Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

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

 

Superb post.

 

Do you happen to know what is additionally needed so sound can go beyond the walls ? And then referring to my "over here this never happens" (while I know it an - e.g. Lyngdorf).

[PeterSt]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

Too long didn’t read. 

 

Aha. So now I understand why you think I never reply to your not-so-questions. Thanks.

 

14 minutes ago, STC said:

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

 

Next time, at least look at it. Possibly you see the answer to you never answered question in exactly sentence #1.

Try it.

[STC]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

My guess is that your brain is combining the sound coming from both sources and for this reason it cannot come from any point in space outside of those two sources but can only shift between one an another due to changes in amplitude / balance.

 

Precisely, sound location with stereo is based on Interchannel level and time difference. There is phase too involved but that’s left out here. 

 

It cannot extend beyond the speakers without room reflection. It will give you a spacious feel and stage that appears bigger that it is. 

 

Remember Bose 901(sic) which radiate sounds to the side to create the live feel?

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

It cannot extend beyond the speakers without room reflection. It will give you a spacious feel and stage that appears bigger that it is. 

 

Of course it can. Carver’s Sonic Holography would do it at the push of a button, using sum and difference signals. Recordings with Q Sound could locate a source anywhere around the room using phase effects. So it can be done by the recording in a couple of different ways; or it can be done by the room.

 

 I personally would rather have it done (at least to a noticeable extent) by the recording, since if all recordings have the same huge soundstage in your room, it’s of course inaccurate, and for me it becomes boring and even irritating very quickly (as listening to a friend’s system with Carver’s Sonic Hologram Generator did for me many years ago - he eventually became bored with it too and got rid of it).

[STC]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Aha. So now I understand why you think I never reply to your not-so-questions. Thanks.

 

 

Next time, at least look at it. Possibly you see the answer to you never answered question in exactly sentence #1.

Try it.

 

And in the second para you also said no reflection is needed which means you are claiming it should work in anechoic.

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, semente said:

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 know where you are coming from. But I'm afraid you speak theory only. So yes, I would agree with the theory.

Weren't it that the reflections we talk about are sufficiently minute not to overrule the recording's venue. 

Can you now please first take out your ringing and buzzing reproduction ?

(where did that come from)

 

When you are Brexited out of there, don't forget to remind me on my own recordings from rooms somewhere here in the house. Don't forget to go there to observe the acoustics. Bring a bottle of whiskey after all, just in case you agree with me that you can not tell the slightest difference between the recording in that room, reproduced in the music room on one hand and playing in that room itself the real instrument on the other, which latter we can still do, obviously.

 

Alternatively we could try to find a pure deadened recording and see how reflective it behaves in the music room. My promise : not.

But I wouldn't bet over that.

Make that all ringing and buzzing and the bet is on again - nothing will work any more. The buzzing will be pain staking. Of course it is what one is used to, but it will get used to soon enough.

 

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, STC said:

And in the second para you also said no reflection is needed which means you are claiming it should work in anechoic.

 

Language problem alert !

 

59 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

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.

 

May = My of course. Now look :

 

because the far more delimited waves are allowed

 

no, required

 

to reflect on the walls.

 

If not language problem than my lousy writing. But anyway, I say the exact opposite of what you apparently read.

 

Summarized in more straight language :

Waves are required to reflect on the walls ...

 

... or else there is insufficient phase angle data to combine to be conclusive about the location.

[STC]

2 hours 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).

 

 

 

16

 

I am not going to run in circles with you. So I am what to thrash out this post first.

 

Going back to your 

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).

 

 

 Is your antenna capable of receiving omnidirectional signal equally from all the angles? If the answer is YES then how can you tell whether the sound originates at 45 degrees at 6 meters away and another sound which originates from 135 degrees to your right?

Quote

 

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.

 

 

How can you reverse the concept with speakers and hearing?  Two antennas equal to two speakers. Ok that accepted. But then a single source equals to two ears? we receive sound from two distinct spots. So how to use this analogy?

[STC]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Language problem alert !

 

 

May = My of course. Now look :

 

because the far more delimited waves are allowed

 

no, required

 

to reflect on the walls.

 

If not language problem than my lousy writing. But anyway, I say the exact opposite of what you apparently read.

