I don't care about stereo imaging - am I alone. (Poll)

[tmtomh]

It is a tricky balance between the size and "immersion" of a soundstage and the precision of imaging. But I'm always angling to get a combination of both - biggest soundstage/immersion I can get, with the most dense imaging I can get. I do this mostly with playing with speaker positioning/listening position/room acoustics.

I've more recently hit on a combo that seems to get it all. Absolutely massive soundstage, like the whole area of the room beyond the speakers can melt away but WITH very precise, dense sonic images. I've found a combo of wide speaker set up, curtains controlling sidewall upper frequencies, and careful placement of a diffusor behind my speakers does this. As I mentioned before, this set up startled a very experienced audiophile friend. Because someone asked me for pictures of the set up, I've taken pictures and plan to do a thread about my room in one of the other ASR subforums.

Nice! I've had similar positive impacts from wide placement and sidewall absorption. I haven't yet tried a diffusor behind the speakers though. (I have a 2" absorber there but no diffusion). Something to put on my to-do, or I guess I should say to-try, list!

 

[MattHooper]

Nice! I've had similar positive impacts from wide placement and sidewall absorption. I haven't yet tried a diffusor behind the speakers though. (I have a 2" absorber there but no diffusion). Something to put on my to-do, or I guess I should say to-try, list!

Yeah, it's just a single modestly sized curved diffusor, one of these:

Curve Diffusors | Accurate acoustic spaces | Acoustic geometry

Curve Diffusors are the most affordable improvement you can make to room acoustics… and the easiest. They are combining aesthetics and functionality.

acousticgeometry.com

It's amazing how I can dial in different effects by moving it around in spots behind and between my speakers.

 

[ozzy9832001]

I'd say stereo imaging is important. I think it's more noticeable in the nearfield and can be quite annoying if it's lopsided. Width and height don't really play a factor for me because I'm always in the same position while listening. If you casually listening while browsing the web or whatever then it probably wouldn't be an issue, but if all your doing is listening to music and you want that immersion, then I'd say it's pretty important, damn near necessary.

 

[Marc v E]

Because I have no experience with Dolby Atmos for music, I'd like to know from others who have:

- if you hear a stereo image front the front combined with special effects from other directions.

- if the stereo image is more solid, as in easier to hear where instruments are placed than plain stereo.

- or that the whole experience is just completely different compared to stereo. If so, please explain how.

 

[fpitas]

I'll take their research as solid and consider this true, however here is another data point.

A friend has a pair of JBL 4345 monitors. These speakers have pretty awful directivity by any standards of measurement. In his speakers we swapped out the JBL 2421B midrange compression drivers with a pair of TAD TD-2002 drivers. The horns and acoustic lenses were not changed so presumably the directivity did not change however no test was done to confirm this. The overall image went from the classic JBL in front of the speakers to a deeper image and the apparent separation between front and rear of the image grew.

I can understand that a more relaxed FR curve will cause the image to recede, but he was using equalization and made the two drivers measure very similarly. I really am not certain what the entire mechanism was in this situation, but the results were interesting.

The polar pattern of a horn will depend on the driver to some extent, especially the path length from the diaphragm to the mouth. A friend who uses JBL 2426s on his 511s gets a completely different polar pattern than my 511s with TD-2002s.

Of course having said that, TD-2002s will make anything better

 

[Mr. Widget]

The polar pattern of a horn will depend on the driver to some extent, especially the path length from the diaphragm to the mouth. A friend who uses JBL 2426s on his 511s gets a completely different polar pattern than my 511s with TD-2002s.

Interesting.

I understand that the length of the path between the diaphragm and opening can affect this, but I don't think that the TD-2002 and 2421B's geometry are that different... not sure about the 2426... which I believe is supposed to be a 2425 with removable snout. The 2425 being the ferrite replacement for the 2420/21.

 

[fpitas]

Interesting.

I understand that the length of the path between the diaphragm and opening can affect this, but I don't think that the TD-2002 and 2421B's geometry are that different... not sure about the 2426... which I believe is supposed to be a 2425 with removable snout. The 2425 being the ferrite replacement for the 2420/21.

Yes, his 2426 doesn't have the long throat of a classic driver like an 802 or TD-2002.

 

[bodhi]

I'd say stereo imaging is important. I think it's more noticeable in the nearfield and can be quite annoying if it's lopsided. Width and height don't really play a factor for me because I'm always in the same position while listening. If you casually listening while browsing the web or whatever then it probably wouldn't be an issue, but if all your doing is listening to music and you want that immersion, then I'd say it's pretty important, damn near necessary.

