What should you hear?

My go to for recordings of great music and imaging are remastered Blue Note. Here is an example of the very best in remastering of old recordings.
Credit must also be given to the original engineers for their miking and mixing techniques.

Tonal accuracy, proper placement of the musicians and room ambience make these recordings a close representation of a live event.

Mijostyn, 

You name-dropped a bunch of terrific sounding recordings and the music is good as well.  What is striking to me is how good many older recordings sound; it does not seen that recording technology has advanced very far.  When I want to demonstrate how terrific old stereo recording can be, I take out my original issue of Duke Ellington's "Blues in Orbit,"  a recording made in the late 1950's.  

Now you'll be able to tell what silly mastering is performed on some recordings. Several of my favorites are Pianos that stretch the entire sound stage with the low keys on one side and the upper keys on the other. Drummers with 10 foot arms, etc. A great example of an incredible mastering job is Weather Report's Mysterious Travelers. This is one you turn the lights off and lay back.
Next you should start paying attention not just to the side lay out but the depth. Most popular studio recordings are mixed right up front. Sometimes too up front. Live recordings usually have a better depth perspective I assume because some of the venue's acoustics are present. Listen to Bill Evans's Waltz for Debbie or Sunday at the Village Vanguard. Scott LaFaro RIP. Another favorite live recording is the perennial Waiting for Columbus by Little Feat. Jeez, right now I'm listening to Brittany Howard's Jaime. What a voice!! Amazing control. 

Rodman,

As I said, if all you were concerned with at a concert is stereo imaging, you could sit up front, but, that might not be ideal for other aspects of the sound; that is why it is not simply a matter of choosing front four rows in the concert hall.  A good recording can give you the up close stereo perspective, as well as a decent instrumental blend, hall reverb, etc.  But, of course, recordings cannot come close to delivering the power and majestry of an orchestra in full song.  On balance, orchestral music, choral works and opera are the least satisfying recorded experience compared to the real thing for me.  I have rarely heard recordings that come close to the real deal.  

Good thread and terrific posts. Great read. Thanks!

larryi-    This is what you said, ".....it is not that realistic because you almost never get the kind of precise instrument placements one has on recordings when hearing the music live. If you close your eyes at an orchestral performance, you really don’t hear as precise an image; you use your eyes to get the placement."      And then, "It is true that one could find a seat up front that provides a nice stereo spread and allows one to aurally locate instrumental groups/soloists.....".       If you’re intentionally choosing seats, that provide for other listening perspectives/objectives, why would you bring up recordings not being, "that realistic", with regard to imaging and instrument placement, knowing that seating, which would provide such at a live venue, is available?       Personal preferences are just one of a plethora of variables, when listening to music is the subject.       Happy listening!

Rodman,

It is true that one could find a seat up front that provies a nice stereo spread and allows one to aurally locate instrumental groups/soloists, but, that seat might not be close to ideal for other reasons--tonal balance, proper mix of reverberation, etc.  For example, in "shoe-box" orchestral halls, it is often the case that seats about 2/3 of the way back down the hall are better than up front.  Also, in any hall, the ideal seats would be a small portion of the total seating, so saying that everyone should spend more to get better seating simply doesn't work.  My point was that listening at home is a different experience, and in at least one aspect, the difference can be in favor of a good recording played at home.  But, of course, the whole experience of a live performance is, to me, much more enjoyable.  This is particularly the case with large-scale classical works where the power and scale cannot be matched by a stereo system.

For some other forms of music, such as rock, the non-sonic factors that make the experience enjoyable play an even bigger role.  Frankly, if my stem sounded as bad as the sonics at a rock concert, I would have long ago quit the game.

@rodman99999 --

People that attend live musical events and fail to locate instrumental voices, via ear, should spend a bit more, on their seating.       Of course; it helps to know something about the hall/venue, the seating arrangements, and acoustics.        For acoustic Jazz, Blues, Chamber Music, etc gigs: get there earlier and pick a seat, that allows for a balanced sound stage, imagining where binaural mics might be placed, if one were recording.                   That’s all assuming venues with decent acoustics.

From my chair it's not about "fail[ing] to locate instrumental voices," but rather that the sonic nature of a live acoustic event deviates intrinsically from a reproduced ditto in a home setting, and that also in the sense that the precision of instrumental placement that can be found in the latter isn't as pronounced in the former. These impressions are based on a variety of concert venues with very good to excellent acoustics, positioned mid-hall or the 3/4 section of the seating rows, as centered as possible. I'm a fiend when it comes to finding the proper seating position, mind you. 

Still, despite the fundamental difference of presentation from a live acoustic event (less so an amplified one), it's my go-to reference when trying to humbly approximate its traits/characteristics via the home stereo, and not the other way round. 

