Speaker Imaging - Do you hear a line, or do you hear an arc??
Hi Everyone,
I am not trolling, I genuinely am interested in your experiences.
When listening to a system you feel images well, how do you perceive the sound stage? Do you perceive it as a rectangular space on which the speakers sit, or does it sound like an arc, going further back towards the middle?
Please give examples with music and speakers if you have the time.
Depends on the recording. The Boult recording of The Planets on EMI contains enormous depth, the tympani, snare drum, and triangle sounding much further away than the wall behind my planars. Way, way, way at the back of the orchestra, up on risers (line-source loudspeakers do height well).
The closely-mic'ed voices, acoustic guitars, dobro, mandolin, fiddle, and upright bass on Bluegrass albums sound right in front of me---reach out and touch 'em, as they should. Most Pop albums sound artificially-created, as they should. Plate reverb trails in the channel opposite the voice or instrument! "Imagining" on most Rock recordings is absolutely contrived; each sound is on a separate channel, a stereo pan-pot used to place the sound somewhere between hard-left and hard-right. Reverb is also used to create the illusion of depth.
How can a recording contain depth, true imaging---a soundstage, when there was none to begin with, and the mics are mere inches away from the instruments? Back to mono! ;-)
Of course, as is the case with every aspect of stereo reproduction/quality, everything depends on the recording(GIGO). Then too; there’s a wide variety of microphone techniques, not to mention live, studio, and other variables. The following provide tests, with which one may determine whether their system actually images, or reproduces a soundstage, as recorded/intended. ie: On the Chesky sampler/test CD; David explains in detail, his position on the stage and distance from the mics, as he strikes a tambourine(Depth Test). The LEDR test tells what to expect, if your system performs well, before each segment. The Chesky CD contains a number of tests, in addition to the LEDR. Digital download verson: (https://cheskyrecords.bandcamp.com/album/chesky-records-jazz-sampler-audiophile-test-vol-1 ) The CD version, of the Chesky Jazz Sampler, Vol 1: (https://www.amazon.com/Chesky-Records-Sampler-Audiophile-Compact/dp/B000003GF3) An online resource: (https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php ) BTW; The shape of your ears’ pinnae is also a variable, regarding your ability to perceive images/locate sounds. An old article, from Stereophile, regarding the LEDR test: (https://www.stereophile.com/features/772/index.html ) That article also mentions some other possible impediments, to a system’s imaging abilities. Of course; all that’s only for those interested in finding out, if their systems(and/or ears/brains) are up to the task, given a recording that contains the info. These articles may interest some: (https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1286awsi/index.html) & (https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/390awsi/index.html) btw: With my setup, I hear no line or arc. Just whatever’s on the recording. On the good ones; I’m there.
Knowing how a full orchestra is conventionally seated on stage, I think we subliminally project that shape, higher and curved at the back, straight across the front, angling out at the sides, on to the cues coming from the recording. Note also, when a sound seems to be coming from farthest away, it’s pretty much always centrally located (center back).
Depending on how my speakers are set up I either have a shallow arc or one that extends beyond the wall outside.The latter is if the speakers are on the floor instead of stands and I sit on the floor in the sweet spot.I'm guessing it has to do with the large windows being at ear level or not,or bounce from the ceiling even.
Aside from obvious caveats about the recording, I'd say generally:
One of the ways I know a speaker is really imaging well and "disappearing" as a sound source, is when the soundstaging and imaging can remain deep from the center out to the speakers. In other words: not an arc with all the depth in the middle.
I think any pair speaker set up in the usual triangle will give you centralized images between the speakers and with some depth.The trick is to get that depth happening at the location of the speakers too. Intuitively (and not being a speaker designer myself), my sense is that speakers that have some combination of resonances/deviations/colorations can draw sonic attention to the speaker, so that instruments to the sides of the soundstage can feel more "stuck in the speaker" because you are hearing the speaker. Hence you get that arc with depth in the middle but images pulled forwards to the speaker location to the side.