I have found that wider and taller image makes both concentrated listening and background listening in desktop setup more comfortable. Larger image makes the music less distracting as it's not so clearly from the display you are working on, easier accept as "the background".

 

[gnarly]

It turns out that statement B is complete bobbins. If I listen to a mono signal from two speakers, I get a phantom center, and it feels identical to listening from a single speaker. I lose all sense of being immersed in the music.

Very cool, both to have experimented more, and admit you findings.

I do that kind of experimentation all the time.....judging either single speaker L or R mono (stereo summed together), vs L & R both playing summed mono signal, vs regular stereo. Also play with a center speaker which is identical to L & R, and various matrixing strategies.
It is very illuminating how differently stereo is produced.
Imo, the idea that we can just set up an excellent system with excellent room acoustics, and expect it to sound its best....well, is nutz...
I never know which of the scenarios will sound best.
Will say though, when stereo is right, it's tough to beat other than with, some by chance, LCR matrix strategy.

 

[gnarly]

Interesting.

I understand that the length of the path between the diaphragm and opening can affect this, but I don't think that the TD-2002 and 2421B's geometry are that different... not sure about the 2426... which I believe is supposed to be a 2425 with removable snout. The 2425 being the ferrite replacement for the 2420/21.

Ime, comparing different CDs on the same horn, has alway given different response curves. And true even when paths, diaphragm to throat are near the same.
After proper EQ, both frequency and time domain, not really much different, ..........but raw responses...definitely different.

 

[pablolie]

To me at least, this all highlights the critical importance of placement of speakers relative to one's sitting position when doing any "critical listening", which for me just means enjoying the music I love to the utmost.

Yes, I have experienced speakers that were more forgiving when one wasn't in the magic stereo spot, but it also seemed to coincide with them presenting less of an accurate "imaging" when one sat in the magic, ideal sitting position within the "stereo triangle".

 

[MattHooper]

To me at least, this all highlights the critical importance of placement of speakers relative to one's sitting position when doing any "critical listening", which for me just means enjoying the music I love to the utmost.

Yes, I have experienced speakers that were more forgiving when one wasn't in the magic stereo spot, but it also seemed to coincide with them presenting less of an accurate "imaging" when one sat in the magic, ideal sitting position within the "stereo triangle".

I was playing with speaker positioning last night, as I've been doing a make-shift speaker platform to try out (employing springs for isolation). It worked pretty well, the speakers "disappeared" even more and bass cleaned up a bit. The soundstage is enormous.

I was listening to one of my favorite soundtracks, The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad by Bernard Herrmann. It's incredibly dramatic and vivid. There were tracks that depicted dragons in caves, genie realms etc, and the way the stereo image seemed to conjure up all these cool acoustical spaces, it felt like the deep bassoons representing the dragon where playing deep in a big cave in front of me, or the gentle sparkling instruments for the genie realm sort of filled the air all around the front of the room. It just felt magical and introduced a very strong "visual" element (in terms of strongly evoking "images"). I was listening to music I love on my iphone speakers today. And on my desktop computer speakers. But the "magic" that can be conjured by stereo imaging makes listening to music feel more like an "event."

I couldn't imagine doing without this once I've experienced it.

 

[levimax]

It turns out that statement B is complete bobbins. If I listen to a mono signal from two speakers, I get a phantom center, and it feels identical to listening from a single speaker. I lose all sense of being immersed in the music.

For me stereo is a mixed bag. For a well done stereo mix it can be quite convincing and adds to the experience. For a lot of older music the "hard panned" early stereo bugs me and I can find it fatiguing to listen to, kind of like the old fashioned "3-D stereo" viewers where you looked at 2 different images one with each eye to get "depth"... it works to a point but is not natural and is straining on the eyes. For "true mono" recordings (made with mono release in mind from start to finish) while 2 speakers do give a center it still requires some brain processing. Every once in while I will move one speaker to the center and disconnect the other one and listen to some old mono "girl and guitar" music. The center is locked in without any effort of my brain to construct an illusion and while narrow there is some space and depth around the singer and for me can create a engaging and realistic experience.

 

[Emlin]

I was playing with speaker positioning last night, as I've been doing a make-shift speaker platform to try out (employing springs for isolation). It worked pretty well, the speakers "disappeared" even more and bass cleaned up a bit. The soundstage is enormous.

