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

For me it is so much easier to loose myself into the music if the loudspeakers disappear into a solid soundstage. This includes both depth and width of the stage. As long as there are things in the sound my brain categorizes as unnatural, it (the brain) is so busy dissecting them, that everything else steps into the background. Too little dynamic range, tipped up highs and unrealistic packing of instruments are the three worst offenders. I can’t help wondering, how that huge trumpet manages to sit on the lap of the drummer, whose  drum set is toy sized and why all of that is crammed into one of my loudspeakers.

So I am not looking for soundstaging and imaging as ends in themselves, but as enablers of music in my living room.

joerand posted:

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?

Fuller, Spacious, Depth of Field, etc....

But have you ever been to a Dealer and Demoed Speakers from the exact same seating position, and the Hi-Fi Sound Stage appeared larger.

Same Room, Same seating, Same Electronics, and the Room appeared Larger.

Just Saying!

Allante93!

PS. I listen to my System in Stereo.

In real life, sound always emanates from a single source. No sound ever comes from more than 1 place. A train for example has multiple wheels but each wheel produces sound from a single source.  Humans have 2 ears, one on either side of the head. When a sound coming from a single source reaches our ears the amplitude and phase are different in each ear. The brain uses that difference to locate the source of the sound. When you hear something, for example an animal roaring, or something moving, you would turn your head to equalize the signal in both ears, which, hey presto, aligns your eyes to the source of the sound and lets you identify and evaluate its origin.

In stereo, engineers use this ability to create depth and width in their recordings. Instead of having every instrument apparently emanating from the same single source (very confusing to the ear and brain), engineers can use the 2 sound sources of a stereo system to spread  the instruments across a stage, allowing each to play in its own space and allowing listeners to concentrate their attention on single instruments within the soundstage. Thus when a guitar comes in, its not competing with the rest of the band for your attention. With a sound stage you can focus your attention on a single instrument or allow yourself to listen to the entire mix of instruments. Typically humans always concentrate on single elements (its how our senses work) so a sound stage makes doing that easier.

A sound stage is produced in your brain, based on signals reaching each ear from 2 discreet sources, your loudspeakers. If a signal comes from 1 speaker only the sound will locate in the direction of the speaker, If the sound comes from both speakers equally it will locate centrally and the speakers should appear to be silent. Varying the levels between the 2 different speakers will locate the sound somewhere between, according to the balance. In order to produce a sound stage, a hi-fi system needs to reproduce phase and amplitude very accurately. In addition, walls and furniture should not interfere with those signals by reflecting or detracting sound waves. With phase and amplitude accurately reproduced, your brain will construct a soundstage comprising width, depth and in good systems, height. A really good system is able to construct a soundstage that your brain perceives  as being wider than the placement of the 2 speakers and even wider and deeper than room boundaries. 

Pace, rhythm and timing are natural attributes of the music that hi-if systems are either able to reproduce or not. Some systems sound slow (no pace), will not get your feet tapping  (no rhythm) and fail to illucidate the interplay between instruments (poor timing). Other systems are excellent in these qualities. An excellent hi-fi system should image well and reproduce the music’s natural pace, rhythm and timing.  It used to be that UK systems did PRAT really well but sucked at imaging, while US systems did the imaging thing but offered really poor PRAT.  A system without PRAT sounds boring even if it images well and a system that doesn’t image usually sounds quite congested and unfocused, so ideally you want both qualities. 

I think there are two questions lurking in your one question: 1) Why does recorded music have soundstage and imaging? 2) Why does anyone care if live music doesn't give you much of this? Regarding the latter, I care because it is information, and if I am losing  that information, what else  am I losing? There is no reason that a system need have a tradeoff between these and, say, PRAT, which I care more about.

Recorded music is just different from live music. I don't feel a need to compare the two.  

Blackmorec posted:

Pace, rhythm and timing are natural attributes of the music that hi-if systems are either able to reproduce or not. Some systems sound slow (no pace), will not get your feet tapping  (no rhythm) and fail to illucidate the interplay between instruments (poor timing). Other systems are excellent in these qualities.

