Soundstage and imaging

[Tangband]

1.If It's impossible to know what's the real size of the soundstage In the recording unless you were in the studio
And if pretty much every system /spearkers have a different sized soundstage
How can you know if your system / speakers create an accurate soundstage ?

2. Is soundstage and imaging the same thing ?

Good question. Its important to remember that 2 channel playback is only an illusion of the real event . ”Real ” soundstage and imagine is only happening with purist recordings using only two omni microphones ( I do this recording technique since 2019 ) in real concert halls with very good natural reverb. Even then , the stereosystem with its 2 channel flaws can only at best create an illusion of the real event .

In my hifijourney , I have come to the conclusion that I like hifi setups that, together with the listeningroom creates a believable illusion . But as I do recordings of good musicians, I know that even the best two channel recordings are very far from ” the real thing ” .

Then we have multichannel recordings made in a studio with studiomonitors and artificial reverb and other effects on different tracks. Here the optimal reference would be to use the same monitors, the same setup, and the same room as the recording engineer, which is impossible to achieve. Simply because you have to buy new monitors and travel to other recording studio-rooms for each and every record you play

Now - how can you get the most enjoyment of the recorded sound in your own room ?*
The answer is probably that there are many ways to achieve this - and its ultimately up to personal taste because its you and your ears that will live with the hifi gear. Two ears and a brain is very superior to a roomcorrection program or a measurement microphone when it comes to experience the soundstage illusion . Does it sound real or artificial ?

—————-

* ( You can also set up your speakers in your room on a spot where they sound most articulate and less boomy - i.e. where you almost dont need any roomcorrection. This will bring sound-benefits to all recordings ).

 

[audiofooled]

Good question. Its important to remember that 2 channel playback is only an illusion of the real event . ”Real ” soundstage and imagine is only happening with purist recordings using only two omni microphones ( I do this recording technique since 2019 ) in real concert halls with very good natural reverb. Even then , the stereosystem with its 2 channel flaws can only at best create an illusion of the real event .

In my hifijourney , I have come to the conclusion that I like hifi setups that, together with the listeningroom creates a believable illusion . But as I do recordings of good musicians, I know that even the best two channel recordings are very far from ” the real thing ” .

Then we have multichannel recordings made in a studio with studiomonitors and artificial reverb and other effects on different tracks. Here the optimal reference would be to use the same monitors, the same setup, and the same room as the recording engineer, which is impossible to achieve. Simply because you have to buy new monitors and travel to other recording studio-rooms for each and every record you play

Now - how can you get the most of the recorded sound in your own room ? The answer is probably that there are many ways to achieve this - and its ultimately up to personal taste because its you and your ears that will live with the hifi gear.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

 

[NIN]

1.If It's impossible to know what's the real size of the soundstage In the recording unless you were in the studio
And if pretty much every system /spearkers have a different sized soundstage
How can you know if your system / speakers create an accurate soundstage ?

Try to build up your system and room so the soundstage is as different as possible when you play music. One should not underestimate the room impact on the soundstage.

 

[Trell]

One should not underestimate the room impact on the soundstage.

I don’t recall any poster claiming otherwise.

 

[NIN]

I don’t recall any poster claiming otherwise.

May be. But I see post that talk about not do anything about the first reflection and that will with certainly affect the soundstage in my opinion.

 

[Schollaudio]

I don't know if the OP questions were answered yet. I apologize if they have.

Anyway

Imaging is the reproducing of a single sound, instrument and or voice. That cowbell sounds front and center and one foot wide. The guitar sounds just right of the left speaker.

Soundstage is the collection of the instruments across the room and maybe some ambiance to sound like the band is in a\or your room. Ray Charles version of "Feaver" is a good example of recording with good soundstage. vocals are off center slightly right and left small percussion extends out into the side of the room you can almost turn your head to look at them. Some Nora Jones and Boz Scags recordings have a low frequency ambiance that give an impression of listening to the band in my room.

Billy Ellish, Tank and the Bangas and Steely Dan recordings display good to great imaging and sound stage but they are all different. No standardization that I know of.

