The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Paul R]

That is one of those articles that has a lot of truth in it. So much that one has difficulty separating out the silliness, I think. One of those cognitive bias’ he is so intent upon pointing out is that a soundstage must extend “behind” a set of speakers. This is, of course, kinda cool. But all “soundstage” is built upon illusion. I fail to see how that particular illusion is more important than any other, save as a preference. There are people who care less about soundstage than, for instance, the sound of a violin. Heck, there are people that prefer mono recordings, and find “depth” in those recordings.

 

To me, most mono recordings seem “small” - however there are arguments that a mono recording sounds closer to reality than stereo. 

 

Also, the idea of the absolute sound is just as illusory. Even at a concert in the best venue, where you are sitting is going to make an enormous difference in what you hear. Also, the fact you can see the performance makes a really huge difference. Visual + Auditory perception is never equal to just auditory perception. 

 

A good article, but too many opinions presented as facts, and too much experience presented as the reason those opinions must be facts. Experience is incredibly valuable, but does not make opinion fact. They can be incredibly useful however, perhaps in the same way that Newtonian calculations are useful?  They miss the underlying reality a bit, but are good enough to get good results in the everyday world? 

 

[Paul R]

LOL - in the sense you mean Peter, I can agree it is not illusion.

 

However, in the broader sense — all the sounds emanating from those speakers are essentially point sources. That trumpet playing 3 feet behind the speaker, and the violin playing 2ft in front of it on the left are illusions. Technical tricks, as the speakers are not beaming the sound to those points before it originates it. 

 

I do not think we are localizing the sound in the same way as we would in a real performance, though the result may be similar. I think we learn that skill — hearing a soundstage — from listening to  stereo recordings, and it is made feasible by the bass, parts of which are far less directional than treble sounds.

 

Also, people who cannot hear or perceive a soundstage from stereo often seem able to localize sounds, and “see” a soundstage better from multichannel setups. I seems to intuitively make sense though, as that is closer to the way we localize sounds in nature. 

 

Depth, I believe is all related to timing, or rather phase differentials. (Which is another way of saying timing.) I believe this is the same mechanism that creates right to left soundstage. Be it illusion, real, or both, depending upon perspective. 🤪 

 

So there is sound theory for a cable being able to affect depth, or effect soundstage, etc. Arguable, but a sound basis. Again, I agree it is a real effect, but I think that effect produces an auditory illusion of soundstage and depth.  A most enjoyable illusion, but not one that I am sure measures fidelity. 

 

You know a heck of a lot more about the subject, and especially how to manipulate it in hardware or software than I do though. 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, crenca said:

 

I do perceive soundstage in the sense of depth, small assembly placement too and fro, etc.  on some recordings, occasionally. That is, I perceive it a bit.  I also am able to squash the illusion with a bit of analytical attention.  Also, I think it is way overrated.  It's nice, but boy, some folks make so much of it and I have never gotten this.  

 

In personal audio the "headstage" is much talked about.  It's always "between the ears" too me and again I get it a bit, I just don't rate it.  

 

What I really don't get is when folks who mostly listen to modern pop/rock/studio creations and who focus on soundstage.  It's one thing to talk seek a soundstage for real acoustic music played in real acoustic space, but music that is the creation of studio mix boards and computers ???

 

Oh yeah - it can be a real head trip, without all the issues of using recreational substances. Atom Heart Mother from Pink Floyd for instance. 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Ummm, the soundstage is always behind the speakers - that is, it starts at the vertical plane where the speakers are located, and exists back from that. Every recording I have meets this criterion when the rig is working at a good level - I'll ignore the "silly" efforts where phase is deliberately manipulated to make things fly around the room, etc.

 

Mono recordings most certainly convey depth; recordings over a 100 years old make it quite easy to judge how far back a particular instrument is, say.

Um no- the soundstage is usually a flat plane between the speakers, and with apologies to Peter, always illusory as well. The speakers are not projecting the sounds of specific instruments to those locations. 

 

Depending upon the configuration and listening position, the soundstage can be very forward, which is actually rather cool too. 

 

So, a little later in the thread, someone asked if headphones can sound just like a room full of speakers. The answer to that is of course, yes. Skywalker Sound has been doing that for years. The same kind of technology has tricked down into the common world already, with perhaps one of the better examples being the Smyth Research A16 Realizer.

 

The reason, of course, being that headphones make it much simpler to tailor response, as the "room" response is perfectly measured and known. The only variable is the user's hearing, and that is even easily measured and put into the calculations. You can pretty much have as many "virtual" speakers in a headphone setup as you wish. 

 

 

[Paul R]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The sounds of specific sound elements are not projected to various locations; rather, all the auditory cues add up sufficiently that the brain decides that the sound of whatever is actually coming from "over there"; and not from the speakers. One day you might experience this from a stereo setup, and will be amazed at how powerful the illusion is - just as amazed as I was when I first had it happen to me.

