SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

[Blackmorec]

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.

Hi Karen,
I agree completely.Finding that balance is diffucult. But I may have found a way to achieve it in an almost ‘results guaranteed way.’ That’s of course my own opinion with no second data point but it really does keep delivering very reliably with no diminishing returns…..the returns just keep getting bigger although the costs also keep growing commensurately (you cant have it all)
But the more you improve your network, the more you’ll get better tonal balance, timbral quality and accuracy, micro and macro dynamics but also lower noise, greater detail, greater Rhythmic ability, timing, rhythm, drive, PR&T, all the attributes in fact. And the better it gets the more it strongly influences feelings and emotions

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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.

Every book on sound engineering starts with a chapter on fundamental aspects of physics related to sound and a clear technical approach to the mechanisms of stereo sound recording.
They ignore the essence of the high-end - listener preferences. They select colored components with knowledge because they want their characteristic coloration to help creating an enjoyable recording. IMHO no approach to assembling an high-end sound reproduction system can be driven by recording engineers. In fact, a few of them wrote on creating stereo listening spaces and used a typical audio language. Recording engineers sometimes work with a producer - probably the person who takes care of the musical aspects.

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. (...)

Although fundamental articles on the high-end sound reproduction and communication are always welcome, and fortunately show many times in reviews, magazine readers expect reviews of specific components written in a way they describe the component performance and its specific capabilities. IMHO a language using mainly terminology associated to music reproduction will focus mainly on the whole system properties, making a great ensemble review but overlooking the component.

 

[tima]

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

This an important distinction. As you say, eyes open or shut, the music does not change. That is why I place less emphasis on the visual aspect of listening to music and the use of visual based terminology to describe it. I don't need to see the musicians to appreciate their performance. After all, Beethoven was blind for much of his career -- he couldn't even see the notes.

I do understand that sight is a critical aspect of existence for most of us and that closing the eyes changes our experience. However, in my audio room while listening, having my eyes open does nothing to enhance or encourage the listening experience -- in fact it can detract from that experience as it invokes visual function in my brain and is a sense I do not need to enjoy the music.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Sound (our perception of the air waves) is known to change from visuals. For example studies showed that playing with the illumination of the stage can change people perception of the intensity of sound.

We have a strong visual memory. Even if we later close our eyes the scene stays unconscionably. It is reported that music is played for recording in a different way form a live performance, just because of the absence of visuals. For example, "dead air" periods are usually avoided in recordings.

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?

This effect was deeply studied by several scholars in sound reproduction. It is called "the precedence effect".

I quote an an well known book on sound reproduction :

"Recent research (e.g., Blauert, 1996; Blauert and Divenyi, 1988; Djelani and Blauert, 2001; Litovsky et al., 1999) suggests that the precedence effect is cognitive, meaning that it occurs at a high level in the brain and not at a peripheral auditory level. Its purpose appears to be to
allow us to localize sound sources in reflective environments where the sound
field is so complicated by multiple reflections that sounds at the ears cannot be
continuously relied upon for accurate directional information. This leads to the
concept of “plausibility” wherein we accumulate data we can trust—both auditory
and visual—and persist in localizing sounds to those locations at times
when the auditory cues at our ears are contradictory (Rakerd and Hartmann,
1985)." (end of quote)

BTW, it is not a defense of your personnel view on "pinpoint imaging and stark outlines". I know it is mostly semantics, but I say it is a defense of properly achieved pinpoint in soundstage in recordings.

 

[Karen Sumner]

Hi Karen,
I agree completely.Finding that balance is diffucult. But I may have found a way to achieve it in an almost ‘results guaranteed way.’ That’s of course my own opinion with no second data point but it really does keep delivering very reliably with no diminishing returns…..the returns just keep getting bigger although the costs also keep growing commensurately (you cant have it all)
But the more you improve your network, the more you’ll get better tonal balance, timbral quality and accuracy, micro and macro dynamics but also lower noise, greater detail, greater Rhythmic ability, timing, rhythm, drive, PR&T, all the attributes in fact. And the better it gets the more it strongly influences feelings and emotions

Having spent the better part of last weekend chasing down network gremlins and unassigned IP addresses, I agree with you that network health is a very important part of the system if one is streaming or storing digital music. Perhaps you could start a thread to share some of the things you did to improve your network? Switches, cables, file storage?

 

[Karen Sumner]

Sound (our perception of the air waves) is known to change from visuals. For example studies showed that playing with the illumination of the stage can change people perception of the intensity of sound.

We have a strong visual memory. Even if we later close our eyes the scene stays unconscionably. It is reported that music is played for recording in a different way form a live performance, just because of the absence of visuals. For example, "dead air" periods are usually avoided in recordings.



