Soundstage and imaging

[Short38]

This thread is probably too complex for my old analog processor but I offer this as my understanding so far:

 

[goat76]

You don't, unless you mixed the recording...

I personally don't worry about it. I just want a wide enveloping soundstage with great clarity and reasonably good instrument separation, so it doesn't sound like a mushy mess...

Do you always want that wide and enveloping soundstage even if the recording doesn't contain such information?

With my speakers, the width of the soundstage varies a lot from recording to recording, some recordings have this very wide and enveloping sound while other recordings are way more center-focused. If everything were sounding wide, I would have been suspicious that my speakers are somehow artificially widening everything that is played, I certainly don't want that.

A good example of a song that has everything when it comes to depth, width, and envelopment is "In the Deep Shade" with the band The Frames. Well, many of the songs on that record have an impressive soundstage as the song "Santa Maria" with a very close and intimate-sounding vocalist, a drumset further back in the room that gives the recording depth, and string instruments panned wide adding width and envelopment to the mix.

And some examples of songs that have a narrower soundstage are "You Know You're Right" by Nirvana, and the song "Age of Consent" by New Order. Even if these song mixes may occur less impressive when it comes to soundstage than the record by The Frames, I find the less width and less envelopment to suit these songs and I'm not sure those mixes would have been better sounding if they had a wider soundstage.


The Frames - For the Birds

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

Nirvana - You Know You're Right

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

New Order - Age of consent

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

 

[audiofooled]

With my speakers, the width of the soundstage varies a lot from recording to recording, some recordings have this very wide and enveloping sound while other recordings are way more center-focused. If everything were sounding wide, I would have been suspicious that my speakers are somehow artificially widening everything that is played, I certainly don't want that.

Yes, loudspeakers shouldn't do anything more or less than what's in the recording when it comes to width. You can make soundstage artificially wider by spacing speakers wider apart but at a cost of image focus in the phantom center. Usually you can't have both. Different recordings contain varying degrees of phase or even out of phase information which don't sum correctly if your setup is not optimal depending on speaker radiation pattern.

This also accounts for depth perception. If you don't have enough room between loudspeakers and front wall, recordings with great depth and distance can sound just too small in the center, as opposed to just distant. If vocals are recorded with natural reverb and mixed to sound distant, as in more far away than your loudspeakers are, but your front wall is too close, then you get conflicting information and the vocal sounds just tiny and pinned to the front wall.

Many recordings from Chesky records do have both width and depth. You may like or dislike some of the music, but IMO they are very good test tracks. You can compare how they sound on your headphones and your speakers, chances are they will come up sounding different because of the reverb in the recording and your room acoustics. Here are some examples:

Hint: 0:32 picture of the dummy head binaural recording session.

Other than this, a well known recording:

 

[STC]

Yes, loudspeakers shouldn't do anything more or less than what's in the recording when it comes to width. You can make soundstage artificially wider by spacing speakers wider apart but at a cost of image focus in the phantom center. Usually you can't have both.

You can have both. But that requires to put a partition in between closely spaced speakers or with DSP like BACCH.

Many recordings from Chesky records do have both width and depth. You may like or dislike some of the music, but IMO they are very good test tracks.

Chesky’s “binaural ++” made with quite close to the dummy head. They also arrange the instruments at different distance to adjust the volume level and then they apply filter to correct the pinna shaping so that it sounds good too with loudspeakers. But binaural recordings via loudspeakers cannot sound as intense as done with close miked recordings. They have now stopped producing binaural ++ recordings. The ++ indicates it was filter for loudspeakers playback.

 

[NIN]

Yeah, listen with small enough stereo listening triangle That takes most of the local room away, and you hear what's on the recording. Local room disturbs it quite easily.

When I set-up my speakers I set them up like this image. At around 46 degree listening angle and I toe-in the speakers so I just see the outer side from the sweetspot. Then I do small changes. For me the angle is almost right everytime and mostly I toe-in the speakers so they cross around 2 feet in front of me.

 

[tmuikku]

Hi, thanks posting! I wonder if audible critical distance is in front of your listening spot, have you tried walking closer to front wall along the center line between speakers and listen if phantom center quality suddenly changes, quite dramatically?

I think many people have setups like that, base width between speakers shorter than distance from ear to speaker. I think that if you are far side of the critical distance this can work fine, phantom center can feel strong as speakers are not too far apart, still it can be quite big feel to it since lateral room reflections help widen stereo image so it all feels natural.

If I setup like this with my current speakers while being closer than the critical distance then it feels too narrow stereo image. But, keeping distance from ear to speaker short enough while adjusting the base width between speakers it is possible to adjust the system so that image feels natural and for some reason I've gravitated towards quite wide base width, y/x ratio is less than yours, +/-45deg instead of +/-23. This is very wide setup, but as I'm close enough the phantom center is still very strong and clear, despite speakers being far apart, and stereo image wide and natural. I guess all of it is also function of toe-in and speaker properties, not just how room interacts with all of it. We quite likely naturally gravitate towards positioning that feels most balanced, including direct sound from the speakers and also how the room sounds. I think that knowing the critical distance and its effect on sound, one can reason about the positioning bit better and possibly adjust it to even better balance, what ever it is one likes better.

 

[NIN]

Hi, thanks posting! I wonder if audible critical distance is in front of your listening spot, have you tried walking closer to front wall along the centerline between speakers and listen if phantom center quality changes dramatically?

