What is "Sound Stage?"

[NorthStar]

Thanks Tim for Jack's quote above; it does answer my question from my above post. :b

* This thread motivated me to listen more seriously to some great music selections from my collection. And that is an immense bonus; I don't know how to thank enough the members here, including Soundproof and Bill.

Since the last two weeks or more, my vision, my perception, my imagination, and my better understanding have greatly improved regarding sound stage in all its dimensional attributes.
...Right from the recording venues and techniques employed to my listening sessions.
From microphones' characteristics too of course (capture & all that Jazz) to reproduction.
And it stays even stronger with me now. :b

This is what I call beneficial member's contribution from an ensemble of people discussing their impressions and knowledge; in order to make the very Best call.

 

[treitz3]

Again, one of the best threads on WBF. And we are all collectively getting smart to stereo's antics but can still enjoy what it has to offer, even though we know it's limitations. I hope.

Hey, Tom. Tom here, I agree wholeheartedly at this point on both accounts. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[fas42]

For examp[le, when I listen to my SET amp (makes no differenc e whyat amp you use) on a single left speaker and single right speaker, by moving in or adjusting my head position I can easily tell that there is no height information and everything is centered between the speakers, but if I move away a bit and not "direction find" with my ears then the left right image gows taller (ie more abvove and below the left right centeline) and fuller. BUt move in close and things narrow up along a line between the speakers. I don't know why that is hard for folks to accept.

There is general agreement that it is an illusion, by the brain perceiving the content of the soundfield, and registering the subtle audible cues, clues therein. The bone of contention is how convincing this illusion is, and whether it is reasonable to allow yourself to be convinced by, drawn into it. Tim argues that these cues can be much more strongly emphasised by recording "height information" as a separate channel and playing through a separate speaker. Now, this is equivalent to visually spotlighting the actors on a stage with high intensity beams, to make it obvious which people are speaking. But if you have good eyesight this is unnecessary, you can easy pick up the interplay of people in completely uniform lighting by noting all the movements of bodies, mouths, etc. So it is the quality of your eyesight that's all important, meaning the quality of replay in the audio playback situation

Tom's comment is highlighting the "my eyesight is only so good" situation (sorry, Tom!). And this is where the quality of the amp, and everything else, does come into play. When you move in close the illusion should not fail, and if it does then the system needs to be, can be improved. Saying folks need to accept that it can't is equivalent to saying the sound barrier can't be broken; many experts at the time righteously hammered the table, issuing reams of "proof" that it would be catastrophic to try and do so -- good thing a few people ignored them ...

Frank

 

[mep]

Do you read before you respond?

Yeah, I just didn't believe your answer. Mine wasn't a stawman argument and the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz that you used is well known to everyone as someone in search of a brain.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yeah, I just didn't believe your answer. Mine wasn't a stawman argument and the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz that you used is well known to everyone as someone in search of a brain.

Well, believe what you like.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Nice to see you back here Frank, on the sound stage. :b

Bob

 

[fas42]

Thanks, Bob ...

Can you see me standing on the trampoline, there. Now, just switch on those mics and I'll start bouncing up and down, higher and higher, and I'll continue to lecture, and irritate all and sundry. When finished, the MP3 will be posted and a nondescript doorprize will be presented to he who guesses closest to the greatest elevation, sorry, illusion of height, I achieved ... :b:b

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Perfect analogy. You don't need a center channel to create a phantom center image. You do, however, need left and right channels. Do you have top and bottom channels in your system,Jack? unplug one of your speakers. See what happens to you image.

Tim

Tim, Tim, Tim. You are saying perceived position is ONLY contingent on arrival time. I'm telling you that it is also contingent on frequency profile. Micro is spot on that even with one mic and one speaker distance trigger cues can exist. These differences in frequency are things we hear in real life. High frequencies trail off faster than low frequencies as distance increases. That is a fact. The ratio of direct and indirect sound changes over distance. Another fact. We experience this daily and will associate the frequency profiles as near or far. Again one mic, one speaker, conditioned respone, perception of distance.

It is this limited appreciation of stereo, that only time differences between channels provides positional cues that is at the heart of the soundstage debate.