This effect was deeply studied by several scholars in sound reproduction. It is called "the precedence effect".

I quote an an well known book on sound reproduction :

"Recent research (e.g., Blauert, 1996; Blauert and Divenyi, 1988; Djelani and Blauert, 2001; Litovsky et al., 1999) suggests that the precedence effect is cognitive, meaning that it occurs at a high level in the brain and not at a peripheral auditory level. Its purpose appears to be to
allow us to localize sound sources in reflective environments where the sound
field is so complicated by multiple reflections that sounds at the ears cannot be
continuously relied upon for accurate directional information. This leads to the
concept of “plausibility” wherein we accumulate data we can trust—both auditory
and visual—and persist in localizing sounds to those locations at times
when the auditory cues at our ears are contradictory (Rakerd and Hartmann,
1985)." (end of quote)

BTW, it is not a defense of your personnel view on "pinpoint imaging and stark outlines". I know it is mostly semantics, but I say it is a defense of properly achieved pinpoint in soundstage in recordings.

Pinpoints are pretty invisible from a distance of more than a few feet. When I hear a soloist or highlighted musician play in a concert hall with an orchestral background on a decent recording, I hear sound emanating from the body of the instrument. The timing and amplitude of the signal combined with the size, dispersion characteristics, and timbre of the instrument create the sense of a physical presence located within the acoustic environment. If we're all talking about the same thing with different words, great!

 

[Rhapsody]

Having spent the better part of last weekend chasing down network gremlins and unassigned IP addresses, I agree with you that network health is a very important part of the system if one is streaming or storing digital music. Perhaps you could start a thread to share some of the things you did to improve your network? Switches, cables, file storage?

Blacmorec did start a thread on this subject in 2020. We discussed network improvements for 40 pages at that time.....

Network Improvements and their Impact on Sound Quality

The goal of this thread is to share experiences with the Network environment associated with streamed digital music. The hypothesis is that just like other areas of audio, improvements to and optimization of the quality of the network used to stream digital music can have a very positive impact...

www.whatsbestforum.com

 

[Karen Sumner]

Although fundamental articles on the high-end sound reproduction and communication are always welcome, and fortunately show many times in reviews, magazine readers expect reviews of specific components written in a way they describe the component performance and its specific capabilities. IMHO a language using mainly terminology associated to music reproduction will focus mainly on the whole system properties, making a great ensemble review but overlooking the component.

Hi, Microstrip -

I've had a chance to read some of your posts on other threads, and I think I understand a little bit better where you are coming from on some of these issues. I am glad you are part of the discussion.

For example, on Lee's thread entitled "The Best Sound I Have Heard Was at Jacob Heilbrunn's House":

Also pretending that audiophiles who like to change gear are just "audiophile nervosa merry-go-round" type is ignoring part of this hobby and its roots in stereo sound reproduction. IMHO WBF and our discussions are just a proof of how different modes of enjoying it and preferences can coexist. If audiophiles focused just on the music WBF would never exist. At best it would be WBEG - What is the Best End Game and would end in a few weeks.

You are obviously a big advocate of the experimental nature of this hobby. I think that's a fine approach if someone has the time, money, and interest. It's likely that most experimentalists also love music, so I can't see harm in making it more likely that sound experiments result in real advances in fidelity, rather than just differences in sound.

Many audio publications component reviews, given the limitations of the existing hifi language, center on sonic differences compared to other components, not so much on the component's degree of fidelity compared to any sort of reference. Publishing component reviews is a good idea because customers want them, but shifting the discussion more in the direction of the fidelity of the component with respect to actual musical qualities and putting these qualities within the context of an analysis of component interactions and compatibility and the reviewer's room acoustics would ground the discussion in things that customers also need to consider before making an audio investment. Because we have been operating the industry for quite a few years without grounding it with the concept of fidelity and what that means musically, very few "salmon" make it all the way up stream. I congratulate those of you who have made it!

Our industry talks all the time about finding ways to attract the next generation of audiophiles, and yet the only way we can really reach them is through their hearts, and the most powerful tool with which we have to do that is music.

 

[PeterA]

Pinpoints are pretty invisible from a distance of more than a few feet. When I hear a soloist or highlighted musician play in a concert hall with an orchestral background on a decent recording, I hear sound emanating from the body of the instrument. The timing and amplitude of the signal combined with the size, dispersion characteristics, and timbre of the instrument create the sense of a physical presence located within the acoustic environment. If we're all talking about the same thing with different words, great!

