Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[Yucca06]

I didn't read ALL the thread (already 5 pages in less than 1 day...) but with stereo only I have something like multichannel atmos with my speakers : sounds from beyond walls in front AND back, far away than speakers right and left. Not with all recordings, but the vast majority of them , specially with electronic music.

 

Tips : dual subs on lateral walls, Massive diffusion (quadratic diffusers at the first reflexions on lateral walls, and on the back wall) and snake oil (lots of Bybee and MadAudioScientist stuff...yes, it works !), and an analog tube processor.

[STC]

35 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I use nothing.

 

 

This is how I mentioned the two antennas and frequencies etc. in the post you did not want to read.

 

With one radiating (frequency) object of 2cm diameter and two antennas 10cm apart, that object can be localized in a space of 12x6x2.5m at an accuracy of 0.1mm.

 

Mind the distance of the antennas and how the object can be e.g. 10 meters to the left of both (one + 10cm) under an angle of even 90 degrees (the side of the stage and line of performers example) and beyond of course (91, 92 ... degrees).

 

There is no difference between the two antennas (receivers) being transducers (radiators AKA speakers) and the object of 2cm being projected in the 3D space. Both use the exact same mechanism, though reversed (what radiated (the object) now receives (the instrument in space) and what received (the antennas) now radiate (the speakers).

It is all about how the radiated frequencies form a unique phase relationship in the projected space.

The important side note (just repeating myself) :

 

While this all works with GHz frequencies, it does not work at all for the way lower frequency of audio. However, this is exactly why it works for "sounds" (listen to the crow and how sharp-boundaries the on/off frequency of its throat is) and not for instruments as such because their general frequency is too low to localize. Read : to form a unique phase relationship in the 3D space. The whole shebang is unrelated to phase manipulation (like in Q-Sound) because it is not necessary. It works as it is and it works the same as Q-Sound. One difference : with Q-Sound the whole spectrum will be manipulated so the low frequencies now appear to be elsewhere just the same - something no-manipulation can not do. If you listen closely to Q-Sound sounds, you will notice an out of phase (inside out) behavior.

 

The vector idea is nice, but is the very same as phase ANGLE. So where we tend to speak about phase differences, it might be good to understand that this shows by the difference in phase angle. These are sheer numbers for math.

 

The other clue might be that colliding frequencies of the proper phase in air, add (why did I quote from that 1 out of 100 emails with vrao). If a stereo microphone captures (read : catches a 0.01mm instance) of a sound which are a bunch of frequencies, then it can be regarded that this moment of capture is the optimal amplitude for that sound (it doesn't matter where the wave of each of the frequencies resides (think degrees)). When this is radiated again by two speakers, somewhere in air this same optimal amplitude emerges again. One crucial thing : this "somewhere" could be at a 1000 places because it is not unique for location and this is because of the waves being far too long.

I can't determine the phase angle of a 0.01mm part of a 50Hz frequency wave. It will be zero.

 

It is not super easy to see that 

a. low frequency waves are harder to locate than higher frequencies;

b. that where amplitudes add up, the sound is louder at that point (think LF standing waves now);

c. and that when the frequencies are sufficiently high and TWO radiators form it, at one point in space it adds up and sound loud.

 

Ad c. There's the seagull.

But only because of its very square sound with sufficiently high frequency. And then still it is too low. This works partly by illusion because the high frequencies are the only "sounds" which allow localization and the lower frequency (say formed by the beak of the beast) are found to be on the same location as the higher frequencies, by our brains. This was exactly @Abtr's point (though seen from a distortion point of view, but this does not matter).

 

 

 

 

I need to read it again because the first round did not make any sense.

 

Quote

 

With one radiating (frequency) object of 2cm diameter and two antennas 10cm apart, that object can be localized in a space of 12x6x2.5m at an accuracy of 0.1mm.

 

Mind the distance of the antennas and how the object can be e.g. 10 meters to the left of both (one + 10cm) under an angle of even 90 degrees (the side of the stage and line of performers example) and beyond of course (91, 92 ... degrees).

 

There is no difference between the two antennas (receivers) being transducers (radiators AKA speakers) and the object of 2cm being projected in the 3D space. Both use the exact same mechanism, though reversed (what radiated (the object) now receives (the instrument in space) and what received (the antennas) now radiate (the speakers).

It is all about how the radiated frequencies form a unique phase relationship in the projected space.

 

 

This paragraph alone is confusing. Human cannot distinguish sound whether it is from back or front without the aid of pinnae. So how is this similar to human hearing. Moreover, the location of sound with two antennas of 10cm can be easily explained with time difference alone. Alternatively, imagine a bad with head size not more than 1.5cm  that could locate an insect less than 1cm area in pitch dark.

