Holographic Stereo Image & Volume Level

[E-Stat]

Big studio recorded orchestral music isn't at all hard to come by. Think like every movie sound track you've ever heard. If you want to see classical recorded well, there are plenty of YouTube videos of it. Just because a few people like to use simple mic'ing methods does NOT mean it's the norm.

What does any of that have to do with the concept of soundstage? I do enjoy listening to soundtracks and really enjoy the lastest John Williams work in the Star Wars series via high resolution 24 bit downloads. Beautiful music. Not much of a notion, however, of hearing the Abbey Road Studio 1 space holographically.

You're about as wrong as wrong gets, or you genuinely don't know what imaging is.

You're beginning to sound desperate and need to let this go.

I'm sitting here listening to the Dionysus album by Dead Can Dance, and if you're going to tell me that entirely studio produced album doesn't have excellent imaging

I'm a big fan of DcD and have seven of their albums. Actually was unaware of this one and am listening to it now in 44/24 via Qobuz in the office. Thanks! I'll reserve judgement on its sound quality until I listen to it upstairs.

DcD did provide a valuable learning experience for me back in '01 or so. I brought tracks from Labyrinth if memory serves to Sea Cliff to hear them on Harry's phenomenal system. What a disappointment! Even Madonna's Ray of Light evoked some notion of space albeit clearly an artifice. That system instantly revealed how shallow and overly produced it was. Painted boats on a painted sea. Sure, there was left to right, but no sense of Lisa and Brendan playing in an actual space.

The better the system, the more readily you hear this.

Some other favorites of mine are in the Windham Hill catalog using minimal miking. Liz Story's Solid Colors beautifully captures her Steinway devoid of knob twiddling. One of Harry's favorites is Howard Hanson's Composer and His Music. You can clearly hear his narration and the orchestra play in the space.

 

[JoeESP9]

Big studio recorded orchestral music isn't at all hard to come by. Think like every movie sound track you've ever heard. If you want to see classical recorded well, there are plenty of YouTube videos of it. Just because a few people like to use simple mic'ing methods does NOT mean it's the norm.



You're about as wrong as wrong gets, or you genuinely don't know what imaging is. Do you think the sound of the venue is imaging? You seem to equate that to imaging at every turn. It's not true. You need to look up the definition of imaging... but I think I already posted that for you, too. It's got nothing to do with the sound of a live venue. That's nice ambiance, but it's not imaging. It's usually an obstacle to imaging. It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of what the words actually mean. Repeatedly asserting demonstrably false statements doesn't make them true no matter how much they're repeated.

I'm sitting here listening to the Dionysus album by Dead Can Dance, and if you're going to tell me that entirely studio produced album doesn't have excellent imaging, nobody should take your ideas about imaging too seriously. I'm not trying to be a weenie, but I don't understand what's so confusing about imaging to so many people. Why do you keep claiming that imaging requires some kind of real live space when I can point to examples of studio recorded music that's got great imaging all day long.

Sorry, but you have me wrong. I have never said or suggested that imaging and a soundstage are the same thing. I have always said and posted that imaging is the placement of sounds in a left right spread. Every piece of music recorded in stereo has imaging. Reproducing imaging is easy, all you need is an appropriate source and a pair of speakers spaced a reasonable distance apart. For a soundstage you must have a venue to reproduce. Studio pop/rock recordings have no soundstage because there is no venue to recreate.

 

[rothwellaudio]

For a soundstage you must have a venue to reproduce. Studio pop/rock recordings have no soundstage because there is no venue to recreate.

I disagree. A recording studio with a decent sized and decent sounding live room is just as much a venue as anywhere else. True, many "studios" are little more than a broom cupboard and everything is recorded separately and either close miked or DI'd and those studios can't record a real soundstage, but that doesn't mean all studios are like that.

Is it possible to create a soundstage artificially with electronic reverb etc? Yes, I think it is.

 

[sqlsavior]

Personally, I find that I'm hearing multiple soundstages within many recordings. For example, when background singers come in, they may have a completely different character to their reflections than other tracks. They might sound as if they're in a booth, with no reflections or reverb, or a small room, or a larger room, etc. Sometimes one half of the soundfield sounds close-miked and the other half spacious and open. It can sound pretty weird with some recordings - a collage of performers, each in a different space, all put together.

