Soundstage depth and width

The recording chain/venue/pedigree all sound superb. I'd be very interested in hearing the results of all that preparation and care, after subjected to 16/44 digital processing. I'll be seaching for the disc. Thanks for the tip!

Gentlemen, if you are looking for a redbook cd of well reproduced solo piano, try to find Wilson Audio WCD-9129, Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3 in B Minor, Op. 58 (and other shorter works), performed by Hyperion Knight. I think you would be amazed. It is long out of print, though, and hard to find.

Of course, it wasn't exactly produced and engineered in typical fashion. Some excerpts from the technical notes provided with this 1991(!) cd:

The recorded perspective of the piano in this recording is close, as though the 9' Hamburg Steinway in being played for you in your living room. Of course the actual recording was not made in a living room! Instead, the great room of Lucasfilm's Skywalker Ranch, with its incredibly low noise floor and fully adjustable acoustics, was used.... A pair of Sennheiser MKH-20 omni microphones were employed ... amplified by two superb pure class-A microphone preamps custom-built for Wilson Audio by John Curl. MIT cable carried the balanced line level signal to Wilson Audio's Ultramaster 30 ips analog recorder. Subsequent digital master tapes were made through the Pygmy A/D converter on a Panasonic SV-3700.

Regards,
-- Al

YEP! I missed the, "on a CD" part of his question. The discs I mentioned are all vinyls. Redbook CDs just don't capture the piano's dynamics. I don't have any piano on HDCD or XRCD, to compare with vinyl, but suspect those formats would come closer in realism. Done well, they do with every other instrument/voice. There again; everything depends on the care taken/technics used during the recording session, mastering and stamping/pressing processes. A plethora of variables and opportunities for sound/ambience info to be lost(regardless of format).

I think Mr T was asking why vinyl can capture piano better than CD (digital?).
I have never heard a piano convincingly portrayed on CD yet I have at least 4 or 5 records which create a remarkable illusion?

It's hard to properly mic a piano, given it's size/shape(the various sound propagation points), and the instrument's dynamic range. Move around a piano, and the sound changes quite a bit. A stereo pair, inside/facing L/R, reative to Middle C works well(but is not realistic, regarding sound stage) It's difficult to get the instrument's dynamic range, without some amount of compression, and we know what that does to music. I've heard some really nice piano, captured on Diana Krall's discs. You can actually picture the position of her head(voice) relative to the piano(she does get emotive, when performing), where her hands are, on the keyboard(L to R), and her foot, working the Soft, Sostenuto
and Sustain pedals(all part of, "being there"- KUDOS to the man on the mixer). One of my favorites is Christine McVie's, 'Songbird', recorded at Zellerback Auditorium(UC Berkley). Nothing but her voice, piano, simple guitar accompaniment, and a nice sense of the acoustic(rendered beautifully on the Nautilus, 'Rumours' disc).

it is eaier to record ansmall ensemble than a large orchestra, if one desires to create a semblance of reality.

in fact, as i have recounted, i was present at a demonstartion that compared live vs a microphone feed.

the group was misty river. the venue was the san remo hotel in las vegas. the comparison revealed small differences . i was suprised that the the differences were as small as i heard.

some of you who write on this forum may have been present at this event.

so it is possible to narrow the differences between the sound of live music and recordings, under certain conditions.

i will leave you with this question ?

why is it so hard to recreate the sound of a piano on a cd ?

Yeah, forget about big orchestras. They are too much even for a big concert hall in the first place let alone re-create that.

Hello Mr M- It's been years, since I've listened to my philharmonic recordings. When I did, I did not expect to recreate an illusion of reality(the dynamics and scope of an orchestra being what it is). Acoustic Jazz, Blues and (in whatever genres one might place) pieces like from, 'Dead Can Dance' or WaterLily's recordings, are much more manageable to capture and reproduce, with regards to sound stage and venue ambience.

hi rodman:

i agree that microphone selection and placement can create the illusion of depth and width.

the aforementioned sensation is probably not the same as the experience of listening to a symphony orchestra.

depending upon seat location, the perception of distance will vary , but sounds different from that which a stereo system can produce.

the microphone placement is also different from one's listening position in a concert hall.

it is hard to create the natural sound of an orchestra from a recording in most listening rooms.

