• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Ingredients of Good Sound

Stereo was picked from the Greek language because of it's meaning of solid or three dimensional "before vowels stere-, word-forming element meaning "solid, firm; three-dimensional; stereophonic," from Greek stereos "solid" (from PIE root *ster- (1) "stiff")." hxxps://www.etymonline.com/word/stereo-

The whole point of a stereo system from the very first experiments until now has always been to reproduce a soundstage laid out in width and depth. There is no point having a stereo system if you are not able to reproduce an image with depth and width. It doesn't even have to be "HiFi", you can reproduce a solid image in depth and width with a relatively noisy and distorted system that does not have a great deal of bass or treble!

HiFi might be about trying to reproduce the widest, flattest frequency response with the least amount of noise and distortion, but you can do that with one speaker! If you have two speakers and are listening to 95% of commercially available content, then you are listening to a stereo source and for that to be properly reproduced, it MUST have soiid image defined in depth and width.
No one has disputed that.

It is pin point instrument placement I don’t believe in - not depth and width, but it seems to me that folk here just pick and choose which parts of other peoples posts the wish to take any notice of.

Try re reading what I actually said.
 
Last edited:
No one has disputed that.
What? You literally typed "Stereo is just that, a left channel and a right channel - there is no middle, or height, or front to back etc, but our brain gives us this illusion of a soundstage." Stereo means "solid". Stereophonic reproduction uses phase and intensity to create an image that has "front to back" characteristics. It's not in your head - it's there, created through the combination of phase and intensity. If your system cannot reliably reproduce reliable, precise images, it's broken.
 
What? You literally typed "Stereo is just that, a left channel and a right channel - there is no middle, or height, or front to back etc, but our brain gives us this illusion of a soundstage." Stereo means "solid". Stereophonic reproduction uses phase and intensity to create an image that has "front to back" characteristics. It's not in your head - it's there, created through the combination of phase and intensity. If your system cannot reliably reproduce reliable, precise images, it's broken.
No, again you are picking a specific sentence without taking into account the context around it and the rest of the paragraph that I typed, but hey ho!
 
Observations:
- Mood seems to be one of the biggest factors in determining “good sound.” For me personally, I’d even say it could be the biggest. I’m a musician and pretty emotional at times so maybe this is a bigger deal for me than if is for others. But there are days where my favorite tracks bring tears to my eyes, where everything sounds rich and detailed and beautiful, even mundane sound effects, and I’m left in awe of my sound system. But then there are other days where the exact same sounds and songs sound fine, or even good, but not nearly as amazing as other days. This has been the biggest surprise for me in my own listening.
Good sound puts me in the mood, rather than the other way around :)

- Good sound seems to depend heavily on the absence of noticeable, distracting imperfections like resonances, crackles, distortions, etc. Focusing on minimizing a system’s weaknesses seems more important than maximizing its strengths.
- Good sound seems to require bass that isn’t too soft or too loud and is even/smooth. Booming bass seems just as bad or even worse than a total lack of bass. But it seems to me that the sound quality seems to jump way up when the bass is calibrated just right and blends well with the higher frequencies.
Right, and be sure to measure/DSP your bass for best results. I got amazing results with large-ish speakers and RoomPerfect.

- High volumes seem to be a requirement, unfortunately. For me personally, 70-90 DB.
- Scale? Not sure what to call this exactly, but it isn’t exactly volume, but more of the feeling of being enveloped by the sound.
I love this too.

- There seems to be a limited window of listening time before the ears seem to start to become desensitized. Turning up the volume gradually can counter this a bit but this just seems to lead to fatigue. So for me I can only get about 1 hour of listening at maximum sound quality.
- I keep hearing that bass frequencies can’t be localized. Heck, movie theaters are designed around this. But I swear I can hear the location of the subwoofers which are rolled off at 80hz. It’s not as noticeable as higher frequencies, but it’s easy to hear. Stereo bass seems to sound better to me. Am I fooling myself?
- Room acoustics seem to be absolutely massive. Perhaps even more important than the speaker. Even moving furniture around slightly can change the sound significantly. Rugs are huge.
- Source material/recording/mixing is obviously huge. High quality speakers don’t seem to help low-quality audio sound any better at all. If anything, bad audio seems to sound even worse through good speakers.
Here I disagree, in my opinion high quality speakers (&co) should sound amazing with high quality sound, and still pleasant with mediocre or bad recordings.

