I mostly listen to rock music - which is 95 % "panned" stereo with artificial reverb. Is there any need for "imaging" and "spaciousness" in such music?
I tried a very simple experiment on my laptop: Stereo, mono and ambiophonics. While ambiophonics (with electrical crosstalk cancellation) ruined the sound, the music was around me - maybe with the right setup it could work.
Dual mono was quite OK, but it seemed a little less intelligible than in ordinary stereo. All listening was in relative near field - speakers spaced 35 cm apart forming a equilateral triangle with my head.
Are there any arguments for listening to small speakers in near-field? Or is it preferable to listen in far field? In my view, near field is preferrable when ideal speaker placement is not possible.
And how about those 80s HiFi chairs? I have never seen one in person, but the listening experience could be interesting.
I tried a very simple experiment on my laptop: Stereo, mono and ambiophonics. While ambiophonics (with electrical crosstalk cancellation) ruined the sound, the music was around me - maybe with the right setup it could work.
Dual mono was quite OK, but it seemed a little less intelligible than in ordinary stereo. All listening was in relative near field - speakers spaced 35 cm apart forming a equilateral triangle with my head.
Are there any arguments for listening to small speakers in near-field? Or is it preferable to listen in far field? In my view, near field is preferrable when ideal speaker placement is not possible.
And how about those 80s HiFi chairs? I have never seen one in person, but the listening experience could be interesting.
All this talk of spaciousness and imaging and "whatnot?" might bend to some tests with and without headphones.
I have recordings with ambience" included and I wouldn't want any additionl ( from room or speaker)...
But some source material such as much rock music lends itself to "additional spaciousness" especially from a small room - as much detail becomes inaccesible with to much reverb.
Don't much like phones much though I do use them (monitoring/mixing) occasionally (entirely last 2 months). Just brought "on-line" a new set of monitors I built. All the recording I've done in last few months has revealed a "sonic signiture" not revealed with phones. Maybe the room is more active than I thought. I'm still trying to understand this ...
I have recordings with ambience" included and I wouldn't want any additionl ( from room or speaker)...
But some source material such as much rock music lends itself to "additional spaciousness" especially from a small room - as much detail becomes inaccesible with to much reverb.
Don't much like phones much though I do use them (monitoring/mixing) occasionally (entirely last 2 months). Just brought "on-line" a new set of monitors I built. All the recording I've done in last few months has revealed a "sonic signiture" not revealed with phones. Maybe the room is more active than I thought. I'm still trying to understand this ...
Yes the diferences between phones (I use Etymotic inserts) and speakers does point out the issues very well. The room in your example had a much stronger influence on the sound than you expected. I find this lot. People generally do not understand how critical the room, the loudspeaker/room interface and the setup are to the final sound. Many expect that if you buy good equipment, a speaker with good on-axis response, point it at you, then everything should sound good - right? Sorry, its not nearly that simple.
Hello Angelo,
I do for myself a neat difference between "3D image" and "spaciousness of the soundstage"
I don't think a system using Le Cléac'h horns leads to more "spaciousness of the soundstage" but it can lead to a better "3D image", this means:
- better positionning of the instruments in a 3D space,
- better separation between instruments,
- better dimensions of the instruments as recorded.
- better shape of the instruments. (very low phase distortion is needed for that)
As Lynn wrote, this pin point positionning of the instruments and even some accurate dimensionning may be obtained with monophonic records (we have here in France many monomaniac audiophiles). With stereophonic records, the effect of a accurate 3Dimage is more easily perceived with phase stereophony (I am myself a collector of such records ).
Spaciousness is a provocked artefact, based on the multiplication of phantom sources, that an audiophile may want to add to the recorded music in order to create an illusion of the dimensions and reverberation of the type of room he imagines the musicians should play for his preferred music type. This requires a creation of information not originally contained, or very faintly, in the record. I don't know if this can be called high fidelity?
Even if I can admit that it can be more comfortable, I don't care myself too much about a spacious soundstage, but a pin point focusing of the instruments is something I am very much sensible.
Also, due to the limitations of the stereophony, if you want to experience 3D imaging then you have to stay during listening at a fixed axial location and the listening distance is also an important parameter (I listen myself in quasy nearfield conditions). But this is a severe limitation for most audiophiles (they want to move inside the room during listening), so 3D imaging is something very few experienced. This is probably also a reason why some of them also prefer to listen in mono.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
I do for myself a neat difference between "3D image" and "spaciousness of the soundstage"
I don't think a system using Le Cléac'h horns leads to more "spaciousness of the soundstage" but it can lead to a better "3D image", this means:
- better positionning of the instruments in a 3D space,
- better separation between instruments,
- better dimensions of the instruments as recorded.
- better shape of the instruments. (very low phase distortion is needed for that)
As Lynn wrote, this pin point positionning of the instruments and even some accurate dimensionning may be obtained with monophonic records (we have here in France many monomaniac audiophiles). With stereophonic records, the effect of a accurate 3Dimage is more easily perceived with phase stereophony (I am myself a collector of such records ).
