Reality Gap (reversed): Why such an emphasis on Hi Fi sound stage and imaging?

Possibly why Naim focus more on PRaT than sound stage and imaging.

Interestigly sound stage and imaging have improved as I have upgraded over the years, but so too has PRaT.

As far as I can tell from conversations with friends and reading posts/articles/reviews on the ‘Net and in magazines over the years, different aspects of sound presentation matter to different people. For me sound stage and imaging don’t have any significant impact on my enjoyment of music, whereas the ability to follow distinct musical lines and have the timing coherent does seem to. I gather as I say that other people find the sound stage a major part of their musical immersion, different strokes for different folks I guess. It is odd in a way as it’s pretty unusual in most live music situations to hear sound stage as distinct as in a good quality system, but if it enhances people’s enjoyment that’s what matters.

Are they absent in live music?  Try moving from the back to nearer the stage at a concert?

But NigelB is right though. 

In the absence of any visual information, I always imagined that this helped to create a sense that the musicians were actually there, positioned in front of you. The fact that it is usually an illusion created in a recording studio where there is no stage makes it artificial, and to me, it is far from the most important aspect of sound quality.

Some live venues and outdoor festivals do get the mix just so, so that you can differentiate positioning.

I always gravitate to stage facing the left side, as the sound mixers mostly make this side hot in the bass, even though bands mostly have the bass player on the other side 

If it was possible to turn up the volume loud enough to replicate live levels on a hifi system that majored in soundstageing and low distortion, I guess said soundstaging would go out the window due to saturation.

I have been trying to think of a way to put this in a thread for some time, there have been bits in threads here and on other sites. Then to try and pull them together.
The concept of soundstage in hifi/audio is surely in general artificial. In the days of the Blumlein crossed pair or the Decca tree at the recording stage, there is (to me) a simple concept of reproduction akin to hearing. As soon as a spot mike or fill in is added the engineer has to place it somewhere left to right. Then there is the possibility that unless you have the same size room, amp, speakers etc you may not hear the same as the engineer.
And that basic mike arrangement was “designed” for an orchestra. Along comes Les Paul, rock and roll with amplification and recording happens in studios, not on stages, the over exuberant drummer is overloud and put in a booth on his own, so the recorded sound reproduced in the home has been created at the mixing desk.
Next in line the bass is mixed down to mono to get accommodated on vinyl (in both the singular and plural), so whilst the 32 foot pipes on the organ in a cathedral may fill the whole building with non directional bass, I am sure I can place a double bass or low end of a piano in a room or hall. So that bass sitting in the centre of two speakers is artificial.
So regardless of maker, brand loyalty, have we all been conned into buying twice the equipment we need, surely mono must be good enough? Even then, I have mono records where I am sure I can hear depth.
Or, is soundstage the recording of the acoustic, the reverberation that having stereo mike arrangements is necessary to pick up the time differences that is natural to the way we hear directionality?
I am a heretic, PRaT at a concept I can understand and accept, but not that it is exclusive to Naim and that I have a problem with Pace. You know, the distance between placing one foot in front of the other, or the rate that the Coldstream Guards march at. In my competency list at work, my employer has “working at PACE”, we all know that means getting as much done for as little as possible. I play as well as listen to music. I go to more concerts than anyone I know. The people I go with are players and agree that apart from the composer's instructions for metronome speed, there is no pace in music. There is without a doubt rhythm and timing, but misses out what I have always known as ensemble, playing together. This is what I think Chord Cables are talking about in their blurb as coherence.
In the concert hall the use of a PA system fed from a mixing desk means any soundstage is artificial, but give me a choir at St George's in Bristol and despite my hearing loss, tinnitus, I can pinpoint a soloist or performer with a particular vocal timbre.
So, going back to the OP, yes, not just soundstage, but just about everything, in every thread, it is our hobby, we enjoy it, but perhaps we all obsess too much.

Haim Ronen posted:

When they are mostly absent in live music.

Are they? I recall the first rock gig I went to, the positioning of Richie Blakmore's speaker stack very evident in the soundstage in front of me (I was near the front, so the stage a lot bigger than me). Similarly the first time  I saw a live orchestral performance I remember being particularly struck by the direct sound of brass instruments from their location on stage, ditto the triangle. Indeed spacial positioning tends to be much more evident with something like an orchestra because the instruments have a distinct and audible spacial position (albeit spread in the case of massed strings), whereas with electrified bands the backline stacks can be relatively large, and when primarily over the PA it depends on the panning in the mix. Those particular examples stay in my mind because they were the first occasions, however I would say that has been the norm except when a long way away from the stage - which I don't like, and which is akin to sticking hifi speakers much closer together than normal.

