Do you require spatial cues for emotional engagement? Or are they for analytical listening?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
I put imaging and soundstage very close to tone, timbre, dynamics, etc, in importance to me. While I wouldn't want to give up any of these latter attributes for imaging and soundstage, I don't think I'd want a system that does not have a decent amount of imaging.
For me, it is almost the oposite as the OP. Imaging and soundstage are the things that allows me to take one more step closer to the performance and emotion. It sucks me in to the performance, and allows me to forget the analytical stuff.
This is especially important with regards to classical recordings. With most rock recordings, there is so much done in the studio, that most imaging and soundstage is masked by overdubs, delay, compression, etc.
I do agree, partially. Prog is my favourite genre of music, so I used to suffer quite a bit. I like SW's remixes, while I really don't like Nick Davis' Genesis remixes. The only way to listen to the N. Davis stuff is on vinyl, where (I guess) another engineer tamed down some of the aggressiveness. But it's still too compressed and "in your face".
SW is subtle, and it's all about bringing detail that's in the recording, but obscured by old analog mixing. The Genesis stuff is all over the place, with extra reverb on stuff, less on others, etc.
I did say I agree partially, because I can now enjoy all that stuff with MSB DACs. Older, 80s CDs, now sound considerably better than "remasters", with no harshness, and a ton of dynamic range.
I'm sure if you spend the time with SGM's HQPlayer filters, you'd find settings that would greatly improve your enjoyment of prog on CD, specially on what's already a great DAC like the Aqua!
cheers,
alex
One of my favorite rock albums is by Jefferson Airplane “Surrealistic Pillow“ which is multi dimensional and is a very good digital conversion. Recorded in early 1967 and made in a large studio which is evident listening to it.
I find there are two types of imaging. One is physical size and placement. The other is more like a painting, you can see it more in your mind's eye. The second has a placement but it isn't within a huge 3D landscape.
Yes I agree Roger.
I have the Sony blu spec pressing - SICP30049 - bought from CD Japan
Yeah I definitely worship at the altar of imaging/soundstage, regarding my speakers. The imaging is the first that drew me to my current speakers JBL 4367's, none of that boxy monkey coffin sound for me. I don't feel an emotional attachment to music if sounds doesn't sound expansive and beyond the speakers physical location.
All the other things we expect of speakers count too, of course but imaging comes first for me.
All the other things we expect of speakers count too, of course but imaging comes first for me.
Both system and records should give spatial cues. If you have a record that has spatial cues and your system makes everything sound close to the speakers, your system sucks. Positioning the speakers and making them disappear should be a key focus, especially for a cone or planar system. Soundstage should start behind the speakers and come forward, as if the speakers were not there. Of course, if the recording is compressed, or a studio record lacking spatial cues, it should play it accordingly. As for the balance between tone, dynamics, flow, etc etc, the weighting to suspend disbelief changes system to system.
Agreed but it should definitely "breathe" depending on the ambient information that is captured (or created) on the recording.
I am not sure I agree.
I have 1000's of prog albums on vinyl, and most of it, overall, is better in this respect than mainstream rock recordings of the same era. I do not notice what you are hearing as a major problem.
PFM, Banco, Magma, National Health, Happy the Man, Camel, Henry Cow, Hatfield and the North, just to mention a few, have some pretty good recordings. Not that they are problem free, but shrillness is not something that stands out as a problem.
Some of the prog from Germany, especially recordings from Conny Plank's studio, are downright great.
I will say, that US releases of recordings from other countries were pretty bad. King Crimson and YES on UK labels sound substantially better than the US label releases. Although, nothing will help Relayer.
Yeah, maybe Ian should go back to some of the more obscure prog stuff, and revisit, now that his system has changed quite a bit.
Even the less-than-stellar recordings, like the early Banco stuff, is still satisfactory. Magma is hit-and-miss, but the recent recordings are all quite decent.
