[rob80b]

Hi Folks,

I am just wondering what you all think is the 'most' important to the 'least' important component in an audio system when it comes to presenting a 3 dimensional soundstage?

james

In all honesty though I'd have to say that very few recordings actual have enough information to recreate a true three dimensional soundstage.
We may have the solo performer nicely placed and projected with lots of layering for the accompanying musicians and hear the echo at the back of the hall but it's still not 3D.

Robert

[Mad Mr H]

(2ch room)

Pop round here........
Watch TV via aerial........


When a dog barking makes you look out in the garden,
A knock at a door makes you get up,

Then the sound stage is without question wide, the layout here front door is towards my right and garden my left, that said its possible to look towards the front door if the dog barking is on the right.

So does that alone show a 3D audio image - Not really, as the layout is very much wide left/right here so easy for the brain to think wide left/right.

But without question there is depth front/rear to the image, this is not just in the "sweet spot" of the image from both speakers but in a single speaker dispersion field - again not tricks played on the brain.

That can be heard in a standard TV broadcast, I use my PMC BB5 as my TV speakers 


I think there are two kinds of 3D audio image.....

That created in the recording to give the impression of 3D and the 3D image recreated by acurate reproduction of the recording. (same with deliberate 3D video image vs 3D depth seen in an image)

Why should the recording be 2D ??? (unless totaly PC/Electronic based)

The artist, instrument, room are all 3D.

The speaker, Drivers are all 3D.

Mic - yep 3D....


So why would you not expect an accurate reprodction to be 3D?

You hear in 3D......


Rob - If you "hear the echo at the back of the hall." and it is echo that has been added into the mix then yes I agree thats not ture 3D., If you actually "hear the echo at the back of the hall." Then I would have to say that if you hear it AND it sounds like its behind you then thats 3D....

Andy H.

[Moon Doggy]

I use my PMC BB5 as my TV speakers 

  Say it ain't so!    Then what speakers do you use for two channel listening? 


As to soundstage: If I must put them in an order.
1) Proper D to A conversion that preserves the phase coherence, timing (esp. jitter related), and solidity of the original recording. Especially with the difficult 16/44.1 Redbook format.

2) Recording, 3) Room Acoustics, 4) speakers, 5) Amps...


James

[rob80b]

Hi Andy,

There are spacial cues and tonal reality, but I guess my reference comes from producing binaural recordings in the seventies where with headphones the 3D aspects were startling.
We tried to reproduce a true 3D effect with quad playback and multiple speaker placement but it is still extremely difficult.

Robert

[Sasha]

Assuming we are talking 2 channel, and assuming the recording was made in such a way to reproduce (or engineered to give impression of) 3D soundstage, it is the speakers that play the biggest role in correct reproduction of soundstage (whatever is on recording) because it is the speaker design in largest part that affects this aspect of reproduction.
All other components play significantly less important role in this, or to put in other words, all other components would have to be of a severely messed up design to destroy 3D impression.

[rob80b]

Overall I think answers to James's question are probably the most sought after endeavour for this hobby, the final frontier as we might say.
I'm not too sure that a true 3D acoustic presentation is possible with our current equipment or approach to sound recording at least on the consumer level, we've obviously made the listening experience realer not necessarily more enjoyable.
People have always enjoyed the music from the time of the first recordings; high fidelity is not a prerequisite for music fulfillment.
As a hobbyist our expectations are different from the general public and fortunately or unfortunately are not solely based on music reproduction but how to get the unadulterated signal from the source out into the open air and then to our ears.
Yes we have in abundance pleasant and enjoyable systems, but I find the more critical the system at portraying detail the more fragile the listening experience.
I never find myself scrutinizing the sound from the clock radio in the morning or listening to radio and music in the car or over my Imac or Thinkpad but in fact enjoy the experience.
When we get into critical listening and start to question everything in the system chain we are not at rest and this unfortunately affects our enjoyment of the performance, we are to say being ……..critical!
I do enjoy my current set-up and get the odd “hairs on the back of my neck” syndrome every once in awhile, which makes spending all this time, money and energy worthwhile and rewarding.
Needless to say this audiophile journey is yet to reach it’s end, maybe laser induced audio frequencies triggering air molecules from a pre-determined 3D sound stage. aa

