Test Track for Soundstage

[STC]

Here is a test track which will play clip of male and female voice recorded at various position. I use this track to setup my system so that the system could reproduce the exact position during the playback. I will mark the chart and compare with the original position. It is also a good way to demo your system's accuracy by asking visitors to mark the chart. For an example, say, one excerpt of the sound was 15 degrees to the right and hopefully the listener's would mark an "11" around there on the chart.

 

The chart

 

The interesting part of the recording is that you localize better if you made the recording by yourself and often able to localize the position more accurately but if the recording was made by another person and if you do not have the prior knowledge of the location in the original event then you tend to localize them differently. The recording contains both ILD and ITD and pure stereo recording.

 

How many of the 14 excerpts you can accurately locate?

 

The clip.

Mixed position testCD.wav

 

 

[sandyk]

If you want a test track that is capable of filling the entire listening area with sound from just Stereo Speakers with a better than average system, then try 01.  Ascent, Zarathustra by Don Dorsey from the album Time Warp by Erich Kunzel

[STC]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

that is capable of filling the entire listening area

 

I have the said Telarc and CDs like these are the ones that will start disagreement of the positional accuracy. Some perceive certain instruments in front of other instruments and some perceive them to be behind. Simple test like this will point to system weakness and also listener's ability to localize accurately. In terms of angles and depth, I score zero. Depth is the tricky ones. 

[STC]

Here is another folder from Chesky recordings which is used for normal stereo spread. It still benefits even the standard stereo system. I am still working on to make XTC possible for 60 degrees speakers spread to be perfect and this are my initial attempts. If you guys want any of your tracks to be processed to be listened with your current setup without changing the speakers, please let me know. Are there any recording engineer who can help me to do the EQ. I just want to EQ my files to match the original sound like heard over the headphones. It is so difficult and hopefully there is a way to do it more efficiently.

 

Allegro Energico e Passionato.wav

 

Laura.wav

 

03 Pick Yourself Up and Start All O.wav

 

13 Allegro Molto - Concerto for Violin.wav

 

[botrytis]

I really don't worry about sound stage, first. I worry about accuracy and presentation, Sound stage is really what your brain does with the information presented to it.

[STC]

I know I am casually and carelessly using soundstage word. I am more concern with the accuracy of the sound as perceived naturally. 

[Blackmorec]

2 hours ago, botrytis said:

I really don't worry about sound stage, first. I worry about accuracy and presentation, Sound stage is really what your brain does with the information presented to it.

When it comes to identifying and localising individual musicians, the most important elements are of course frequency spectrum and timing. But for instruments with very similar spectra that overlap in time, position is the only way your brain can differentiate the different players.

I have albums where this is the case. Played on a Naim Mu-so Qb the albums can sound edgy and a little harsh. Played on my main system the harshness resolves spatially into two discreet sources of high frequency energy, which when well resolved from one another sound perfect. 

This is one of the reasons digital systems of old sounded errr digital. Lack of resolution, for example instruments unresolved from acoustical ‘atmosphere’ and air  has the effect of combining the two  which essentially gives the instruments an over abundance of high frequency energy causing that typical digital edge. 

If you ever make an upgrade to your system that adds increased detail, you will ALWAYS notice a corresponding reduction in harshness,  an increase in ‘ease’ and a corresponding reduction in listener fatigue.  This is because the new detail was previously unresolved and therefore combined with other elements as a form of distortion. 

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

 

If you ever make an upgrade to your system that adds increased detail, you will ALWAYS notice a corresponding reduction in harshness,  an increase in ‘ease’ and a corresponding reduction in listener fatigue.  This is because the new detail was previously unresolved and therefore combined with other elements as a form of distortion. 

 

That's not quite correct., but perhaps you didn't word this as well as you could have ?

 If your system has it's S/N ratio improved or Jitter reduced, then  this happens.

This is what some refer to as removing veils.

Some achieve this by using an Iso Regen for USB with a low noise separate power supply or an internal USB card.  