- I have trouble hearing or fully understanding this concept of “imaging.” I keep reading about it and I know lots of people value it. But I don’t really understand what amazing imaging would sound like in a stereo system. Pinpointing the location of an instrument doesn’t seem to make sense to me unless you’re talking about surround sound with lots of channels. I’ve noticed dialog suffers when the L/R speakers are too far apart or not pointed in enough. Is this part of imaging?
For me it means the illusion that the sound doesn’t come from the speakers, but it’s somehow detached, floating. A by-product is usually clear instrument separation (even if this is fake, e.g. a product of mixing) at least horizontally between speakers. I’ve heard imaging even outside the LR speakers and also depth sensation. The opposite (for me) is hearing two boxes, i.e. the left and right speaker.
 
While you say you are new to the hobby, your post shows you have thought things through pretty awesomely. :)

Just a few thoughts:

... When thinking about what exactly makes something sound “good”, I’ve made some interesting and counterintuitive discoveries during my own personal listening sessions over the last year or so. Some of these are obvious but others seem counterintuitive or even go against mainstream opinion. I’d like to share these observations and theories and hopefully get feedback.
...
- Mood seems to be one of the biggest factors in determining “good sound.” For me personally, I’d even say it could be the biggest.

Agreed 100%. Without being in the mood, without being relaxed and looking forward to a good music listening session, one is not overly inclined to fully appreciate the music... or the equipment that provides the sound quality to truly enjoy it.

-... Good sound seems to depend heavily on the absence of noticeable, distracting imperfections like resonances, crackles, distortions, etc.
Amen.
... Good sound seems to require bass that isn’t too soft or too loud and is even/smooth. Booming bass seems just as bad or even worse than a total lack of bass.

Preach on brother! :) I loathe lazy bass. It may be OK for movie FX to get cheap thrills, but it *destroys* musicality.

... High volumes seem to be a requirement, unfortunately. For me personally, 70-90 DB.

I am glad you attach a number to what you label "high". I'd agree certain volumes are necessary to assess sound quality, but too loud is even worse than too muted. You won't discern sound quality with either, but with "too loud" you can easily damage your hearing permanently, and thus you wouldn't be a good judge of sound quality at any level anymore...

... Scale? Not sure what to call this exactly, but it isn’t exactly volume, but more of the feeling of being enveloped by the sound.

Not sure what "enveloped" means - the term is mostly used with surround sound. My personal preference is to have the presentation in front of me, since that is how things are really experienced (very few people sit in the middle of a jazz orchestra or jazz ensemble, and even then I am not sure that's the best place to perceive the *performance*, it's just best to hear yourself and stay in close synch with those around you). *But* I want it to have width and depth.
- There seems to be a limited window of listening time before the ears seem to start to become desensitized. Turning up the volume gradually can counter this a bit but this just seems to lead to fatigue. So for me I can only get about 1 hour of listening at maximum sound quality.

An hour at 90dB may be something your otolaryngologist may warn you against :-D That would explain the loss of sensation... One thing I notice is that, if I start playing last night's music session in the morning, I am like "Whoa, too loud!". Our hearing recovers from any regular day's audio stress (not just music, just sounds in general) overnight. Even just after a typical day going about our lives, our hearing hardens some. I have always been very sensitive too noises: I need to wear ear plus at night because even two mice doing it behind a drywall are likely to wake me up. :-D

- I keep hearing that bass frequencies can’t be localized. Heck, movie theaters are designed around this. But I swear I can hear the location of the subwoofers which are rolled off at 80hz. It’s not as noticeable as higher frequencies, but it’s easy to hear. Stereo bass seems to sound better to me. Am I fooling myself?

That is exactly why setting up a subwoofer for music listening is much trickier than most people realize. You have to work on the positioning before the bass location becomes seamless.

- Room acoustics seem to be absolutely massive. Perhaps even more important than the speaker. Even moving furniture around slightly can change the sound significantly. Rugs are huge.