As I say, when a speaker truly disappears as a sound source, there isn't a sense of instruments stuck in the speakers to the sides, the depth can go way back evenly from side to side. (My Thiel 3.7 speakers were particularly spectacular at this, my Spendor S3/5s, my Waveform Mach MC monitors, and of course my MBL omnis all do this well).
The dog barking on Stereophile test disc 1 sounds well outside and to the rear of my speakers (diagonally back and away, pretty much into the front corners of the room). I suppose that counts...
In nearfield listening, dependent of the mikes engineering process on the audio record, image is between my speakers with a depth that extend beyond the wall (my speakers are at 10 inches of a wall with one almost touching a column(not ideal)...In regular distance listening the image float forward and with a depth, and sometimes sit at the exterior of the speakers and not only forward toward me...the rules is simple: speakers must disappear behind 3-d music...Then, nor a line neither an arc, but a 3-d sphere for each instrument in an all enveloping sphere behind my wall...
With my headphone the depth also is 3 d with each instrument in his 3-d space...They are so good that I prefer almost listening with them...Normally I prefer speakers to headphones...
Exept for the naturalness of the musical timbre of voices and instrument, I valued more imaging, and 3-d holographic... It takes me 5 trying experiment and purchase with headphones to discover only one to my total satisfaction and it was the one that cost the least money, then beware before buying... I owns 2 Stax. one hidfiman he 400, Akg 340 and AKG 701... My best was for sure the 60 bucks new Fostex TH 7 b...Modified and tweaked it best them all others on almost all counts...
I know now that money dont buy you necessarily the best audiophile system possible for the price, but tweaks will, cleaning methods for resonance, room treatment, controls of noise levels are paramount and imperative with any audio gear at any price, and acoustic controls of the room...
I don't understand the reference to straight line or arc. My sound stage is as random as every recording. Mine is so immersive that i often find myself hitting mute because i feel like i heard something or someone around me . Often i turn my head straight to the side thinking someone else has entered the room.(55’x35’x15’h) Certain program material can lead me to believe i am surrounded with my 2.0 perceived directionality . I’m not a word smith but i know what i mean.
I agree. Not sure about a "line" or an "arc" in an image. What I get is nothing at all like that. I don't hear the speakers at all. What I hear is the soundstage with instruments all over in proper depth / position on state and side-to-side positioning. The soundstage is not located between the speakers but rather is outside of the space between the speakers. Almost everything is behind the line between the speakers except those reproduced sounds that are close to the listening position.
I have observed that sometimes a flattening of the image between or behind the speakers have come from distortion, but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's just the way the music was recorded.
Aside from the numerous variables (all of which have already been mentioned and discussed), optimally, Yes, an "arc" with depth that more-or-less resembles an orchestra, a classical chamber group, a jazz ensemble, folk and Delta blues music. As for rock, it’s so heavily amplified and listened to at such high SPL, I’ve never noticed all that much of a sound stage: just a wall of sound.
a lot of it depends on the recording. I have Lynn Stanley at 45rpm and she is in front of the speakers with the band behind her. Some of my D2D recordings do the same. 45 rpm reissues of The Doors are like being in the studio with them - listen to Jim whispering on Riders on the Storm.
With the SACD Gaucho by Steely Dan, the band is in the living room. Speakers are Martin Logan Clarities, Magnepan DWMs crossed over at 75hz to 2 10's and a 12 in three boxes. I recently put a 1/2 inch lift in the rear of the MLs, brought the soundstage from a 4 to 5 foot height to about 6 foot height now. The MLs are 5 feet from the rear wall and 4 foot from right sidewall. Left speaker side wall is about 18 foot away in the dining area. The MLs are slightly toed in and the DWMs are on the inside.
The goal was clear, coherent sound with decent bass at any volume. I have two musician friends that sit mesmerized by the SACD's presentation. The journey has been long and satisfying.
Speaker Imaging - Do you hear a line, or do you hear an arc??
Mines seen not heard, and if good should be seen as a 3 dimensional picture in front of you, with height, width (even outside the speakers) and depth, in my case 15ft back as I have no wall behind the speakers, or equipment racks between the speakers.
