Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

[sigbergaudio]

^Could you try if you find the cardioid speaker sound gets closer to traditional ones if you listen bit further away? I mean, your description sounds bit like the traditional speakers do not make stream separation happen, while the cardioids do. If so, they then have the transition at different distances in the room. Could be that you are on same side of transition with both, but the perception is still different. It would be very interesting information regardless.

I don't have that much experience with the Saranna prototype yet since it's pretty new, but with the Manta cardioid the feeling of improved and "larger" soundstage compared to a sealed speaker remains throughout the room and outside of the sweetspot, so it is about more than different transition distance.

 

[thewas]

controlled directivitiy = layered & 3d soundstage.
good channel matching is also important which is something that most of the good DSP speakers and high-end analog studio speakers have.

Our brain processes location of sounds based on the SPL and phase difference between 2 ears. ILD and ITD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization
If a speaker has good controlled directivity, it means the reflections bouncing off walls and reaching your ear from every direction will have a sound level similar to the direct sound of speakers. I am simplifying it a bit too much but if the reflections sound different than the direct sound of speakers, our brain can't figure out where the sounds are coming from.

As the difference between direct sound and reflections gets larger, the imaging quality of the speakers also diminishes.

Would also like to add to above list the lack of very early reflections and secondary sources:

Basic article | Baffle geometry

About baffle design, edge diffraction, secondary sound sources and their influence on the reproduction quality of loudspeakers.

heissmann-acoustics.de

 

[Brian like sushi]

Perhaps this thread is of interest to you:

Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage

There are some similar threads about what imaging and soundstaging even is, and some threads about how to measure it (we're not great at that). In this thread I thought it would be interesting to have a look what properties is likely to enable a speaker to be good at this. My (!) definition of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Useful

 

[Sokel]

Setting everything right as much as possible is only the recording that does the trick.
Strangely the best 3D image I perceive (not with test files as the ones to test those stuff) comes from the very old recordings such as this:

https://www.discogs.com/release/4155614-Rimsky-Korsakoff-Reiner-Chicago-Symphony-Scheherazade

Very well layered in all dimensions.
Very important is ample power so it will retain it's high dynamic range,it short of flattens out when clipped,even mildly.

 

[Brian like sushi]

controlled directivitiy = layered & 3d soundstage.
good channel matching is also important which is something that most of the good DSP speakers and high-end analog studio speakers have.

Our brain processes location of sounds based on the SPL and phase difference between 2 ears. ILD and ITD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization
If a speaker has good controlled directivity, it means the reflections bouncing off walls and reaching your ear from every direction will have a sound level similar to the direct sound of speakers. I am simplifying it a bit too much but if the reflections sound different than the direct sound of speakers, our brain can't figure out where the sounds are coming from.

As the difference between direct sound and reflections gets larger, the imaging quality of the speakers also diminishes.

That make sense. I saw Adam S series and T series use kind of design.

 

[Blockader]

Would also like to add to above list the lack of very early reflections and secondary sources:

Basic article | Baffle geometry

About baffle design, edge diffraction, secondary sound sources and their influence on the reproduction quality of loudspeakers.

heissmann-acoustics.de

One could also suggest that speakers which are point source / phase coherent might offer better imaging, especially if the room is designed for it. Phase coherent and point source speakers theoretically have an advantage in imaging because the sound from multiple drivers reaches at the same time(smaller differences of ITD) to the left and right ear in a fairly symmetrical room, allowing the imaging to be perceived more accurately.

However, ceiling reflections are not perceived in the same way as reflections from the front or back walls. The initial hypothesis assumes that all reflections should be equally important for imaging performance, but that's not accurate. Nevertheless, it's reasonable to suggest that point source and/or phase coherent systems could be mathematically more precise according to the model of human hearing.

 

[CleanSound]

I have used the term layer before, but what I mean by layer is that each instrument and vocals are it's own distinctive layer.

What does layer here mean?

 

[Schollaudio]

KEF had it figured in the 80s. Good on access, off access and phase response. I like to add low distortion with 3rd\odd order lower than 2nd now too. Now a days that can be done reasonably. Back in the 80s it was harder. the NS10s are an 80s design.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

I have used the term layer before, but what I mean by later is that each instrument and vocals are it's own distinctive layer.

What does layer here mean?

I have 2 analogies:

1. Like a painting, where you wait for the earlier coat of paint to dry before applying the next coat, otherwise the paints will mix

2. Like a pasta dish but then all the ingredients cooked and dressed separately, where you have a clear and structured distinction between pasta, sauce and other ingredients. With on the other side of the spectrum: using a blender to make a homogenous mixture where it is more difficult to taste the separate ingredients. This example demonstrates that there can be too much of a good thing, because it's the artist's choice to make something sound more or less integrated.

