Like the title says, can you quantify or measure imaging and soundstage? I have had many different speakers, some large and some small, sometimes the large speakers have smaller soundstage than a bookshelf.. sometimes much less expensive speakers image much better than a more expensive or better measuring speaker.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Can you measure imaging and soundstage?
- Thread starter TankTop
- Start date
You can quantify the variables that determine imaging. Separation, polar pattern, channel-to-channel matching. Of course, these are also highly room dependent.
Imaging and soundstage. What are they and who hears them?
As background, for the last few years my system has consisted of mainly Accuphase gear which I bought as a bonus to myself after retiring. I bought this gear before becoming a reader of ASR. I have been into HiFi since the 70s so have had a lot of different gear over the years My system consists...
www.audiosciencereview.com
How holographic can a soundstage be?
I like my stereo set-up. To my ears music sounds great and instruments/vocal are nicely separated two-dimensionally . In order to test the three-dimensional presentation of my set-up, I played a Chesky Audiophile Test Recording. According to this recording my set-up is capable of generating the...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Soundstage
In his latest post of his blog, Archimago raises the question of the stereo "soundstage" and mentions a solution proposed by John Atkinson (among others, I'm sure) to assess the quality of the system by mean of a "...controlled "standard" signal like the mono pink noise to check for the ability...
www.audiosciencereview.com
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,944
I don’t see them objectively test / rate soundstage. If I missed it in their webpage, please point me to it. They seem more like an informercial website than some critical / competent review site.
The answer given by @SIY is still the best one.
Imaging and soundstage are much under the field of psycoacoustics.
2 channel playback can only bring a good soundstage illusion at best, because the stereosystem is a very flawed system .
This is why we have so many different solutions of making the perfect speaker. You can measure some facts as SIY pointed out, but the soundstage illusion appears in the brain as a phantom image. The illusion of image and depth can be perceived different If one drinks coffe, or have a headache or a cold.
Moving one of the two stereo speakers 30 cm can sometimes bring a big difference in the perceived soundstage.
2 channel playback can only bring a good soundstage illusion at best, because the stereosystem is a very flawed system .
This is why we have so many different solutions of making the perfect speaker. You can measure some facts as SIY pointed out, but the soundstage illusion appears in the brain as a phantom image. The illusion of image and depth can be perceived different If one drinks coffe, or have a headache or a cold.
Moving one of the two stereo speakers 30 cm can sometimes bring a big difference in the perceived soundstage.
Last edited:
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,944
Plus what is best. Precise? Enveloping? Wide? Narrow? Other adjectives?
I find it quite up to personal preference what is defined as best.
Of course one can most likely say a speaker with a wider dispersion (which can be measured) might “fill the room” better or have a wider sound stage. Regardless, it is difficult to correlate measurable characteristics to individual audible impressions about soundstage.
Plus the big unknown, the room, which is hardly equal among listeners.
If you would ask S. Linkwitz or K. Voecks , you would probably get two different answers…
i would recommend this old cd test (new versions should be available) to check how a system can render a well developed soundstage in the 3 dimensions
there is a specific track At the end of the track two persons are talking at different distance from the microphone
On my system one seems on the shoulder of the other I think that my room in particular is very bad acoustically speaking
The rendering of the soundfield depth is quite poor in my situation
The test is qualitative but interesting
Imho an acoustically bad listening room could be the worst enemy of a great 3D soundstage
there is a specific track At the end of the track two persons are talking at different distance from the microphone
On my system one seems on the shoulder of the other I think that my room in particular is very bad acoustically speaking
The rendering of the soundfield depth is quite poor in my situation
The test is qualitative but interesting
Imho an acoustically bad listening room could be the worst enemy of a great 3D soundstage
Now that is a matter of subjectivity. Not just "I like it" subjectivity, but setting a priority and seeing how close you hit the target. This is unfortunately necessary because there's a massive loss of information in reducing a 3D soundfield to two channels. And using commercial recordings can throw a massive wrench into the works.
For example, I've spent some time with Shahinian speakers. The localization is mediocre but there's a remarkable spaciousness because of the very broad, almost omni, polar pattern. By contrast, the speakers I use, which are based on NHT 3.3, have a narrow and even polar pattern oriented at an angle, do not give an enveloping sound, but allow very tight localization.
Which is right? Neither, really. The listener can choose one or the other. Likewise, a recording can be made prioritizing one or the other.
If we really wanted to do things right, we'd be using a different method of recording and playback (e.g., the late lamented Ambisonics or some of the shiny new virtual object systems). Stereo is a massive compromise.
my understanding is that speakers with a wider H and V emission (like omni for instance) could exacerbate some listening room issues for more numerous and out of control reflections Even in studio monitors we can see lenses and the recording studios are quite treated for reflections
I would be interested to know how many audiolovers have treated their listening room ... 1 out of 10 ? less ?
and maybe they have extremely expensive set-ups
A very interesting application is the use of felts They are very cheap And flexible I do not know why they are not more popular
Perhaps its a matter of being true to the recording or being true to the event. If you are there at the event, "pinpoint imaging" is seldom the case, and depends on seating position etc. So it's personal taste.
(In addition to all other flaws with stereo, where a high direct:reflected sound ratio exaggerate the stereo errors, and vice versa.)
(In addition to all other flaws with stereo, where a high direct:reflected sound ratio exaggerate the stereo errors, and vice versa.)
as i see things a playback system should be true to the recording and the recording providing a certain image of the event I have a sound engineer approach i guess
By the way i see that your speakers have felts around the tweeter ? why only in one direction ? i have understood that also ceiling and floor reflections can be very nasty for soundstage The ones generated by emissions on the V axis
An old application here
tuga
Major Contributor
If you are there at the event your sight will provide visual cues.
Maybe imaging compensates for the lack of visual cues in domestic playback.
I fully agree with your general overview especially the point of "these are also highly room dependent".
In these perspectives, for OP, I assume my post here would be somewhat of your reference;
Not only the precision (0.1 msec level) time alignment over all the SP drivers but also SP facing directions and sound-deadening space behind the SPs plus behind our listening position would be critically important for effective (perfect?) disappearance of speakers (#687 on my project thread)
as i see things a playback system should be true to the recording and the recording providing a certain image of the event I have a sound engineer approach i guess
By the way i see that your speakers have felts around the tweeter ? why only in one direction ? i have understood that also ceiling and floor reflections can be very nasty for soundstage The ones generated by emissions on the V axis
An old application here
It would be a matter of taste; headphones give me all details, speakers with wide dispersion give me wall of sound, with no hints of speakers playing.
(The felt is there in my speakers to reduce some reflections from the front wall (heavy toed in speakers), not for diffraction purpose. The shape of my speakers take care of diffraction.)
Yes, that is true. But closing your eyes, would you get those pinpoint cues in a large concert hall?
tuga
Major Contributor
I don’t think I do. But I listen to live music with my eyes open.
Of course!
I sometimes listen with my eyes closed though and also, have some concert films on a large screen at home. So visual cues on and off goes both ways.
Similar threads
- Locked