 

[Cote Dazur]

May be. But I see post that talk about not do anything about the first reflection and that will with certainly affect the soundstage in my opinion.

Will it affect what you ear? Probably. But the better question is will it affect it favourably or not? We have discussed that subject extensively in a thread about “how not to treat a room”. The rumour that a treated room is always better that an untreated room was exposed as unfounded scientifically.
One might prefer one way or the other, with science indicating that our ears and brain are able to identify and mute most reflections, early or not, making room treatment more of an option than a must have, as often promoted by YouTube self appointed expert, ill informed audiophile and room treatment sales people.
So, you may or may not want to do anything about first reflection, just keep an open mind and ears about it, as you might prefer to have them and that will be all right.

 

[Ellebob]

This has been studied and there are a number of conclusions from these studies. A lot depends on one's goals. Here are some basics with acoustic treatment.

If your speakers do not have good off axis dispersion and their response at the first reflection point is quite different than the on axis response, you should treat the first reflection point with absorption. The reason is we hear a combination of direct and reflected sound. When the direct and reflected sound is similar we find it more pleasing when they are not it does not sound as good as the direct sound only. Part of this was mentioned in Toole's book but he also gives references to studies and one can read those. Many are available on AES if you have a subscription.

When we have a speaker with a good off axis response we can tailor the imaging and soundstage, or focus and envelopment or apparent source width. There is no common terminology. We tailor it by using various forms of acoustic treatments and placements. Every room already has acoustic treatments in it from furniture, windows, window treatments, carpet, other objects and shape of the room. So not everything has to be panels to change the sound of your room. You can maker a wider or narrower soundstage, stereo can sound like surround sound with sounds that you think come from other areas of the room beyond the speakers. Not treating a room or first reflections might be preferred, usually not in a very reflective room. But, not treating first reflections is often preferred over treating with absorption.

There are so many options and nothing wrong with doing experiments in your own room to find the sound you prefer.

 

[goat76]

This has been studied and there are a number of conclusions from these studies. A lot depends on one's goals. Here are some basics with acoustic treatment.

If your speakers do not have good off axis dispersion and their response at the first reflection point is quite different than the on axis response, you should treat the first reflection point with absorption. The reason is we hear a combination of direct and reflected sound. When the direct and reflected sound is similar we find it more pleasing when they are not it does not sound as good as the direct sound only. Part of this was mentioned in Toole's book but he also gives references to studies and one can read those. Many are available on AES if you have a subscription.

When we have a speaker with a good off axis response we can tailor the imaging and soundstage, or focus and envelopment or apparent source width. There is no common terminology. We tailor it by using various forms of acoustic treatments and placements. Every room already has acoustic treatments in it from furniture, windows, window treatments, carpet, other objects and shape of the room. So not everything has to be panels to change the sound of your room. You can maker a wider or narrower soundstage, stereo can sound like surround sound with sounds that you think come from other areas of the room beyond the speakers. Not treating a room or first reflections might be preferred, usually not in a very reflective room. But, not treating first reflections is often preferred over treating with absorption.

There are so many options and nothing wrong with doing experiments in your own room to find the sound you prefer.

That all depends on what your goal is with the "reproduction" of the recording.

You can have untreated side walls that artificially will widening the soundstage, but that will also unavoidably blur the recorded information that contains the room reflections that occurred in the room that was recorded. The only thing your listening room "sees" when it comes to reflections is just what is generated by those two sound sources (the two loudspeakers) and nothing more, just two "reflection-generating points" that have no relationship whatsoever with the room information on the actual recording. The reflections that occur in the listening room will treat everything those two sound sources play equally much as if it all was just two instruments, even if the actual recording contains reflections from the record room, a dry recorded guitar, or 20 other individual instruments. All of that, from the "view of the listening room", are now just two "single" sounds.

Most recording and mixing engineers are usually working in fairly dry-sounding environments to be able to hear what's on the actually recording, it's completely beyond me why anyone would think that that exact material would not sound like it was intended to sound if it's reproduced in a similarly dry-sounding listening room. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about anechoic chambers now, that's not representative of most audio studios' acoustic environments.