Spaciousness is a provocked artefact, based on the multiplication of phantom sources, that an audiophile may want to add to the recorded music in order to create an illusion of the dimensions and reverberation of the type of room he imagines the musicians should play for his preferred music type. This requires a creation of information not originally contained, or very faintly, in the record. I don't know if this can be called high fidelity?
Even if I can admit that it can be more comfortable, I don't care myself too much about a spacious soundstage, but a pin point focusing of the instruments is something I am very much sensible.
Also, due to the limitations of the stereophony, if you want to experience 3D imaging then you have to stay during listening at a fixed axial location and the listening distance is also an important parameter (I listen myself in quasy nearfield conditions). But this is a severe limitation for most audiophiles (they want to move inside the room during listening), so 3D imaging is something very few experienced. This is probably also a reason why some of them also prefer to listen in mono.
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
angeloitacare said:
Haven't you noticed that the spaciousness seems to change from recording to recording and you can get a really good sense of depth with some recordings but not all.
When you listen to an acoustic guitar played in front of you and close your eyes do you hear pin point imaging ?? Seems to me it has size to it and doesn't colapse to one point in space. One point in space isn't real. You get sound from the body, frett board, the whole instrument.
Rob
When you listen to an acoustic guitar played in front of you and close your eyes do you hear pin point imaging ?? Seems to me it has size to it and doesn't colapse to one point in space. One point in space isn't real. You get sound from the body, frett board, the whole instrument.
Rob
Hello,
I wrote pin point focusing, but I would mean what I wrote few sentences before:
- better positionning of the instruments in a 3D space,
- better separation between instruments,
- better dimensions of the instruments as recorded.
- better shape of the instruments. (very low phase distortion is needed for that)
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
I wrote pin point focusing, but I would mean what I wrote few sentences before:
- better positionning of the instruments in a 3D space,
- better separation between instruments,
- better dimensions of the instruments as recorded.
- better shape of the instruments. (very low phase distortion is needed for that)
Best regards from Paris, France
Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h
Robh3606 said:Haven't you noticed that the spaciousness seems to change from recording to recording and you can get a really good sense of depth with some recordings but not all.
When you listen to an acoustic guitar played in front of you and close your eyes do you hear pin point imaging ?? Seems to me it has size to it and doesn't colapse to one point in space. One point in space isn't real. You get sound from the body, frett board, the whole instrument.
Rob
I just merged in the previous posts on this topic from Lynn Olson's Ariel thread here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1617850#post1617850
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1617850#post1617850
Jean-Michel
We appear to be seeking the same things, but not on how to achieve it. "Precise" localizations of the phantom sound sources is a major criteria of mine too. They should not be "at the speaker" and they should not wander around. We seem to agree that the impulse response should be compact, but I discount the need for phase perfection as a compact impulse response does not imply perfect phase response. It does imply a smooth group delay. And all of this can be frequency and level dependent in its audibility.
We appear to be seeking the same things, but not on how to achieve it. "Precise" localizations of the phantom sound sources is a major criteria of mine too. They should not be "at the speaker" and they should not wander around. We seem to agree that the impulse response should be compact, but I discount the need for phase perfection as a compact impulse response does not imply perfect phase response. It does imply a smooth group delay. And all of this can be frequency and level dependent in its audibility.
In wrestling with a good definition about "spaciousness of speakers / ability to hear multidimensional / holographic" i'd like to throw in that it might be useful to keep the discussion at low level.
To me the meaning is, that the whole audio chain is CAPABLE of providing a spacious / 2D / 3D illusion that easily can be entered.
So, a spacious sounding speaker would be one that is CAPABLE to perform well in this regard – which includes "driving" the room well it is playing in - in contrary to ones that can't do so well or at least don't fit the room they are playing in.
For sure every single step along the audio chain up from the recording over all the electronics is able to destroy or hinder the listeners perception of spaciousness (Lynn's / Garry Pimm's example of the DCX2496 is pin point to that – had to laugh several times about the parallels of some of the unorthodox solutions I found by myself and now have read about on Garry's wonderful page by the way).
As for monaural recordings / playback, I find that there are plenty that do sound spacious to me. There is "space information" we may be able to kind of reconstruct - even with mono – no doubt about that to me.
Back to the original statement about Bluemlein / pinna and the frequency range where phantom images can be heard (with our brain rather than the ears alone) or not, I still hold to that low frequency phantom imaging is easier to fall into than high frequency imaging.
There are test samples around to listen to with band pass filtered noise in phase and out of phase, where everyone can proof this by themselves.
It works with speakers as well as with headphones - so the room a speaker is playing in, is not exactly what MAKES sound spacious – but this has been already outlined here, seen and explained from different subjective points.
Also for me its easier to get phantom imaging (and vanishing of spakers) right with a new speaker design at low frequencies first.
Greetings
Michael
To me the meaning is, that the whole audio chain is CAPABLE of providing a spacious / 2D / 3D illusion that easily can be entered.