Before room treatment- Definitely an arc. Center image not settled in the center. Little or no depth of soundstage. Images seemed to be easily perceived from left speaker, area between the speakers, and right speaker, ie- the speakers did not "disappear". After room treatment- Front line well established. Sides of soundstage extending beyond the edges of the speakers. Nice depth of stage extending beyond front wall (the wall behind the speakers). Center images well-established, solid and 3-dimensional. Soundstage is now taller, wider, and deeper and appears more of a box instead of an arc. Front of stage either appears in front of speakers, in line with speakers, or behind speakers, depending on recording. All images seem more 3D, more round, less flat. Speakers disappear convincingly. Room treatment on all four walls plus ceiling. Dedicated listening room. Dedicated AC line to room. All gear plugged directly into wall. Speakers are Vandersteen 2Ce Sig IIs. No rack between speakers. No TV in room. Dire Straits and Pink Floyd always sound very well recorded, as do most classical and jazz. Most rock and pop sound surprisingly good now that the room and setup were established for best sound to "play the room".
pretty much what Eric [bdp24] said. System: BiWired Spica TC-50 polyprop recap. Lead shot filled spiked stands. Speakers attach to stands w 4 Isolate It 50 Duro 0.25 x 2.25 circular pads. Kimber 2.5m BiFocal-XL. cd6006, passive LC1, passive XO1. 2x ML 800x w 10kg anti-skating.
Specifics: Test discs never told me anything well recorded program couldn't tell better. Attend plenty of live acoustic music, get the image right for a well recorded large orchestra at full steam in a good hall and everything else is a doddle.
On a well set up system depth should approximate the space, be it hall or digital. It should draw you into the music as if you could walk up on stage.
An excellent set of a wide variety of well recorded material in good halls with a fairly consistent sonic is Louis Frémaux - The Complete Birmingham Years. Of course you have to like French music in English halls.
Note also, when a sound seems to be coming from farthest away, it’s pretty much always centrally located (center back).
IMO, this is a system failure. Back in the 90's, we did tests with 32bit digital processors, adding even or odd harmonics @ the CD 16bit bit 0 level. Even harmonics spread the backstage and push the image back, odd bring the image forward and triangulate it back to a point. The even push back can be solved by speaker placement, the odd triangulation cannot.
Other failings, mostly time coherence, cause the image to be too tall, tilted fore or aft.
IMO, a great many systems AT ANY PRICE are incapable of any semblance of correct imaging because their time coherence is non-existent.
I think it would be difficult to know how your systems is staging without extremely intimate knowledge of the recording. Significant details are needed to know if you are getting an accurate representation. I suppose if you have heard good staging then it exists and if you havent it doesnt.
IMO, most HiFi haven't a clue as to what constitutes an accurate presentation. Lord knows that most shops are incapable of an accurate presentation.
As far as rack and TV, if they are covered and treated to be non-resonant, they do not seem to present much of a problem. IMO, the mains must be forward of the screen and rack
ieales. IMO, most HiFi haven’t a clue as to what constitutes an accurate presentation. Lord knows that most shops are incapable of an accurate presentation.
>>>I heard a system a few days ago that puts everything else to shame. If you could hear what I heard with my ears. Great soundstage has almost nothing to do with brand names. Everything is relative. - A. Einstein
"I think it would be difficult to know how your system is staging without extremely intimate knowledge of the recording." READ the second post in this thread. The tests listed remove all variables, associated with the source(ie: microphone techniques, venues, etc) and provide references, which obviate the need for listener familiarity with the recording. Again: all that’s only for those interested in finding out, if their systems(and/or ears/brains) are up to the task, given a recording that contains the info.
Erik- Thank you for the kind words. Sorry to hear about your lack of a listening room. Especially a shame since you were the first person here to mention any kind of room treatment to me several years ago. You said try hanging some blankets on the walls. Well, I did just that and was amazed at the difference it made. Thus began my quest of focusing on the room more than the gear. My system is very modest but sounds wonderful to me because of the room treatment and meticulous attention to the setup. And thanks again for helping me get better sound than I've ever had before (going way back to the 70s).
