Soundstage - who plays the bigger role?

[Nutul]

Hi all,

today I was listening again to Roger Waters "Amused To Death", specifically to the first track, "The Ballad Of Bill Hubbard".
As few already may know (am sure) this track at the beginning (but also throughout its entirety) has a couple of extremely well-positioned elements:
1. a dog barking in the distance, very far away, on the right channel at (these are not minutes into the song, but positions around the clock, us at its centre) about 4 o'clock
2 a man speaking on the radio, on the left channel, at about 8 o'clock
Not only they can be positioned on the horizontal plane, but also vertically: the dog being slightly below ear-height, and the man slightly above, and nearer.

Now, my system is fairly simple I believe:
- player: Raspberry Pi 4 with moOde, local FLAC library
- DAC: Eversolo Z8 (at -30dB)
- Speakers: Presonus Eris X5 on balanced cables (actually, there received a very bad review by @amirm, despite they still sound good to me at moderate sound levels)

Nevertheless, in my 1000+ albums library, very, very few recordings have this (extreme IMO, pleasant anyway) separation (another one that comes straight to mind being "The Downward Spiral", by NIN, particularly the track "Ruiner". The others simply presenting good rather frontal separation, from 9 o'clock-ish to 3 o'clock-ish, vertically covering - I'd say - 60/70 degrees, from knee-height to above the head... depth slightly behind the speaker-line, width sometimes well beyond the speaker; more often only slightly behind them.

Being many reviews out there (especially by the various charlatans of "richer / punchier / airier / crispier" cult...) talking about "greater separation" and "wider / deeper sound-stage" I was wondering whether, actually, the biggest role in determining the placement of the audio entities is the MIX.

I remember being able to notice these things (although not so sharply) even time back, when I used a Focusrite 2i2 as DAC.

So, is it me noticing just these (on my poorly resolving setup) because they are extremes, or is this common to many of you too?

Thank you for sharing your impressions and thoughts.
Cheers, Al.

P.S.
Hope I posted in the right place. If not, any admin please move where appropriate.

 

[RobL]

Amused To Death used “Q Sound” to create the outside-of-the-speakers effects, this thread on Gearspace has some info about it.
There is a quote from the producer of the album in post #11. I’ll print it here:

From Mr. Leonard..


Hi Teddy,

Amused to death huh?
I like it too, but the making of that record had little to do with "how it was recorded" .
The truth is, it was nearly every recording technique, signal path, monitors. And many consoles, tons of outboard gear (and none at all). it was mixed for 6 months with multiple rooms going.


That record was about Mr R Waters vision and my job was to help him realize it, however we got there. So, all paths were taken. We did mix using a dead technology called "Q SOUND", and thats a big part of the overall affect of the record, but you have to sit in the center to hear it so it has it draw backs.
Read between the lines grasshopper, the answer you seek is there.


Amused to death was about shear stamina and perseverance, (it took two years) and I'm extremely proud to have done it. I think it's quite an amazing piece of work. But as i said, it had little to nothing to do with the studio. It was all done with highly critical ears, good taste, a good deal of imagination and creativity, and lots of time... lots of time.


Sadly, records like that one won't be made anymore for multiple reasons. Mostly, how we currently define creativity. That's a big problem. Remember that ATD was pre pro tools. Or rather; Pro tools was around in some early form, but certainly not yet considered a recording device worthy of putting ones heart to. (and the old grouch rears his head). We had to play the music, make the sonic choices and get it right in real time; as it couldn't be "fixed" later. So, if you couldn't alter the music once it was "on tape", what would be different?


Be honest and enjoy the process. That translates. Sage guidance complete.


Regards,

 

[dfuller]

I was wondering whether, actually, the biggest role in determining the placement of the audio entities is the MIX.

You would in fact be correct. That's what mixers do. And everything's an illusion, pretty much regardless of genre.

As far as "why can I hear that on my setup", that's because despite everything else, your speakers actually have quite good (and fairly narrow) directivity behavior. That pretty much means the speakers can be EQ'd to taste, and they will excite the room less.

 

[DVDdoug]

1. a dog barking in the distance, very far away, on the right channel at (these are not minutes into the song, but positions around the clock, us at its centre) about 4 o'clock
2 a man speaking on the radio, on the left channel, at about 8 o'clock
Not only they can be positioned on the horizontal plane, but also vertically: the dog being slightly below ear-height, and the man slightly above, and nearer.