This paragraph highlights something I consider to be false, which is the fixation with foot tapping: Sometimes it is suggested that the system is wrong if it does not induce tapping of feet, yet I have been to many a gig and not had my foot start to tap... Amongst other things the inclination to tap depends on the prominence of the beat above other aspects of the music and making it more prominent that it really is in the pursuit of PRaT is rather akin to the creation of a 3D soundstage in recorded music that might not be there in the live performance.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Blackmorec posted:

Pace, rhythm and timing are natural attributes of the music that hi-if systems are either able to reproduce or not. Some systems sound slow (no pace), will not get your feet tapping  (no rhythm) and fail to illucidate the interplay between instruments (poor timing). Other systems are excellent in these qualities.

This paragraph highlights something I consider to be false, which is the fixation with foot tapping: Sometimes it is suggested that the system is wrong if it does not induce tapping of feet, yet I have been to many a gig and not had my foot start to tap... Amongst other things the inclination to tap depends on the prominence of the beat above other aspects of the music and making it more prominent that it really is in the pursuit of PRaT is rather akin to the creation of a 3D soundstage in recorded music that might not be there in the live performance.

I don’t believe “foot tapping” is intended so literally.  Although I’m listening to a late night quartet piece on R3 and waving my foot in time to the music - and someone just coughed about four rows back and to the right ;-) - but in my headphones there is a lovely separation between the instruments.  “Foot tapping” for me is a sign of an emotional involvement with what I am hearing that manifests itself as a dancing foot, hand or even body.  I could equally air-guitar, drum, violin or conduct as fits!

“Performance” needs context too.  A studio recording is not going to sound like a live gig recording (it’s a different rom and there is no audience), although some studio recordings do sound “live”.  But I can understand engineering a recording so everything isn’t originating from one point, giving space around the musicians/instruments apparently in three dimensions.  A reproduction of that on the recording is what I want my HiFi to produce.  If it doesn’t then I usually find the recording is deficient.

In terms of performance at gigs or concerts, I’d want to be emotionally involved - even if that meant sitting or standing stock still to just enjoy or marvel at the sound being created. Most people seem to move in some way with the music though - the musicians from any genre certainly do (unless it’s that guy from Sparks).

Haim Ronen posted:

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? 

 

 

This exactly matches my experience for unamplified classical performances. When a new instrument comes into the mix, I sometimes have to search around to spot who is playing it, as there is no spacial clue in the sound. The direction of the soundwave is simply not apparent, and no "image" is created. If I don't recognise the instrument itself by the sound, it can take some spotting in the orchestra.

Obviously, for amplified music it is completely moot.

And there is quite a difference between hearing the same ensemble in a very reverberent venue and a non-reverberent one - the pinpointing of instruments is far easier in the latter.

Firstly don’t take things so literally. Foot tapping Just indicates that the system is able to produce a sense of rhythm. Some highly resolving systems are totally void of this characteristic and sound highly detailed and boring. Others will practically bounce you out of your seat with their infectious ‘boogy factor’.... same piece of music. 

In terms of live vs. Recorded music, remember that with live music each instrument has its individual sound source, which means sounds emanate from a variety of positions. In order to reproduce that, music recorded and played back in stereo has 2 sources and its the balance between the two that mimics the multi-positions of live music. Without stereo, all instruments in an orchestra would appear to emanate from a single source, which is obviously far from realistic. In my opinion, sitting in front of 2 speakers, which aurally seem to entirely disappear, to be replaced by a room full of accomplished musicians is quite a thrilling experience. But the system has to capture the pace, rhythm and timing of the music, otherwise its just a room full of dull, very uninspired musicians 

The other thing to bear In mind when you compare live vs. Recorded music is that in general, recorded music gives you a perspective that is rarely available when listening to live music. 

Think where the microphones are placed when recording an orchestra for example....far more akin to picking up what the conductor or first violinist may hear. Do you think orchestral instruments aren’t directional from such an intimate seating position. Of course they are. And that’s the seating position, more or less, that your recording is emulating. 

If the sound engineer placed a crossed pair of microphones somewhere in row ‘K’ its unlikely his recording would have a lot of directional information and focus. Heard live it would still sound OK from row K because the sound of each instrument would be coming from a unique position. But play the same recording back through 2 sound sources as in stereo and it could sound a bit homogenised, because the stereo system’s ability to separate instruments in space has been totally ignored, so everything will sound like its coming from the same place.