Absolutely true. The room itself is probably >30% of the audio equation. Speakers and subs interact with rooms. So they have to either be a magical match for the room, or room correction needs to be applied. With all the talk about THD and SNT measurements... we forget DSP-based room correction is often *the* most important innovation in audio in 30 years or so.

- Source material/recording/mixing is obviously huge. High quality speakers don’t seem to help low-quality audio sound any better at all. If anything, bad audio seems to sound even worse through good speakers.

Yup.
- I have trouble hearing or fully understanding this concept of “imaging.” I keep reading about it and I know lots of people value it. But I don’t really understand what amazing imaging would sound like in a stereo system. Pinpointing the location of an instrument doesn’t seem to make sense to me unless you’re talking about surround sound with lots of channels. ...

Imaging, staging... whatever you call it... it's nice to experience, and mandatory for some types of music IMO. However with most music and recordings it is pretty irrelevant because there really isn't a reference and often is just used as a gimmick... "Oh look how the guitar track keeps panning from left to right - that is *stereo*, baby!"...

I love classical though, and with that staging is *essential* for a great music appreciation session. Classical orchestras are arranged in a standard way for 95% of music, and in a concert hall that's how you hear it - so losing that in a recording is very bad. I for one can never ever enjoy mono recordings of classical music. With any other music genre, there's absolutely no reference for staging. And with the vast majority of recordings these days, there was never a stage involved anyhow. Musician X played their track in Tokyo, musician Y in NYC... and it's the sound engineer that completely artificially mixes stuff in a horizontal plane some.
 
...
Stereo is just that, a left channel and a right channel - there is no middle, or height, or front to back etc, but our brain gives us this illusion of a soundstage. The sound making up that illusion is coming from two distinct locations, there isn’t someone playing a triangle two thirds to the right and five feet up as an example because stereo isn’t recorded like that.

I only partially agree with this. That is why there are set-up CDs where someone walks around in a room playing some small percussion instrument in different locations in that studio recording room/chamber. And with a proper setup, it'll be very easy to hear. No illusion in that case. And the clearer you hear the difference, the more optimally your system is set up... for that particular recording... :-D Since there are no recording standards, the positioning of your speakers (and perhaps even sub) will always be a compromise, unfortunately. But it makes a difference, especially with classical music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
I only partially agree with this. That is why there are set-up CDs where someone walks around in a room playing some small percussion instrument in different locations in that studio recording room/chamber. And with a proper setup, it'll be very easy to hear. No illusion in that case. And the clearer you hear the difference, the more optimally your system is set up... for that particular recording... :-D Since there are no recording standards, the positioning of your speakers (and perhaps even sub) will always be a compromise, unfortunately. But it makes a difference, especially with classical music.

Good post.

The main point I’m trying to really make which perhaps isn‘t coming across, is that music is mixed and recorded to left and right channels. We play it back with left and right channels.

Everything making up a soundstage is coming from a combination of the left speaker and the right speaker, both obviously reproducing different information - but nevertheless, a limited number of speaker drivers in very specific locations recreating the sounds from multiple instruments in varying locations. Taking into account varying listening environments, various recording and mixing techniques etc, it isn‘t difficult to realise that stereo music recording and reproduction is far from perfect.

Even a recording such as the one you mention there on a test disc is still just recorded to two channels.

Physically the sound we playback is coming from two point sources. I agree that soundstage and imaging is definitely something we perceive and it is a very good illusion of space and depth. But as the OP said he doesn’t really understand imaging, I was only saying that I don’t think - that it is as pin sharp as some people make it out to be.

I’ve heard many speakers in many locations over many years and yes, I’ve heard and do hear a soundstage - I just wouldn’t go into the raptures over it that some/most audiophiles do.

Now if I imagine a complete wall of speaker drivers all dedicated to reproducing a multi channel recording with different drivers responsible only for specific instruments I could imagine that being a holographic, pin point accurate soundstage. However simple two channel stereo with a pair of two way or three way speakers in a living room, not so much IMO.

I‘m sure someone will nitpick at what I’ve said - but that’s my view.
 