 

Also remember, you cannot use this analogy because we receives sound with two ears.

[PeterSt]

More easy because smaller (click on it first) :

 

[semente]

33 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Try to step over the anti-intuitivity here.

The small higher frequency sounds collide everywhere. They completely fill the room. But admittedly I like the curtains open (more reflections). Does that make it messy ? no. As long as I don't hear back my own hand clapping ...

The wide dispersion makes it messy (but this is what you say too, so no disagreement there).

 

Let's go back to the dreaded classical recording (not the stuff you like), say a piano unamplified playing in a small music hall and mic'ed at a distance that would convey a perspective similar to a seat in the audience close to the stage.

 

If you wish to listen to the recorded spatial cues you need a predominantly direct sound. Room reflections will conflict with the direct sound and make the recreation of the illusion fuzzier and less credible. I notice this when I prop up the seat cushions of my armchairs which are located at the first reflection points and cover the TV with my down jacket.

 

On the other hand, studio productions don't have recorded spatial cues (only pan-potted and reverb effects) and these can sound more "interesting" (to some/most people?) with the messy reflections of your naked window.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, STC said:

Also remember, you cannot use this analogy because we receives sound with two ears.

 

Did you already answer the question on the Cuckoo ?

 

Why can we not locate/find the Cuckoo ?

Hint : you won't even know which direction to go, once you are closer.

[PeterSt]

 

Are we now drifting off so much that this is voted off topic ?

Hmm.

It is as on topic as can be. So there we go again ...

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

but with stereo only I have something like multichannel atmos with my speakers : sounds from beyond walls in front AND back, far away than speakers right and left. Not with all recordings, but the vast majority of them , specially with electronic music.

 

Read that ?

Yucca, you must be making it all up. 

 

12 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

Massive diffusion (quadratic diffusers at the first reflexions on lateral walls, and on the back wall)

 

This is what I was suggesting with referring to vrao.

So that doesn't take it out either.

 

13 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

and snake oil (lots of Bybee and MadAudioScientist stuff...yes, it works !)

 

And THAT exactly does it. FYI (disbelievers) this was all dealt with on the Phasure forum, extensively. So Bybees do this. And maybe someone remembers me referring to sugar cubes ? same thing. Put them under your DAC and you're in a church suddenly. Just some wood with 6 holes in them ...

 

But it obfuscates (Ricardo said it, though for a different widening" reason). I couldn't stand it in the end and it gave me a drunken feeling with headache (this all was described).

It does something which it not real and which at least by brain can't cope with. Not on the longer term.

 

Anyway, mind the reference to electronic music once again. It contains the frequencies required to do this ...

[Yucca06]

Mmmh...I never heard anything about the sugar cubes. Will try if I can.

I've tried for 30 years and more to get immersive music with 2 channels only...so I have now a huge tolerance with music "drunk feeling".

[semente]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Are we now drifting off so much that this is voted off topic ?

Hmm.

It is as on topic as can be. So there we go again ...

Sorry, I was on a  spree...

 

It's the Ambio thing that is off-topic

 

P.S.: and the >2 speaker stereo, and the electronic music

[semente]

[Blackmorec]

The problem with discussing a subject like this properly is you have to be able to disentangle the following aspects:

• how the original music was recorded and the various microphones used
• The effect of the original venue and how its effect was captured
• how the various microphone signals were mixed
• How post recording processing was used to alter the sound 
• How the replay system and speakers present/alter the sound
• The effect of the replay room on the sound
• How human hearing interprets the signals it receives

If you listen to various recordings of a voice for example, you’ll find the following examples

1. A purist approach.....pinpoint source with tonal accuracy and clarity
2. A ‘beautified’ approach, where the recording is enhanced to create a beautified, emotional response 
3. A ‘creative’ approach, where the presentation is manipulated to create a ‘wow factor’ 
4. A ‘commercial’ approach where 2 and 3 are used to optimise the sound and make it sound good for radio and MP3 playback

In view of the above, what you want from a hi-if system and its room is as much detail retrieval with as little alteration to the final recorded sound as possible.  Once you’ve achieved that, its over to the brain. Its been stated that the brain uses amplitude and phase to locate a sound, but its a little more sophisticated than that. A simple left and right location is achieved mainly with amplitude, so with level alone it would be impossible to place a sound outside of the boundaries describes by the loudspeakers. But as soon a time comes into the picture...this changes. 

