Ok, perhaps inadequate was a bit harshstill, we don't have access to the master tapes, if we can use reflections to enhance the sense of space and envelopment and bring the musicians into the room I'm all for it.
But I don't want them in my room, way too small for them all to fit in there
...
Yes, I know, I've heard it before, I believe that's a preference thing, or perhaps an inaccurate way of expressing what I mean. Anyway, a bit more food for thought.... Spatial distortion
Last edited:
Most previous comments about depth in recording seems to implies that "only natural instruments" can produce this effect.
Guess what? This is wrong.
You want an example, ok.
Massive Attack "Mezzanine" is a great album for that "Inertia Creeps" in particular.
There is constant movement between parts of the song which give the impression of depth.
First the beat seems to be recorded in a different space than the rest of instruments. It is constantly floating upon the rest of the mix or to be a little farther away but always detached from the rest. It is interesting to note that within the parts of the songs its volume move a bit and in relation to the bass it gives different foundation which give the impression of varying depth for other instruments without having to vary the level to much.
The guitars ( which can be mistakingly heard as synth) are panned in such a way that it increase the width of the mix during breaks.
The varying sound texture used for them at different part follow the keys (harmonic structure) used to give a more full bodyed sound or the other way around depending of other instruments presents. The way it works vis a vis of oriental violin sample in different layering ( especialy in the intro) will vary the subjective presence of the sample.
The voice overall volume doesn t move a lot (this is typical of this particular singer style) and is panned dead center. Listen to the ambiance sample which come and go along the verse, it give the impression to make the voice move a bit but it doesn t creating here again a subjective impression of depth. The ghostly backing 'ohhh' help to give an impression of back and forth in depth coming from deep of the scene and ending upfront left and right.The backing choir effects is created using panning and reverb both varying in intensity along bridges.
The tambourine and cymbals give the impression to be layered in the depth of the scene and you can hear the 'cocktail effect' i talked previously at work.
Synth and keys are mixed upfront and some keys seems to overtake the whole scene at time but you ll still hear other instruments and this doesn t make the balance collapse.
The balance of all the effects are incredible. Delay reverbs chorus... they are here but if you don t listen carefully you don t really hear them. Reverb on the voice is typical of the period: only ER no tail. This make the voice to be integrate beside not being up front that much. This is different from the tratments used in Tracey Thorn's voice in the eponym opening track of Protection (previous album) where the mixer used sibilance of her voice to create the space in sending only them in a huge reverb with a very long tail. This one is a masterpiece too. Being able to do that and doing the inverse on the following album inspire me a HUGE RESPECT. This is so easy to follow a recipe when it works... the depth in protection is given by the different reverbs used on the snare upon the 8 measure cycle. Listen they change along following a pattern. And the voice reverb.
This is a masterpiece in composition,arrangement and mixing. Like most of theyr work.
All that beside the fact that the album (Mezzanine) was released well after the loudnesswar had started, so it is compressed a tad too much and depth suffer from that.
The cd mastering of original album is still listenable for the style though. Vinyl is better. This is not the case in the compilations where it is more smashed imo. (I own them all... i m a hardcore fanatic ).This is true for Protection too but the cd version is less compressed (there is a gap of 7years between them).
The mp3 versions of youtube are here jut to give an idea of the track,soundwise this is a joke!
YouTube
Protection :
YouTube
Guess what? This is wrong.
You want an example, ok.
Massive Attack "Mezzanine" is a great album for that "Inertia Creeps" in particular.
There is constant movement between parts of the song which give the impression of depth.
First the beat seems to be recorded in a different space than the rest of instruments. It is constantly floating upon the rest of the mix or to be a little farther away but always detached from the rest. It is interesting to note that within the parts of the songs its volume move a bit and in relation to the bass it gives different foundation which give the impression of varying depth for other instruments without having to vary the level to much.
The guitars ( which can be mistakingly heard as synth) are panned in such a way that it increase the width of the mix during breaks.
The varying sound texture used for them at different part follow the keys (harmonic structure) used to give a more full bodyed sound or the other way around depending of other instruments presents. The way it works vis a vis of oriental violin sample in different layering ( especialy in the intro) will vary the subjective presence of the sample.
The voice overall volume doesn t move a lot (this is typical of this particular singer style) and is panned dead center. Listen to the ambiance sample which come and go along the verse, it give the impression to make the voice move a bit but it doesn t creating here again a subjective impression of depth. The ghostly backing 'ohhh' help to give an impression of back and forth in depth coming from deep of the scene and ending upfront left and right.The backing choir effects is created using panning and reverb both varying in intensity along bridges.
