What is "Sound Stage?"
- Thread starter Phelonious Ponk
- Start date
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.
A reference to your straw man argument. A reference to the own poster's choice of words, and a question of the patience and focus of the poster, not his intelligence, It's a very long thread. I understand that. But I grow weary of repeating myself over and over again. if you're going to come to the game, know what's been played. The circles are making all of us weary.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with calling anyone clueless nitwits, or whatever it was that you said. That is just another straw man. A diversion from the weakness of your position. I'm not calling you dumb, Mark. And I never have. We both know that.
Tim
Don't forget the infamous "knuckleheads".
At least we can all agree on what hopefully is the obvious. Height, as a part of overall soundstage size is an illusion, a construct. How that happens is nice to know on an intellectual level but on a purely aesthetic one not so.
If we zero in on the fulcrum of the debate the idea isn't "sense of height" we all experience this to some degree or another because any soundstage will have a sense of height width and depth because of the recording itself and the playback system's projection and room interactions. See the thread "you are there vs. in the room with you" where we have a grammy winner for technology, a couple of our resident PHDs (audiologist, speaker designer and neuroscientist) discussing this. The fulcrum is the term "Height Information".
If the accepted definition of "Height Information" is discreet information. Bill, Tim et al. are IMO correct. If the accepted definition of "Height Information" is cues that facilitate or trigger the illusion of vertical position and movement then the opposers are correct because height perception as dictated by cues is a scientifically proven fact across many scientific disciplines.
If our didactic, name calling, members here still dispute this. I will ask only one question. What disqualifies intentional cues (psychoacoustic triggers) as opposed to discreet information as information per se.
I have a favorite example of where what is not real, a pure construct, can be pretty darned convincing. In the movie The Thin Red Line. Regulations limit SPL. The director wanted to convey the sheer terror of being on the receiving end of an artillery attack. To do that even comp/limiting couldn't get that extreme sense of pressure level within the legal limits. What the sound designer did was to introduce a ringing tone that simulates the ringing in one's ears one would experience after a bout of severe SPL exposure. If you are in on the machinations and keyed into it, you will know it was no louder than any part of the movie. If you were listening passively however it would be quite a different story.
Given that stereo and multichannel are meant to give the customer the illusion of reality, hopefully a pleasurable one, music is an entertainment medium after all, it is the customer that needs to be satisfied. We all know it can take only seconds to form an impression of quality. These precious seconds do not require deep knowledge of what causes it. I recommend the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell for some entertaining essays on the subject.
At least we can all agree on what hopefully is the obvious. Height, as a part of overall soundstage size is an illusion, a construct. How that happens is nice to know on an intellectual level but on a purely aesthetic one not so.
If we zero in on the fulcrum of the debate the idea isn't "sense of height" we all experience this to some degree or another because any soundstage will have a sense of height width and depth because of the recording itself and the playback system's projection and room interactions. See the thread "you are there vs. in the room with you" where we have a grammy winner for technology, a couple of our resident PHDs (audiologist, speaker designer and neuroscientist) discussing this. The fulcrum is the term "Height Information".
If the accepted definition of "Height Information" is discreet information. Bill, Tim et al. are IMO correct. If the accepted definition of "Height Information" is cues that facilitate or trigger the illusion of vertical position and movement then the opposers are correct because height perception as dictated by cues is a scientifically proven fact across many scientific disciplines.
If our didactic, name calling, members here still dispute this. I will ask only one question. What disqualifies intentional cues (psychoacoustic triggers) as opposed to discreet information as information per se.
I have a favorite example of where what is not real, a pure construct, can be pretty darned convincing. In the movie The Thin Red Line. Regulations limit SPL. The director wanted to convey the sheer terror of being on the receiving end of an artillery attack. To do that even comp/limiting couldn't get that extreme sense of pressure level within the legal limits. What the sound designer did was to introduce a ringing tone that simulates the ringing in one's ears one would experience after a bout of severe SPL exposure. If you are in on the machinations and keyed into it, you will know it was no louder than any part of the movie. If you were listening passively however it would be quite a different story.