Robert

[James Tanner]

Overall I think answers to James's question are probably the most sought after endeavour for this hobby, the final frontier as we might say.
I'm not too sure that a true 3D acoustic presentation is possible with our current equipment or approach to sound recording at least on the consumer level, we've obviously made the listening experience realer not necessarily more enjoyable.
People have always enjoyed the music from the time of the first recordings; high fidelity is not a prerequisite for music fulfillment.
As a hobbyist our expectations are different from the general public and fortunately or unfortunately are not solely based on music reproduction but how to get the unadulterated signal from the source out into the open air and then to our ears.
Yes we have in abundance pleasant and enjoyable systems, but I find the more critical the system at portraying detail the more fragile the listening experience.
I never find myself scrutinizing the sound from the clock radio in the morning or listening to radio and music in the car or over my Imac or Thinkpad but in fact enjoy the experience.
When we get into critical listening and start to question everything in the system chain we are not at rest and this unfortunately affects our enjoyment of the performance, we are to say being ……..critical!
I do enjoy my current set-up and get the odd “hairs on the back of my neck” syndrome every once in awhile, which makes spending all this time, money and energy worthwhile and rewarding.
Needless to say this audiophile journey is yet to reach it’s end, maybe laser induced audio frequencies triggering air molecules from a pre-determined 3D sound stage. aa

Robert

Hi Robert,

Really enjoyed that!

james

[James Tanner]

Hi Folks – my $00.02

I think you have to go back to how the ear/brain hears a 3 dimensional soundscape in the real world. Let’s also assume as a prerequisite that the job of the recording engineer is to provide a window into the acoustical space the original recording took place in.  In other words capture that specific time and place through his recording media so it can be reproduce as accurately as possible on a quality playback system.

Each (musical) sound is comprised of several different tones, or harmonics, each having its own amplitude, time and phase relationships with the others. To completely preserve the unique character of each sound, it is necessary to preserve all of this information.

Timing errors can cause the loss of much directional or imaging information. With most recordings the only dependable clues you are given about the location of the sound are contained in the ‘loudness’ of each sound. If  a sound  is louder on the left than the right, then the sound seems to be located closer to the left speaker. This is why I think the "sound stage" that some systems reproduce only seems to exist between the speakers.

In contrast to this loudness type of imaging information, your ear/brain interprets real life sounds by using ‘timing’ information to locate the position of a sound. In real life, your ear perceives a sound as coming from the left because your left ear hears it first. There is a ‘timing’ delay (because of your head) which tells your brain which direction the sound is coming from.  That it may also sound louder to your left ear is secondary. Your ear is set up for, and is much better at determining location from time information rather than loudness information… according to some of the experts on this subject.

So some recordings are produced using amplitude (loudness) as the main source for creating the illusion of depth and width by varying the loudness of each specific instrument. Usually the popular recordings fall into this category were the utilization of multiple microphones is common. Some others use very simple microphone techniques and try to capture the 3 dimensionality much the way 2-ears in natural space would – Reference Recordings would be a good example of this approach. Have a listen to the Reference Recordings hi-res recording of Carmen and you will not believe the size and depth of the soundstage on a good system.

My experience so far has been that the speaker is the most critical component in maintaining the illusion of 3-D in a well executed recording. The speaker is heard in a room so the room/speaker interface is my number 2 component in determining the ability of a system to disappear and put the listened in the same acoustical space as the original recording. Whenever I do audio shows in very large rooms I am always taken with the ability of the system to produce a more 3-Dimemsional experience. So getting rid of early reflections has a major benefit in allowing the soundstage to blossom.   Most quality electronics have excellent phase accuracy so I see them as contributing less to the overall 3-D soundstage.

james

[Mag]

I think we might be talking about different aspects of 3D soundstage or imaging.

There is the halographic image that is 3D. But I was referring to music that has body and weight behind it.

 Typically cd recordings sound thin lacking harmonics, without a harmonic enhancer applied. Sacd in MC has the body and weight to it that I'm referring to as 3D. However even sacd loses some harmonics in the recording process.