Karen, To me, "pinpoint" means tiny and precise. I hear neither of those characteristics from an instrument being played live right in front of me or from individual instruments in an orchestra up on stage at some distance. I hear, and feel, an incredible ever-expanding energy until it fades. I certainly see a small and specific location for the piccolo, and the clear outline of the instrument, up on stage when looking for it, but what I hear is completely different. I hear a piercing sound from an approximate location on stage with vague dimension rapidly expanding outward to fill the space in which the piccolo is being played. That sound then quickly mingles with the sounds of other instruments that may exist in the space and then reacts to the boundaries of that space. It becomes a complex rapidly changing sound. Nothing is tiny or precise.

Some systems do indeed present a tiny and precise image of this recorded piccolo. The sound is specific and contained within an envelope in space around the speakers. It is as if one is observing it because it exists as a separate almost visible thing in the room. Tang described this listening experience as similar to the world contained in the glass ball sitting on a table able to be picked up and held and looked at. Sometimes, one feels as though he can reach out and grab the instrument or walk around it on a virtual stage because the image is holographic. These images often exist with space, often black, between them. Components, wires, and set up, in such systems are often chosen for their ability to enhance these effects.

Other systems present the sound of that piccolo more as I hear it live in a concert hall, not small and precise, but always expanding into the listening room to envelope the listener. One has a sense of where the sound originates relative to other instruments on a stage, but there is not the precisely defined image. What do the sound of a chirping bird or roaring lion look like? Which presentation the listener prefers is personal choice.

My earlier system was quite adept at being able to create both of these types of presentation, depending on set up and some choices about room treatments, wires, and equipment supports. I learned much about sound perception and presentation relative to the live reference when experimenting with that system.

I think the words we, or a reviewer, choose to use say much about how we think about sound, audio goals, and the presentation of our systems in the room. It seems to me from reading their posts that Karen Sumner and Microstrip are describing very different sounds and system presentations.

 

[Karen Sumner]

Blacmorec did start a thread on this subject in 2020. We discussed network improvements for 40 pages at that time.....

Network Improvements and their Impact on Sound Quality

The goal of this thread is to share experiences with the Network environment associated with streamed digital music. The hypothesis is that just like other areas of audio, improvements to and optimization of the quality of the network used to stream digital music can have a very positive impact...

www.whatsbestforum.com

I will check it out. Thank you!

 

[microstrip]

This an important distinction. As you say, eyes open or shut, the music does not change. That is why I place less emphasis on the visual aspect of listening to music and the use of visual based terminology to describe it. I don't need to see the musicians to appreciate their performance. After all, Beethoven was blind for much of his career -- he couldn't even see the notes.

Congratulations that you manage to ignore the visual - but I should remember that the sound reproduction and audio industries targets at the common music lover, not to the trained exceptions. For example see this quote form an abstract of a IEEE paper

Abstract:
Human audio perception is influenced by vision and vice versa. The effect and thresholds of perceptual fusion, for example the ventriloquism-effect, are well investigated for natural listening conditions in the horizontal plane. (...)

I do understand that sight is a critical aspect of existence for most of us and that closing the eyes changes our experience. However, in my audio room while listening, having my eyes open does nothing to enhance or encourage the listening experience -- in fact it can detract from that experience as it invokes visual function in my brain and is a sense I do not need to enjoy the music.

Surely. But we are addressing listening in the presence of a dynamic visual stimulus correlated with sound, not of the audio room. The point is that there is manipulated information in the recordings to compensate for the absence of visuals. Producers even changed the disposition and balance of the orchestra for recording.

 

[microstrip]

Pinpoints are pretty invisible from a distance of more than a few feet. When I hear a soloist or highlighted musician play in a concert hall with an orchestral background on a decent recording, I hear sound emanating from the body of the instrument. The timing and amplitude of the signal combined with the size, dispersion characteristics, and timbre of the instrument create the sense of a physical presence located within the acoustic environment. If we're all talking about the same thing with different words, great!

IMHO using the figure of a soloist can give us a wrong idea of pinpoint. Pinpoint does not mean small dimension or etched. Pinpoint means you can locate the relative positions of the musicians and layers with accuracy in the soundstage in the sound reproduction, trying to approach the perception you have sighted in a concert hall. Pinpoint means that if the musician is moving in the soundstage you can feel him moving. Pinpoint means that in Janet See

Focusing the discussion just in sound reproduction of a large orchestra playing symphonies omits some of the relevant aspects of pinpoint. In my view pinpoint means that, for example, in the excellent recording of Vivaldi flute concertos in Harmonia Mundi with Janet See, engineered by Peter McGrath, we are able to feel almost physically the two separate flutists in RV533, not just follow the music lines. The same for many Savall recordings, as I have referred before.