 

[CleanSound]

I have 2 analogies:

1. Like a painting, where you wait for the earlier coat of paint to dry before applying the next coat, otherwise the paints will mix

2. Like a pasta dish but then all the ingredients cooked and dressed separately, where you have a clear and structured distinction between pasta, sauce and other ingredients. With on the other side of the spectrum: using a blender to make a homogenous mixture where it is more difficult to taste the separate ingredients. This example demonstrates that there can be too much of a good thing, because it's the artist's choice to make something sound more or less integrated.

That the same meaning I have, although this meaning and perception of sound is super subjective.

 

[thewas]

One could also suggest that speakers which are point source / phase coherent might offer better imaging, especially if the room is designed for it. Phase coherent and point source speakers theoretically have an advantage in imaging because the sound from multiple drivers reaches the ears at the same time(smaller differences of ITD) to the left and right ear in a fairly symmetrical room, allowing the imaging to be perceived more accurately.

However, ceiling reflections are not perceived in the same way as reflections from the front or back walls. The initial hypothesis assumes that all reflections should be equally important for imaging performance, but that's not accurate. Nevertheless, it's reasonable to suggest that point source and/or phase coherent systems could be mathematically more precise according to the model of human hearing.

I agree, but to which source does that initial hypothesis refer to?

 

[Suono]

Gli altoparlanti a coerenza di fase e a sorgente puntiforme hanno teoricamente un vantaggio nell'imaging perché il suono proveniente da più driver raggiunge le orecchie contemporaneamente (differenze minori di ITD) all'orecchio sinistro e destro in una stanza abbastanza simmetrica, consentendo all'immagine di essere percepita di più con precisione.

I'm perfectly agree

 

[Suono]

Tuttavia, i riflessi del soffitto non vengono percepiti allo stesso modo dei riflessi delle pareti anteriori o posteriori. L'ipotesi iniziale presuppone che tutti i riflessi dovrebbero essere ugualmente importanti per le prestazioni dell'immagine, ma non è accurato. Tuttavia, è ragionevole suggerire che la sorgente puntiforme e/o i sistemi coerenti di fase potrebbero essere matematicamente più precisi secondo il modello dell'udito umano

according to the microphone recording

 

[jim1274]

Yes it is important to position things that sound the best, but that alone is subjective of course and I cannot relate to it remotely as we do not share the same space and time and auditory experience, hence trying to promote using the transition that happens with stream separation, switch in the auditory system, and not subjective preference. You could like either side, or both and thats cool, all we need is the transition as reference to be able to communicate over I could better relate what I hear with my system, to what you describe you hear with yours, if you described everything in relation to the transition. If you don't know about it then I think it's hard to know which side you are at. Description of speakers far away from walls and relatively dampened room makes me want to think you are having stream separation but not sure unless you notice it and communicate over.

If using a fixed listening position, seems I need to progressively move speakers closer to my listening position in increments and note the differences in sound. The speaker spread would be part of the equation too, but in a long narrow room, seems unnecessary to move speakers any closer together than the 4’ distance to side wall minimum dictated by room furnishings. That’s basically what I did with the Omnis and dipoles, but not systematically with the “box” speakers.

Besides helping with communication between each other, the transition is important to each of us alone to be able to reason about the sound we perceive with our systems, which enables to tweak positioning to our liking more effectively if we know what we should be hearing, and what not, and then reason with logic how to optimize.


The thing is that if you have stream separation going, more accurate localization, the instruments are spread between L/R speakers like the mixing engineer wanted so varies by recording. If it feels too grouped in the center you have your speakers too close together, and could just spread the speakers out more to increase azimuth angle they are from median plane. Pick a recording which you think has extreme left and right panned sounds, now widen the base width between speakers as much as you dear, as much as you find feels natural to you.

Example, I feel equilateral listening triangle is too narrow with stream separation, and when speakers are roughly 40deg azimuth or something like that it feels natural to me, bit wider apart than equilateral listening triangle. To maintain stream separation, I need to maintain distance from ear to speaker, so basicaly what I've done is make roughly equilateral triangle for listening in sofa, and when I take a chair in front of the sofa to get over the transition for better listen the speakers are now naturally wider apart. I could draw an image later on if it's to help.

I get what you are saying—did the same thing when comparing clarity of the BMR box speakers—did notice the clarity improvement after moving listening position several feet closer.

