Sound stage depth?

[kongwee]

Completely true. All too often, the goal is to make the music sound impressive on crappy systems.

Yup, sound good on crappy system and make you pay for live concert. Revenue on crappy or million dollar hifi system doesn't make a difference most of the time for artist.

 

[goat76]

There are many things not accounted for, but the point here is distance cues, and that seems quite clear, especially since modern understanding explains why, as well, and modern recording and mixing preferences (frequency emphasis on the center panned parts of the mix) show the problem clearly. The problem with doing the EQ is that the emphasis then puts a contrary cue into the playback room reverberation.

Seems quite clear, really?

To me, it's pretty obvious they didn't do a proper 1 to 1 comparison between 2ch and 3ch in the report from 1934. As I pointed out, they should have started to make sure the stereo width was perceived as sounding similar or the same, before they concluded anything about differences in the depth/distance cues between the two setups. As of now, we don't know if the reason for the differences they heard was caused by a suboptimal 2-channel setup (that couldn't reproduce an accurate phantom image). That part of the report seems more like an afterthought, an idea they just wanted to try out while the main test was optimized for the 3-channel setup.

And for the emphasis on the center-panned parts in modern mixes, I have never seen anyone mention that they do that to enhance the depth of the recordings. The reason is of course a stereo problem that affects the tone, but it's not clear to me if that particular problem got any effect on the perceived depth/distance for the recordings. If any, an emphasis on the presence frequency range will probably and most likely make things in the mix appear closer, not further away.

 

[j_j]

And for the emphasis on the center-panned parts in modern mixes, I have never seen anyone mention that they do that to enhance the depth of the recordings. The reason is of course a stereo problem that affects the tone, but it's not clear to me if that particular problem got any effect on the perceived depth/distance for the recordings

You realize that that pre-emphasis changes the reverberation in the playback room? You also realize that you automatically compare reverberation timbre to direct timbre, yes?

There y'go. No, a lot of people do not understand they are fixing a distance (which is what happens, it fixes one distance, that can vary by playback room) when they do the preemphasis. And?

 

[ozzy9832001]

On top of these observations, I would expand to say that the human brain is constantly trying to "make sense of things," looking for recognizable patterns that it recognizes or "believes" it recognizes from prior events.

Also, our free will can interfere with attempts to listen in an objective way: we are "free" to sort of hear what we want to hear. And once we've "decided" that, for example, a centered mono source with no actual spatial cues associated with it based on time or phase actually sounds "distant" simply because it is somewhat reduced in level, has its highs rolled off a bit and has added reverb, then from then on we may "choose" to interpret that kind of treatment as an adequate illusion of depth.

For me personally, I can selectively "choose" to buy into that illusion or instead analyze what's is likely really going on and decide I 'm not in the mood to be fooled by it. Frame of mind is everything. (And if your speakers have a "BBC dip" at 2500Hz, things in the center are likely to be sound somewhat distant more often than not, exaggerating the illusion of depth.)

This is actually very similar to how our brains handle visuals as well. They try to fill in the blanks when we see something, especially in low light to something that is recognizable. It's one of the theories behind a lot of the ghost sightings and all people think they see...and why it's always seen out of the corner of the eye, at night or while focusing on something else.

 

[Emlin]

This is actually very similar to how our brains handle visuals as well. They try to fill in the blanks when we see something, especially in low light to something that is recognizable. It's one of the theories behind a lot of the ghost sightings and all people think they see...and why it's always seen out of the corner of the eye, at night or while focusing on something else.

Indeed. It is generally better for the survival of your genes for your brain to tell you that there is a tiger lurking when there isn't, rather than tell you that there isn't one when there is.

 

[j_j]

Indeed. It is generally better for the survival of your genes for your brain to tell you that there is a tiger lurking when there isn't, rather than tell you that there isn't one when there is.

Precisely, hence we are wired to overdetect.

 

[Emlin]

Precisely, hence we are wired to overdetect.

Which is what I said.

 

[j_j]

Which is what I said.

Well, yes, I was agreeing with you.

 

[CJH]

I found reading this interesting discourse about soundstaging (especially between Duke and tallbeardedone) interesting. In years past I have built a few OB systems that excelled at having a natural tonal balance but often diffuse soundstaging (compared to sealed box speakers). I experimented with using quite a bit of wall sound absorption using acoustical foam as well as using felt on the speaker cabinet and stands to reduce reflections which greatly improved solidity of instruments and positioning of musicians in the recording venue including depth. Seems my experimentation implied that even the reflected sound needed to have the similar/same tonality as the direct sound for an improved sense of soundstage recognition. It seems we put great effort into clearing an unobstructed path in front of the speakers, but not nearly as much about what's behind and beside the speakers altering the reflections. If reflected sound is 50% as important, we need to pay more attention to it for best performance.
CJH

 

[GTDTS]

Somehow I stumbled across this threat and thanks to you all…I have invested 8 critical hours in my system and came away with a few things.

I think I’ve completely memorized Beethoven No. 5. The poster who recommended it is very spot on. Thank you…and no thanks. My family is about to kick me out of the house!! This recommendation kicked off this whole thing.

From my “ideal” reclined listening position, I could not dial in the exact description of all the instruments. However, if I leaned forward a bit, the image became crystal clear as described earlier. As I became familiar with what section played each part, it became even more clearer. Now, when I put on say, Kenny Chesney’s “Gulf Moon” on Tidel, the reclined position is perfectly clear, spot on image, spot on peripheral instruments. However, when I lean forward, all that goes to crap and the phantom image is destroyed. Why?? I do sit left kilter. 11.5 x 13.0 and a cathedral 14 foot ceiling.

All this has made me want to experiment with my miniDSP again…just to see. 4 hours in, still can’t get it all to work. Stay tuned…

I have the best set up I’ve heard, but I admit, hardly anyone digs 2.1 like I do. I love great recordings. This hobby has brought me to listen to music that I NEVER would have entertained before. It has also had me scrap songs that I used to like.

Thanks for making me waste my time, again. Thanks for making me obsess over all this…AGAIN. It’s a good thread. I run the STR Stack with a pair of Prestige 85F’s and a HSU Sub in a smaller lively room…that no one wants to leave mind you once the music starts. We keep my room closed when company comes over has 1/2 a bottle later, it’s 2am and we are going to hate tomorrow.

 

[JRS]

It seems to me that some people can't hear image depth.Some cannot hear it at first but then something switches in their brain and from then on they can and some people seem to hear it straight away.It is a bit like those picture puzzles with "hidden' pictures that appear to some people straight away and to some never.Of course that stereo information has too be on the recording and recorded in a way that makes it more intelligible.Recording engineers llke Al Schmitt were masters at capturing that depth and space.
I strongly suspect that using simple point source crossoverless speakers like a simple "full" range driver can help you learn to hear or listen for image depth because they tend to do that very well.They are flawed devices but I think everyone should use a pair for a while as educational/training devices .

Late to this game, but this post is so right. Hearing Lowther speakers (with gentle DSP to clean up the IR) for the first time blew my mind. Something about the single xo less driver that is utterly convincing and a good standard with which to compare XO's. One of the two times in my life that I was transported to the venue (without chemical assistance that is) used Lowthers + Subs + DSP = best sound at show IMO (RMAF ca 2003)