 

[tomlinmgt]

I disagree. A recording studio with a decent sized and decent sounding live room is just as much a venue as anywhere else. True, many "studios" are little more than a broom cupboard and everything is recorded separately and either close miked or DI'd and those studios can't record a real soundstage, but that doesn't mean all studios are like that.

Is it possible to create a soundstage artificially with electronic reverb etc? Yes, I think it is.

This is parallel to my interpretation of sound stage/imaging. It can be captured from organic scenarios, such as a few mics strategically placed within proximity to a performance ensemble or soloist, or it can be manufactured artificially by a recording engineer utilizing any variety and combination of techniques. I’ve heard/seen sound stage, that being sonic images suspended in free air and locatable/distinguishable in a three dimensional grid that resides in the space between, behind, slightly beyond and above the speakers, in studio recordings and live performances and from multiple genres of each. And this before the discussion is further dissected with regard to resolution...which defines precise characteristics about the individual images like size, vertical/lateral/depth position, contrast against the backdrop of open space, etc.

Touching on the OP’s topic, my experience is that higher SPL’s become less deleterious to image and sound stage resolution when the room’s reverberation profile is optimized which begins with the elimination of early arriving reflections at the listening position.

Finally, subwoofers (deliberately plural) are my preferred remedy for flacid bass at low listening volume.

 

[JoeESP9]

I disagree. A recording studio with a decent sized and decent sounding live room is just as much a venue as anywhere else. True, many "studios" are little more than a broom cupboard and everything is recorded separately and either close miked or DI'd and those studios can't record a real soundstage, but that doesn't mean all studios are like that.

Is it possible to create a soundstage artificially with electronic reverb etc? Yes, I think it is.

Venue can and often does mean the studio where the music was performed. A perfect example of this is any Groove Note recording. They are all recorded in a studio with a minimal number of mics using a passive mixer live to a two track master. No further tweaking is done. They have a easily audible soundstage.

IME electronic reverb rarely sounds like the real thing. When it's added to many studio recordings the reverb on different instruments sounds different. This leads to what I call the cardboard cutout effect. IE: there are a bunch of pinpoint imaged instruments none of which sounds like they were recorded in the same place. To me they sound like cardboard cutouts placed from left to right.

 

[DMLBES]

The reason why most people are confused is because there needs to be a set standard definition of the terms Soundstage and Imaging.

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."


https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

 

[Condorsat]

Yep .. IMHO … it comes down to semantics .. how one defines "soundstage".

 

[fill35u]

The reason why most people are confused is because there needs to be a set standard definition of the terms Soundstage and Imaging.

Agreed!

soundstaging, soundstage presentation

The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

But there are immediate problems with this definition. If soundstage is a measure of accuracy, what standard sound system sets the level of accuracy? Or do we have to resort to ABX testing each system vs a live performance? Auditory memory being so fleeting, that would require starting and stopping the live performance at the listener's whim- not practical for most performances. And of course, we're back to the same old problem that 99%+ of modern recorded music has altered or downright created the locations of the instruments. "Accuracy" is meaningless, if there's nothing to be accurate to.

imaging

The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."

If imaging is a measure, how is it measured? How do you measure if an image is floating or not? Yet again, the definition references sizes and locations of instruments- which in much modern music may not even actually have ever existed in real life. Even for recordings of live performances, without a precise map of the size, orientation, and location of the instruments, there's nothing to refer to. Instrument orientations and locations frequently change during performances. Now you need at least seven dimensions of information- how is that summed up in a single quantifier for "imaging"?
Yet again, for 99%+ of modern recorded music, there's more than a single unpanned stereo mic pair being used. So all that information is now useless, because the effective listener (mic) position relative to the instruments is undefined.

Stack on top of all this the flaws in 2-channel stereo (many known by its inventors even before it was commercialized). A center channel ameliorates most of that, but decoding a center channel from only 2-channels of information is far from trivial. The only real fix is a dedicated center channel signal.

The movie industry has done most of the innovation in the area of "soundstage" and "imaging". 100 years of technology has brought us to the point of Dolby Atmos, where we're not just merely panning sounds into a channel, sound sources are treated as objects with precise 3D location, orientation, and movement relative to the listener. For the Main Listening Position at home, the gear measures the location of the listener and all speakers, measures the speaker and room response, accounts for how many speakers in your particular setup, and a lot of computer power goes to work to make each sound object is perceived exactly as intended by the creator.

