What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
Since this thread has at least 3 people who claim to have a deep understanding and knowledge of microphone polar responses and how that translates into zero height information in our recordings, I would appreciate it if one of you would share your knowledge of the horizontal thickness of the actual polar response. I’m pretty sure that a microphone does not record a lateral (horizontal) spread of information (following its polar plot for each individual type of microphone) that is as thin as a laser beam. We are not just drawing a horizontal line on a piece of paper. That horizontal line that represents the polar plot has to have some “thickness” to it which I would think is dependent upon the type and size of the microphone diaphragm being used for the recording.
Proved is a huge word, Greg. Well, it is outside of a courtroom. Out here in the real world, proved requires verification, repitition. And even then.... But you're absolutely correct: I haven't proven that stereo is two channels, side-by-side, in a horizontal plane. I will subit it for peer review so my hypothesis can be tested and get back to you, counselor.
Tim
This has already been covered. No one has claimed that microphones pick up in a narrow, horizontal pattern. Most of them pick up in patterns that are every bit as vertical as they are horizontal, in fact. And this has absolutely nothing to do with recording height information. All of your questions have already been answered. Read. Try to understand this time.
Tim
And what I find fascinating is that the people who fervently thrust all mighty "science" in the face of those who dare to challenge conventional, "expert" thinking remain strangely quiet when it is suggested that some experiments may resolve the issue: we have here a glorious throwback to the times of ancient Greece where all knowlege resulted from enthusiastic debate, those with the greatest argumentative skills won the day, and thus "truth" was established.
We have people with the skills, and equipment, on this forum to do some test recordings, very precisely directed at seeing whether "height/cues information can be picked up and replayed sufficiently well for accurate assessment of height". Of course, that would spoil the fun of this ongoing bout of biffo, and actually resolve some issues, which some might proclaim as being "unscientific". No, much better to proclaim that a number of Great Men in the past have determined the Truth, and that's that ...
Frank
We have people with the skills, and equipment, on this forum to do some test recordings, very precisely directed at seeing whether "height/cues information can be picked up and replayed sufficiently well for accurate assessment of height". Of course, that would spoil the fun of this ongoing bout of biffo, and actually resolve some issues, which some might proclaim as being "unscientific". No, much better to proclaim that a number of Great Men in the past have determined the Truth, and that's that ...
Frank
Thanks for the super-helpful response Tim!! I really appreciate it! I will go dig through 82 pages and see if I can find the info I'm looking for.
Not sure I get your point, micro. I see the reference. It is unrelated.(...)
Yes, soundstage has height. No, stereo does not have vertical imaging. Yes, I'm certain.
Tim
Tim,
I am referring you to someone who, as I referred before, writes thinks such as "Height information is not intentionally recorded in stereo, but the ear/brain perceptual apparatus can find cues in some recordings from which it forms an impression of the height of the AS. " Did you read the enthusiastic references of Aczel to 3D in the Orions?
Looking for older references we can find in Stereophile (1986) "John Shuttleworth, responsible for the excellent recordings on the Meridian label, has pointed out that, as the reverberation also has a contribution from reflections of the direct sound from the floor and ceiling of the room, the aural clues enabling a listener to infer image height will also be preserved. ". His recordings are known to be recorded with just one pair of high-quality microphones. Even professionals seem to disagree ...
That's because those professionals who don't agree with the experts on this thread are clueless dimwits like the rest of us who don't agree with said experts.
Obviously Shuttleworth wouldn't have made it big in the Greek debates, his verbal skills seem not to be up to par ...
Frank
Then I enthusiastically agree. The ear/brain apparatus finds stuff to listen to that it interprets as "height?" Absolutely. There is a vertical image, a differentiated sound field that places the kick drum here, the snare here, the ride cymbal there? That's the brain/interpretation part of the story. I agree with this as well...
Emphasis mine. You might also want to go back and check your last reference, whose emphasis was made with quotation marks. Take particular note of it. All of this is talking about a sense of height, micro, and I have no problem with that and have said so in this thread repeatedly. I personally think it has more to do with the speakers and the room than with the recording, but I don't doubt the recording is an influence. But there are a handful here who are still insisting that somehow microphones are capturing information that is translating, in their 2-channel, lateral systems, into the kind of phantom image, in the vertical plane, that their stereo produces in the lateral plane. Or at least that's what they are enthusiastically describing.
That's what I think is a bit daft. That's all it has ever been. Peace.
Tim
Did you suggest some testing for someone to do that would put this all to rest, Frank? What kind of test would that be?
Tim
Read the post at the bottom of page 87. That should be easy enough to find.
Tim
PS: Oh, and please stop whining. No one has called you or anyone else in this thread names. We have simply disagreed with you, and made a much better argument. The evidence of that, exemplified above, is that you keep mischaracterizing our position into something weaker and easier to oppose. Perhaps that makes you feel like a clueless dimwit, but no one has called you anything of the sort.
Last edited:
Nice to know we agree qualitatively, but not quantitatively - today I am using the Soundlab full range planars.
Please try not to bring your private wars in our debates ...
There is an important point that I found on reading these posts - unless you know the basic fundamentals, you have to rely on someone opinion and just repeat it. Localization in sound reproduction is very complex - e.g. the way stereo works depends on the frequency spectrum and the mechanisms are quite different with different frequencies. Unhappily I have not read in this thread a concise and detailed summary of it - the way Don and Amir did in their famous series. We had great postings on punctual aspects from several experts, carrying their experience and knowledge, but no systematic basic knowledge.
In a couple of posts, about moving the microphone up and down. But an even simpler, more straightforward technique would be to place a very high quality (active!) monitor on a very robust stand, such that the elevation of the enclosure could be set at various heights from the floor. Place in a reasonable acoustic space, reasonably lively, with ceiling at a normal height. Set up a good microphone pair at a couple of metres away, lock into position.
Then play high quality recordings of single instruments captured with zero ambience and reverb, tones, whatever; record 30 secs each, say with the monitor 1 foot from floor, 2 feet, 3 feet, etc. Then create a test track with these segments inserted in a purely random sequence: say, 6 feet, then 1 foot, then 7 feet, etc. Everybody gets a copy, plays it on their system, and attempts to "hear" what the correct sequence of heights were: a prize will be given for the first, correct ... :b
Frank
Nice to know we agree qualitatively, but not quantitatively - today I am using the Soundlab full range planars.
Please try not to bring your private wars in our debates ...
There is an important point that I found on reading these posts - unless you know the basic fundamentals, you have to rely on someone opinion and just repeat it. Localization in sound reproduction is very complex - e.g. the way stereo works depends on the frequency spectrum and the mechanisms are quite different with different frequencies. Unhappily I have not read in this thread a concise and detailed summary of it - the way Don and Amir did in their famous series. We had great postings on punctual aspects from several experts, carrying their experience and knowledge, but no systematic basic knowledge.
I don't think we actually disagree on much substance, micro. I think our styles are different enough that we sometimes misinterpret each other, but usually, if we just keep talking, we get there. No private wars here, by the way. They're quite public. And bubbling to the surface kicking and screaming every time it looks like this thread might reach the simple, obvious conclusion that there is a sense of height, but no vertical imaging....
Tim
Okay, simple definition time:
"a sense of height" = ???????????
"vertical imaging" = ??????????
Frank
Really?? How about this inference:
Or how about this:
Or this:
You can say you haven’t called anyone *names*, but the inferences you made to people’s intelligence is there for all to see.
And you're one of the three.
Tim
That's a good group to be part of, I think. :b
Aaaah, you're just a pushover, Bob -- ya gotta put up a better fight than that!!!
Frank
Similar threads