So, a spacious sounding speaker would be one that is CAPABLE to perform well in this regard – which includes "driving" the room well it is playing in - in contrary to ones that can't do so well or at least don't fit the room they are playing in.
For sure every single step along the audio chain up from the recording over all the electronics is able to destroy or hinder the listeners perception of spaciousness (Lynn's / Garry Pimm's example of the DCX2496 is pin point to that – had to laugh several times about the parallels of some of the unorthodox solutions I found by myself and now have read about on Garry's wonderful page by the way).
As for monaural recordings / playback, I find that there are plenty that do sound spacious to me. There is "space information" we may be able to kind of reconstruct - even with mono – no doubt about that to me.
Back to the original statement about Bluemlein / pinna and the frequency range where phantom images can be heard (with our brain rather than the ears alone) or not, I still hold to that low frequency phantom imaging is easier to fall into than high frequency imaging.
There are test samples around to listen to with band pass filtered noise in phase and out of phase, where everyone can proof this by themselves.
It works with speakers as well as with headphones - so the room a speaker is playing in, is not exactly what MAKES sound spacious – but this has been already outlined here, seen and explained from different subjective points.
Also for me its easier to get phantom imaging (and vanishing of spakers) right with a new speaker design at low frequencies first.
Greetings
Michael
Jean-Michel,
I don't think that there's something like "shape" or "dimensions" of an instrument in stereophony. This is something that we've learned and lives solely in our brains memory. Spaciouseness generated by room reflections or reflections in a recording (yes that's possible to some extend) will make a phantom image bigger just because we aren't able to pin point those phantom images any more.
But what's much more of interest for me is how much reflections at what time and angle are preferable in stereophony or multichannel? When do they start to become destructive? Do they help at all (Toole even claims that early first reflections can help with intelligibility of speech). The common practice of attenuating first reflections and creating a RFZ (Reflection Free Zone) isn't based on scientific facts.
Best, Markus
I don't think that there's something like "shape" or "dimensions" of an instrument in stereophony. This is something that we've learned and lives solely in our brains memory. Spaciouseness generated by room reflections or reflections in a recording (yes that's possible to some extend) will make a phantom image bigger just because we aren't able to pin point those phantom images any more.
But what's much more of interest for me is how much reflections at what time and angle are preferable in stereophony or multichannel? When do they start to become destructive? Do they help at all (Toole even claims that early first reflections can help with intelligibility of speech). The common practice of attenuating first reflections and creating a RFZ (Reflection Free Zone) isn't based on scientific facts.
Best, Markus
There is a serious limit to which two speakers can reproduce the spatiousness of a live performance. Thats because good spaciouness - in the room acoustics sense - requires multiple lateral reflection from the non axial direction. This is precisely what the interaural cross correlation measures. Two speaker in the front cannot achieve this without the room adding in the non-coherent lateral reflections. Hence, I do disagree that two channels are "capable" of good spaciousness in the sense that I use the word.
To get multiple incoherent lateral reflections requires a fairly live room mostly behind and to the sides of the listener. But many speakers in this situation (i.e. non flat power responses) will sound colored. The speakers alone simply cannot do spaciousness as I understand the term. They can only attempt to create athe illusion of lateral reflections when none in fact actually exist. The degree to which this is possible is highly debatable. Hence multi-channel.
To get multiple incoherent lateral reflections requires a fairly live room mostly behind and to the sides of the listener. But many speakers in this situation (i.e. non flat power responses) will sound colored. The speakers alone simply cannot do spaciousness as I understand the term. They can only attempt to create athe illusion of lateral reflections when none in fact actually exist. The degree to which this is possible is highly debatable. Hence multi-channel.
Markus
That early refections help audibility is well know, but not relavent to the music situation. There are many things that improve audibilty that one would never do to a music playback system.
I think that the destructive part is well understand as those reflections at under 10 ms. But there are some caveats. Such as my belief that a reflection to an alternate ear is not as bad as one to the same ear, thus putting some fuzzyness to the 10 ms rule. Clearly NO reflections < 20 ms would be great, but thats not reality. Hence trying to rank order them is suggested.
I find that very dead space behind the speakers is a big asset, but the RFZ, as I recall, dealt with reflections from behind the listener, which I contend are good things (as long as they are > 10 ms.)
That early refections help audibility is well know, but not relavent to the music situation. There are many things that improve audibilty that one would never do to a music playback system.
I think that the destructive part is well understand as those reflections at under 10 ms. But there are some caveats. Such as my belief that a reflection to an alternate ear is not as bad as one to the same ear, thus putting some fuzzyness to the 10 ms rule. Clearly NO reflections < 20 ms would be great, but thats not reality. Hence trying to rank order them is suggested.
I find that very dead space behind the speakers is a big asset, but the RFZ, as I recall, dealt with reflections from behind the listener, which I contend are good things (as long as they are > 10 ms.)
Toole makes the point that nearly every dialog in multichannel is coming from the center speaker so lateral reflections created by the room are desirable. I don't agree or disagree because I simply don't know what implications that has on perception of every other signal of a recording.
Best, Markus
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.