SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

[the sound of Tao]

Come on SOT , i have to read all day how natural horns and sets are .
A little bit of a different view and i m instantly crusified , lol .

Andro it’s genuinely become much more of a crucifixation really lol there are no victims here just an unnatural compulsion to go off horn hating again but please let’s return to topic and talk about space… as a place where no-one can hear anybody scream apparently

 

[Karen Sumner]

Tonality and dynamics have precise meanings and many systems with good tonality and dynamics are a real disaster.

Microstrip, what do you mean by "many systems with good tonality and dynamics are a real disaster"? What is it about these systems that is so uninspiring? Are we able to infer from your statement that you also believe that some systems without good tonality and dynamics do a great job of conveying the musical intent of a recording?

Again, we should look at the room. IMHO it is more than just combining components. The unique interaction between room and system can create artifacts that as far as I have seen can not be predicted.

Part of what makes this hobby so interesting and challenging is that everything matters. Listening room size and characteristics have a lot to do with the sound, and as the systems become more powerful and their windows of linear bandwidth expand, the challenges of creating a more linear listening space become greater. Simple, but well-designed two-way speakers with low to moderately powered amplifiers reside quite nicely in normal living areas with minimal treatment at the first reflection points. If one decides to dedicate oneself enough to the hobby to invest in full range speakers, more powerful amplifiers, and more resolving source components; however, the room becomes the most important and probably most expensive component.

 

[Karen Sumner]

I can't help but think that this discussion comes dangerously close to trying to understand how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Live music and reproduced music are two completely different entities. Reproduced music captures one thing and one thing only which is the sound captured by microphones. Real music is the sound of music reproduced in a physical place. I understand discussing comparative live vs recorded differences of tone, frequency response, and dynamics etc., but respectfully submit that the reproduction of "space" is largely a contrivance that makes such comparisons moot and thus it is a property whose importance has taken on largely mythical importance.

Actually, I think the intent in this discussion of space (ks) - ambience (ddk) - presence (js) - context (Tima) is to remove some of the angels and expand the size of the dance floor. Use what ever term or combination of terms you want from this list of 4 or come up with your own words, but I see no harm in leaving the usual hi fi terms for soundstage and imaging behind because they describe very specific qualities that have very little to do with the low level ambient information that recording engineers do their best to capture. Capturing the reflections of harmonics and fundamentals in the performance space is a part of what recording engineers want you to be able to hear because they think that that information is critical to achieving a higher level of enjoyment and engagement in the music listening experience — at least that's what the live acoustic music recordists and mastering engineers that I know have told me.

Also recently, I've decided to find out more about what recording and mastering engineers "out there" are saying about the relationship of live music to recorded music by reading some of their blogs and published papers. I have been very encouraged by the fact that recording in the digital realm, particularly recently with the wider bandwidth and greater sampling rates of high res digital, has led to deeper discussions about how signals that are technically above the audio range have an impact on how we hear music.

Judging from the high level of tonal density, dynamics, and low-level ambient retrieval captured by Decca's and Deutsche Gramophone's recent high res digital classical recordings as recommended by Gramophone, I would cautiously venture to say that we just might be at the dawn of a new age in terms of sound reproduction.

Attached is an interesting paper by David Blackmer that discusses the nature of human hearing and how sensitive it is to space and time cues. He wrote this in the early 2000s, long before these ideas were generally acknowledged in the professional recording industry.

 

[zerostargeneral]

"TO FULLY MEET the requirements of human auditory perception I believe that a sound system must cover the frequency range of about 15Hz to at least 40kHz (some say 80kHz or more) with over 120dB dynamic range to properly handle transient peaks and with a transient time accuracy of a few microseconds at high frequencies and 1°-2° phase accuracy down to 30Hz. This standard is beyond the capabilities of present day systems"

This quote from the above paper could form a basis point from which we may begin to evaluate space?

