Qualities correlated to Soundstage or ASW? Looking for papers.

[Timcognito]

Like I said, that’s semantics. The reason I gave further description clarification.

I’m talking about the speakers inherent staging/spaciousness, disregarding playback material. Assume pink noise, if that makes it easier/clearer.

pink noise has zero soundstage and soundstage is placing objects in space. it is managed by by microphone placement or mixing multiple microphone signals with relative volume between or among speakers. what you seem to think is soundstage is speaker placement, PEQ, DSP and room acoustical treatment

 

[Lord Victor]

Okay but if its not on the recording it can never be there. Optimising your speaker performance in the room is not soundstage although it may enhance hearing it.

Let’s just stop wasting each other’s time at this point - I’m pretty sure we both know what the other person means/is talking about.
(Recorded stage vs. The one caused in reproduction - whatever you want to l that.)
If you don’t like calling it soundstage feel free to stop using that term in this case and call it ASW instead, or use a different term if you have one, and let’s move along.

 

[Lord Victor]

Only if you limit the application of DSP to frequency response EQ. BACCH certainly can enhance the spatial sensation of the reproduced sound using DSP. Here is a paper on its crosstalk cancelation process.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264886721_Optimal_Crosstalk_Cancellation_for_Binaural_Audio_with_Two_Loudspeakers

Thanks - Interesting, I’ll give that a look. I don’t doubt dsp can affect perceived staging - Dirac certainly does.
Though in this case I’m trying to figure something out that’s a property of a passive speaker.
Some of the same properties could of course be affected with a sap I’d imagine, though I’d still presume off axis response can’t, as it’s a property of the driver/baffle geometry etc to my understanding.

 

[Timcognito]

Let’s just stop wasting each other’s time at this point - I’m pretty sure we both know what the other person means/is talking about.
If you don’t like calling it soundstage feel free to stop using that term in this case and call it ASW instead, or use a different term if you have one, and let’s move along.

agreed, my last post, sorry to be pedantic but if you search, it is defined concept in audio playback. moving on

 

[Emlin]

For soundstage you can either faithfully reproduce the reverb on the recording or you can use the reverb of the room.

If you do the latter, you will always have a similar soundstage because the acoustics of the room are dominating. With the former the soundstage will vary in line with the recording.

For good imaging, you have to faithfully reproduce the reverb on the recording.

Those seem to be the fundamentals of it.

 

[BenB]

Here's an interesting thread about the impact of reflections on our perception of audio reproduction:

Impact of Reflections: In-Room Speaker Recordings

I have posted before about a small nested line-array speaker that I designed and built, which I call the Skylarks. These speakers are typically listened to vertically, where they have wide horizontal dispersion, but limited vertical dispersion. However, they are sufficiently small that they...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It solves a lot of the counfounding issues that make it difficult to draw conclusions about speakers in rooms, because most tests require that you use different speakers to obtain different directivity.

 

[maverickronin]

pink noise has zero soundstage and soundstage is placing objects in space. it is managed by by microphone placement or mixing multiple microphone signals with relative volume between or among speakers. what you seem to think is soundstage is speaker placement, PEQ, DSP and room acoustical treatment

Mono pink noise should image as a line right between the speakers, thinner or wider depending if you like ASW or not.

 

[iGude]

So I'm looking to make something which creates large imaging, and which sonically 'disappears' readily.

According to Siegfried Linkwitz and others, speakers and listening room disappear when the directivity of the speaker is independent from frequency. Hence, he favors monopole and dipole speaker designs, but I suppose he would be ok with modern cardioid designs, too. See here for more:

Linkwitz-Publications

Linkwitz loudspeaker design and test publications

www.linkwitzlab.com

 

[tmuikku]

Mono pink noise should image as a line right between the speakers, thinner or wider depending if you like ASW or not.

