Is soundstage just a distortion?

Good gear alone does not assure a wide sound stage. Room acoustics, setup and listening position are big parts of the equation. Plus sound stage will vary naturally recording to recording.

In my system, with later generation pseudo-omni OHM Walsh speakers running, digital/analog source does not matter for soundstage. Its purely a function of the recording.

Most decent to good or better quality recordings have wall to wall soundstage, often many feet out beyond speakers.

The sound emitted from the speakers fills the area immediately in front of and well behind the speakers. Actual location of speakers cannot be determined with eyes closed. Its more like the performers are on stage in front of you. Mono recordings even take on a presentation much like if the actual performers were sitting front and square in front of you but with a naturalness to the acoustics that makes it sound more like a live performance than a recording.

The OHMs are exceptional in this area, when set up well. WIth right amp, dynamics are top notch as well to boot, no fuzziness or other effects often associated with large soundstage due to phase artifacts occur.

Other good omnidirectional speakers I have heard, like mbl, also tend to do exceptionally well in the soundstage area, however the presentation is so different from what might be used to otherwise with more conventional dynamic speaker designs that some will take to it and never look back while others may never take the plunge.

"This is a major reason why so many recordings and orchestras sound more and more the same in this day and age - not only are players all over the world sounding more and more the same, and regional differences are being lost, the recordings themselves contribute to this sameness by the way they are miked and edited and mixed. "

Hadn't thought about that but rings true.

Does it matter?

I tend to think whenever everything starts to sound the same it does, but most people probably would not care.

The flip side is there are more recordings out there than ever each day, so the variety is still going up even if many newer ones tend to have more similarities due to production than in the past.

Also I suppose the fact that much litening to music occurs on portable devices using earphones has a major effect on the way recordings as a whole are produced. Gotta be a very small % of listeners out there who care about soundstage and have the tools to actually get it.

The good news is that most all recordings these days can have a big soundstage when played if desired, even if in many or most cases it is mainly a result of the production as opposed to anything resembling an original live performance.

Its a lifelike illusion of the players performing in YOUR room which is different than where recorded regardless. That's all one can expect and mostly what matters to me.

Having said that, I am a big fan of recordings that DO attempt to reproduce original live performance soundstage, Like old MErcury recordings from teh late50's and early 60's, and some current niche labels like Mapleshade and Dorian.

I have one old Mercury Perfect Presence lp where the liner notes and graphics provide exact detail on performer's locations on stage during recording, the goal for the recording being to reproduce that, and for the listener to have a clear reference for how well the mission was accomplished. Very cool! That makes that particular lp very special and useful as a reference recording for soundstage and imaging.

The question about soundstage height is a good one.

I am pretty sure this is more attributable to the playback system and room acoustics than how the source is recorded in that I do not think two channel stereo format is suitable for capturing height dimension as opposed to width and depth.

I think that relative vertical location of drivers in the speaker system is a factor. Tweeters tend to be mounted higher and high frequencies are more directional so those frequencies might tend to be perceived as coming from higher location than others, for example. OF course, room acoustics and distance from listening position to speakers would be a factor as well.

In general I am a fan of speaker designs that tend to have drivers closely spaced, that emulate a point source as much as possible especially in smaller or most typical listening rooms. Larger rooms where listening occurs from more of a distance will be more forgiving.

Al,

Are you able to rule out the room acoustics in your tests as a factor?

That would seem to be a logical explanation for hearing different test tone frequencies at different heights. Anything about your room's acoustics that might account for it? How about more sound absorbent carpeting and obstructive/reflective room furnishings on floor combined with a more reflective and unobstructed ceiling region?

Maybe listening with headphones would be a good test to see if hearing alone produces the effect?

Or an SPL meter reading up high and down low might help confirm if top of the room is more "lively" than the "bottom" and if that might help account for things. I suspect that is often the case in many peoples rooms, but have nothing to prove it.

"I would assume that the acoustic effects of the pinnae (the part of the ear that is outside of the head) are a major contributor to the effect I described. "

I see. Could be the shape of the ear is a factor, larger area above to gather more higher frequency sound, less below.

Cupping the hands behind the ear is the best free tweak, after all. Maybe try that as a test with the tones and see?

If the room is lively, and a warble tone is used, I could see where reflected sound could be a factor, perhaps enough so for our sensitive ears to pick up on. Hard to say for sure.

PErception of higher frequencies coming from higher up than others is certainly not an unusual phenomena though I would say, whatever the contributing factors.