 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.43.1.25
In Reply to: RE: Interesting posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 30, 2007 at 10:40:08
What I meant was, did you actually make the EQ adjustments, do the measuring, etc etc prior to listening? It's not that I thought you were lying - was just wondering what level of participation you had.
Soundstaging and imaging are, IMHO, two of the most critical pieces of the "live" sound. Most components get the basics pretty close such as tonality and it's pretty easy to recreate the volume with a hornspeaker and about 6 watts of amp power. Back to soundstaging and imaging - without a doubt, that is where cables most deviate from one another in my experience. I really don't hear FR anomalies in cables for the most part, although occasionally one pops up that seems to shine a spotlight on the treble or muddies up the mids. The Cardas Neutral Reference was a soundstaging and imaging champ in my system. It's why I bought it. If I could create that effect with EQ, I'd be all over it. Might be interesting to try. But as you said, it's unlikely. But if those effects aren't FR issues, what are they?
Follow Ups:
All you need to do is get a preamp/receiver sporting a "soundstage feature" and simply dial in whatever you wish! Very simple concept as explained by theaudiohobby. ;)
Soundstaging for Idiots
rw
> > All you need to do is get a preamp/receiver sporting a "soundstage feature" and simply dial in whatever you wish! Very simple concept as explained by theaudiohobby. ;)
Soundstaging for Idiots < <
"Soundstaging for Idiots" is a good way to describe that feature. From what I read, it's comparable to the front/rear control on a 4 spkr car stereo, but that has nothing to do with the soundstage inherent in recordings, when audiophiles talk of the size of the soundstage. No knob can change the true soundstage, only a change in resolution.
Objective Audiophile 2007
rw
See my reply to Morricab, you are letting your idiotic presumptousness get the better of you.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I can always rely upon you for levity! :)
rw
ES: "Wherein you state that diddling with FR constitutes "soundstaging"?"
TAH: And where did I say that?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Sheesh. Might want to have that looked into.
Well, in chronological order, there's this post where in response to my observation "An equalizer is utterly incapable of deepening the soundstage", you opine:
Ignorant and wrong, a quick demo of a modest receiver will prove otherwise, some of the preset equalisation setting accomplish that easily and that has been the case for many years.
Then you said Your point about the Lexicon processor feature is conceded, however the original points remains, my old boom box has preset equalization settings that improved the soundstage of flat recordings here
More recently in this post, you said: Nope, I tweak the FR to get the desired effect.
Finally, you provided the unsupported "details" in this post where we learn your "secret" to soundstaging. tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz. A good place to start is to look at the frequency response of the speakers famed to have deep soundstages and copy their FR in the region.
You improved the soundstage of your boombox? Dude, we're not talking about the same thing at all.
rw
Rather, it is your comprehension that is so poor. And this nonsense suggests that you do not understand the basic relationship between FR and the presentation of the soundstage, sure there are other facts, but the FR is a key factor. I suggest you look at Stereophile's audiophile glossary of audio terms and look up forward, laidback, there is basic primer that will help you and if you are up to it read about loudness compensation curves.
If you cannot tell the deference between "Wherein you state that diddling with FR constitutes "soundstaging"? " and " tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz (to depend the soundstage)", then we really should not be having this discussion at all, since it means lack basic prerequsite knowledge and/or comprehesion to discuss the topic in the first place.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
FR is not the only factor at issue with regard to soundstaging...its not that simple. High frequency distortion and retrieval of low level ambient cues are just as important to a convincing recreation of soundstage.
The FR manipulation you speak if a cheap parlor trick to give a SEMBLANCE of soundstage but it also affects intelligibility of lyrics or movie dialogue and creates an artificial sense of depth that is there whether it is on the recording or not. It can serve to "tame" overly hot recordings or extremely close miked recordings but it is not correct. Recordings with real soundstage information don't need this manipulation and will benefit most from a very clean HF (no Class D amps need apply) and excellent low level resolution (again noisy Class D is left out in the cold).
For "diddling", substitute any equivalent term. Adjusting the FR. Modifying the FR. Shaping the FR. Altering the FR. Setting the FR. Assigning the FR. Whichever term you use, the concept is the same. You believe that soundstaging is a function of frequency response. The characteristic to which I refer is not.
I suggest you look at Stereophile's audiophile glossary of audio terms and look up forward, laidback, there is basic primer that will help you and if you are up to it read about loudness compensation curves.
