The magic of stereo

[microstrip]

Audiophiles are like children at a circus – they play their recordings waiting for an illusion – to listen to something that equates in their minds the real thing.

We know that this an impossible task with stereo – no system with two single sources can produce the tridimensional acoustic image that is needed to perform this trick. This task would be completely impossible without the help of our brain processing and memory capabilities. We need extra information to fill the incomplete picture, reaching a level where we can reconstruct an illusion to a point we can immerse in it. Happily here we have the help of many magicians – the recording and mastering engineers, the electronics and loudspeakers designers, and the acoustic engineers. All of them just have a common objective – fool us! For this, they supply us with extra clues that they get either during the recording process and add a later phase. They can do it because they expect us to use the stereo system having some known characteristics, but our diversity can be an obstacle to their trick.

Most of this people really work like magicians – they combine a fantastic empirical knowledge of the whole process of recording reproduction, mostly based on observation and experience, with some basic science and technology needed for development.

To get this illusion, every part of the process must be perfectly carried – otherwise we see how the trick is being done and the magic disappears.

As, even today, in the proper environment, I like to see when the magician produces a rabbit out of a hat that seemed to be completely empty, I would like to open this tread to the discussion of the magic of stereo – excluding surround sound, as they do not need so much magic.

 

[mep]

Unlike some others on this forum that moan and groan about stereo and rant about how flawed the process is, I like it. It works good enough for me. I don’t pine for binaural, ambisonics, stereophonics, multi-channel sound, blah, blah, blah. My two channel system is in a different part of the house than my AV system. Dolby Digital is fine for listening to TV programs and movies. If I’m going to seriously listen to music, it will be in my two channel music room.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Unlike some others on this forum that moan and groan about stereo and rant about how flawed the process is, I like it. It works good enough for me. I don’t pine for binaural, ambisonics, stereophonics, multi-channel sound, blah, blah, blah. My two channel system is in a different part of the house than my AV system. Dolby Digital is fine for listening to TV programs and movies. If I’m going to seriously listen to music, it will be in my two channel music room.

On this, we completely agree, Mark. I'm not looking for magic. I dropped that quest years ago. I accept what hifi is capable of, the limitations of all systems, of my systems, and of my room, and I enjoy what they're good at instead of trying to imagine what they cannot possibly accomplish. We may not agree on what they can accomplish, but here's my take -- I could hopelessly reach for recreation of the "original event." Instead, I've accepted that there are some things my systems can do better than a live performance ever could -- pinpoint imaging from speakers that simply doesn't exist live, a "headstage" which wraps the music around my noggin when I have my headphones on that, while utterly unnatural, is a whole lot of fun, and way more revealing of detail than any live event, and a quiet background that cannot exist in a roomful of people.

I don't know if I'm just lucky enough that what hifi can deliver is what I like or if I've decided to like what hifi can deliver, but it's working for me. It doesn't sound like live (more often than not, its better!), but neither does any system I've ever heard, at any cost.

It sounds like hifi. And while I don't have the best hifi I've ever heard, but it's very, very good, and I like it.

Tim.

 

[microstrip]

On this, we completely agree, Mark. I'm not looking for magic. I dropped that quest years ago. I accept what hifi is capable of, the limitations of all systems, of my systems, and of my room, and I enjoy what they're good at instead of trying to imagine what they cannot possibly accomplish. We may not agree on what they can accomplish, but here's my take -- I could hopelessly reach for recreation of the "original event." Instead, I've accepted that there are some things my systems can do better than a live performance ever could -- pinpoint imaging from speakers that simply doesn't exist live, a "headstage" which wraps the music around my noggin when I have my headphones on that, while utterly unnatural, is a whole lot of fun, and way more revealing of detail than any live event, and a quiet background that cannot exist in a roomful of people.

I don't know if I'm just lucky enough that what hifi can deliver is what I like or if I've decided to like what hifi can deliver, but it's working for me. It doesn't sound like live (more often than not, its better!), but neither does any system I've ever heard, at any cost.

It sounds like hifi. And while I don't have the best hifi I've ever heard, but it's very, very good, and I like it.

Tim.

