Sound Stage - Is it all in the timing?

[sandyk]

MP3 has a WIDER sound stage compared to lossless material.

 

Soundstage isn't just about width. A proper soundstage gives the illusion of depth of image, and where appropriate, the illusion of height. Try converting the Chesky track "The Storm" to .mp3 and see if it still sounds even remotely like a real.

storm.

[Allan F]

Yeah, physically, the speakers are the most decisive factor in the sound of an audio system. But after you choose your speakers, there is a lot that you can do to make things sound even better.

 

Speakers are very important but, absent a decent source, they can't and won't produce quality sound. IMO, a balanced audio system is what is needed. If you are saying that the difference between various speakers is usually greater than the difference between sources, that may generally be true.

 

Now the above brings you obviously nothing and at this moment I myself don't even know where to go because the subject is so huge that even if all the questions/suggestions from the OP were cut to 10% we still would not get anywhere any time. However, it is my very subject so I thought to at least start with responding in this thread, to next see whether and how I can contribute with usefulness. Maybe that won't happen ...

 

Nothing personal, Peter, but your posts have lost me completely. I guess I lack the necessary background to follow them.

[PeterSt]

Here is one to let you know what we are actually talking about. Or to tease you maybe.

 

I play a lot of music which merely is test material, or how my partner in crime calls it : test signals. Sadly this most often can indeed not be called normal "music" as such as it is of the genre "ambient" almost always synthesizer generated. Ok.

 

The other day I thought to put out an experiment for customers and it was about how a seagull could fly, incoming from the sea; you might hear just a seagull flying from left to right, but you can also perceive it as flying in from the sea just under the sealing across your head to the back.

No Qsound. Bit perfect of course.

 

Up to date I receive emails like "hey, now my seagull does such and so !". And something improved again.

But *what's* improved is always about accuracy. Speaker positioning/toeing is hardly related, though they must be aligned properly (like both being as far from the back wall etc.).

 

So keep accuracy in your vocabulary.

How accuracy is achieved is a too long story, but noise it its key word.

[sandyk]

Next one :

 

Can anybody tell me how wide the sound stage must be, as how we perceive it through loudspeakers ?

 

Is it as wide as the original stage ?

Was there even one ? (studio recording)

 

If the answer is Yes, is the stage allowed to go beyond our side walls ?

 

Can it even ?

 

If the answer is No, but the original stage is more wide than our room is, what will happen to the size of the instruments ?

 

 

Here too, think about this. The proper answers will vastly help the subject (I think).

And uhm, I am not saying that I have all the answers, but no matter what, when we would be able to end up with answers to these kind of maybe strange questions, I'm sure we progressed.

 

A very good track to illustrate this is the track " Moth to a Flame-Olivia Newton John" It has a simulated moth doing an anti-clockwise sweep of the room . Through a good system with adequate width in the room it goes way behind the rear of the speakers and also way behind the listening chair. However, it must be the original CD, not the later remastered version.

I won't spoil the other bit.

[PeterSt]

Soundstage isn't just about width. A proper soundstage gives the illusion of depth of image, and where appropriate, the illusion of height. Try converting the Chesky track "The Storm" to .mp3 and see if it still sounds even remotely like a real.

storm.

 

Hi there Alex. Although you are perfectly correct, try to "answer" upon these kind of things at the lowest level you can imagine.

Meanwhile I'll do my best to write as accurate as I can do, which means that when I do NOT tell something, it not part of the equation of the moment as well. So example : I only talked about wider. Nothing else.

This does not invalidate your response by any means. But is it useful ?

IOW, we are not discussing MP3 and most certainly not heading for it to be better (at least I am not ;-). But why is the stage of MP3 wider, and if not with you, why not. Or when with me, how ?

[PeterSt]

A very good track to illustrate this is the track " Moth to a Flame-Olivia Newton John" It has a simulated moth doing an anti-clockwise sweep of the room . Through a good system with adequate width in the room it goes way behind the rear of the speakers and also way behind the listening chair. However, it must be the original CD, not the later remastered version.