A few years ago Hifi news ran an interesting article about the Neumann binaural microphone system. Shaped like a head with two microphone capsules built into silicone ears.

And with some success in the recording studios with material released predominantly for headphone listening.

The apparent sound-stage is very apparent in chamber music and fairly apparent in many other acoustic performances, and that can be preserved in good recordings with crossed cardioid or coincident figure 8 mike set-ups (often with a fill in omni to reinforce frequencies below 50Hz).  However for all else the only component that's generally of significance is the impression of depth.  For the acoustic recordings I think it does add significantly, for the other's so long ans the system preserves a sense of immediacy for vocals, there little to be gained.

For my own tastes it's a nice to have that I consider only after all other aspects of musical involvement have been answered.
(Which has only just happened for me with the 272/555DR + 300DR + Spendor SP2 setup; and coincidentally it images quite well!)

We had attended dozens of classic chamber music concerts in a small chapel at a nearby college. The place is small, seating about a hundred people so amplification is never needed. The acoustics of the place are spectacular, so good that different labels, Including NAIM, had used the space for their own recordings.

The small ensembles we go to hear are mostly string quartets or trios. Our seating is optimal, just in front of the little stage, 5-10 meters from the musicians. Endless times I have closed my eyes trying to detect a sound stage but always failed. The music kept cascading as a whole, with no layers, and honestly, without seeing the musicians first, I would have never been able to tell if the viola was sitting in front of the violin or the violin was closer to me. Even in extreme cases where a piano or a harpsichord was situated more to the back, the results were the same. The wife who has good ears and some friends who are into music and Hi Fi experimented themselves and were left with the same impression.

Now, at at the dealer, I can easily hear the various sound stages produced by the Hi Fi systems and at home I know exactly when I am departing from the sweet spot, so I am assuming that there is nothing wrong with my hearing.

Theoretically, if we had a sound-stage dial on our pre-amp, would our preference be to dial it up to compensate for the missing visual element (as others mentioned it) or down, to get closer to the original live sound before it was recorded? In other words, is the sound stage produced by our audio gear an enhancement or a distraction? 

Haim,

I think the reason may be in the seating position you describe.  For a Trio the performers will cover a width of about 2m to 2.5m total.  If you are 5m from the performers, the subtended angle is at most half that of the classical 60° positioning of the speakers.  If you move your speakers much closer together (if you sit 3m from the speakers then they should be no more than 1.5m apart), I think you'll find that the sound-stage significantly contracts.  To represent a 10m listening distance at 3m, then the speakers should be 0.75m apart.

The typical mike position for recording is much closer to the performers that you describe for your seating position - approximately 1/4 to 1/2 of that distance, hence getting a wide angle perspective.  Both impressions are correct in their own context.

I have never perceived width or depth at a live concert, just a general sense of music arriving either from “over there” or from “all around”, depending on venue, seating location, type of music, and so on.

By contrast, most recordings present a well ordered sound stage - pinpoint imaging, often with an illusion of great depth. IME, these spatial cues help to create a sense of scale, an illusion that the music is being heard in a much larger space than our listening rooms. I enjoy the effect, even though it has nothing to do with reality.

Haim Ronen posted: Why such an emphasis on Hi Fi sound stage and imaging?

When they are mostly absent in live music.

Continuing Hook's thoughts, I'd say obviously because recorded music is a representation of the live performance and studio production techniques have the power to enhance the original on certain levels. Soundstaging has the ability to make a listener's room appear wider and taller than it is, and imaging sets depth and placement within that dimension. The whole reason stereo is generally used over mono - a fuller sound. Replay with an emphasis on soundstage and imaging is impressive and without is relatively bland. So why not use it if you've got it?

I think HUGE is on the right track here. Acoustics is a different beast and follows it's own set of laws on the level you find with live music both amplified or not.

With a trio of piano, viola and violin playing together, I'm sure the energised air from each would be bouncing off one another and from the complex diffractions and boundaries of the room, the audience and your own head.

Regardless of the hifi or the live experience, it could ultimately depend on the shape of your ears on how susceptible you are to hearing into the perceived image.  

I've heard many systems that produce the effect of a soundstage, but to my ears they never quite pull off a good enough illusion, and sound unnatural. I sit some 6.5 metres from my stereo speakers so there's never going to be a 3-D effect from them. If you want realistic soundstage and imaging you'll only achieve it with a multi-speaker system and soundtracks mixed to take advantage of the discrete channels.

Huge posted:

Haim,

I think the reason may be in the seating position you describe.  For a Trio the performers will cover a width of about 2m to 2.5m total.  If you are 5m from the performers, the subtended angle is at most half that of the classical 60° positioning of the speakers.  If you move your speakers much closer together (if you sit 3m from the speakers then they should be no more than 1.5m apart), I think you'll find that the sound-stage significantly contracts.  To represent a 10m listening distance at 3m, then the speakers should be 0.75m apart.