But….just thought of something…

When moving closer, the sound level increases from the reduced distance. Just did it several more times back and forth on listening distance,
focusing intently on clarity of one instrument in the mix. I’m not so sure this is change in clarity as much perception from music being louder, or maybe a combination of both? I stayed at my far listening position and adjusted volume up and down to mimic the SPL changes of moving closer and seemed to have a similar effect. Does this make any sense? I know it’s absolutely critical to match sound levels when doing an A/B—the louder sound sounds different and almost always better.

The point is, just do what ever feels right to you! The whole idea is to be able to root logic somewhere, and I find the transition very natural place to root my logic on as it doesn't depend on speakers or acoustics but my own perception which I always carry with me and can rely on, from which I can just span out and adjust the system to my liking as I understand what I hear, confusion is removed as I have my auditory system rooted. I could imagine having dipole and omni speakers at hand, comparing them and quite quickly learn how they compare for what I want to hear in my living room and be able to pick the suitable one. I'd know exactly what to listen for, and how they relate, both at the sofa and at the MLP in front. Actually, I would like to extend the MLP to sofa! that would be my goal. I would just adjust the setup and try to listen where the transition is, and figure out which one extends furthest.

Some key and insightful points here. At the end of the day, it’s what “sound” one prefers. The only conclusion I’ve tentatively come to is conventional forward firing box speakers lack the spatial image soundstage spaciousness qualities that the Omni and dipole provide. The addition of reflective sound from multidirectional radiation is additive (to me) if tuned properly in delay timing and level by optimal speaker positioning. The added reverberant sound creates an illusion of presence of live musicians. My testing will focus on what other aspects of good sound like clarity, timbre, and may be sacrificed in the process.

Another point made more than once along the way is the powerful effect of adaptation. During this A/B testing phase, I’ve often done extended listening to both whatever A or B is playing, forgetting which is playing after distractions or interruptions. While the difference is significant and obvious when doing instantaneous A/B back and forth, when I guess which is playing after an interruption and forgetting which is which, I’m often wrong, especially when it was Omni/dipole in the A/B. It’s easier to guess between the BMR box and the AMT dipoles due to the soundstage reverberant aspects, but not batting a thousand on that for sure.

 

[ahofer]

When moving closer, the sound level increases from the reduced distance.

Yup. This is what I've been thinking about in measuring, and in my thesis about compression. Some circle of confusion stuff.

 

[jim1274]

Relying on Griesinger papers, sound is more accurate with stream separation, and less accurate without, due to auditory system, your internal processor! This doesn't mean anything absolute, it just means that if you find what you perceive is not accurate, first make sure you are having stream separation going on by finding where the transition is and then moving closer to speakers than that. If it's still not accurate, you can logically reason it's the recording, or something in your setup as it is not your auditory system. No matter what the state of recording or playback system, you have it now more accurate than further away anyway! Point is, you now know it's not your auditory system that makes it less accurate, but something else, there is no confusion and logic can be applied.

I’m familiar with the Griesinger work. I use a wide range of test recordings during evaluation to compare across a large sample size. As far as playback system, I’m using a Benchmark DAC and amp and their custom speaker and XLR signal cables, so this is a transparent and nuetral front end.

Not knowing your auditory system affects, you might grave for more clarity for example, go and buy new speakers or amplifier in order to improve clarity only to notice it's still not there what you heard on the shop floor. You could have had stream separation happening in the hifi shop as it's different acoustic environment and likely optimized for good sound and mistakenly think it is the amplifier you are listening to, when in reality its your own auditory system giving more everything, paying attention! Then get the gear home, and have no stream separation and so on as you are not aware of any of this, might perceive no clarity and be disappointed to the purchase. While the problem could have been simply your auditory system not being able to provide clarity all along. Another, go buy cables, swap them in and go take a good listen and just to make sure unknowingly lean forward to hear better, and sure enough hear a better sound! and conclude, Yes, cables matter! Except they likely sound exactly the same as previous cable, you just made stream separation by leaning forward and perceive a change without ever knowing it.

I don’t think any signal reproduction changes will make a difference. IMHO, beyond a certain level of quality in the signal chain, I don’t think there would be any audible differences, the room acoustics and speakers/placement being the major defining factor. I’m not going to complicate this by introducing any other variables beyond speakers/positioning into the equation.

Importance is being aware that auditory system matters and affects what you perceive regardless of gear and room, it's always with you. Learning to listen your own auditory system makes it possible to reduce confusion about what you hear, and instead enable use of logic.


