Why did it take this long to understand

[Guest159]

It certainly, in many instances, obscures the spoken dialogue. There are films @ which I cannot absorb the full voice tracks b/c of the background music/other sound effects, and especially the booming bass shite. Seems this started happening in the early 1990s and has become progressively worse, and not only @ film but also a lotta television productions. I have had to resort to switching on ENGLISH subs so that I can @ least read the effin' dialogue. Sheesh.

I read somewhere in the late 90's that our obsession with bass was going to evolve us into creatures with no ears. Just membranes that detect subsonic rumbling. I think some of this stems from people looking at the anechoic measurements of speakers and seeing bass that drops off in the 40's and they assume, wrongly, that the speaker won't extend smoothly down into the low 30's in a normal room. Consequently, they use massive subs that wildly blow out the bass, and sound track producers cater to that now.

 

[Mystic]

I read somewhere in the late 90's that our obsession with bass was going to evolve us into creatures with no ears. Just membranes that detect subsonic rumbling. I think some of this stems from people looking at the anechoic measurements of speakers and seeing bass that drops off in the 40's and they assume, wrongly, that the speaker won't extend smoothly down into the low 30's in a normal room. Consequently, they use massive subs that wildly blow out the bass, and sound track producers cater to that now.

Good post ^^

 

[E-Stat]

I have nothing else in my collection that is able to put so many different sounds in their own unique space.

Listening to it now in the main system.

Lateral space, yes. There's lots going on and is tasty, but demonstrates little to no front to back depth. Everything is lined up at the front of the stage.

I think the fact that each sound lies "in their own unique space" is quite telling. To me it's like watching Zoom meetings of members of bands playing where you see the matrix of faces. Each performer is in a separate space than the other. For me, I like recordings where you hear multiple instruments and voice playing in the same space, but clearly localized in both dimensions. I was listening to the new classical content playlist on Qobuz and found a great example. It's the 24 bit high resolution Lavanderita soy track from Music at the Cathedral of Jaen by Juan Manuel de al Puente. You can clearly localize Maria Espada singing nearly centered and further back than the chamber players. Left to right AND front to back. You hear the acoustics of the cathedral.

 

[RobRoy]

FWIW: I helped fund college by playing the bass. The GI bill payed for most things but it wasn't enough for me to enjoy life. I joined the AF of M union which allowed me to play commercially, such as that band playing the atrium at the mall.

Not many people make any real money playing "rock" instruments any more. I played with a keyboard player that was playing bars in Seattle back around the 1970 timeframe. You could actually make a decent living at it in those days. Now its a hobby for most players. I compare being in a modern rock/pop band to blaying softball/hardball. Sure, there are a few that make a lot of money at it, but most guys just do it for fun, and a lot of them really suck at it?

BTW, I agree with your sentiments on vinyl pressings.

 

[RobRoy]

Should have been selling them the Pioneer 9191. Truely the best bang for the buck back then. Mine was stolen in a burglery.

I really liked the Pioneer decks from the "wall of silver" era. I was in a band rehearsal with a new group I had just joined in around 2002 and noticed a pioneer CT-f1250 just sitting there collecting desk in a cabinet. I offered him $20 for it, but he insisted on $25. It had the manual with it. Looks wise, it was always my absolute favorite Cassette deck. I couldn't afford it when it was new, but I gobbled that thing up. It needs new belts right now...

 

[RobRoy]

It has been asserted that a soundstage is entirely a creation of the listener's mind. @RobRoy states that a room is needed for the perception of depth. Would someone with a system that has great depth please set it up outside in a field and report whether the depth is still present?

I actually did that once. No, there is no depth. It's stereo.

But then, we were mainly listening to Joe Walsh.

 

[RobRoy]

No, a pair of speakers doesn't just replicate width. Anyone with a system that does good imaging will agree.

That confuses me. From my perspective, that is exactly the job of stereo. And I would expect good imaging when set up properly. By "imaging", I of course mean place within the stereo width. I used to marvel at room setups where you could pinpoint a singer or instrument in the spread. Too often, different frequencies from the same instrument would come from different places within the stereo spread. When I closed my eyes and it sounded like the singer was right there at a single point I knew it was dialed in - at least for that particular seating position.

 

[RobRoy]

Thelma Houston... Pressure Cooker. Only so many per store, I have one from the day. Great recording.

The sound stage stuff... I really don't know what accounts for it and certain speakers demonstrated more of 'it' than others. Stacked Advents did seem to provide a 'sound stage' up, forward, and behind the speakers with some records, not all. The stacked Advents just for an example, there are certainly more competent speakers. To me on average the most pleasurable and realistic listening experience is from earlier recordings by old school at the time engineers who developed their craft before many/multi track recording became available... from the monaural period of hi fi. What ever it is a really good monaural recording from the middle to late fifties has what appears to be depth and spaciousness above and between the speakers... and someone mentioned the Mercury label and recording technique.. and I agree, they seem to further the affect taking advantage of two channels instead of one. An old clean Mercury record of Patty Page comes to mind, not really my taste in music, lounge, but with her beautiful voice and the unobtrusive nature of the recording I find it thoroughly enjoyable... puts me in the mood for a cognac and a fine cigar, and I do neither. As an aside... Some years ago now, I remember hearing studio mixes as a two channel mix down before the mastering lab and greatly preferred the raw un-mastered mix down... reel tape of course.