The typical mike position for recording is much closer to the performers that you describe for your seating position - approximately 1/4 to 1/2 of that distance, hence getting a wide angle perspective.  Both impressions are correct in their own context.

I sense you're talking of two different things. Mr Ronen refers, or so it seems to me, to the sensation of depth you get from HiFi sometimes, while you are explaining, technically, what generates, in terms of angles and distance, the perception of width. Perhaps we are reaching the point where one goes to a concert and painfully searches for the seat that will allow him to hear like at home, in front of his expensive toy. I have heard, more than once, someone saying, after having attended a concert, that he heard better at home. This is true if we compare the two experiences to dance with a beautiful woman at a large, public ball and to pay the same woman for having private intercourse with her, in your own room. I apologize if my comparison is going to offend someone. It's meant just as an example.

tonym posted:

I've heard many systems that produce the effect of a soundstage, but to my ears they never quite pull off a good enough illusion, and sound unnatural. I sit some 6.5 metres from my stereo speakers so there's never going to be a 3-D effect from them. If you want realistic soundstage and imaging you'll only achieve it with a multi-speaker system and soundtracks mixed to take advantage of the discrete channels.

An extraordinarily interesting sentence. Thanks.

AlCrom posted:

Huge posted:

Haim,

<snip>

The typical mike position for recording is much closer to the performers that you describe for your seating position - approximately 1/4 to 1/2 of that distance, hence getting a wide angle perspective.  Both impressions are correct in their own context.

I sense you're talking of two different things. Mr Ronen refers, or so it seems to me, to the sensation of depth you get from HiFi sometimes, while you are explaining, technically, what generates, in terms of angles and distance, the perception of width. Perhaps we are reaching the point where one goes to a concert and painfully searches for the seat that will allow him to hear like at home, in front of his expensive toy. I have heard, more than once, someone saying, after having attended a concert, that he heard better at home. <snip>

Same thing applies...

The perception of distance is related to three things:-

1  The ratio of direct to reflected to reverberated sound.

2  Small changes in the harmonic structure within the sound.

3  Direction of the sound.

4  There is some very marginal evidence that the phase relationships within the harmonic structure may have an influence.

When stinting further form the performers than the mike position, these differences are relatively reduced in the same way that the angular differences are reduced.

As others have touched on the illusion of a soundstage at live performances can depend heavily on whether or not amplification (and hence speakers and monitors) is used. I assume that there is little attempt to try to create a stereo image at live amplified events and I have never really noticed such an effect when listening at live gigs/concerts. I do accept however that at certain listener seating positions it might be possible to detect a soundstage and imaging at small scale unamplified live events.

So if you accept that performers and technicians make little effort to create a soundstage and performer/instrument imaging at live events then why does the recording industry and hifi manufacturers go to such lengths to try and create a soundstage and imaging from music recreated in our own homes? Is it to compensate for the lack of a visual stimulus when listening to our systems at home, or possibly to increase the size of a performance in-home in an attempt to mimic the scale of a live experience?

Some have said they like the effect of a soundstage and imaging from their systems, others imply it is somehow unnatural. I personally quite like a decent soundstage and instrument/vocal imaging but the the effect can vary of course from album to album and from genre to genre. You can still end up with say an acoustic guitar that sounds 7 feet wide in size with simple acoustic recordings for example but this often depends on the level of skill of the technicians in the recording studio. Having said this I would take PRaT (whatever you take that to mean) over soundstage and imaging anyday. This is probably why I have used Naim gear for so many years. I must say however that soundstage and imaging are far more apparent with the system I have now. I am not sure if this is because Naim have paid more attention to these effects in more recent amplifier and source designs or if the Classic models higher up the range are better at these aspects of reproduction.

I have to say that in my earlier post I was primarily thinking of soundstage from the width point of view, and did not consider depth. With a live performance of an orchestra there is depth if you are close to the stage - i.e. the depth of the orchestra is significant in relation to the your distance from them. however not if your distance from them is significantly greater than the depth of the orchestra. Recordings tend to place you close to the orchestra. With a live performance of a small acoustic group the depth of the players is much smaller than a full orchestra, so one would need to be positioned very close indeed to perceive the distance, and even then I'm not sure the depth would be evident, and with amplfied bands the depth at the live gig is often compressed to nothing by having all the sound coming out of speakers on the same horizontal plane.

