[Ulas]

Why are audiophiles so obsessed with imaging and soundstage? I’ve read comparative component reviews where the only thing discussed was soundstage. “The soundstage with component A is wider, but with component B, it is taller and deeper.” With most studio-produced recordings, lateral imaging is a creation of the recording engineer and perception of height and depth are the result of minute differences in frequency and phase response in the two stereo channels during playback.

I like to play a game with visiting audiophiles. I play a couple of recordings and ask them to describe, in detail, what they hear in terms of imaging and soundstage. Then, if I think their fragile audiophile egos can handle the truth, I show them photographs that were taken during the recording sessions. Needless to say, what they thought they heard does not resemble reality. Invariably, they give detailed descriptions of the precise location of each performer, in three dimensions, as they might appear on stage, but the stage is only in their imagination.

The session photos for one recording shows the soloist, wearing headphones, sitting all alone, and facing a blank wall. Midway between the soloist and the wall is a single omni directional microphone. The other performers in the recording session cannot be seen. I imagine they were either scattered around the studio, each in an isolated acoustic space, or they were not even present when to soloist recorded his tracks. There is one comical photo of the bassist, with his bass fiddle, crammed into a tiny isolation booth.

“Oh yes, the soloist is standing right there and bass is just behind him and to left in the same acoustic space. The stage is about four feet high, and I can clearly hear the sound reflected from the ceiling and back wall.”

Blah, blah, blah, total BS.

[Carlman]

What is reality in a studio?  I can show you a professional photo produced in a studio of something and ask you to describe it and you'll still not be able to tell me what was actually used.  An example would be food... often mashed potatoes are used for ice cream, Elmer's glue for milk, etc...

My point being that it doesn't matter what 'reality' is during a recording.  It matters how it is engineered to sound... so it will later be reproduced in space.

So, your experiment is a fun one to show the reality but doesn't prove that a soundstage wasn't manufactured by the studio.  Your experiment simply sounds like something to feed your own ego.

[nathanm]

You are correct, it is of course an "illusion" but folks are just describing the illusion so it's not really anything nefarious.  Unless the recording was done with only a stereo pair of microphones all live with no other mics then the whole "positioning" thing is of course a matter of pan pot positions.

My theory is that people like to hear natural room reverb on the recording.  That above all else makes a recording more "real" than anything the end listener has control over.  It doesn't take much either, this type of sound is fairly easy to get.  It's the overly-gated, overly-processed dry sounds which are more difficult to achieve, and to me sound subjectively worse.  If I hear a snatch of "space" behind a vocalist or drum sound it makes it SO much cooler.

I also theorize that audiophiles, if they had the chance to hear them, would prefer the raw, unmixed tracks from the average CD over the final mix.  Personally I think recording engineers make things more complex and difficult for themselves and the band when the best recordings are much more stripped down and raw.

[csero]

The stereo playback in theory and in practice CAN NOT create realistic soundstage because of the interaural crosstalk, the high frequency directional info errors, the ITD and ILD errors etc.

Even when the recording was done with only a stereo pair of microphones, these errors are present in the playback. The result is an illusion we, audiophiles rave about, but deep inside we know, we never confuse the sound of our stereo with the real event.

"Hearing natural room reverb on the recording" is also a (bad) illusion reinforcement. We need the room sound very much, just not the mixed together direct sound, early reflections and room reverb coming from the stereo speakers.

[BobM]

I've heard many systems of my fellow audiophile club members and the one thing we all agree on is that the tonality of the midrange of the music needs to be right. Other than that - complete disagreement. Some like a faster/quick sound with lots of detail, others like a tubier more mellow sound, even rolled off ont he top in some instances.

As for soundstaging, those of us who have it don't want to lose it. But many otherwise fine sounding systems don't seem to image worth a damn to my ears. Obviously the owners of those systems either (a) don't care about imaging, (b) don't know what I'm talking about because they never heard it done well, or (c) have rooms that get in the way.

In most situations, just paying attention to a few things will bring an image to life. In order of importance: speaker positioning, especially the all important distance from the listening position, then toe in, then 1st reflection points. After that you can play with all other sorts of set up things to make it better.

But in most cases, once you've heard it and experienced real soundstaging and imaging you will REQUIRE it of your system from that point on.

JMHO,
Bob

[nathanm]

 I think I know where you're coming from csero, maybe.

I don't believe there is such a thing as actually reproducing a live event, and personally I feel it doesn't matter and is an irrelevant issue.  A painting of an apple will never under any circumstances BE a real apple you can eat.  But it CAN be a really freaking cool, enjoyable painting of an apple, and that's all anyone really cares about.  If people are expecting an out-of-body experience from listening to a CD, well...I suppose you would have to take drugs in addition to having a good stereo.