 

If the soundstage is very "forward" then IME this is all about the distortion being such that all sense of depth is lost; loudness is translated by the brain as meaning the sound is closer, because the other cues telling otherwise are too poorly reproduced.

 

We definitely disagree in a lot of areas here. As I hear and love soundstage stuff more than just about any other aspect of our hobby, it is rather amusing to see you suggesting I will experience it one day. 🤪

 

As it happens, I remember exactly  when I first heard soundstage from a stereo system. It was in the 70’s,  a FM broadcast of Jeff Wayne’s WoTWs, around 2 am in the morning. I had dropped something, and as I reached over the bed to retrieve it, I suddenly hit the very small sweet spot. Amazement, understanding, and great joy. Sold on it  ever since. 

 

A really good soundstage can extend quite a distance into the room, and can present almost tangible images. Much more depth, and height information. Has nothing to do with distortion. It is a myth that a soundstage is only good or accurate if it appears behind the speakers. IMHO, YMMV, etc. 

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

Rubbish is when insisting height information in stereo exist when  it is technically impossible.

 

Having said that, we all perceive height information but that is the brain constructing sound based on pre acquired knowledge. 

 

Record a twitting bird or a buzzing bee in the floor and play them over the speakers and you will perceive it to come from up. 

 

And yes. I got ordinary system without extraordinary ability to create the impossibilities. 

 

Well, there is a bit of rubbish here for sure. 

 

If you mean height like in Atmos encoding, then of course you are correct. You cannot encode that in stereo. But you certainly can record height in a stereo binaural recording. There is a recording of a helicopter chase that is amazing. 

 

In ordinary stereo, you do get some height, based upon the ambient cues, FR, etc. For example, it is very common for trumpets to appear in the sound field higher than trombones. For obvious reasons. 

 

I do do not think anyone has written up here how depth and dimension is achieved in recordings and mixes. Perhaps you are volunteering?  Depth in a recording,  for instance is a result of the masking effect, the Haas principle, frequency response, phase delays, natural reverb, and a few other “tricks.”  Of course that few other tricks includes knowing what you are doing when you mic the recording, including how to mic for minimalist recordings, and how to mic when you do non-minimalist recordings, like in a reverberant field.  Oh yeah, and of course, it depends upon our binaural hearing. 

 

Since you claim most audiophiles don’t really understand this stuff, why don’t you write up some essays about it explaining it to us? Certainly I am an amateur when it comes to this. I do not get paid for doing recordings, and I would be interested in popular explanations from professionals about the subject, including tips and tricks for say, recording church youth choirs to the best effect.

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, HIFI said:

Remember that Frank, and only Frank , the all knowing Frank, the one Frank, the only Frank , is the judge of everything you including you, me, everyone in this forum, every speaker, all electronics. I’m sure I’m missing something. I know Frank will complete the list.  

 

So so don’t feel bad Paul . . .  You are not alone. We all suck and fall short of the glory of Frank. 

 

Awww - that’s a little bit harsh perhaps. I don’t sense any malice from Frank,  even if he can be very — strident — and stubbornly annoying in his views. My dad would say he has “the courage of his convictions.” 

[Paul R]

18 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, from the perspective of a not-American, you look mighty much like an American. 

 

Dazed and confused? Yep. 🤪

[Paul R]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I wrote a same post something like 8 hours ago, but I did not post it. About elaboration and such.

It is useless for someone who is right in the first place.

 

I hope you see my previous post as positive. I would not be able to make it that ...

 

Btw, playing Atom Heart Mother Suite right now. Man, is this beautiful. I knew this, but it is a year ago I played it. And it gets better and better. Maybe no height, but highs, yes.

 

I really love that album.  

 

By the way, to me, it seems to me on that whole album that sounds localized in the center are higher than the sounds on the sides. The motorcycle, for instance, seems to run right over one. Probably illusory, but that impression has stuck with me from the first listen. 

[Paul R]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That’s like saying that if you don’t like brussels sprouts that it’s “your loss, and I pity you”. No, it’s not my loss. If I don’t like something, I don’t like it and I am missing nothing. 

On the other hand, you have taken my comments out of context. I was discussing “Fi” in absolute terms in response to Frank’s insistence that Fi is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. I was merely pointing out that since Hi-Fi means a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound, there must be an original sound to compare. Now, it doesn’t matter whether we’re discussing a full symphony orchestra on stage, or the Grateful Dead on stage, that’s the real sound to which I was referring. IOW, if a system is accurate to the real sound of live music (whatever that sound will be) then everything will sound right through it. OTOH, if a Stradivarius sounds like an Guarneri violin and a Fender Stratocaster sounds like a Gibson, then, even though they both might sound very good to some ears, you can’t rightly call such a system High-Fidelity, because it isn’t “faithful” to anything. 

