Soundstage from two channels: where does it come from?

[toddalin]

First of all, anyone who thinks that studio recordings with separately miced instruments can't produce a soundstage is just using the wrong definition of soundstage which is simply the width of the preceived image. It don't matter if the left tom tom is all the way to the left, out beyond the left speaker, and the right tom tom is all the way to the right beyond the right speaker, which is never the way you would hear it unless you were sitting on the drummer's throne, and even then it wouldn't be this wide. it's still a soundstage by definition. Every properly set-up stereo produces a soundstage from a stereo recording regardless of the venue/micing. Some of the best soundstaging and imaging I've ever heard are from studio recordings.

Furthermore with the newer digital equipment, an engineer can pan an instrument and add/while adding delay to "move" that instrument over similar to what you would actually observe in space. Delay and panning can then also add to a sense of front back (depth) because the ear picks up the delayed signal and interprets it to be a bit further away.

So how does one make the soundstage wider?

Equipment contributes though it's "separation factor." No separation = mono. Poor separation = narrow/poor soundstage and undefined imaging. Obviously, the better the separation, the better the soundstage can be. Also, if a stereo has phasing issues between the channels, this can manifest itself downline hurting the sounstage and imaging creating nulls where they shouldn't be.

For the recording process, the engineer described it best "using a combination of panning an phasing."

Both channels playing the same thing in phase create a mono/center image. But if the channels are out off phase, where they come together they cancel each other out. And, the engineer can adjust panning so as to put where the images come together anywhere between the speakers. So imagine if the engineer panned toward the right, but added the left channel out of phase, it could create a null at the speaker, but not for that sound out beyond the speaker, where the two signals are not out of phase. This is why it can sound wider than the actual distance of the speakers. (Polk actually incorporated this thinking into some of their speakers adding the other channel out of phase to widen the image.)

 

[AC50]

As far as things under an audiophile’s control, it would seem that room acoustics, phono cartridges, speakers and speaker positioning can have a tremendous impact on soundstage.

 

[MarmotDavid]

E-stat got it...some equipment is simply better than others at retrieving that information in the recording that deals with spatial cues.
Is it bothering you that there's no objective metric for this, @MarmotDavid?
That's what gets me about the measurements crowd (particularly over at ASR)...they seem to be totally oblivious to the relevance of image and sound stage resolution in the reproduction of a recording. It's as if it won't even be acknowledged if it can't be measured...and that's where I can't get on board with the measurements crowd.

Yes, that it bothers me that the soundstage / spatial cue information in the source recording is not dealt with more objectively in reviews of equipment. It would be great if there were an agreed upon metric to measure it and describe it. Just because no one has figured out a metric doesn't mean one could not be sought. Just to be clear, I am NOT in the camp that says if you can't measure it, it is not real. There is no doubt real soundstage information to be enjoyed in recorded music; it is what makes it come alive. At this point though, reviews of equipment, in my opinion, fail at consistently and objectively describing how "faithful" the equipment reproduces and passes the source material to the next link in the reproduction chain.

 

[toddalin]

Yes, that it bothers me that the soundstage / spatial cue information in the source recording is not dealt with more objectively in reviews of equipment. It would be great if there were an agreed upon metric to measure it and describe it. Just because no one has figured out a metric doesn't mean one could not be sought. Just to be clear, I am NOT in the camp that says if you can't measure it, it is not real. There is no doubt real soundstage information to be enjoyed in recorded music; it is what makes it come alive. At this point though, reviews of equipment, in my opinion, fail at consistently and objectively describing how "faithful" the equipment reproduces and passes the source material to the next link in the reproduction chain.

OK...,

Let's say that the "expansion" of sound is due to panning and phasing cues, speaker/listener placement, and the electronic components (e.g., separation).

Therefore, the sounstage/imaging will vary with the components, the piece of music being played (because of the way the engineer engineered it), the speakers, and distance/toe between/of the speakers, how far the listener sits, and the acoustics of the venue. To quantifiably measure soundstage/imaging would then require all of these parameters to be the same so that we can look at each component individually. There is no accepted set-up of all of these parameters that would allow for an objective and repeatably measureable sounstage/imaging.

 

[JoeESP9]

First of all, anyone who thinks that studio recordings with separately miced instruments can't produce a soundstage is just using the wrong definition of soundstage which is simply the width of the preceived image.

This is where we disagree. You make no mention of depth or height. Both of those qualities, especially depth, are inherent in a soundstage.