BTW, if a system that produces a big airy orchestra also produced room-wide guitars, there’s either something very wrong with the guitar recording or with the system.  I have heard recordings where the drummer would need 10 foot long arms to reach all his drums, but given that each drum was well focussed, you know its the recording or probably better said, the production that’s at fault. 

Blackmorec posted:

Firstly don’t take things so literally. Foot tapping Just indicates that the system is able to produce a sense of rhythm. Some highly resolving systems are totally void of this characteristic and sound highly detailed and boring. Others will practically bounce you out of your seat with their infectious ‘boogy factor’.... same piece of music. interesting - to me that is right only if the original recording was like that (though sometimes I get the impression that some people want all misic to ‘boogie’...) Of course, with regard to what the original recording is like, unless it is a simple live performance one would never know!

In terms of live vs. Recorded music, remember that with live music each instrument has its individual sound source, which means sounds emanate from a variety of positions. So unless you are positioned in one ‘sweet spot’ the individual instruments’ timing will be ‘smeared’, the degree depending on the physical spacing of the ensemble. (potentially different in recordings depending on miking practice) of course, if one focuses on one particular musician for the timing, e.g the percussionist, It would not e an issue. In order to reproduce that, music recorded and played back in stereo has 2 sources and its the balance between the two that mimics the multi-positions of live music. Without stereo, all instruments in an orchestra would appear to emanate from a single source, which is obviously far from realistic. In my opinion, sitting in front of 2 speakers, which aurally seem to entirely disappear, to be replaced by a room full of accomplished musicians is quite a thrilling experience. But the system has to capture the pace, rhythm and timing of the music, otherwise its just a room full of dull, very uninspired musicians  Depending on the music and the quality of recording - and some is lacklustre or constrained - I have found music played on all my systems since the installation of very good of speakers in 1975  to the present has seen the speakers effectively disappear and the illusion created of the musicians in the room, albeit with more clarity and detail as the system improved over time. But without a Naim box in sight, and the only one I’ve had to date supplanted by something giving greater realism, I don’t know that a Naimophile would recognise PRaT in my system (which of course matters not a not to me!)

My observation in underlined text above (limitation of using an iPhone to respond today) This is not disputing or challenging your statements, but adding to them for the fuller picture, all related to the illusion we all seek.

Many years ago I was at Audio Excellence in Bristol and listened to a setup consisting of NAC52, SNAXO, 6 x 135s and DBLs (so active).  It was the first time that I had heard a Naim system with a truly 3D soundstage (depth as well as width).  It was amazing.  I could walk around the room  in front of and between the speakers, and place instruments precisely in three dimensions.  As I moved around, I could walk past instruments as if they were physically placed there in the room.  I have used Naim kit since about 1971 or 72, and never heard anything like that anywhere or time other than that.  Width is easy - with most systems I can place an instrument left and right without problem.  But that depth dimension was truly fantastic.  

One thing I found through the years is that there is a vertical component too, and usually one I am not so keen on.  The higher frequency instruments are usually physically higher up - well above the height of the speakers.  My current system is the first one that has not done this - there is much less vertical differentiation between sounds.  (NAC 52, NAP500 and S600).

Beachcomber posted:

Many years ago I was at Audio Excellence in Bristol and listened to a setup consisting of NAC52, SNAXO, 6 x 135s and DBLs (so active).  It was the first time that I had heard a Naim system with a truly 3D soundstage (depth as well as width).  It was amazing.  I could walk around the room  in front of and between the speakers, and place instruments precisely in three dimensions.  As I moved around, I could walk past instruments as if they were physically placed there in the room.  I have used Naim kit since about 1971 or 72, and never heard anything like that anywhere or time other than that.  Width is easy - with most systems I can place an instrument left and right without problem.  But that depth dimension was truly fantastic.  

As well as the hifi system, the room undoubtedly plays a very significant part in that imaging, and I suspect the room in which you heard it had been very carefully arranged and treated. It’s not something I’ve ever experienced, but your description of such a solid spatial image sounds amazing - and unnerving at the same time!

My active Dibble setup has no problem with pinpoint imaging. 

as for not finding something in the soundstage -- well, what do you expect when much classical music is a time domain train crash of multiple microphones dotted around the orchestra?

jon honeyball posted:

My active Dibble setup has no problem with pinpoint imaging. 