Seems like the bigger the band, the worst job they did on the masterings, specially the further away you get from an original pressing...
cheers,
alex
Even the less-than-stellar recordings, like the early Banco stuff, is still satisfactory. Magma is hit-and-miss, but the recent recordings are all quite decent.
Seems like the bigger the band, the worst job they did on the masterings, specially the further away you get from an original pressing...
cheers,
alex
Simon and Alex, I'm learning this about original and superior pressings.
Have just spent a small fortune on 1970s Genesis: Pink Swirl original Charisma, Japanese and 2003 Classic Records Quiex, pressings to replace my later issue UK pressings.
And yes Alex, at this rate I know that the cash spent on a few dozen pricey replacement vinyls would get me a nice streamer/dac.
Have just spent a small fortune on 1970s Genesis: Pink Swirl original Charisma, Japanese and 2003 Classic Records Quiex, pressings to replace my later issue UK pressings.
And yes Alex, at this rate I know that the cash spent on a few dozen pricey replacement vinyls would get me a nice streamer/dac.
A natural soundstage is often a combination of placement and ambience cues. You can’t get a natural sense of depth and width without reverberations bouncing off the boundaries back to the mics which I think also defines imaging, ie location of instruments in the soundstage. System generated staging is monotonous and distracting.
david
Not sure how a system generates its own soundstaging, but I guess anything that isn't accurate falls under this category.
I do want to point out that proper imaging and depth in a system does not only pertain to naturally recorded material. When mixing a multi-track piece of music, exact position and depth of each track (or content, I'm not going to restrict this to instruments) is defined by the mixing engineer. Mixing IS a holographic exercise and to whatever extent the engineer employed it should be reproduced by the system. Mixing is done not only for artistic reasons but to give each element room to breathe. Yes, this is often done artificially but that is not the point. If the system doesn't reproduce this the result is likely smearing and a congealing of the sound.
For me, I want the system to get out of the way and present all elements of the recording without muddiness, smearing etc so I can appreciate the arrangement, ambiance (natural or artificial) and follow instruments etc. In my experience systems that image well (side to side and front to back) make for a more successful presentation in this regard.
Most engineers really don't care that much about audiophiles and their soundstages.
Audiophile stereo's greatly enhance any existing soundstage, more so than create it out of 100% thin air. But they can exacerbate very little into something. The number one way to get it, is letting in lots of RF.
Most super holographic experiences I've heard where generated by the stereo itself. They aren't at all like a real performance.
I simply don't believe any of those conclusions are legit, Floyd.
If you were so right, mono recordings would sound like a bag of ass... But they often sound phenomenal.
So when you say proper, proper what? That's a matter of opinion. It isn't a technical measurable event.
Audiophile stereo's greatly enhance any existing soundstage, more so than create it out of 100% thin air. But they can exacerbate very little into something. The number one way to get it, is letting in lots of RF.
Most super holographic experiences I've heard where generated by the stereo itself. They aren't at all like a real performance.
I simply don't believe any of those conclusions are legit, Floyd.
If you were so right, mono recordings would sound like a bag of ass... But they often sound phenomenal.
So when you say proper, proper what? That's a matter of opinion. It isn't a technical measurable event.
Last edited:
Soundstage isn't just an audiophile thing. It's the canvass of the mixing engineer.
Just because a soundstage doesn't sound realistic doesn't mean it was created that way. I don't know if you're referring to pop music or an orchestral recording, but if it's the former it doesn't have to sound like a 'real' performance to be what the engineer intended.
I don't see how mono recordings sounding good have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that a mixing engineer can place a recorded instrument in 3 dimensional space and that proper reproduction maintains the instrument relationships. Or at the very least, experiencing the instruments in that space does not necessarily mean that the system is generating the holography (or that RF is causing it).
Mono recordings sound mono...between the boundary of the speakers. Compared to RCA or Phase4 or DG or masterworks they are to me historical. But they do capture some of the event,not all of it.
Similar threads
- Sticky