Yes, many studio recordings try to artificially add a soundstage. IME/O they are rarely successful. What they usually produce sounds to me like a bunch of flat cardboard cutouts of various instruments spread from left to right. There is little if any sense of depth.

As posted earlier, any direct to disk recording will produce a soundstage. As will just about any recording made live with all the musicians and vocalists performing at the same time.

There are plenty of CD's that produce a soundstage. Groove Note records all of their CD's using a minimal number of microphones into a passive mixer and from there to a two-track master. No studio "tidying up" is used.

In short, recordings that produce a credible soundstage are almost always recorded live either in a studio or a true stage.

 

[tomlinmgt]

This is where we disagree. You make no mention of depth or height. Both of those qualities, especially depth, are inherent in a soundstage.

Yes, many studio recordings try to artificially add a soundstage. IME/O they are rarely successful. What they usually produce sounds to me like a bunch of flat cardboard cutouts of various instruments spread from left to right. There is little if any sense of depth.

As posted earlier, any direct to disk recording will produce a soundstage. As will just about any recording made live with all the musicians and vocalists performing at the same time.

There are plenty of CD's that produce a soundstage. Groove Note records all of their CD's using a minimal number of microphones into a passive mixer and from there to a two-track master. No studio "tidying up" is used.

In short, recordings that produce a credible soundstage are almost always recorded live either in a studio or a true stage.

Did you ever listen to Sade's "Is It a Crime" (listening specifically for the congas in the background) like I suggested to you in another discussion as one example (of many) of sound stage depth from a multi-track recording?

 

[kirk57]

In a multi-track recording, each instrument (congas, for instance) can be heard in it's own acoustic envelope, so it's quite possible to hear soundstage information on a multi-track recording.

This is entirely different than what Joe is talking about, where the entire orchestra or small ensemble occupies the same space and the mics (often spaced Omnis) capture all ambient cues from the same event.

 

[twiiii]

Ambient sound of the recording captured by the capabilities of the microphones and the equipment controlled by the recording engineers. Of course with todays advanced electronic wizardry it might be comming from inside a computer or digital processor and not the acoustics of the space as it should.

 

[tomlinmgt]

I recognize that the three-dimensional depiction of sonic images in playback from a recording that was made using ambient mics...compared to a multi- track recording...is typically distinguishable because of the ambience of the recording space that is captured in the recording. If that particular characteristic is required to satisfy the definition of "sound stage", we're left with no agreed upon term to describe the physical space where three- dimensional sonic images are depicted during the playback of a multi track recording. Because make no mistake, there is three dimensional depiction of sonic images in the playback of some multi-track recordings. I've seen the industry use the term "sound stage" (mostly in professional reviews and when speaking with industry reps) for both types of recordings, so I continue to use the term as it applies to any three dimensional depiction of sonic images in the playback of a recording regardless of how the recording was made.

And it's never really bothered me much that no system has been developed to measure or apply a metric to it. There's a sort of mystique to the depiction of sonic images (and their resolution) in the open air space within the proximity of the speakers that, for me, keeps the hobby a bit more interesting/fascinating.

 

[JoeESP9]

Did you ever listen to Sade's "Is It a Crime" (listening specifically for the congas in the background) like I suggested to you in another discussion as one example (of many) of sound stage depth from a multi-track recording?

I have that recording. It like most other studio-based recordings makes the instruments/musicians sound like cardboard cutouts. The ambience around the various instruments varies from instrument to instrument. There is no cohesive all to the ambience.

In a multi-track recording, each instrument (congas, for instance) can be heard in it's own acoustic envelope, so it's entirely possible to hear soundstage information on a multi-track recording.

This is entirely different that what Joe is talking about where the entire orchestra (or sometimes small ensembles) occupy the same space and the mics
capture all ambient cues from the same event.

Yes, they can and do add all sorts of "fixes" to studio-based recordings. Unfortunately, they usually succumb to having different ambience from instrument to instrument. There is no cohesive whole to the sound. Hence my calling it "cardboard cutout" sound.

I realize and accept that most (virtually all) studio recordings have little to no soundstage. I still buy and listen to such recordings. However, there is no doubt that recordings made using a minimal number of microphones and without the "benefit" of studio sweetening sound more realistic to me.

Maybe someday a propellor head or specs maven will find a way to measure and quantify a soundstage. Until then it's strictly a subjective experience.

 

[E-Stat]

Did you ever listen to Sade's "Is It a Crime" (listening specifically for the congas in the background) like I suggested to you in another discussion as one example (of many) of sound stage depth from a multi-track recording?

Not Joe, but I have that track and will listen later.

