Confessions of an Audiophile Junky-I Got Center Stage With Pitch Perfect Sound

[joelavrencik]

Hello Joseph. If the traditional stage in front of the listener is recreated, then what do you mean by the expression "center stage" and the ad copy in the first page of this thread which to me implies that the listener is transported to a new listening perspective which is now a placement at the center of the stage in among the musicians? This does not seem to be the same as the stage being positioned in front of the listener. The described effect of these footers seems a bit contradictory to me. I guess I'm confused by the claim implied by the ad copy and the name of the product.

Hi Peter,

I was watching the playoffs and read this just before turning in. I promised myself I’d respond in the morning, but it bothered me so much I couldn’t sleep. So, here I am, groggy but vertical. I hope I can express myself clearly……..

I think Steve and I may have a problem and if we do, we should sort it out and fix it now. So, I’m asking you to please respond to this whenever you have the time. And, if anyone else wants to provide their thoughts, please do so. All opinions are welcome.

My concern is the marketing piece conflicts with the engineering piece. I’ll start with the engineering piece. The traditional stereo listening experience has the listener seated in front of the loudspeakers and the musicians positioned behind the loudspeakers. There is an imaginary “wall” at the front plane of the loudspeakers that separates the listener from the musicians.

What I am saying is that it doesn’t have to be this way. You can remove the “wall”. Your components are already engineered to reproduce very low-level details previously embedded in recordings that will generate a 3-dimensional recreation of the original event with much greater density, separation and tonal color and extend outward from behind your loudspeakers, into your room and all around you. You “see” the event, you “hear” the event and you “feel” the event. Music becomes an experience, not just a song. For this to occur, it must be in the recording. If it’s not in there, it won’t occur. If it is in there, your components will force your loudspeakers to reproduce it. This effect is most prevalent with 4 CS under each component in the signal path (not including the tt).

The question is, what do you call this. I came up with the “Total Immersion Effect”. I don’t know what else to call it. Center Stage was a name given to the product in support of the effect. The issue that continues to surface, as you have just pointed out, is that taken literally as portrayed in the advertisement, the notion of sitting center stage is foreign to our listening experiences and expectations. It sounds like something is either wrong or just plain bullshit.

If this is the image we are portraying, then we need to change the ad copy ASAP. So I ask, do we need to change the ad copy?

I look forward to hearing from you…..

 

[joelavrencik]

Tang, what do you mean?

I would also like to know what is meant by, "the more discussions on this issue the more backfires". Maybe, I'm just tired, but I'm not understanding it.

 

[joelavrencik]

Peter, to be honest the ad copy takes a few liberties. Let's be realistic. These devices do not "put you in the middle of the stage" or any other similar descriptor that suggests the listener perspective is dramatically different than what the engineer intended on the recording. The perspective of the listener is determined by the microphone selection, microphone placement, and the engineers preferences during the recording process. The CS footers did however, provide a noticeable increase the width, depth and resolution of the sound stage that was a pleasant surprise and a benefit in comparison to the sound I and others hear without them. Of course, as in all things audio, YMMV but you just might be duly impressed as well. I'm willing to allow some liberty in naming the devices accordingly, as long as we realize the name mainly tries to successfully convey the benefits provided by the footers as metaphor, as opposed to a literal descriptor of where you will feel like you are positioned while listening to every recording in your collection.

Ahh. I just saw this. Thanks Marty. ......what does YMMV mean. I'm not familiar with that.

 

[NorthStar]

YMMV ? Your Mileage Might Vary

 

[DaveyF]

Hi guys. Sigh....

With all due respect might I please point out how recordings are made. I posted this in Davey's thread but it was simply ignored by the OP. To this day there is this notion that soundstages are like movie screens and that they should be confined to the speaker plane with some depth of field. Okay, we are primarily visual as a species so perhaps this influences that idea. We think in straight lines the way light travels. That is not how sound travels. Stereo was invented to add an immersive factor just as surround sound was after it. I am reposting here what went ignored by Davey. Let's not get hung up on the frigging product name so literally. Suffice it to say, if you prefer a movie screen presentation, fine. Following your preferences is your right. Just be aware that this is NOT the way your recordings were constructed. Nor is it the way sound pressure reaches you in a live setting as Peter knows having much experience in intimate performances. Some food for thought. DO take the time to hit the link for the pictures.

repost now....