...

I’ve heard many speakers in many locations over many years and yes, I’ve heard and do hear a soundstage - I just wouldn’t go into the raptures over it that some/most audiophiles do.

...

Good perspective, enjoying this.

I also mentioned I just appreciate staging with classical music, and some jazz recordings. With most music, I just want to hear what I'd call "clean", and for that some separation in -indeed- artificial staging helps, because it aids our ears in our ability to hear things more cleanly. It's a personal thing, but to me mono recordings sound unnatural and too compressed. Even completely artificial separation helps makes me hear the music better.

I agree we put too much emphasis on "staging magic dust", and find it comical when some respected reviewer falls into the platitude of hearing amazing staging in Daft Punk with Nile Rodgers' riff "playing right to my blabla" when the fact is Nile Rodgers was safely playing in his home studio and quite likely was never closer than 1k miles to the other musicians on the track. ;-D

I just demand and enjoy realistic staging in classical music. Unless the violin soloist is somewhat left and sounds clearly in front of the rest of the strings (which are arranged in first, second violins and viola and cellos from left to right) it doesn't sound right at all to me. Deutsche Grammophon since the 80s, so I have been spoiled. :) Outside of that corner case, I *do* enjoy somewhat of a separation between instruments because it makes them stand out - if they were all mixed together in the middle, it wouldn't quite sound "right".

My GF can hear the difference between some piano brands (Kawai [Shigeru], Steinway) in some very good recordings (I have tested it :-D), which I admittedly can't remotely do. She can even tell when a note of a piano in a recording is coming out ever so slightly out of tune and the piano needs an ever so slight retune. So there's that too. OTOH she loves recordings where the piano completely takes over the stage and commands complete left-to-right stage control (see the post about the 30ft piano I started a while ago), but she says it makes it much easier to evaluate technique and piano. I don't necessarily enjoy those 30ft pianos that get recorded all the time - but then again, a piano is such a commanding instrument it needs some sort of spread to be appreciated in recordings, even though it is never perceived as such in a concert unless you're playing it or you sit in it, which few do... :-D
 
Last edited:
Reading a few posts, I think I see a bit of confusion about stereo (Greek for solid) imaging and the fact we have a left and a right speaker. The following is based on a simply mic-ed orchestral performance.

1. The speakers are called left and right for convenience, so we don't connect them up the wrong way round: the violins are on the left, the cellos are on the right.

2. It's wrong to say this is merely "two channels" - left and right. It's far better to call each a carrier of information. Perhaps a "pipeline" from the venue into your home.

3. MOST IMPORTANTLY - the left pipeline carries all of the sound from the left hand side. BUT the right pipeline also carries all of the sound from the right hand side as well! The same is obviously true of the right hand pipeline, i.e. the right pipeline carries all of the sound from the right hand side as well as all of the sound from the left hand side.

4. However, the information coming into the left pipeline from the right hand side is quieter, than stuff more on the left, it is also delayed a bit due to the speed of sound. The same is true of the other pipeline: the left hand side is quieter, than stuff more on the right and it is also delayed.

5. In the home, the left speaker is therefore playing the left pipeline, which contains all the left sounds and all the right sounds (slightly quieter and delayed); the right speaker is therefore playing the right pipeline, which contains all the right sounds and all the left sounds (slightly quieter and delayed).
Spaced mics.jpg
 
I’m still pretty new to high-end audio and the science behind it. I’ve learned a ton from Amir and others on these forums.

When thinking about what exactly makes something sound “good”, I’ve made some interesting and counterintuitive discoveries during my own personal listening sessions over the last year or so. Some of these are obvious but others seem counterintuitive or even go against mainstream opinion. I’d like to share these observations and theories and hopefully get feedback.