Given that stereo and multichannel are meant to give the customer the illusion of reality, hopefully a pleasurable one, music is an entertainment medium after all, it is the customer that needs to be satisfied. We all know it can take only seconds to form an impression of quality. These precious seconds do not require deep knowledge of what causes it. I recommend the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell for some entertaining essays on the subject.
I got the same impression as Mark did Tim but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It just makes me wonder how you would have missed the possible implications astute as you are when this pic is on the same google search if strawman and not a guy looking for a brain was what you were after.
I got the same impression as Mark did Tim but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It just makes me wonder how you would have missed the possible implications astute as you are when this pic is on the same google search if strawman and not a guy looking for a brain was what you were after.
Simple enough. I googled scarecrow, not straw man. My facility with language is not particularly weak. If I wanted to call Mark a clueless nitwit, I could gt th job done. Not to mention that in the same post with that image I said his was a straw man argument.
I apologize for the unintended implication, mark. I should have thought that one through a bit better. I know you have a brain.
Tim
As far as the ears are concerned, the only thing that matters are the fluctuations of air pressure that impinge on the structure of the ear: that's how it works out the direction of things, vertically as well as horizontally. It's been a long time since I've seen someone tilt their head sideways, right ear up, left ear down to pinpoint where a sound was coming from vertically, so having the sound actually emerge from two different places in height to create phase effects at the ear doesn't seem so important. The key question here, is whether the sound coming from a single speaker outputting the right waveform "mimics" what two separate vertical speakers with different, height information will effectively create at the ear.
Frank
Frank
So take this as a thought experiment: blindfold someone not familiar with the listening room, doesn't know where the speakers are vertically, put him in the sweet spot (that's another argument ...), play back a recording where the sound was recorded coming from a source a foot off the floor, and ask him where he thinks the sound's coming from, to point to it as precisely as he can. Repeat the experiment, this time where the source was 10 feet off the floor when recorded, ask him to point again. Assume for argument's sake he lost all knowledge of what he heard the previous time, or more simply, the 2nd part of this test was done first.
Would he point to exactly the same place vertically both times? And if not, why not?
Frank
Last edited:
Hi Treitz,
Congratulations on the Super Mod assignment BTW
The thread was originally meant to solicit what we members consider or define as soundstage. Every single one of us has defined it as a space with dimensions. I think when we say dimensions we are not limiting this to width and depth but as height, width and depth. That makes height a part of the equation since the stage has a conceived volume. Even if it were conceived as an area, removing depth it may be flat but not horizontally front to back
but left to right and top to bottom like a projector screen. Not one person here has described his soundstage as a plane parallel to his floor.
In evolutionary biology and neuroscience which are the main parents of the comparatively young field of psychoacoustics. It has been established that frequency profiles as a result of both biologically inherited instincts and acquired conditioned responses working together. A baby bird in a nest will scurry for cover at the sound of a bird of prey overhead even before sight is fully developed. Although also highly but not exclusively amplitude dependent, it's the same way we cover our heads (funny though because it is a useless gesture LOL) when thunder is heard as a crack (near thus immediately threatening) as opposed to a rumble (far thus threat not immediate threatening). A blind person will have the same instinctive reaction albeit someone who isn't sight impaired mayhave a stronger reflex impulse due to the added stimulus of the brighter lightning flash. As for amplitude dependency, a train running by won't make you cover your head but a snapping branch overhead will.
Congratulations on the Super Mod assignment BTW
The thread was originally meant to solicit what we members consider or define as soundstage. Every single one of us has defined it as a space with dimensions. I think when we say dimensions we are not limiting this to width and depth but as height, width and depth. That makes height a part of the equation since the stage has a conceived volume. Even if it were conceived as an area, removing depth it may be flat but not horizontally front to back
but left to right and top to bottom like a projector screen. Not one person here has described his soundstage as a plane parallel to his floor.
