"Bias" of some members towards headphone measurements?

[Miguelón]

Maybe it is not only in the audio equipment where soundstage should be measured:

Is the perception of a soundstage, particularly with IEMs, a function of spatial ability?

For me, soundstage differences are one of the most important aspects of a headphone or IEM, yet many people report being unable to tell the difference between sets. I wonder if spatial abilities play a central role in creating the psychoacoustic phenomena of perceiving a stage of different sizes...

www.audiosciencereview.com

What is exactly soundstage?

I searched the internet but didn’t found precise definitions of the term.

To me means the tridimensional perception of the music, some topographical arrangement of instrument or acoustic information. But perhaps I missing the general concept of the term.

If this what you call “soundstage” I guess that partially depends on external characteristics of the audio experience and also on subjective imagination. As deep perception looking a picture

 

[solderdude]

With soundstage they mean that if you close your eyes in front of a stereo image you can almost point to the positions where instruments are in front of you.
This is dependent on the recording itself as well as the speakers and placement and how much imagination the listener has.
One can even determine positioning in front or behind the speakers.
As if there is a podium in front of you where instrumentalists/singers are in front of you. Depth, width and even height which can extend beyond that of the speakers.
A bit like stereoscope pictures do but then with sound.

In headphones I prefer the term 'headstage' if that word existed. A good headstage is when you can tell the position of instruments.
Depending on the individual, recording and headphone itself it can be anywhere from between the ears to slightly in front of the head.
It appears that good channel matching (certainly above 1kHz) is an important factor.

 

[Miguelón]

With soundstage they mean that if you close your eyes in front of a stereo image you can almost point to the positions where instruments are in front of you.
This is dependent on the recording itself as well as the speakers and placement and how much imagination the listener has.
One can even determine positioning in front or behind the speakers.
As if there is a podium in front of you where instrumentalists/singers are in front of you. Depth, width and even height which can extend beyond that of the speakers.
A bit like stereoscope pictures do but then with sound.

In headphones I prefer the term 'headstage' if that word existed. A good headstage is when you can tell the position of instruments.
Depending on the individual, recording and headphone itself it can be anywhere from between the ears to slightly in front of the head.
It appears that good channel matching (certainly above 1kHz) is an important factor.

Logically, as spatial placement of an object depends on differences of sound pressure between the two ears at the sound arrival, and also on differences on time.

But because our physical limitations is impossible to discern sound from behind to front, only organize it in an imaginary left to right line. The same about up and down.

The only way to distinguish this 2 other degrees of freedom is by micro movements of the head and recalculating 3D stage (in reality, not in audio reproduction) from different vector basis.

So when moving the head does nothing as when listening with headphones the only way is inaginations.

I tend to perceive lower frequencies from the ground and higher frequencies placed at different heights, voice on the middle at my face height and other patterns. Surely more people share that organization: low frequencies are often coming from ground reflections in the outside, mids form other human voices and highs probably from birds.

Far and close surely have to do with relative intensities of the instruments, the stronger the closer and the weaker the farther

 

[Theta]

With soundstage they mean that if you close your eyes in front of a stereo image you can almost point to the positions where instruments are in front of you.
This is dependent on the recording itself as well as the speakers and placement and how much imagination the listener has.
One can even determine positioning in front or behind the speakers.
As if there is a podium in front of you where instrumentalists/singers are in front of you. Depth, width and even height which can extend beyond that of the speakers.
A bit like stereoscope pictures do but then with sound.

In headphones I prefer the term 'headstage' if that word existed. A good headstage is when you can tell the position of instruments.
Depending on the individual, recording and headphone itself it can be anywhere from between the ears to slightly in front of the head.
It appears that good channel matching (certainly above 1kHz) is an important factor.

How can you possibly determine, the placement of musician when a recording is full of overdubs and dozens of microphones? How many studio recordings actualy record musicians playing together without correction in the mix and mastering?
Conversations on soundstage and imaging is worse, and completely dependent on the listener's willingness and imagination, this is even less worthy of discution than any subjectivist apraisal, so much maligned on this forum.

 

[solderdude]

How can you possibly determine, the placement of musician when a recording is full of overdubs and dozens of microphones? How many studio recordings actualy record musicians playing together without correction in the mix and mastering?
Conversations on soundstage and imaging is worse, and completely dependent on the listener's willingness and imagination, this is even less worthy of discution than any subjectivist apraisal, so much maligned on this forum.