 .

[Blackmorec]

51 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

That's not quite correct., but perhaps you didn't word this as well as you could have ?

 If your system has it's S/N ratio improved or Jitter reduced, then  this happens.

This is what some refer to as removing veils.

Some achieve this by using an Iso Regen for USB with a low noise separate power supply or an internal USB card.  

 .

Signal to noise was a term used extensively in the analog days when all signal was audible and all noise was audible, so the ratio made sense. The noise element of the ratio would define the noise floor i.e the quietest part of the signal you could hear before it became swamped in noise.   In these digital times most noise is inaudible but will impact other parts of the digital processing, affecting resolution. From a listening standpoint a sound that is masked is not the same as a sound that is unresolved. A sound that is masked can’t be heard...instead of the sound, you hear noise. A sound that is unresolved can be heard but as part of the signal that it is unresolved from, thus it will affect the frequency spectrum of what you do hear. 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Signal to noise was a term used extensively in the analog days when all signal was audible and all noise was audible, so the ratio made sense. The noise element of the ratio would define the noise floor i.e the quietest part of the signal you could hear before it became swamped in noise.   In these digital times most noise is inaudible but will impact other parts of the digital processing, affecting resolution. From a listening standpoint a sound that is masked is not the same as a sound that is unresolved. A sound that is masked can’t be heard...instead of the sound, you hear noise. A sound that is unresolved can be heard but as part of the signal that it is unresolved from, thus it will affect the frequency spectrum of what you do hear. 

 

The masking appears to be due to an increase in Wideband RF/EMI

 You can for example increase HF detail as Cornan does by daisy chaining a couple of LT3045 PSU PCBs, but in that case, there is an apparent increase in HF detail, but the artifacts will also increase, perhaps resulting in some artificial HF detail and an overblown sound stage. Any sibilance present will also become  more noticeable.

 

[Blackmorec]

Hi Sandyk, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, just that it wasn’t quite the point I was making (I didn’t make my point clear enough, as you mentioned 😊) All I wanted to say was that spatial resolution is required when sounds are closely related in frequency and timing ....for example female voice with violin. If both are going on simultaneously its far easier to hear them as discreet entities if they are spatially resolved. When they are not resolved spatially they will often combine to mask one and give the dominant one a HF ‘edge’.  It was in reply to Botrytis’s point about accuracy and presentation. Often we need spatial differentiation (soundstage) for things to ‘sound’ accurate

[sandyk]

8 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

....for example female voice with violin

 

 That would be an ideal combination for Frank to check his Laptop speakers with !

[fas42]

17 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

If you ever make an upgrade to your system that adds increased detail, you will ALWAYS notice a corresponding reduction in harshness,  an increase in ‘ease’ and a corresponding reduction in listener fatigue.  This is because the new detail was previously unresolved and therefore combined with other elements as a form of distortion. 

 

Precisely so. At an advanced level there is a total ease in the listening, irrespective of volume, and complexity of the mix - your brain has no trouble decoding "what it all means!", and takes great delight in exploring the myriad spaces conjured up by the recording 'magicians', .

 

Any harshness is a marker that the playback system is flawed, and hence requires remediation to cure ...

[fas42]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 That would be an ideal combination for Frank to check his Laptop speakers with !

 

Not a problem at all, Alex ... why, is this an issue on your setup?

[fas42]

Probably a good time to put up one of my all time favourite tracks for humbling rigs, in the old days,

 

 

Giant power amps would fall into a heap on the floor trying, to do this ... it was pathetic!

 

Still an excellent test of a system's abilities to handle a solid mix, where the delicacy has to emerge from amongst a driving wall of sound ...

[sandyk]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Giant power amps would fall into a heap on the floor trying, to do this ... it was pathetic!

 When was the last time that you listened to a recent  high quality power amplifier and speakers with material like this ?

 We have come a long way since those early transistor amplifier days.

[STC]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 When was the last time that you listened to a recent  high quality power amplifier and speakers with material like this ?

