Actually, instruments appearing in front of the plane of the loudspeakers is also an artifact - either with phase manipulation in the playback material or with increasingly directive speakers above 800 Hz.
In other words technically speaking (respective of playback material), the "window" effect of stereo soundstage production where the soundstage starts at the front of the speakers and moves backward from there is "accurate".
Most recordings should have some depth, though more than a few have mixed with "booth" vocals and no real post processing to those vocals when "mixed" in with the rest of the playback: aka "dry" vocals with no little or no reverb.
Ex.
Des'ree - You Gotta Be ('99 Mix) [Video] - YouTube
You might get some added depth to her vocal by having a minor dip in response 1-3 kHz, but it won't be like adding a lot of reverb. Of course it will also likely enhance depth of some of the rest of the sources in the mix (which can be good or not).
On a more negative basis: it will effect tonality - which is unarguably less real than what the recording should have (IF the recording was mixed/mastered with a "flat" result: which itself is highly suspect, though the problem then is what was the freq. response of the loudspeakers the track was mixed on?).
planet10 :
Well, my back wall disappears, but when I listen to classical music (and having had the experience live) only on a few recordings the timpani (which are always "there in the background") appear in the right place.
So yeah, I think the point is how it's been recorded and mixed.
In a concert hall, "sound pickup" is sometimes done with just two omni-directional microphones hanging from the zenith, and at other times with individual cardioid microphones for each group of instruments.
I think the latter gives the recording technician a lot more possibilities to achieve a soundstage with depth.
Well, my back wall disappears, but when I listen to classical music (and having had the experience live) only on a few recordings the timpani (which are always "there in the background") appear in the right place.
So yeah, I think the point is how it's been recorded and mixed.
In a concert hall, "sound pickup" is sometimes done with just two omni-directional microphones hanging from the zenith, and at other times with individual cardioid microphones for each group of instruments.
I think the latter gives the recording technician a lot more possibilities to achieve a soundstage with depth.
I wouldn't call it that, as it is present in a lot of recordings, most certainly from the 70's forward and just one of the tools to play with during mixing etc.
The older recordings didn't have it, but as said, it is quite a common recording technique. For studio recorded music, that is...
I read through linkwitz research stuff.... 6ms is minimum, I couldn't remember the exact number but I knew it was somewhere there.
Like you my personal preference is actually 20 to 30ms when I experimented with a rear firing tweeter. Beyond 30ms it sounded like there is completely different event altogether like having 2 cymbals, 2 high hats etc.
Oon
Accuracy is too much to ask for especially if it is not even captured in the recording in the first place.
All I ask is that it will appear as if it is coming from a much bigger space than my little apartment. I would like to think that maybe the sound comes from a small music hall or something like that. And I am in the audience a short distance from the musician maybe about 5 to 10m.
BTW, I listen to mostly studio recorded material as opposed to orchestral music or things of that nature. Including pop, jazz etc..
If played through normal speakers. It will sound like I am in a small apartment. But with the rear firing tweeter the room is much bigger. I believe that is what the OP asked for, how to create a sense of a bigger room.
The only way to listen to what it was accurately is through a binaural recording of a scene through a pair of good headphones.
Unfortunately most music that I like to listen to is mixed for the mass market. So it is a lot about making the best possible with the music material that I have.
If i could have my way, i would ask ABBA to do an unplugged concert and play their music a lot slower like what Aha did a few years ago. Was interesting listening to "Take on me" after the song was aged 30 years to suit the audience who has also aged 30 years...
Oon
Last edited:
If you are standing 3m away from him, I am sure you will hear something, not necessarily clear and good though.
Oon
Yes, that is the essence of high end audio reproduction for me. The speakers disappear and what you're left with is the illusion of the performance in front of you as the engineer recorded it and intended it to come across. This is mainly the case for direct to disc recordings without mix down trickery. Once you create an artificial stereo image with panned and effected instruments in a multi track recording, it ends up being more a sonic sculpture then a close facsimile of the original performance. Its also one of the reasons I like jazz alot.
Various micing techniques with individual close up recorded instruments that end up in a multi track recording end up sounding too much in your face, plus the weird "in your head" kind of sound. Many pianos are recorded this way with a stereo pair of mics close to the hammers across the strings parallel to the keys. This isnt the way the piano faces you in the performance and it sounds artificial. Removing the lid from the piano and micing across the side (as it faces the listener) is much more realistic sounding and actually captures the full sound of the piano better.
Why am I so picky about this? Its because I am an audio engineer by trade and heart, having worked in a few higher end studios across the country. I live for accurate, well recorded direct to 2 track recorded performances. Just look at how much money is spent on studio time in some of the most sought after places just trying to get that perfect drum or piano sound. The room is part of the instrument and I dont want to hear anything that will cloud the sound of the room it was recorded in with another room signature added into the reproduction by the listening space the speakers are in.
I also love 80s pop music with great sounding synths, drum machines and the like. Even some well sampled pieces ie, Art of Noise. Even listening to this kind of stuff I like a dry, accurate, full range and dynamic listening experience. I listen to many types of music and just want to hear what the producer and engineer intended to be heard, exactly the way it was mixed down and mastered.
I have nothing against dipole open back speakers. Not one thing. They radiate the full forward spectrum of audio out of phase backwards, unlike enclosed speakers that have extra rear mounted HF drivers that radiate just the treble in phase backwards. Thats a completely different animal alltogether and its what I'm complaining about in itself.
Yes, the instrument radiates sound in all directions, BUT the rear radiating sound is of different timbre and tone than the forward sound. It becomes part of the recorded audio in a room in which the performance is far field mic-ed and mixes in with all the other intruments' sounds that interact with one another. If you've ever heard a snare drum excited by the bass, you know what I mean, but in a much more complex and subtle way.