 

Take a recording like Muddy Waters’  The Folk Singer. There’s a strong ambience in the recording. Let’s look at the characteristics of this ambience....

1. You only hear it on loud passages i.e it takes amplitude for a sound wave to travel the length (width) of the venue, reflect and be once again heard by the ear or detected by the microphone. 

2. The reflection is lower in volume than the original. Obviously there is a loss of energy as sound travels over distance. 

3. The reflection takes time. There is a delay between the original sound and the echo. 

 

The brain is able to compute those 3 variables in order to tell us something about the venue. It takes the original amplitude and that of the reflection to compute the degree of attenuation of the reflection. It also takes the time between the original sound and its reflection, so it now has 2 pieces of data to compute distance.....the time it took for the sound to travel to and from the reflection point and the degree of attenuation. Those 2 pieces of information are used to compute distance.

 

So back to the original discussion. Can a system present sound outside the loudspeaker’s left and right boundaries?   First, let’s modify that question slightly to take the ears and brain into consideration.....Can a system create the illusion of sound coming from outside the speakers L&R boundaries?  From the above you’ll see that no directly recorded sound can come from outside those boundaries, as the boundaries are related to amplitude and you can’t have more than 100% or less than 0%, which are the levels that define those boundaries. But reflected sound is a different story. Here the overriding factor for defining size or distance is time and relative amplitude, so for reflections or ambience a system can create the illusion of sitting in a large hall, rather than in a small listening room.  To create a huge sound stage whose boundaries far exceed those of the listening room is a matter of recording or adding judicious amounts of ambience with significant time delay. The nature of that air and space can be manipulated for size (delay time and attenuation) and texture (frequency shifts). 

So yes, its possible for a hi-if system to create the illusion of sitting in a venue far larger than either the listening room or the dimensions imposed by the loudspeaker’s position. 

 

[semente]

34 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

I didn't read ALL the thread (already 5 pages in less than 1 day...) but with stereo only I have something like multichannel atmos with my speakers : sounds from beyond walls in front AND back, far away than speakers right and left. Not with all recordings, but the vast majority of them , specially with electronic music.

 

Tips : dual subs on lateral walls, Massive diffusion (quadratic diffusers at the first reflexions on lateral walls, and on the back wall) and snake oil (lots of Bybee and MadAudioScientist stuff...yes, it works !), and an analog tube processor.

 

The topic is about 2-channel 2-speaker stereo & 2-mic stereo recordings of live unamplifiied sound.

 

With multi-track and post-processing anything is possible...but that's off-topic.

[PeterSt]

26 minutes ago, semente said:

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here.

Put your system in an anechoic chamber and without reflections (room interference) your imaging will be square between the two speakers and the images will be as sharp as the finest katana blade...

 

But we do. That is, unless you can quote me somewhere on saying that it can be done in an anechoic room just the same. And mind you please, bass traps are different things than diffusers. So people can apply bass traps all right, but diffusers - it could be personal. I don't use neither.

 

May image is as sharp as mentioned blade just the same because the far more delimited waves are allowed - no, required to reflect on the walls. If Diana Krall would be singing in here I would allow it too. And I am fairly sure that she won't ask me te close the curtains.

Luckily not. 

 

The reflections are a necessity (please hear me) to define those spots in space. The more angles the "sound" comes from, the more different waves the more chance of unique phase relations (for the point in space). With no reflections there's two data points only (apart from the wider beam but that gets too complicated) and two data points are not sufficient. Not for the still way too low frequency.

In the end we agree. I never tried it but I don't see it happening out in the (anechoic) field. This is already easy to see by the lines (the path / route) a sound may follow. Like the seagull which follows the ceiling (overhead).

 

In my previous house I had a pillar in the middle of the room (RH). I still know the sounds which hung up to that from Madonna's Immaculate Collection (Q-Sound). Same with a fireplace extension to the left of me. All follows the (wild) boundaries of the room and cabinets and such. Or in between. Never outside of it. Behind ? never further back than the wall behind. Easiest to hear with rolling sounds. Vogue (Immaculate Collection) is a good example of it. Vogue-vogue-vogue-vogue. And up at the wall behind. Always.

 

And thus it is about reflections. Even with phase manipulation.

Unless you're Lyngdorf. Then it goes outside of the room (somehow). Not for me.

 

 

PS: Isn't the answer to the cuckoo not in Google, or what ?

[Yucca06]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

The topic is about 2-channel 2-speaker stereo & 2-mic stereo recordings of live unamplifiied sound.

 

With multi-track and processing anything is possible...

 

 

I have stereo 2 channels only.

Processing is from an analog processor, used to amplify harmonics (SPL Vitalizer, really great)

NO multichannel.