After I got my Salk SoundScape speakers, I notice that the sound sometimes will spill out into the room. Maybe it is the good dispersion of the speakers but I don’t really know. The back of the midrange chamber is held on with magnets and when removed greatly increases the depth of the soundstage. How that happens, I don’t know either.

Bob

Mr M- IF you are interested in educating yourself; you might CAREFULLY study this article: (http://www.deltamedia.com/resource/stereo_microphone_techniques.html) Proper microphone technics CAN & WILL capture hall ambience and sound stage info. A properly set up, resolving sound system WILL reproduce that info. The majority of recordings are not done with those attributes as a goal, however.

soundstage width and depth are mostly illusions. they are artifacts of a recording.

Wow what a smart thread!!

Hello Ben- The Chesky Jazz Sampler/Test CDs are available widely, ie:( http://music.barnesandnoble.com/Chesky-Records-Jazz-Sampler-Audiophile-Test-Compact-Disc-Vol-1/e/90368003720 ) ( http://www.amazon.com/Chesky-Records-Sampler-Audiophile-Compact/dp/B000003GF3/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310598315&sr=8-1 ) or, from Chesky themselves(click on, "Test Discs", in, "show all categories" drop down menu): ( http://chesky.com/core/productlist.cfm?productcategoryid=1&genre_sysid=10016&name=Test Discs ) Vol #1 has the LEDR test on it.

Rodman:

Thanks for the posts. I'm interested in the LEDR test CD. The article that you linked to was from 1989. Where would once obtain the LEDR CD today?

THanks.

_Ben

Further- This test CD(Chesky's 2nd) contains more involved image depth, height and specificity tests( http://hiendaudioshop.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/best-of-chesky-jazz-and-more-audiophile-tests-vol-2-m46/ ) Both CDs are valuable tools, if one is interested in tuning their room/system for best imaging and sound staging.

The LEDR test mentioned in this article( http://www.stereophile.com/features/772/ ) basically DOES what (out to)Launche requires of a referenced sound stage. If your system resolves what the test's parameters describe; it will also resolve whatever ambient/sound staging info exists on your recordings(as far as CDs are concerned). Your other SOURCES, of course, are not in the chain, during the test(YMMV through them).

On a serious economic note; if top of the line Radio Shack was all I had, that's all I would have until things change. Good music sounds good on top of the line Radio Shack, and bad music sounds bad on top of the line high end.

Thats a good one , "top of the line Radio Shack " didn't no they had more than one line .

Your new speakers have gotten some fantastic reviews, and they are at a real world price; enjoy.

I just received a pair of brand spanking new Tekton Lores last Wednesday...

I loved the Arros' I had back in '06 (most holographic image ever, as I've stated), the Cicada's I had shortly there after (for piano and acoustic guitar I didn't think they could be bettered), the swan Diva 2.1 SE's a couple years later (an amazing monitor that will - I'm confident - challenge many floor-standers), and the Klipsch SB1's (they amazed me with what a $200 pair of speakers could sound like...so, pardon my aside hi-five in Klipsch's general direction).

The Lores are really the most satisfying speaker I've heard yet (see the Zu's vs. Lores thread - I really don't go into much detail, but you'll get the idea, as vague as it might be for some): They create such a huge, dynamic sound that is simply undeniably, well, satisfying. I would imagine there's still plenty of time they need to get broken into real submission, but as it stands, they're spanning an extremely wide frequency range for a speaker of this size, creating some of the most impressive bass I've heard, and conveying an image that is - quite seemingly - getting ever so broader by the day.

On that note, I must also give a hi-five in the general direction of Eric @ Tekton for creating a genuinely great product at a - thank gosh - real world price.

Ballywho, what kind of speakers do you have now? I've been able to turn "midfi" speakers into something close to high end by upgrading the capacitors in the crossover. If you can solder there are ways to upgrade what you have.

Geeze, Ballywho, when you put it that way, I feel really creepy (especially about the "secret money"). But, like you said..."oh well!"

If money and time weren't an issue - and I mean a complete non-issue - I think we would all be quite content with spending countless hours and dollars tooling with this, that and the other to bring our favorite music closer and closer to whatever each of us considers "perfection"... But since that's not the case, at least for most of us (I would guess), the process can be a rather demoralizing one, where time and money that should really be spent elsewhere is spent pacing around amongst wires and objects, moving this here and that there and saving "secret money" - you know who you are (uhem, me too) - for that "last component."