Supreme heresy I will refer here to the well known Gregorio Paniagua Harmonia Mundi recording "La Folia". If you want to listen and enjoy this recording with the full detail, you need a system with pinpoint ability. Or some Xenakis recordings, BTW.

 

[tima]

For example see this quote form an abstract of a IEEE paper

Microstrip, you love to cite vague references to what other's say and expect them to make your points for you. This is ineffective scholarship. If you want to proceed include a full reference citation to documentation publically available on the Web. No abstracts, no paywall journals. PDF download is fine. Presumably you know how to do that. Actual scholarship, not potempkin scholarship.

 

[microstrip]

Karen, To me, "pinpoint" means tiny and precise.

Not the usual meaning that reviewers or manufacturers use the word, IMHO. Precise yes, but not "tiny". ESL63's or Wilson's are known for their pinpoint abilities - everyone refers to it. They do not produce "tiny" images - the contrary IMHO.

I hear neither of those characteristics from an instrument being played live right in front of me or from individual instruments in an orchestra up on stage at some distance. I hear, and feel, an incredible ever-expanding energy until it fades. I certainly see a small and specific location for the piccolo, and the clear outline of the instrument, up on stage when looking for it, but what I hear is completely different. I hear a piercing sound from an approximate location on stage with vague dimension rapidly expanding outward to fill the space in which the piccolo is being played. That sound then quickly mingles with the sounds of other instruments that may exist in the space and then reacts to the boundaries of that space. It becomes a complex rapidly changing sound. Nothing is tiny or precise.

Some systems do indeed present a tiny and precise image of this recorded piccolo. The sound is specific and contained within an envelope in space around the speakers. It is as if one is observing it because it exists as a separate almost visible thing in the room. Tang described this listening experience as similar to the world contained in the glass ball sitting on a table able to be picked up and held and looked at. Sometimes, one feels as though he can reach out and grab the instrument or walk around it on a virtual stage because the image is holographic. These images often exist with space, often black, between them. Components, wires, and set up, in such systems are often chosen for their ability to enhance these effects. Yes, some systems present tiny and precise images.

Other systems present the sound of that piccolo more as I hear it live in a concert hall, not small and precise, but always expanding into the listening room to envelope the listener. One has a sense of where the sound originates relative to other instruments on a stage, but there is not the precisely defined image. What do the sound of a chirping bird or roaring lion look like? Which presentation the listener prefers is personal choice.

My earlier system was quite adept at being able to create both of these types of presentation, depending on set up and some choices about room treatments, wires, and equipment supports. I learned much about sound perception and presentation relative to the live reference when experimenting with that system.

I think the words we, or a reviewer, choose to use say much about how we think about sound, audio goals, and the presentation of our systems in the room. It seems to me from reading their posts that Karen Sumner and Microstrip are describing very different sounds and system presentations.

Curiously, except for the great room Karen Summer owns, we basically shared almost exactly the same systems for some time, including cables.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, you love to cite vague references to what other's say and expect them to make your points for you. This is ineffective scholarship. If you want to proceed include a full reference citation to documentation publically available on the Web. No abstracts, no paywall journals. PDF download is fine. Presumably you know how to do that. Actual scholarship, not potempkin scholarship.

Tim,

Do you need some help on using advanced google? Even children can manage it.

And sorry, although I appreciate discussing stereo matters with you, particularly as we have different views, I do not appreciate condescending or insulting style. For me WBF is not court or an examination, it is supposed to be a friendly informal forum. My points were clear. Bye.

 

[tima]

Tim,

Do you need some help on using advanced google? Even children can manage it. And sorry, although I appreciate discussing stereo matters with you, particularly as we have different views, I do not appreciate condescending or insulting style. For me WBF is not court or an examination, it is supposed to be a friendly informal forum. My points were clear.

Sniff as you like. Your reader is the judge of your clarity.

You constantly offer vague citations to what others say. It is not friendly to expect your reader to take their time to search the internet for the references you use to make your points for you. Most will have the courtesy to, at minimum, provide a URL. I tried to encourage you to state your own beliefs, to be proactive with your own experience - that would keep things informal. Continually trying to use expert opinion turns the discussion more formal and less susceptible to engagement. But if you insist on that, you, not your reader, needs to supply references to their claims.

 

[tima]

Just ran across an interview with Karen by Steve Guttenberg in Stereophile that was one in a set of three interviews with women who are active with high-end audio. Lest we think Karen is coming anew to the issues we discuss on WBF, and that she covers in her essays here, the Stereophile artice is circa 2002.
Link below. Here's a snippet ...