"The ideal speaker is a point source. As yet no single driver exists that can accurately reproduce the entire 15Hz-40kHz range"

Sadly both of these excerpts are only partially true.

Overall I read it as slightly educational and generally well meaning.

Sumner I am most impressed by your willingness to search and ask for truths that have eluded 99.9999999% of mathematicians and engineers.

Most that plead the case for scientific truth are not equipped to differentiate said truths from formulaic prose.

The atavistic nature of the hearing system is the most important part of the discussion yet often overlooked in favour of yards and yards of non relatable theories.

Kindest regards,G.

 

[microstrip]

Strawman arguments increase the liklihood of no reply.

Surely. We agree on that.

Some people seem to have personal emotional satisfaction as their prime directive while some reject the natural sound philosophy (look at the pushback Peter took in his 'Natural Sound' thread) while some enjoy effects they may read about in a review or that are different from what is heard in a concert hall.

Again, it is a question of numbers and statistics and also of writing style. The way you separate the audiophile community is artificial. Many people enjoy their systems because the sound has resemblance with the reality, not because they go in concert halls. Natural sound goes far beyond what is heard in a concert hall. IMHO "Natural Sound"(TM) as referred by Peter is simply a preference. Making it clear would make Karen points of view more clear.

There is nothing wrong with any of those perspectives nor is there in advocating for another approach.

I simply object to misrepresenting what you call "the audiophile" perspective.

I suggest you become proactive and start a thread for that complex question. Bear the burden of taking an initiative and a position you regard as positive.

Thanks, I think that this thread is appropriate to debates and the subject is relevant to all audiophiles, not just to the Natural Sound group.

 

[marty]

Attached is an interesting paper by David Blackmer that discusses the nature of human hearing and how sensitive it is to space and time cues.

The Blackmer paper was an excellent read!! Thanks for sharing it.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, what do you mean by "many systems with good tonality and dynamics are a real disaster"? What is it about these systems that is so uninspiring? Are we able to infer from your statement that you also believe that some systems without good tonality and dynamics do a great job of conveying the musical intent of a recording?

My concern is that tonality and dynamics per se are poor frames to assemble a system, or even our enjoyment. Or perhaps the way we usually evaluate and refer to them is too vague and undefined. The "musical intent of a recording" would deserve a never ending thread - it starts with the artist intentions, that can be different from the listener intent.

And yes, I have seen systems without good tonality that sounded great, able to convey a lot of emotion.

(...) Also recently, I've decided to find out more about what recording and mastering engineers "out there" are saying about the relationship of live music to recorded music by reading some of their blogs and published papers. I have been very encouraged by the fact that recording in the digital realm, particularly recently with the wider bandwidth and greater sampling rates of high res digital, has led to deeper discussions about how signals that are technically above the audio range have an impact on how we hear music.

We are in the same boat - reading from how recording engineers approach the possibilities given by the top digital systems opened my mind to a different way of looking at recordings.

Judging from the high level of tonal density, dynamics, and low-level ambient retrieval captured by Decca's and Deutsche Gramophone's recent high res digital classical recordings as recommended by Gramophone, I would cautiously venture to say that we just might be at the dawn of a new age in terms of sound reproduction.

I fully agree. But please do not forget small labels, such as AliaVox or Harmonia Mundi.

Attached is an interesting paper by David Blackmer that discusses the nature of human hearing and how sensitive it is to space and time cues. He wrote this in the early 2000s, long before these ideas were generally acknowledged in the professional recording industry.

Great read, but I think we must also look at the other side - the nature and technicalities of stereo. We also need to know what is exactly at the source of our hobby. Would we have similar arguments in a multi-channel discussion?

 

[Karen Sumner]

I think that this thread is appropriate to debates and the subject is relevant to all audiophiles, not just to the Natural Sound group.

Thank you! It certainly isn't my intention to limit this discussion to the NS group or any other faction. My intent is to help the discussion become more inclusive by talking about music qualities we all can value in a high end audio system regardless of our preferences or experiences with live and recorded music.