I won't spoil the other bit.

 

Look, this is crucial. So another question to answer :

How come the remaster doesn't do this ?

 

(just implying some self-teaching so I won't be the know-it-all)

[crisnee]

Soundstage isn't just about width. A proper soundstage gives the illusion of depth of image, and where appropriate, the illusion of height. Try converting the Chesky track "The Storm" to .mp3 and see if it still sounds even remotely like a real.

storm.

 

No one said it was. So what's your point?

 

Chris

[PeterSt]

Nothing personal, Peter, but your posts have lost me completely. I guess I lack the necessary background to follow them.

 

Alan, no worries. It is my idea that this all will be worked out automatically by this means. So the answers will be there.

but

If someone has a question (which is my intention) then ask. And this undoubtedly already will happen because of my poor English.

 

Anyway it is the intention that we all start to understand what the underlying subjects are, crucial to the subject.

Or that I start to understand where I myself am wrong. Also good and most useful.

 

Regards,

Peter

[crisnee]

A very good track to illustrate this is the track " Moth to a Flame-Olivia Newton John" It has a simulated moth doing an anti-clockwise sweep of the room . Through a good system with adequate width in the room it goes way behind the rear of the speakers and also way behind the listening chair. However, it must be the original CD, not the later remastered version.

I won't spoil the other bit.

 

Alex, let me irritate you a bit with this info. I don't have the album in question. But guess who does. MOG. So I streamed it in your beloved mp3 format. Guess what? The alleged moth circled around my speakers and also behind my head. And yes I'm listening in stereo only.

 

It is the 1985 original version.

 

Chris

[PeterSt]

For our ears :

The technical means of localisation is the receipt through our two receptors (ears) of sound which is full of sound waves but where the individual waves even of the same frequency have a different phase angle for each of our two receptors.

 

Here two wave cycles are not fired at the exact same time. Frequency of both is the same and never mind the "voltage" denotations.

 

 

 

 

Try to see that when those two waves are fired at the exact same time BUT they are fired from your left, both will not arrive at the same time at your both ears (normal ear positioning assumed PLUS you just look straight forward) and the same phase angle difference is imaginary used by your brain to detect that the sound came from the left.

So above picture applies for our localisation means.

 

You don't need to understand why a full wave cycle is regared 360 degrees, a half 180 degrees and a quarter 90 degrees etc. etc., if you only take it for granted that this difference in phase angle exists and how it is TIME related.

And thus distance ...

[PeterSt]

Alex, let me irritate you a bit with this info. I don't have the album in question. But guess who does. MOG. So I streamed it in your beloved mp3 format. Guess what? The alleged moth circled around my speakers and also behind my head. And yes I'm listening in stereo only.

 

It is the 1985 original version.

 

Hi Chris, hope all is well.

 

Now I was waiting for this or at least some kind of posting which would allow me to say this :

 

... And who says that my seagull flying in from the sea over my head is bringing the best sound ?

 

It does not. Or at least not for me.

But what happens to let it work is that actually nasty TECHNICAL properties are applied which should not be.

 

Remember what I told : The higher the frequency the faster phase angles change, or put differently :

When two 50Hz tone are put out 1ms after each other and you'd look at the slope of this wave cycle, you won't see much difference between the two positions. However, if you make that frequency 100 times higher so the wave is 100 times more dense and in the end the 360 degree phase changes happen 100 times faster ... it is obvious that the phase angles are 100 times more deterministic (I hope this can be understood but if not take that for granted : 100 times more easy for 5000Hz compared to 50 Hz).

 

Of course this is also how we say that low frequencies are not so directional ...

 

All what needs to happen to let a seagull or moth fly for the best is giving it higher frequencies.

Chris, do I have it correct that you use a NOS DAC ? I think so.

And if so, there is you answer.