But, oh well. :)

Audiophile wannabe…?

I don’t think anyone in their right mind “wants to be” an audiophile. It’s a damn obsessive curse!!

Ebm – LOL! I like your style!
Rrog – too funny!

Cheers!

Face,
Precisely.

Orpheus10,
To me it's a serious piece of equipment, but to others I'm sure it's just an old integrated, riddled with "design flaws." I've never heard these flaws, but have read all about them. Damn haters. ;)

The room is the most important, you can have the best gear, best speakers, and still have a poor sounding setup without a well set up listening room.

I was just kidding, you can hang out with the "big boys".

On a serious note, it's unfortunate most of those places where you could audition high end equipment are no longer around. Although the equipment on Agon is a lot less, knowing what to buy is a problem. The only option is to read and experiment. Since you can easily sell it back, I guess the cost of shipping is the overhead.

Ballywho, that Audio Innovations 500 sounds like a serious piece of equipment. I bought Mullard 6922's and they didn't justify the cost. Shuguang 12AX7's are very good and not expensive. I like your power tubes.

It takes a long time for newbies to realize how important the amp is to the soundstage and since the sound comes out of the speakers, it's speakers, speakers, speakers. Unfortunately there's nowhere they can hear how each component contributes to the whole, I understand this. Regardless what stage we are in as audiophile's, we all share a common love of the music.

Let me add that when I say "spilling out into the room" doesn't really qualify to me as "depth," per se. It does, however, jibe with what I call "full-bodied." In my experience, getting the sound to "appear" as if it's coming from behind the speakers is the biggest challenge, but then again I might be able to better achieve such a thing if I had a large enough and better acoustically treated (or treated at all, I should say) room.

I'm using an Audio Innovations Series 500 integrated, fitted with Genalex Gold Lion KT77's, 6922's (phase inverters), and 12AX7's (one line driver, and the other two for the phono stage).

I place a lot of importance on the '500. All the other integrateds I've owned over the years just couldn't achieve what this one does, particularly with regard to what I would call a "full-bodied" sound; and since we're talking about depth I would say that this is the only one that made good recordings sound as if they were spilling out into the room, rather than just laying flat, as if painted on the wall.

Orpheus10, Audiophile wannabe? My stereo equipment is all top of the line Radio Shack, but if you insist I will go hang out in stereo stores until I can come back to this forum on your level.

My my, aren't we full of ourselves !!!!!

Rrog, it's apparent you are an "audiophile wannabe". This is a serious "audiophile discussion", come back when you're qualified.

Orpheus10, You are right. You do sound like a "know it all".

Rrog, I've spent much time in many bistro's listening to many of the same people I have on records, and if you think you can reproduce that at home, you must be in a different universe.

Ballywho, what pre and amp were you using, and how much importance did you place on them in regard to the deep soundstage?

Launche, You give Stereophile and Sam Tellig way too much credit if you think they could possibly perform such a feat. Keep in mind reviewers are just people like you and I playing around with stereo equipment except their perspective is skewed by advertising dollars.

Rrog,

Inna's thread is titled "soundstage depth and width." My take on "soundstage width" is sound that extends outside the stance of the speakers... "Soundstage depth," then, would be the other axis, if you will, of the stereo image: that which extends both out into the room and beyond the rear.

And no, I most certainly do not get the illusion of depth on all recordings. The Jethro Tull "Aqualung Live" album that I bring up in another thread, for example, has a very spacial (deep and wide) quality to it, whereas the vast majority of my The Smiths bootlegs have relatively zero sense of depth (as you can imagine).

Reference level sound staging and imaging is something so elusive, so condition specific and subjective that it is something I personally have stopped trying to achieve. Much of it appears to be a recording artifact and a playback artifact that I think varies more from system to system than probably any other aspect.

It may exist but I have not yet seen a reference sound stage and imaging recording list. For X recording this is the appropriate sound stage and image. I would hazard to say they don't exist or surely in a very limited capacity. Maybe a Stereophile mapping track would be the closest thing I've heard.

