Soundstage, what is it exactly?

[STC]

With stereo you need the encoded information for ears to receive and processed by the brain. But…

Stereo doesn’t send actual “height signals” to your ears like a 3D system does. It tricks your brain by reproducing the frequency coloring (spectral shape) that real elevated sounds would create after passing through your pinna. That’s the main (and surprisingly effective) way it works.

This is why a well-produced stereo track can sometimes make you perceive sounds coming from above the speakers, even if it’s just an auditory illusion. Also consider that tweeters are on the top and ceiling reflects and brain expectation can create that illusion. One of the experience that I had about two decades ago about birds darling I. A classical recordings. I perceived them to be o. The same plain while some swear it is coming from above. I believe it is prior sound exposure and expectation. I am sure it is and there are experts who could explain this better than myself.

Long ago I made a binaural recordings from my speakers and was hearing birds chirps which was above. Then after a day or two since I was using it for calibration I wounded how come the chirps were statics as there was nay birds flying above. Only then I realized the bird were on the ground where we usually feed them. So this an audio scene where my brain presumed certain position which was not true in the recording.

ST.

 

[rjp]

The only things that contribute to what we perceive as soundstage are:
1. the recording
2. the speakers
3. the room
4. the listener's position in relation to the speakers and the room

Not DACs or amps.

I would qualify this as not DACs or amps that are transparent/perfect.
Any electronics that alters the phase can impact where the two speaker wavefronts add coherently in the room and therefore the soundstage.

 

[john61ct]

Chatuchak market is famous for shroom-spiked beverages...

 

[Petrushka]

I would qualify this as not DACs or amps that are transparent/perfect.
Any electronics that alters the phase can impact where the two speaker wavefronts add coherently in the room and therefore the soundstage.

Just my opinion, but I think this is rubbish.

Ten dollar headsets can provide an astonishing simulation of being there.

As can nearfield speakers, regardless of quality.

It’s mostly about reflections.

 

[marin.weigel]

Crosstalk helps to generate fake HRTF-triggered directional cues by creating slight comb filter patterns with A/B type content in the recording which contain time delta between almost identical signals in L/R channels, other than X/Y type which is only about magnitude differences.

I'd beg to differ, since acoustical speaker crosstalk elimination, as can be done physically (not very practical in most set-ups) or via several different processing tools, enhances the impression of realism.
Also, x direction is largely related to magnitude in the frontal direction, but x in the rearward direction and y are largely dependent on spectral shaping due to the asymmetrical shape of your pinnae.

 

[Hayk]

Chatuchak market is famous for shroom-spiked beverages...

Unbelievable isn't it?
There were several speaker wizards in that area before the Covid, demonstrating the most amazing sounding speakers but asking very high price. I visited last year, 2 out of 3 shops were gone.

 

[KSTR]

I'd beg to differ, since acoustical speaker crosstalk elimination, as can be done physically (not very practical in most set-ups) or via several different processing tools, enhances the impression of realism.

Sure (I've started dealing with speaker crosstalk elimination more than 20 years ago). Adding a tiny amount of speaker crosstalk cancellation to widen the soundstage but using a slightly narrowed stereo width to to begin with has proven to be very effective for me for an increased 3D'ish realism in the audio illusion.

Speaker crosstalk elimination is based on delayed, inverted and EQ'd signals applied in an iterative loop, whereas conventional crosstalk is none of that (except for a possible inversion), only a direct signal bleed.
Note that phono cartridge crosstalk tends to be inverted (out-of-phase), btw.

 

[Sokel]

Soundstage is a term whose meaning has shifted significantly over time, which often leads to people talking past each other without realizing it.

In the original, “old school” sense of stereo (1950s–1960s), soundstage referred specifically to the phantom image and sound scene created between the two loudspeakers. This was the core promise of stereo: stable, convincing lateral placement of instruments and voices along the line connecting the left and right speakers, achieved mainly through amplitude panning and basic phase/ITD cues. That is what classic stereo was engineered to do.

As audio technology, recording techniques, and listening environments evolved, the term soundstage expanded in audiophile circles. It came to include the ability to create illusions of sound outside or beyond the physical speakers — wider than the speaker span, with added depth layering, and sometimes even vague height or “air.” A recording or system praised for “great soundstage” today is often valued more for this extended, spacious presentation than for a tightly focused image strictly between the speakers. As a result, a well-engineered classic stereo recording that excels at precise internal imaging might be rated lower by modern listeners than one engineered (or played back) to push sounds outward. Think 8D remastered.

This evolution has created real confusion. The term is now frequently mixed up with spatial audio — a more recent concept involving fuller 3D reproduction through multi-channel formats (like Dolby Atmos), advanced binaural processing, or room correction. What began as a straightforward description of two-channel stereo capability has become broader and more subjective, leaving many (including long-time listeners) unsure what exactly someone means when they say “soundstage

ST

It seems to me that they were well aware about depth at the 60's as well.
A glorious example about it is Lew Layton's witchcraft (with era's means) at Reiner's Scheherazade.