In the case of a speaker with a rear radiating HF driver, the rear radiating audio from the performance is the same as the forward radiating audio, which isn't the case with the instrument's sound as described above.
The omni directional sound of an instrument or group of instruments is represented as reflections by the acoustic space they are playing in. This includes the floor and ceiling as well, plus reverberations and echos that signify the room as an audible acoutic space. This is all in the recording and will be properly represented by a pair of decent mono-polar speakers playing it back. There is nothing to be gained in accuracy, realism or believability of the performance by sprinkling on the extra sauce of a tweeter playing backwards against the rear boundaries of the listening space. Not one bit.
I tried this idea, but wasn't really please with the overall sound. It did widen out that soundstage somewhat and that was a nice benefit. But the overall sound was weakened, thinned out, and lacked the richness I want to hear.
So it's not a compromise I like. Need to have much more direct sound that comes from being on axis.
I think OB is still a good candidate for what I want. Just have to try it and find out if the small room is going to work out with it or not.
Thanks for the suggestion. It was worth a try.
Last edited:
A good OB can provide that off-axis pressure loss that's uniform. With that you can move the loudspeakers a bit closer together and have less extreme "toe-out" (rotate from 15 to 35 degrees off-axis) and likely get the sound you are looking for. This does result in a bit less spl at your position, and also generates that "head in a vise" - though not as bad as something that is terribly directive.
You might also consider:
IMP" by Gary Eickmeier - Google Search
(..even though the outer front drivers (-9db) are -6db from the near front drivers (-3db), both rear drivers are full output - and that makes a difference with that rear outer driver group: both with depth and width.)
Note though like all MTM's the vertical response has a narrow "window" for a more linear result for the listener.
You might also consider:
IMP" by Gary Eickmeier - Google Search
(..even though the outer front drivers (-9db) are -6db from the near front drivers (-3db), both rear drivers are full output - and that makes a difference with that rear outer driver group: both with depth and width.)
Note though like all MTM's the vertical response has a narrow "window" for a more linear result for the listener.
Joking aside, in a home let alone in a small room its unrealistic to expect to get anywhere close to an orchestral soundstage. So why even try? If you are prepared to give up sound staging try listening to open back headphones like Sennheiser HD800 where the imaging will be like your on the stage but the timbre, dynamics and fidelity can more then make up for that. It will take a long time to adapt but once you do you might give up on speakers.
If you still want to get sound stage beyound the speakers and use computer audio then VST phase trickery is probably the most effective tool. They do this by inverting phase and mixing that to the opposite channel.
Last edited:
It is far easier to make a small place sound big than it is to make a big place sound small 😉.
No problem.. you're trying to make your walls indistinct, but why couldn't you just avoid spraying the walls and making them obvious?
I was a bit direct in my answer: i don't know if you are aware of critical distance in acoustic?
It is the distance at which direct sound and diffuse field ( reverberation) are at equal level.
In a control room this is where the listening point is located ( 99% of time). It is related to directivity of loudspeakers and the room ( the bigger and more dead the room is the greater the distance it happen, the more directive the loudspeaker are the greater the distance is).
But it is not only true for loudspeakers, it is for every source radiating within a space including instruments.
As instruments are usually wider in their radiation pattern* than what we face with loudspeakers it makes the critical distance ( very) short. So once you have a mic located at ~1m away you are mainly recording the room rather than the direct sound.
This usually sound more natural to us as this is how we listen instruments when we are part of an audience, but this is not really the 'sound' of the instrument in itself.
Let's take a guitar as an exemple: try to close mic an acoustic at the sound hole and listen: muddy sound, no highs. If you want some highs try at nut or bridge. If you want a more balanced sound it is usually a good location to start pointing at neck joint.
In a double bass most of the sound will come from harmonics. Those are located on the top board and more specifically on the part where under you have 'l'ame' ( sorry i don't know translation in english, it is a piece of wood - rod- running under the 'belly board'/ top board where most vibration radiate from).
Tbh, some instruments won't ever sound natural without a room mic. Especially drums, but there is some place for each of them to spot mic to have a complete rendering of the spectre they produce and it is most always facing the instrument. Iow they don't radiate omni or in all direction. It may seems academic, in practice it is not.
You are right when you talk about mic technique for classical, it usually is a pair** located above the conductor. You may see many many mics on every pupitres ( family of instruments) but they (most of the time) aren't used and are here for backup purpose ( in case of an issue with the main pair).
Think about phase issues and why it is usually prefered to have the main couple for accuracy and coherency.
Of course this is a choice of rendering. Most of the time it comes from habits of labels or what they think you may prefer. Other esthetics are possible ( including close micing) but classical is very conservative...
* of course it is freq related and loudspeakers and instruments differs a lot in this point (as pointed with guitar and doublebass) leading to different approach.
**
A 'pair' is not only 2 mics: the pair of choice in big space for classical is the 'grand AB' where we use three omni mics on the apex of a relatively big triangle. It is 'of choice' because it was decca ways of recording, then became an esthetic 'standard'.
The only way it can happen is to have ER of your listening space to be greater than the one within your recording or to have them to happen past 20/30ms and attenuated -20db.
Otherwise as JJasnew explained in his own word the ER of your room are surimposed to the one on recording and then your brain interpret the smallest one ( in time) as being dominant: small room.
It was the point of the LEDE concept: to have ER of control room which doesn't interact with the ones from the recording studio.
Oh no. tmikku has started a trend of calling them ER instead of early reflections 😡