Just because a speaker with "good off-axis dispersion" most probably will perform better than a speaker with "bad off-axis dispersion" in a highly reflective room, it doesn't mean that not both of them will perform even better in an acoustically well-treated room (not overly-treated room).

 

[Ellebob]

I agree, that is what I do is do for work is acoustic treatment for recording studios and homes. Most recording studios are "dry" compared to home environments and most home environments do not mimic the recording studios especially for stereo. The other thing I find (Genelec did a white paper on for those interested) is that there is no standard for recording studios and their acoustics can differ greatly. Although, most are more "dry" then most homes. Another study which talked about recording preferences of recording engineers stated they like it "dry" or "dead" to help focus on the material but they do not prefer the "dry" environments for general listening. Some studios have multiple rooms for this purpose. A lot of factors but the point is rooms do make a difference and best to demo in your own room whenever possible.

I find multichannel standards a little more consistent between recording studios while stereo studios vary more. I believe in using the right speaker for the application. Sometimes something with wide dispersion is better and sometimes narrow is better, it depends on the application. As a general rule for most homes, typically speakers with good off axis dispersion will be preferred. Notice I didn't say flat speakers. I have seen a number of customers that we recommend they try Revel, Genelec and other brands and signicantly more often than not they buy something from an audio store with something that is not flat. So, while I believe in Harman's studies on preference I do believe there are some parameters that weren't factored as I have seen too many customers that demo'd a number of speakers and chose not well performing speakers IMHO. But, they are happy and that is what matters.

I don't know if they got fooled with some sales trickery but many have taken home speakers for their demo, so I am hoping limited time wasn't a factor. I guess some just prefer the spark and sizzle as I call it with the boosted bass and highs but aren't great in the midrange. I don't know the answer to that just an observation. I am sure looks also plays a factor and Toole covered that as well that better looking speakers had higher scores in sighted tests that their scores in blind tests.

 

[NIN]

Will it affect what you ear? Probably. But the better question is will it affect it favourably or not? We have discussed that subject extensively in a thread about “how not to treat a room”. The rumour that a treated room is always better that an untreated room was exposed as unfounded scientifically.
One might prefer one way or the other, with science indicating that our ears and brain are able to identify and mute most reflections, early or not, making room treatment more of an option than a must have, as often promoted by YouTube self appointed expert, ill informed audiophile and room treatment sales people.
So, you may or may not want to do anything about first reflection, just keep an open mind and ears about it, as you might prefer to have them and that will be all right.

One can prefer how it sound, absolutly. But it do affect the soundstage and that is what one hear, if one is open minded

 

[audiofooled]

Some more thoughts on distance and depth perception, which to me is very important for having a "believable" illusion. Amplitude and timing cues in the recording are one thing, but how this translates in room is a totally different animal, and different rooms in my opinion require different setups. If you have loudspeakers with very good directivity and FR, chances are they will accurately present cues which are in the signal, but you still have to set them up right in accordance with room acoustics.

One thing to consider is how to achieve the preferable direct to reverberant sound ratio within the sound field. The direct sound has a precedence effect over the reflections, but loudspeakers with different dispersion patterns would give you different ratio of what's in the recording (direct sound) and different orders of reflections, early ones being the most important.

Another thing to consider is that sound pressure levels in room are not behaving the same as in free field. The farther away your listening position, the quieter the direct sound would be, but the energy of the reflections stays the same. If you take an SPL meter and go farther away from the loudspeakers, it will show less and less SPL until a certain point where, if you go any further, there would be a critical distance where the direct to reverberant sound ratio will have an effect that SPL doesn't drop any further. So listening distance does matter.

Next thing would be distance to the points of first reflections, where both the distance of the loudspeakers to the side walls, and your listening position to the loudspeakers and the sidewalls would matter. Also, how reflective the walls are.

Essentially, the setup, when done right, should never tell you how far away your loudspeakers are (granted this also depends on loudspeakers themselves, which there's nothing you can do about unless DIY like myself, or choose to buy the right loudspeakers for the application).