The tambourine and cymbals give the impression to be layered in the depth of the scene and you can hear the 'cocktail effect' i talked previously at work.
Synth and keys are mixed upfront and some keys seems to overtake the whole scene at time but you ll still hear other instruments and this doesn t make the balance collapse.
The balance of all the effects are incredible. Delay reverbs chorus... they are here but if you don t listen carefully you don t really hear them. Reverb on the voice is typical of the period: only ER no tail. This make the voice to be integrate beside not being up front that much. This is different from the tratments used in Tracey Thorn's voice in the eponym opening track of Protection (previous album) where the mixer used sibilance of her voice to create the space in sending only them in a huge reverb with a very long tail. This one is a masterpiece too. Being able to do that and doing the inverse on the following album inspire me a HUGE RESPECT. This is so easy to follow a recipe when it works... the depth in protection is given by the different reverbs used on the snare upon the 8 measure cycle. Listen they change along following a pattern. And the voice reverb.
This is a masterpiece in composition,arrangement and mixing. Like most of theyr work.
All that beside the fact that the album (Mezzanine) was released well after the loudnesswar had started, so it is compressed a tad too much and depth suffer from that.
The cd mastering of original album is still listenable for the style though. Vinyl is better. This is not the case in the compilations where it is more smashed imo. (I own them all... i m a hardcore fanatic
).This is true for Protection too but the cd version is less compressed (there is a gap of 7years between them).The mp3 versions of youtube are here jut to give an idea of the track,soundwise this is a joke!
YouTube
Protection :
YouTube
Last edited:
For you dipole users (not only of course!) I ve got an other one i would like you to try.
It is a bit long (10mn) probably very different from what you used to listen to but it"ll be interesting to see if the ER sckrew the effect.
This is a soft electronic instrumental track where there is a lot of "Haas effect" used. I wonder if you ll have the same effect as i experienced this afternoon rediscovering it. Some kind of elevation sensation which is fun.
Don t be scared this is not aggressive or oppressive track, in fact more funny to listen to even if you don t like four to the floor kick drum. Just don t skip it before the end there is some real fun happening after the pause at 6mn.
Please tell me if you experience the same as me or if the added enveloppment just kill it. This one is more about 'width' rather than depth but still interesting.
YouTube
Wesayso try it you'll like it i'm sure!
It is a bit long (10mn) probably very different from what you used to listen to but it"ll be interesting to see if the ER sckrew the effect.
This is a soft electronic instrumental track where there is a lot of "Haas effect" used. I wonder if you ll have the same effect as i experienced this afternoon rediscovering it. Some kind of elevation sensation which is fun.
Don t be scared this is not aggressive or oppressive track, in fact more funny to listen to even if you don t like four to the floor kick drum. Just don t skip it before the end there is some real fun happening after the pause at 6mn.
Please tell me if you experience the same as me or if the added enveloppment just kill it. This one is more about 'width' rather than depth but still interesting.
YouTube
Wesayso try it you'll like it i'm sure!
Last edited:
The thing with all of the synthesized music and studio music is that many of the "spatial cues" are completely artificial. For example that Emmylou Harris + Linda Ronstadt album linked to above. First time I listened to it was today. What struck me was that I could picture in my mind's eye the two of them standing in a sound booth, side by side, laying down the vocal tracks! On another track, there was a completely artificial "reverb/echo" added to the singer's voice. I can tell when something was recorded in a real space and when it is electronically added. By "spatial cues" I do not mean "the sound is like in a large reverberant space". Both live and dead spaces can have their own "cues".
Siegfried Linkwitz, in his own personal DIY investigations about sound and perception, recorded a lot of material using his own microphones (sometimes a L,R pair attached to eyeglasses) at a concert or even just walking around somewhere, e.g. entering a reverberant hallway from a more dead space. Later he would listen to these tracks on his DIY loudspeakers to see the extent that they (the loudspeakers) influenced and reproduced all the natural spatial cues that were captured. Unfortunately at some point he seemed so zealous about that kind of thing that the music he found to be "acceptable" was extremely restricted. But it's true that when you play back a recording that includes these cues on a good pair of loudspeakers you really know it! After that experience, a lot of stuff can sound either flat or artificial. It's like that Star Trek movie about this "ribbon" flying thru the cosmos that was nirvana for all that it "captured". Once you are in there, you really, really want to get back and never leave! I feel the same about some of my wonderful audio experiences.