I suspect not everybody would perceive the same thing. There is obviously no real vertical or height variation unless you have a Atmos system with height speakers (and a multi-channel recording).

There is also no true-center (in a 2-channel setup), and personally I perceive a rather vague center. The only thing I hear precisely-located is hard-panned high frequencies coming directly from the left or right tweeter.

I'm not sure about this, but I think Floyd Tool says "soundstage" is the job of the producer/mixing engineer.

I'd guess it's a combination of the brain, the recording, room acoustics, speaker position, and speakers (especially if you have "odd" dipole or omnidirectional speakers).

With headphones, it's mostly the brain. I read a lot about headphone soundstage but it turns-out that most people (including me) don't get anything like a realistic soundstage illusion with headphones. Headphone Soundstage Survey

 

[jcarys]

Well of course the mix determines soundstage, particularly for a pop or rock recording. When most reviewers are talking about a wider or deeper soundstage from a component, they should be comparing to a natural acoustic, like an orchestra in a hall or a small group in a room. Even then the mixer can place sound elements in an unusual spot, but it's not normal practice.

And yes, Amused to Death is a fantastic record and recording - one of my absolute faves of the 90s. Interestingly, I enjoy the original mix sound more than the later surround (with some re-recorded bits), which should theoretically be superior.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Pink Floyd used Ambisonics on The Final Cut. There's a sequence with seagulls which is very spacious and a missile firing "overhead". What's interesting is that I heard these first on LP, where separation is obviously poor. The effects are only slightly more impactful on digital.

Roger Waters' album "Is this the life we really want?" has some interesting spacial sound effects, notably a train/metro announcement, doors closing and the train moving away. After decades of commuting, this feels very real to me!

 

[Nutul]

Hi all again,

thanks for your thoughts ;-)
I just wanted to be clear that I am not discussing the perception / imagination (of course true vertical spacing needs Atmos, but this Q Sound has done a good job - in terms of perceived location, of course), just pointing at the "magic" done at mixing time; interesting the "Q Sound" bit, nevertheless it IS a trick at mixing time I believe, so we are on the same page again. Don't know much about the technology itself, but it achieved a nice result IMO.

@MaxwellsEq
"The Final Cut" is a well known piece of art, as is "The Wall", musically speaking, but I must tell you that, although spacious and directional bits are there in both albums; I find them of a different consistency, compared to what I hear / perceive in A.T.D.
Regarding "Is This The Life We Really Want", I haven't listened to it thoroughly yet; so I definitely will, as to see if I'll have a similar - if not same - type of perception.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and technical details.
Cheers, Al.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Hi all,

today I was listening again to Roger Waters "Amused To Death", specifically to the first track, "The Ballad Of Bill Hubbard".
As few already may know (am sure) this track at the beginning (but also throughout its entirety) has a couple of extremely well-positioned elements:
1. a dog barking in the distance, very far away, on the right channel at (these are not minutes into the song, but positions around the clock, us at its centre) about 4 o'clock
2 a man speaking on the radio, on the left channel, at about 8 o'clock
Not only they can be positioned on the horizontal plane, but also vertically: the dog being slightly below ear-height, and the man slightly above, and nearer.

Now, my system is fairly simple I believe:
- player: Raspberry Pi 4 with moOde, local FLAC library
- DAC: Eversolo Z8 (at -30dB)
- Speakers: Presonus Eris X5 on balanced cables (actually, there received a very bad review by @amirm, despite they still sound good to me at moderate sound levels)

Nevertheless, in my 1000+ albums library, very, very few recordings have this (extreme IMO, pleasant anyway) separation (another one that comes straight to mind being "The Downward Spiral", by NIN, particularly the track "Ruiner". The others simply presenting good rather frontal separation, from 9 o'clock-ish to 3 o'clock-ish, vertically covering - I'd say - 60/70 degrees, from knee-height to above the head... depth slightly behind the speaker-line, width sometimes well beyond the speaker; more often only slightly behind them.

Being many reviews out there (especially by the various charlatans of "richer / punchier / airier / crispier" cult...) talking about "greater separation" and "wider / deeper sound-stage" I was wondering whether, actually, the biggest role in determining the placement of the audio entities is the MIX.

I remember being able to notice these things (although not so sharply) even time back, when I used a Focusrite 2i2 as DAC.

So, is it me noticing just these (on my poorly resolving setup) because they are extremes, or is this common to many of you too?