All are welcome to the discussion.

 

[Al M.]

Some people seem to have personal emotional satisfaction as their prime directive while some reject the natural sound philosophy (look at the pushback Peter took in his 'Natural Sound' thread) while some enjoy effects they may read about in a review or that are different from what is heard in a concert hall.

You seem to imply that the pushback on the Natural Sound thread was related to a rejection of the use of unamplified live music as a reference. That was not the case.

Also, even those who use unamplified live music as a reference still have, one way or another, personal emotional satisfaction as a prime directive, as has every audiophile.

As Microstrip says, the way you separate the audiophile community is artificial.

 

[tima]

I see no harm in leaving the usual hi fi terms for soundstage and imaging behind because they describe very specific qualities that have very little to do with the low level ambient information that recording engineers do their best to capture. Capturing the reflections of harmonics and fundamentals in the performance space is a part of what recording engineers want you to be able to hear because they think that that information is critical to achieving a higher level of enjoyment and engagement in the music listening experience — at least that's what the live acoustic music recordists and mastering engineers that I know have told me.

I agree - the usual hi-fi (audiophile?) terms for soundstage and imaging (etc.) do not have much to say about what low level ambient information that recording engineers try to capture. I'll speculate that those who formulated those hi-fi terms had no intent to tie them to the activities of recording engineers. I believe those terms attempt to relate in words what is in a listener's mind's ear.

On the assumption of having experienced a live concert performance, it is relatively easy, imo, when listening to a stereo playing a symphony to imagine an orchestra laid out before you and think of that as a stage of sound while applying visual notions (images, dimensionality) to translate what is in your mind/imagination into words. I remember being an audio neophyte reading HP's descriptions of such and thinking wow that's interesting and being frustrated because my back-then simplistic system was not doing what he described.

Now, older, better system, writing about audio I am trying a different approach than replicating with my system what I read from reviewers, while searching for a different way of talking about that. That approach is not driven by or based on how engineers approach recordings. My approach is to apply what I hear and learn from experiencing live music to what I hear from a stereo and to consier the stereo's sound in those terms.

In other words, to take what is my mind's ear/imagination when listening to live music and havine played music -- rather than what is in my mind when listening to stereo systems -- as a base for formulating verbal descriptions / terminologies about listening to reproduced music. I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. Maybe it is a false approach. I'll find out.

HP talked of the absolute sound and going to Carnegie Hall but he did not seem to tie that to the verbal descriptions and terminologies he wrote in his magazines. Or he did not seem to do that when I read him. Maybe others read him differently. I think your and my 'conclusions' about the aptness of hi-fi language are close and maybe how we came to them not so important.

Thank you for an interesting post, Karen. The attached paper was fascinating to read though I don't know enough about the ear or sonic engineering to appreciate everything in it.

 

[Blackmorec]

Hi Tima,
again we seem to have a slightly different take on this. This is how it works for me

I sit down to listen to a recording and even before the music starts a venue opens up with three dimensions, volume (as in space), presence and sonic texture. The music then starts to play within that volume, not instead of, but within that volume and the music takes up/fills some of its space, interacts with its boundaries and with the prevailing frequencies and amplitudes of its reflections. The interactions change according to how loud the music is played and where the musicians are placed within the venue. With studio recordings the interactions with the music may be more engineered than natural, but they‘re still there, just different in nature.
Given that all these qualities are inextricably linked and clearly interact with and are influenced by one another in a predicable, musical and natural way, I can’t see how they would belong to divorced charactereristics of either the system or the recording. In my mind they are all part of the same thing, collectively ‘imaging’ as in ‘an image of the venue and of the musicians within it”

