. The sound of instruments does not come from beyond the stage. In a full concert hall there is extremely effective sound absorption in the form of human beings. The reflections you hear are extremely late and relatively weak due to the distances. Up front in row 6 center- left where my dad's season tickets were the image of each instrument was very specific. I could easily close my eyes and point to each instrument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_Hall,_Boston#/media/File:Symphony_hall_boston.jpg. The orchestra has a distinct size and in row six it is really large. On playback you are expecting two speakers to recreate the orchestra's size and the position of each instrument. Since you do not have an individual speaker for each instrument the position of each instrument is determined predominantly by the relative volume of the that sound coming from the two speakers. Phase and timing assists but only if you sit dead center otherwise that information is corrupted. The full size of the orchestra will be determined by the speaker separation and how close in you are sitting. If all early reflections are well dampened it is physically impossible for sound to come from beyond the speaker without studio tricks. Not only that but sound coming from outside the orchestra would be anything but realistic. What you are hearing when you hear imaging beyond the speakers is poor control of room acoustics. How the orchestra was recorded might affect the quality of the orchestra's timbre and image but unless studio tricks are applied it should not produce sound outside the limits of the orchestra which would be surrealistic anyway. My experience with systems over the years bears this out. This type of thing may sound cool but it is not accurate. On the bright side you have identified a problem to conquer and once you do you should have a much tidier image. I have many recordings of Seiji Ozawa at Boston Symphony Hall and most of them are surprisingly accurate. None of them cast an image beyond the speakers and in my front row it is about the same as being in row 6 at the hall, wonderful. |
I find all the disdain for tricks and gimmicks quite amusing - the whole thing is a trick unless you summon your own string quartet every time you listen to music. But I guess you could say that there is a continuum of musical production from the simplest mono recording through multi-mic setups to completely electronic music production. Personally I don't draw a line where one side is right and the other is wrong. I like the threads here that make me go away and check my thinking, so I put on Bill Evans - Sunday at the Village Vanguard. From the minimal information I can find this appears to have been recorded with a three mic setup straight onto two track... nearly as simple as you can get. Listening on both my nearfield monitors and main speakers the instruments themselves spread slightly wider than the speakers themselves, it is however the ambience which is completely enveloping and gives you the sense of space. I've taken care setting up my listening space but it's a long way from being acoustically optimal. |
You are comical! For sure hypothesis is used in the first line of this research paper....Guess why? It is not the word "hypothesis" the problem, it was your way to say in a discredited manner that it is "ONLY AN HYPOTHESIS"... In all reasearch papers EVERYBODY know or you must know that any research start with a "hypothesis" justifying the experiment...The word hypothesis dont discredited the value of an experiment....Save in your head... Then for you to say it is "only an hypothesis" is like saying nothing of that is PROVED.... It is a way to denigrate the paper which inspired me....For sure nothing is proved definitively here but it inspire me and it is a very interesting "hypothesis".... At least say it.....Spite it..... Then for you to say that is is "only an hypothesis", it is not an argument, but a sophism...... English is not my first language but i know how to read and think.....And i know you a bit now... |
You are comical.... Helmholtz resonators are the way Helmholtz himself set the subject matter here in science... "nothing to do with late and early reflections" and tricks.... Control of the timing of reflections is not a trick.... You distorted what i say, i never say that only timing the direct sound and the reflections and controlling their ratio is enough for the imaging experience... Speakers placement and type and volume, cross talk controls, play a role also....i spoke about not only imaging, remember, but also about listener envelopment and HERE timing of reflections play a major role... optimization between these factors are key of room control.... A grid of finely tuned and located Helmholtz resonators is a scientific tool not a trick... I recognize you immediately after you said to me that this reseach paper which inspire me was only an "hypothesis".... No one could say that without being a top level digital audio engineer, the same one who already say the same thing few weeks ago about the same paper.... But my friend this "hypothesis" was very fruitful for the "amateur" i am.... Anyway i recognize you my friend , different syntax but same "distorted ways"....I will not argue with you a second time.... I understand your perspective but you are unable to understand mine.... Thanks to you, i created my mechanical equalizer arguing with you.... Then my best to you .....I will drink pu’erh tea to your health.....enjoy educating us your way.... |
