Soundstage Width cannot extend beyond speakers

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Yucca06 said:

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".

 

Ahhh ... I see the magic number of 30 years - welcome, comrade!!

 

It's about time we thought about opening a bar somewhere, for us good guys to hang out ... .

[Blake]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Toole and others have always relied on "messy" sound presentation to analyse the situation - hence their understanding is flawed.

 

Why yes, Mr. Toole, you see....  if I may be so blunt, the fly in your ointment is your reliance on "messy" sound presentation.  Toole must be smacking his forehead now and cursing himself.  All this time the problem was right there, like an elephant in the room, so obvious, yet so invisible to him.   

 

 

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

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. 

 

 

Excellent alternative explanation.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Blake said:

 

Why yes, Mr. Toole, you see....  if I may be so blunt, the fly in your ointment is your reliance on "messy" sound presentation.  Toole must be smacking his forehead now and cursing himself.  All this time the problem was right there, like an elephant in the room, so obvious, yet so invisible to him.   

 

 

 

Yes, the fly in the ointment is the "messy" sound presentation. You're attempting to be sarcastic, but I find great humour in your "protecting" him ...

[fas42]

12 hours 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.

 

A little bit of manipulation, to help the ears pick up key data that's critical for decoding "what it means" - all's fair in love and war - I likee ...

[Blake]

Floyd E. Toole, PhD:    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Floyd_Toole

 

versus

 

Frank "fas42":   CA forum member/frequent contributor/dude with a stereo, for like 30 years

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

"...a setup of highest quality that's been optimised to the last detail..." Yeah like with an admittedly cheap NAD amp and "boom-box" speakers, you'd know! Like an old Turkish handyman that worked around my college campus once told me: " You can put a tuxedo on a goat. But it's still just a goat."

 

There's a long way to go beyond what I play with - I use what's at hand to experiment with, try ideas, etc. If one went on an all out exercise to do the best that was possible, it would far exceed what any of my rigs have achieved at times.

 

The biggest issues have always been that cheap gear has to be extensively conditioned by hard drivin' to give of their best. Would you buy a car that took 2 hours of travel before the engine properly came on song?

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Blake said:

 

Warning off topic post!

 

And don't forget Frank's source- a generic laptop, with no external DAC in his system!  Therefore, I am assuming Frank is using the 1/8" headphone output jack of his laptop, then using a headphone jack to RCA splitter cable to his NAD amp.  What happened to soldering connections, etc. that Frank mentions all the time?

 

By the way,  I have no problems with Frank's setup.  I am no audio snob and I believe Frank means well (to be clear, I have no animosity for you Frank).  As long as Frank enjoys his system, that is great. But I find it perplexing because Frank is always preaching to the CA members about the need for optimizations and how his system achieves sonic nirvana.  Suddenly bad recordings miraculously sound good on his system.  Also, with Frank's setup, he claims the sound staging and imaging remains perfect, even when walking around the room, he gets identical sound as compared to sitting in the sweet spot.  

 

  

 

Try not to get confused ... .

 

I was very active some time ago now tweaking a NAD plus Sharp speakers. The source was a NAD CDP - three items, all hardwired together.

 

In day to day listening to clips, etc, I use the laptop straight. The internal speakers only - this sound path is surprisingly good - I have a very ambitious Dell laptop as well, with very poor sound - not worth thinking about making it better.

 

Neither the NAD nor the laptop have ever given me peak SQ. Ever. But I'm not fussed, because prior rig combos have delivered - and that's what I refer to, in terms of what is possible.

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Sharp speakers.

 

 

as in from Sharp minds come Sharp products??

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Try not to get confused ... .

 

I was very active some time ago now tweaking a NAD plus Sharp speakers. The source was a NAD CDP - three items, all hardwired together.

 

In day to day listening to clips, etc, I use the laptop straight. The internal speakers only - this sound path is surprisingly good - I have a very ambitious Dell laptop as well, with very poor sound - not worth thinking about making it better.

 

Neither the NAD nor the laptop have ever given me peak SQ. Ever. But I'm not fussed, because prior rig combos have delivered - and that's what I refer to, in terms of what is possible.

 

I'm beginning to think that you are just making shit up.

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I'm beginning to think that you are just making shit up.

Beginning? What took you so long?

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

as in from Sharp minds come Sharp products??

 

As in the brand Sharp - classic boombox product, was good enough to pick differences in sound using different settings in Lame, encoding MP3 at the highest possible quality levels ... too messy to fiddle with, so I just use the speakers now. The cabinet is paper thin, will have to be made more robust down the track - but the drivers are excellent, can handle lots of power - 200 watts rated - have barely tickled them so far.

[fas42]

10 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm beginning to think that you are just making shit up.

 

Why? I've slowed down a lot lately, and I don't need to prove anything to myself any more - I'm just coasting at the moment, for a variety of reasons  ..

 

Just because I'm not ferociously engaged every waking moment on building the Greatest Audio System In The Universe, I have a problem ... is that it?

[Ralf11]

That's fine, but get tmt. for tweaking.

[STC]

7 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Soundstage width can extend beyond speakers and am going to explain why. First thing first; am saying that speakers are not limiting there the sound appear to be coming from and not where it really comes from.  

 

 

The left speaker can produce an image that the guitar is located to the right of where the transducer actually is placed on the speaker and that the singer is on the guitars right or left side, or in the middle of the stage. The same but opposite is true for the right speaker. Now to my point: >95 percent of all speakers is not made to be used as just left or right speaker, meaning that you can use whichever as left or right speaker. If both speakers can make an image that seems to be closer to the middle of the stage than the transducer are placed and the speakers are interchangeable it will mean that the speakers is not the limitation factor at any direction. All limitation is then made by the recording, or should I say placing of the mics and of course your placement of speaker in the room.