 The best DTS recording I have captures the harmonics, but this is a compressed format. It would probably be sufficient uncompressed in retaining harmonics. Having said that though, a speaker has to be made durable to handle the extra heat generated reproducing all the harmonic detail in playback. If you crank the volume, that is.

[gerald porzio]

With all the concern over soundstage, it makes me wonder how many listen to unamplified music in a concert hall, club or other live venue. Stereo w/ a super soundstage is a poor artifice @ best.

[rob80b]

With all the concern over soundstage, it makes me wonder how many listen to unamplified music in a concert hall, club or other live venue. Stereo w/ a super soundstage is a poor artifice @ best.

Good point, with our systems I often wonder if we are not actually creating a hyper-real situation.
Years ago I always had subscriptions for the Toronto Symphony and the Opera and unless you were in the first couple of rows in front of the stage I had to strain to make sense of all the wonderful attributes reviewers were laying on equipment, stage depth, harmonics etc., they just were not there. More intimate performances like quartets and jazz were obviously more apparent and I was given the opportunity to record a few which I always did using just a  single pair of mikes and a two track reel to reel.
But the whole thing when it came to stereos was mostly hype, manufactures went out of the their way to create speakers that had odd dips and peaks in the audio spectrum so that stereo imaging and depth was almost perceived on every recording. My biggest fear was that amps and sources were approached the same way so that we lost sight of a reference, it became impossible to have a controllable situation and is one reason I've had Bryston in my system for so many years, if it's not on the recording, it's not on the recording.

[bmckenney]

If it's in the recording, the most important part of getting the 3D wall of sound is a reasonable room along with uncompromising speaker placement.  If you have a badly cluttered room with all kinds of junk around the the speakers you can not very well get a 3d stage no matter what speakers, amp, cables etc you have.  And IMO speaker placement is also critical.  Push your speakers up against the walls, and you aint going to get 3D anything.  I don't rank speakers as being critical to 3D.  I'm pretty sure I can make any pair of reasonable speakers sound 3D given a decent room and the ability to place the speakers wherever I want.  Once you have this foundation down pat and 3D exists, then you can fine tune it, improve it.

[95Dyna]

I'm not qualified to address this question technically so I must defer to my experience this past year.  During that time I upgraded my amps to 7B's, pre to BP26, CD player to the Esoteric X-05, cables to WireWorld Silver Eclipse 6 SC's and balanced IC's and the Torus CS 15 PIU.  I did not replace my speakers.  Soundstage was 2 dimensional between speakers and imaging was existent but not well focused.   First in were the 7B's which improved imaging slightly and sound stage very slightly (it went higher).  Next in was the BP26 which noticeably improved clarity but did nothing for the stage.  Next was the X-05 and the soundstage became larger, imaging improved only marginally.  Next were the cables which had a huge impact on sound quality from top to bottom with little effect on the stage or imaging.  Last was the Torus CS 15 which had an unbelievable effect on immaging, grew the soundstage but it was still 2 dimensional with a slight forward movement of the vocalist whether male or female.  In all of these steps along the way the degree to which the observed improvement was perceived was highly dependent on the recording.

The conclusion I am drawing is my upgrades have clearly exposed the shortcomings of my speakers in the creation of a 3 dimensional soundstage.  I have experimented with every placement variable possible over the last 20 years with these speakers and I have a room large enough to completely mitigate interference from first reflections.  Some components impact soundstaging marginally, the speakers are the primary consideration followed by the recording.  Just my experience, not settled science.

[werd]

Hi Folks – my $00.02

I think you have to go back to how the ear/brain hears a 3 dimensional soundscape in the real world. Let’s also assume as a prerequisite that the job of the recording engineer is to provide a window into the acoustical space the original recording took place in.  In other words capture that specific time and place through his recording media so it can be reproduce as accurately as possible on a quality playback system.

Each (musical) sound is comprised of several different tones, or harmonics, each having its own amplitude, time and phase relationships with the others. To completely preserve the unique character of each sound, it is necessary to preserve all of this information.