In evolutionary biology and neuroscience which are the main parents of the comparatively young field of psychoacoustics. It has been established that frequency profiles as a result of both biologically inherited instincts and acquired conditioned responses working together. A baby bird in a nest will scurry for cover at the sound of a bird of prey overhead even before sight is fully developed. Although also highly but not exclusively amplitude dependent, it's the same way we cover our heads (funny though because it is a useless gesture LOL) when thunder is heard as a crack (near thus immediately threatening) as opposed to a rumble (far thus threat not immediate threatening). A blind person will have the same instinctive reaction albeit someone who isn't sight impaired mayhave a stronger reflex impulse due to the added stimulus of the brighter lightning flash. As for amplitude dependency, a train running by won't make you cover your head but a snapping branch overhead will.
I am beginning to think that the perception of "height" in recordings is affected by our preconceived notions of what we're listening to. In other words, we know where the pieces of a drum kit are usually situated in the vertical plane, and expect to "see" the cymbals at the highest point and the kick drum down below, so we psycho-acoustically place them there. This explanation could account for the differences in presentation described by the various respondents in this thread.
Lee
Lee
As a "fun" experiment, to explore this more, would be interesting to create a very strange drumming layout: cymbals close to the floor, kick drum way up in the air, etc. Mic it the normal way, per individual piece of kit; would need mutliple synchronised drummers to play the thing(!), and see what that came across as ...
Frank
Hi Treitz,
Congratulations on the Super Mod assignment BTW
The thread was originally meant to solicit what we members consider or define as soundstage. Every single one of us has defined it as a space with dimensions. I think when we say dimensions we are not limiting this to width and depth but as height, width and depth. That makes height a part of the equation since the stage has a conceived volume. Even if it were conceived as an area, removing depth it may be flat but not horizontally front to back
but left to right and top to bottom like a projector screen. Not one person here has described his soundstage as a plane parallel to his floor.
In evolutionary biology and neuroscience which are the main parents of the comparatively young field of psychoacoustics. It has been established that frequency profiles as a result of both biologically inherited instincts and acquired conditioned responses working together. A baby bird in a nest will scurry for cover at the sound of a bird of prey overhead even before sight is fully developed. Although also highly but not exclusively amplitude dependent, it's the same way we cover our heads (funny though because it is a useless gesture LOL) when thunder is heard as a crack (near thus immediately threatening) as opposed to a rumble (far thus threat not immediate threatening). A blind person will have the same instinctive reaction albeit someone who isn't sight impaired mayhave a stronger reflex impulse due to the added stimulus of the brighter lightning flash. As for amplitude dependency, a train running by won't make you cover your head but a snapping branch overhead will.
First off, thank you with regards to the congratulations. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, FYI.
That said, I invite you to try what I tried. Go back to page 11, toward the bottom. Posts 106-108 to be exact. Try the same exact thing...then and only then, read this. (don't peek!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be interested in hearing not only your observations but others as well with regards to this. For those that find out something different, I would invite them to re-read the thread and before posting anything.....actually listen to many genres of music. Specifically well recorded jazz and a lot of it. Do not concentrate on any other aspect other than height.
Then and only then.....please report back on your observations. I would be interested in what you have to say.
I was inspired by Tom(elex)'s thoughts to try an experiment, pseudo mono. Well sort of, don't have a mono switch, but do have a 2 inch thick concrete paver, 18 inches square. Stuck it vertically in front of left speaker, about 1/4 inch way from front, completely blocking off all direct vision of speaker drivers, carcase. Well, guess what, still had big soundstage with a modern orchestral CD, plenty of height and width, some sound filtering through and around the block, bouncing off window behind from left unit, but the sound still made sense. Certainly sound improved with block removed, but it wasn't a falling off the chair difference ...
Frank
Frank
First off, thank you with regards to the congratulations. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, FYI.