 

This too can be - or should be worked out further, but deviation of the real subject is too easy. So for now I'll stick to this. But also to let you think what actually happens before I tell and it won't be understood.

One thing though : the "higher frequencies" I talk about here are not the real ones like "more than 16KHz"; contrary, it is about *implied* high frequencies because of high transients WHILE our filtering means don't deal with that. Uhm, like NOS/Filterless.

(this already will go too far for some, but no worries)

[crisnee]

Peter,

 

No, I didn't use a NOS Dac.

 

Chris

[PeterSt]

Ok Chris. This only means that Alex must try harder. ;-)

[PeterSt]

Here's another scatter :

 

With two transmitters and two receptors 3D localisation can be done. But there's an important prerequisite : the sound to locate must contain sufficient different frequencies which are not normal harmonics of each other.

Sufficient : This is hard to tell were it about the minimum because it all depends on the distance of the two transmitters (stereo speakers) the distance to them (you) and in the end the distance of your ears.

 

Anyway, someone could investigate the frequencies of that moth. I won't.

But I suppose it has more than one wing per side and possibly (per side) those flap not at the same frequency, while the speed of them (against each other) implies a still high frequency resonance which contains a super wide span of frequencies.

 

Not that we right away will understand how it can work, but *that* it can work and that all is explainable.

At least that's how I'm setup.

 

Next is of course how to let it work the best.

[sandyk]

Alex, let me irritate you a bit with this info. I don't have the album in question. But guess who does. MOG. So I streamed it in your beloved mp3 format. Guess what? The alleged moth circled around my speakers and also behind my head. And yes I'm listening in stereo only.

 

It is the 1985 original version.

 

Chris

 

And your point is ?

I made no mention of .mp3 when I suggested this O.N.J. track to Peter as a good illustrative test track for checking sound stage. Nothing more !

My earlier comments were about the track " The Storm" no longer sounding real after conversion to .mp3.

In fact, it doesn't sound real with many other systems in 16/44.1 either. It is from the red book layer of a Chesky Hybrid SACD, but I presume that the SACD version is of higher resolution than the tsame track on the normal layer.

Your sensitivity to any adverse comments about the SQ of .mp3 has been previously noted, so I will refrain from further participation in this thread.

[PeterSt]

Taking it a small step further :

 

Assumed that we see that phase angle differences indeed do some job ... do we now ? ... how super easy has it become to see possibilities of destruction of it ?

 

So indeed, place one speaker a few mm (or only 1) more to the back than the other and actually nothing CAN work already.

 

Sound travels at around 343 meters per second. That is 1 meter per 0.0029154 second. That is 1mm per 0.0000029153 second.

 

10KHz is 10000 cycles per second. This is 0.0001 second. So this fairly audible frequency has its full 360 degree cycle per 0.0001 second. Mentioned 0.0000029153 second for the displacement of 1mm is a 343th part of 0.0001.

360 (degrees) divided by 343 is 1.0495626. So we can say that for 10KHz a longitudinal displacement of the speakers of 1mm implies 1 degree of phase angle difference.

Can we do something with this ?

 

To be honest I don't know other than my empirical finding (see below). What I do know though, is that this of course also works the other way around, and with the given fact of 1 degree phase angle difference for 10KHz we are able to calculate that the one transmitter is 1mm further away than the other. No need to do the reverse math.

 

Next what you must accept from me is that you(r brain) will be able to hear this and what will happen net is that the sound shifts from the middle. Don't think difficult and just think that when the left speaker is 1mm more to the back, the sound will draw to the left. The left just arrives earlier and this is how our brain works it out "comes from the left".

To what degree (maybe pun) depends on the distance of all as mentioned earlier.

 

 

When you could measure your DACs for phase angle difference between left and right, you will see that there is a difference between left and right of around 2 degrees for 1000Hz already. Left is first, right is second.

Ahaaa ....

 

Maybe some by now start to see the fun of this ?