 

Hi George —

 

It is just as reasonable to assume that Fidelity — in this case — means accurate reproduction of the recording.  That would of course, include music created in a studio or computer just as much as an orchestral performance. 

 

 Everyone’s mileage is gonna vary on that one.😁

 

[Paul R]

6 minutes ago, HIFI said:

You are correct. I apologize for my rant. 

 

I have reported my post and asked it to be removed 

 

Sorry

 

Now you are being waaayyy too hard on yourself mate!  Frank has very thick skin. 🤪

 

Here, have a virtual beer on me!  And one for Frank too... 

(Slides cold foamy mugs of delicious beer down virtual counter...)

 

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Coincidentally (not) I observed where the highs reside (btw the best), but nothing is higher or lower etc. than at the (my) listening plane (longitudinal). What I noticed this occasion is the sub low at the beginning of the first (Suite) track. Notice that this is the MFSL (not hight passed for LP if all is right).

 

 

Somehow I noticed this too and thought of a Harley. I never noticed it before.

As I said, it's getting better and better (as flat as always in your book - haha).

 

Try the Motor Cycle Song from Arlo Guthrie if you don't know it. This was my big fun when I was 12 or so.

 

Had to go listen to the Motor Cycle Song again - great fun!  

 

[Paul R]

Read what I wrote and answer the question yourself. The answer is plainly there of course. 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, STC said:

Depth in stereo is perceived when you have other sound to contrast. If you were to snip a short sound of an instrument which you judged further away and reproduced them with speakers at 8 feet away and another pair at 10 feet away, your ability to judge the depth disappear if the pairs speakers at 10 feet away plays at higher volume than the speakers at 8 feet away. I suppose we are still discussing stereo reproduction. 

 

The depth we all perceive in stereo recording is purely based on contrasting the sound of different instruments and arbitrarily assign a distance based on other sound in the particular recording. You may perceive a stage to be further away or near based on reverbs but the relative depth of accurate reproduction in stereo playback is depended on the level more than the actual reverbs cue. 

 

In most  Jazz recordings, you will perceive drums to be slightly forward while in reality they are often placed further at the back than the main performers. However, without visual cues and without relative loudness level of another drum at nearer location, you tend to fix the stereo reproduction depth based on the loudness.  

 

 

 

 

 

Typical ambiophonics dogma. 

 

Depth is primarily achieved through the masking principle and the Haas effect. That is true even in monophonic recording, though it is a hell of a lot easier to unmask when you expand to two channels. It's control of correlated and uncorrelated reverberation that embeds depth and dimension in a recording. It is reverberation (the ratio of direct versus reverberant sound) and a bit of frequency roll-off that cues our binaural hearing to detect distance.  Yes, there are some other factors, but I will leave it to you to explain them.  

 

I assume you are not quoting from 60 years old pamphlets? 

 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean accurate reproduction of the recording. If that’s what it meant, then an Edison cylinder player could be considered High-Fidelity!

 

Yeah, but that is exactly what that means in a lot of situations. Such as when talking about hi-fi gear.  ¯\(°_o)/¯

[Paul R]

18 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Just like a kid always start bringing irrelevant matter just to be seen as right or smart or strong. You know s@#$ about Ambiophonics so keep your trap shut.

 

Paul a.k.a “ Mr. human speech recognition is inherently binaural”, please don't spew rubbish on topics which you misunderstood since your submarine days. By rewording what I already explained shows that you are reading just to reply rather than to understand what others are saying. Before you start about masking principle and Haas effect get your human speech recognition is inherently binaural rubbish corrected.

 

 

1

 

The rubbish here is coming from only from you, as you quite evidently do NOT know what you are talking about.  You are simply misinformed, and too lazy to go get the facts and get up to date. 

 

Also, it seems you know less about recording that even an amateur like me does. 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

30 years ago this was my favourite, along these lines - was regularly played,

 

 

The action is at the end, as the speedway car, announced over the PA, makes a circuit - the final explosive acceleration should subjectively tear your ears out, as it would in real life.

 

 

Kinda cool. Definitely, the cymbal was above the drums in the center.  

 

(ง’̀-‘́)ง

 

 

[Paul R]

39 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Like not easily fooled by an illusion?  Try growing up in jungle swamped with snakes and monitor lizards. Accurate localization is everything to survive. Maybe, that’s what shaped my hearing sense.  

 

So? Growing up in Florida, you have snakes, really big lizards, more snakes in swamps, sharks, more snakes in trees , fire ants, more snakes in houses, jelly fish, barracudas, snakes in the lakes, man of war, bears, wild hogs, drug runners, serial killers, more snakes everywhere else, and most deadly of all, tourists. Even the snakes are afraid of the tourists... The rattlesnakes take a bite first and rattle later approach to tourists.