Yes, everything matters and at least some of it is not mutually exclusive, for example tonal accuracy could be off in absolute terms, but as long as both speakers match you could still have strong phantom image and make the "clarity" of your auditory system happen. Or, even if tonal accuracy was spot on, you might not have (max) clarity if your auditory system doesn't have stream separation going on.

As noted, I’m going to critically focus on things like tone and clarity as this progresses.

If you find two speakers differ be aware that polar pattern and edge diffraction could make sound tonality vary a lot with listening axis, here is why you'd want good smooth polar response and optimize edge diffraction: sound would stay tonally correct no matter toe-in, and toe-in could then be utilized just to optimize spatial quality of (room) sound. If polar response is bad due to what ever reason, there is about one good listening axis where the toe-in must be locked, spatial quality cannot be adjusted otherwise you'd compromise the tonality.

Auditory system is separate adjustment layer basically, your speakers and room could be anything, ideal, yours, mine, and you could still change the sound by changing listening position as your auditory system locks in or not, stream separation or not. This is why I think auditory system as a subconscious thing in a way, it determines what I actually perceive with my conscious mind, it is like a filter layer between ears and mind. In general the speakers, room and positioning should be adjusted so that the filter (auditory system) gets into a state which provides sound you want to hear with your conscious mind, the one you logically think about the sound, the one you listen with. Auditory system is always there doing it's thing and you cannot swap it to another like speakers, or manipulate directly like EQ knob, but you could learn how it works and affects perception, and then indirectly exploit it to your advantage by adjusting positioning for example.

Another thing that comes to mind is how much does “personal preference” play in the equation? If one can achieve, within the specific given acoustic environment (my living room in this instance) their “best sound”, is it possible there would be more consensus with others than might be expected? To make an example, I always seek input from as many “ears” as possible when doing comparisons. Inside in the winter, it’s just the wife for evaluation comments, but in the summer it’s another story. I did a lot of testing and switching outside last summer, affording me more testing subjects for comment—no shortage of subjects in pool season.
I have found that almost without exception, others selected the same speakers as sounding “best” or said they both sound slightly different but really good that they can’t really pick. Now that I have more speakers/types for comparison/evaluation, this experiment will be repeated there.

 

[jim1274]

Yeah to me, in my place and speakers there is both 2D and 3D kind of presentation available, which changes with listening distance, and quite suddenly. This also means I can change at will, which means speakers need preserve what is on the recording well enough, not some particular thing like linear phase or point source, I don't have either.

I think 3D perception of stereo sound is due to auditory system mostly, when some threshold snaps in auditory system, because if I start moving myself slowly closer toward speakers all room early reflections as well as direct to reflected sound gradually changes with the movement, but at some particular distance (ear from speakers) there seems to be quite sudden change in perception where perception of frontal 2D kind of stereo sound changes into 3D space in a way, like stepping inside the sound. Also clarity happens, it literally feels like stepping inside the sound with one step. When inside, the phantom image doesn't localize into local room as much anymore, but is more the entity that is on the recording and also all around me rather than just on front.

While I do not know any details why it is actually so, like delays and levels of particular reflections and all that, everything that needs to happen happens since the perception shifts. My speakers have low edge diffraction, relatively high and flat DI and so on, I've tried to make them problem free, so in general I think speakers just need to be fine enough to preserve what is it on the recording. Then well matched between left and right, and then just get close enough to speakers so that local room sound gets out of the way enough in order to brain to lock in to the recorded sound and not to localize the sound into your speakers or the local room, into 2D plane at the portion of room where the speakers are.

Look for Auditory Proximity by David Griesinger for more, perceptual change is very much like he refers as Limit of Localization distance so I believe it's the same thing, property of auditory system and not particular property of speakers for example.

After doing more evaluation of forward firing speakers (BMR in this instance), your points are becoming clearer. When getting the geometry of listener and speaker location just right, the soundstage becomes more 3-D. I clearly did not yet evaluate forward firing speakers enough in terms of soundstage. I’m still not convinced that properly tuned rear (diople) or 360 degree (Omni) added reflective energy is not additive, but the gap has narrowed now that I’m getting more optimal placement of the forward firing speakers. Hope I don’t have to eat too many words before this is over..

 

[audiofooled]

Cool cool, the long post I wrote above is quite a simplification in a way that there is likely plethora of all kinds of effects to sound that change with positioning and directivity, especially with eyes open as you say.

In my previous reply I said:

With my current setup and eyes closed perceived image depth is no longer limited by the front wall location. Also ASW is some degrees greater if I were to point and then open my eyes. I believe it has something to do with the fact that when you open your eyes, then your brain has also visual stimuli to process and, since it's all an illusion anyway, the localization is a bit different, but not too much.