Of course there is much more to the enjoyment of music than maximal acoustic cues, and everyone's personal satisfaction comes from their own interaction with the musical performance AND the way that performance is rendered via the playback chain. With that said, a loudspeaker system that can project a sense of space and depth to the material played on it, if and when that material contains sufficient information about the recording space, is really worth aiming for.
Siegfried Linkwitz, in his own personal DIY investigations about sound and perception, recorded a lot of material using his own microphones (sometimes a L,R pair attached to eyeglasses) at a concert or even just walking around somewhere, e.g. entering a reverberant hallway from a more dead space. Later he would listen to these tracks on his DIY loudspeakers to see the extent that they (the loudspeakers) influenced and reproduced all the natural spatial cues that were captured. Unfortunately at some point he seemed so zealous about that kind of thing that the music he found to be "acceptable" was extremely restricted. But it's true that when you play back a recording that includes these cues on a good pair of loudspeakers you really know it! After that experience, a lot of stuff can sound either flat or artificial. It's like that Star Trek movie about this "ribbon" flying thru the cosmos that was nirvana for all that it "captured". Once you are in there, you really, really want to get back and never leave! I feel the same about some of my wonderful audio experiences.
Of course there is much more to the enjoyment of music than maximal acoustic cues, and everyone's personal satisfaction comes from their own interaction with the musical performance AND the way that performance is rendered via the playback chain. With that said, a loudspeaker system that can project a sense of space and depth to the material played on it, if and when that material contains sufficient information about the recording space, is really worth aiming for.
Good thread with good info, thanks guys!
The subject of depth in the audio fascinates me and I have some 30 years of experience with trying to understand it. So I'll throw in my views and experience.
Depth is definitely in the recording - or not. Even mono recordings. Every system I've heard that had believable depth illustrated this. Some recordings are very deep, some stay right between the speakers, some are a mix of depths. Some speakers will place the image out in front. I wonder if the out in front is an artifact of the system, or in the recording.
The common thing I've observed about systems that had real depth is that the wall behind the speaker was far away, or non existent. I've never heard depth from any type of speakers that were close to the wall behind them. Yes, I've heard the speaker owners talk about "fantastic depth" but I didn't hear it. Some examples of situations where the depth illusion has worked for me are; in my lava cave where the wall was 30 ft behind the speakers. In a high end showroom where the Focal speakers were a good 15 feet from the wall, in a small theater where there was distance and heavy velour drapes behind the speakers, or in John's garage with the back of the speakers facing the driveway.
The garage door trick is one I've posted before. I visited my buddy John and went out to his garage to listen to some speakers, including the Manzanita.The garage door was open and Harry James was playing trumpet out in the driveway, about 20 feet beyond the speakers. Push a button and down comes the garage door. Now Harry and his trumpet are pushed right against the door. Depth gone, or at least limited to the barrier behind the speakers. Open the door and the image shifted back out to the driveway.
That's consistently been my experience with depth in audio playback. If the wall behind the speakers is close, I hear it and the illusion is ruined. The depth goes no farther back (for me) than the barrier behind the speaker. Perhaps very diffused reflections from behind the speaker could sustain the illusion, I've had some experience with that, but not enough.
As to the original question about in-wall, I don't know. Though I've heard a few in-wall systems, I can't remember anything about depth. Curious to know more!
I am a bit surprised that Pano has described exactly what I've experienced, especially the line "The depth goes no farther back than the barrier behind the speakers."
My experience came from playing with speakers in my 1400 SQFT basement when I was living in Illinois. In that relatively large space, every stereo pair of speakers, placed about 15ft or so from the back wall (and at least 8" from the side walls), gave great soundstage depth. The type of speakers playing did not matter much -- it could be dipole, sealed, vented, horn (e.g., La Scala), multi-way, fullranger, dual-concentric, line source, etc. The soundstage depth only extended to the back wall, however. Because the back wall was the limit of the depth, the soundstage was not as realistic as it could be, but it was very satisfying nonetheless. A good analogy would be comparing a really good relief sculpture with a real 3D sculpture.
Because of this constraint of “the depth goes no farther back than the barrier behind the speakers” as Pano put it, I always thought that people who attempt to eke out soundstage depth from speakers placed closed to the back wall are barking up the wrong tree. No physical depth behind the speakers = no meaningful soundstage depth, at least to my ears in my experience.
