Bits is bits?

[Summit]

The ability to reproduce a realistic sound stage and all other SQ aspect associated with the sound of a live concert depends of the fulfillment of tree general conditions. All need to be really good for us to get the sensation that we are hearing music that sounds like it’s been played on a stage in front of us. The reproduction is never 100% like IRL though, but if all tree conditions are accomplished we can get pretty close.   

 

1. The record. If the sound stage is small, the ambient over damped or any other limitations the recorded will sound like that. That includes the height. A good and accurate recording of the event is therefore paramount.
2. The listening room. A big room with high ceiling and good acoustic there you can set up the speakers further apart (everything else held equal) will present a better sound with bigger sound stage and with more air between the musicians.  
3. The audio system. Well matched gear of good SQ will reproduce a more realistic sound stage, deep bas and all other aspect related with the sound of a live concert better and more lifelike than a stereo setup with not as good and matching gear. The audio gear should of course also match the size and the acoustics of the room.

 

So yes the height of the sound-stage and the ability to reproduce that and many other sound aspects realistic depends on record, listening room and your audio system. If OTOH one of the above is not fulfilled the sound will not sound even close to a realistic sound-stage.

[Summit]

19 hours ago, JanRSmit said:

Basically our hearing system had little if any capability to hear in vertical direction. It is therefore indeed mostly perception. Imagine airplane sound from bellen of underground metro from above. 

 

It is no problem to hear if a sound is coming in front, below or above us. It’s not as prices as horizontal, but I would not say it’s lacking.

[Summit]

9 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

I don’t necessarily agree with point 2. I used to think that a large room was desirable but then I learned that a large room has challenges, just like a small room. The major advantage of a big room is that you can position speakers in free space and there’s a lot of flexibility to find the ideal listening position. The disadvantage is that it can be slightly echoey, with its own acoustic that gets superimposed on the recording’s acoustic. Big rooms also require much larger speakers to fully energise.  Large rooms can support deeper bass but that can also be problematic if dimensions cause some major bass resonances (standing waves). Finally large rooms can typically accommodate more people sitting in a reasonable position. In a large room its also easier to integrate (hide) acoustic treatments, but correspondingly more expensive to treat

 

A small room has its many challenges too. It needs a good source of diffusion so you don’t get a lot of energetic sound waves bouncing in the same direction. . It needs to have an optimum RT (reverb time) and it needs well matched speakers that don’t cause bass problems. Also the need to position speakers in free space doesn’t go away so there are far more limitations on speaker positioning and listening position, which often in a small room is a one man affair. Finally its very difficult to employ acoustic treatments in anything other than a superficial manner, so the room has to be reasonably good acoustically from the get go. 

 

I didn’t specify how big a big room and what room is small. I presented three conditions that will be of importance for reproducing an accurate sound and sound-stage.

 

IME, a big room with high ceiling and good acoustic there you can set up the speakers further away (everything else held equal) will present a better sound with bigger sound stage and with more air between the musicians.  In conditions three I stated that the audio gear should of course also match the size and the acoustics of the room.

[Summit]

2 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

I wouldn’t argue that its generally easier to set up a pair of speakers in a large room, thanks mainly to the freedom of placement and listening position it bestows...but there’s a big BUT coming up....

 

Are you familiar with the Haas effect, otherwise known as the precedence effect or law of the first wavefront?  In essence when a direct sound is followed by reflections of that first sound we hear the reflections as an echo, unless the reflections arrive within the first  20-30ms of the original wavefront (which equates to approximately 20 - 30 feet round trip for the reflection). When that criteria is met we perceive a single auditory event and all the reflections are added to the original signal. Essentially what this means is that in a smallish room, reflections are integrated into the original wavefront, giving the signal increased intensity and a more clearly identified and focussed spacial position. With the small room not imposing its reflections and acoustics onto the signal, the signal is free to communicate to the listener the original recording venue acoustics, with no interference from the room. This is not the case for large rooms, where reflections need to be dealt with otherwise the room acoustic will tend to mask or at least confuse  the recording’s acoustic. 

 

If a big room makes the music sound big and airy, that’s not what you want. You want big, airy recordings to make big airy sounds, and small intimate recordings to sound appropriately immediate.  You really don’t want the room to add anything, and that’s easier with a smallish room than a large one. 

 

So what does this mean? It means that in a smaller room you generally need much less acoustic treatment (a rear wall of diffusion is usually sufficient as you don’t want multiple reflections)  AND you can produce sounds with a huge acoustic, if that’s what’s on the recording. 

 

Also, when you listen to say a grand piano in a room, the power of the instrument will often bring the room alive....light it up with music and saturate all the air with its melodious tones until the room feels full of music, but without any ugly resonances or emphasis. That’s much easier to do in a small room, requiring altogether less power and loudspeaker area, so its also considerably cheaper. 

 

Yes I know what precedence effect is. Its real and you need to take it as well as and all other acoustic characteristics in to question then position the speakers and acoustically treat a room. I was very clear about the big room has to have good acoustic, see condition 1.

 

It’s not a big room that makes the music sound big and airy, see my first conditions about the recording. What a big room does is letting us place the speakers so that that they are further from back, side and back walls, at the same time as we can place the speakers further apart. To place the speakers further from back, side and back walls result in a less compressed sound than in a small room, everything else held equal.

 

I have never been to any concert, no matter if it has been a small intimate club or bigger show, there the stage is 2 meter wide. In a big room there the speakers can be positioned 4 meter apart and 1,5 meter from side walls the sound-stage is more like a live concert. With bigger room you will sit further away from the speakers and the sound from the different woofers will blend in better IMO.

 

Sub bass can be problematic in all room and the problem depends of size, form and material of the room. I would not say that bass is a larger problem in a big room, if anything it’s easier to treat many of the reflections, place tube traps and so on in a bigger room.

 

If you rather have a small room and think it sounds better that’s fine by me and congrats it’s normally both easier and cheaper to get a smaller room. I OTOH would like a big listening room because I know from experience that the best and most lifelike sound I have heard is when all three conditions I stated earlier are achieved in a big acoustic treated room.  

[Summit]

53 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Its also far less common in recordings. You don’t hear the effect with every recording as you do with the horizontal plain.  Layering or stacking images seems to be a more recentish development as I don’t recall hearing elevated imagery in old jazz recordings. I’ll check that statement sometime, so its just my recollection. 

 

My remark was about human ability to hear sound in vertical directions and not from recordings.

[Summit]

I can’t understand why so many people feel that they need to make it their life mission to debunk what many audiophiles say that they can hear. If what some people hear or think they hear is all bias, so what! Is it really a problem what someone want to spend their money on? Deforestation, climate change, over-fishing, Ebola and other virus epidemics and many other things are of common concern. If I want to spend my money on an IMO “better” USB cable, is not. The rescue mission to save audiophiles from their own bias is only beneficial up to a point after its just touting of ideas.

 

I believe that a bit is a bit. Is there nothing more too good sound than to get a bit perfect transmission? Yes of that I am sure. And yes I can be sure without knowing exactly what it is that makes two bit perfect digital gear sound different, I just know they can do. It’s the same then I throw a ball up in the air. I don’t need to know exactly why it will fall back down, it will do so regardless of my knowledge. My ultimate measuring instrument for SQ difference between gears is my ear. To some what I or other hear is useless, but if something sounds good to me in my system it’s sounds good to me. If something OTOH doesn’t sounds good to me in my system it’s not for me. It’s IMHO a simple and subjective way of selecting and matching audio gear, but in my experience also the best.