Do you get the same 3D image as described by Beachcomer, where you can walk around and between the musicians as if there are sitting there? If so (cool!) is your room well treated acoustically - or is that just a function of dibbles?

A stereo image, as produced by 2 loud speakers doesn’t actually exists in the room; it exists in your head, where the brain takes the 2 signals reaching your ears and uses the phase and relative amplitude of each signal to create a location for each instrument.  A room can interfere with an image by way of early reflections and diffraction, which shifts frequency, adjusts timing and amplitude of sound waves, thereby preventing your brain from constructing an accurate picture. The better the preservation of phase, amplitude and timing on both the recording and throughout the reproduction chain, the easier it is for your brain to construct the perception of a highly focused 3 dimensional model. Just remember though, its in your head not in your room. File under Psycho- Acoustics 

The whole thing is in our heads.  All that is in the room is variations in air pressure over time.

Innocent Bystander posted:

jon honeyball posted:

My active Dibble setup has no problem with pinpoint imaging. 

Do you get the same 3D image as described by Beachcomer, where you can walk around and between the musicians as if there are sitting there? If so (cool!) is your room well treated acoustically - or is that just a function of dibbles?

Dibbles have exceptional time response (helped by active driving). This is a big factor here. Plus they dont have cabinet edge reflections coming back out of phase to interfere and smear everything, because the front panels are huge relative to the wavelength (especially upper mid and treble)

Blackmorec posted:

A stereo image, as produced by 2 loud speakers doesn’t actually exists in the room; it exists in your head, where the brain takes the 2 signals reaching your ears and uses the phase and relative amplitude of each signal to create a location for each instrument.  A room can interfere with an image by way of early reflections and diffraction, which shifts frequency, adjusts timing and amplitude of sound waves, thereby preventing your brain from constructing an accurate picture. The better the preservation of phase, amplitude and timing on both the recording and throughout the reproduction chain, the easier it is for your brain to construct the perception of a highly focused 3 dimensional model. Just remember though, its in your head not in your room. File under Psycho- Acoustics 

I think we know that.  What  Beachcomer described was an aural image - yes, in his head, created by the srereo sound signals - of musicians so precisely placed and rock solid that it was possible to step between the positions and hear it as if they really were there (and without the interference of his own body causing the image to collapse). Now that is remarkable.

Beachcomber posted:

The whole thing is in our heads.  All that is in the room is variations in air pressure over time.

If a Spotify client remotely turns on a Muso by mistake and there is no one in the room to hear it, does it make a sound?

well, it produces variations in air pressure, plus some changes in temperature.  It could even make things move a little. We might call those changes in pressure 'sound waves'.  Whether we call that sound or not is, I guess, up to us.  It's our language :-)

If you were to suspend dust (e.g. smoke) in the air and stop other air currents like convection, energetic sound wavels might become visibly discernible through patterns in the suspended particles. However whilst that might  reveal nodes and antinodes it sadly would fall far short of creating visible ghostly figures playing their instruments that one might picture in one’s mind’s eye! 

Eoink posted:

Beachcomber posted:

The whole thing is in our heads.  All that is in the room is variations in air pressure over time.

If a Spotify client remotely turns on a Muso by mistake and there is no one in the room to hear it, does it make a sound?

This sounds like the “Schroedinger’s Cat” thought experiment designed to pose philosophical questions in the formative days of Quantum Mechanics. Worth reading about - Wikipedia is as good as anywhere. Perhaps the Spotify client is in Quantum Supposition with a radioactive atom inside a logic gate!

Phil

Filipe posted:

Eoink posted:

Beachcomber posted:

The whole thing is in our heads.  All that is in the room is variations in air pressure over time.

If a Spotify client remotely turns on a Muso by mistake and there is no one in the room to hear it, does it make a sound?

This sounds like the “Schroedinger’s Cat” thought experiment designed to pose philosophical questions in the formative days of Quantum Mechanics. Worth reading about - Wikipedia is as good as anywhere. Perhaps the Spotify client is in Quantum Supposition with a radioactive atom inside a logic gate!

Phil

It's a variant of an earlier philosophical question often attributed to the 18th century philosopher Bishop Berkeley, the usual phrasing being along the lines of "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?". Although Berkeley didn't actually pose the question in those words, it's quite a good example of a question which can be used to argue for subjective idealism. which he propounded, largely as a way of "proving" the existence of God.