Thanks so much for remembering me. I think you are the third person who ever took any of my advice! Getting good sound with minimal effort and cost is a goal I have for myself and like to share. I'm glad I could help you.
I could make things better here, I'm just ... settling. I had plans to donate furniture, and make a lot more space in the living room, turning the stereo around and re-positioning the 5 panels and 2 bass traps.
Unfortunately the Vet's org won't take furniture this big, and most want me to pay to ship to them, so I'm probably going to junk some big pieces as I downsize, and just thinking of that wears me out. :)
I should make it a priority and reward myself with a nice new rack from Butcher Block Acoustics.
I have a pretty big room....10' ceilings....12,000 cubic feet. Speakers are Salk Veracity STs...9' apart and 30" out from the rear wall. No room treatments...lots of glass, ceramic tile, and drywall...with a few area rugs and furniture....normal listening volume around 80db...max peaks of 85db.
As of now, I don't stream...only CDs. Almost never is the soundstage for a whole CD an arc...but almost every CD has at least one song that has lots of depth and could be described as an arc.
Here are just two "arc" examples from some really old CDs...Al Stewart, "On the Border - Live Version" and Steppenwolf, "Hoochie Coochie Man".
Or, a little more recent....Josh Turner, "Long Black Train"
Mostly, I would describe the overall sound as sitting at one of the front tables at a medium size club...you can perceive/recognize depth, width and height and occasionally when the song was mixed with a lot of ambience, it almost seems like immersion.
With a good recording,I would say more like a bubble. Height,width,and depth. Images expanding beyond physical boundaries. That's the stuff that makes me love this hobby.
You’re close, very close. It’s a hemisphere, half a bubble. If it was a sphere we’d hear things below the boundary of the floor. 😬 The soundstage is also defined by the density, transparency, gestalt/organization of the images, solidity of the images and accuracy of the shape of the images. Just when you think you have a good soundstage along comes a guy like my customer no. 1 who has completely REDEFINED what is possible for a soundstage. Everyone else, sadly perhaps, is at least two paradigms behind the power curve.
Very interesting indeed and in my experience, probably true ...If what you said is right, and I think so Geoffkait, the good news is my journey begins....Like you said already... It is a good news because even if I had already a musical 3-d audio system, new improvement will show with experiments and with time... In the meantime I love music like never before...My best to you...
First...THANKS Eric....for so darn many thought provoking threads that you have started!
I agree with the hemisphere/half bubble description. No doubt that often the slightest change in speaker positioning will affect the overall sound...sometimes significantly.
And, the straight line, arc, hemisphere soundstage is maybe most significantly influenced by what the recording engineer did with ambience, echo, reverb and delay....and then how your speakers and room interpret/project what he intended.
For a long time, I was obsessed with the soundstage...but realizing that perfection is probably an illusion in this area, once I had a good stage, I turned my attention to tone...especially piano, drums, horns and voices.
Look into microphone polar patterns. Mic placement is critical (Monk at the Five Spot) puts you in the club (took them two nights to get it right) A good engineer can picture the mix before entering the studio. Width and depth are often discussed - height is often overlooked. Never forget we are listening to the room first - then the speakers. Learn to identify reverb decay times. Roger Waters "Amused to Death" (not the remaster) is a good learning tool. Jethro Tull "Masters" CD contains a few good mixes. Never forget - a phase coherent mono recording played back on two speakers becomes stereo because of room reflections.
Interesting topic & something I once played around with quite extensively.
Oftentimes what we hear is an amalgam of various separately tracked & mixed instruments/voices, not necessarily recorded in the same acoustic space - so the soundstage can be somewhat artificial.
Soundstage depth (could be called an ’arc’) is ’correctly’ represented when the original recording & mastering contains it, speakers are fully time coherent & the room changes very little of what they produce ....In my experience, a very rare occurrence in domestic situations.
I have an accurately time and phase coherent setup in a heavily acoustically treated room. Many recordings do contain a holographic soundstage with considerable depth & most times instruments or voices are layered within that soundstage. Many other (2 channel) recordings sound artificial and ’flat’ to varying degrees and I guess this is just a true representation of the original source.