Now about these cues not being in the recording. (This is the part I can't believe Bob) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!! How many examples do you need? Call it parlor tricks or whatever derogatory term you like. They are there, they trigger the desired effect. WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim argues that these cues can be much more strongly emphasised by recording "height information" as a separate channel and playing through a separate speaker

That's really not what I've been arguing, but I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the obvious at this point.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Tim, you said:

Good work, but it is not discrete height information, and recognizing that fact does not mean anyone here believes that microphone positioning does not effect what we hear on recordings.

So, is it possible or impossible to record "discrete height information" in any fashion, using whoever many microphones you want to use?

Frank

 

[RogerD]

Tim, Tim, Tim. You are saying perceived position is ONLY contingent on arrival time. I'm telling you that it is also contingent on frequency profile. Micro is spot on that even with one mic and one speaker distance trigger cues can exist. These differences in frequency are things we hear in real life. High frequencies trail off faster than low frequencies as distance increases. That is a fact. The ratio of direct and indirect sound changes over distance. Another fact. We experience this daily and will associate the frequency profiles as near or far. Again one mic, one speaker, conditioned respone, perception of distance.

It is this limited appreciation of stereo, that only time differences between channels provides positional cues that is at the heart of the soundstage debate.

Now about these cues not being in the recording. (This is the part I can't believe Bob) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!! How many examples do you need? Call it parlor tricks or whatever derogatory term you like. They are there, they trigger the desired effect. WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!

You better believe they are there. My system is designed to make these cues audible and it transforms the stereo experience.

 

[NorthStar]

Now about these cues not being in the recording. (This is the part I can't believe Bob) GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!! How many examples do you need? Call it parlor tricks or whatever derogatory term you like. They are there, they trigger the desired effect. WHICH IS WHAT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!

Ahhhh, I knew it! Jack, I'm starting to know you better and better. :b

But somehow I restrain myself to express my opinion, as I'm afraid to disturb ideologies.

*** For me it is a combination of science (known & unknown), plus the true human hearing perceptions.
This thread has already explored some great confinements, but more are still yet to be discovered, thought 'bout, and talked 'bout.
The theories are developing each day that goes by ... And we are far still to understand all there is about Audio.

Some people embrace already established researches and written papers on psychoacoustics, fine.
But there are today more improved and deeper analyses into this domain, and regarding audio recordings, sound stage, imaging, perception, depth, height, and 3dimensional space.

If you say that this is it; this is what is the real truth, then you are blinding your ears to the rest of the equation. It is from the combination of the latest researches by a larger group of acousticians that you arrive to/at the best foundation of science. And what was found yesterday is not necessarily true today, or should I say 'complete'. Because of the improvement in technology, techniques, equipment, human uderstanding regarding human biology, physiology, and all of that that we didn't apply in today's world.
Our planet is warmer today than it was yesterday, and even that has an effect on our audio perception. Listen to your favorite music at different body temperatures; you'll see what I mean...

Some people are going to say that Bob (me) is completely off the wall.
That is their own perceptions.

I'm only here to discuss, learn, grow up, have freedom to express my ideas,
... just like in real life with mature contributors. I like to go much deeper than regular people.

These are forums with open discussions, and science has its place, so is mind's openness,
and positive thinking into the new.

P.S. Frank, I can see you attaining fifteen feet high into the air, from your trampoline. :b

 

[JackD201]

Tim, you said:


So, is it possible or impossible to record "discrete height information" in any fashion, using whoever many microphones you want to use?

Frank

You're not helping Frankie. It's this line of reasoning that muddles the discussion. The answer is yes you can record DISCRETE height information. You just can't play it back! Discrete means an independent channel for both recording AND playback. In Stereo as it has become most widely used there are only two. Left and Right. No up, no down. Vertical cues are there but not DISCRETE vertical information which by definition would be impossible.

 

[JackD201]

Bob,

I love Sean's Forum name: Science in the Service of Art. Yeah your propensity for extemporaneous poetry can be a bit scary sometimes LOL, but I do appreciate that you always factor in the human element. The obsession with metrics is as big a problem as the obsession with absolute relativism (how's that for an oxymoron! ). For many the explanation has become more important than that being explained!

Guy 1: Oh you can't have image height because there is no height speaker.

Guy 2: But do you hear height?

Guy 1: No because it is technically impossible, I don't hear it but I perceive it.

Tell me this isn't one ludicrous conversation!