From the previous easy calculation follows that this implies 20 times more displacement. So, 1000Hz vs 10000Hz is 10 times; phase angle difference will be 10 times less for a 10 times less frequency. This reversed means that when we measure 2 degrees for 1000Hz it will be 10 times worse at 10000Hz, thus 20 degrees. This thus means (with our base of 1mm displacement and the 10000Hz math) that 20x 1mm is 20mm and thus that 20mm displacement is needed to have left and right aligned.

So, left channel fires first and what it comes down to is that the speaker needs to be moved back 20mm opposed to the right one.

 

Easy !

 

Maybe not.

You can do it, but

a. it is not a precise given fact that your DAC shows the 2 degrees difference at 1000Hz (all DACs differ);

b. what about the now being closer to the back wall of the left speaker and implied different (phase !!) reflections.

 

shoot.

 

So I mentioned empirical finding;

Phasure NOS1 owners, flip up your Switch#5 (normally down) and take another listen. Where is your accuracy now ?

It is all the way gone. The difference ? well, with the switch down the phase angle difference is 0.0000etc. degrees.

 

 

This all does not tell very much about the staging as such, but possibly we start to see how of vast importance it is that all is minutely correct and that in the end all is about "timing".

In the very end it is about the ultimate consistency of the sound as a whole during the recording and how all the millions of frequencies with their inter-related phase(angles) ever was of course 100% consistent and how we must try our very stinking best to keep it that.

[PeterSt]

Your sensitivity to any adverse comments about the SQ of .mp3 has been previously noted, so I will refrain from further participation in this thread.

 

Alex, you shouldn't.

With the danger of going off-topic, MP3 is actually an interesting means of "DAC Filtering". Ok, I say this because ever back I was brainstorming about this a little (in a thread on my own forum and Chris participated) and for me it is not readily over and done with that MP3 can only be for the worse. Mind you, for its rather strange attribute of it being a filter - a filter which is necessary in the first place. So, someone can easily shoot me now because I stopped the little project before it really started, but a filter (for 44.1) is 100% needed - dozens (or 100s) of filtering means exist and how MP3 is done is just a very special means (without me knowing the real merits of it at this time).

 

In the end almost nothing is off-topic - just referring to how ANY means of filtering already destroys the phase difference between channels. Ok, not my own and I actually never tried MP3 on that.

Haha, now I need MP3 test signals. That 'll be the day.

 

Regards,

Peter

[sandyk]

Hi Peter

With the ONJ track when the simulated moth is doing it's thing, there is very little else going on, so I see no need for .mp3 to have any need for processing.

At a previous location where the room was considerably wider, the "circle" was close to perfect. In my present room it has become more of an elipse as the speakers are too close to the side walls due to the room being less than ideal for good audio, as it was intended as a master bedroom.

Anyway, I will be refraining from further comments where .mp3 is involved.

Regards

Alex

[Paul R]

Hey Paul,

 

The latter yes. But none of these "tools" are going to help a thing.

 

I think it is correct that people don't need to understand fully what is really happening, but this is because it won't be solved by understanding by you "the consumer". So, you might toe-in more in attempt to solve a problem (and undoubtedly an optimal setting will be obtained), but the "problem" really is to be solved by, well, someone like me (ha ha).

 

So Paul, by saying what you just said, I'm afraid you only testify that you'r not in that league of maybe the few who can see where the real matters happen, and this is so low level that indeed it is for the few only.

 

Now the above brings you obviously nothing and at this moment I myself don't even know where to go because the subject is so huge that even if all the questions/suggestions from the OP were cut to 10% we still would not get anywhere any time. However, it is my very subject so I thought to at least start with responding in this thread, to next see whether and how I can contribute with usefulness. Maybe that won't happen ...

 

To start with at least something (again not worth much), before I started Phasure I designed a local positioning system with 0.1mm accuracy in the space of around 50x50m (~150x150ft) and you know what ? this is all phase based;

When I started Phasure (now 8 years ago) I had the idea that this could be reversed for sound perception. So very brief : think GPS as the commonly known application where you detect a couple of antennas which by means of phase angle differences will tell you were you are - which can be reversed to two speakers sending sound while you can localize the original positions of the instruments.