But then, with amplified music there can be depth deliberately added for the effect that the artist wants to create -and that is not always achieved with live performances, though the recorded work is the art that the musicians have produced, and in that case the live performance is a representation or interpretation of it. Of course depth can be created in a live performance if desired, though in practical terms is usually only used for special effects - Pink Floyd were particular devotees (as I well recall from the first time I saw them at Crystal Palace Bowl performing Atom Heart Mother)

After reading this interesting discussion I have come to realise that I do not understand what other folk mean when they refer to "soundstage", but then I've never understood PRaT either.  Indeed the emphasis on PRaT led me to dismiss Naim from my hifi searches for many years.  I seek musical communication above all else and could not see how what I thought PRaT meant would enhance listening to, say, the " Crucifixus" in Bach's B minor mass.  Well, I have seen the light now but still have difficulty interpreting many of the posts above.  I wonder if different people mean different things by both soundstage and PRaT?

When listening to jazz, folk groups or small classical pieces such as string quartets or trios, the placement of the instruments and their acoustic relationship to the venue is not of major importance to me.  Though, as others have said, I do like to hear individual lines in a performance and I suspect the composer/performer expected this.  However, with larger forces, spatial disposition is a major factor.  I listen to a lot of choral music, both accompanied and a capella and mostly recorded in churches and cathedrals.  For such music I want to hear the acoustics of the space the performers are singing in but also be able to hear into the chorus and, where appropriate, pick out individual voices within that acoustic, just as I do when hearing such music live.  For centuries, many pieces have been written for double SATB chorus and if the antiphonal exchanges between these choirs are not heard, a good deal of the composer's intention is lost.  In his excellent recording of Handel's Solomon which has many double choruses, the conductor John Eliot Gardiner insisted that the two choirs be placed 40ft apart so that the separation would come across in the recording!  Is this an example of worrying about soundstage?

When I am at a symphony concert, I can hear the spatial placement of sections of the orchestra though not necessarily individual instrumentalists at least when they're playing together.  Some years ago the conductor Sir Adrian Boult recorded Elgar for the Lyrita label and was sufficiently annoyed by the label forcing him to place the first and second violins next to each other as he preferred to separate them that he wrote to gramophone magazine.  "I want to know whether your readers would like to hear most of their treble sound coming from the left speaker and the bass from the right or whether they want a balanced whole? With that balanced whole they will get the antiphonal effect between violins so often written for by composers from Mozart to Elgar. With the modern placing they will sometimes get a fuller sound when the firsts and seconds play in unison, but it seems to me the only advantage; while subtle effects, like Beethoven's scoring at the sixth bar of the Fifth Symphony, will come to them as from a pianoforte arrangement."  It is interesting that although Boult was nearly alone amongst conductors at the time (except for period orchestras) many conductors and orchestras now separate the violins both for live performance and recording (London Symphony Orchestra, Hallé, BBC Symphony Orchestra are just a few of the examples in the UK.)  To me this indicates the importance of (my understanding of) soundstage.

I am sure that what we all want is maximum musical enjoyment through emotional and perhaps intellectual communication with the musicians.  For me in certain genres soundstage is an important, though not dominant, contributor to that communication, to others obviously less so.  Vive la différence.

Roger

I can’t locate an instrument in an orchestra with any precision at a concert with my eyes closed, what I do get though is the scale of the orchestra. I recently heard a valve based system, I can’t say what or where, but the scale of that was huge like I’ve never heard from a Naim system, however when a solo recording was put on the soloist was also huge with a guitar the size of a concert grand piano.

When you go to a concert it’s just another gig on the tour, I’ve been to plenty of mediocre ones, when you hear a recording it’s more likely taken from the best of a serise of concerts or it’s a studio job, not the same deal at all. 

Huge posted:

Haim,

I think the reason may be in the seating position you describe. 

Huge, 

I don't believe so. We sat in different spots at different concerts at the chapel, always showing up early to be close to the musicians.  Regardless to the angle or distance from the stage I could never get any depth perception of the sound. 

Haim

An interesting discussion.  I’m not sure I ever thought about this until picking up bits of it in various threads on this forum, and here now.

I think for me it boils down to 3 things,

1) I don’t want stereo speakers to sound like two point sources.  This then perhaps is where I would expect the sound to come from within a roughly rectangular space within which the speakers sit.

2) I want it to sound as if the musicians are playing the same piece or song.  Sometimes the sense of a group being recorded together in “one take” seems to come through better, and I like the energy that gives.

3) I want to dance or feel like I want to dance and at least tap my feet and fingers - I want a performance.  My HiFi is not all Naim, but whatever synergy I have achieved I get that feeling with just about everything I choose to listen to.

Perhaps the intellectual description and understanding is useful for some.  However, if you then can’t enjoy your system because of trying to match it to what a collective describes then that would be a shame.