 

Summarized in more straight language :

Waves are required to reflect on the walls ...

 

... or else there is insufficient phase angle data to combine to be conclusive about the location.

 

Thank you so much! That's what I have been saying. The soundstage cannot exceed beyond the speakers' outer boundary unless there is phase manipulation or reflection from nearby walls.

 

Now go back to the other post. After that, we will do the cuckoo.

 

 

5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

I am not going to run in circles with you. So I am what to thrash out this post first.

 

Going back to your 

 

 Is your antenna capable of receiving omnidirectional signal equally from all the angles? If the answer is YES then how can you tell whether the sound originates at 45 degrees at 6 meters away and another sound which originates from 135 degrees to your right?

 

How can you reverse the concept with speakers and hearing?  Two antennas equal to two speakers. Ok that accepted. But then a single source equals to two ears? we receive sound from two distinct spots. So how to use this analogy?

1

 

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, STC said:

So how to use this analogy?

 

Found the cuckoo ?

I first emphasized the importance of the answer, repeated the question, repeated it again you saying that you don't like the question, repeated it once again and now

 

I repeated it again.

 

Looks childish ?

 

Quote

How can you reverse the concept with speakers and hearing? 

 

It is a long long way before we are both up to that.

"Both" because I can not explain if the basics are not present. I understand that you want to know, though.

And no, I won't elaborate on the cuckoo because you have difficulties in wanting to hear what I have to say. If the internet tells you somewhere, I should be good. Btw, I am not claiming that the internet/Google has the answer. Now on to your other question because that's feasible to respond to (in next post).

[STC]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

Found the cuckoo ?

I first emphasized the importance of the answer, repeated the question, repeated it again you saying that you don't like the question, repeated it once again and now

 

Nope. You brought the antennas. So answer that post first.

[STC]

2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Found the cuckoo ?

I first emphasized the importance of the answer, repeated the question, repeated it again you saying that you don't like the question, repeated it once again and now

 

I repeated it again.

 

Looks childish ?

 

 

It is a long long way before we are both up to that.

"Both" because I can not explain if the basics are not present. I understand that you want to know, though.

And no, I won't elaborate on the cuckoo because you have difficulties in wanting to hear what I have to say. If the internet tells you somewhere, I should be good. Btw, I am not claiming that the internet/Google has the answer. Now on to your other question because that's feasible to respond to (in next post).

 

Ahh as expected. Because I know the antenna cannot tell the difference.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Found the cuckoo ?

I first emphasized the importance of the answer, repeated the question, repeated it again you saying that you don't like the question, repeated it once again and now

 

I repeated it again.

 

Looks childish ?

 

 

It is a long long way before we are both up to that.

"Both" because I can not explain if the basics are not present. I understand that you want to know, though.

And no, I won't elaborate on the cuckoo because you have difficulties in wanting to hear what I have to say. If the internet tells you somewhere, I should be good. Btw, I am not claiming that the internet/Google has the answer. Now on to your other question because that's feasible to respond to (in next post).

 

I think I see it now.

 

But you are ignoring relative positions between instruments.

 

See my diagram above.

[STC]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Of course it can. Carver’s Sonic Holography would do it at the push of a button, using sum and difference signals. Recordings with Q Sound could locate a source anywhere around the room using phase effects. So it can be done by the recording in a couple of different ways; or it can be done by the room.

 

 I personally would rather have it done (at least to a noticeable extent) by the recording, since if all recordings have the same huge soundstage in your room, it’s of course inaccurate, and for me it becomes boring and even irritating very quickly (as listening to a friend’s system with Carver’s Sonic Hologram Generator did for me many years ago - he eventually became bored with it too and got rid of it).

 

Carver is one of the early guys attempted crosstalk cancellation which didn't work quite right due to the limits of the technology then. With crosstalk cancellation, the real soundstage can be retrieved but I am not bringing in crosstalk in this discussion because this is about stereo.

[PeterSt]

15 minutes ago, STC said:

Nope. You brought the antennas. So answer that post first.

 

Ah, OK. Then I stop typing. 

[STC]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Ah, OK. Then I stop typing. 