 We have come a long way since those early transistor amplifier days.

 

And there is no stereo in live performance like this. 

[fas42]

40 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 When was the last time that you listened to a recent  high quality power amplifier and speakers with material like this ?

 We have come a long way since those early transistor amplifier days.

 

I agree ... current systems are much better in this regard - progress has been made.

 

Note, this YouTube clip is not a good example of this track, but the best I could come across; and the visuals are a miming by the group; typical for what was done in those days for "pop shows".

 

What I have on the CD version has plenty of stereo, spatial detailing - for example, the drums sit in a very precise acoustic on the right; and the vocals occupy a separate, highly intimate central space.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I agree ... current systems are much better in this regard - progress has been made.

 

Note, this YouTube clip is not a good example of this track, but the best I could come across; and the visuals are a miming by the group; typical for what was done in those days for "pop shows".

 

What I have on the CD version has plenty of stereo, spatial detailing - for example, the drums sit in a very precise acoustic on the right; and the vocals occupy a separate, highly intimate central space.

 

 I will send you and STC a link to hear an improved version of your YouTube video

[fas42]

Improved, Alex? This is the waveform from the link you posted, FR cuts off at below 16kHz,

 

 

And this is from another posted version, FR goes out to 20k,

 

 

I could have ripped the track from the CD, which will be even cleaner, of course

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Improved, Alex? This is the waveform from the link you posted, FR cuts off at below 16kHz,

 

 

And this is from another posted version, FR goes out to 20k,

 

 

I could have ripped the track from the CD, which will be even cleaner, of course

 Frank

 I have 2CDs in flac with 5 different versions of this track,   including the normal CD version ,Mono, fast, slow and Stereo Edit, which is the closest sounding to the YouTube version, but without such a huge amount of clipping.(see attached)

The YouTube version is a Basket Case.  Yes, the version that I linked to which is a direct conversion to LPCM without EQ is way too bright sounding, yet still has better separation than that crappy YouTube version  It HAD to be converted to LPCM to show the waveform as most S/W that I am aware of is unable to show the waveform of .aac encoded material. At least my SF9 isn't able to do this.

 BTW, the YouTube video that you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread, which is  Test Track for Soundstage.

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The YouTube version is a Basket Case.  Yes, the version that I linked to which is a direct conversion to LPCM without EQ is way too bright sounding, yet still has better separation than that crappy YouTube version  It HAD to be converted to LPCM to show the waveform as most S/W that I am aware of is unable to show the waveform of .aac encoded material. At least my SF9 isn't able to do this.

 

In my world there is no such thing as a recording being "too bright sounding" - this is just code for saying the treble has too much non-linear distortion associated with it in the playback, making it unpleasant to listen to - it takes listening to a rig where this is not an issue to appreciate what's possible ...

 

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 BTW, the YouTube video that you posted has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread, which is  Test Track for Soundstage.

 

This part of the conversation started because you made that remark about female voice and violin, and myself. I responded with a decent example of a track that tests the ability of a system to resolve detail, which enables soundstaging.

[sandyk]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I responded with a decent example of a track that tests the ability of a system to resolve detail, which enables soundstaging.

 

The disagreement here is about the suitability of a very low Bit rate .aac audio encoded YouTube video being used to "  test the ability of a system to resolve detail, which enables soundstaging. "

[dabears999]

I would have to agree. Using what I know to be an inferior recording to test my system isn't a first choice. I have always found poorly recorded material is revealed more so in my system. Chesky Records offers a host of quality recordings to set speaker placement, test spatial qualities, sound staging, etc. 

[fas42]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

The disagreement here is about the suitability of a very low Bit rate .aac audio encoded YouTube video being used to "  test the ability of a system to resolve detail, which enables soundstaging. "

 

The point of the YouTube clip was not to be directly used for testing, but to point to the type of material that I find highly effective for assessing systems - anyone who is interested can access a high quality version from the various resources we have these days.