I think we have to get past quite a few truisms born mainly out of endless iteration. I guess I've always been much less obsessive about "live" vs "constructed" for a number of reasons. Stereo is an artificial construct but less seen is how it is constructed. Let's take the Decca tree or EMI blumlein as examples. Many see the picture of microphone diagrams and assume that they are vertically oriented. In fact they are more horizontal and are flown, center stage (pun intended).

The common idea is that a soundstage should resemble a movie screen and so people set their systems up to give this type of wide presentation with depth of field like you would see from a camera lens. If one looks at acquisition for minimalist recordings and panning on constructed soundscapes however these are performed with an arc not a flat plane. See the photos here https://proaudioclube.com/2016/04/09...ets-engeneers/ for Decca. You'll see not only the orientation of the tree but also how the musicians are oriented around the tree and how outriggers are positioned as well. It is a much more severe arc than that for playing to an audience. Here, the microphones are the audience. The equilateral triangle placement for stereo monitoring likewise sets an arc while visually it may appear like straight lines. We all know that beam width varies with frequency. The straight lines then apply only to high frequencies while lower down there will be summing and cancelations to go along with differing arrival times to create the stimuli to create the illusion of localization.

From this perspective live or constructed is a moot point. Of course we want the instruments to sound like real instruments but as far as placement goes, in both cases sound is optimized for a specific area within that arc very different from sound for motion pictures where sound is attempted to be optimized for a wider area. Since we are talking about music especially music for the home we go with the former.

The question now is have a lot of people been setting their systems up wrong. Well I wouldn't be so harsh. Preferences are preferences. I would go far as saying that one of the purposes of stereo like surround sound after it is to give a more immersive experience without having to give up too much of the direct impact of true mono. This is only my opinion but it is what it is. For me, the more realistic soundstage is that of the walk in variety. It is also truer to the vast majority of commercial recordings given how they were made or constructed. They were made to have the listener smack down the middle and surrounded close to his field of view. It is an experience in itself and again IMO should be appreciated as such as opposed to being compared to abstract concepts forced down our collective throats.

The information in the recording, particularly the cues, tonal shifts created by relative distance, reverberation, et al are there. Getting them unmasked by noise is another story provided the noise isn't on the medium itself. Normally when one says dynamic range, loudness is the first thing that comes to mind. It is at the heart of the word length debate in digital. The last few decades however has had the industry and listeners have been looking at the other direction. How do we increase dynamic range without having to go louder? The answer is simple, make quiet quieter. Something the analog guys have had to deal with all along. We just have to deal with acoustical, mechanical and electrical noise.

Jack, don't get upset.
I felt that your post on my thread was correct...and therefore felt no need to respond to it.
The fact that we listen to music in our homes in sort of a plane with occasionally musicians spreading out behind said plane of the speakers is what we typically hear....if we have systems that can portray that.
The walk in soundstage is certainly a goal that most of us ascribe to. It would also seem that the more we can increase dynamic range without having to go louder, the more realistic the presentation will be.

So, I'm in agreement with you....

 

[DaveyF]

Hi Peter,

I was watching the playoffs and read this just before turning in. I promised myself I’d respond in the morning, but it bothered me so much I couldn’t sleep. So, here I am, groggy but vertical. I hope I can express myself clearly……..

I think Steve and I may have a problem and if we do, we should sort it out and fix it now. So, I’m asking you to please respond to this whenever you have the time. And, if anyone else wants to provide their thoughts, please do so. All opinions are welcome.

My concern is the marketing piece conflicts with the engineering piece. I’ll start with the engineering piece. The traditional stereo listening experience has the listener seated in front of the loudspeakers and the musicians positioned behind the loudspeakers. There is an imaginary “wall” at the front plane of the loudspeakers that separates the listener from the musicians.