However; & this is the interesting bit... if I adjust time delay of one channel by varying degrees (DSP), say only 0.2ms (a tiny amount!) then the soundstage changes quite dramatically. Imaging is slightly less precise but the feeling of depth (& now width) increases very noticeably - almost as if in a larger more cavenous space. The ’arc’ becomes deeper & wider.
Playing around with increasing levels of time delay, even between different drivers creates all sorts of phasey ’soundstage’ effects, almost to the point where the whole room becomes an ill defined soundstage - impressively 3D but not natural. I once played part of a live album to a friend where I had deliberately delayed the entire left channel by 1.7ms and he couldn’t believe how we seemed to be inside the venue - diffuse but all around us (something I would never do other than as a demonstration of just what timing incoherence can do).
I concluded that prior to using DSP & room acoustics, much of the ’soundstage’ I used to believe existed was actually a function of the inherent inaccuracies created by the system/speakers & room. Often impressive but actually rather artificial.
With my system as it is now, I accept that what I hear is a truer representation of the original even if that means some recordings are no longer flattered by various phase and timing effects.
However; & this is the interesting bit... if I adjust time delay of one channel by varying degrees (DSP), say only 0.2ms (a tiny amount!) then the soundstage changes quite dramatically.
poppycock. Time delay will shift the image to one side.
yes, but the listener does not move so all the room reflections are also time displaced. If one moves their seat, reflection times change as well.
IMO, this helps account for the popularity of the egregiously awful compact cassette among retrophiles. A head misalignment of 0.375 thou. introduces a channel time delay of 0.2ms
OOPS, Just saw the last sentence: B&W 803's with 10" subs underneath, time aligned placement, slightly sunken room open to main room, with identical amps driving all four speakers with separate, identical preamps on, shall we choose, Rosie O'Grady's Direct to Disc (Aphex enhanced of all weird things), "Good Times Jazz Band", a late 1970's recording by the large house band at Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Emporium in Orlando. This recording has everything from a triangle intro on "Japanese Sandman" to a romping tuba extended solo on "When You're Smiling". (All Audire electronics including head amp, 125/250/400 (8,4,2 ohms) wpc x 4, with an often used Hafler amp and preamp, for comparison.)
A fair number of LPs/CDs contain a photo of the group/orchestra playing while being recorded.
When listening to the recording, have you been able to correlated what you hear with what you see? Does what you see affect, consciously or subliminally, what you hear?
I definitely experience a 3D arc soundstage from a lot of recordings, with some elements of the recordings projecting as far as 15ft behind the speakers. Something I have noticed with a lot of recordings is that the vocals are placed further back than the instruments. It sounds impressive but not always as I think it should sound. This could simply be a common ‘style’ of recording, but I think it might be less apparent if my listening position was further away from the speakers. Unfortunately, the constraints of my room means my listening position can only be 7ft away from the speakers.
A fair number of LPs/CDs contain a photo of the group/orchestra playing while being recorded. When listening to the recording, have you been able to correlated what you hear with what you see?
Only valid if the recording is mic'd stereo. If the session has several microphones, all bets are off there is any correlation, but some multi-mic sessions could be correctly panned and mixed to reflect player positions.
Mic-per-chair orchestra recordings don't usually image well and suffer the additional defect of 'strolling' wherein the perspective changes when a player or section is featured.
While I agree with the room and speaker placement within it doesn't explain the differences in imaging from different speakers placed in the same place. The revel salon 2's were the most particular in my room, imaging was always recording dependent, but the soundstage was elusive with them. the big ushers imaged wide and deep but very little height. the revel f52 were the most intimate imaging speakers i've ever had in this room placing singers and instruments solidly in space while capturing panning effects intensely. There's been several quality speakers down here with their own personality, the current residents manage to erase the walls and put me in the middle of the performance. Roger waters, amused to death for example the phase thing had different results with each speaker. A speakers ability to capture my imagination and allow me to create the image can hide many other shortcomings and I don't know if there's a measurement for it yet.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