Thank you for sharing your impressions and thoughts.
Cheers, Al.

P.S.
Hope I posted in the right place. If not, any admin please move where appropriate.

Here are more details

Thread 'Properties of speakers that creates a large and precise soundstage'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...creates-a-large-and-precise-soundstage.48542/

 

[Grainger49]

I have to say that both the electronics and the speakers/placement have a lot to do with soundstage. I couldn't find a place to start a thread.

The first time I experienced soundstage was in the mid '70s, almost 50 years ago. A friend inserted a tubed preamp into my system and things opened up. Once you hear it you can't do without it. You are no longer a soundstage Virgin.

My system is all tubed except for the OPPO BPD 103. Non audio guys sit up and ask how I do that. I don't do anything but the system gets out of the way of the music.

It is not just the tubed electronics it is my speakers. The 3" speaker acts as a point source. Check out my system picture.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Its gotta be the shoes.

 

[Grainger49]

The shoes are gone. Maybe I should remove the shoes when I listen?

 

[ahofer]

Hoo boy, here we go.

On a more serious note, this should be combined with the other soundstage threads, which are easily found:

Search results for query: soundstage

www.audiosciencereview.com

This one in particular might be relevant here:

Can amp improve soundstage and instrument separation?

I've just got a sundara and i'm driving it with a fosi audio q5/straight out of the pc and i was wondering if i could improve soundstage and instrument separation with a better dedicated amp

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Grainger49]

Hoo boy, here we go.

On a more serious note, this should be combined with the other soundstage threads, which are easily found:

Search results for query: soundstage

www.audiosciencereview.com

I do have a few decades of data to feed into this thread. Someone might pay attention to me, maybe not.

 

[ahofer]

I do have a few decades of data to feed into this thread. Someone might pay attention to me, maybe not.

Depends on the data. If it's subjective listening observations contradicting a ton of research, no.

There are good reasons moving your speakers around changes soundstage perception - reflections and phase. There's not a good reason that tube amps would do it, and most, including myself, would be skeptical that you could tell a difference absent measurable distortion in excess of audible thresholds. And then...soundstage and fidelity would be in confliict. I've heard some say that's true for dynamics, with some plausible-sounding theories, but not image location.

 

[OldHvyMec]

I've found a room that is treated with purpose and the placement of speaker along with room mode mitigation will define
the quality of the soundstage. Nothing will fix a BAD recording that is made worse by more bad mixing.

I've use valves and SS equipment both with great success but the type of definable soundstage was 100% the illusion of
room vs placement of speaker types and YOUR seated position.

A 2 speaker main with a variance of sub/bass throws the best soundstage if the source is any good at all. It doesn't
matter if it's digital, analog, LP or CD it's the MIX and your room/speaker placement. Silk purse, sow's ear?

GEAR is a pure choice, BUT the sloppier it gets doesn't alway work out with YOUNG non worn out ears.
Boy oh boy, Valves are as subjective as how much salt to use on your food.

Some SS are as easy to listen to as the older valves are. Regular ear care is probably more important than the gear. LOL

I know that left shoe will give a -.5 db at 757 hz and the right a solid -.3 db. Combat boots are a must for accurate
reproduction. Everyone know that. They sell streamer slippers too, for the waveguide minded. A Phase plug for your nose
and super ears are options too.

That is quite a front wall there #9

Blue tape is the center? Interesting! It looks fun.

Regards

 

[Opal]

I have to say that both the electronics and the speakers/placement have a lot to do with soundstage. I couldn't find a place to start a thread.

The first time I experienced soundstage was in the mid '70s, almost 50 years ago. A friend inserted a tubed preamp into my system and things opened up. Once you hear it you can't do without it. You are no longer a soundstage Virgin.

My system is all tubed except for the OPPO BPD 103. Non audio guys sit up and ask how I do that. I don't do anything but the system gets out of the way of the music.

It is not just the tubed electronics it is my speakers. The 3" speaker acts as a point source. Check out my system picture.

View attachment 343168

Interesting speakers.... Is the subwoofer part of the speaker? Whats the cut off frequency for that small mid range driver?

 

[Grainger49]

There is a super tweeter, midrange 3", woofers and a Sub. The midrange at the distance from my head is effectively a point source.

It took me 3 months to get the speakers in the best position. There are "Room Tunes" in critical places to eliminate bad reflections.