What I am saying is that it doesn’t have to be this way. You can remove the “wall”. Your components are already engineered to reproduce very low-level details previously embedded in recordings that will generate a 3-dimensional recreation of the original event with much greater density, separation and tonal color and extend outward from behind your loudspeakers, into your room and all around you. You “see” the event, you “hear” the event and you “feel” the event. Music becomes an experience, not just a song. For this to occur, it must be in the recording. If it’s not in there, it won’t occur. If it is in there, your components will force your loudspeakers to reproduce it. This effect is most prevalent with 4 CS under each component in the signal path (not including the tt).

The question is, what do you call this. I came up with the “Total Immersion Effect”. I don’t know what else to call it. Center Stage was a name given to the product in support of the effect. The issue that continues to surface, as you have just pointed out, is that taken literally as portrayed in the advertisement, the notion of sitting center stage is foreign to our listening experiences and expectations. It sounds like something is either wrong or just plain bullshit.

If this is the image we are portraying, then we need to change the ad copy ASAP. So I ask, do we need to change the ad copy?

I look forward to hearing from you…..

IMHO, that ad copy is somewhat misleading. The' total immersion effect' is a very nebulous term, but I would think in audio (we are talking high-end here) it could be more understood. Most a'philes that i know are trying to re-create the 'real' in their own homes ( The absolute sound...a real gem of a term, IMO), a goal that i suspect we all know is virtually impossible. If for no other reason, most of us do not own listening rooms the size of the typical concert hall or auditorium. Reproducing the sound of an organ in a church is another example....
BTW, i don't think components force speakers to do anything....speakers can either reproduce the signal or they cannot. Plain and simple.
At this point in the thread, I am going to bow out, any further thoughts from me would not be well received.

 

[morricab]

A footer is not going to change the soundstage due to artifacts like some digital filters, etc...

What is all too common is a combination of missing harmonic information that doesn't get from the recording to the speakers combined with typical acoustics of cone 'n' dome speakers smearing the information if it does indeed make it to the speakers.

To achieve a level of performance where the soundstage is not constrained by these issues takes a lot more than following Harman's science and recommendations. Things like interconnect cables and vibration management are key to preserving this information in the playback chain.

Not many systems are capable of this kind of performance, but imo it is a large part of what separates the best systems from all the rest.

Overall I agree but I go one step further and say that in fact the speaker itself is probably the least important part of a chain to achieve this.

Don't get me wrong I agree to reach the ultimate the speakers have to fit the bill but I can't tell you how many times I have heard otherwise modest speakers sound amazing with a proper electronics package behind them. I have NEVER heard a SOTA speaker sound realistic with a mediocre electronics package behind.

 

[JackD201]

Jack, don't get upset.
I felt that your post on my thread was correct...and therefore felt no need to respond to it.
The fact that we listen to music in our homes in sort of a plane with occasionally musicians spreading out behind said plane of the speakers is what we typically hear....if we have systems that can portray that.
The walk in soundstage is certainly a goal that most of us ascribe to. It would also seem that the more we can increase dynamic range without having to go louder, the more realistic the presentation will be.

So, I'm in agreement with you....

Thanks for the clarification Davey. I was really tired when I wrote that so it took quite a bit of effort. I'm grateful that you read it.

 

[joelavrencik]

not speaking for the Honorable Tang, but this reminds me of the Mastersound thread, where attempts were made to exactly define what was suggested by marketing hyperbole reacting to assumed well intentioned skeptics (like a red flag to a bull), which (that hyperbole) is something not so definable or even intended to be defended with precision.

the more you dig (attempt to defend), the deeper you are in the hole, and the dirt is now falling back on top of the digger.

so quit trying to defend the un-defendable. this is a tweak for god's sake, and as feedback collects those interested will want to try it. but proof (or even complete dot connecting) will be very hard to come by. as much as a few of us desire it.

I want to try it and hopefully have 8 of these incoming at some point.

Hi Mike,

Obviously, we're happy your trying CS. Thank you for that.