Soundstaging and perspective are two separate concepts. Indeed, there are some components where the image is "up front" or conversely, "laid back", but that in no way describes the acoustic space described by the image. Since you reference SP, perhaps you will find this description helpful to understand the difference.
About Soundstaging
Perspective and soundstaging (called depth-of-field in this case) both exist in the photographic world as well. You can take a picture of a tree where the tree lies close in the foreground and or you may take it from further back for a more distant approach. Neither choice implies any notion of depth-of-field of the space around the tree. That is determined by the aperture chosen. One may use a faster, wide open aperture of say 1.4 or 1.8 and end up with a very shallow depth-of-field. Objects nearer to the observer or further away from the focal point are out of focus. On the other hand, one could choose a stopped down aperture of say f16 or f22 and achieve a very deep depth-of-field.
Different concepts. To suggest, however, that alterations of any sort to FR alone are capable of creating real depth enhancement, however, is silly. To quote JGH from the above referenced page, "There will be an awareness of the reflective boundary walls of the acoustic space behind and to the sides of the performers, and the spatiality of the hall itself will extend a considerable distance beyond the distance between the loudspeakers. " I am speaking of this quality that Mr. Holt is discussing.
rw
E-Stat:"Soundstaging and perspective are two separate concepts"
TAH: They are not or at more correctly very closely related in audio, it is perspective that gives the illusion of depth of a given soundstage, whether it is deep or shallow is entirely down to the observer's perception of the sounstage. To claim that soundstape depth perception is different from perpective is an excercise in self-contradiction. A forward soundstage is by definition more shallow than a laid back one, there are factors but as previously stated, frequency response is a key factor. In audio terms at least, the issue of perception is central to the definition of the soundstage, as the listener has no other means of determining the soundstage beyond perception. And this where your photographic example breaks down, The observer has at their more information at their disposal but even then the perception of depth can be manipulated up to a point.
E-Stat: Different concepts. To suggest, however, that alterations of any sort to FR alone are capable of creating real depth enhancement, however, is silly.
TAH: What is silly is your continued attempts to twist my comments to suit your purpose, I said " And this nonsense suggests that you do not understand the basic relationship between FR and the presentation of the soundstage, sure there are other facts , but the FR is a key factor " In other words, you are building a strawman.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
To claim that soundstape depth perception is different from perpective is an excercise in self-contradiction.My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same. All the folks on the stage remain in their same seats playing the same instruments creating the same sonic space. Unless, of course you suggest they excercise moving around during the performance. :)
What is silly is your continued attempts to twist my comments to suit your purpose.
Nonsense. I quoted two sets of your pearls of wisdom verbatim. As usual, this is getting tedious. Signing out.
rw
E-Stat: My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same.
TAH: The depth of soundstage is not the same, the distance from row C to the end of the stage is different from that of row S, and you have your visuals to confirm it. The depth of the soundstage is much shallower for an individual in Row A than individual in Row M cos everything in front of the observer is effectively the soundstage. So while the actual stage remains the same, the 'soundstage' is different.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
E-Stat:Still didn't fix the misspelled words with the edit
TAH: So what!
E-Stat: My perpective of the soundstape is governed by the hall (and whether or not that was captured in the recording), not my seating position. Whether I sit in row C or row S, the apparent depth of the source is the same
TAH: Still trying, your perspective of depth is governed by your VISION i.e. you have visual information which helps define your perception of depth. On a AUDIO recording, there are no visuals.
In other words, keep trying because so far you simply come up silly.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Well, you have to admit, it does *shift* the soundstage! LOL
Now just need a knob to widen it and another to deepen it.
"Now just need a knob to widen it and another to deepen it. "Deepening a soundstage is ridiculously easy, provided you know what you are doing, and yes it is at the turn of a knob.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
a
Are you using this feature on the Behringer by any chance?? I noticed you can also steer it all over the place as well. Haven't tried it yet because the left and right channels need to be linked and I had them equalized separately.
MC: Are you using this feature on the Behringer by any chance??
TAH: Nope, I tweak the FR to get the desired effect.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Well then that is totally an inaccurate recreation! I thought accuracy was your game and now I find you adjust the FR in the presence region?? Incredible. Why not just buy some B&Ws that have that dip built in to make a fake sense of space, which by the way doesn't replace the real reason that soundstage can occur, namely 1) its on the recording, 2) The HF response of the electronics are extremely clean allowing certain spacial cues to come through and 3) low level resolution in general. The fact that you don't get good soundstaging without manipulating the FR, especially with superb soundstagers like audiostatics, tells me you have a serious HF problem or low level resolution or both. The FR dip is a typical trip of midfi speakers to enhance "depth" also known as the "Gundry" dip. Bob Carver also used it to good effect but it is ultimately a gimick and can be heard as such.