Surely there should be some more concrete way of defining and achieving proper sound staging and imaging. Maybe Sam Telig going through a complete mapping process from a known reference. "This image should appear 5 feet directly behind your left loudspeaker and 5 ft from the floor, this imagine should appear 5 ft behind your left loudspeaker, 1 foot inside your left loudspeaker and 5 ft from the floor. This image should appear 20 feet behind your left loudspeaker, 3 feet inside your left loudspeaker and 7 feet off the floor etc... That process would continue along a grid and map out and entire virtual sound stage. The same measurable and repeatable method as is done with test tones and such. Until we have a known reference like that I don't think I will overly concern myself with sound staging and imaging beyond a reasonable degree.

Ballywho, Are you referring to depth or a recessed soundstage? There is a difference. If you think your system has depth because the performers sound like they have moved beyond the wall behind your speakers you are mistaken. It is still a flat sound stage.

I guess we should define what depth in a stereo system is.

Do you get the illusion of depth on all recordings? If you do, it is most likely an effect manufactured by your system and its set up. All recordings present a different perspective on width and depth and your system should give an accurate representation of each recording.

Our best reference for recorded music is a live acoustic performance. Not listening to equipment in stereo stores until your wife thinks you are seeing another woman.

Let me add that my use of the term "hobby" is used solely with regard to the equipment involved. I, by no means, consider listening to music a hobby, but rather - at least for me - a necessity of life and one of endless enjoyment, regardless of said equipment involved.

It would be my preference to not be able to identify the speakers: I would like to not be able to point at either one of them and think, "The sound is coming from right there." That being said, width would give the illusion that the sound is coming from somewhere outside the stance of the speakers, and hence the speakers would "disappear."

Depth, however, would be the neatest and most fascinating thing for me to hear, the sound going beyond the back wall and, in my case, outside the house. I experienced this to some extent with a pair of Totem Arros I had some time back. The speakers just plain vanished, and I was left with a sound stage that went well beyond the outside of the speakers' stance and also created an image with a fair amount of depth. If I could ever get a real sense of deep, uh, depth, I would probably stop in my tracks with this hobby (to some extent). That "the musician is in the room" feeling that only depth, in my opinion, can create, would be a pinnacle of achievement in this hobby.

Say what??

There are times when I sound like a "know it all audiophile". There is a reason for this. 25 years ago, there were three well stocked "high end emporiums" in my area. I spent so much time auditioning, that my wife swore I was seeing another women.

One of the emporiums had seating like a small theater, and you could make yourself comfortable while listening to what the customers were auditioning. Each time they changed components, the new lineup was announced. I recall top of the line ARC and Thiel speakers that reproduced a sound-stage so realistic, that I wanted to walk up and kiss Carmen McRae. Someone came in and requested a Rotel amp; that's when it fell apart, although the other expensive components remained. That opportunity to hear so many different combinations of equipment is why I sound like a "know it all".

Music was my passion before I owned one single solitary record. My first record player was a "one box deal", and I enjoyed the music immensely; that's why I can agree with everyone, to some extent.

Enjoy the music.

Ebm, thank you for reminding us what you have. But what do you think of what we are talking about?
Mrtennis, you are alone here, with the dictionary. Perhaps you just don't quite understand the concept or simply need to remain argumentative.
Orpheus10, not to disagree with you, but I think you are a little too categorical in your statement. Highest achievements are difficult to reach in every component of music reproduction. But you might be right, I don't know.

Sound depth and width are important, but somewhat over emphasized by most audiophiles. Tonal accuracy and rhythmic command are far more important. Mono source material can be audiophile quality. Additionally, if depth and width were of paramount importance, then most audiophiles would be using systems with more than two channels since these multi-channel system can more accurately reproduce these effects.

Each sound was produced in space, and I consider it an audiophiles highest achievement to reproduce that element of space on playback.

here is a definition of music derived from freedictionary.com/music:

"the art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a conhtinuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm and timbre".

note its sound in time not sound in place that is part of the definition. the location of the music is not part of the definition, so depth and width are artifacts. they constitute perspective when listening to music, they are not included in the definition of music.

I have MAGICO MINI 2 sounstage and depth are wonderful imaging great as well.

I consider "the rest" to be a refinement in speaker wire and interconnects. If you compare this to cleaning a window that you thought was clean, you will get the feel of where I'm coming from.

Some go by the name of the wire or interconnect, I prefer what % of silver or OFC copper and kind of strands. For example I like fine strands of heavy gage OFC copper for low frequencies, copper and silver for midrange; and silver for the high's. Interconnects should be copper silver composite since they must accommodate both extremes. I roll my own and use silver solder, this guarantees quality construction.