 

Remember that it’s a big difference between playing dual mono and a true stereo. With dual mono you can play with amplitude and get some left - right sense, but it’s together with phase we get stereo and pinpoint image.

 

I think I understand what you are saying. But let's clear the first confusion here. I am referring to sound outside the listener/speakers triangle. That means making the left sound going further away towards the left of the left speaker.

 

Dual mono recordings- is just two recordings played simultaneously with one speaker each. The image will not shift from the respective speaker's position unless there is panpotting involved. 

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

That's fine, but get tmt. for tweaking.

 

Don't follow ...

[fas42]

2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Dual mono recordings- is just two recordings played simultaneously with one speaker each. The image will not shift from the respective speaker's position unless there is panpotting involved. 

 

Again, if one uses a true mono recording played over stereo speakers, then the behaviour is highly distinctive - on a competent rig. The soundstage 'follows' one, as one moves laterally in front of the speakers - it's always directly in line with one's body, even going to the right of the right speaker ... spooky!!, some would say ... . And it never appears to be coming from a particular speaker.

 

So, take that, Toole man!! ... what have you got, show us your hand, Big Boy ... .

[Sal1950]

58 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I'm beginning to think that you are just making shit up.

 

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

Beginning? What took you so long?

LOL, how bout it?

He's on my ignore list at least 3 websites.

Frank just enjoys playing silly games and doing the circular argument thing.

Very little of his rants are ever based on reality.

[STC]

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Hi STC, I’d be interested to read any good reference or link you could provide. ?

I can imagine changes to loudness levels as reflections that arrive early from different directions are summed together with the origin. 

 

I use https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092

and https://www.amazon.com/Master-Handbook-Acoustics-Alton-Everest/dp/0071603328 and hundreds of papers on this topic.

 

Just a word of caution here. These books are written for people with some basic understanding in hearing. When I started to read them many years ago I understood them differently and now with a little bit better understanding of the keywords, the message in the book is more refined. Moreover, I have a Ralph who is a good teacher to explain when I need further clarification on any of these topics.

 

Some of the things written there were results of lab condition experimentation which is very different from real listening in the room. Also, read Bluaert on Spatial Hearing.

 

Did you watch the Uni of Duke video, I attached earlier. There are about 5 short courses on human hearing which will help you to understand these books better.

[STC]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

The soundwaves carry all the image information but they cannot arrange themselves or create anything...they simply carry information as uniform pressure variations.....waves, which are the same everywhere in the room.

The recording and therefore the soundwaves contain all the information on timing, phase, frequency and amplitude that the brain needs to assign lateral location, depth, height and extent of the soundstage, etc.

 

The speakers transmits the data. The ears capture that data, send it to the brain as nerve impulses and the brain processes those impulses to make music and assign locations of the musicians, build the sonic soundstage and give the air in that soundstage presence and texture. The more perfect the information provided to the ears, the more perfect the sonic picture your brain can build. 

 

There is one big difference when you replay this recording. While the microphones capture the sound with the same interaural time and level difference like our ears, the playback is done with two radiating sources. A single saxophone on the left in a real stage is now reproduced as two saxophones are located at 30 degrees to the left and right.

[fas42]

Those people with the braincells to join the dots should be able to note the common message, originating from a variety of people who have pursued a certain goal in audio, from a variety of angles - those who are fanboys of the established experts will be unable to see past this limiting of their vision ... will be interesting to see how this evolves, .

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, STC said:

 

There is one big difference when you replay this recording. While the microphones capture the sound with the same interaural time and level difference like our ears, the playback is done with two radiating sources. A single saxophone on the left in a real stage is now reproduced as two saxophones are located at 30 degrees to the left and right.

 

Consider this construct: a room divided into two with a soundproof wall, laterally. There are just two rectangular openings, left and right, of the size and position of, gasp!, speaker cabinets. You sit on one side; a live, saxophone player is midway between those openings on, yes, the other side of that wall. And he plays ...

 

What do you hear ...?

 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

re: breaking the laws of physics - they may well be broken inside a Black Hole, and Franks is very far down the Rabbit Hole...

We don't live inside of a black hole and we certainly don't listen to our stereo systems inside of one. But as you say, the laws of physics certainly don't exist down Frank's rabbit hole! That's for sure. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Those people with the braincells to join the dots should be able to note the common message, originating from a variety of people who have pursued a certain goal in audio, from a variety of angles - those who are fanboys of the established experts will be unable to see past this limiting of their vision ... will be interesting to see how this evolves, .

People who are fanboys of the established experts in aeronautics also are unable to see past the need for wings on aircraft too. This limits their vision. 

One thing about a certain type of audiophile that has always puzzled me. Every day, each one of us counts on engineers and engineering to get us to work and back, to keep our food from spoiling or homes warm, our computers working reliably, and thousands of aircraft flying all over the world. Yet theses same people question the engineering behind something as relatively simple as reproducing music in the home. We see posts like this one of Franks. The "established experts" don't know what they are talking about and are limiting our vision and theirs. It's just this sort of selective belief in the world of technology that makes a lot of audiophiles look like a bunch of kooks to the rest of the educated population.  

[fas42]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

We don't live inside of a black hole and we certainly don't listen to our stereo systems inside of one. But as you say, the laws of physics certainly don't exist down Frank's rabbit hole! That's for sure. 

 

George, you keep reinforcing that you're a bit of a silly bugger, you know ... .

 

You just don't want to consider that some things in audio are more important than you currently think. Achieving a high standard of SQ requires being fastidious in ways you can't take seriously, and hence you always miss the intent of what I'm saying ... I would find it easy to achieve your standard of playback by not being fussy enough - but I'm not interested in compromising ...