That's kind of what I was getting too. One needs to define exactly what they are trying to measure.The people (looks like there's more than one) who are confused about this keep calling it soundstage. It's just stereo image. If you are sure that doesn't exist, listen in mono.
I can't reply to a meaningless question.Here we go again. In what unit do you measure perceptual processes?
Do you mean attending live music events or recordings thereof?Yep. I don't even like live music though.
Who am I to argue such a statement, when all I learned was that sound localization was innate in many animal forms; may be NOT for music but certainly for survival...There are enough cues left that the brain can sense a soundstage, but not enough that most are convinced it is a live (unreproduced) sound, most of the time anyway.
Do you mean attending live music events or recordings thereof?
So you can't tell where a "real" sound is coming from either?
Soundstage is measured in litres. Perception is measured in Huxleys.what is the unit of soundstage?
I think @Robin L and @maverickronin have covered this somewhat already by discussing characteristics of live music and different recording and mixing styles. Preference for "real" versus "artificial" stereo image is a matter of aesthetics/taste. I prefer listening to recordings of assembled sounds rather than reproductions of live performance in real spaces. A good deal of the music I like is entirely artificial.A REAL sound yes. But stereo is just an illusion, and often creates a very fake soundstage, as it usually is not recorded and miked in a way that would allow sound localization, but merely a created soundstage.
A binaural recording comes closer, but most stereo recordings are "Created" to give a certain playback sound, but usually not any reality.
I had that 1º number in mind but it's very helpful to see and be able to follow up on some of the published material.I can't reply to a meaningless question.
Here's a figure from Mills' classic 1958 paper that deals with the minimum audible angle:
View attachment 196959
We are able to discriminate two sound sources separated by 1° when they are at the optimal frequency and located directly ahead. The gap needed to discriminate the sounds widens as they move off towards the sides or shift to unfavorable frequencies.
And here's a comparison of the difference in Minimum Audible Angle (MAA) between real sources (baseline) and virtual sources simulated on a stereo loudspeaker pair using vector-based amplitude panning (VBAP):
View attachment 196964
Stop obsessing over your pre-conceived notions and look at the science. We are perfectly capable of localising the direction of sound sources from both real and simulated auditory scenes. This has been measured and replicated in numerous papers.
A REAL sound yes. But stereo is just an illusion, and often creates a very fake soundstage, as it usually is not recorded and miked in a way that would allow sound localization, but merely a created soundstage.
A binaural recording comes closer, but most stereo recordings are "Created" to give a certain playback sound, but usually not any reality.
Why does the fact that it's artificially constructed matter?
Pop music, in general, messes with perspectives and balances deliberately. I'm thinking of a recent Analog Planet post. There were two different LP remasterings of Carol King's "Tapestry", Mikey posted needledrops of the two with a poll for preference. I went to YouTube to compare to the official streamed version. It sounded better than either of the two (very similar) needledrops [bass summed to mono, reduced bass levels, more distortion] but that's not the point. This very popular album is an example of standard, non-audiophile pop production that has been ubiquitous for a very long time: up close and top of the mix for a voice that requires amplification anyway, every instrument mic-ed in mono and pan-potted into position, most instruments with close mic-ing that destroys perspective, every element compressed into place. That sort of production is not concerned with how the recording sounds played back over the best equipment---it's a lot more concerned with how the recording will sound on the worst equipment, like a car radio. That's because the producers of this album were aiming for a hit, so they worked at coming up with a sound that would grab people's ears if they overheard the song on the radio. And that's SOP for pop and that's why so much pop has crappy sounding production. This is not something recent, something we can blame on "Digital", but the way things are for the most popular music and have been all the way back to the beginning of commercial recording.Why does the fact that it's artificially constructed matter?
I am not sure it does.Why does the fact that it's artificially constructed matter?
Perhaps for some people the illusion being created sounds less credible, and that matters.
I just meant that localizing sounds in a created soundstage is sort of pointless to "some" degree, as there was never a real event that is being recreated, but simply a created event that even if we could measure soundstage there is no real thing to compare it to ...
One has the expectation that sitting close to a Jazz ensemble or recorder quartet [I'll demon-strait where they meet up] will be arranged like the proscenium arc of an ORTF configuration, whereas the "real thing" is more likely to image like a vague blur on the left.I think that's mostly just genre preference. When you prefer fully acoustic genres and want to experience a recreation of a live event at home you have different goals and not just different expectations when compared to amplified or synthetic genres.
Not all that modern an example, but anyway:Why should I care if there is a "real" event or not? Creating the soundscape is part of the art.
Like I said before, It's like comparing a stage play to a movie. Why is it some kind of deep philosophical problem that the scenes are all shot out of order, edited together later, and have some CGI sprinkled on top?
@Robin L seems to have the right idea.
I enjoy a good hyperreal soundscape.Why should I care if there is a "real" event or not? Creating the soundscape is part of the art.
Well, there was Dogme 95. To this day I appreciate films that don't lay the non-diagetic music on too thick.Why is it some kind of deep philosophical problem that the scenes are all shot out of order, edited together later, and have some CGI sprinkled on top?
I think that's mostly just genre preference. When you prefer fully acoustic genres and want to experience a recreation of a live event at home you have different goals and not just different expectations when compared to amplified or synthetic genres.
Why should I care if there is a "real" event or not? Creating the soundscape is part of the art.
Like I said before, It's like comparing a stage play to a movie. Why is it some kind of deep philosophical problem that the scenes are all shot out of order, edited together later, and have some CGI sprinkled on top?
@Robin L seems to have the right idea.
Think of it as deliberate CG[Sonic]I in the realm of creating a soundstage.I am not sure it does.
I just meant that localizing sounds in a created soundstage is sort of pointless to "some" degree, as there was never a real event that is being recreated, but simply a created event that even if we could measure soundstage there is no real thing to compare it to ...