If a tweak is defined as a refinement to an existing system, then I would be disappointed if CS ultimately fell into that category. The intent is to differentiate high end audio from cell phone ear buds and headphones. In my view, our wonderful hobby is stuck in the mud. 'Buds and 'phones offer a close, personal listening experience that 2-channel has not been able to surpass or, in almost every case, achieve to date. CS has the potential to elevate the listening experience by providing a close personal listening experience within a large scale system. 'Buds and "phones can't do that. We can do this with virtually any electronics (I'm sure we'll find an exception sooner or later), using virtually any resting surface for your components. Achieving this requires (so far as I can tell today) 4 CS under the components in a signal path. I'm sure there may be exceptions to this, and, if so, I'm fine with that. In your case, (at RMAF I think you said 8 under 2 power supplies) you have every right to expect a refinement to your system and I think you'll get that. People who ultimately commit to using CS in a signal path have every right to expect more and I think they'll get that.

Are the first paragraphs of your post directed at me?

 

[joelavrencik]

Mike, I don't know if this is addressed to me or not, but if it is, let me say that I am not trying to defend anything. I am trying to understand the claims made by those marketing the product. Spiritofmusic and I attempted to ask basically the same question a few times regarding listening perspective and whether or not these devices effect the perception of where one is seated in the soundfield. Having finally finished reading the entire thread, it is now pretty clear to me that the CS footers have nothing to do with putting the listener in the center of the stage, despite the quotes that Steve wrote in the opening post and the ad copy. I can be a bit slow and often need things explained clearly to me.

This post from Marty does just that. Thank you Marty.

Sorry it took so long to clear this up.

 

[joelavrencik]

no; I've not read all the posts and had no one in particular in mind, and absolutely not you.

only that the direction reminded me of that other thread, and that when I hear marketing words relative to tweaks or cables, I just ignore them. the product may be stellar, but why it's stellar is just not important to me, and the odds of actually being able to sort out the facts of why it works, and then prove it on a forum is very remote. and these thread directions can get heated since you have the manufacturers and distributors involved.

i'm not saying that why tweaks work should be off limits at all; only that one should be very reticent in attempts to defend these positions and lean toward the experience, and not the proof side.

and when we get some techies throwing conflicting techie jargon around, i'm off to do some serious focused listening.

Ahh. Got it now........

 

[joelavrencik]

Hi guys. Sigh....

With all due respect might I please point out how recordings are made. I posted this in Davey's thread but it was simply ignored by the OP. To this day there is this notion that soundstages are like movie screens and that they should be confined to the speaker plane with some depth of field. Okay, we are primarily visual as a species so perhaps this influences that idea. We think in straight lines the way light travels. That is not how sound travels. Stereo was invented to add an immersive factor just as surround sound was after it. I am reposting here what went ignored by Davey. Let's not get hung up on the frigging product name so literally. Suffice it to say, if you prefer a movie screen presentation, fine. Following your preferences is your right. Just be aware that this is NOT the way your recordings were constructed. Nor is it the way sound pressure reaches you in a live setting as Peter knows having much experience in intimate performances. Some food for thought. DO take the time to hit the link for the pictures.

repost now....



I think we have to get past quite a few truisms born mainly out of endless iteration. I guess I've always been much less obsessive about "live" vs "constructed" for a number of reasons. Stereo is an artificial construct but less seen is how it is constructed. Let's take the Decca tree or EMI blumlein as examples. Many see the picture of microphone diagrams and assume that they are vertically oriented. In fact they are more horizontal and are flown, center stage (pun intended).

The common idea is that a soundstage should resemble a movie screen and so people set their systems up to give this type of wide presentation with depth of field like you would see from a camera lens. If one looks at acquisition for minimalist recordings and panning on constructed soundscapes however these are performed with an arc not a flat plane. See the photos here https://proaudioclube.com/2016/04/09...ets-engeneers/ for Decca. You'll see not only the orientation of the tree but also how the musicians are oriented around the tree and how outriggers are positioned as well. It is a much more severe arc than that for playing to an audience. Here, the microphones are the audience. The equilateral triangle placement for stereo monitoring likewise sets an arc while visually it may appear like straight lines. We all know that beam width varies with frequency. The straight lines then apply only to high frequencies while lower down there will be summing and cancelations to go along with differing arrival times to create the stimuli to create the illusion of localization.

