For me 'better' is simply more defined. The Decca cartridges have the ability to produce very sharply defined point source imaging. Should this be considered artificial because it does not follow general design convention? 30 years ago I bought an Audio Quest cartridge for $75.00 that had no mags or coils but only a tiny circuit board to which the cantilever was attached. This thing was rejected by the audio community as an inferior design. Funny thing is it performed similar to the Decca and one of the best I've ever heard. Ime, cartridges in general produce a relatively vague sound stage. The very reason why their are so many different camps trying to capture a semblance of reality in their systems. Before digital hit the scene, there was not the sharp division between the tube guys and the rest. Interesting. |
If one cartridge can produce an other worldly soundstage compared to another, then obviuosly a cartridge can rearrange the soundstage. It is also not clear what conclusions can be drawn about analog versus digital.
What exactly do people mean when they say a better soundstage? |
I agree with Csontos - analog recording recreates soundstaging quite a bit better than digital recording does. This is one of the main reasons why so many professional musicians still prefer it, and wish that it was still done. As much as digital recording has improved, it is still in the end a mix of way too many different mikes, and the end result, even though it can be altered and controlled and edited so much more easily, is not as natural sounding. |
My London Decca cartridge on OTOH does staging I would describe as 'other worldly' in comparison to any other cartridge or digital I've ever heard. I used to think it was artificial but I can't see a cartridge having the ability to rearrange the sound stage. The only conclusion I can come to is that analog does in fact provide a much more defined and accurate as engineered sound stage. This has been my overall experience. |
Google "Q Sound". Their website has a list of all of their q sound recordings. |
Grab any Q sound encoded source material and you'll Very Clearly see (hear?) that soundstage is not only not a "distortion", but its also not purely a function of your system. If your program material is recorded in a manner that allows dramatic staging, a good system will pass that through in the listening.
Marty
BTW. Q sound isn't necessarily great in any other way, but the stage is dramatic. IIRC, Madonna's Immaculate Collection (Hits) is a Q sound disc |
Soundstage is determined by recording technique. For purist recordings the microphone setup is the determinate. For studio recordings soundstage info is created via electronic processors.
On the reproduction side it is not clear to me that audiophiles are interested in an accurate soundstage reproduction. Wider or deeper seems to be desired whether or not it is warranted. Dipoles, wide dispersion or rear firing tweeters and omnis all overlay additional soundstage info to what is already in the recording.
If your system can provide a reasonable facsimile of the real soundstage info present in a purist recording, it means your system a lot of other things really well. |
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. |
I don't think my componenets are "poorly designed", as I use a rather nice Sim Audio CD player, and have an LP12/Ekos/Arkiv B turntable set up. I don't know whether the point of stereo is to spread the sound outside of between the speakers. I thought it was to create a sound stage as wide as the distance between the speakers, which of course was nothing when dealing with a single speaker in mono reproduction.
None the less, rarely do I get much of anything beyond the speakers unless the speakers are pretty much pointed straight ahead, but then I loose a solid center image.
Notably, the widest soundstage I can get at home sometimes seems to be through a pair of AKG 701's but I know some view their portrayal of soundstage as exeagerated. |
I love your response as well Newbee!, well said!,, LOL!, I cannot say eanything here, The words have already been taken from my mouth!,LOL!,, cheers! |
Very well said audiozen!, I agree whole heartly!,, cheers! |
Note that when you listen to your system 'out of phaase' that while the sound may extend beyond the sides of your speakers that it also looses center image specificity. This is not a 'distortion' as such coming from your system or the recording. Some folks refer to the sound as 'phasy' and in the old days some audio stores (when you had them) intentionally set up some speakers 'out of phase' knowing that it creates the impression of big soundstage which could impress a beginner who would buy, take the speakers home and set them up 'in phase' and then wonder what happened to the big sound he heard at the store.
When your system is 'in phase' you will maximize its ability to produce a holographic soundstage, only limited by its design and set-up.
Unless your recording has some out of phase sounds in it, and many do (often intentionally put there I think for its effect - you get good specificity and the out of phase information makes it appear huge), you should have no sounds appearing outside the space between your speakers (on the plane of the speakers).
FWIW, multichannel sound effects -artificial though they might be, can be had on the cheap by putting 2 small speakers on the rear side walls of your listening room powered by a seperate amp and attenuator out of phase with the main system. I believe they called the a Hafler system. Not all that good really, but a very interesting thing which can be addictive if you are not really all that fussy. The whole room seems more energizied and the sound stage collapses when you turn off the small rear speakers. There have been many, and some very expensive, audio components developed expanding on that simple Hafler thingie.
Hope that helps you understand this subject a bit more. BTW, |
Soundstage is the result of two things- good high frequency response and good phase reproduction (low phase shift). If both are correctly reproduced side information that appears to be beyond the spread of the speakers is normal.
The Soundstage concept is why stereo was created. The original principles were created by Alan Blumlien decades ago.
Roger Water's Amused to Death has extra phase encoding in it that takes advantage of this fact. |
Nope. Soundstage is nothing more than the height, width and depth of the music sound field emanating from the speakers. To get the maximum soundstage is determined by a well executed amplifier design as well as a damn good crossover in the speakers. I don't buy your point that analog results in a better soundtage than digital. That would only be the case if your using a lousy, poorly designed CD player. If all your separates are top notch designs and synchronize perfectly together, then the soundstage should not be an issue. |
|
I could have been clearer- is soundstage extendeding beyond the speakers a product of a distortion? |
The answer to the question is no. |
I don't know if soundstage is a distortion, but I have noticed that usually when a soundstage gets wider, it also gets shallower or more forward. |