As regards listening to live and recorder music…if I am seriously involved in and intoxicated by the music, I may ‘conduct’….I’ll certainly move with the music, but i’m not having a lot of conscious thoughts and imaginings….my brain is simply too caught up in all the feelings and emotions the music is generating and is not aware of anything beyond that…. I’m simply swept away by the beauty of tone and phrase, the complexity and compelling patterns of rhythm, the gorgeousness of timing, timbre and texture…. Who’s sitting where isnt something I’ll particularly register, other than to appreciate that the recording sounds natural and lifelike. Stated differently Im too tied up appreciating the music to create mental images of an orchestra layout…..The same way I wouldn’t generally examine individual brush strokes when appreciating a painting. That’s not to say that orchestral placement and brushstrokes aren't important, they just don’t contribute to sending shivers down my spine

 

[tima]

Given that all these qualities are inextricably linked and clearly interact with and are influenced by one another in a predicable, musical and natural way, I can’t see how they would belong to divorced charactereristics of either the system or the recording. In my mind they are all part of the same thing, collectively ‘imaging’ as in ‘an image of the venue and of the musicians within it”

Sure - I wasn't advocating for that - I was responding to the part of Karen's msg I quoted. Speculating on an explanation of the audiophile vocabulary associated to soundstage and imaging that was mostly developed in TAS. I presume you acknowledge that a fair amount of audio reproduction description actually uses words such as 'soundstage', 'depth', 'imaging'. I have some but little sense of that listening to a live concert - more so of context, ambiance and energy. My 'take' is likewise a more integrated perception - especially if I close my eyes.

We may not be as apart as you think.

 

[PeterA]

Sure - I wasn't advocating for that - I was responding to the part of Karen's msg I quoted. Speculating on an explanation of the audiophile vocabulary associated to soundstage and imaging that was mostly developed in TAS. I presume you acknowledge that a fair amount of audio reproduction description actually uses words such as 'soundstage', 'depth', 'imaging'. I have some but little sense of that listening to a live concert - more so of context, ambiance and energy. My 'take' is likewise a more integrated perception - especially if I close my eyes.

We may not be as apart as you think.

listening with eyes wide shut is an interesting concept to me. It’s been so long since I’ve been to a live classical concert, but what I recall is that the actual sound does not change whether your eyes are open or shut. But the perception of that sound and what you hear in terms of locating the sources up on stage does seem to change a little bit depending on whether or not your eyes are open or closed.

I think I read the argument from someone here that because listening with our eyes open is part of the experience at a live concert and our eyes help us locate precisely where the sound is coming from, that should be part of the recorded music experience at home where we don’t have those same visual cues and is therefore a defense of pinpoint imaging and stark outlines.

Do these visual sonic effects make the recorded sound seem more real at home?

 

[Blackmorec]

Rearranged below

 

[Karen Sumner]

My concern is that tonality and dynamics per se are poor frames to assemble a system, or even our enjoyment. Or perhaps the way we usually evaluate and refer to them is too vague and undefined.

And yes, I have seen systems without good tonality that sounded great, able to convey a lot of emotion.

Microstrip -

I must admit that it is refreshing for someone to give us a reason to stimulate further discussion. Thank you!

One of the things that I have learned in my brief WBF experience is that audiophiles (not a pejorative term in my mind, BTW) approach the hobby from different vantage points, not only with respect to each other, but these vantage points also combine and develop differently for each person over time. I think the challenge is to come up with some ways to describe our experiences so that we can at least begin to share what we are experiencing without judgment.

I don't view tonal balance and dynamics as absolutes. They are big picture concepts that depend upon the evolution of one's musical tastes and listening system/environment. One might start this hobby with a music reproduction system that provides a very nice snapshot of tonal balance and dynamics, but the hope is that one has the opportunity to appreciate the highly resolved infinitely focussed wide-angle lens view of music that only the best systems can deliver if set up properly in an optimized listening space.

I think your comments are worth exploring for the benefit of everyone out there who isn't weighing in on these threads, but questions how the concepts I've been discussing apply to their view of the high end audio experience. I would like to hear more from you and others who have questions about what are the most important criteria in reproduced music to one's listening enjoyment at home.