Oh, man, you so nailed it.

I rebuilt a pair of old PA cabinets with all new components (even the crossover) and, to test it, I put on an old Sinatra recording from around 1960. The only way I know to describe the sound was "smooth as butter". The lower midrange had a power that just made his voice come alive. Sure, the speakers surpassed my expectations, but the quality was in the recording. I've said here before that I think they really had sound quality dialed in by the late 50's. And there wasn't much multitrack. Have you ever seen this video?

 

[JoeESP9]

If as RobRoy says, a soundstage is an artifact generated by my speakers and the room, why don't I hear one with every recording?

A soundstage is conspicuously absent from 99% of highly tweaked studio recordings, ie: pop/rock. I won't go into the "brick walling" that those same recordings suffer from.

IME recordings that are D2D, recorded with a minimal number of microphones and/or "audiophile" type recordings are the only ones that produce a soundstage.

I'm also a fan of earlier recordings (mono and stereo) made without a bunch of studio tweaking. I'm also aware that the mono and stereo versions of KOB are all sourced from a three track master.

 

[spicer]

Oh, man, you so nailed it.

I rebuilt a pair of old PA cabinets with all new components (even the crossover) and, to test it, I put on an old Sinatra recording from around 1960. The only way I know to describe the sound was "smooth as butter". The lower midrange had a power that just made his voice come alive. Sure, the speakers surpassed my expectations, but the quality was in the recording. I've said here before that I think they really had sound quality dialed in by the late 50's. And there wasn't much multitrack. Have you ever seen this video?

Excellent video... thank you. 'The mix is done out there, not in here... capturing the ambience, not fixing it... maintaining proper stereo phase relationship...' a highly developed craft by very talented engineers making use of environment and microphone characteristics to 'get it right on the way in, not 'fix' it later'. The sound of Sinatra 1960ish through your speakers.... smooth as butter, totally understand... and, as listening to Patty Page, you know compression was involved but you wouldn't know it... great natural dynamics of a gifted singer as though it is live. One thing the gentleman said on the video that is absolutely true is the ability of the musician, drums, singer, what ever, to play softly, quietly, with presence and nuance... that sense of spaciousness and living ambience to the sound, to the music... that's where the magic lives... not the hype. And yet, Money For Nothing has it's place...

 

[Guest159]

That confuses me. From my perspective, that is exactly the job of stereo. And I would expect good imaging when set up properly. By "imaging", I of course mean place within the stereo width. I used to marvel at room setups where you could pinpoint a singer or instrument in the spread. Too often, different frequencies from the same instrument would come from different places within the stereo spread. When I closed my eyes and it sounded like the singer was right there at a single point I knew it was dialed in - at least for that particular seating position.

It's generally considered that if a pair of speakers don't convey depth, height, and width beyond the boundaries of the speakers that they basically have no imaging capabilities or that the room has poor acoustic properties. Some speakers aren't intended to produce good imaging and focus more on tone and suffice with basic left/right delineation. I personally expect a pair of speakers to produce a richly three dimensional space and for the speakers to disappear as sources of sound.

In my experience you end up with instruments and voices wandering around the room when you have one side of the room or the other reinforcing some frequencies better than others. It's acoustic distortion, and the same effects can be had with a pair of stereo amps that aren't properly paired and are producing different distortion characteristics. Even fairly minor differences in distortion between two amps will send instruments and voices shifting around the space in weird ways.

 

[RobRoy]

It's generally considered that if a pair of speakers don't convey depth, height, and width beyond the boundaries of the speakers that they basically have no imaging capabilities or that the room has poor acoustic properties. Some speakers aren't intended to produce good imaging and focus more on tone and suffice with basic left/right delineation. I personally expect a pair of speakers to produce a richly three dimensional space and for the speakers to disappear as sources of sound.

In my experience you end up with instruments and voices wandering around the room when you have one side of the room or the other reinforcing some frequencies better than others. It's acoustic distortion, and the same effects can be had with a pair of stereo amps that aren't properly paired and are producing different distortion characteristics. Even fairly minor differences in distortion between two amps will send instruments and voices shifting around the space in weird ways.

I'm not part of the "generally considered" crowd. But that's ok. I'm an outlier in all sorts of things. I'm usually in the minority.

I'll say this, though. The speakers in my LG TV do give a sound stage much wider than the TV itself. It's because it effectively messes electronically with phase. They've been dialing that sort of thing in for quite a while and it's pretty impressive. However, with a direct, non-manipulated signal where there are no room acoustics to consider, if the speakers are 20 feet apart, the sound stage is 20 feet wide. One of my comrades in Hi-Fi back in the day had an acoustic engineering degree. In slow times he and I talked about this stuff quite a bit. Acoustics is pretty amazing. I used to think of it as magic. He brought the science into it.