Kurt
Charlie could you describe the inwall instalation you had?
I ve seen that Willian Cowan is around here in the forum at the moment. I m curious about his feeling about all that as he implemented a nice domestic inwall system AND had dipole too which he seemed to like a lot.
William Cowan's Homepage
By the way i tend to agree with his ten point for great sound. And his implementation of unity horn inwall is what i would try (or something more or less the same) if i was good at carpentry and owner of my place.
I ve seen that Willian Cowan is around here in the forum at the moment. I m curious about his feeling about all that as he implemented a nice domestic inwall system AND had dipole too which he seemed to like a lot.
William Cowan's Homepage
By the way i tend to agree with his ten point for great sound. And his implementation of unity horn inwall is what i would try (or something more or less the same) if i was good at carpentry and owner of my place.
Last edited:
Yes, I feel exactly the same. I remember being on stage among the musicians of an orchestra, and I loved listening to them all. If I had an orchestra playing just for me, I wouldn't sit in the front row. Nor would I stand in front of them like a conductor. I would move through the orchestra as they played, getting so close to the music I could practically touch it. Of course, I'd keep a safe distance from the horns though.
Thanks Kurt, good to know what you're hearing. I have wondered about the in wall installation, tho. If there are no reflections from behind the speaker, would that be the same as a speaker in free air with no reflection? With a very wide wall side reflections shouldn't interfere much.
Yes, it took me a long time to shift my perspective, and it's not completely shifted. What I found along the way was that as the system and the room got more and more out of the way of the recording, I starting liking big venue recordings more and more. Also live recordings, because it feels like you're at an event.
A curious side effect to the room and the system getting out of the way was that ability to hear what's technically going on in the recording. Microphone placement and technique, edits, fader moves, buzzes and noises. The better I could here them, the less they bothered me; much like the same thing live.
I can understand why someone might not like them, as you didn't like the Matilda track. But for me it's all part of the show. Maybe because I've worked in live shows most of my life?
One of my favorite concert experiences was listening to Vienna Teng at a small venue. I was in the 2nd or 3rd row, and she sang the last song with no mics, no accompaniment. The sound came straight from her mouth to my ears. My ideal stereo reproduction is to re-create something like that. No noise (I'm so bothered by noise I wrote my own noise reduction software), no buzzing, no edits, no obvious EQ or enhanced reverb, and the illusion of no mics, no speakers. In fact, when I hear musicians breathe it bothers me a little. It takes away from the music slightly. I usually listen to symphonic music, or chamber music groups playing instruments that aren't typically mic'd unless they are in a big space they just can't fill. So for me, a live sound doesn't have any mics, mixers, faders, or any electronic equipment at all. That stuff is all just a necessary evil, and shouldn't draw any attention to itself. And the more noticeable it is, the more bothersome it is. IMHO, of course.
Still, I had some fun listening to Matilda... concentrating on what the piano was doing. Also, there's a cool energy to the whole thing.
Still, I had some fun listening to Matilda... concentrating on what the piano was doing. Also, there's a cool energy to the whole thing.
Sorry guys I don't have time to listen to samples now.
One basic thing came to my mind. Looks like that those who can and want to hear 3D space (even if it is artificial) in recordings like the mixing engineer, must set their spakers to serve that purpose and prferably listen in nearfield (RFZ?)
I prefer overall entertainment experience more, nice spectral balance and low distortion are enough for me in a relatively acoustically good room. Low EDT and RT, reasonable CTI, listening distance more than 2 meters. My speakers are on the long wall by the way.
I have heard large synergy+tapped horn system and electrostat panels etc. too. The synergys gave the feeling of having gigantic headphones on my ears. Quite amusing, but I find it too offensive in long term. Same effect with nearfield listening at computer desk.
One basic thing came to my mind. Looks like that those who can and want to hear 3D space (even if it is artificial) in recordings like the mixing engineer, must set their spakers to serve that purpose and prferably listen in nearfield (RFZ?)
I prefer overall entertainment experience more, nice spectral balance and low distortion are enough for me in a relatively acoustically good room. Low EDT and RT, reasonable CTI, listening distance more than 2 meters. My speakers are on the long wall by the way.
I have heard large synergy+tapped horn system and electrostat panels etc. too. The synergys gave the feeling of having gigantic headphones on my ears. Quite amusing, but I find it too offensive in long term. Same effect with nearfield listening at computer desk.