 

You learn to localize and keep an audible awareness of everything around you. And to shoot pretty well too.  Soundstage is easy in comparison.

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I think you mean that it’s what a large sample of audiophiles think that it means. But that does not make it so. If that’s what you mean, then I agree. That it really and literally means “a high degree of faithfulness to the original sound”, doesn’t alter the fact, that while it is a worthy goal, even the best cost-is-no-object system cannot even approach the ultimate goal of an audio system that sounds exactly like the original live event.

 

I am pulling your leg a bit George, because I think you are wrong, at least in part. Once radios and 78  players got past the point where they were referred to as having “good tone”,  the hardware was referred to as the Hi-Fi. In the 60s, people stopped playing music in the hi-fi and used the stereo. 

 

In in other words, Hi-Fi just referred to better sound, with no connotation of recorded orchestral works actually sounding like being there. Hi-fi records, on the covers refer to the reproduced sound being of high quality.

 

The “absolute sound” thing, along with the meaning you are giving it, came quite a bit later than the term hi-fi.

 

[Paul R]

14 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Come on now Paul, you have no jungle there. Only small swamps. Well, just don't go in there (or try the real ones which are a bit more towards the Mississippi. )

 

 

(Grin) Ever hear of the Okeefenokee Swamp?  Or the Everglades?

 

And those are just the well known parks. A lot has gotten built up. Them Mississippi gators are babies, though we did see one old girl in downtown Daphne, AL last year! She was near on 12ft.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Maybe better just eat them then (lovely meat).

 

I had the Atchafalaya Basin (LA) in mind. The one which enters from the north by means of a 30 mile or so long bridge. Bayou area I'd say. Maybe the swamp you refer to is bigger. Maybe I am wrong all over. And no, I don't think we ever made it to the Everglades. By the time we had to turn South for that, we headed for Nascar county / north instead.

 

 

You are right in that Atchafalaya is the largest swamp area around, but it is amazingly populated. There are people living all over that place. Something like 2100sq miles if I recall correctly, and the Cajun navy is there in force. Great place actually, and fantastic food!

 

Florida actually has more actual swamp area, and much more varied kinds of swamp areas, but they are all individually much smaller.  And Florida has great food to, but not as good as LA!.

 

Pretty much a joke though, as Florida has been experiencing a crazy building boom since the 60’s. A great deal of swampland is now actually built up. Think Disney world for instance.

 

Edit: You know, I just remembered I have some recordings of Florida swamps around somewhere. Made with an old Nakamichi

deck. Mostly bugs and birds, but got a wildcat mom yowling on it too. 

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, STC said:

 

It is always bigger and better over there.

 

But over here it was just a an insignificant affair in a tropical jungle far from civilization escaping  the worst racial riot and me too young to understand except to keep my mouth shut and watch for movements. The snakes were okay. Mostly cobras which would move away once they see you.  The monitor lizards were the horrible ones. They would approach you and most of them were twice my size. 

 

Keep your our eyes and ears open at all time. 

 

That was humor, not picking on you.  Apologies if you took it any other way, but I did think you were making a joke. 

 

Where is “over here?”  

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

 Nice find!  Thanks!  -Paul 

 

 

P.S. This is one of my very favorite links. I love to read the old articles, and muse a bit about how much hi-fi people have changed over the decades. Not! :) 

 

http://www.preservationsound.com/?tag=vintage-hi-fi

 

 

 

[Paul R]

56 minutes ago, STC said:

 

No worries. We all become a jerk once in a while with this hobby and the anonymity of the internet.

 

Just somewhere along the way to the Forest Reserve of Malaysia. It was a dense jungle then now google is showing most of the part has been cleared and planted with palm trees. 

 

Do you live in Malaysia? For some reason, I thought you lived in Europe.

 

Interesting food over there. I tasted Putu Piring once and would dearly love someone to open a restaurant and serve it here. Absolutely delicious.

 

-Paul 

 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Why not below the drums in the center?   There is no physical reason for hearing height with 2-channel stereo unless the speakers are above and below your listening position.  Maybe not the right 90° for optimal enjoyment.

 

http://www.anstendig.org/Stereo.html

 

 

 

Well, because almost all humans will perceive the cymbals as above the drums. It isn’t 100%, but I would guess somewhere above 99% of the people who listen to that will put the cymbals above the drums. 

 

It is quite definitely embedded in the stereo or monophonic signal, just a little boost in a high frequency instrument and a corresponding boost in a low frequency instrument. It is a well known trick that has been around forever. Certainly since the late 1940s and early 1950s. 

 

It also expands the height of the entire soundstage.  

 

Not worth arguing over, you can easily look it up in any recording handbook I think. 

 

Yours,

-Paul