Still, all things considered, my own loudspeakers give a very different presentation in different rooms, regarding distance and depth. Although they never tell where they are located (property of loudspeakers), in one room (my workshop) I'm able to set them up further away from the front wall, and the sidewalls. There's also diffusion with shelves on both sides. This gives more preferable ratio of direct vs. the reverberant sound and the effect is such the all the objects within the soundstage are placed behind the speakers, achieving great depth and pinpoint image focus. Like in the map of the recording I posted previously, if I would to compare it with Geoff Martin's observations, this would be the best setup I could achieve.

The second room (my living room) is where the current setup is, I was very much constrained when it comes to placement. Not only loudspeakers/sub had to be placed near the front wall, but they are also wildly asymmetrical to the sidewalls (the left one sees the left wall within the close vicinity, and the right one sees an open space to the right, with the right sidewall being too far away to be significant to early reflections). I for one did think this would sound so bad that I couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't quite so. It's just different.

With a lot of toe in (the point of intersection of the loudspeaker axis would be 1m in front of MLP), I was able to achieve the sound field where at certain SPL, I still get a preferable direct to reverberant sound ratio. I say with certain SPL, because indeed it does change with a simple volume control. This does nothing to the left and right panning (it's in the recording), but it does to the distance and depth. With low SPL, the depth is normally constrained and everything appears to be as distant as the loudspeakers are. At normal listening levels, the direct sound starts to win over the reflections, but as opposed to the workshop setup, the depth isn't perceived to be behind the loudspeakers, but in front, with a slight image shift biased to the left, because of the proximity of the left side wall. On occasional loud listening sessions (and they are truly occasional because I value my hearing), the sound field, or the ratio is such that phantom images are within my hands reach, even though loudspeakers are 4m away, also with some anechoic effects that the images are on my left and right shoulder, also within my hands reach at 90 degrees left and right, or above my head, just never inside. The images are also becoming less and less fuzzy and regaining focus.

Even though you might say that this is surreal, it's somewhat addictive and it gives me the most believable illusion that "they are here" as well as "I am there", depending on the recording. Still, there are bad recordings which I cannot do anything about, but if I like the music, I will listen to it. It's just that I have to be responsible not to expose myself for too long and not jam my finger on the volume up button. So, there is a way to win over poor room acoustics, but sadly it involves substantial amount of dynamic capabilities, low noise and distortion, also some power.

Sorry about the long post, but I thought it might be interesting to someone.

Here are some more links for your information:

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/index.html (a myriad of valuable information)

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/intro_to_sound_recordingch4.html#x19-1630003.1 (part about acoustics)

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/intro_to_sound_recordingch6.html#x24-3230005.9.2 (psychoacoustics, distance perception, etc.)

http://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/02/14/bo-tech-but-what-if-my-room-is-scandinavian/ (nice article about reflections and comb filtering)

https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/phase-p-u/phase-p-u.html (phase relations of displacement, particle velocity and pressure)

And, last but certainly not least,

Analytical Analysis - Room Gain

-Introduction- The term 'room gain' is often seen used when the topic of subwoofers and the low frequency sound reproduction comes up. As I see many explanations that are lacking or incorrect, I thought I might try and clear up the topic once and for all. In all rooms there are so-called...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Which way is up? (Which way does a loudspeaker driver move?)

I would beg to differ. A polarity flip can be readily identified in a ABX in a split second with many recordings when they contain kick-drums and/or thick bass-lines and when these signals are asymmetric around the zero line, which they often are. We don't need a study for that as it is one of...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[valve_integrator]

Good question. Its important to remember that 2 channel playback is only an illusion of the real event .

”Real ” soundstage and imagine is only happening with purist recordings using only two omni microphones ( I do this recording technique since 2019 ) in real concert halls with very good natural reverb. Even then , the stereosystem with its 2 channel flaws can only at best create an illusion of the real event .

sorry this is nonsense.
There are many ways to record.
Some of the best I ever did were with my Calrec 1050 CARDIO pair.

I have done PCM surround sound recordings with a combo of mixed front multiple pairs and cardio rears.
The result makes Stereo sound like rubbish.....on condition of course that you have a valid surround system....