Completely agree, even with a constant directivity design some reflections are bound to be useful - otherwise you'll just end up listening to headphones/nearfield.
Strechneck i think that " when you say that even with constant directivity some reflection are bound to be useful" you mix things up.
Most (if not all) the typical waveguide used for constant directivity provide a covering angle of 90° in horizontal space. In the vertical this is 60 or 40.
90° in horizontal plan is a wide opening, meaning you will splay large amount of sound everywhere in the plan facing them.
As to have a large listening spot most of waveguide user toe in theyr speaker toward the opposite (side) wall you end up with a lot of reflection from lateral wall. And consequently from the front wall. This is a trick, interesting for home theater but in a way and for me it defeat some of the advantage of controlled directivity up toa point.
In vertical as the opening is not as wide you have less reflection and if you read back in the thread you ll see i already said the ceiling and floor reflection are the most offending ( but you still need them from the floor at least or the experience will be disturbing).
William system does use Unity horn and a d Appolito arrangement for subwoofer: the outcome is a slowly varying directivity from 2pi to 60° constant from 500hz and up. As well the angle he choose for the wall make that you have minimum reflection (but still there) from lateral wall but a very natural transition and power response from the speaker. The mtm arrangement help regarding to bass too: it deal with mode better at it is in a way an crude way at distributed sub.
Without saying that in vertical it give a typical front lobe pointing straight away to the on axis of the unity.
This is a very simple but coherent approach to point source. Very clever.
Horn are different and most have higher directivity as you go higher in freq, waveguide are different animals...
I agree with your observation Pano, as the one from Juhazi about the gigantic headphone feeling...but with a sense of space (you don t have with headphone all source are located at best inside your head).
Nearfield is very different from an RFZ. Depend on the application though... but definitely RFZ is different and difficult to explain for me. Somewhat like making disappearing a layer of trash on the signal.
Most (if not all) the typical waveguide used for constant directivity provide a covering angle of 90° in horizontal space. In the vertical this is 60 or 40.
90° in horizontal plan is a wide opening, meaning you will splay large amount of sound everywhere in the plan facing them.
As to have a large listening spot most of waveguide user toe in theyr speaker toward the opposite (side) wall you end up with a lot of reflection from lateral wall. And consequently from the front wall. This is a trick, interesting for home theater but in a way and for me it defeat some of the advantage of controlled directivity up toa point.
In vertical as the opening is not as wide you have less reflection and if you read back in the thread you ll see i already said the ceiling and floor reflection are the most offending ( but you still need them from the floor at least or the experience will be disturbing).
William system does use Unity horn and a d Appolito arrangement for subwoofer: the outcome is a slowly varying directivity from 2pi to 60° constant from 500hz and up. As well the angle he choose for the wall make that you have minimum reflection (but still there) from lateral wall but a very natural transition and power response from the speaker. The mtm arrangement help regarding to bass too: it deal with mode better at it is in a way an crude way at distributed sub.
Without saying that in vertical it give a typical front lobe pointing straight away to the on axis of the unity.
This is a very simple but coherent approach to point source. Very clever.
Horn are different and most have higher directivity as you go higher in freq, waveguide are different animals...
I agree with your observation Pano, as the one from Juhazi about the gigantic headphone feeling...but with a sense of space (you don t have with headphone all source are located at best inside your head).
Nearfield is very different from an RFZ. Depend on the application though... but definitely RFZ is different and difficult to explain for me. Somewhat like making disappearing a layer of trash on the signal.
Last edited:
I don't know about that. I wouldn't consider 4-5 meters as near-field. I think the closest I've sat to speakers with good depth was about 3 meters.
I agree - this is a very good checklist - he also provides some recommendations about commercial speakers too. The Wisdom Audio l150i in-wall line array appeals - but I wonder what the depth of soundstage would be. Have emailed the UK distributor.
Regarding Nearfield vs. RFZ I don't have the experience, so perhaps my understanding is lacking.
Last edited:
About line array Wesayso have a very impressive looking AND impressive results from his implementation (including the domestic room as part of the system).
I haven t heard the result but all measurement and the step by step process he went through are absolutely great and here again inspire me great respect.
And the one'ss who heard it are all deeply impressed.
I haven t heard the result but all measurement and the step by step process he went through are absolutely great and here again inspire me great respect.
And the one'ss who heard it are all deeply impressed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.