What I'm saying is basically: I like the recording room lively, reflective, diffusy etc.  and the playback room damped as to not allow as much of its own sound to be heard on top of the recorded ambience.  I think this is what you meant by your last paragraph, right?

[TheChairGuy]

Ulas,

I always scratch my head (or stay reeeeal quiet) when folks talk of soundstaging width, depth, etc.  Me, I've never heard it in action and it's never influenced a decision to buy, keep or sell a hi fi product.  I keep trying to hear it, but never really do. I figure we all tune in to something different that is innately important to us..

My hearing is otherwise real delicate.  Over the din of a video or TV I can hear my 7 month old daughter whimpering 50 feet and 3 rooms over from us sometimes....far more acutely than my wife.  My wife sometimes doesn't believe that I heard something and mutes the video to make sure.....90% of the time, I did indeed hear something.  

Totally aside, my hearing became way more acute when I began seeing an Osteopath (unrelated to hearing needs) a few months ago...in case some of you are looking for a resoundingly different 'tweak'.

So, I don't know if it's bs, but soundstaging/imaging is a part of the audiophile lexicon that I don't connect with.

Interesting results and observations, thanks.

[John Casler]

Regarding the original premise:

I am always an advocate of "attempting" to acheive a significant amount of realism in recreating the sonic illusion of what might "seem" to be the original event/perfromance.

This would include the sonic realization of Height, Width, Depth and Spatiality.

That said, I can say that the resulting product, many times is much like Computer Generated Graphics, in that the recording, engineering and producing chain "created" the whole, with little semblance to the real event, or in the case of a studio perfromance "recreated" to sound like a real event .

My favorite examples of approaching the goal most always have minimal miking and engineering, with the process aimed at acheiving soundstage and realism.

Sadly, those are mostly recordings from the past and most are Symphonic works where you can recreate the orchestra in such a way as it fills your room with a wall of sound that displays depth, height, ambience and width.  It will essentially sound very similar to a live concert 7th row center.  If well done the imaging will be adequate, and perfromers and instrumental sections will have good localization and even depth, so as to allow you to close your eyes and "melt" into the actual event as much as possible (for a sonic illusion)

I am in agreement with Nathanm that adding room generated ambience and reflections/diffusions will reduce the accuracy of the illusion since the phase and reflection/ambience of the room generations will compete with and degrade the recorded sonics.

This isn't a proclamation that "everyone" will find this approach reasonable or even preferable, but when I am lucky enough to find a good recording that has these properties and abilities, all the set up and tweaking pays off.

[BrunoB]

When the setup is right, I have a 3D soundstage with a wraparound effect: sounds are coming almost from everywhere: the front plus the ceiling and the back of my listening sofa. Sometimes, when the recorded sound contains some reverberation, it has simply no location. This effect occurs in stereo with many recordings that are not pure two microphones recordings.  I know this is not real, it is a psychoacoustic effect, but I just love it. It provides me some musical & sonic immersion. Unfortunately, this wrap around effect is very fragile and is easy to loose with a small change of the stereo setup.

Bruno

[csero]

Nathan,

Speaking of hi-fi, we only reproduce one aspect of the original event, the sound. As you don't expect to taste the painted apple, you don't expect your gear to buy you a drink with the musicans after a song.

In the sense of reproducing the original soundfiled, hi-fi in the present state is more like cave draving than photography. We can argue than the mastodon drawn by ash charcoal is more fearful than the other with oak charcoal, but it is still a long way to go.

Besides the stereo can not have the right amount and directionally correct ambient info, you always have to add the room sound (Just try to listen any stereo record in an anechoic chamber). So it will always sound like your room mixed with an other room front+rear ambience coming from the front.

Trying to reproduce  a musical event accurately in a room that in no way resembles the original acoustic environment through a two-channel system is a very crude approximation of the problem.

[R_burke]

I'm not sure I want to reproduce a live event in my listening room.  

I couldn't fit all of the buttholes talking on cell phones, having conversations, or otherwise not listening to the music.  I expect my system to sound better than most live events.

Of course maybe it's the events I choose to attend  

[nathanm]

Speaking of hi-fi, we only reproduce one aspect of the original event, the sound. As you don't expect to taste the painted apple, you don't expect your gear to buy you a drink with the musicans after a song.

Yes, obviously.  In a way the home theater enthusiasts are getting a closer approximation of what they are trying to do than purely audio enthusiasts: watch movies at home in a manner emulating a commercial theater.  To that end they might have theater-style chairs, wall posters, custom lighting and decorative elements, all trying to make it more like a theater.  I think the same could be done for audio - build a raised stage to set the speakers on, install colored lights, sit at a round table with some drinks and then cue up the music.  Otherwise the sound might be amazing but your eyes are still telling you you're not in a club but rather your schlubby apartment!  If that is what people want I'd suggest working on the whole interior decor element.