I was listening to one of my favorite soundtracks, The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad by Bernard Herrmann. It's incredibly dramatic and vivid. There were tracks that depicted dragons in caves, genie realms etc, and the way the stereo image seemed to conjure up all these cool acoustical spaces, it felt like the deep bassoons representing the dragon where playing deep in a big cave in front of me, or the gentle sparkling instruments for the genie realm sort of filled the air all around the front of the room. It just felt magical and introduced a very strong "visual" element (in terms of strongly evoking "images"). I was listening to music I love on my iphone speakers today. And on my desktop computer speakers. But the "magic" that can be conjured by stereo imaging makes listening to music feel more like an "event."

I couldn't imagine doing without this once I've experienced it.

I think that we may be in agreement, but I don't want an enormous soundstage unless the recording has an enormous soundstage. I want a system that can portray an enormous soundstage if that's what it is being asked to do, but I also want it to be able to reproduce a more intimate atmosphere when asked.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Ime, comparing different CDs on the same horn, has alway given different response curves. And true even when paths, diaphragm to throat are near the same.
After proper EQ, both frequency and time domain, not really much different, ..........but raw responses...definitely different.

Of course, but I posted this in response to the findings of B&O who were discussing the importance of directivity. And yes, the frequency response of the two drivers is different as expected which is why I was surprised at the depth perception of the imaging being different even after EQing the new drivers to match the previous on axis room curve.

It would have been great if we had taken polar measurements both before and after the driver swap, but:

A. Rotating the speaker is difficult to do with a massive 10 cu ft speaker.
B. We didn't realize the potential impacts on imaging.

 

[pablolie]

I think that we may be in agreement, but I don't want an enormous soundstage unless the recording has an enormous soundstage. I want a system that can portray an enormous soundstage if that's what it is being asked to do, but I also want it to be able to reproduce a more intimate atmosphere when asked.

I don't think it is possible to hear any soundstage unless the recording was carefully engineered to do so. And most are not. I think there are 4 main types:

• Real soundstage and imaging: Many Deutsche Grammophon classic recordings. There are others.
  
  
• Flat horizontal staging left to right: Often this is just a mix of contributors' individual tracks that are mixed together - but it is enjoyable because it allows one to hear more separation between the contributions. Common practice is the singer or instrumental lead in in the middle. This covers a majority of "great recordings".
  
  
• Ho-hum recordings with extremely talented musicians that therefore remain stellar and enjoyable.
  
  
• Recordings that are distorted in order to sound OKish on something lie a smartphone speaker, but because of the bath tub nature are kind of unlistenable on your more linear, accurate main system aka (as I call it) music shrine.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I don't think it is possible to hear any soundstage unless the recording was carefully engineered to do so. And most are not. I think there are 4 main types:

• Real soundstage and imaging: Many Deutsche Grammophon classic recordings. There are others.
  
  
• Flat horizontal staging left to right: Often this is just a mix of contributors' individual tracks that are mixed together - but it is enjoyable because it allows one to hear more separation between the contributions. Common practice is the singer or instrumental lead in in the middle. This covers a majority of "great recordings".
  
  
• Ho-hum recordings with extremely talented musicians that therefore remain stellar and enjoyable.
  
  
• Recordings that are distorted in order to sound OKish on something lie a smartphone speaker, but because of the bath tub nature are kind of unlistenable on your more linear, accurate main system aka (as I call it) music shrine.

Yes, but think there is a fifth type. There are plenty of albums that are a mix of real and artificial sounds that form an enveloping soundscape. These can create an impressive image when handled correctly by the engineers.

In this case plenty means more than a handful.

 

[MattHooper]

For me stereo is a mixed bag. For a well done stereo mix it can be quite convincing and adds to the experience. For a lot of older music the "hard panned" early stereo bugs me and I can find it fatiguing to listen to, kind of like the old fashioned "3-D stereo" viewers where you looked at 2 different images one with each eye to get "depth"... it works to a point but is not natural and is straining on the eyes. For "true mono" recordings (made with mono release in mind from start to finish) while 2 speakers do give a center it still requires some brain processing. Every once in while I will move one speaker to the center and disconnect the other one and listen to some old mono "girl and guitar" music. The center is locked in without any effort of my brain to construct an illusion and while narrow there is some space and depth around the singer and for me can create a engaging and realistic experience.

I know what you mean about the funky old experiments with stereo and hard panning. I listen to a lot of old recordings and encounter that often enough.