2 channel stereo is a compromise that most of the time can produce a very enjoyable illusion. In that sense, it's like an artist's sketch. If you're concerned about visual accuracy, you use cameras and monitors.

 

[Guest159]

Nobody said it was.

No assertion about norms was made, IIRC.

Goodness gracious, how helpful!!

JoeESP9 makes a distinction between reflective information from the original venue, with the performers sharing the space in real time, which he calls a soundstage, and other placement cues. Many of us use the term imaging to include both. Some of us are aware of, and honor, his distinction in terms.

I am finding many of your posts tiresome, and your username very apt. I suggest lightening up.

Yeah... Posts that prove people wrong would get tiresome.

He keeps using "soundstage". That word has a meaning. The definition isn't what you or him are claiming it is. You two are mostly describing ambiance, but for some reason keep calling it "soundstage". "Imaging" describes what a "soundstage" is. You don't even need stereo reproduction to produce what you two are talking about. That's what Phil Spector specialized in producing with his "wall of sound" STUDIO technique.

 

[Guest159]

Agreed!



But there are immediate problems with this definition. If soundstage is a measure of accuracy, what standard sound system sets the level of accuracy? Or do we have to resort to ABX testing each system vs a live performance? Auditory memory being so fleeting, that would require starting and stopping the live performance at the listener's whim- not practical for most performances. And of course, we're back to the same old problem that 99%+ of modern recorded music has altered or downright created the locations of the instruments. "Accuracy" is meaningless, if there's nothing to be accurate to.



If imaging is a measure, how is it measured? How do you measure if an image is floating or not? Yet again, the definition references sizes and locations of instruments- which in much modern music may not even actually have ever existed in real life. Even for recordings of live performances, without a precise map of the size, orientation, and location of the instruments, there's nothing to refer to. Instrument orientations and locations frequently change during performances. Now you need at least seven dimensions of information- how is that summed up in a single quantifier for "imaging"?
Yet again, for 99%+ of modern recorded music, there's more than a single unpanned stereo mic pair being used. So all that information is now useless, because the effective listener (mic) position relative to the instruments is undefined.

Stack on top of all this the flaws in 2-channel stereo (many known by its inventors even before it was commercialized). A center channel ameliorates most of that, but decoding a center channel from only 2-channels of information is far from trivial. The only real fix is a dedicated center channel signal.

The movie industry has done most of the innovation in the area of "soundstage" and "imaging". 100 years of technology has brought us to the point of Dolby Atmos, where we're not just merely panning sounds into a channel, sound sources are treated as objects with precise 3D location, orientation, and movement relative to the listener. For the Main Listening Position at home, the gear measures the location of the listener and all speakers, measures the speaker and room response, accounts for how many speakers in your particular setup, and a lot of computer power goes to work to make each sound object is perceived exactly as intended by the creator.

2 channel stereo is a compromise that most of the time can produce a very enjoyable illusion. In that sense, it's like an artist's sketch. If you're concerned about visual accuracy, you use cameras and monitors.

Just my personal opinion...

But I don't think the modern 25.7.9 surrounded systems, or whatever they're up to, represent great sound. The technique requires that the speakers sound like sources of sound. That approach doesn't impress me too much. I think that's why Golden Ear speakers are great for home theater. They don't image well at all and they have that punchy, forward sound that really favors the home theater style. Home theaters are great music system in my opinion.

 

[JoeESP9]

The "ambience" in a mono recording is not the same thing as a soundstage. The definition of a soundstage is exactly what I've been saying. Ambience is a part of it. Again, I suggest listening to any Groove Note recording. They are known for having a good soundstage. When I play one I hear a large open space with musicians playing in it. I can also hear when someone steps up to the mic for their solo.

 

[Guest159]

The "ambience" in a mono recording is not the same thing as a soundstage. The definition of a soundstage is exactly what I've been saying. Ambience is a part of it. Again, I suggest listening to any Groove Note recording. They are known for having a good soundstage. When I play one I hear a large open space with musicians playing in it. I can also hear when someone steps up to the mic for their solo.

I can hear the same thing in a totally studio produced DCD recording.

