What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Tim,
This was my question,above. Or what would be the properties of that driver...and the sound produced.
Let me put some meat on the bones here. I think we all agree that a master tape is the media for the best reproduction. Comparing that against any other source, you experience some percentage of generational loss.
Now what are the qualities or markers of the reproduced sound and sound stage when listening to that master tape. Compare that to a redbook CD for a example.
Now what are the qualities or markers of the reproduced sound and sound stage when listening to that master tape. Compare that to a redbook CD for a example.
Among other things, yes, uncompressed. But so much more. True height information. True depth information instead of an approximation created by varying volume levels in the mix and the woefully inadequate ability of mics and mic technique to capture room ambience, good S/N, and accurate tonality at once. Perhaps most important, certainly most evasive - the true dispersion of individual instruments. Violins, pianos, trumpets, acoustic and electric guitars, drums, etc, etc, etc, all have very different dispersion characteristics and very different FR from different angles around the instrument. They are not omni directional, bi-directional, cardioid, etc. They are all of the above, none of the above and infinitely varying depending on infinite variation.
What microphones are capable of capturing and speakers are capable of reproducing are a faint shadow of this incredibly nuanced and infinitely dynamic reality.
OK, but that's a different question. Playing only digital files from a computer that is galvantically isolated from and re-clocked before the DACs, I'm getting about as pure a signal as is possible at this point. Analog has its virtues, but even a master tape will not beat such a system in terms of noise. So unless you have an alternate definition of "pure," I'm good. But none of that overcomes the inherent shortcomings of the transducers at both ends of the chain. That is the ultimate weakness of the technology, not the electronics in between.
Tim
Good! Now next time you listen,not for enjoyment,but critical listening and take notice of all you talked about when comparing recordings. My point is a audio system can be perfected,it takes a lot of work. Understanding what effects reproduced sound and the why and how when listening is learned and studied. I might be wrong but low level noise is mostly ignored by many. take away the noise and you might be surprised at how much information is really captured by the recording process.
I'm not following you, Roger. I don't understand what it is I'm supposed to be listening for the next time I listen critcally. I assure you that my system has its limitations, but low noise is not one of them. If you have an analog source - any analog source - you have more noise. If you have a DAC connected to a computer or a transport by any kind of current-carrying wire, and you do not have a robust isolation system between that wire and your DAC, you have more noise. I'm not bragging. I seriously doubt that the difference in noise level between my simple little system and yours, or most of the great systems here, is audibly significant. I'm sure many members' systems here far out perform my own, with more noise. But I've got the noise thing covered in my system electronics and I can assure you it does not mitigate the limitations of transducers.
Tim
Frantz,
The question is now is what you call "encoded". For me if a recording has information that reveals a systematic perception of height I would consider it encoded - even if it was not because the great majority them sound flat. Why the difference? BTW, I am not referring tho the drum set . Life is more complicated than that.
About encoding we should read Recording Studio Design By Philip Newell, that considers that the listener is part of the decoding system. And then consider what David Griesinger, then at Lexicon said about this particular decoder:
4. Direction in the horizontal plane is almost entirely determined through pressure DIFFERENCES between the two ears, both amplitude and time. These differ¬ences tend to be similar between individuals.
5. Direction in the vertical (medial) plane is determined through comparing the perceived frequency spectrum of a sound source to previous experience with such sources at known directions. Thus it is not in general possible to determine the height of a sound you have never heard before, or to determine the timbre of a sound from an unknown direction. The timbre cues used to determine height for one person may bear little re¬semblance to those of another
Attachments
Tim, In my total context of all my posts that I have penned, you know from where I am coming from. My point is I listen different than most,better or worse.
Bill, my main loudspeakers used in these stereo music listening sessions and experiments are designed as a point source (array), from a D'Appolito configuration. And I own them for the last 25 years.
They only have three drivers, with the tweeter in the middle, flanked on top by a mid/woof driver,
and at the bottom by another mid/woof driver.
The distance between the three drivers is less than 11 inches (center to center).
And the tweeters sit 33 inches from the floor. And my ears are at about the same distance.
* I did much more listening, but I decided to keep my findings to myself as it seems to bring confusion sometimes among some people.
I will try to stick with science, and not pleasurable listening from my own imagination.
I'll keep my soundstage to myself, and with all the width, depth, and height I can perceive ...
I believe you that it is not in a stereo recording (height); so no problemo here amigo. :b
You and Soundproof brought us enough evidence provided by your generous time and explanations on microphone's capture properties in a recording environment.
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited:
Roger, it will always come down to whether people experience that level of reproduction on a consistent basis, or not. Virtually everyone has been exposed to such sound at various times, and will react to it in different ways: decide that is was an aberration due to the recording technique, room acoustics, speaker driver and crossover interaction, - insert your favourite suspect here - ; be completely oblivious to the quality because some technical aspect or behaviour of expected hifi sound is not present; conclude it was a result of too much good wine and company; or that it was an act of God. Very few go the next step and attempt to maintain that quality at all times.
So if the listener doesn't expect to achieve that level, he doesn't have any need to believe in it -- it's simpler to disregard its existence, dismiss it as irrelevant. The fact that it is so difficult to get there doesn't help matters, nor that there is a quantum change in presentation when it occurs; these are all major hurdles to communications ...
Frank
So if the listener doesn't expect to achieve that level, he doesn't have any need to believe in it -- it's simpler to disregard its existence, dismiss it as irrelevant. The fact that it is so difficult to get there doesn't help matters, nor that there is a quantum change in presentation when it occurs; these are all major hurdles to communications ...
