Sound stage depth?

[kthulhutu]

Yes, I agree it's hard to judge the distance to the drumset, but the main thing is that everyone should at least be able to hear that the recording has an amazing depth and three-dimensionality, mostly thanks to the drums that excites the whole room and at least give us an idea of the size of it.

The drums played on that record were recorded in Studio B at Electrical Audio in Chicago. It's a big room with a high ceiling and hard surfaces, perfect for very roomy sounds. When you got time, put your headphones on and watch this binaural walkaround from that room, it's pretty cool.

Very cool! I'll respectfully decline the suggestion to wear headphones as my BACCHed system does a good job of reproducing binaural recordings. The room sound is very apparent here of course and gives a strong "you are there" sensation, although I'm not sure how we classify this under the term "soundstage".

My favourite recordings are the 360 ones done with the eigenmike that let you steer the audio and video in real-time.

 

[Talisman]

To understand what the problem is, we first need to understand why we humans are able to distinguish the directionality of sound and how we do it.
The ear canal is simply a tube that carries sound waves to the eardrum, so how do we know WHERE a sound is coming from or how far away it is?
The answer is the auricle. the auricle has a very particular and asymmetrical shape, with several flaps of cartilage that form loops. This particular shape means that the sound that reaches the ears is modified in its frequency response and is modified differently for each direction from which the sound comes and the way in which even the farthest ear perceives it simultaneously (for this reason the people whose pinnae are removed are no longer able to tell where a sound is coming from)

The answer to everything, much more than understanding where and at what height to place a hundred microphones, is to understand which sound variations, felt bilaterally, our brain associates as a specific direction, and then eventually assemble the various tracks in the studio with a software capable of "reposition" the instruments in space giving them the stereo response our brain expects for that direction.
I don't think it's simple or straightforward, but I think we are starting to have the technology to try this type of alternative solutions to the classical vision.

 

[dasdoing]

If one have a very good hall or church where you also can find the optimal distance from microphones to the instrument, one can make a better ambient recording than with the best plugin reverbs in a DAW . This is my experience, but I havent tried every reverb plugin in the world, only those that works with Logic Pro X and Audacity.

the thing is, reverbs used to be very very bad in the past. but mainstream ears got used to it's sound. so while nowadys you can create realistic reverb algorythms, they still mostly try to emulate that old sound, only making it "better sounding".
If you want real reverb for close mic recordings you use convolution reverbs. try them

 

[killdozzer]

Excuse me?

It's when you link titz for less crosstalk in stereo recording. You're welcome.

 

[Rednaxela]

 

[goat76]

the thing is, reverbs used to be very very bad in the past. but mainstream ears got used to it's sound. so while nowadys you can create realistic reverb algorythms, they still mostly try to emulate that old sound, only making it "better sounding".
If you want real reverb for close mic recordings you use convolution reverbs. try them

I find LiquidSonics Reverberate to be good, it's not free but worth the money.

 

[tallbeardedone]

I went to college for sound recording technology for a few years in the 90's. I admittedly didn't pursue a career behind the console, and my career in front of the console didn't pan out, but I have a fairly good understanding of what goes into making a recording (or what used to go into a recording anyway, lol.) I am a little confused at all the reviews of speakers that discuss the depth of the soundstage and how they can "hear the drums in the back" or "the guitar up front." When recording, there is only panning and placement of tracks across the soundstage left and right. There is no front and rear, or up and down. Especially in the situation of most modern recordings where instruments are close mic'ed and recorded at separate times I'm not sure what they're talking about. One scenario that I could potentially grasp the concept in would be something like an XY Stereo pattern mic'ing of a group of instruments where you could possibly get subtle timing cues that could create the illusion of depth, but I don't even know if that makes any sense. Can anyone shed light on how 'depth' is created or presented from a 2 channel recording being played back on 2 speakers? I'd love to hear Amir's take on this as well.