An the sound is all around me.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, semente said:

With multi-track and processing anything is possible...

 

But I don't think Yucca said that. He referred to it "as if".

 

35 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

but with stereo only I have something like multichannel atmos with my speakers

 

My English is not the best of course.

[semente]

 

 

 

[semente]

1 minute ago, Yucca06 said:

 

 

I have stereo 2 channels only.

Processing is from an analog processor, used to amplify harmonics (SPL Vitalizer, really great)

NO multichannel.

An the sound is all around me.

 

Of course sound is all around you but with a 2-mic stereo recordings of live unamplified sound playing through a 2-channel 2-speaker unprocessed stereo the imaging will be between the speakers and the soundstage effect deepening.

[semente]

6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

The reflections are a necessity (please hear me) to define those spots in space. The more angles the "sound" comes from, the more different waves the more chance of unique phase relations (for the point in space). With no reflections there's two data points only (apart from the wider beam but that gets too complicated) and two data points are not sufficient. Not for the still way too low frequency.

 

I agree but when you are trying to recreate the original acoustics those reflections are not beneficial.

 

[Yucca06]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Of course sound is all around you but with a 2-mic stereo recordings of live unamplified sound playing through a 2-channel 2-speaker unprocessed stereo the imaging will be between the speakers and the soundstage effect deepening.

 

Yes and no.

Even with acoustic instruments, sound is not only between speakers, it can go vastly far away to the left and right behind the walls. And I still get the feeling to be "there", in the room recording/studio...

[STC]

41 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Did you already answer the question on the Cuckoo ?

 

Why can we not locate/find the Cuckoo ?

Hint : you won't even know which direction to go, once you are closer.

 

I am making an effort to understand the antenna post which you brought to response to my post. Now I am trying answer your post so that I can bring this topic back on track but you are asking about cuckoo.  Let’s stick to this one, ie the antenna which is nothing extraordinary because it can be localize by time difference alone. 

[STC]

18 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

But we do. That is, unless you can quote me somewhere on saying that it can be done in an anechoic room just the same. And mind you please, bass traps are different things than diffusers. So people can apply bass traps all right, but diffusers - it could be personal. I don't use neither.

 

May image is as sharp as mentioned blade just the same because the far more delimited waves are allowed - no, required to reflect on the walls. If Diana Krall would be singing in here I would allow it too. And I am fairly sure that she won't ask me te close the curtains.

Luckily not. 

 

The reflections are a necessity (please hear me) to define those spots in space. The more angles the "sound" comes from, the more different waves the more chance of unique phase relations (for the point in space). With no reflections there's two data points only (apart from the wider beam but that gets too complicated) and two data points are not sufficient. Not for the still way too low frequency.

In the end we agree. I never tried it but I don't see it happening out in the (anechoic) field. This is already easy to see by the lines (the path / route) a sound may follow. Like the seagull which follows the ceiling (overhead).

 

In my previous house I had a pillar in the middle of the room (RH). I still know the sounds which hung up to that from Madonna's Immaculate Collection (Q-Sound). Same with a fireplace extension to the left of me. All follows the (wild) boundaries of the room and cabinets and such. Or in between. Never outside of it. Behind ? never further back than the wall behind. Easiest to hear with rolling sounds. Vogue (Immaculate Collection) is a good example of it. Vogue-vogue-vogue-vogue. And up at the wall behind. Always.

 

And thus it is about reflections. Even with phase manipulation.

Unless you're Lyngdorf. Then it goes outside of the room (somehow). Not for me.

 

 

PS: Isn't the answer to the cuckoo not in Google, or what ?

 

Too long didn’t read. 

 

Just say whether your method will work in anechoic chamber or not?

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

those reflections are not beneficial.

 

I have a bad dream now.

 

 

You B...

[PeterSt]

8 minutes ago, STC said:

Let’s stick to this one, ie the antenna which is nothing extraordinary because it can be localize by time difference alone.

 

No. Time can't work at all.

[STC]

23 minutes ago, Yucca06 said:

 

 

I have stereo 2 channels only.

Processing is from an analog processor, used to amplify harmonics (SPL Vitalizer, really great)

NO multichannel.

An the sound is all around me.

 

Yes because it works on crosstalk cancellation principle. 

 

“The final control is for Stereo Width, and it operates on a very simple and well‑known principle. Some of the left‑channel signal is inverted in phase and fed into the right channel, while some of the right‑channel signal is reversed in phase and fed into the left channel. This has the effect of widening the stereo image beyond the speakers”.

[semente]

Y'all need this...