Observations:
- Mood seems to be one of the biggest factors in determining “good sound.” For me personally, I’d even say it could be the biggest. I’m a musician and pretty emotional at times so maybe this is a bigger deal for me than if is for others. But there are days where my favorite tracks bring tears to my eyes, where everything sounds rich and detailed and beautiful, even mundane sound effects, and I’m left in awe of my sound system. But then there are other days where the exact same sounds and songs sound fine, or even good, but not nearly as amazing as other days. This has been the biggest surprise for me in my own listening.
- Good sound seems to depend heavily on the absence of noticeable, distracting imperfections like resonances, crackles, distortions, etc. Focusing on minimizing a system’s weaknesses seems more important than maximizing its strengths.
- Good sound seems to require bass that isn’t too soft or too loud and is even/smooth. Booming bass seems just as bad or even worse than a total lack of bass. But it seems to me that the sound quality seems to jump way up when the bass is calibrated just right and blends well with the higher frequencies.
- High volumes seem to be a requirement, unfortunately. For me personally, 70-90 DB.
- Scale? Not sure what to call this exactly, but it isn’t exactly volume, but more of the feeling of being enveloped by the sound.
- There seems to be a limited window of listening time before the ears seem to start to become desensitized. Turning up the volume gradually can counter this a bit but this just seems to lead to fatigue. So for me I can only get about 1 hour of listening at maximum sound quality.
- I keep hearing that bass frequencies can’t be localized. Heck, movie theaters are designed around this. But I swear I can hear the location of the subwoofers which are rolled off at 80hz. It’s not as noticeable as higher frequencies, but it’s easy to hear. Stereo bass seems to sound better to me. Am I fooling myself?
- Room acoustics seem to be absolutely massive. Perhaps even more important than the speaker. Even moving furniture around slightly can change the sound significantly. Rugs are huge.
- Source material/recording/mixing is obviously huge. High quality speakers don’t seem to help low-quality audio sound any better at all. If anything, bad audio seems to sound even worse through good speakers.
- I have trouble hearing or fully understanding this concept of “imaging.” I keep reading about it and I know lots of people value it. But I don’t really understand what amazing imaging would sound like in a stereo system. Pinpointing the location of an instrument doesn’t seem to make sense to me unless you’re talking about surround sound with lots of channels. I’ve noticed dialog suffers when the L/R speakers are too far apart or not pointed in enough. Is this part of imaging?

Would love to hear any feedback on my thoughts.
have a nice day!
Quite a pleasant read, observations and also the whole discussion.
But I'm interested in your set-up, especially the speakers themselves, since I probably understand them first.
Those discussions about placement, position of speakers and properly muted rooms are also the basis of quality listening to music for me. But when visiting my friends, I often find that on some path in the system, a wrong connection (reversal of polarity) happens, then the "sound image" is like this, strangely confusing, and it often happened to me at home too :) replacement of cables, bad labeling and once two it rephases.
in addition to the speakers, if they are a DIY product, for example, it can be reversed on the switch itself. But in order not to speculate, the question is also, Do you have any other experience with listening somewhere else, where it seemed ideal to you? or even completely different?
 
Physically the sound we playback is coming from two point sources. I agree that soundstage and imaging is definitely something we perceive and it is a very good illusion of space and depth. But as the OP said he doesn’t really understand imaging, I was only saying that I don’t think - that it is as pin sharp as some people make it out to be.

This is really a hopeless conversation (and complaint) insofar as you keep using a totally ill-defined phrase “pin sharp.” How can we know what that even means to you! What would a sensation if “pin sharp” imaging be to you?

Perhaps you are imagining some very strange or unrealistic expectation in imaging. Who knows?

I can just say that my speakers can image with very high specificity, in the sense that sonic images seem precisely located in space eg (given the recording) “voice is directly in the middle with a similar sense of focus and size of a human voice, the acoustic guitar seems about 3 feet to the right of the singer, very focused and I could point directly to it’s apparent location, and a wood block or teeny distant synthesizer pad can seem precisely located off to the left in the distance, and if I reached out and drew my fingers in a circle around that sonic object it would be a very small distinct point. Would one describe this as “pin-point” imaging? I could see doing that given the sense of high precision where even teeny sonic objects seem to be precisely located. I’d think plenty of audiophiles would agree, at least perhaps with a term like “precise” imaging.

But…who knows what YOU would perceive and describe? We don’t. So nobody can really disabuse you of whatever you have in mind. (Unless of course it happens you’ve never heard a system set up for or capable of precise imaging)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
This is really a hopeless conversation (and complaint) insofar as you keep using a totally ill-defined phrase “pin sharp.” How can we know what that even means to you! What would a sensation if “pin sharp” imaging be to you?