Tim,

Sorry to learn you decided forget about the "magic" - or perhaps my message was not understood.

What did you mean by writing "accept the limitations of all systems? " Are you implying that no system can create a better illusion of reality than yours?

BTW, you never recreate the life event - this is not the purpose of the reproduction of sound. You recreate a copy with quality enough to recreate it in your mind.

 

[mep]

Tim-With many jazz recordings, my system comes spooky close to sounding *almost* live. Almost because I doubt we will ever replicate the sound of say a jazz combo playing live in our rooms. But a pretty damn good imitation of it though. I just received a 15 ips 2 track tape (actually two tapes-one for each side) of Sonny Rollins "Sound of Sonny" last night and what a treat it was. I'm also blown away at the regular reissues of famous jazz lps that sell for around $10 at my local record dealer. I have't gotten a sonic dog yet. There is something special about the way most jazz music was recorded. You just get the sense that everyone really cared about the sound they captured because it shows LP after LP. Back to the point of the thread, I'm very happy with Stereo and the illusion it easily creates for me. I can *see* where the bass player is standing, where the piano is, and where the drum kit is. I can see how all of the cymbals are arranged. I get a sense of the depth from one player to another.

 

[microstrip]

Unlike some others on this forum that moan and groan about stereo and rant about how flawed the process is, I like it. It works good enough for me. I don’t pine for binaural, ambisonics, stereophonics, multi-channel sound, blah, blah, blah. My two channel system is in a different part of the house than my AV system. Dolby Digital is fine for listening to TV programs and movies. If I’m going to seriously listen to music, it will be in my two channel music room.

mep,

I share your practice and use AV only to movies. I have perfected my stereo system to a point I really enjoy it.

Having listened a few times to classical music in a top quality multichannel system - properly recorded, not the usual man inside the orchestra - I know that it can recreate a live experience in excellent conditions. But there are so few available recordings that I like that do not find worth going that way. Others, with different musical preferences will surely disagree.

 

[JackD201]

At a dealer's showroom they had this really amusing "trick" recording. It was of a bunch of drummers like that you'd find in a marching band and they marched around you. The effect was surround sound with just 2 channels. It was achieved without any special gear on the part of the recordists, just some judicious tweaking of phase, panning and FR eq. Sort of like stop motion animation for settings at various positions. I wish I had a copy of that CD. Yes it was a parlor trick of sorts, a novelty, but it did demonstrate stereo's potential if one has a system and room up to the task.

Personally, I think that I sometimes over intellectualize how stuff works. I guess it is human nature to want to know about anything and everything so there's not much that can be done on that front. The best thing I've learned in audio, and it took a fair amount of time to learn it, is how to get myself to easily switch from critical listening to active listening for pleasure or more simply to be able to switch focus from sonics to music.

 

[fas42]

microstrip, nice thread!

Frank

 

[mep]

At a dealer's showroom they had this really amusing "trick" recording. It was of a bunch of drummers like that you'd find in a marching band and they marched around you. The effect was surround sound with just 2 channels. It was achieved without any special gear on the part of the recordists, just some judicious tweaking of phase, panning and FR eq. Sort of like stop motion animation for settings at various positions. I wish I had a copy of that CD. Yes it was a parlor trick of sorts, a novelty, but it did demonstrate stereo's potential if one has a system and room up to the task.

Personally, I think that I sometimes over intellectualize how stuff works. I guess it is human nature to want to know about anything and everything so there's not much that can be done on that front. The best thing I've learned in audio, and it took a fair amount of time to learn it, is how to get myself to easily switch from critical listening to active listening for pleasure or more simply to be able to switch focus from sonics to music.

Jack-Some of the Pink Floyd recordings have wrap around sound effects even though it is 2 channel audio. DSOTM has some spots that you would swear you had some speakers on the side walls and almost behind you. When those clocks come in, man oh man.