Although shutting off the lights and\or closing your eyes and using your imagination goes a long way too, and it's cheap!

In the sense of reproducing the original soundfiled, hi-fi in the present state is more like cave draving than photography. We can argue than the mastodon drawn by ash charcoal is more fearful than the other with oak charcoal, but it is still a long way to go.

I think that the whole point is that it IS just a cave drawing and that cave drawings are cool, they're fun to look at and they are an art form in and of themselves.  Cavemen probably did not want to 'reproduce' the effect or a real live mastadon inside their caves.  Not only would it be dangerous, but it would probably stink pretty bad.

But seriously, like J. Gordon Holt said in that mic test on the Stereophile test disc: "recording may one day become an art form in its own right" - WELL DUH!!!  Of COURSE it is!  I'm sorry, but that was one of the dumbest things I've read and I don't say that to put him down, but it's just a retarded goal to think that this little disc you stick in a box is going to be the same as going to a show.  It isn't the same and why would anyone want it to be?  If it was possible to do so you'd freak out, you wouldn't know what reality was anymore!  Unless you can enter some kind of meditative state where you feel you are no longer sitting in your house on the couch it's always going to be something besides live music.

Besides the stereo can not have the right amount and directionally correct ambient info, you always have to add the room sound (Just try to listen any stereo record in an anechoic chamber). So it will always sound like your room mixed with an other room front+rear ambience coming from the front...Trying to reproduce a musical event accurately in a room that in no way resembles the original acoustic environment through a two-channel system is a very crude approximation of the problem.

Theoretically yes, but I think our brains filter out all this stuff and still give us enjoyment nonetheless.  Recordings and live music aren't the same event, never will be, and shouldn't be.  They are both two equally good ways to enjoy music.

[BobM]

In my experience pursuing the audio game goes through several iterations, generally in the following order (but not always):

Tonality: Meaning, do the instrument sound like they should? Is the bass deep enough? Are the cymbals shimmery? Is the piano piano-like? Do I hear the body of the instrument as well as the strings? Are horns horny?

Soundstaging/Imaging: Meaning, are the instruments portrayed in real space, side to side and front to back? Do the speakers disappear? Are things placed where they should be (drums BEHIND the singer)?

Dynamics: Both macro and micro. Meaning, is there an appropriate level of impact when the drums thwack AND when the guitar plucks? Does a horn section sound appropriately blatty? Does the music scale from a piano trio to an orchestral size when appropriate?

I'm stuck on the last one in my own system, since I don't believe there are many speakers that can do both small and large scale dynamics at the same time and of the same quality. There always seems to be a tradeoff. Sometimes getting dynamics means losing the imaging and soundstaging.

Thoughts?
Bob

[ctviggen]

The one I have problems with is tonality.  I base my judgement of this on what I think these should sound like, but this could be different than what they really do sound like.

[JefferyK]

Well, I'm under the impression that the objective of hi-fi is to reproduce the original recording as accurately as possible. Part of the original recording is the soundstaging.

Soundstaging is more meaningful on some recordings than others. I think it is fairly negligible on most pop recordings, but with the majority of classical recordings, particularly opera recordings, equipment that is good at reproducing the soundstage is absolutely essential. Otherwise, you are simply not really "hearing" the recording.

I've heard a lot of live music performances of all types, and I am certain that trying to recreate a "live" experience at home is absolutely futile. And I think people who believe that multichannel gives a more "realistic" presentation than stereo ought to get out more often.

Jeffery

[John Casler]

Besides the stereo can not have the right amount and directionally correct ambient info, So it will always sound like your room mixed with an other room front+rear ambience coming from the front...Trying to reproduce a musical event accurately in a room that in no way resembles the original acoustic environment through a two-channel system is a very crude approximation of the problem.

I both agree and disagree

I agree that trying to reproduce a musical event from one environment to another of differing dimensions and setting is (at this point) impossible and always a compromise.

I also agree that currently two channel stereo does not produce a sonic image that can be mistaken for "live" if you are in the same room.  

I disagree that

you always have to add the room sound (Just try to listen any stereo record in an anechoic chamber
 

I think generally that if one of your listening goals is to approach the original performance (assuming it is a live perfromance and well recorded) that you will attempt to "remove" sonic intrusion by the room.

There is no arguing that adding "any" room created sound will reduce the accuracy of the original event.

I might also comment that while anechoic listening might be strange, the feasibility of listening anechoically is available to all of us and it is in the form of headphones.  No room and no echo.