@rodman99999 
I agree on seating position in a concert hall or club and the acoustics. Here in Philly we have a mega million dollar overdamped concert hall which is such a shame. The orchestra moved from a 150 year old venue with excellent sonics.

As stated above, the recording of an orchestra may not give a true reproduction of the live event. Depending on engineering and recording techniques, it may sound flat and closed-in or may sound open with great depth. I prefer not to compare it to live, but to enjoy a great performance with the ambience of a concert hall. I like my listening spot to sound like I'm sitting in mid-hall orchestra seating.

People that attend live musical events and fail to locate instrumental voices, via ear, should spend a bit more, on their seating.        Of course; it helps to know something about the hall/venue, the seating arrangements, and acoustics.         For acoustic Jazz, Blues, Chamber Music, etc gigs: get there earlier and pick a seat, that allows for a balanced sound stage, imagining where binaural mics might be placed, if one were recording.                    That’s all assuming venues with decent acoustics.

@larryi --

I agree that imaging on some classical orchestral recordings can be quite impressive. I like recorded music for that aspect of performance. But, arguably, it is not that realistic because you almost never get the kind of precise instrument placements one has on recordings when hearing the music live. If you close your eyes at a orchestral performance, you really don't hear as precise an image; you use your eyes to get the placement. I don't care that much that most recordings are, in that sense, unrealistic, because I like what I hear.

Important point raised regarding the perceived experience of live music vs. its reproduced state in front of a home stereo. In that sense and on a broader scale it could easily be argued that the cultivation of reproduced music tends to be something of its own rather than more authentically emulating a live reference (un-amplified or not). We're not always given that much to work with in light of the nature of a range of recordings, but that being said, and irrespective of the nature of said recordings, what is sought after is usually more of a magnifying glass placed over a limited area on a canvas rather than seeing the scope of a bigger picture - with all that entails one way and the other..

From your description, it seems like you are getting good stereo imaging.  Certainly, your Vandersteens are capable of delivering good imaging. The subject of what constitutes good imaging and how to achieve it is quite complicated.  Almost all types of speakers can deliver great imaging, so it primarily comes down to speaker placement, the placement of the listener, and room acoustics. 

Speaker placement is very important, and the only way to optimize placement is by trial and error.  If you think you have decent imaging already, make tiny adjustments in speaker placement, and on toe-in, and even how much the speaker leans (rake).  Generally speaking, if you don't think the center image seems tight and prominent enough, you should try increasing toe-in so that the speaker is pointed more directly at you.  The tradeoff is that the sense of image width or envelopment of the listener decreases with more toe-in, so you are juggling compromises.  The rake angle will determine how high central images seem to be; generally speaking, the more the speaker tilts back, the higher the image seems to be.  Moving speakers further out into the room from the wall in front of you will tend to increase a sense of depth, and moving speakers away from side walls will tend to make the sound seem to float more freely away from the speakers.  But, sometimes, interference from a nearby wall can artificially create a sense of a wider soundstage, and you might actually like that; again experimentation is in order.

I try to avoid having a large flat surface, like a coffee table, between my listening position and the speaker; if that can't be avoided, have enough stuff on the table to break up the reflections off the surface into something more random.

I agree that imaging on some classical orchestral recordings can be quite impressive.  I like recorded music for that aspect of performance.  But, arguably, it is not that realistic because you almost never get the kind of precise instrument placements one has on recordings when hearing the music live.  If you close your eyes at a orchestral performance, you really don't hear as precise an image; you use your eyes to get the placement.  I don't care that much that most recordings are, in that sense, unrealistic, because I like what I hear.

@lowrider57 said:

Listen to a well recorded symphony if you want to experience good imaging and soundstage. There is width and depth with each section of instruments placed correctly on the stage.

This is a great suggestion. Nordic 2L recordings are really well-done.
Also, if you have streaming music, try a movement from a symphony -- Mahler is a good choice -- and then listen to about 1 or 2 minutes of one recording than then go to another one. Quality and approach to symphony recordings vary and one can really hear differences in the soundstage while keeping the musical content stable.

Thank you everyone.  This information has saved a lot of angst and most likely a lot of money chasing after something that wasn't necessarily supposed to be present with all recordings.   You read so much about the speakers disappearing and the depth of the sound stage, which I do get on many tracks, but was very curious about Take Five as it's such a famous audiophile song.  I thought I may have something lacking when the specific instruments were clearly coming from one speaker or the other.     I listened to it again last night and was really able to enjoy it knowing that was the intended sound.  

I accidentally stumbled onto the chalet way up on Red Mountain in Aspen where Dave Brubeck and his group would go to hang out. Brubeck’s concert grand piano was hooked up to a time delay system and a monster McIntosh audio system. My brother who’s no slouch in the piano played Brubeck‘s piano through the time delay system with Joshua Light Show hooked up. Trippy, dude!