From this perspective live or constructed is a moot point. Of course we want the instruments to sound like real instruments but as far as placement goes, in both cases sound is optimized for a specific area within that arc very different from sound for motion pictures where sound is attempted to be optimized for a wider area. Since we are talking about music especially music for the home we go with the former.

The question now is have a lot of people been setting their systems up wrong. Well I wouldn't be so harsh. Preferences are preferences. I would go far as saying that one of the purposes of stereo like surround sound after it is to give a more immersive experience without having to give up too much of the direct impact of true mono. This is only my opinion but it is what it is. For me, the more realistic soundstage is that of the walk in variety. It is also truer to the vast majority of commercial recordings given how they were made or constructed. They were made to have the listener smack down the middle and surrounded close to his field of view. It is an experience in itself and again IMO should be appreciated as such as opposed to being compared to abstract concepts forced down our collective throats.

The information in the recording, particularly the cues, tonal shifts created by relative distance, reverberation, et al are there. Getting them unmasked by noise is another story provided the noise isn't on the medium itself. Normally when one says dynamic range, loudness is the first thing that comes to mind. It is at the heart of the word length debate in digital. The last few decades however has had the industry and listeners have been looking at the other direction. How do we increase dynamic range without having to go louder? The answer is simple, make quiet quieter. Something the analog guys have had to deal with all along. We just have to deal with acoustical, mechanical and electrical noise.

Jack! You nailed it!! Thanks.

 

[joelavrencik]

Dear Peter,

I meant exactly what Mike said. I was using your quote Peter, but was not directing my words to you. No bad intention. I always wish everyone success in their business..(except for my direct compettitors). They were just words of caution. Some time too much marketing can just backfire at the product. And I, like MikeL, will have these feet under my gears at some point...just to keep my ears open.

Kind regards,
Tang

Hi Tango,

Thank you for explaining this. Very helpful. I'm trying to collect feedback from the group on the advertisement. This can be changed and should be if it alienates people by sending a confusing message. Your feedback is welcome........

 

[joelavrencik]

YMMV ? Your Mileage Might Vary

Thx!

 

[joelavrencik]

IMHO, that ad copy is somewhat misleading. The' total immersion effect' is a very nebulous term, but I would think in audio (we are talking high-end here) it could be more understood. Most a'philes that i know are trying to re-create the 'real' in their own homes ( The absolute sound...a real gem of a term, IMO), a goal that i suspect we all know is virtually impossible. If for no other reason, most of us do not own listening rooms the size of the typical concert hall or auditorium. Reproducing the sound of an organ in a church is another example....
BTW, i don't think components force speakers to do anything....speakers can either reproduce the signal or they cannot. Plain and simple.
At this point in the thread, I am going to bow out, any further thoughts from me would not be well received.

Thank you for your comments. They are well received.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Hi Mike,



If a tweak is defined as a refinement to an existing system, then I would be disappointed if CS ultimately fell into that category. The intent is to differentiate high end audio from cell phone ear buds and headphones. In my view, our wonderful hobby is stuck in the mud. 'Buds and 'phones offer a close, personal listening experience that 2-channel has not been able to surpass or, in almost every case, achieve to date. CS has the potential to elevate the listening experience by providing a close personal listening experience within a large scale system. 'Buds and "phones can't do that. We can do this with virtually any electronics (I'm sure we'll find an exception sooner or later), using virtually any resting surface for your components. Achieving this requires (so far as I can tell today) 4 CS under the components in a signal path. I'm sure there may be exceptions to this, and, if so, I'm fine with that. In your case, (at RMAF I think you said 8 under 2 power supplies) you have every right to expect a refinement to your system and I think you'll get that. People who ultimately commit to using CS in a signal path have every right to expect more and I think they'll get that.