On of the most prominent moments about it is at about 4:00 min right at the start (The Sea and Sinbad's Ship) .
Strings clearly at the front along with the flute, winds at the back, clearly positioned exactly where they should.

Now, physically, about speakers and room, the most effective treatment about depth, is ceiling, by far.
It seems that tweeter's reflection to it and the perception to this early (the earliest maybe depending the room height? ) reflection is way understated.

 

[STC]

It seems to me that they were well aware about depth at the 60's as well.
A glorious example about it is Lew Layton's witchcraft (with era's means) at Reiner's Scheherazade.

On of the most prominent moments about it is at about 4:00 min right at the start (The Sea and Sinbad's Ship) .
Strings clearly at the front along with the flute, winds at the back, clearly positioned exactly where they should.

Now, physically, about speakers and room, the most effective treatment about depth, is ceiling, by far.
It seems that tweeter's reflection to it and the perception to this early (the earliest maybe depending the room height? ) reflection is way understated.

I agree with you. Depth can certainly exist even in mono, since our ears use cues like spectral balance, reverberation, and the direct‑to‑reverberant ratio to judge distance. Higher‑frequency content often feels closer, while rolled‑off highs and more ambience tend to feel further away. In stereo, of course, we add ILD/ITD cues, but a lot of the depth impression still depends on how our brain interprets the available information.

Regarding ceiling reflections, they definitely play a role, though I’ve always understood them as early reflections that can either reinforce clarity or slightly blur depth depending on room height, angle, and frequency content. They’re not strictly mono, but they do tend to be less directionally distinct than lateral reflections. Their influence on depth is real, but very dependent on the specific room and speaker directivity.

As for orchestral recordings, most productions aren’t purely stereo‑pair captures. They’re usually multi‑miked, with the final sense of depth shaped during mixing through level, EQ, reverb, and early‑reflection simulation. So the depth we perceive is often a constructed illusion, not a literal representation of the stage layout.

Just some thoughts from my side.

ST

 

[STC]

speaker crosstalk cancellation to widen the soundstage but using a slightly narrowed stereo width to to begin with has proven to be very effective for me for an increased 3D'ish realism in the audio illusion.

I’ve never thought of XTC as something meant to widen the stage. Although, it is possible to be added with that purpose. The spatial cues are already in the recording — removing crosstalk just lets the brain perceive them without the masking and comb‑filtering that normally occur. Any increase in width or 3D effect feels more like a byproduct of reducing the error rather than an added effect.

When you use physical partition, you get the same enhanced effect and the barrier cannot invert or modify any sound other than limiting what’s reaching the other ear.

ST

 

[Geert]

I agree with you. Depth can certainly exist even in mono, since our ears use cues like spectral balance, reverberation, and the direct‑to‑reverberant ratio to judge distance. Higher‑frequency content often feels closer, while rolled‑off highs and more ambience tend to feel further away.

Which means depth is an attribute of the recording, not of the playback equipment.

 

[OldHvyMec]

Soundstage is simply the area in which the music/instruments/voices are located, by the width, depth, and height. Imaging is the location of those instruments/voice/voices within that soundstage.

Great imaging is simple to understand: close your eyes and focus on the individual instrument, singer, or singers. If your speakers are set up correctly, you should be able to place every instrument/voice. It is entirely up to how and who mixed the recording, as well as the number and placement of the microphones.

The more microphones there are in the mix (USUALLY), the more accurate the spatial cues are, and because of these spatial cues, it's easier to visualize the dimensions of the soundstage and the images on that stage.

At least that is how I was taught by a person who writes, performs, and mixes his own stuff for over 50 years. He is actually very good at what he does, considering what he has to work with. He made it pretty easy to understand what the terminology actually means and how it applies.

Regards

 

[Geert]

The more microphones there are in the mix (USUALLY), the more accurate the spatial cues are

Not necessary, since support mic’s reduce original timing, frequency response and acoustic cues and allow you to totally change the original soundstage. Unless you mean they are better at creating an artificial soundstage.

 

[Grimoire]

I'm going to disagree with some here.

To me, soundstage is the acoustic of the room where the sound was recorded, real or synthetic, width, depth and height. You know the soundstage of a room when you walk into it. A cathedral is very different from a toilet cubicle!

Imaging is where the individual noises are within the soundstage. They do not have to fill it. A string quartet in a cathedral, for instance, but you would know the difference had they been in a toilet cubicle!

 

[OldHvyMec]

The more microphones there are in the mix (USUALLY)

As I said USUALLY. I'm not trying to explain the intricacies of what a microphone CAN do, only that placing mics in individual places can help place a given instrument or voice in a given place within that soundstage. I make no claim as to being a professional music maker of any kind, only that I understand what defines the parameters of a given sound stage after the mix.

It can be modified, I suppose, by how you set up your speakers to reproduce it, but it SHOULD still reveal the width, depth, and height. The more defined the size of the stage is, the more defined the imaging CAN BE within that sound stage. Soundstage is not supposed to be fluid; it is meant to be defined within that recording.