It appears to me how we hear soundstage depth is via ambient cues in the recording and instrument volume. In the following example I can very clearly place each instrument in Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in a 3-dimensional soundstage (x, y, and z axis). Try it out and see for yourself. It's great fun.

song: "Jack Sparrow"
album: Greatest Film Classics (Qobuz 16/44.1)
artist: Royal Philharmonic Orchestra
"live" volume: 80db at listening position using 200hz test tone.

In the opening twenty seconds the cello is very clearly positioned BEHIND the bass and slightly more to the center. Later when the tuba jumps in, it's even further back, behind the cello, and then the symbol is furthest back of all when it starts crashing at the 1:20 mark. At 2:15 when the horns blast in they are definitely behind the violins and the bass drum is waaaaay back when it starts hammering.

The picture below shows the placement of each instrument in real space in my room. See if you can place them all. I listen with my eyes closed sitting just inside the tip of the equilateral triangle crated between the tweeters and my ears. My Monitor Audio gx300's have very good horizontal dispersion frequency response out past 30 degrees which allows me to sit quite near-field, which really helps me be enveloped by the 3-D soundstage.

 

[tallbeardedone]

Lots of great replies and interesting takes. I guess I'll settle in on it being an illusion, and one that I may be less susceptible to for whatever myriad reasons. It's also possible that I just haven't heard the right speakers in the right room that would make me say "holy cow, I can hear the guitar player standing in front of the drummer!" However, my brain tends to interpret level differences as something being "prominent vs buried," not "near vs far." Particular speakers having wider dispersion characteristics that can create early reflections in the listening room could certainly add to or take away from the illusion - I can get on board with that. I'm still a bit baffled by someone stating that a particular amplifier has much greater depth to the soundstage than another (which I'm sure everyone else here has also seen) as it really shouldn't have anything to do with it. Thanks everyone for sharing some great info!

If you’re ever in New Zealand come round any time. I love showing off the soundstage and imaging I’ve set up in my system. I promise you you’ll be able to discern depth in the right recordings. It’s all about finding the exact spot to put your ears in relation to the speakers, and I mean exact. But once you find the spot the 3-D soundscape really does envelop around you and you feel like you’ve stepped into the room of the recording. It’s very cool and my favorite thing in hi-fi. I’m writing a doc on Optimizing Soundstage in your listening room. If you’re interested in reading PM me your email and I can share it with you. It’s a passion of mine.

 

[Duke]

The picture below shows the placement of each instrument in real space in my room. See if you can place them all. I listen with my eyes closed sitting just inside the tip of the equilateral triangle crated between the tweeters and my ears. My Monitor Audio gx300's have very good horizontal dispersion frequency response out past 30 degrees which allows me to sit quite near-field, which really helps me be enveloped by the 3-D soundstage. View attachment 237733

VERY INTERESTING that the transition from "Outside the screen" to "Inside the Concert Hall" is so clearly delineated over such a short distance! I believe you - David Griesinger reports a similar transition happening over a very short distance in concert halls, maybe ten or twelve rows from the front, wherein perception quickly transitions from "the instruments sound proximal" (his word) to "the instruments no longer sound proximal" over a distance of less than a footstep.

Would moving the speakers FORWARD by, about 30 cm result in a corresponding BACKWARDS shift in the head location where you still experience "Inside the Concert Hall"? I'm NOT suggesting you change your setup! I'm only asking to try to again a better understanding of the role that speaker-listener geometry is playing.

 

[tallbeardedone]

VERY INTERESTING that the transition from "Outside the screen" to "Inside the Concert Hall" is so clearly delineated over such a short distance! I believe you - David Griesinger reports a similar transition happening over a very short distance in concert halls, maybe ten or twelve rows from the front, wherein perception quickly transitions from "the instruments sound proximal" (his word) to "the instruments no longer sound proximal" over a distance of less than a footstep.

Would moving the speakers FORWARD by, about 30 cm result in a corresponding BACKWARDS shift in the head location where you still experience "Inside the Concert Hall"? I'm NOT suggesting you change your setup! I'm only asking to try to again a better understanding of the role that speaker-listener geometry is playing.