In a multi-track recording, each instrument (congas, for instance) can be heard in it's own acoustic envelope...

I find that "instrument in a box" approach ultimately unnatural sounding. You are reminded each was captured in a different space and/or time than the others.

For me, it is about totality of having everything in a single, cohesive space. Like the real experience. Not a patchwork of separate entities.

 

[JoeESP9]

For me, it is about totality of having everything in a single, cohesive space. Like the real experience. Not a patchwork of separate entities.

This is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[tomlinmgt]

I have that recording. It like most other studio-based recordings makes the instruments/musicians sound like cardboard cutouts. The ambience around the various instruments varies from instrument to instrument. There is no cohesive all to the ambience.



Yes, they can and do add all sorts of "fixes" to studio-based recordings. Unfortunately, they usually succumb to having different ambience from instrument to instrument. There is no cohesive whole to the sound. Hence my calling it "cardboard cutout" sound.

Then I'll ask you the question I've presented to you and others before...what are we supposed to name that three-dimensional space the "cardboard cutouts" populate during playback of a multi-track recording?
An "MTR sound stage", maybe? And just hope it catches on???

 

[JoeESP9]

Then I'll ask you the question I've presented to you and others before...what are we supposed to name that three-dimensional space the "cardboard cutouts" populate during playback of a multi-track recording?

Call it what you like. I have no suggestion as to what to call it. To me those recordings just don't side like they are a cohesive whole. Without that background/ambient commonality musical recordings sound to me like a jigsaw puzzle where the parts don't quite fit each other.

 

[tomlinmgt]

Call it what you like. I have no suggestion as to what to call it. To me those recordings just don't side like they are a cohesive whole. Without that background/ambient commonality musical recordings sound to me like a jigsaw puzzle where the parts don't quite fit each other.

Just don't call it "sound stage", right?

 

[JoeESP9]

Does it sound like musicians playing together in a single space? If not, it's not a soundstage to me. It's simply artificial placement of the tracks.

If your idea of a soundstage is cardboard sounding cutouts that fit together poorly, all sounding like they were recorded in different spaces, then, for you it's a soundstage. it's not to me.

 

[toddalin]

This is where we disagree. You make no mention of depth or height. Both of those qualities, especially depth, are inherent in a soundstage.

Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean that I don't hear it or consider it.

In the past, I've discussed that I could walk diagnol lines between instruments for various studio recordings (e.g., Loggins & Messina). Diagnol lines require both width and depth of the soundstage to properly place the images.

I've also mentioned how "sharp" pitched percussion instruments (e.g., Ruth Underwood (Zappa)/Gentle Giant on marimba) can "float" above the soundstage as it crosses over from one side to the other. These are all multi-track studio albums, and infact the studio versions do better at this than the live recordings!

I've also stated how some cymbols can be "over your shoulder."

This is all from two channels played using an Oppo95 through a Yamaha RX-Z9 in "Pure Direct" mode through the Mermans with nothing added to the signal chain except the attenuator.

If you can't hear this in a good studio recording, maybe you've been listening to the wrong recordings.

You want to hear a marimba float? Listen to "Knots" at 15:00. Most everything (synthesizer) should float at 23:14 and should extend well beyond the two speakers.

Actually, if you go to the end of the studio recording there is a live recording in this remastered version. Listen to both "Boys in the Band"/"Knots" cuts and you judge what has a better presentation and soundstage/imaging.

 

[JoeESP9]

I've never said I couldn't "hear" the differences between a true soundstage and one artificially created in a studio.

What I've said from the beginning is, "The musicians sound like a poorly assembled jigsaw puzzle because the parts don't quit fit each other". The lack of a common ambience is the major issue for me. Without a common ambience it all sounds like exquisitely recorded cardboard cutouts that are just pasted together.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I listen to a wide variety of music that includes everything but Gospel/religiously based music. I don't expect to hear much of a soundstage from pop/rock recordings and I don't. The way the recordings are made makes a realistic soundstage impossible to reproduce. That's because there isn't one to begin with.

 

[toddalin]

it's not to me.

Just because "it's not to you" is no reason to deny it's existance. Isn't there someone in the news with a similar point of view?

 

[JoeESP9]

Just because "it's not to you" is no reason to deny it's existance. Isn't there someone in the news with a similar point of view?

Good one.

However, it doesn't apply here. All you have to do is compare the soundstage from any direct to disk recording and any multitracked, studio edited recording. One sounds like there is a "real" group of musicians over there where the speakers used to be. The other just sounds artificial.