As far as where they recorded their music, I suppose the old shitter will work. But like they say, shit it, shit out. ay?

To tell the truth, a string quartet in a cubicle sounds pretty tight. I'd prefer not to imagine that image. WAY too many elbows in all the wrong places.

Regards

 

[Hayk]

Here is a music NO 6 from supertramp it says to test the width, and dept.
There is also, imaging stability????

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Here is a music NO 6 from supertramp it says to test the width, and dept.
There is also, imaging stability????

there's a reason links to that site are banned here
it's garbage mixed with turds

 

[MattHooper]

The only things that contribute to what we perceive as soundstage are:
1. the recording
2. the speakers
3. the room
4. the listener's position in relation to the speakers and the room

Not DACs or amps.

I agree in principle… and in general I do not think one should look to the electronics expecting differences in sound staging an imaging.

That said, I’ve had some personal experience that suggests some variation in the perception of soundstaging and imaging from different electronics.

I’ve mentioned it before on the forum, my blind testing of some CDPs and a Mietner Bidat DAC many years ago. It came out because under sighted conditions I was perceiving some very distinct timbral and spatial differences between them, especially between a Meridian CDP and the Mietner DAC. The Meridian had a sense of focus and texture and density to the Sonic images, had a bit more of a tonally “lit up” presentation.
In contrast the Mietner DAC sounded darker, but overall more lush, with a sense of transparency between the instruments and the soundstage just seemed to bloom into the room more. I would have a better sense that I was peering right into the large acoustic of a symphony hall. Sound seemed a little bit de-focused compared to the Meridian’s pinpoint imaging.

So I had my father in law - who was an engineer and a no-nonsense ASR-type audiophile - help me do several blind tests (level matched at the speaker terminals with a voltmeter).

The result was that I could effortlessly distinguish the Mietner and Meridian presentation… the same characteristics were there in the blind testing as in my sighted impressions.

Ultimately I kept the Meridian because, although it didn’t seem to have as grand a sound stage, the focus and texture of the imaging gave me a stronger impression of real, dense instruments being played, versus the slightly more ghostly apparitions from the Mietner.

Along the same lines… I’ve experienced something similar when I compare my CJ Tube preamp versus my benchmark LA4 preamp. The Benchmark just sounds obviously lower noise and more transparent, so that the finest low level details are easier to hear. And that regularly includes reverbs or the acoustics of a recording (where artificial or natural). So if I’m listening to a track with instruments played in a large space, the image and that acoustic space is a bit smaller and tighter with the tube preamp, whereas on the benchmark those subtle bits of acoustic information being sort of obscured at the edges by the tube preamp are revealed causing the impression of acoustics of the recording to expand even further outwards. There’s more of a
“ limitless expanse” that can occur with the Benchmark on many recordings.

And once again… these perceptions held up under blind testing.

One of the biggest impacts I’ve ever heard from electronics in terms of the sense of scale of imaging and sound staging was when I changed some power tubes in my tube amp. I couldn’t believe it. It felt like I had just replaced my speakers with slightly larger speakers. THAT however, was not something I’ve been able to blind test.
But the subjective impression sure is fun.

So…. This is not a reason for anybody else to go chasing alterations and sound staging or imaging via electronics.

I’m just adding my own experiences with this for what it’s worth. (and it will be worth much less to some than others…. )

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Yes, I've read this stuff about about cables as well. And cable risers. And little rocks that go under your sofa to radically smooth the quantum resonances in the room so obviously that even the reviewer's wife and her boyfriend can hear it from the other bedroom.

I’m just adding my own experiences with this for what it’s worth. (and it will be worth much less to some than others…. )

 

[Duke]

To me, soundstage is the acoustic of the room where the sound was recorded, real or synthetic, width, depth and height. You know the soundstage of a room when you walk into it. A cathedral is very different from a toilet cubicle!

Imaging is where the individual noises are within the soundstage. They do not have to fill it. A string quartet in a cathedral, for instance, but you would know the difference had they been in a toilet cubicle!

I hadn't thought of using the term soundstage that way, but I can see you point.

Obviously there is some variation in which term(s) are used for which aspect(s) of spatial quality. At the risk of oversimplifying, imo there are two general aspects of spatial quality:

1. Perceived location of the sound images - the voices and instruments - within 3-dimensional space, with bonus points for an enjoyable presentation of the depth dimension; and

2. The sense of being within an acoustic space, perhaps on a continuum from "they are here (in your playback room)" to "you are there (in the recording venue space, whether it be real or engineered or both)".

I have been inconsistent in my use of terms; sometimes I refer to #1 as "imaging" and sometimes as "soundstage", and #2 sometimes as "sense of space" and sometiimes as "envelopment".

I'm NOT trying to argue that my usage of the term "soundstage" is "right'! But the reason I tend to use the word "soundstage" for #1 has to do with listening from off to either side of the centerline: If there is still a good sense of the instruments' locations in space from off to the side, such that it sounds like you are off to the side of the stage they occupy, I would say something like "you can still hear a good soundstage even from off to the side".