Though one thing I've found: The more a speaker images well, especially "disappears" as an apparent sound source, the less bothered I am by hard panned sounds. Because then even those sounds seem detached from the speakers and can float with some depth, so it just becomes more of another sound in the soundstage. It's the "stuck in the left speaker" effect that can feel more off-putting for me.

 

[MattHooper]

I think that we may be in agreement, but I don't want an enormous soundstage unless the recording has an enormous soundstage. I want a system that can portray an enormous soundstage if that's what it is being asked to do, but I also want it to be able to reproduce a more intimate atmosphere when asked.

That brings up a really good point to which I'm not sure there is really an answer:

What IS the soundstage in any particular recording?

Is it the soundstage created by small bookshelf speakers placed 6 feet apart? Or by large full range speakers spaced 12 feet apart? (Even keeping an equaliteral triange to the listener?) It seems at least in terms of soundstage and imaging size, how does one know?

Even if we tried to avoid the issue of speakers that exaggerate spaciousness with wide dispersion, and keep to very focused narrow dispersion speakers, different sized speakers with different placements will still tend to create bigger and smaller soundstages and imaging.

Right now I have my speakers fairly wide apart. I was playing some pop/dance music. On some tracks the voice started with no music, just a totally dry voice recording. The voice appeared totally centered...no hint of ambience stretching out to the room or speakers at all. Then when guitars, keyboards, drums came in, the whole sound expanded to fill my "peripheral vision." So...was the soundstage too big? Not even sure what that would mean. It's sort of like deciding on what TV size you want in your home. Everything should remain in the right proportions within the frame as intended, but you can choose the scale at which you want to experience the entertainment.

 

[tmuikku]

Based on what you say in the bolded part, I don't think your speaker's placement is optimal for stereo reproduction. If you want to hear what's on the actual recording when it comes to imaging (separation, width, and depth) you must make sure you have a stable and distinct-sounding phantom center, and maximize the perceived ratio of direct sound from your speakers vs the reflective sound from your listening environment.

If you must "sit far enough away from the two speakers not to hear two separate sound sources" it seems to me that you have your speakers way too far apart, which will create "a hole in the middle"/a non-distinct "washed-out" sounding phantom center. And it seems like you try to solve it by sitting far enough away from the speakers, but this will only "hide" the real problem of having the speakers too far apart and will reduce the ratio of direct sound which contains the separation, width, and depth of the actual recording.

If the two speakers will have a chance to give you a focused and correct stereo image you must make sure they work together as a single unit, stop treating them as two separate sound sources and more as two units that are supposed to create a "unified stereo image".

I have my floor-standing speakers set up in a fairly small equilateral triangle of just about 210 centimeters distance between the speakers, and the same distance from the speakers to the listening place. Sound objects that are placed in the middle phantom center sound as distinctively as if they were coming from a real physical sound source/a center speaker placed right in the middle between the speakers. The short distance also makes sure the ratio of the direct sound is high, which makes it easier to hear what's in the actual recording when it comes to stereo imaging (separation, width, and depth).

I mean, aren't we all super nerds here who aim for the best possible reproduction of music, we want to optimize everything to perceive a better view into the recordings and a correct stereo image should probably be high on everybody's list.

Hi goat76,
I've found my setup has similar "critical distance", bit over two meters listening triangle after which phantom image gets a bit blurry and envelopment disappears and the sound is now on front. Basically good stereo image when the triangle is smaller than this and poor when its bigger.

Problem I have is that its a family living room situation and positioning of things needs to be practical and the good stereo imaging doesn't quite reach the listening spot around 2.5-3m equilateral triangle.

I've been slowly trying to figure out terms associated with the phenomenon and would like to figure out how to extend the good stereo sound all the way to practical listening spot.

I've experimented with it only little and it seems I cannot extend it with positioning so its probably function of the room acoustics/speaker interplay. I haven't pinpointed it to anything more specific than just DRR, direct-to-reflected sound ratio. Griesingers proximity is probably something that relates?

I might be able to negotiate some acoustic treatment in, but easiest would be to manipulate speaker directivity as I build my own. Current prototypes have nice controlled directivity and before making new set I'd like to zone in what to target for, main goal would be to extend the listening triangle a bit.

I'd be grateful if you could summarize what is your setup like: size of the room, shortly about acoustics and speaker directivity? Also if you have pointers what I should read/study to get deeper knowledge on it, thanks!