This is around the best I get. Close will only sound worse, more like listening to "headphones".

 

[tmuikku]

Yeah the local room mostly disappears so it can feel like headphones. I can only speculate, but to me that indicates you have relatively strong early reflections compared to what comes later from all directions from the room, and there is lack of envelopment. Envelopment (and bass) would be the most obvious things that make the perception of close listening different from listening with actual headphones, main sound localizes in front of you instead of inside your head. Envelopment would be a feeling that you are surrounded by sound, hopefully some tactile feel with bass and so on, to differentiate this close listening stereo speaker setup from headphones At least that's how it supposed to be at best, local room suppressed as such but not like actual headphones, right?

I can only speculate since I really do not know how it sounds there and how you perceive it and how you feel about the perception. And I totally understand why people like it better listened further away, no judging, I'm just very interested about all this and very thankful you have shared some of your insight on this.

Have you noticed where transition happens, where at the headphone feel starts? how big is your triangle there, distance from ear to speaker? how would you describe the transition?

ps. here is how I got sound inside the head, really headphone feel: speakers about 180deg apart, directly each side of my head. If you have small sofa, place speakers both sides of the sofa, point toward your ears, towards each other. Room gone completely, sound inside head like with headphones

I think its very useful to do listening tests like these, helps to decipher how the room and speakers interact with your hearing system. You always hear the music obviously, so its not a night and day difference that might be a though reading my texts describing the stuff. Moving things around adjusts the illusion that you get. The audible critical distance is quite defined way, a tool, one can use to explore the illusion, explore the possibilities and reason about stuff. Perhaps if you are content what you have then there is no point to, but if you are still seeking for better sound then its very useful to play around with it, to be able to reason about things better, connect audible phenomenon to written concepts.

 

[NIN]

Yeah the local room mostly disappears so it can feel like headphones. I can only speculate, but to me that indicates you have relatively strong early reflections compared to what comes later from all directions from the room, and there is lack of envelopment. .

No. My room is well-treated and the early reflection is mostly absorbed.

 

[tmuikku]

Alright, cool, information dripping Any more info about the acoustic treatment, about speakers and positioning? how do you came up with the setup, how you came about the positioning you have and so on? how did you listen about it, or measure, how you evaluated progress with the acoustic treatment? It's all very interesting, hence asking.

edit.
Found some of your past posts with some info:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eatments-in-the-real-world.10670/post-1623172

Room Treatments in the Real World

nothing but concrete and dry wall when finished. Instead of covering the surfaces with soft material, I am considering just apply treatment as is. I hope your constructor have good understanding of proper acoustic treatment and drywall building, because in ordinary empty rectangular room of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Quite extensive treatments with the huge bass traps and all. 200ms RT60 time seems quite short, much shorter than normal rooms I think, if it has any meaning here. I haven't been to such listening environment so can only speculate with it. I think it could lack envelopment, as mine does too, I'd like more. Speculating with your description that it gets into headphone sound, and from the posts linked, it appears to me that your room doesn't have much late reflections that could make the envelopment, and headphone feel ensures.

How do you feel about spaciousness or envelopment, do you have it fine now? I guess your playback system is as good as ever, you've put lot of effort to it. How important you consider the stereo imaging in relation to any aspects you consider important for sound you like? Thanks!

 

[NIN]

I like my room "dry" with low RT60 and with the speaker end with much absorbtion and the listening area with more reflection so I get the feeling of sitting in my room. The reason why the speaker work better with that angle and distance is because they are made to work best so. The image I posted is suggestion from the guy that make my speakers (and also have done my acoustics).

The spaciousness or envelopment are amazing according to me. Or rather, it is what the source are. If the source (music) is narrow it will be narrow, and if it is wide and spaciousness it will be that. I have not heard a better stereo imaging than I have now. The "sharpness" of the soundstage can be staggering (if the source is that).

 

[program2000]

I recently compared the HEDD Type 07 (mk1) with the APS Klasik 2020. Since I have been mixing and mastering for 20 years, I have some observations about these speakers. Both, of course, with full room correction at the same time.

Hedd 07 have a nicer sound, more detailed and the bass is deeper. They also have a much wider soundstage. And that's the problem. Because due to the wide stage, the phantom center is much weaker and quieter than in APS Klasik 2020. This makes it pleasant to listen to, but it is more difficult to make decisions about the volume of vocal / kick / snare / bass in relation to the rest of the mix.

The 2020 Klasik sounds cheaper, but decisions are much easier to make. Klasik 2020 in mono mode sounds as if there was one center speaker in front of us, even when we turn our heads. Hedd 07 is worse in mono, when you move your head you can hear each speaker separately.

I recommend both speakers, Hedd 07 is better for detail decisions, but for setting volume levels and panorama the APS Klasik 2020 is definitely better (in this category it is as effective as the Yamaha ns10m)

I will add that comparing the speakers and making mixes with them allows me to draw the conclusion (maybe correct?) that the width of the soudstage is very important when determining the balance in the mix.

Is a wide sound stage nothing more than a different M/S balance, i.e. a low mid level and a high side level? Do any of you work with speakers that have a very wide soundstage and at the same time a loud phantom center? Is it possible? This is probably an interesting thread, hence my comparison above.

Can you comment on this, brothers, based on your experiences and observations? Thanks greetings!