Lets not get carried away here............
I will be brutally honest ....if I had to read that as an advertising blurb for a tweak added to some of the other stuff sprouted here ..I would shy away from it..you overselling big time

 

[joelavrencik]

Lets not get carried away here............
I will be brutally honest ....if I had to read that as an advertising blurb for a tweak added to some of the other stuff sprouted here ..I would shy away from it..you overselling big time

Thank you for your comment.

 

[joelavrencik]

Lets not get carried away here............
I will be brutally honest ....if I had to read that as an advertising blurb for a tweak added to some of the other stuff sprouted here ..I would shy away from it..you overselling big time

Hi Rodney,

I wanted to come back to this because you've made a really important comment. You have every right to be skeptical. You should be. I expect to be attacked and ridiculed for what I've said. It's up to me to prove what I am claiming but it is even more important for me to be as clear as I can be about what I am trying to accomplish.

Here's the good news. If I'm right, there will be others following me who will accomplish the same thing and maybe do it better. This benefits you. You are the winner. So, feel free to challenge me and feel free to express your skepticism. Evolution requires change and change can be upsetting and off-putting. But please know, with all due respect, that I am not backing down.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Steve and Joe, I'd suggest clarity and transparency of communication is even more vital when it comes to what some might consider the more fringe areas of audio. As a person who spent a good part of the first half of their career in TV direction, advertising and copywriting and the second half in teaching design, clear communication has been something of an area of focus. Clarity is always a struggle especially with higher order concepts.

Simply the less than clear notion of being cast at the centre of the stage perhaps as an attempt to explain the experience doesn't really immediately communicate what it is as demonstrated simply by the degree of confusion, required additional clarification and still conflicting understanding brought out in this thread. It is just something of a more abstruse concept and centre stage is also just a bit close to the more familiar perception of the setting of a sound stage.

Sound stage is an element of the context of the sound. We simply expect not to be cast in the centre of it even if you are meaning something different with it as a perception.

Add to this the connected tag line of the total immersion effect which perhaps might not just be about the context of the sound and perhaps about the immersion into the performance through the music. Maybe less focus on sonics as outcome and more about the experience of music could help explain the idea of being immersed and then lifted out of our normal experience. Sound stage is viewed from a distance but it is music that brings us to the centre.

If you also wanted to then confidently relax back on the hyperbole just a touch you could let go of the word total and also swap out effect (which sounds in some ways a bit more like a trick) and change it simply to experience.

So something along the lines of Pitch Perfect Centre Stage Products new CMS footers, the musically immersive experience.

Also on the whole tweak thing in general we should aim to banish the word to lesser products. With all the kinds of performance enhancement and also kinds of investment that the best in resonance control, power conditioning and grounding can offer tweak just doesn't cover it any more. These types of equipment are so much more than tweaks now and all can be so profound in their effect that the very word tweak seems such a pale undervaluing. Many more traditional components fail to deliver anywhere near the kind of essential system upgrades that the best of the so called tweaks can. They are also priced in line with any other significant audio devices.

More than component level upgrade is such a common reference when people are describing their experiences with the best of electrical and mechanical management devices these days. Tweak should perhaps be a term shelved or saved for the little stuff like audiophile fuses and similarly scaled improvements... just me 2 cents tho.

 

[DaveC]

Overall I agree but I go one step further and say that in fact the speaker itself is probably the least important part of a chain to achieve this.

Don't get me wrong I agree to reach the ultimate the speakers have to fit the bill but I can't tell you how many times I have heard otherwise modest speakers sound amazing with a proper electronics package behind them. I have NEVER heard a SOTA speaker sound realistic with a mediocre electronics package behind.

I'd agree, it does seem like modest transducers can recreate low level info. I should have been more specific that it's often the cone 'n' dome speaker's interaction with the room that masks or smears the info and not necessarily the speaker it's self.

I really don't see an issue with the marketing copy, it might be a bit optimistic but compared to the norm it seems somewhat reasonable!