What is correct meaning of ASW? Thin, or small, localization of noise means very little room effect on perceived sound and that the speakers are relatively well matched so that it happens in the first place. Assuming speakers are fine, then bigger and hazier phantom image with noise means that room affects the perception. You can adjust between the two with size of listening triangle, positioning of things. Having the speakers not too far apart and moving yourself, further or closer to speakers, changes the perspective.

If there is no strong early reflections, apparent width/size of stage doesn't extend past speakers, but you can still adjust apparent width by changing relative position of speakers.

When room influenses perceived sound, apparent size is bound by and to the room. When it does not, then it is what is on the recording bound by the speaker position relative to listener.

Both can be wide, but only the other can be narrow.

It is possible to position speakers so that image feels natural in size, there is no hole in the middle for example and localization is in front of you or inside your head what ever you wish, the speakers disappear, and the sound is just great with clarity and envelopment. This happens when room sound is suppressed enough, what ever that is, and you position the system to sound like that, in other words adjut the system to the room. For typical living room without acoustic treatment this means quite small listening triangle which adjusts relationship of early reflections to late reflections, and to direct sound.

 

[restorer-john]

With a microphone..

With two or more microphones...

And measuring software that works in 3 dimensions.

No sound stage height, width and depth is going to translate with a single microphone.

 

[tmuikku]

You could estimate time and level of early reflections in single mic measurement, to have reasonable questimate whether stereo imaging was better or worse based on brains ability to localize to harmonics, and estimating how well the harmonics are preserved with the reflections. See what David Griesinger's LOC is all about.

Also, without getting into complicated measurement schemes you can estimate the quality with your own perception as long as you find the transition I touched beginning of this thread. When you know the transition so that you can confidently hear when you are on either side, you have now two different perspectives to the stereo image which you can change at will. With the two perspectives, you can not only hear but actually listen and understand what the effect of room is, and how it sounds like when brain is able to separate sound of the room into separate neural stream, to get clarity and envelopment. Now you are rooted and for example know when you are listening to envelopment. When you know exactly how to listen envelopment, you can now listen how it changes when you change positioning, without being confused with all sound in the room changing around. You can now know if you do hear the envelopment or don't, and what it sounds like, and can then make it better by adjusting the system and room and their relationship.

Well, know or not, it's just my speculation from perception and reasoning with my system in my room and relating it to Griesingers work, which is closest scientific work I can relate the perception to with high enough confidence to talk about it like this in the first place

What I'm trying to say, it's hard to connect perceived sound quality to written concepts. What I'm trying to do is to establish that connection myself, and everyone have to do it by themselves somehow. Have you done it? if you have, how? Obvious goal is of course learning to listen in order to improve sound quality with my setup, and you with yours.

 

[maverickronin]

What is correct meaning of ASW?

Do you mean amount of ASW?

As far as I can tell it's up to the person.

 

[tmuikku]

Yeah, I was wondering if it is defined by the perception only, or is it somehow connected to how wide the speakers are set, or something.

 

[iGude]

Yeah, I was wondering if it is defined by the perception only, or is it somehow connected to how wide the speakers are set, or something.

It is based on perception only, but the perception may be influenced by the position of the speakers.

 

[maverickronin]

Yeah, I was wondering if it is defined by the perception only, or is it somehow connected to how wide the speakers are set, or something.

I'm pretty sure the primary factor is the strength of the sidewall reflections.

 

[tmuikku]

Yeah, I was left thinking about the term Source Width in there as it's silly in a way. Width is easy with positioning, its the default setting in a way that room affects the sound. Getting it both narrow and wide at the same time, depending on source material, is the tough one. Narrow/tight phantom center is hard to get. And the goal in my opinion, to get to hear what is on the recording. Not to get imaging inside the head but nice frontal localization with envelopment, where the phantom image(s) is accurate. This is not sound that is widened with early reflections, because it makes the sound hazy in a way, bloats the phantom image(s).

Apparent Source Size would better term in that sense, but that would spell ASS so perhaps it was deliberate choise to use width instead of size More likely my english is lacking. Anyway, please continue.