Perhaps you are imagining some very strange or unrealistic expectation in imaging. Who knows?

I can just say that my speakers can image with very high specificity, in the sense that sonic images seem precisely located in space eg (given the recording) “voice is directly in the middle with a similar sense of focus and size of a human voice, the acoustic guitar seems about 3 feet to the right of the singer, very focused and I could point directly to it’s apparent location, and a wood block or teeny distant synthesizer pad can seem precisely located off to the left in the distance, and if I reached out and drew my fingers in a circle around that sonic object it would be a very small distinct point. Would one describe this as “pin-point” imaging? I could see doing that given the sense of high precision where even teeny sonic objects seem to be precisely located. I’d think plenty of audiophiles would agree, at least perhaps with a term like “precise” imaging.

But…who knows what YOU would perceive and describe? We don’t. So nobody can really disabuse you of whatever you have in mind. (Unless of course it happens you’ve never heard a system set up for or capable of precise imaging)
I think my previous comments within this thread sum up what I’m getting at. If what I’ve said makes no sense to you, there’s not much else I can add.

I’ve covered what I consider imaging to be and what is possible for it to be. It’s there in what I’ve said previously in this thread. I see no point in going over it, just to try wording it slightly differently.

What you may consider as “precise imaging” I probably do not.

lastly I would assume anyone who understands the English language can understand what “a pin sharp image” means.
 
Last edited:
What you may consider as “precise imaging” I probably do not.

Ok, so when you say "It is pin point instrument placement I don’t believe in"...well...that seemed to be like "nobody really experiences it" but if it's just a personal
disatisfaction or perception, I guess that's that.

lastly I would assume anyone who understands the English language can understand what “a pin sharp image” means.

Of course any English speaker would know what "pin sharp" implies...but that's different from agreeing on what specifically would constitute "pin sharp."
And here it appears you disagree with other audiophiles, but it's hard to know why since we don't know precisely what "pin sharp" would mean to you.

Hence...it's pretty much a mystery.

Certainly talking about the nature and precision in imaging is worthwhile as it's a real sonic artifact. I can influence the precision of the imaging - if for instance I toe my speakers out a lot, the image of voices and instruments will become wider and more diffuse, toe them in and the images become tighter and more precise. Same, to some degree, with moving the speakers closer or further apart.

I mean, last night I was listening to a Carpenters track. Karen Carpenter's voice "appeared" between and well behind my speakers in a very specific point. The apparent size and location specificity was pretty much exactly that of, say, my wife's speaking voice from a similar distance. Just as I could locate and point to precisely where my wife's voice is in front of me, same for the voice of Karen Carpenter. It that isn't "pin point" imaging...what would be? Is your idea of "pin point" imaging...what? A voice reduced to the size of a pin point?
 
Ok, so when you say "It is pin point instrument placement I don’t believe in"...well...that seemed to be like "nobody really experiences it" but if it's just a personal
disatisfaction or perception, I guess that's that.



Of course any English speaker would know what "pin sharp" implies...but that's different from agreeing on what specifically would constitute "pin sharp."
And here it appears you disagree with other audiophiles, but it's hard to know why since we don't know precisely what "pin sharp" would mean to you.

Hence...it's pretty much a mystery.

Certainly talking about the nature and precision in imaging is worthwhile as it's a real sonic artifact. I can influence the precision of the imaging - if for instance I toe my speakers out a lot, the image of voices and instruments will become wider and more diffuse, toe them in and the images become tighter and more precise. Same, to some degree, with moving the speakers closer or further apart.

I mean, last night I was listening to a Carpenters track. Karen Carpenter's voice "appeared" between and well behind my speakers in a very specific point. The apparent size and location specificity was pretty much exactly that of, say, my wife's speaking voice from a similar distance. Just as I could locate and point to precisely where my wife's voice is in front of me, same for the voice of Karen Carpenter. It that isn't "pin point" imaging...what would be? Is your idea of "pin point" imaging...what? A voice reduced to the size of a pin point?