Frank
That's a good post Frank. :b
--> Music reproduction contains two vital elements in the overall equation:
1. The artist; musician(s), singer(s), orchestras, etc.
2. The listener.
* Everything between is a collaboration of electronic gear, loudspeakers, room's acoustics, science, and imagination.
But between the first (the artist expressing himself; playing music or singing),
and the last (the music listener's pair of ears); it is a 50/50 equilibrium, I truly believe.
And the most part of our soundstage is created from that total music balance indeed.
Some people have more experience with natural, realistic live musical events than others.
And here I'm talking about good acoustics from a great venue, and not a rock concert, or a stadium heavy metal show.
And from good seats of course.
And some of these same people have the means (financial and knowledge) to recreate that experience better.
But you can also get to similar results by humble means too... :b
If I may, please;
For me, this thread is a good example for expanding our horizons through intelligent and open discussions. And indeed it is for me; and I thank all the participants.
And I believe there is much much more still to be discovered, and shared ...
There are other people who don't see it the way I do though, and I respect their visions.
As long that they are also respecting different visions than their own though.
It is by open discussions and exchanges that we can all benefit.
There is no definitive end at life; even after death.
And it is certainly true with music as well. It never dies, even when we are ...
For me, this thread is a good example for expanding our horizons through intelligent and open discussions. And indeed it is for me; and I thank all the participants.
And I believe there is much much more still to be discovered, and shared ...
There are other people who don't see it the way I do though, and I respect their visions.
As long that they are also respecting different visions than their own though.
It is by open discussions and exchanges that we can all benefit.
There is no definitive end at life; even after death.
And it is certainly true with music as well. It never dies, even when we are ...
What kind of noise are you talking about, Roger? Is it the 'unheard' noise that might exist from EMI or RFI on a cable affecting the downstream electronics, or conventional audible noise?
If the latter, the venue (original recording) will almost always have the most noise (more than a typical well designed playback system). So I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish. Live attendance at most venues will have a much higher and omni-directional noise component than any recording, but it's being ignored (mostly) by the ear/brain connection and by the high SNR ratio. Not so easy to do in a stereo recording replica of the original performance.
Studio sessions may have lower noise, or more, depending on the instruments used, amount of processing and all that sort of thing. It may not be directly audible, though, since it would be mostly behind the music, and reduced as the music level lowers.
--Bill
Is that the manufacturer's description of them? Is the mid/woof one unit or two (each)?
I can't say I understand how that is any more point source than any other system, except it would be point source horizontally (as a column), but not vertically. But like I said before, any speaker set could be considered point source if you're far enough away from the front of them.
Width and depth are real in terms of stereo reproduction, just not height. W and D presentation are significant for evaluation and comparison. Especially when you realize that exaggerated width or depth, or out of balance width and depth, can also be artifacts. That's one of the biggest reasons I'd rather not have significant reverberation in the room, in which case your perception of those can be seriously altered. If one likes it, accurate or not, that's fine. Personally, I just want to hear how it is on the recording -- only.
Thanks! I'm glad our time was not entirely wasted.
--Bill
You think? Because I was thinking it was just another of Frank's posts in which he paints the audio playback system as an incredibly volatile, unpredictable thing that must be fiddled with constantly to stay "on song." And as a special bonus, we got a vague reference (all that's required at this point), "Very few go the next step and attempt to maintain that quality at all times" to his personal tweaks. Tweaks which, we know from experience, never even attempt to address anything substantive. Frank's whole schtick (warning, automotive analogy coming) is like a guy with a Pinto, who never even tunes the engine or changes the tires, but he believes and insists that every once in awhile, if he holds the nozzle just right when he's pumping the gas, for a moment there, it handles like a Ferrarri.
Tim
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I completely agree Tim. Unfortunately Bill hasn't been around here long enough to know this is the game Frank plays. What I cannot for the world of me understand is that "he has never gone the extra step to maintain that quality". How is it on one day after he solders everything in his system from the wall to the speakers everything is perfect but yet the next day it isn't. It is refreshing to all of us here that Frank who has never achieved anything close to great sound for anything other than a microsecond 25 years ago is enlightening all of us how to achieve great sound.
Pass the Kool Aid
Because, Steve, it has taken me many years to reach an understanding of some of the factors that cause the problems. Because, the collective "wisdom" of the people in the industry is only very, very slowly advancing; to a large extent it's been stuck in Groundhog Day for the last 30 years. Because, I want the recordings that I like to sound the "real deal", not only the prescribed, audiophile approved issue.I completely agree Tim. Unfortunately Bill hasn't been around here long enough to know this is the game Frank plays. What I cannot for the world of me understand is that "he has never gone the extra step to maintain that quality". How is it on one day after he solders everything in his system from the wall to the speakers everything is perfect but yet the next day it isn't. It is refreshing to all of us here that Frank who has never achieved anything close to great sound for anything other than a microsecond 25 years ago is enlightening all of us how to achieve great sound.
Pass the Kool Aid
If I had the money I could slap together the typical audiophile setup: sound tremendously impressive, overwhelming on a precise set of "correct" recordings, reasonable on a large number of others, and absolute crap on every single "bad" album. But, to repeat myself, that's not my cup of tea: I know what's possible and it's a fair harder route to follow, but I find it worthwhile, very worthwhile pursuing so will continue to do so ...
Frank
Similar threads