That said, I invite you to try what I tried. Go back to page 11, toward the bottom. Posts 106-108 to be exact. Try the same exact thing...then and only then, read this. (don't peek!)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be interested in hearing not only your observations but others as well with regards to this. For those that find out something different, I would invite them to re-read the thread and before posting anything.....actually listen to many genres of music. Specifically well recorded jazz and a lot of it. Do not concentrate on any other aspect other than height.
Then and only then.....please report back on your observations. I would be interested in what you have to say.
Hi Tony,
If you look back you will see that I have listened to the Chesky disc in my system and had similar impressions of what you experienced. I then described how I figured it was achieved based not on theory but from actual experience. As for being off topic since you aren't posting in red I'll take that "FYI" as a joke.
Okay now I will peek.
Jack, please take the moderator equation out of this. It literally has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion. This is me, unadulterated. BTW, my name is Tom, not Tony but that is beside the point.
The Chesky CD does in fact offer the illusion of height. There are no disputes on that anywhere that I know of. That said, bblue mentioned that it was not a recorded section of normal 2-channel music. I heard height, he heard height and our observations were the same. I have a date with the pillow tonight but I do invite you to read posts past page 11. Possibly many pages past that. I have already asked Bill about this and he answered cordially and appropriately.
The Chesky CD does in fact offer the illusion of height. There are no disputes on that anywhere that I know of. That said, bblue mentioned that it was not a recorded section of normal 2-channel music. I heard height, he heard height and our observations were the same. I have a date with the pillow tonight but I do invite you to read posts past page 11. Possibly many pages past that. I have already asked Bill about this and he answered cordially and appropriately.
I actually don't see anything wrong with what Bill, Tom, and what Tim now accepts as a new truth to be wrong IF looked at from their perspective. That perspective deals with absolute technical aspects.
It does however, in large part, trivialize the human ability to take cues which I maintain are in the recording. Call it phase shifts, recorded ambience or whatever manipulations that can be done to the raw mic feeds or the acquisition of the mic feeds themselves, that addresses the "How things work" but not the "Why the phenomena is observed". If there is strong dissent from those without professional backgrounds and experience, it is basically because some members here by choice of employing "you are an idiot" language have sought to invalidate their observations.
Even if the cause of the observations are anomalies the observations themselves should not be summarily dismissed because even the most stringent followers of the Scientific Method know that the first step is to ask a question.
I argue that there is no question to be asked if there was no observation to trigger the question in the first place. The history of science shows that what were considered observed anomalies against accepted fact have pushed further study that led to new scientific paradigms. It's been that way from ancient times to today and into the foreseeable future.
It does however, in large part, trivialize the human ability to take cues which I maintain are in the recording. Call it phase shifts, recorded ambience or whatever manipulations that can be done to the raw mic feeds or the acquisition of the mic feeds themselves, that addresses the "How things work" but not the "Why the phenomena is observed". If there is strong dissent from those without professional backgrounds and experience, it is basically because some members here by choice of employing "you are an idiot" language have sought to invalidate their observations.
Even if the cause of the observations are anomalies the observations themselves should not be summarily dismissed because even the most stringent followers of the Scientific Method know that the first step is to ask a question.
I argue that there is no question to be asked if there was no observation to trigger the question in the first place. The history of science shows that what were considered observed anomalies against accepted fact have pushed further study that led to new scientific paradigms. It's been that way from ancient times to today and into the foreseeable future.
Tom, you're not familiar with my setup: it's tweaked to an inch of its life, meaning completely hardwired. Doing what is trivial for most is a major exercise for me: my analogy is that a lot of systems are like Formula 1 cars where the wheels are held on with small nuts done up finger tight; my solutions are equivalent to getting a power air driver to secure proper sized high tensile steel units. So the wheels coming off while circling on the track are never an issue ...
Frank
Frank, I'll be completely blunt and honest here. If you can not do said experiment, then please do not comment. Your limitations are just that.
Yours.
Yours.
Similar threads