Timing errors can cause the loss of much directional or imaging information. With most recordings the only dependable clues you are given about the location of the sound are contained in the ‘loudness’ of each sound. If  a sound  is louder on the left than the right, then the sound seems to be located closer to the left speaker. This is why I think the "sound stage" that some systems reproduce only seems to exist between the speakers.

In contrast to this loudness type of imaging information, your ear/brain interprets real life sounds by using ‘timing’ information to locate the position of a sound. In real life, your ear perceives a sound as coming from the left because your left ear hears it first. There is a ‘timing’ delay (because of your head) which tells your brain which direction the sound is coming from.  That it may also sound louder to your left ear is secondary. Your ear is set up for, and is much better at determining location from time information rather than loudness information… according to some of the experts on this subject.

So some recordings are produced using amplitude (loudness) as the main source for creating the illusion of depth and width by varying the loudness of each specific instrument. Usually the popular recordings fall into this category were the utilization of multiple microphones is common. Some others use very simple microphone techniques and try to capture the 3 dimensionality much the way 2-ears in natural space would – Reference Recordings would be a good example of this approach. Have a listen to the Reference Recordings hi-res recording of Carmen and you will not believe the size and depth of the soundstage on a good system.

My experience so far has been that the speaker is the most critical component in maintaining the illusion of 3-D in a well executed recording. The speaker is heard in a room so the room/speaker interface is my number 2 component in determining the ability of a system to disappear and put the listened in the same acoustical space as the original recording. Whenever I do audio shows in very large rooms I am always taken with the ability of the system to produce a more 3-Dimemsional experience. So getting rid of early reflections has a major benefit in allowing the soundstage to blossom.   Most quality electronics have excellent phase accuracy so I see them as contributing less to the overall 3-D soundstage.

james

HAHA james

You took Satfrat's and my idea and just went with it..... making it up as you  went along.   

[satfrat]

   I was thinking the very same thing,,, minus the Bybee's of course. 
 
Cheers,
Robin

[musinteg]

1 The recording itself
2 Sub-woofer
3 Loudspeaker carrying 80 Hz and up information
4 Amp
5 Everything else

1   A bad recording is just that, and nothing will save it.
2   Subs reproduce the movement of air in the studio.
3   Without good quality phase coherent speakers. you are lost.
4   of course
5   The weakest link in the chain weakens the whole chain.

[rob80b]

1 The recording itself
2 Sub-woofer
3 Loudspeaker carrying 80 Hz and up information
4 Amp
5 Everything else

1   A bad recording is just that, and nothing will save it.
2   Subs reproduce the movement of air in the studio.
3   Without good quality phase coherent speakers. you are lost.
4   of course
5   The weakest link in the chain weakens the whole chain.

"Subs reproduce the movement of air in the studio"

Interesting putting the sub in second place, not that it creates something 3D but I'm a firm believer you do need those sub octave sound waves to recreate that sense of realism.
I'm not talking about base but the completion of the sound spectrum, even listening to Glenn Gould hammer away on the piano, the sub when properly balanced adds that eerie sense of being on the floor with the performer while extending the width and depth of the sound stage.

Robert

[HsvHeelFan]

There are some interesting comments about Soundstage, especially regarding the "timing" aspects of it.

There is a reason Orchestra's have conductors and the primary reason is to provide "timing".  Any good orchestra can run on autopilot and when we have a crummy conductor, that's what we'll do.

However, "listening" to get your timing isn't always a really good idea due to the distances involved.  A large orchestral work can have 80 or more musicians and even though I'm on the stage in the back right (when viewed from the podium), it can be difficult to hear the woodwinds when the other brass is playing and what you hear is already delayed by the distance that it had to cover to get to your ears.  Especially when what you're hearing may have bounced off the audience of the viola and cello section players before getting to you.

The flip side is the reflections from the speakers in the environment that they're placed in.  I hadn't thought about reflections smearing or skewing the sound.  I'll pay more attention to that.

To create the ultimate soundstage for  audio, I'd think one would want to use a 6 channel master system.  With 2 mics representing left and right ears of the listener and then with an additional 4 mics in the corners of the recording hall.  (Similar in concept as to what Yamaha did in the late 80's with their sound processors).  One would use 6 speakers for playback.

HsvHeelFan