What measurements correlate with X?

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

My understanding is that soundstaging, where the image is on the soundstage, is determined by the recording. The quality and qualities of the image is determined by the room/speaker interaction. Eg Omnidirectional speakers in a highly reflective room produces huge images locked between the speakers. The more common directional speakers produce more focused  realistically sized images, provided room early reflections are absorbed.

 

I agree that the soundstaging is determined by the recording, but not that quality and qualities of the image are determined by the room/speaker interaction.

 

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Our perception of the location of the stereo central phantom image relates to amplitude and delay panning (with phase also affected but differently for each frequency). Psychoacoustically the brain perceives that the image is located away from the time delayed speaker and towards the not time delayed speaker and similarly for loudness differential. Delay will result from the difference in the paths between listener and each speaker. Amplitude will change also and in this respect the angle we have to the speaker is important and influenced by the directivity of the speaker (of highs and mids)  and baffle shape.

 

Yes.

 

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Soundstage and central image can be made to move in concert as you move left or right, which is to say it follows the listener. Each position will have its own amplitude and delay panning effect, a blend of left and right channels.

 

Yes.

 

29 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

With lots of early reflections you will have a larger image and sound stage and the image will occupy a larger part of that sound stage. It will float between the speakers and tend to stay fixed irrespective of whether you get up and move around the room. This is how more omnidirectional speakers work in reflective rooms. In most acoustically treated rooms which dampen first reflections, when you get up and move to the left or right the image and stage shift smoothly to the left or right. In problem rooms, the image collapses to the loudspeaker that is closest to you.

 

This is where I strongly depart ... the floating behind the speakers and tending to stay fixed irrespective of whether you get up and move around the room is a function of the SQ emerging from the speakers; reflections from within the room may help in some borderline SQ situations, but aren't necessary.

 

The "when you get up and move to the left or right the image and stage shift smoothly to the left or right. In problem rooms, the image collapses to the loudspeaker that is closest to you." situation is not problem room dependent - rather, doing a lot of things with room acoustics is a workaround to diminish the impact of less than stellar SQ, giving the brain a better chance of making sense of the presentation.

[fas42]

19 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

soundstaging, where the image is on the soundstage, is determined by the recording. Obviously, the recording has to have the cues in the first place, so to that extent yes, sound "quality" in the recording is important. The rest is a function of your speakers and their interaction with the room.

 

It was first described to me reading Art Noxon's (Master of Science degrees in Mechanical Engineering/Acoustics and Physics). Try it, it works 

 

Yes, the soundstage is determined by the recording - the fascinating thing is that even recordings where attempts were made to reduce the captured acoustics, there is still enough leakage of cues to provide a sense of space.

 

That soundstage is a function of your speakers and their interaction with the room is probably the greatest myth in audio - I can create soundstage without touching either of the latter, and ruin it as well, merely by altering the SQ of the electronics prior to that part of the chain. What different speakers do, is help compensate for inadequacies of the sound being fed to them ...

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

 

Please provide a sample to test with.

 

Do you mean an example of a recording that you believe has zero soundstage to it?

[fas42]

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Disconnect one speaker and see what happens to the soundstage and imaging ! You can tweak your electronics all you like but it won't fix the problem

 

Did that effectively, 35 years ago, 😝 ... just use a pure mono recording ...

 

What that gives you is a soundstage that is all about depth; lateral positioning is hinted at, but the absence of pure panned information is not missed. Think of listening to a live performance, through a doorway, where you are positioned some feet back from the opening, but still have direct visual sight of some of the performers, in the centre.

 

14 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Think of it like his Frank. Soundstaging and Imaging cues are baked into the recording.The electronics in the playback chain can manipulate those cues (we grok it) (but there is some controversy here). The speakers and room interaction alter the quality of subsequently perceived soundstage and image.

 

How I find it works is like this ... the lower the the SQ of the electronics driving the speakers, the more the choice of speaker type, brand, model, and room acoustics matters, subjectively; the higher the SQ of that earlier part, the more one becomes oblivious of the speakers and room, and you only hear "what's on the recording" ... every time.

 

Each combo of highly distinctive components I tweak go through the same process - they start by sounding like themselves, and end up sounding like the recording ... mission accomplished, 😉.

[fas42]

I of course disagree with John - if you want to want to call the distortion anomalies IMD that's fine - but this "IMD" as audible unpleasantness is a function of the integrity of the playback chain, irrespective of the nature of the recording - a sub-par setup will make a very high percentage of recordings irritating to listen to, AND lose much of the musical detail; if the integrity of the chain is lifted to a high enough level, then you win everywhere: all the detail is perfectly clear, tonality is fully natural, and every recording becomes a pleasure to listen to.

[fas42]

41 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

At the risk of repeating what many have posted on numerous occasions in different threads, the notion that any system can make every recording "a pleasure to listen to" is complete and utter nonsense.

 

This is a motto I use, which prevents me from "giving in" when I come across a recording which seems particularly unpleasant - now, it could be the intended consequence of the recording to be unpleasant to the ears; or the unintended consequence of very poor or unskilled mastering to make it borderline acceptable - extremely badly done compression, say - I'm presuming that the desire of the people making the recording was that at least a percentage of people hearing it wouldn't be repulsed ... but that may be a mistake, of course 😁.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

You of course disagree with John because he is being specific and your world consists only of generalities unique to yourself. “IMD” isn’t just vague “distortion anomalies” but a specific type of distortion. 

 

Yes, a specific type of distortion, to wit, "caused by nonlinearities or time variance in a system". But his software doesn't correct that, because the IMD can't be in the music data; it only occurs because of a faulty reproduction chain, processing the type of data.

 

Thank you for having me chase that down ... it caused me to revisit a named distortion issue which is one of the key ones I worry about - PIM. That is, Passive Intermodulaton Distortion, the Rusty bolt effect ... I came across this in the literature some time ago, and then it dropped out of my awareness, as something that is studied.

 

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

“Pleasure” is how you personally perceive it. Your “system” works for you to achieve your own pleasure regardless of the recording — your pleasure is not a function of the specific musical input, rather the efforts you make to arrange your “rig”. 
 

That’s all well and good but doesn’t help those who are seeking an audio reproduction system which reproduces the recordings. 

 

What I hear are the recordings - otherwise, what I do to a rig is unbelievably, mindbogglingly complex ...it makes every recording sound very different, changes the tonal and acoustic signature of each one, and does this 100% consistently ... gosh, it might mean I'm really much, much cleverer than I think, 😉.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, cat6man said:

 

what is that 'high enough level'?

has anyone quantified it?

 

Unfortunately, no-one can quantify it, as yet. And, it most likely will vary per individual - some may never experience it, no matter how "perfect" the playback is, because of how their brains are wired.

 

In simple terms, it needs the playback chain to be extremely free of various subtle distortion and noise contributions by the electronics, ones which disturb the listening mind - currently, the only way to achieve this is by very careful assessment, and refinement of areas of the circuits which are below the necessary quality level. Yes, this is very general; but it's impossible to provide a set of numbers which guarantee the performance; nor what should be done in each case.