My system measures flat and the soundstaging is fantastic. My friend's Apogee Grand system in Germany measures very flat and has the best soundstaging I have ever heard. No FR manipulation required, Period.
MC:Well then that is totally an inaccurate recreation! I thought accuracy was your game and now I find you adjust the FR in the presence region?? Incredible. Why not just buy some B&Ws that have that dip built in to make a fake sense of space, which by the way doesn't replace the real reason that soundstage can occur, namely 1) its on the recording, 2) The HF response of the electronics are extremely clean allowing certain spacial cues to come through and 3) low level resolution in general.
TAH: On the other hand, all this tells me is that you are bigot and a fool. The same effect was recreated through a pair AKG-701 headphones attached to WAD Headphone amplifier. Did the headphone amplifier also have HF problems?
MC:The fact that you don't get good soundstaging without manipulating the FR, especially with superb soundstagers like audiostatics, tells me you have a serious HF problem or low level resolution or both.
TAH: On the other hand, your comments tell me you are presumptuous and stupid. Talking missing the forest for the trees, sometimes you simply you surpass yourself.
MC:The FR dip is a typical trip of midfi speakers to enhance "depth" also known as the "Gundry" dip. Bob Carver also used it to good effect but it is ultimately a gimick and can be heard as such
TAH: Oh, Why did you not inform BBC and John Dunlavy of that, fool?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> Deepening a soundstage is ridiculously easy, provided you know what you are doing, and yes it is at the turn of a knob. <
Do tell.
I told 'ya it was easy. All you need to do is put an active EQ in the circuit, diddle with the FR and voila !! Flat-as-a-corn-field-in-Iowa multi-tracked DG recordings will instantly reveal the deep and wide soundstaging found in well engineered minimally miked recordings such as from RCA Living Stereo, Telarc, and Reference Recordings!
rw
"Flat-as-a-corn-field-in-Iowa multi-tracked DG recordings will instantly reveal the deep and wide soundstaging found in well engineered minimally miked recordings such as from RCA Living Stereo, Telarc, and Reference Recordings!"
Yep, that is the kind of obtuse comment I have to expect from you.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
May you enjoy your slider based soundstaging!
Hehe. :)
rw
tweak the frequency response in upper midrange & lower treble specifically between 900Hz-5kHz. A good place to start is to look at the frequency response of the speakers famed to have deep soundstages and copy their FR in the region.Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
with which "famed to have deep soundstages" speaker did you model your experiments? Was that in your system or someone else's? What do the EQ curves look like?
rw
Since it is just for grins I wouldn't bother, I have no time to waste on your idiocy.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You are merely speculating. Thought so.
rw
ES: You are merely speculating
TAH: I wasn't.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
That's how you "deepened" the soundstage on your boombox, right? :)
rw
that's the other knob. :)
rw
I've heard that there's a correlation between "knob gymnastics" and blindness. Might that be the reason for all the hollering for blind testing around here?
Must be a lot more to live sound than soundstaging and imaging
Live amplified sound is mono.
No soundstage.
The image is a single point (mono).
Hall reflections would be roughly ten times later than reflections in a normal home listening room), but reflections are not part of any stereo effect.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Live ACOUSTIC sound is mono near the back of an auditorium.
Probably mono or near mono in the middle of the auditorium.
There may be a stereo effect in the front rows, depending on the physical separation between the sound sources and their distances from your ears.
If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point (mono).
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
I regularly attend classical concerts, mostly at the Disney Hall and I have sat in the back, in the middle and behind the orchestra. The real life imaging from the best seats is surprisingly close to what I get with my best LPs on my system The sound is far from mono even from the back of the hall.
I don't listen to live classical music much
... and when I do I'm usually snoring in twenty minutes.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Probably mono or near mono in the middle of the auditorium.