 

[RBFC]

Roger Waters' Amused to Death is recorded in Q Sound, which produces a "surround" effect from normal stereo.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-With many jazz recordings, my system comes spooky close to sounding *almost* live. Almost because I doubt we will ever replicate the sound of say a jazz combo playing live in our rooms. But a pretty damn good imitation of it though. I just received a 15 ips 2 track tape (actually two tapes-one for each side) of Sonny Rollins "Sound of Sonny" last night and what a treat it was. I'm also blown away at the regular reissues of famous jazz lps that sell for around $10 at my local record dealer. I have't gotten a sonic dog yet. There is something special about the way most jazz music was recorded. You just get the sense that everyone really cared about the sound they captured because it shows LP after LP. Back to the point of the thread, I'm very happy with Stereo and the illusion it easily creates for me. I can *see* where the bass player is standing, where the piano is, and where the drum kit is. I can see how all of the cymbals are arranged. I get a sense of the depth from one player to another.

Yeah, the thing about the old jazz records, especially once you get into the late 50s and beyond when much better mics, tape machines, boards, etc, got into the game, is that they are simple. As often as not, they are made with a handful of mics in a good-sounding room with all the musicians playing at once. Even when they got fancy, the rhythm section was typically recorded "live, in studio," and only the solos were overdubbed. It not only impacts the quality of the recording by limiting the ability to eq and process the life out of individual instruments, it impacts the quality of the performances by putting the musicians in a room together, playing together, the way music is made. Some of those recordings, warts and all, are the bomb.

But the illusion is still elusive. You can get a lot of it going on, and the mind can fill in the rest but A) Studio recordings are always going to be too clean, too devoid of the ambience of a live performance and B) there just isn't a way for two, or even 5.1 speakers to image and project the way live acoustic music does, a way in which each instrument images and projects independently and differently. So I've learned to love what the stereo illusion has to offer. I think we all have, whether we're fully aware of it or not.

By the way, the modern answer to the great jazz recordings, I think, are some of the best acoustic albums. More overdubbing and processing, to be sure, but still, there is a philosophy in play in the best of it that keeps it from getting overdone, keeps it pure, makes for some really beautiful recordings. I had a long listening session last night that sent me to bed feeling quite wonderful. It consisted of

Blue Horse -- The Be Good Tanyas

Allison Krause And Union Station Live

Little Sparrow -- Dolly Parton

All drop-dead gorgeous recordings in their own right. If you think of Dolly the way most people do, that one will really surprise you.

Tim

 

[mep]

Tim-lots of jazz recordings were done live and you get all of the ambience. Bill Evans "Waltz for Debbie" is one example. You can almost make out some of the conversations going on at the tables and of course, you always hear the glasses tinkling. Wasn't almost every jazz band recorded live at the Village Vanguard or does it just seem like it? What a venue that place must have been.

 

[tony ky ma]

no difficulty to be the magician

I don't think there are any difficulty to be the magician of audio, just listen to a tape which duded from very close to the master tape or the real master tape, by a pro recorder in a multi amp system (at least 3 ways) in tubes. I am quite sure you will have the magic !
tony ma

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim-lots of jazz recordings were done live and you get all of the ambience. Bill Evans "Waltz for Debbie" is one example. You can almost make out some of the conversations going on at the tables and of course, you always hear the glasses tinkling. Wasn't almost every jazz band recorded live at the Village Vanguard or does it just seem like it? What a venue that place must have been.

I love those too, Mark, and have lots of them.

ON EDIT: You do, of course, understand that Waltz for Debby, like most live albums, was not recorded in stereo from an audience position, to capture the natural ambience of the space? There were, no doubt, microphones on stage and microphones in the audience and the "room ambience" was mixed in after the fact. These "live" albums, while capturing some audience/room ambience are no less of a construct than "live, in studio" recordings. Actually they sometimes require more manipulation to produce an acceptable result.

T

 

[Steve williams]

http://www.qsound.com/index.htm

 

[NorthStar]

QSound => cool stuff!

From my eight CDs encoded with QSound; Roger waters "Amused to Death", is my favorite one!