 

[tmuikku]

Wikipediaentry here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_source_width

Apparent source width is the aurally perceived extent of a sound source. Sometimes, it is defined as the impression that a source sounds larger than its visible size.[1] The impression results from several auditory cues, which are affected by sound radiation characteristics of the source itself and by characteristics of the room. Since the term apparent source width has been used a lot in the field of subjective room acoustics to characterize how the room affects the perception of source size, the term perceived source extent has been introduced to highlight that the perception results from both the sound source and the room.[2]

So, a singer on a record might have reverberation effect added in mixing stage to make it bigger sounding, the engineer has adjusted the ASW already. Your room where hou listen to it with a stereo system might make it even bigger.

So, to my understanding it's not a term that is supposed to describe how wide stereo image is in total, but how wide the phantom images are within the stereo image. Perhaps this is what you guys also thought about, I have had impression it is being used in forums to describe how wide a stereo image is, in total, but haven't thought about it earlier.

So, anyone could increase apparent source width by using room early reflections if they want to, to bloat phantom images baked on the recording. This would increase ASW, which also could make total stereo image appear wider than the speakers, bigger in general.

One could also try to have what is on the recording, to maintain ASW, by reducing effect of local room. Actual width of the total stage can be still adjusted to wide or narrow by adjusting listening triangle.

Important difference, and source for confusion. To me, big ASW means bad stereo reproduction, I want it sharp, I want to hear what is on the recording. But, I want it still wide, which is also wrong term as the image can be too wide. I want it natural, and this means reducing effect of early reflections, and adjusting listening triangle to hear what is on the recordign, could be narrow or wide, but not too wide it feels unnatural

ps. How much one can reason from one freakin acronym? quite much, if it's easy to relate with perception! if you reading this have no idea how any of these would sound like, for example sharp or bloated phantom image, this would seem like crazy talk, hard to relate to what I'm writing. Unles it's easy for you to connect this with your perception you are having with your system. Just an example why I'm trying to wave hand for the transition, using it as tool while listening to various aspects of stereo system

 

[tmuikku]

Eww, read the Opening post again, haha, ASW is used there as Apparent Stage Width.

Sorry contributing to confusion not being fully aware on the opening post but thinking and pushing my own stuff.

Sorry OP, I've got no collection of papers to link to, and can only provide what I have been observing from papers and with my setup and it seems that there is lot of confusion about it all reading the first post.

Stereo image has various qualities that depend on various things. Even though you had ideal speakers dropped from outerspace with ideal response some scientist found out, still you room and the speaker and listener position would still affect all stereo image qualities. And to sort that out, how to position things, you must know which one you want to hear: "near field" sound where you hear mostly spatial effects from the recording, or "far field" sound where sound of the recording is strongly influenced by your room and they fuse into one perception.

Main objective for main speaker is to have uniform directivity in a way, that it allows you to rotate the speaker solely to affect early reflections in the room, so nice DI. This allows maximum flexibility trying to find good positioning. If there is only one good listening axis you cannot change toe-in, if it ruins direct sound, which prevents you using toe-in adjusting the room sound. In addition, you'd want to have separate bass system, tha allows you to adjust that independently of the two main stereo speakers, agaib due to effects of room. Bass has great spatial effect as well, so it's must to be able to adjust it witgout touching main speakers, if you want best stereo sound in room.

You could also get rid of the room, but that would prevent spaciousness and envelopment.

Key is to position the set in room so that sound you are after happens. You need to know what perceptiom you are after, and suitable loudspeakers that enable you to have it in the room you happen to be in.

I think I started posting here to promote you must know how to listen and what to listen, in order to have any use of the knowledge in the papers. Nobody on this forum, or the papers can achieve the end goal for you, you must do it yourself, the listening.

I hope it helps! have fun listening your stereo!

 

[Suono]

Secondo Siegfried Linkwitz e altri, gli altoparlanti e la stanza di ascolto scompaiono quando la direttività dell'altoparlante è indipendente dalla frequenza.

a large polar diagram without holes and peaks, the wider and more focused the stage will be