Listen to a well recorded symphony if you want to experience good imaging and soundstage. There is width and depth with each section of instruments placed correctly on the stage. 
With a large orchestra you can hear that the string section forms a semicircle, the wind instruments are centered behind them, percussion in the back, etc.

mvrooman1526 wrote: " What I find however is that the imaging, sound stage is very dependent on the recording. "

This is as it should be.

The more difference you hear from one recording to the next, the more you are hearing the RECORDING instead of some characteristic "signature" superimposed atop the recording by your system and/or your room.

I think you’re off to a great start!!

Duke

Toms should also stretch from your right to your left in descending tone on newer recordings, mimicking what you'd hear if you were watching a right-handed drummer on stage.

Whenever a question arises, regarding sound stage and imaging; I make this suggestion: The following provide tests, with which one may determine whether their system actually images, or reproduces a sound stage, as recorded.       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.            (https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php )      and: (https://www.discogs.com/sell/release/2818064?ev=rb)      An article, in Stereophile, on the subject: (https://www.stereophile.com/features/772/index.html)

@mvrooman1526 - That particular Brubeck recording is likely supposed to sound that way. It is the way the stereo mix was mastered. It is referred to as hard panning. This means a particular instrument was mixed only (hard) to the left speaker or only (hard) to the right speaker. Another instrument (or vocalist) could be mixed equally in the left and the right channels, creating an image centered between the speakers.

The hard panning of Brubeck's piano is actually mentioned in a thread on the Steve Hoffman site. Here's a link. Read the whole thread if you have the time, but the Brubeck mention is in post # 28:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/stereo-hard-panning-love-it-or-hate-it.123731/

Enjoy your new hobby. 

Play with some room treatments. I have 2CE Sigs, and that helped out the soundstage and imaging a lot, even on recordings that were mastered in an extreme R&L way, as was unfortunately typical for some early stereo recordings, such as your old Brubeck. Even more extreme are early Charlie Parker recordings, John Coltrane, Miles, or the worst, the early Beatles recordings. Some of this extreme separation you just have to live with. So yes, as already stated, much is how the music was recorded and mastered. Newer music typically does not have the same issue as older recordings, and the center image is almost always ‘spot on’. But you want, if at all possible, the sound eminating from ‘the stage’ the same way the musicians were in the recording (unfortunately much modern music was never recorded this way in the first place, as a ‘live performance’, as it was all recorded at different times). The ‘live stage’ effect is the ideal so the instruments don’t sound like they are coming directly from the speaker face, but more side to side. A good recording helps, and more poorly recordings can be helped with speaker placement and acoustical treatments. The 2CE’s are very finicky about placement to achieve this goal. Been there, done that.

Begin playing with some acoustical treatment. I find in my case, the 2CE’s are benefited more from diffusion vs absorption, have both, but that may just be my room. You can do this cheaply by getting some foam or rigid insulation and tape panels of it temporarily in various locations to find what may work best in your room. There is basic info available to this as well all over the internet or on YouTube. As far as diffusion panels, that is tougher to to get something cheap to temporarily use. I actually found some sculpted 18”x18” architectural ‘Tiles’, taped them together behind, and then applied them to my walls with 2 sided foam 3M ‘tape’.

What I find however is that the imaging, sound stage is very dependent on the recording. 

Right. Mono recordings everything is in a sort of sphere in the middle. Some recordings are flat, others deep. Sometimes vocals are centered, sometimes off to one side or the other. Entirely recording dependent.

Norah Jones? She sounds like she's sitting right in the room. It's amazing.

 
If you say so. Never could get into her myself.

One I'm particularly interested in learning more about is Brubek's Take Five.
 The saxophone images great. Sounds dead center. The piano however is clearly coming from the right hand speaker and the drums are clearly coming from the left. Is this typical?

Been a while but that sounds just about right to me. The cymbals I want to say are left and above the drums just as they should be. Piano I can't remember if this is one where the piano stays put or moves left to right depending which end of the keyboard it is. At all times when one side is playing you should hear the room acoustic "light up" on the other side. 

The thing to listen for with imaging is not so much where things are, as that is recording dependent, but how palpably real they are and how clearly each individual sound source is distinct and separate from the rest. This also varies from recording to recording. Of course it does. Everything does.

Another quick example is Oscar Peterson - Night Train. Oscar Peterson is mixed dead center, while Ed Thigpen is panned to the right speaker, and Ray Brown left.

Many old stereo recordings, especially jazz trio/quartet had the individual instruments recorded only on one channel, or one instrument on the left, one on the right and one in the center. It's very common with older stereo jazz recordings.

Google "hard panning stereo" for information on this type of recording technique.