Perhaps you might actually attend an orchestra, sit in the middle and see if you believe that your theory holds. My experience mirrors morricab's that it does not. In fact, the last concert I attended two weeks ago provided an interesting lesson in what NOT to do regarding localization. The program was devoted to the works of John Williams and included a large chorus. For some stupid reason, they felt the need for sound reinforcement. During a violin solo with the performer located center stage, one could clearly localize the source of the sound - twenty feet up and five feet away from the side walls !(location of in-wall PA system).
rw
I wasn't thinking of classical orchestras which can create a soundstage pretty far back in the auditorium, unlike popular musicians/groups I hear live.
The seats I can afford, in the back of the balcony, assuming I stay awake during classical music, are so far back the sound is near-mono.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
And I will certainly agree with your observation that "live" amplified concerts are simply massive mono mixes (at earbleeding levels, no less). Which is why I don't regularly attend them any more or make sure I bring earplugs when I do! I enjoy being able to actually hear individual characteristics of the instruments - which I find virtually absent in the massive goulash of "reinforced" sound.
I'm convinced that many differences in the way we approach our systems has to do with our musical preferences. I could not relate, for example, with bjh's post regarding high (95 - 97 db) levels. I never do that. My RS meter reports momentary peaks in the high 80s when I power listen. Average levels are always in the 70s range. Indeed, my system can never approach anything resembling a live rock concert. Don't want it to!
rw
I also sit only four feet from my speakers when I'm listening from the sweet spot.
My EPOS ES11 speakers are too small for an average SPL of 85dBA, IMHO, even when using a 24dB/octave 70Hz. high pass filter to keep most of the bass away from them.
The preferred SPL and distance from the speakers are very important factors when choosing components.
Much more important than room size (except for the fact that larger rooms tend to sound better than smaller rooms, and a better sounding room would justify buying more expensive audio equipment).
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
No, I don't want my system to play back at rock concert levels, either! I value my hearing too much for that. I suggested to bjh that he keep his listening levels within safe limits but he didn't respond to that point. My RS meter will very seldom read above the low 80s, which can sound quite loud. A lot of popular material actually sounds quite loud at 75 dBa.
Not long ago, our community orchestra and chorus did Beethoven's 9th Symphony and from the chorus, while there was a sonic image of a sort, it was not possible to localize most of the instrumental sections. I've heard concerts in the same church with the semi-pro orchestra and did not get a localized sound image either--most of the sound seemed to come from above the orchestra. Even in large halls, I have not heard a pinpoint imaging kind of thing.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
the best systems I've heard provide all the resolution one could ask for at lower levels than other gear. I'm not into having my body resonate with the music as one finds at some bars and rock concerts. Over at vintage, poster Bold Eagle calls this phenomena "non-loud, non-bright".
As for imaging, my position lies in middle ground. I don't experience "pinpoint" imaging at concerts either. On the other hand, with eyes closed (my usual listening choice), one can clearly locate the lower strings vs. the upper strings, the location of the various brass instruments, etc.
Some percussion, however, like the triangle and bell trees do seem to "float" above the orchestra. Precious few systems in my experience can replicate that sensation to me.
rw
What you have posted is not really true bass nut. For example, even at the back of a hall you can tell that the violins come from one section, the violas another, the woodwinds yet another etc. Also, you can tell that the Tympanis and horns are towards the back and the basses are often back and to the right side. If that is not soundstaging and imaging then I am not sure what is.
Now if you take a pair of microphones arranged in a blumlein configuration and put them in the middle of that hall, record the concert and then play it back on your stereo at home you SHOULD get about the same degree of imaging and soundstaging that you would have had if you had sat in that location. I know this works because I have made such recordings. Sure you also get your own room acoustics in the playback but that doesn't mean you don't get a good sensation of the acoustic space, which is what soundstage and imaging are all about, from the recording.
I have just such an orchestral recording as well, the microphones were placed 6 meters from the front of the stage. It is the most natural and closest to what I hear live of any recording I own...it is also the ultimate system breaker (not literally, figuratively) because of its ultra realistic tonality and realistic dynamic swings. Makes most systems sound like they were dragged through the mud. On world class systems it simply sounds like you are there in concert (This has only occurred on about 3 or 4 systems, the last an Apogee Grand system of a friend's). I know more or less what it should sound like as well because I have heard a performance of the same piece sitting about 7 meters from the stage. The resemblance was striking.
"If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point "
Maybe but it would not be a pin point so a rather large point in fact. Also the reflections in the club will create an acoustic space within which that musician is situated and thus a soundstage.
I was not thinking of classical orchestras since I rarely listen to them live.