Guttenberg: Hey, I'm an audiophile, and I take great pleasure in both music and sound. I believe that the audiophile lexicon—transparency, soundstage, etc.—can raise the listener's awareness and musical satisfaction.

Sumner: I disagree with you. I don't believe that soundstaging, for example, exists in real life the way we hear it in a two-channel audio system.

Guttenberg: Really!?!

Sumner: Really. We don't hear "soundstaging" at a live concert. You don't get pinpoint imaging in three-dimensional space in a concert hall—that's a recording artifact, and terms like "soundstage" are musically irrelevant. In that way of thinking, the recording has become the absolute sound, not the music. Yes, the concepts are interesting from an intellectual standpoint, but those words fixate audiophiles on specific elements of sound, as opposed to the entire musical presentation. I think audiophile magazines have really done our industry a disservice by defining the High End in terms of a "sound" lexicon. For the most part, the press seems to have missed the point—that the sound system's ability to reveal the finer musical details of the performance, the sound of the instruments, the venue, are far more relevant to creating a fulfilling musical experience than analyzing specific sonic qualities.

Guttenberg: Okay, but what about multichannel? Will SACD or DVD-Audio get us closer to hearing the music?

Kinda funny how Guttenberg quickly changes subjects after K's comment on audiophile magazines.

Sisters in Sound Karen Sumner part 2

Guttenberg: Wait a sec... Sumner: It's just that sometimes audiophilia is in direct odds with what music is all about. And I do agree that women may listen differently to an audio system, because they don't have an interest in using the system as a toy to manipulate sound. They look at it as a...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Blackmorec]

Here’s what I believe in this regard. When we say that soundstage and imaging doesn’t represent what we hear at a concert, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong or irrelevant. It just means that the capabilities of recording and replaying music are still insufficiently developed to provide a completely accurate facsimile of what we hear in a concert hall. Sound stage and imaging are going in the right direction, they just haven’t yet arrived. Throwing out imaging and soundstaging is the audio equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[PeterA]

Here’s what I believe in this regard. When we say that soundstage and imaging doesn’t represent what we hear at a concert, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong or irrelevant. It just means that the capabilities of recording and replaying music are still insufficiently developed to provide a completely accurate facsimile of what we hear in a concert hall. Sound stage and imaging are going in the right direction, they just haven’t yet arrived. Throwing out imaging and soundstaging is the audio equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I think through gear selection and set up approach, people can choose to create a system presentation that is either more like what we hear from a live concert or more full of audiophile sonic attributes. It is a matter of listener preference, goals, and choices, but people starting out need some kind of guidance.

The industry is good at differentiating between products but perhaps not so good at making the connection between how gear selection and set up can bring one closer to the experience of listening to live music.

The reviews are all about how one box sounds different from another box. My local dealer hands me a glass tablet and leaves me alone in the room to push buttons and listen to different sounds. He then tries to sell me accessories.

No wonder people are confused. Pinpoint images and stark outlines can be heard at the dealership and read about in magazines, but we don’t experience them at the concert hall.

 

[Karen Sumner]

IMHO using the figure of a soloist can give us a wrong idea of pinpoint. Pinpoint does not mean small dimension or etched. Pinpoint means you can locate the relative positions of the musicians and layers with accuracy in the soundstage in the sound reproduction, trying to approach the perception you have sighted in a concert hall. Pinpoint means that if the musician is moving in the soundstage you can feel him moving. Pinpoint means that in Janet See

Focusing the discussion just in sound reproduction of a large orchestra playing symphonies omits some of the relevant aspects of pinpoint. In my view pinpoint means that, for example, in the excellent recording of Vivaldi flute concertos in Harmonia Mundi with Janet See, engineered by Peter McGrath, we are able to feel almost physically the two separate flutists in RV533, not just follow the music lines. The same for many Savall recordings, as I have referred before.

Supreme heresy I will refer here to the well known Gregorio Paniagua Harmonia Mundi recording "La Folia". If you want to listen and enjoy this recording with the full detail, you need a system with pinpoint ability. Or some Xenakis recordings, BTW.

I am very familiar with the Harmonia Mundi recordings to which you refer. They are wonderful, and Harmonia Mundi continues to make recordings with a very high level of fidelity.

I think we are a lot closer to each other in our definitions of space and imaging than it appears on the face of things. The term "pinpoint imaging", however, could easily be misinterpreted by someone who has not yet logged in enough hours listening to live acoustic music or a well balanced high end audio system and is coming to the hobby because they want to hear more deeply into their studio-produced electronic music records.