First the soundstage and imageing on most recordings is totally artificial. It is added during the mixdown. The correct size of the soundstage is very difficult to determine. You would have to start by knowing what's on the recording. In my old listening room, on some recordings it went in width from about 1-1/2 feet out side of each speaker (About 10 feet between speakers), in depth from about 2 feet in front of the speakers to about 5 feet behind, in height from ceilling to floor (Dunlavy's all give a high soundstage). The room has a LOT to do with the soundstage and imageing. From my experience, good soundstage and images are found in equipment with high accuracy and excellent detail. |
Using room treatments correctly, you should be able to hear information from EVERY direction, if it's in the recording. With most pop recordings, (that have little depth, and are "panned" mono music from a 128 channel console, with digitally synthesized 3 dimensional ambience, if you're lucky), IT GENERALLY STARTS FROM THE FRONT OF THE SPEAKERS, AND WIDTH GOES A LITTLE OUTSIDE THEIR LATERAL SPACING. Height should present instruments/singers with the proper "size" and height dimension. Sometimes their head can be several feet in diameter, with ultra-close miking and dynamic compression/limiting. THE BEST AUDIOPHILE RECORDINGS SHOULD IDEALLY TAKE YOU TO THE PERFORMANCE (at the microphones' position, period..."like being there". |
To me the common emphasis on soundstage highlights one of the conundrums we face in audio. Do we seek to improve our systems down a path where at each step we find ourselves enjoying the music more and more? Or do we choose a path that takes us closer to the real thing? At first glance it might be argued that these should be the same paths. In practise I fear they are not. The first path is highly subjective and can lead us down alley-ways that may seem musical at first listen, but irritating in the longer term. Yet musical enjoyment is something we must surely seek to maintain or improve on at each step. The second path is less subjective, but unless we were present at the original recording, is difficult to judge. The second path also suffers from being unattainable (being a realist). It seems to me that soundstage fits the second path rather better than the first. If the reproduced soundstage is more like the original venue then we can more easily imagine ourselves at the original event (not to mention we must be getting closer to the absolute sound). But improvements in soundstage do not, from my experience, automatically or even very often spell more musical enjoyment. The answer falls somewhere between the extremes (as always). But I believe there is too much hype about soundstage and I do not focus much on soundstage when evaluating new equipment. |
the ideal soundstage is that which existed in the original recording venue if properly captured by the recordist...most stereo recordings have have some of htis data and will give osme kind of imaging. all the dimensions noted can come back---including the vertical one. on the minnie ripperton perfect angel album, on the song 'loving you' there are birds up in a tree. on a good system, they are UP in the tree. on the organ performance of pictures at an exhibition an musical heritage LP, the high pipes are just that like they are in a real pipe organ.(not my fave perf here but the effect is there). milli224 is right about 'amused to death', i was lucky enuf to score vinyl of this when hobson and tan had pacific vinyl(a mail order service before classic records existed). on the vewrtical note, the helicopters in 'the wall' are overhead. the quadaptor is something ive used since the 70s. i now have the 5ch model, i dont use the center for music but do for video. shack min7s in back, mirage ctr in fc, malibu lighting wire (16ga, good insul.) for rear and ctr, kinber 8tc direct from adcom 555II to l+r main spks, all other chnls from quadaptor. i dont worry about ohmage with th adcom, remeber the apogee diva was 1 ohm and successfully by the 555II back in the day? live recordings such as dire sts 'on the night' are spectacular this way. overall, dyna imaging is sometimes diffuse but so is live music if youre honest about it. however, some imaging seems locked in such as stravinsky's petrushka by boulez on columbia (now avail on cd coupled w/rite), my fave trushka by the way. i have a new in the box 5ch quadaptor if someones interested. hifitommy@aol |
I have a Chesky Ultimate Demonstration CD that has commentary between the tracks to tell you about the recordings and the sound. Very helpful for this kind of analysis. |
About sound stage: The bigger, the better. Can you see the musicians? Do you feel like you are in a different room? Does the sound appear to be coming from the speakers, or from invisible musicians? |
Thanks, Fotopres, and you would be right about the Ohm Walsh speakers and ambience, but they sit in a large and pretty dead room. I don't think that two speakers are enough in such a sound swallowing place. Digital processing didn't somehow feel right, but old Dynaquad usually does the job, and it's my favorite word, cheap. The Spendors work fine for ambience, though their sound is not as effortlessly "soundstagy" as the Ohm Walsh or the Spicas that I have. |
Answer to GregP: The Dynaquad has a pair of 10-watt 2-ohm resistors (I can't remember, maybe you should open up the box and look) that go into parallel for the "null" position of the front switch, and then bridged with the rear speakers in the quad position. In any case, you're looking at less than 3 ohms. If the amp doesn't get too uncomfortably warm to touch, it's OK, you have over 220 watts at that impedence. But why bother? The Walsh driver creates it's own ambient surrounding, why degredate the sound by using the never-were-too-good Splendors? I would put all the power to the front and turn it up 3 dB! |
I've forgotten how to figure out the impedence for the old Dynaquad adaptor. I'm using Ohm Walsh 2 speakers (4ohms) in front and old Spendor 8ohms in the back. Talk about soundstaging, but I've wondered what kind of load this is putting on my B&K ST1400 amp. It seems to be working without any problems. |
<< I have heard a lot (from sale people) about sound staging, so I would like some in put from all members of this NG. >>What is an IDEAL sound stage? DEPTH( from the front of the speakers), WIDE(extented from speakers), HEIGHT(from the floor)<<. Any inputs will be Appreciated.. Another trick used to create "Soundstage effects" is Binaural Recordings. This is a lot better through headphones but with two highly resolving speakers, sounds will come at you from everywhere. These are expensive (relatively speaking) recordings. CD's cost between $15.00 and $40.00 EACH. But if you hear a really excellent recording, you would gladly part with a $100. if they had cost that much. >> |
<< I have heard a lot (from sale people) about sound staging, so I would like some in put from all members of this NG. >>What is an IDEAL sound stage? DEPTH( from the front of the speakers), WIDE(extented from speakers), HEIGHT(from the floor)<<. Any inputs will be Appreciated.. >> |
<< I have heard a lot (from sale people) about sound staging, so I would like some in put from all members of this NG. >>What is an IDEAL sound stage? DEPTH( from the front of the speakers), WIDE(extented from speakers), HEIGHT(from the floor)<<. Any inputs will be Appreciated.. >> |
Yep it is those sales persons again.. most commonly they mean to to say that you can hear the surroundings of the musicians, or at least the effect on the sound it has had.sound that comes loose from the speakers .. as always: close eyes and try to picture the setup, does it tally ???? not a jazzclub turned into a cathedral and vice versa.. |
I'm sure that the hardware used (especially the speakers) have an effect on the soundstage, however the overall soundstage is much more dependent on the source recording ie the CD being played. For the best example of sounstaging I have ever heard try "Amused to Death" by Roger Waters. Get the version recorded with "Q-Sound" which is a special recording process which intentionally makes music and sound effects appear to come from various places in the listening room. I don't know how it's done but if your speakers are positioned properly and you sit facing them in the "sweet spot", sounds seem to come from everywhere in the room (crickets surround you, TV's are heard directly to your left, a horse trots from about 10 ft to the left of the left speaker goes through the speakers then fades off to the far right of the right speaker, some sounds even come from the ceiling of the room). It is an incredible listenig experience which will have you listening over and over again to convince yourself of what you think you heard. The point of all this is that your speakers are not as important as 1)the recording 2)positioning of the speakers and 3)your position relative to the speakers. Hope this helps. Rick M. |