There is a huge distance between the musicians on left and right sides of the orchestra, so a soundstage could be audible even in the cheap seats.
.
.
.
I WROTE:
"If there was a solo acoustic guitar player singing at a club, for one example, there would be no soundstage and the image would be a single point "
YOU WROTE:
Maybe but it would not be a pin point so a rather large point in fact. Also the reflections in the club will create an acoustic space within which that musician is situated and thus a soundstage.
RG responds:
The late reflections within a club or auditorium are almost impossible to recreate at home with two-channel audio.
A surround sound system at home could reproduce a different acoustic space with the side speakers, assuming a good recording.
But a live solo guitar will still be a point source -- whether the point is small or large makes no difference.
Hall ambience (late reflections) is an important factor in live music.
The soundstage is important for large orchestras, which I didn't think of in my first post.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
"The late reflections within a club or auditorium are almost impossible to recreate at home with two-channel audio."
Not so Bass Nut. Those are on the recording and can be heard as such. Do to superposition of the room acoustics it is not exactly the same sensation but it can be quite similar.
"But a live solo guitar will still be a point source -- whether the point is small or large makes no difference."
So what? The source may be mono but you hear in binaural. This gives a distinct sense of the space and this, Bass nut, is soundstage.
"Hall ambience (late reflections) is an important factor in live music. "
It is also an important factor in recorded music. When one listens to a live recording if it is well done and well reproduced (the big if) then it WILL sound quite close to what one hears live because the information of the space IS ON THE RECORDING.
"The soundstage is important for large orchestras, which I didn't think of in my first post.
"
As I listen to a lot of classical and attend concerts it is a big point for me and why it is a valid reference for a system doing the job correctly.
Any hall ambience in a two-channel recording, lets say 100-200 millisecond reverberation, must come from front speakers in two-channel audio system, meaning that ambience will be partially or completely masked by:
(1) All the other music coming from those front speakers and/or
(2) Additional early reflections, lets say 5-20 milliseconds, in the home listening room.
It's nearly impossible to "transport" a listener into a large venue, such as an auditorium, with only two speakers in typical stereo locations in a small home listening room (meaning the speakers can't be located far from side walls/ceiling.
Processors I've heard that create a "hall" effect with two speakers tend to sound artificial.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
"that ambience will be partially or completely masked by:"
The operative word there is partially. I agree the illusion is not perfect but it is there and noticeable and the better the system the easier these cues are to hear, thus the greater sense of realism.
At least not impossible with the best systems/recordings I've heard. You're not gonna replicate a full concert hall, but many of the cues that suggest the size and depth of the content, if captured on the recording, can be reproduced.
Processors I've heard that create a "hall" effect with two speakers tend to sound artificial.
Amen to that. Artificial processing is - well artificial processing. I'm still curious to hear about theaudiohobby's knobs to instantly control depth and width. :)
rw
Kerr,
I knew you didn't think I was lying. I was refering to others who deny I play guitar or attend live symphonies at the Bob Carr etc. when I talk about my ability to judge sound quality.
I didn't do any of the actual EQ adjustments or measuring as it wasn't my equipment nor were these people actual friends in all 3 cases. Like you for me soundstaging and imaging are very critical pieces of attempting to replicate "live" sound. I also agree that most components get the basics pretty close with regards soundstaging and imaging. But it's the precisely these subtleties that makes the exceptional audio components stand out from the crowd. To get soundstaging beyond the R of the right speaker and the L of the left speaker as well as height & depth is not an easy task.
I agree that is where cables most deviate from one another. I also don't hear any gross or even very noticable FR anomalies in cables for the most part, although like you said, occasionally one pops up that seems to shine a spotlight on the treble or muddies up the mids.
If I could recreate the effect of great soundstaging with EQ (provided I didn't lose out in other areas like transparency) I'd be all over it too! But having seen it attempted 3X now I simply don't believe it's possiple. The effects DEFINITELY aren't FR issues. I believe when one amp in a particular system makes the singers sound further back (not quieter) and another amp in that same system makes the singers sound closer to the front (not louder) then one of those 2 amps is replicating the sonic effects of the music as recorded by the audio engineer more accurately than the other is, period. The rub lies in attempting discover which of the two amps is being more faithful to the music as recorded by the engineer in this case. In the long run I suppose we'll never know which amp is actually more accurate in this case, so for me all else being equal I'll go with the deeper, wider soundstage!
Thetubeguy1954
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