I’ll put it this way...

The next time you hear a vocal between and behind your speakers, move from your sweet spot and stand or sit with your head 6” or 12” from one either one of your speakers and listen to where are the vocals are then. I’d imagine that they are coming straight out of your speaker.

Same with any other sounds in the recording, they are all physically coming from your speakers. Physically there is no getting around that. Yes when sat in the sweet spot with carefully positioned speakers, our brain places sounds between the speakers - but the actual reality is the sound is coming from the speakers. No matter how much you want to close your eyes and fool yourself that somehow those speakers have disappeared (they haven’t).

You can walk up to your wife as she’s talking to you and her voice will still sound like it’s coming straight out of her mouth because it is. You can’t walk up to Karen Carpenter as if she’s in the middle of your speakers in your living room.

This is what I’m getting at with imaging. Yes there is an illusion of some placement and depth, but it is no where near real precision. If it were real precision or if it was really what I would call pin sharp you could walk up to each instrument as it was playing and hear each one right in your face individually within it‘s own space.

The soundstage illusion (to me) is not the hologram I believe other audiophiles make it out to be. Hopefully that makes sense.
 
I’ll put it this way...

The next time you hear a vocal between and behind your speakers, move from your sweet spot and stand or sit with your head 6” or 12” from one either one of your speakers and listen to where are the vocals are then. I’d imagine that they are coming straight out of your speaker.

Same with any other sounds in the recording, they are all physically coming from your speakers. Physically there is no getting around that. Yes when sat in the sweet spot with carefully positioned speakers, our brain places sounds between the speakers - but the actual reality is the sound is coming from the speakers. No matter how much you want to close your eyes and fool yourself that somehow those speakers have disappeared (they haven’t).

You can walk up to your wife as she’s talking to you and her voice will still sound like it’s coming straight out of her mouth because it is. You can’t walk up to Karen Carpenter as if she’s in the middle of your speakers in your living room.

Well, of course! That's a given. You are telling us it's an illusion. We all know that. You use it like you use an illusion. One may as well say there is no spatial differentiation in a 3D movie because when you take the glasses off, the image is flat. Well...duh.

Any talk of imaging will, of course, be in the context of the stereo illusion, and to get that illusion you generally sit in a sweet spot between the speakers.


This is what I’m getting at with imaging. Yes there is an illusion of some placement and depth, but it is no where near real precision. If it were real precision or if it was really what I would call pin sharp you could walk up to each instrument as it was playing and hear each one right in your face individually within it‘s own space.

The soundstage illusion (to me) is not the hologram I believe other audiophiles make it out to be. Hopefully that makes sense.

You are for some reason talking about a total strawman idea of "imaging." Nobody, for obvious reasons, expects any type of effect like the one you describe since it's impossible, therefore ALL talk of imaging by audiophiles is within the context of the ILLUSION produced by stereo (or multi-channel) set ups.
I don't see how it's worthwhile to tell us "this type of imaging doesn't exist" when that is a given, and therefore beside the point of what anyone else here would be actually referencing.
 
You are for some reason talking about a total strawman idea of "imaging." Nobody, for obvious reasons, expects any type of effect like the one you describe since it's impossible, therefore ALL talk of imaging by audiophiles is within the context of the ILLUSION produced by stereo (or multi-channel) set ups.
I don't see how it's worthwhile to tell us "this type of imaging doesn't exist" when that is a given, and therefore beside the point of what anyone else here would be actually referencing.
You now at least see what I’m driving at.

You might say it’s a strawman idea of imaging, but reading a lot of audiophile BS over the years really would have you try and believe in this impossible illusion. I think the way some audiophiles articulate sound is to do so by overhyping it and making small details and subtle qualities out to be much bigger and much more important than they really are. Or maybe I just downplay everything and expect too much?
 
You now at least see what I’m driving at.

You might say it’s a strawman idea of imaging, but reading a lot of audiophile BS over the years really would have you try and believe in this impossible illusion.

I have never, ever seen any audiophile claim the type of effect you are talking about.

I've seen claims that certain speakers maintain an image somewhat better off axis than others (e.g. omnis, like I've owned), but nothing close to the "walk up to it like it's a solid object in space" impression you seem to refer to.