I did exactly this last L. I hooked up my Macbook Pro to my Hegel h390 integrated amp and ran frequency sweeps on REW to determine where to best place my Monitor Audio gx300's in my listening room.

It's super easy to do and really helped me nail the perfect speaker placement in my room, resulting in an incredibly flat frequency response at my listening position (see photo).

It affirmed what my ears had already determined, mainly that some rear-wall reinforcement brings up the mid-bass and tames the highs in my room, and that listening slightly near-field is audio nirvana with my Monitor Audio gx300’s!

If you want to hear how I did it so you can try it for yourself let me know in the comments.

 

[Duke]

If you want to hear how I did it so you can try it for yourself let me know in the comments.

Yes!

 

[levimax]

On another thread a member made a quick recording in his backyard of birds and animals on a portable recorder and posted a download link. It is a good examples of a stereo recording with depth, width, and height. https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...box-does-stereo-ruin-sound.38376/post-1352736

 

[tallbeardedone]

Yes!

PM your email and we're on!

 

[Dunring]

You could just take the direct approach to increasing soundstage depth, seems less complicated

 

[tallbeardedone]

It’s very cool and my favorite thing in hi-fi. I’m writing a doc on Optimizing Soundstage in your listening room. If you’re interested in reading PM me your email and I can share it with you. It’s a passion of mine.

I’m doing the fact same thing. Keen to share ideas.

 

[kirian]

Great thread and opinions too. My long- believed theory was that the depth perception or to put it more precisely, the 3D effect of the music (which has nothing to do with any kind of "reverb" or distant feeling of the music from the front speaker plane), was purely hardware dependent. As a newcomer to room acoustics, I find that the more flat the response between 20 and 150 Hz is, along with minimal spikes up to 400Hz, the more consistent is the perception of 3D soundstaging. Brain game?

 

[Cote Dazur]

Brain game?

100%, but for the brain to do the trick, the set up has to be right.

 

[pablolie]

Great thread and opinions too. My long- believed theory was that the depth perception or to put it more precisely, the 3D effect of the music (which has nothing to do with any kind of "reverb" or distant feeling of the music from the front speaker plane), was purely hardware dependent. ...

There are test tracks that clearly show how one can perceive depth - someone walks around in a 30x30 room with claves... and it is *very* easy to gain a feeling of depth. It is indisputable that something that is further away from you sounds different. As stated before, to me that feeling only comes across with classical music because there is a "standard" on how instruments are placed. With other genres it is less significant anyhow, and often poinless since it's simply different tracks mixed together.

 

[Axo1989]

Great thread and opinions too. My long- believed theory was that the depth perception or to put it more precisely, the 3D effect of the music (which has nothing to do with any kind of "reverb" or distant feeling of the music from the front speaker plane), was purely hardware dependent. As a newcomer to room acoustics, I find that the more flat the response between 20 and 150 Hz is, along with minimal spikes up to 400Hz, the more consistent is the perception of 3D soundstaging. Brain game?

Agree, but note that echo/reverb, amplitude differences (inter-aural for width and absolute/sequential for depth) and timing/phase separately or in various combinations are the standard studio manipulations for assembling the stereo image (aka soundstage). These are artificial correlates for natural phenomena of sound in 3D space. For recording live sound/events, microphone techniques, of course. The you need a reproduction system that works well enough.

100%, but for the brain to do the trick, the set up has to be right.

For sure. The stereo image has to exist in the recording (captured natural or assembled artificial) then the reproduction system has to manage that (basically not f*cking it up with various distortions) and finally the ear/brain has to respond to it.

 

[Cote Dazur]

For sure. The stereo image has to exist in the recording (captured natural or assembled artificial) then the reproduction system has to manage that (basically not f*cking it up with various distortions) and finally the ear/brain has to respond to it.

In my experience, even though a better imaging speaker will make it easier, any pair of speaker if positioned right and if seated in a good spot will yield a stereo image. The height of the speakers in relation to where the ears also play a big role.
The better everything is performing, the more spectacular, but the basic effect is accessible to all.