 

[JoeESP9]

I've already named an entire line of releases that were made in a studio (Groove Note). However, all the musicians were there at the same time, a minimal number of microphones are used, the mixer is passive and the recordings are made directly to a two track master.

Please name the recording you're talking about. What's a DCD recording?

 

[fill35u]

The "ambience" in a mono recording is not the same thing as a soundstage. The definition of a soundstage is exactly what I've been saying. Ambience is a part of it.

Soundstage includes the imaging. The perceived size of the sound sources (Apparent Source Width), and how they are located relative to the listener. Determined not just by relative time/intensity (panpotting), strongly affected by reflections arriving within 80ms, which includes all the early reflections in typical listening rooms. A good example of this is how ASW and image stability can change dramatically just by changing speaker directivity patterns.

Ambience, or "Listener Envelopment", involves the perception of the size/type of room and the listener's location in the same. Comes from reflections longer than 80ms, beyond what a typical listening room can provide, so has to be a recording of the larger venue's reflections, or synthesized by processing delays.

 

[E-Stat]

Soundstage includes the imaging. The perceived size of the sound sources (Apparent Source Width), and how they are located relative to the listener.

Thanks again for introducing me to Dionysys. I've listened to it more fully in both the garage and the stats upstairs. Their music stirs me on an emotional level. I love their mix of celtic themes and use of unusual percussive instruments. They appeal to my right brain.

Unfortunately, when one listens critically, you find the recording faults are many. One is quite aware of the knob twiddling for panning instruments across the stage that should remain in their own space. You get all manner of left to right placement including instances where a percussive performer instantly jumps from one side of the stage to the other. There is simply no realistic depth to this recording. No sense of players and instruments residing in a three dimensional space as it would be if you heard them live sans sound reinforcement.

Like other DcD recordings, the perspective is simply flat as a board. I would never use this to evaluate the performance of an audio component. Having said that, I want to thank you again for letting me know this is available.

 

[sKiZo]

I find imaging falls apart with volume when the amp runs out of power. Volume itself doesn't diminish imaging. It brings things a bit closer, yes, but the proportion of the space doesn't really change.

I think a lot of folk (me included sometimes) confuse image and presence. The image should maintain itself at any volume level a system is capable of producing without distortion, but less watts = less presence. That for me is the room filling sound that allows what I like to think of as a temporary suspension of disbelief ... transporter ... energize! ;-}

And ya ... the brain interprets SPLs differently, so a good loudness feature can be a major step up in listening pleasure. If you're really serious, go with a full digital music server that has DSP capabilities including variable loudness. Big fan of jRiver MC for that sort of thing.

 

[Guest159]

Thanks again for introducing me to Dionysys. I've listened to it more fully in both the garage and the stats upstairs. Their music stirs me on an emotional level. I love their mix of celtic themes and use of unusual percussive instruments. They appeal to my right brain.

Unfortunately, when one listens critically, you find the recording faults are many. One is quite aware of the knob twiddling for panning instruments across the stage that should remain in their own space. You get all manner of left to right placement including instances where a percussive performer instantly jumps from one side of the stage to the other. There is simply no realistic depth to this recording. No sense of players and instruments residing in a three dimensional space as it would be if you heard them live sans sound reinforcement.

Like other DcD recordings, the perspective is simply flat as a board. I would never use this to evaluate the performance of an audio component. Having said that, I want to thank you again for letting me know this is available.

Their albums are often used by audio show presenters and by the editors at Stereophile to review gear. I've used their material to evaluate speakers. My stereo has no problem conveying an enveloping sense of space in their music. I'd second guess myself in that, but I've put too many inexperienced listeners in the chair who've described exactly that. The sense of a holographic soundscape is usually what surprises people the most. I'm not sure why you're not hearing that in their albums.

 

[JoeESP9]

Like other DcD recordings, the perspective is simply flat as a board. I would never use this to evaluate the performance of an audio component. Having said that, I want to thank you again for letting me know this is available.

This is my main complaint about most pop/rock studio recordings. They sound like cardboard cutouts with little to no depth and a nice left right spread.

 

[E-Stat]

I'm not sure why you're not hearing that in their albums.

I prefer recordings that demonstrate a true sense of space for demonstration purposes.

The former editor of TAS got quickly bored with the DcD recording.