 

[NorthStar]

Actually Jack, if you wanted to, you could reproduce discrete height from only two loudspeakers.

With special modifications, the angles and positioning of the drivers in a tall column (speaker tower).

P.S. I'm working on being clearer for everyone. Myself first. :b

 

[JackD201]

Tricky guy.

Of course if I took my right speaker and placed it above my left with a good amount of space between them that would qualify as discrete, a channel each, a speaker each.

As for the loudspeaker design, that's a dispersion/propagation thing. It's still using just that one signal, ergo not discrete but rather combined.

Just for added clarification, when I say a speaker each, the main thing is the ability to now steer the signal from one point to another thus creating a more precisely CONTROLLABLE and CONSISTENT phantom range. Still, that phantom is still an illusion.

 

[fas42]

You're not helping Frankie. It's this line of reasoning that muddles the discussion. The answer is yes you can record DISCRETE height information. You just can't play it back! Discrete means an independent channel for both recording AND playback. In Stereo as it has become most widely used there are only two. Left and Right. No up, no down. Vertical cues are there but not DISCRETE vertical information which by definition would be impossible.

Sorry to make life harder for you, Jack!! :b But of course in this day of multi-channel sources coming on strong, that's really a minor issue: the concept was, given the channels for recording AND playback could it be done satisfactorily? Hells bells, we now have 24 bit audio: use the bits 17 - 24 for all that lovely extra info -- quadrophonic decoders, anyone?

Frank

 

[JackD201]

Yes it is possible Frank, just not practical. No software, what's the point? That is the prevailing chicken and egg scenario. One of the big Japanese electronics manufacturers, I believe it was Yamaha tried to market a receiver with height channels about 10 years ago (not discrete but extracted/simulated). It didn't take off. If it had the way Prologic did for center, rear and LFE, we just might have had discrete height channels. Right now, we just don't have it.

 

[FrantzM]

Yes it is possible Frank, just not practical. No software, what's the point? That is the prevailing chicken and egg scenario. One of the big Japanese electronics manufacturers, I believe it was Yamaha tried to market a receiver with height channels about 10 years ago (not discrete but extracted/simulated). It didn't take off. If it had the way Prologic did for center, rear and LFE, we just might have had discrete height channels. Right now, we just don't have it.

Yamaha still have these "height" channels in their receiverws, maybe not all but from the mid to the upper line... Works like many of those simulated/synthersized things for the most part ... It becomes quickly IMO an annoying novelty ...

 

[NorthStar]

Yeah, using stereo with DSP to simulate a Jazz club, or Concert hall, a Stadium, etc.
But those are simulated (derived) info from the already 2 stereo speakers' info.
Different than what we're talkin' 'bout here. ...Simulation related to. :b
Because you do have to deploy more speakers for that 'height ambiance simulation'.

I still have one of those Yamaha units, and I did have those 'Front Effect' or 'Front Presence' speakers installed before. I did quite a bit of experimentation too. But at the end I always left them off, even with multichannel movie soundtracks. Why? Because Yamaha added speakers were totally unnatural sounding from my natural Yamaha component.

But let's stick to stereo, just as this thread was intended at from the very beginning,
or unless Tim wants to take a bifurcation ... I doubt it though.
Because: Lexicon Logic7, Audyssey DSX, Dolby Pro Logic IIz,
Yamaha Quadfield with Front Presence, Meridian Trifield, etc., etc., etc.
This thread will extend to at least one billion posts. :b

But you do know me (some of you anyway); I'm game for anything.
What I do like the most though is this: 3D soundstage from just two speakers,
or three with a center speaker added. And make that 2.1 or 3.1 with a sub or two.
Subs are great to recreate the space of the venue; tres tres tres important.
And they add tremendously to the front soundstage with realistic ambiance of a real Concert hall,
or a Jazz club, ... you know, from the very low frequencies present in those venues.

I got one stereo music recording where you can hear the subway train under the concert hall's floor! Others where you can hear the fans from the air conditioning in the hall.
Another one with a jet plane flying by ... way up there in the sky and above the Jazz club's roof.
...You just don't hear, you feel it too.

You can hear so much stuff deep into some of these recordings ...
Mercury Living Presence among others.
And your brains can reconstruct almost anything you wish for.

You guys are familiar with Cowboy Junkies - The Trinity Session album?