Ya can't solve some problems without sophisticated tools. Your tricks don't solve the problem of why sounds don't naturally extend past the speakers. Nothing to do with late or early reflections. Nothing to do with Helmholz radiators. A link to a paper that is a hypothesis not gonna change the issue. Reflections don't give ya the accurate placement of sounds. It only gives you a false set of sound locations. Ya it may sound wider, but it is not what is in the music. |
Ya got a choice. Ya can have good and accurate imaging, or you can have an artificial and wide sound stage inaccurate imaging. Without those tricks Mijostyn and pragmasi talked about, ya don’t get things placed well outside the speakers. Ya don’t get that in live music either unless you are sitting first row at the orchestra. Bad place for good sound.Yes you are right it is a trade-off... Between imaging and soundstage like between Source width (ASW) and listener envelopment (LEV) But stating a problem is not solving it.... 😁😁 The goal is optimization of these correlated 4 factors with timing and mechanical equalization with fine tined a Helmholtz resonators grid, tuning the room for the speakers and marking out the flows from each speaker to each ears....They play this double function.... "Those tricks" i used then and of which you speak about after mijostyn, are precise acoustical concepts, acoustical timing threshold optimization and the optimal ratio between late and early reflections for my room....By the way my instrument timbre experience is relatively natural which is a sign of a good acoustic control all along the optimization process... With this room control my music, with a level which is relative to each recording for sure, is outside the speakers with a pin point imaging, the 2 factors related then in an optimal way.... Your post only reflect like in mijostyn case your lack of acoustic control in your own room and misunderstanding of these concepts... Simple... Begin with this research paper.... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003682X06002118?imgSel=Y |
Ya got a choice. Ya can have good and accurate imaging, or you can have an artificial and wide sound stage inaccurate imaging. Without those tricks Mijostyn and pragmasi talked about, ya don't get things placed well outside the speakers. Ya don't get that in live music either unless you are sitting first row at the orchestra. Bad place for good sound. |
no false large soundstage created by early reflections, etc.A rightfully use of the timing of reflections can produce an unusual soundstage but it is related to the way the recording or mixing was made...Active controls is based on the use of the reverberation time and the timing between early and late and even back and front reflections and their ratio and the 2 main frontwaves for each ears... Then it is not a "gimick" nor a "trickery" and it is easy to verify that your room is correctly modified with some other recordings which will not present this unusual soundstage... No classical recording is always the same and always orthodox...There is some exceptions... i am OK and in accord with your 2 posts.... I just wanted to give my take and experience with my own room sometimes unusual soundstage recording dependent... I enjoy sometimes with some recording the impression to live among musicians on the scene, which event never happen in a concert where you were seated in front of the musicians... If the room is not under control this surround and enveloping experience with a stereo system is impossible even with a recording album which had this possibility in it because of the particular way it was recorded... |
I certainly agree about the gimmicks however I have learned that instruments themselves should not come from beyond the speakers which is what you would expect if you think about it.You are completely wrong and perhaps you must reconsider your way to use electronic equalization instead of room control...Your description demonstrate the inability where you are to recreate a great sonic field in the room.. It is way more important to adjust the room large bandwith/timbre response to the speakers than the opposite which is adjusting the speakers narrow frequency response to the room .... There a 2 stages of manifestation in acoustic control ( it is for sure recording quality dependant): --In the beginning with some selected especially good recording the orchestra is IN your room and you listen to it external to the orchestra...You are happy because you enjoy anyway an imaging which can be good.... --After a complete acoustic control, for many well recorded albums you may be among the instruments and with them on the scene in some case...The listener is enveloped by music and no more external to it....Listener envelopment factor (LEV). If i read your description you have never lived through this experience with any recording then your room and acoustic control are lacking.... This post of yours confirm my opinion that electronic equalization is a secondary tool helpful to fine tune the speakers/ room relation but cannot replace neither passive material treatment nor even less replacing ACTIVE acoustic control.... |