* I use it to check my speakers "Stereo" Best Separation and Imaging. ...It is MAGIC STEREO!

http://www.ingsoc.com/waters/info/sounds.html

 

[microstrip]

(...)
But the illusion is still elusive. You can get a lot of it going on, and the mind can fill in the rest but A) Studio recordings are always going to be too clean, too devoid of the ambience of a live performance and B) there just isn't a way for two, or even 5.1 speakers to image and project the way live acoustic music does, a way in which each instrument images and projects independently and differently. So I've learned to love what the stereo illusion has to offer. I think we all have, whether we're fully aware of it or not.
(...)

Tim,

You are highlighting an important aspect of music that - the way instruments project in space. Contrary to your opinion, I find that with a very good stereo system , each instrument can image and project independently and differently. Not like the real thing, but close enough to trigger our brain 3D reconstruction processes.

I have had many experiences of almost holographic 3D soundspaces - some of the best were using two Reference Recording CDs - Stravinsky Histoire du Soldat and Tafelmusik by Helicon Ensemble. But part of it is just the way the instruments project their sound, also suggesting the way they produce it.

I am just now listening to the excellent Jan Garbareck "I took up the runes". My system (all tubes) started form cold. During the first half an hour all the image was there, but there was no projection - some people would simply say boring. Now everything is much better, instruments have the correct power, drums have have impact, the Nana Vasconcelos percussion floats in space independent of the many voices (track 10) .

Just to finish - many times we audiophiles that own vinyl just prefer the vinyl because of the way it projects much better. Listen to the classical Harry James Shefield Direct cut LP versus the CD version in a system with very good sound-staging capability and you will understand what I mean.

 

[Jay_S]

Wasn't almost every jazz band recorded live at the Village Vanguard or does it just seem like it? What a venue that place must have been.

Yup, the legendary performers may be mostly gone but the club is still there and is a great place to see a show. It's surprisingly small and very intimate.

 

[Tom Danley]

microstrip, great subject!

Boy this is a subject that has made the hair stand on the back of my neck for a long time.
I have made a couple posts elsewhere here talking about how some things in measurements sound like something entirely different and how a loudspeaker property not visible in a single measurement would have a strong bearing on it’s ability to image.

What I do know firsthand is that when everything is right, one can create a seamless panorama from the left to right speaker, including an absolutely real mono phantom, all of which sounding like a big opening in the room wall to another space..

Ok, to be 100% honest, I have my own view about what is needed but first lets be clear about what the VAST majority of recordings are.
They are creations of a stereo image, if the mix engineer is good, he can construct placements that sound like the band is performing in front of you. Often enough, parts are recorded at separate times and it is possible that it was never performed as it was released.
Part of the problem here even when a band can perform 100% live is that the noise / stage volume contaminates all the open microphones. In other words, each snare drum hit has a separate time arrival at each of the say 33 open mic’s on stage. The problem with a sound system gets exponentially worse live as this sound also reaches all the microphones.

My work has been in loudspeakers, mostly an effort to low bass and then get “hifi” sound into large spaces. I have also been a recording buff and musician most of my life too.
To me, part of the problem is there isn’t a good way to capture a strong stereo image live. I have heard things that worked well when everything was right but nothing as strong as live hearing. Real is what I want.
Anyway, my point like how a loudspeaker can strongly effect the stereo image you hear, how a signal was captured also has a strong effect on how it images too.
Anyway, I can demonstrate an entirely different way of capturing a stereo or multi channel image.

I recorded this with a microphone array I am working on based on “how it looks to me”, this was two generations ago during the summer. I heard my neighbor Donny out on his bike, I had the system set up and working indoors already so I asked him if I could record him driving by as a test, he said sure.
In other words, a well planed elaborate recording session it wasn’t, I happened to have it working when I heard him drive by..
The down side is it isn’t really portable, pretty or patented yet so I have a limited selection of esoteric outdoor noises as samples (although there live music that needs to be posted).

Anyway, if interested in a stereo image, TRY THIS with headphones preferably first. This was a quiet summer afternoon; the system is in the driveway about 40 feet from the road going by my house. There is no compression and so you will find the average level is very low, you may have to turn it up.

http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/Donny's Harley.wav

See if that doesn’t capture “space” in a different way, let me know what you think good or bad.
Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs

 

[Steve williams]

Absolutely fascinating. I had to look around me for that motorcycle. Totally real.

I would be interested in knowing more Tom