You mentioned that you have seen systems without good tonality that sounded great, and were able to convey a lot of emotion. I don't doubt that that is the case. For example, I have heard many systems which produce a 4-6 kHz "pay attention to me" bump that is very exciting to hear. Unfortunately over time, our ears and body can't be fooled by "Miracle Grow" sound when what are ears naturally seek is earthier and more organic. It's really not important that we are able after extended listening to articulate the fact that the upper mid-range lower high-end prominence draws energy and attention away from the complex and rich timbral qualities of strings, woodwinds, and brass, but if one were listening to a system such as that every day for hours, I believe that one would grow tired of the sound.

I need to take a break right now, and get on with something else on my calendar. I welcome new entries to the conversation.

 

[Blackmorec]

Sure - I wasn't advocating for that - I was responding to the part of Karen's msg I quoted. Speculating on an explanation of the audiophile vocabulary associated to soundstage and imaging that was mostly developed in TAS. I presume you acknowledge that a fair amount of audio reproduction description actually uses words such as 'soundstage', 'depth', 'imaging'. I have some but little sense of that listening to a live concert - more so of context, ambiance and energy. My 'take' is likewise a more integrated perception - especially if I close my eyes.

We may not be as apart as you think.

Oh you’re right there! We may well sit next to one another in a demo or concert, discuss what we heard and end up violently agreeing with one another….its one of the downsides of this type of dialog. Its just that sometimes a post stimulates me to write when i feel i have an alternate explanation or interpretation. Im particularly interested in this discussion because a recent 3 year long project to optimize my network has really opened up new listening experiences for me, where I gradually leaving behind those audiophile descriptions which are no longer adequate to discuss the changes I’m hearing, which are more about how the music makes me feel

 

[Blackmorec]

listening with eyes wide shut is an interesting concept to me. It’s been so long since I’ve been to a live classical concert, but what I recall is that the actual sound does not change whether your eyes are open or shut. But the perception of that sound and what you hear in terms of locating the sources up on stage does seem to change a little bit depending on whether or not your eyes are open or closed.

I think I read the argument from someone here that because listening with our eyes open is part of the experience at a live concert and our eyes help us locate precisely where the sound is coming from, that should be part of the recorded music experience at home where we don’t have those same visual cues and is therefore a defense of pinpoint imaging and stark outlines.

Do these visual sonic effects make the recorded sound seem more real at home?

Hi Peter,
The reason I dim the lights and close my eyes at home is due to the huge dichotomy between what I hear….a large hall and symphony orchestra…and see.….a room with 2 loudspeakers that for all intents and purposes sound like they are mute, despite all the music around them. I find this dichotomy so extreme its discombobulating as my brain tries to sort the contradiction between huge 3 dimensional sound and flat 2 dimensional speaker arrangement. As soon as the lights are off, my brain is simply overwhelmed by the music and thoughts of hi-fi and speakers, indeed any conscious thought rarely distract, assuming the music is good enough
Pinpoint imaging is important to locate the physical origin of eachnote, but should disappear the millisecond the note starts to bloom. If you have 2 very similar sources of sound, with simliar frequency spectra, the pinpoint location of each note‘s start prevents the sounds becoming homogenised and combined, so imaging is of critical importance to keep similar frequencies and spectra separated into 2 similar entities rather than one homogenized, unbalanced sound.

In a concert hall, what you see is just as valid a part of the experience as what you hear. That’s not at all true in a hi-fi room.

If you think about the brain as being the last processing stage of your music chain, then all a visual signal does is increase the noise level dramatically. You simply hear more with your eyes closed because you’ve attenuated a massive noise source that’s occupying large parts of your brain‘s processing power.

 

[Karen Sumner]

listening with eyes wide shut is an interesting concept to me. It’s been so long since I’ve been to a live classical concert, but what I recall is that the actual sound does not change whether your eyes are open or shut. But the perception of that sound and what you hear in terms of locating the sources up on stage does seem to change a little bit depending on whether or not your eyes are open or closed.