 

[E-Stat]

IHowever, with a direct, non-manipulated signal where there are no room acoustics to consider, if the speakers are 20 feet apart, the sound stage is 20 feet wide.

I'm with RL on this. Sorry you've not heard better.

I've experienced speakers create an apparent stage width far outside their physical boundaries. Walls disappeared. Mind you, it required a very good recordings along with exceptional gear.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

The difference is multi-tracking sounds kills the sense of natural depth and ultimately sounds unnatural while hearing sounds around you in a movie setting is quite natural. If you recall, I responded to this question of yours:

"... while your ears here stuff coming from all over the place?"

Yes, sounds in my life do come from all over the place. From directly behind. Above and sometimes below. Every single day.

And movies are dubbed, redubbed, endless amounts of times in post processing and processed far more and companded, that you can't call movie sound natural or full range. So don't call movie sound in the surround and modern movie era natural, it isn't. It's very artificial, it is very manipulated. It's more processed than even the least purist recording in Stereo.

 

[E-Stat]

And movies are dubbed, redubbed, endless amounts of times in post processing and processed far more and companded, that you can't call movie sound natural or full range.

I'll repeat my observation from post #46:

And find that an imperfect sense of hearing "sound coming at you from all directions" more convincing that the decidedly unnatural lack of peripheral sounds.

Maybe you find otherwise. And I find soundtracks cover the full range. What range(s) do you find missing?

 

[RobRoy]

I'm with RL on this. Sorry you've not heard better.

I've experienced speakers create an apparent stage width far outside their physical boundaries. Walls disappeared. Mind you, it required a very good recordings along with exceptional gear.

Well, to be fair, I've heard that as well. But I rack it up to room acoustics. (And psycho-acoustics)

I went to Axpona in Chicago about a year ago and listened to a LOT of very nice and very well set up systems. One of the things I listened for was "sound stage". Except for the systems set up in hotel rooms, none of the other truly exotic systems had a sound stage wider than the speaker placement.

Another challenge was one I noticed in Difinitive Audio on Roosevelt in Seattle. We were listening to a half million dollar system and there were two chairs set up next to each other. One was in the sweet spot and the other right next to it. The difference in sound "stage" between the two chairs was staggering. And this speaks to why I am not the audiophile I used to be. If the only time a system sounds "perfect" is from a single point in a room, it's not worth pursuing. I'm sure not gonna be that bore (like I used to be) that insists friends sit in that chair and listen to a song. But even in that "perfect" seating position, the soundstage produced by the speakers was as wide as the speaker placement, with some reflection coming off the walls of the room to give the impression of a wider sound stage.

This is why Klipschorns go in the corners of a room. And for them to fully be appreciated the room needs to be 40 feet wide, due to bass wavelengths.

 

[E-Stat]

But even in that "perfect" seating position, the soundstage produced by the speakers was as wide as the speaker placement, with some reflection coming off the walls of the room to give the impression of a wider sound stage.

It was either wider or not.

This is why Klipschorns go in the corners of a room.

Actually, their bass folded horn design requires corner reinforcement. Has nothing to do with imaging. Which for that speaker, I've never found very impressive stuck against the wall.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

I'll repeat my observation from post #46:

And find that an imperfect sense of hearing "sound coming at you from all directions" more convincing that the decidedly unnatural lack of peripheral sounds.

Maybe you find otherwise. And I find soundtracks cover the full range. What range(s) do you find missing?

I find present movies unnaturally soft and loud. And too processed and manipulated. Turn the picture off and listen to the movie without a picture and see how this changes. How it sounds in a good theater and how that mix sounds at home, the problem is magnified. Many movies get redubbed 30 times or more in post production, and it's artificial. What for me is missing is audio quality pure and simple. A believable experience in an intimate setting. Modern movies have way too inflated special effects. Too many explosions, too much CGI. Unnatural to a trained ear, and a musical ear. It's even worse in an intimate setting (at home) than Broadway belters are at home. The movie companies need an option of a toned down mix which is less dynamic exaggerated, and scaled for home use. Keep the full range mix for those who want it. I'd rather have 2 channels of really nice Stereo than 5 or more channels of Surround in the same home. I'd rather have main speakers which disappear, and midrange which is intact. For me if the midrange is sucked out, it's not listenable any length of time. I want good bass, and extended treble but not at the expense of that midrange. And plenty detailed without fatigue.

 

[E-Stat]

I find present movies unnaturally soft and loud.

As for me, I find wide dynamic range quite realistic.

What for me is missing is audio quality pure and simple.

Agree with you there. Theater systems never sound as good as better audio systems to me in that regard.

Too many explosions, too much CGI...Not relaxing for me.

Perhaps you should widen your scope of movies.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Agree with you there. Theater systems never sound as good as better audio systems to me in that regard.


Perhaps you should widen your scope of movies.

Note I am discussing most of the new movies at the neighborhood multiplex. I like the better movies of the past and good ones today. I love the 1950's and 1960's epic movies, the best musicals, and love a good flick. I love a great spaghetti western. What movies I watch tend to be carefully chosen and curated.