I have a very good reason to believe that this effect has something to do with spectral cues and listening environment, more so than the loudspeakers, setup, or the recording itself. To test for this I chose this recording:

If I had to pick one recording that sounds "different" when listening to it on a closed back headphones and over loudspeakers in an untreated room, it would be this one. There is so much subtle details that are panned left and right, which are actually not that subtle and more easily audible on the headphones, than in room.

I listened to it at the same, quiet listening level, during the day, in a noisy environment, and late at night, but with desktop computer (with multiple fans) on, and finally with computer off.

What I found out is that, the less broadband noise which is sharing some of the bandwidth in the reverberant field, the more precise my localization was. Up to a point that, when doing the test with eyes open vs. eyes closed, in the most quiet environment, there was no difference at all. And then, I listened to the same track over the headphones again, only to find out that I actually heard all the details clearly.

I believe that this has something to do with spectral cues which we get from our pinnae shape and the filtering mechanism when we try to look for an apparent sound source. When the broadband noise is making the information more fuzzy, with eyes open there's probably an expectation bias from knowing that the sound must be coming from the loudspeakers, but ITD and ILD information is telling us otherwise. So there are subtle image shifts and less precision when you try to point where the actual image is located. Spectral cues calibration is a delicate thing, I suppose. I mean, try to locate your phone ringing somewhere in the room, when you have lost it. All the reflections won't let you do that very easily.

In conclusion, even though we get used to "filtering out the room" from the sound field and we are doing it routinely, broadband noise may affect this. Thinking about it, even with controlled directivity, there would be energy radiated into the room, you just control how much of it. Direct sound is never "all you get" and reflections, combined with noise, may very well cause some out of phase cancellations, on some recordings.

@jim1274 , you may try this recording I shared above, I expect some interesting observations may arise with different setups

 

[jim1274]

In my previous reply I said:



I have a very good reason to believe that this effect has something to do with spectral cues and listening environment, more so than the loudspeakers, setup, or the recording itself. To test for this I chose this recording:

If I had to pick one recording that sounds "different" when listening to it on a closed back headphones and over loudspeakers in an untreated room, it would be this one. There is so much subtle details that are panned left and right, which are actually not that subtle and more easily audible on the headphones, than in room.

I listened to it at the same, quiet listening level, during the day, in a noisy environment, and late at night, but with desktop computer (with multiple fans) on, and finally with computer off.

What I found out is that, the less broadband noise which is sharing some of the bandwidth in the reverberant field, the more precise my localization was. Up to a point that, when doing the test with eyes open vs. eyes closed, in the most quiet environment, there was no difference at all. And then, I listened to the same track over the headphones again, only to find out that I actually heard all the details clearly.

I believe that this has something to do with spectral cues which we get from our pinnae shape and the filtering mechanism when we try to look for an apparent sound source. When the broadband noise is making the information more fuzzy, with eyes open there's probably an expectation bias from knowing that the sound must be coming from the loudspeakers, but ITD and ILD information is telling us otherwise. So there are subtle image shifts and less precision when you try to point where the actual image is located. Spectral cues calibration is a delicate thing, I suppose. I mean, try to locate your phone ringing somewhere in the room, when you have lost it. All the reflections won't let you do that very easily.

In conclusion, even though we get used to "filtering out the room" from the sound field and we are doing it routinely, broadband noise may affect this. Thinking about it, even with controlled directivity, there would be energy radiated into the room, you just control how much of it. Direct sound is never "all you get" and reflections, combined with noise, may very well cause some out of phase cancellations, on some recordings.

@jim1274 , you may try this recording I shared above, I expect some interesting observations may arise with different setups

Oh my, you just added more complexity to my mad scientist experiments. I just played the Holly Cole on the current AMT/BMR A/B combo, but looks like I need to break out the headphones too now. So it’s a Omni/dipole/box/cans “shootout”. Ssems I should have known better and bought the Benchmark DAC 3 version with headphone amp… The DAC3 has RCA analog outs, so this will work too if I can find a heaphone amp in storage. I’m not a headphone guy beyond using noise cancellation ones when mowing or using loud tools, but will use some here in the interest of science.

This Holly Cole is a nice well recorded minimalist track and now in the test/demo rotation sound list. A good one for female vocal timbre and such comparison. Thanks!

 

[Brian like sushi]

So, what are the most natural-sounding speakers in the world with the most 3D sensation, depth, and layering? For me, it's probably many models from Kef, as well as Focal's Shape series and most products from HEDD.