I think I read the argument from someone here that because listening with our eyes open is part of the experience at a live concert and our eyes help us locate precisely where the sound is coming from, that should be part of the recorded music experience at home where we don’t have those same visual cues and is therefore a defense of pinpoint imaging and stark outlines.

Do these visual sonic effects make the recorded sound seem more real at home?

Trying to achieve soundstage effects through component choices and room set up while not robbing a system of its ability to reproduce tonal balance, the timbral quality of instruments, and dynamic nuance is like walking on a knife edge. Very often the meat of the music suffers.

More on this later when I have more time.

 

[PeterA]

Hi Peter,
The reason I dim the lights and close my eyes at home is due to the huge dichotomy between what I hear….a large hall and symphony orchestra…and see.….a room with 2 loudspeakers that for all intents and purposes sound like they are mute, despite all the music around them. I find this dichotomy so extreme its discombobulating as my brain tries to sort the contradiction between huge 3 dimensional sound and flat 2 dimensional speaker arrangement. As soon as the lights are off, my brain is simply overwhelmed by the music and thoughts of hi-fi and speakers, indeed any conscious thought rarely distract, assuming the music is good enough
Pinpoint imaging is important to locate the physical origin of eachnote, but should disappear the millisecond the note starts to bloom. If you have 2 very similar sources of sound, with simliar frequency spectra, the pinpoint location of each note‘s start prevents the sounds becoming homogenised and combined, so imaging is of critical importance to keep similar frequencies and spectra separated into 2 similar entities rather than one homogenized, unbalanced sound.

In a concert hall, what you see is just as valid a part of the experience as what you hear. That’s not at all true in a hi-fi room.

If you think about the brain as being the last processing stage of your music chain, then all a visual signal does is increase the noise level dramatically. You simply hear more with your eyes closed because you’ve attenuated a massive noise source that’s occupying large parts of your brain‘s processing power.

Hello Blackmorec,

I completely agree about the dichotomy between the live concert experience and the home room listening experience, both visually and in scale.

I listen with the lights very low or off and often with my eyes closed while sitting on my sofa. I don’t need the very precise pinpoint imaging and stark image outlines to make the at home listening experience more similar to the concert hall listening experience. In fact I find them distracting enhancements because I don’t experience those when listening to live music. I agree with you that a recording of two mandolins up on stage next to each other playing a duet with an orchestra behind them requires some differentiation in space to sound more natural and convincing. A good resolving system should be able to portray.

Perhaps this is what Karen is getting after when she says a system that Presents good tonal and dynamic information also gets the spatial information from the recording more or less correct. As I dial in a cartridge, I notice that an instrument’s timbre and dynamics improve and along with that comes more believable spatial information and a sense of the ambience of the recording venue. They all seem to come hand-in-hand with improved set up.

 

[Blackmorec]

Sure - I wasn't advocating for that - I was responding to the part of Karen's msg I quoted. Speculating on an explanation of the audiophile vocabulary associated to soundstage and imaging that was mostly developed in TAS. I presume you acknowledge that a fair amount of audio reproduction description actually uses words such as 'soundstage', 'depth', 'imaging'. I have some but little sense of that listening to a live concert - more so of context, ambiance and energy. My 'take' is likewise a more integrated perception - especially if I close my eyes.

We may not be as apart as you think.

Hi Tima,
It may very well be that we share the same ultimate goals but our experiences very much governed how we got there and its clear they will differ quite immensely between us, so when we talk based on experiences, what we say may be quite different, yet lead to the same place ultimately…..there’s multiple paths to get to our goals.

Talking paths; I’m taking the path of ridiculous, obsessional network refinement….all my investment is with the network. Why? Because it gives outstanding results that make the whole of my system sound universally better. Its like a magic door into sound improvement> Whats really nice is to know where the best investments will fit and why. I have got several system-wide improvements lined up, all very exciting and impactful…..
Another path would be to buy a Taiko Extreme server, but then Emile has all the fun