As said it depends on the recording.
Also it depends on the individual, speakers and placement.

The question was what was meant with 'soundstage' so that's my answer.

 

[Sokel]

How can you possibly determine, the placement of musician when a recording is full of overdubs and dozens of microphones? How many studio recordings actualy record musicians playing together without correction in the mix and mastering?
Conversations on soundstage and imaging is worse, and completely dependent on the listener's willingness and imagination, this is even less worthy of discution than any subjectivist apraisal, so much maligned on this forum.

It depends.
Here you can see how they do it:

 

[InfiniteJester]

With soundstage they mean that if you close your eyes in front of a stereo image you can almost point to the positions where instruments are in front of you.
This is dependent on the recording itself as well as the speakers and placement and how much imagination the listener has.
One can even determine positioning in front or behind the speakers.
As if there is a podium in front of you where instrumentalists/singers are in front of you. Depth, width and even height which can extend beyond that of the speakers.
A bit like stereoscope pictures do but then with sound.

In headphones I prefer the term 'headstage' if that word existed. A good headstage is when you can tell the position of instruments.
Depending on the individual, recording and headphone itself it can be anywhere from between the ears to slightly in front of the head.
It appears that good channel matching (certainly above 1kHz) is an important factor.

I see music occupying a tridimensional space. I'm always in awe when people say that they don't see music. It is hard for me to understand why would someone like music while being unable to see it.

Some sets make much easier to see music. But, apparently, a good set is not enough.

I made a software a while ago to induce grapheme–color synesthesia, and I think that practicing with it greatly enhanced my ability to visualize.

I can share my software if anyone wants to try it, but it is a very basic thing. Anyone could probably do better.

 

[InfiniteJester]

You all must remember that imagination can be very powerful. People with the ability to visualize get their pupils contracted when imagining a light.

You can say: "that is absurd, there are no photons in the imagination". Of course there is not enough information in the audio to create complex soundstages with tridimensional objects, but some sets allow the illusion to be created. Like a good book can create incredible pictures in your imagination, while a bad one cannot.

I'm not saying that the soundstage that I get is precise, it probably isn't, but it is vivid.

And, yes, it has height, depth and color and it extends behind my back.

 

[rank]

Ah the famous soundstage...

 

[Koeitje]

With soundstage they mean that if you close your eyes in front of a stereo image you can almost point to the positions where instruments are in front of you.
This is dependent on the recording itself as well as the speakers and placement and how much imagination the listener has.
One can even determine positioning in front or behind the speakers.
As if there is a podium in front of you where instrumentalists/singers are in front of you. Depth, width and even height which can extend beyond that of the speakers.
A bit like stereoscope pictures do but then with sound.

In headphones I prefer the term 'headstage' if that word existed. A good headstage is when you can tell the position of instruments.
Depending on the individual, recording and headphone itself it can be anywhere from between the ears to slightly in front of the head.
It appears that good channel matching (certainly above 1kHz) is an important factor.

90%+ of that is probably the recording (assuming you aren't listening on a cheap soundbar or portable Bluetooth speaker).

 

[tmtomh]

How can you possibly determine, the placement of musician when a recording is full of overdubs and dozens of microphones? How many studio recordings actualy record musicians playing together without correction in the mix and mastering?
Conversations on soundstage and imaging is worse, and completely dependent on the listener's willingness and imagination, this is even less worthy of discution than any subjectivist apraisal, so much maligned on this forum.

Synthetic soundstages are still soundstages. The fact that the musicians were not actually playing together live at the same time, and that the mic setup creates a different sense of the space and locations than the actual recording studio, is irrelevant to the question of whether we can perceive specific instruments and vocals in specific locations in front of us when we play the finished recording on our sound systems.

Neither @solderdude nor anyone else is claiming that perceived instrument location has an objective reference like, say, a DAC’s distortion measurement. But a guitar panned left in a recording is going to sound like it’s coming from the left of the listener when a properly functioning and decently set-up stereo system is used to play that recording and the listener is reasonably near the midpoint between the two speakers, in a room that doesn’t have any exceptionally unusual acoustic properties.

That general locational perception is an objective fact for that recording played in those circumstances, even though the details might vary considerably from person to person. It’s a “fuzzy” fact but it’s useful enough to use as a reference such that if the guitar doesn’t sound like it’s coming from somewhere on the left side then we start to investigate the system quality or setup (or the room properties).