 

No don’t stop. We still need to do the cuckoo. Btw, if you can measure the delay of the signal arriving between the two antennas, I can give you the location where the sound originated from. It won’t be accurate because the speed of sound in your room is not known nor I do not know the frequency of the emitter. But it will be close enough. 

[semente]

Triangulation? That's 3 antennas

[STC]

12 minutes ago, semente said:

Triangulation? That's 3 antennas

 

That how your location is tracked with mobile phones. They need three towers. Here Peter says he could do that with two which is possible but the rear mirror image of that will cause confusion where you cannot tell whether it is front or back. Even humans too at times cannot locate a sound that comes from the circle of confusion which is resolved with head movements.    

[semente]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

 

That how your location is tracked with mobile phones. They need three towers. Here Peter says he could do that with two which is possible but the rear mirror image of that will cause confusion where you cannot tell whether it is front or back. Even humans too at times cannot locate a sound that comes from the circle of confusion which is resolved with head movements.    

I find it difficult, unless you know beforehand that the source is is a know horizontal or vertical plane.

[Blackmorec]

Worth bearing in mind that in order to maintain clarity in identifying the source of any sound in a reverberant environment, human hearing operates what’s called the Precedence Effect or ‘Law of first waveform’. Essentially any reflection of a sound that arrives at the ear within ca. 40ms of the first wave is fused with the original wave and the original source direction preserved. 

 

Ideally for good, clear imaging a hi-fi room should be small enough to ensure all reflections fall within 30ms.  Anything after 40ms is heard as an echo, which would tend to impact clarity and confuse imaging.  

 

In light of the above, it can be seen that a reflective room will not increase the perceived width of the soundstage.

 

What the above does for us humans is to preserve our ability to localise sound in a reverberant environment.  

[STC]

21 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Worth bearing in mind that in order to maintain clarity in identifying the source of any sound in a reverberant environment, human hearing operates what’s called the Precedence Effect or ‘Law of first waveform’. Essentially any reflection of a sound that arrives at the ear within ca. 40ms of the first wave is fused with the original wave and the original source direction preserved. 

 

Ideally for good, clear imaging a hi-fi room should be small enough to ensure all reflections fall within 30ms.  Anything after 40ms is heard as an echo, which would tend to impact clarity and confuse imaging.  

 

In light of the above, it can be seen that a reflective room will not increase the perceived width of the soundstage.

 

What the above does for us humans is to preserve our ability to localise sound in a reverberant environment.  

 

It is theoretically correct but there are other experiment with lateral reflection and real room scenario where image shift takes place. It also affects the perceived loudness level. 

[Jud]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

Carver is one of the early guys attempted crosstalk cancellation which didn't work quite right due to the limits of the technology then. With crosstalk cancellation, the real soundstage can be retrieved but I am not bringing in crosstalk in this discussion because this is about stereo.

 

Didn’t work quite right?  If you’re talking about extending the sound quite obviously outside the frame of stereo speakers, it worked just fine.

 

Regarding the discussion being “about stereo” - of course this was done with stereo speakers, but if what you are saying is that you want to talk about stereo without some type of DSP specifically meant to affect soundstage, then please realize this: The same sorts of sum and difference and phase cues that are done by DSP can be (and often are) present in recordings, though to a less obvious extent.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, STC said:

circle of confusion

 

That’s definitely me.

 

Oh, you were talking about hearing.

[Blackmorec]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Didn’t work quite right?  If you’re talking about extending the sound quite obviously outside the frame of stereo speakers, it worked just fine.

 

Regarding the discussion being “about stereo” - of course this was done with stereo speakers, but if what you are saying is that you want to talk about stereo without some type of DSP specifically meant to affect soundstage, then please realize this: The same sorts of sum and difference and phase cues that are done by DSP can be (and often are) present in recordings, though to a less obvious extent.

Hi Jud,  Re your last coupla lines; maybe worth saying that anything ‘created’ vs what occurs naturally can be very different, but its encouraging that natural phenomena are being used as the ear know how to deal with those and they should feel natural (that’s not to say that they automatically sound natural....that depends altogether on what they've been programmed to do). 

[Jud]

This stuff goes all the way back to Blumlein in 1931, when he pointed out the means of manipulating the width of the stereo image by mic arrangement and simple variations in mic feed volume.