There's actually a very prosaic answer to this question. When we listen closely we tend to look in that direction. Ears on each side of the head, duh. When we record we do the same. Maybe there are groups the performers occupy different locations around the room at random. Not many, is my guess. From intimate solo singer to full orchestra to U2 extravaganza the performance always occupies a relatively small area in front of us. Once again, the mic techniques used for classical recordings are specifically designed to capture information from well beyond a 'relatively small area'. Not just side to side, but deep too. Google something like the following "Decca tree recoding an orchestra" or "how to set up mics for recording an orchestra", or similar verbiage. Take a look at this diagram below and let me know why this mic placement for the San Francisco Orchestra, will only produce a soundstage that 'occupies a relatively small area'. http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Audio_production/sf_symphony.htm Why am I getting the idea that many people here, have not spent a lot of time listening to classical recordings on a good system? My system, in my relatively small room, consistently produces a soundstage of an orchestra, that sounds about at the same scale as if I was about 20 rows back at Disney Hall. Not trickery, no gimmicks, no false large soundstage created by early reflections, etc. Simply the soundstage captured on the recording by tried and true recording methods. |
however I have learned that instruments themselves should not come from beyond the speakers which is what you would expect if you think about it. I use to occasionally hear some instruments on certain recordings come from beyond the speakers. I will have to completely disagree with you on this. A symphony orchestra is set up with violins stage far right, double basses are far left. The main mics are, usually, setup in a Decca Tree config (which is used almost exclusively for orchestral recordings), the 2 mics used to capture stereo, are omnidirectional, and they are usually fairly close to each other. So, they are definitely capturing information from well beyond their outer 'edges'. There are also "outrigger" mics to capture a bit more ambience. On a decent classical recording, there is plenty of information from beyond the outer edges of the mics, and if the speakers (and room) are relatively good, those violins stage right, and basses stage left, will come from beyond the outer edges of the speakers. And it's not a gimmick, it's on the recording. Maybe if the information that was coming from past the outside edges of the speakers was of instruments that aren't supposed to be to the far left or far right, like clarinets or some other instrument from the closer to the center of the orchestra. If a clarinet seemed like it was coming from beyond the edges of my speakers, that I could see blaming on artifacts of a poor room. But the fact that the instruments that always seem like they are coming from past the edges of my speakers, are only those at stage right or left, seems like a bit too much of a coincidence. I've got great diffusion behind the speakers, absorption on the side wall and ceiling. Not to mention, I've heard a large pair of Wilson Alexandria speakers in a room so large and well treated, that I would be surprised if the side walls came into play at all. And again, tons of very natural sounding orchestral instruments coming from past the outer edges of the speakers. |
millercarbon9,311 posts05-26-2021 5:12pmThere's actually a very prosaic answer to this question. When we listen closely we tend to look in that direction. Ears on each side of the head, duh. When we record we do the same. Maybe there are groups the performers occupy different locations around the room at random. Not many, is my guess. From intimate solo singer to full orchestra to U2 extravaganza the performance always occupies a relatively small area in front of us. Seriously? That's a very myopic statement. If that qualifies as your definitive answer to recording, you're demonstrating that you don't know very much about recording. |
@simonmoon, I certainly agree about the gimmicks however I have learned that instruments themselves should not come from beyond the speakers which is what you would expect if you think about it. I use to occasionally hear some instruments on certain recordings come from beyond the speakers. I have been using dipoles exclusively for 40 years and I use to never put any sound absorption behind the speakers and I always put my speakers near corners. So, sound would bounce off the front wall then off the side wall to the listening position. It is no surprise then that sounds would appear to come from beyond the speakers. Back then I felt the sound had more "air" to it that way and I really did not appreciate what it was doing to the image. I now use 4" acoustic tile behind the speakers and at first things did sound more closed in on a relative basis but the specificity of the image increased very noticeably. Now only gimmicks come from beyond the speakers but, now close your eyes and the speakers disappear. Even instruments that are panned hard left or right do not appear to be coming from the loudspeakers, they just hang in space. You could walk around them (if you could walk through walls). My intent is not to brag but to help others achieve the same results. No system images well out of the box, it is a virtual impossibility and that goes for my system also. You get the standard 2 dimensional blurry image that most of us think is the cats meow, until you hear a system that really images. I have been talking about the need to synchronize the frequency response of the main speakers for years. That need became even more obvious with the Sound Labs speakers as they are capable of a better image than my old Acoustats. This synchronization and control of the room's acoustics are the two most important considerations if you want your system to image at it's best. I am convinced that this applies to regular dynamic loudspeakers also and not just to big dipoles. I hope to prove this to myself with my friend's new S7s. |