This is a way way too brief explanation but theoretically this can be done in the 3D space if only the sound waves are short enough to allow sufficient phase angle difference at the receptor (our ears).

 

So, I'll try to spit out undoubtedly scattered "data" in following posts maybe, but at least now you know how "Phasure" emerged. But you should also now know how it came about that the Phasure NOS1 - if I am well informed - world wide is recognized as the most accurate D/A converter. This is just needed for the job ...

(hey this is not a commercial, but hopefully tells how all has to start out, will it ever work)

 

Peter

 

(Grin) someday we need to have a beer or six and talk about sound. Since that is mostly math, we will understand each other very easily.

 

I fully understand exactly what you are saying, but still contend it doesn't mean much to most people. They are going to adjust the sound empiracly, by adjusting various controls, moving speakers, running DRC, etc., until they find the settings that please them the most. Which for most people, has a far greater effect than the DAC, and yes, I am awRe of what that means.

 

If you go back in this thread, I think you will find that. I am not disagreeing with you and said much the same thing. I agree with almost everything in XXHighEnd, except I was ease of use and remote control, and it to run on a Mac. The later requirement seems to be your Achille's Heel. (grin)

[gmgraves]

Hi George

Just because you can't imagine it , doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

Did I say it wasn't?

 

100s of posters in different threads can attest that the USB cables with improved separation between data and power have an improved soundstage. It's about minimising the degrading effects of RF/EMI hitching a ride along with the binary data.

E.E. John Swenson has been able to demonstrate this. Obscure low level detail and low level harmonics with system noise and the soundstage will be degraded. With a good recording having plenty of low level ambience and detail, try listening to it first with the air conditioning on, then with the A/C turned off to get the general idea .

Digital Audio isn't as resilient to the effects of RF/EMI as many would wish to believe !

Regards

Alex

 

Again, I merely said that I can't imagine it. I have nothing to say about the experiences of others.

[gmgraves]

You have posted the same kind of disclaimer several times previously. The vast majority of C.A. members simply do not agree with you, as evidenced by the 1,000s of posts and numerous threads on the subject in this forum .

Perhaps as you are unable to hear these things, and also the fact that you are on the wrong side of 50 means that you are unlikely to hear much above 15kHz ( if that) then perhaps you should also get younger people to evaluate your speaker designs by actually listening to HF detail, instead of having to rely on what your measurements appear to be suggesting ? (grin)

 

 

While I have no complaints (earthier or not I agree, is another matter, and largely irrelevant) with the majority of what you posted above, Alex, I do take issue with with you equating the ability to discern sound stage presentation with high-frequency hearing response. I have records more than 30 years old that have NOTHING on them above 15KHz, but, because they were real stereo recordings, the still image palpably.

[gmgraves]

As an aside: I can get excellent sound stage from well-recorded 128Mbps MP3s, both in-room and using decent headphones. And the way to get there involved moving big bits around in a very physical world, as opposed to fooling around with the cables that move the little bits around.

 

You got that right. All one needs do is listen to a live, streaming Boston Symphony Concert on Internet radio to hear a demonstration of that!

 

The Boston Symphony Orchestra in Concert

[sandyk]

George

That was simply a dig back at mayhem13 who feels the need to insert his own findings about there being no audible differences between USB cables in many recent subjective threads about USB cables. In fact he blamed Audiophiles for holding back this hobby.

Regards

Alex

[mayhem13]

Taking it a small step further :

 

Assumed that we see that phase angle differences indeed do some job ... do we now ? ... how super easy has it become to see possibilities of destruction of it ?

 

So indeed, place one speaker a few mm (or only 1) more to the back than the other and actually nothing CAN work already.

 

Sound travels at around 343 meters per second. That is 1 meter per 0.0029154 second. That is 1mm per 0.0000029153 second.