There is no such thing as this Audiophool thing called "soundstage".
It doesn't exist.

 

[goat76]

sorry this is nonsense.
There are many ways to record.
Some of the best I ever did were with my Calrec 1050 CARDIO pair.

I have done PCM surround sound recordings with a combo of mixed front multiple pairs and cardio rears.
The result makes Stereo sound like rubbish.....on condition of course that you have a valid surround system....

More channels than two can certainly help to create more envelopment to the mix...

I did a 4-channel mix of some stems I found on BBC's website of Beethoven's 5th. I'm not that much into classical symphony music so I made a "rock mix" out of the recordings and didn't follow the usual placement of the instrument sections. Instead, I panned them to my liking to create some movement in the mix, but I kept all the instruments in the two front channels (as a regular 2-channel mix) and only added a convolution reverb to the two surround channels. I think the reverb in the surround channels really adds a lot and an enveloping feeling of "being there".

This 4-channel mix (6-channel but two channels are not used) I did can be played by using a regular PC with surround sound audio settings and connected to a surround receiver. Windows Media Player can play this file, so it must be downloaded as the Dropbox Player doesn't seem to be able to play anything else than 2 channels.

The 4-channel mix can be downloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lvlt...Mix.flac?rlkey=fvdr9ixgxj64nsntzjfk0ci4a&dl=0

And to anyone who listens to it, please tell me if you think the amount of reverb is too much or not enough, as this is my first attempt to make a surround mix.

The stems are free to download from BBC for anyone who would like to mix it themselves, here you go: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/QVTzwXLyn32x7zjVspcJhx/get-creative-with-beethoven-remixed

 

[Tangband]

I have done PCM surround sound recordings with a combo of mixed front multiple pairs and cardio rears.
The result makes Stereo sound like rubbish.....on condition of course that you have a valid surround system....


There is no such thing as this Audiophool thing called "soundstage".
It doesn't exist.

I agree that multichannel recording/ playback is much more like ” the real thing ” . Stereo is very primitive .

The soundstage ( that doesnt exist in the 2 channel recording ) can exist in the listening room where some late reflections from the walls behind the speakers and the sidewalls can contribute to a perceived illusion of soundstage .

This is why its a very bad idea to overdamp the listeningroom when using 2 channel playback system. Some reflections are needed to fill out the stereo system flaws.

A big rug on the floor infront of the speakers is important .

 

[Emlin]

I agree that multichannel recording/ playback is much more like ” the real thing ” . Stereo is very primitive .

I wouldn't call the best solution for most people most of the time primitive.

 

[Tangband]

I wouldn't call the best solution for most people most of the time primitive.

Maybe lost in translation here…. 2 channel stereo is very far from the real concert event .

 

[Emlin]

Maybe lost in translation here…. 2 channel stereo is very far from the real concert event .

Cough.

 

[LouB]

Maybe lost in translation here…. 2 channel stereo is very far from the real concert event .

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on venue, who's playing, what's being played & how the music is being amplified if at all & where your sitting. Way too many variables for end all be all in music listening.
There is some truth in your comment but only in a very narrow perspective.

 

[MattHooper]

I agree that multichannel recording/ playback is much more like ” the real thing ” . Stereo is very primitive .

The soundstage ( that doesnt exist in the 2 channel recording ) can exist in the listening room where some late reflections from the walls behind the speakers and the sidewalls can contribute to a perceived illusion of soundstage .

This is why its a very bad idea to overdamp the listeningroom when using 2 channel playback system. Some reflections are needed to fill out the stereo system flaws.

A big rug on the floor infront of the speakers is important .

I was just watching some hi-res videos of live DJ electronica shows. I had the sound set to a matrix mix that just sounded amazing - gigantic, rich, enveloping. I have a very
good (I think) surround system that I love.

However, I can get an even more "you are there live sound" from watching videos using my two channel speakers, which are pulled well out from the walls closer to the listening position, and they have superb life-like tonality. Definitely more of a peering in to the actual hall hearing live instruments effect.