I think the way some audiophiles articulate sound is to do so by overhyping it and making small details and subtle qualities out to be much bigger and much more important than they really are. Or maybe I just downplay everything and expect too much?

Well, perhaps you are expecting too much. But of course that's for us individuals to decide. As to hyping small details, that's generally what enthusiasts do.
My wine friends can go on about the differences between wines, but as an average joe the differences are quite subtle to me.

From my perspective there are large sonic changes that may seem to me significant..or not. And there are relatively tiny sonic changes that can be very significant to me...though the non-audiophile (or some other audiophiles) may shrug their shoulders and wonder "what's the big deal?"

I think it's possible to describe subtle sonic differences that have large subjective effects on a listener, without having to exaggerate those differences.
 
Differences will be relatively small in every hobby that is based on our senses. Because our senses are not that great after all.

Audiophiles talking about the differences are not really talking to general public but to other audiophiles who, I hope, understand the context of the claims.
 
V každej záľube, ktorá vychádza z našich zmyslov, budú rozdiely pomerne malé. Pretože naše zmysly nie sú až také skvelé.

Audiofili hovoriaci o rozdieloch sa v skutočnosti nerozprávajú so širokou verejnosťou, ale s inými audiofilmi, ktorí, dúfam, chápu kontext tvrdení.
don't consider myself an audiophile, rather a sound lover... I love clean and detailed performance, stereo, as long as everything is at a top level, will give you an idea of the space and the scene display quite accurately. so I don't agree that our senses are not great (everyone is a little different), I have several audio devices where there is always a different chain. I have many friends and many fans, none of them are audiophiles and I would like to hear them talk about their experiences. please don't throw them all in one bag! "Music is a meaningful interruption of silence! "
 
You now at least see what I’m driving at.

You might say it’s a strawman idea of imaging, but reading a lot of audiophile BS over the years really would have you try and believe in this impossible illusion. I think the way some audiophiles articulate sound is to do so by overhyping it and making small details and subtle qualities out to be much bigger and much more important than they really are. Or maybe I just downplay everything and expect too much?

I actually think that imaging is a great differentiator in speakers. What systems have you listened to in the past with good and average imaging? What are you listening to now?

When you go to a concert or musical, you get the wall of sound effect. Same with a movie. Lady Gaga’s voice is larger than life as is her appearance in close up when watching a Star is Born.

Many great speakers give you that diffuse imaging where you have a nice soundstage with phantom center and left and right instruments.

With some systems, you get the ability to point with your finger, exactly where the sound is coming from. The vocals don’t sound larger than life and can actually seem a bit thin, but instruments can appear in areas between phantom center and the left or right. It’s not three positions but perhaps a dozen that you can place precisely.

This, like 3D movies, is a pleasant experience when done properly and a jarring experience when done poorly. A very precise imaging system ends up making poorly mastered recordings sound unpleasant and disjointed whereas it will really help with the “you are there” experience. The recording matters.

Along the same lines, people talking about detail like hearing the rosin on the bow of stringed instruments or the wetting of a singer’s lips before the next word. I describe these as hyper real experience. You don’t hear that in real concerts but some people really like that experience of hyper clarity.

This is where speaker preference comes into play, yet backed by science. Dispersion, diffraction, room reflections, intermodulation etc. I would suggest that if you haven’t heard speaker imaging where you can “finger point” exactly where the sound is coming from (rather than a general area) or “finger point” at about a dozen points between your left and right speaker as opposed to 3 or 5 points, you just haven’t listened to enough systems. (And again, it may not be your preference to have that type of imaging).

This is different than a binaural recording played back on headphones. That gives you great “imaging” and ambience and there are some silly recordings like someone getting a hair cut recorded binaurally. With binaural recordings, I cannot *point* as well.


Even for your own speakers, try toe-ing them to converge in front, at, and behind your listening position to get the sense of imaging.

Ignoring the sales pitches at the beginning and end of this video, Paul actually nails it when it comes to controlling reflections by speaker position in the room as the easiest way to manipulate imaging.

 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Back
Top Bottom