 

10KHz is 10000 cycles per second. This is 0.0001 second. So this fairly audible frequency has its full 360 degree cycle per 0.0001 second. Mentioned 0.0000029153 second for the displacement of 1mm is a 343th part of 0.0001.

360 (degrees) divided by 343 is 1.0495626. So we can say that for 10KHz a longitudinal displacement of the speakers of 1mm implies 1 degree of phase angle difference.

Can we do something with this ?

 

To be honest I don't know other than my empirical finding (see below). What I do know though, is that this of course also works the other way around, and with the given fact of 1 degree phase angle difference for 10KHz we are able to calculate that the one transmitter is 1mm further away than the other. No need to do the reverse math.

 

Next what you must accept from me is that you(r brain) will be able to hear this and what will happen net is that the sound shifts from the middle. Don't think difficult and just think that when the left speaker is 1mm more to the back, the sound will draw to the left. The left just arrives earlier and this is how our brain works it out "comes from the left".

To what degree (maybe pun) depends on the distance of all as mentioned earlier.

 

 

When you could measure your DACs for phase angle difference between left and right, you will see that there is a difference between left and right of around 2 degrees for 1000Hz already. Left is first, right is second.

Ahaaa ....

 

Maybe some by now start to see the fun of this ?

From the previous easy calculation follows that this implies 20 times more displacement. So, 1000Hz vs 10000Hz is 10 times; phase angle difference will be 10 times less for a 10 times less frequency. This reversed means that when we measure 2 degrees for 1000Hz it will be 10 times worse at 10000Hz, thus 20 degrees. This thus means (with our base of 1mm displacement and the 10000Hz math) that 20x 1mm is 20mm and thus that 20mm displacement is needed to have left and right aligned.

So, left channel fires first and what it comes down to is that the speaker needs to be moved back 20mm opposed to the right one.

 

Easy !

 

Maybe not.

You can do it, but

a. it is not a precise given fact that your DAC shows the 2 degrees difference at 1000Hz (all DACs differ);

b. what about the now being closer to the back wall of the left speaker and implied different (phase !!) reflections.

 

shoot.

 

So I mentioned empirical finding;

Phasure NOS1 owners, flip up your Switch#5 (normally down) and take another listen. Where is your accuracy now ?

It is all the way gone. The difference ? well, with the switch down the phase angle difference is 0.0000etc. degrees.

 

 

This all does not tell very much about the staging as such, but possibly we start to see how of vast importance it is that all is minutely correct and that in the end all is about "timing".

In the very end it is about the ultimate consistency of the sound as a whole during the recording and how all the millions of frequencies with their inter-related phase(angles) ever was of course 100% consistent and how we must try our very stinking best to keep it that.

 

Accurate to what?.....what's the reference?

[crisnee]

Alex,

 

I was just ribbing you about the MP3 thing, after all you made up the name it stood for. I forget what it was, but it was a good one I thought. Something like Mighty Pissy Threesome. What was it? Poop was in there I think.

 

Anyway, I'm actually very interested as to why some people can't stand it (mp3) while others don't mind it or can't hear a difference (I'm always referring to high bitrate mp3). It just doesn't make sense to me that something of interest isn't going on there. I've been thinking of starting a topic on that subject but can't think of a good way to do it without inviting all kinds of crap commentary.

 

Its occurred to me that it might have something to do with hearing damage (not the kind that aging brings on--lowering of sensitivity to high frequency), but something more like your industrially damaged hearing.

 

I've been thinking about it for some time (please don't laugh too loud or throw insults my way). One of the things Mp3 does is delete some info/sound that is supposed to be hidden by other sounds, transients and whatever. Now what if one doesn't hear those primary sounds as well because of the hearing damage; perhaps one now better hears the sounds that were mangled by the Mp3 deletion that were meant to be unheard?

 

Alex, I'm not sensitive about Mp3, I'm sensitive about the attitude around it and the folks that state they "know" what others should do/hear/see etc.

 

Chris