 

[Titurel]

One problem evaluating "soundstage" occurs when one equates soundstage with specificity. The question is not whether one might close ones eyes and point to the 2nd oboe, it's how accurately the system (recording and playback) captures and reconstructs the perspective of a given position in the sound field, whether that sound field is actual or virtual. Let's use headphones and a binaural recording for an easy example. If the "rubber head" is placed near the performers, the resulting recording will likely have great specificity. Place the rubber head deep in the reverberant field and the recording would likely exhibit low specificity, even conflicting positional cues. Thus, to use any recording to evaluate soundstage, it is necessary to first understand the original sound field and then what perspective the engineers wished to trap. While it's possible to extract (exaggerate?) positional information from highly reverberant captures, the result will not accurately represent the sound field in which the performance occurred nor do justice to the performance itself.

 

[tmtomh]

One problem evaluating "soundstage" occurs when one equates soundstage with specificity. The question is not whether one might close ones eyes and point to the 2nd oboe, it's how accurately the system (recording and playback) captures and reconstructs the perspective of a given position in the sound field, whether that sound field is actual or virtual. Let's use headphones and a binaural recording for an easy example. If the "rubber head" is placed near the performers, the resulting recording will likely have great specificity. Place the rubber head deep in the reverberant field and the recording would likely exhibit low specificity, even conflicting positional cues. Thus, to use any recording to evaluate soundstage, it is necessary to first understand the original sound field and then what perspective the engineers wished to trap. While it's possible to extract (exaggerate?) positional information from highly reverberant captures, the result will not accurately represent the sound field in which the performance occurred nor do justice to the performance itself.

All of that assumes the recording is designed to reproduce the sound field in which the performances occurred.

 

[Titurel]

All of that assumes the recording is designed to reproduce the sound field in which the performances occurred.

I thought I made that clear.

" it is necessary to first understand the original sound field and then what perspective the engineers wished to trap."

 

[usern]

If soundstage is placement of instruments, then it's completely useless for everyone listening to electronic music.

 

[Titurel]

If soundstage is placement of instruments, then it's completely useless for everyone listening to electronic music.

One parameter of soundstage is specificity, but it need not be with regard to physical instruments. Specificity refers to sonic events, not necessarily to the physical position of their sources. The soundstage can easily be virtual - position and movement are musical parameters which can be specified by the composer and/or effected by the engineer.

 

[Miguelón]

Honestly I don’t care at all about soundstage: mono recordings are excellent to me, less problematic when listening casual. I agree that stereo is more realistic and dolby (in good quality which I know just a few well made classical recordings) is also fun.

But after all, music is encoded mainly in time, intensity and frequency domain, placing instruments at different places is more like an accident.

Destructive critics welcome!

 

[tmtomh]

I thought I made that clear.

" it is necessary to first understand the original sound field and then what perspective the engineers wished to trap."

Yes, understood - but the end of your comment proposed a very different scenario: "While it's possible to extract (exaggerate?) positional information from highly reverberant captures, the result will not accurately represent the sound field in which the performance occurred nor do justice to the performance itself." The first part of the bit I've bolded assumes we're looking to "represent the sound field in which the performance occurred" and the latter part makes a value judgment about the quality of the recording and/or playback based on the original performance.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, truly - it's just that it seems to me in these discussions the fidelity/realism conflation tends to creep in quite a lot.

 

[Titurel]

Yes, understood - but the end of your comment proposed a very different scenario: "While it's possible to extract (exaggerate?) positional information from highly reverberant captures, the result will not accurately represent the sound field in which the performance occurred nor do justice to the performance itself." The first part of the bit I've bolded assumes we're looking to "represent the sound field in which the performance occurred" and the latter part makes a value judgment about the quality of the recording and/or playback based on the original performance.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, truly - it's just that it seems to me in these discussions the fidelity/realism conflation tends to creep in quite a lot.

Gotya. No harm, no foul. I was just trying to point out the hazard of conflating specificity with fidelity.

 

[Titurel]

Honestly I don’t care at all about soundstage: mono recordings are excellent to me, less problematic when listening casual. I agree that stereo is more realistic and dolby (in good quality which I know just a few well made classical recordings) is also fun.

But after all, music is encoded mainly in time, intensity and frequency domain, placing instruments at different places is more like an accident.

Destructive critics welcome!

No destruction intended here, but position is hardly an accident or even an after thought. Position has been an important (specified) parameter since long before Gabrieli and his crowd (16th century) started doing their shtik and a popular compositional feature since the mid 20th century.