I think most find headphone listening can "subtract" many of the room issues and with the best phones, dynamics, tonality, detail and many other personal and preferential criteria are easily addressed.  But for me the critical detail that is "not" addressed is localization and the ability to place the sonic image out into space.

Imaging and soundstage

Now a real anechoic chamber is not as bad as many say, "unless" you attempt to listen to it as you would a normal room.  That is to say if you sit several feet away from the speakers, then the lack of diffused spatial sensations will overcome the listening experience.

But if you sit extremely nearfeild it is like wearing headphones with spatial cues, and really quite satisfying.

I have built and or created several Anechoic Chambers with complete audio systems in small rooms or large closets and spent hours listening to all types of music and have to say that some of the most realistic sonics I have heard have been in these chambers.

In fact at one time (years ago) I had drawn up plans for a prefab listening chamber that could be placed in the yard, garage, basement, attic, or other space that was pretty much self contained that would allow for some incredible listening.  I even had an isolation kit for apartment dwellers to isolate the vibrations from the floor

Since a true anechoic chamber is not generally "reasonable" in multi use and multi user, home listening areas the mutation to LEDE (Live End Dead End) evolved where the room interactive sounds are minimized to the diffused spatial cues and most all direct reflections are minimized or subtracted.

But in the end, even with rooms added or subtracted, the sonic realism has a ways to go.

[meilankev]

Ulas,

You are making the same mistake made by countless audiophiles before you - you are confusing the source of an audio playback system.

The source is not the original performance being recorded.

No, the source is the recording of the original performance being recorded.

There are numerous reasons why our systems cannot re-create the original performance.  But the most important is:
> The recording process itself colors the sound more than any component in our home system.

- Microphones add their "color" to the sound - regardless if associated with a singer or for recording an acoustic instrument.
- The mixing process affects all component of the recording.
- Laying down the tracks onto the "master tape" colors the sound.

In fact, it is impossible for any audiophile to know how close their system comes to re-creating any given source, because it is impossible for any audiophile to know what the source actually sounds like.  This is the "audiophile's dilemma" I have spoken to before.

++++

Therefore, the fact that the singer on some track was actually in some booth during the recording is immaterial.  The "source" may very well have this singer located slightly to the left of center, and forward of the drums.  The fact this scenario was artificially created by the sound engineer doesn't make it something we shouldn't strive to re-create.  

Because the entire recording is "artificial" to some extent.

Kevin

[JefferyK]

Kevin,

I'm never really understood why audiophiles in general seem to think that microphones are transparent. They're not. They color the sound. With vocals, microphones are often responsible for the excessive sibilance audiophiles complain about and spend so much time and energy tweaking their systems trying to eliminate. All of the major vocalists of the '50s and '60s had a favorite microphone that they used for all of their studio recordings. Some, like Peggy Lee, had a microphone custom made and tuned in a way that was most flattering to their voices.

As I said before, I think the objective of hi-fi should be to reproduce the original RECORDING as accurately as possible. We'll never know what the source sounded like, and electronics can't recreate live music.

Jeffery

[warnerwh]

Reproduced music can position the people playing the instruments accurately. I heard a person's RM 40's playing John Pizzarelli, a Chesky recording. While we were listening to it he gave me the cd jacket which had a picture of the people playing in the studio.  You could easily tell where an instrument was and with the picture it was obvious the sound was accurate.  His room was nothing special other than he was able to put the RM 40's out into the middle of a large room.  Did it sound the same? I doubt it but the soundstage was accurate.

[JLM]

My priorities in producing fidelity in audio playback are:

1.  Tonality  (what is music, if not tones? analogius to the color of a picture)

2.  Detail  (inner details, but not to the degree that it forces my attention away from the tonal essence of the music)

3.  Dynamics (both micro and macro)

4.  Imaging (a good system with a good recording can do this, but achieving this is difficult and so rare as it must rate low)


IMO the purpose of fidelity in audio playback is to provide as many clues as possible as to the nature of the original performance.  We can all play "Name that Tune" but just like having a high definition TV versus a crummy little black and white set, having a hi-fi system is more fun as it provides more clues and becomes more realistic.  Furthermore it allows the analytical side of the brain to relax and let the emotive side enjoy in the performance more.

Imaging is dependent on the recording, your room, speaker set up, speakers themselves, etc.  You probably wouldn't want accurate imaging from most recording sessions (when backup artists come in weeks before or after the lead singer for instance).  Time coherence in speaker design has a huge affect on imaging, but few consider or discuss it.  All said and done, imaging is one of attributes that separates true audiophile quality overall systems from "ordinary" consumer hi-fi.

BTW biaural recordings (made for headphone only use) provide the best possible imaging (assuming you don't move your head).