Soundstage

[MylesBAstor]

Show me an audiophile that says they don't care about soundstage and we'll immediately revoke their audiophile society membership.

Sure soundstage is an artificial construct depending upon many factors not the least of which is the original mike set-up, but it's one of the most important factors to me. That's what stereo is all about. I live for that sense of the musicians being spread out in front of me like I hear at a concert or club. Orchestral recordings should sound big and chamber music/small ensembles should be more intimate. (of course, we can discuss the pros and cons of multi-miking vs. minimal miking vs. even Blumlein techniques too.) And yes, I occasionally get a kick out of those early stereo LPs like Sounds Unheard of that show off all the stereo effects to their best advantage.

Nothing but nothing makes me more insane than speakers that don't image outside the outer edge of the speaker. Or speakers with no image height and give the impression that you are seated in the first tier or circle at the hall. Or even speakers that distort the soundstage (like in a V-shape) or even raise it up off the floor. Nothing but nothing brings me closer to the sound of real classical music than the feeling of the walls and ceiling along with that sense of ambient space on a recording. That feeling of the horn or percussion section echoing in the orchestral shell. Or that ability to separate out the layers and special effects in a rock recordings. Or the feeling of on a live jazz or best of jazz recordings--especially on tape (Benny Carter Jazz Giant on Contemporary being one example)-- of the musicians being in the room with you.

Personally I like (prefer?) speakers that obviously disappear but are a little more upfront than say something like the NOLAs where the stage begins behind the speakers.

[jcmusic]

Myles,
I have noticed a much improved soundstage and better imaging since I went to the Soundsmith cartridge. I am getting 39db of separation with the Sotto Voce and that is measured with an o scope!!!

[1morerecord2clean]

Completely agree Myles. Speakers with limited sound stage turn me off and speakers that don't project sound toward me making me feel like I have to reach out to get detail and perspective don't float my boat.

[JackD201]

Completely agree Myles. Speakers with limited sound stage turn me off and speakers that don't project sound toward me making me feel like I have to reach out to get detail and perspective don't float my boat.

I know what you mean. I'm definitely not a fan of having to sit on the edge of my seat leaning forward. In another thread I've detailed my preference for soundstages of the "walk in" variety.

[1morerecord2clean]

I know what you mean. I'm definitely not a fan of having to sit on the edge of my seat leaning forward. In another thread I've detailed my preference for soundstages of the "walk in" variety.

Precisely Jack. I want the detail explicit, not painful, but right there with a deep and wide soundstage. I want to hear to the back of the stage.

[MylesBAstor]

Can one truly evaluate soundstage with jazz or rock or do you need classical music?

[Alex Siufy]

Why can't you evaluate soundstage with jazz or rock?
Just today I was listening to a live concert, taken from a DVD. I was just listening to audio, but I remember the video portion, and the instruments/voices were neatly, precisely positioned in relation to what I remember seeing in the video. And that includes depth too, with the drummer in the back, etc.

[Rust]

Anytime more than two mikes in a stereo configuration are used to record a live performance, the "soundstage" is an artificial construct at the mercy of whoever is doing the multi-channel mix down. Any multi-miked studio recording is strictly an artificial construct. The success or failure of any multi-miked recording is ultimately down to the skill of whoever is at the board. Some are very good indeed, others less good.

It's nice to have a precisely delineated soundstage but it isn't the end all and be all. There are albums I like from the early stereo era where hard panning back and forth "stereo effects" were the order of the day, or putting something unnaturally hard left or right. Both are distracting but given the choice between the artificiality of the recording or not having the sole example of the music at all the choice is simple.

[Steve Lefkowicz]

I'm all for a system having good soundstage and imaging characteristics, but not unless it gets all the musical attributes right first. If issues with tone, pace, dynamics, or frequency extension impede the presentation of the music, all the precise imaging in the world won't make a bit of difference.
Also, I find too many systems where the imaging is way more defined and precise that I hear in real life. Sometimes so much so that it is almost uncomfortable, or at least a little distracting.
Some years ago when we had season's tickets for the Pacific Symphony Orchestra at Segerstrom Hall, (18 rows back dead center), I did notice that when I was caught up in the music, I had no sense of the placement of the musicians or the "imaging" characteristics that might be portrayed on record. But when I tried to pay any attention to that aspect of the sound, I lost all connection to the music.

I'll still take well recorded mono over average to poorly done stereo.

Do I need to turn in my audiophile card?

[MylesBAstor]

I've noticed that it's rare to have a system with a great soundstage and bad tonality. The two seem for some reason to go hand in hand.

[MylesBAstor]

Why can't you evaluate soundstage with jazz or rock?
Just today I was listening to a live concert, taken from a DVD. I was just listening to audio, but I remember the video portion, and the instruments/voices were neatly, precisely positioned in relation to what I remember seeing in the video. And that includes depth too, with the drummer in the back, etc.

I just find the best of classical--or a live jazz recording--have far more soundstage depth than certainly almost any rock and most studio jazz recordings. Mercury, RCA and especially Decca classical releases. The soundstage depth on the Decca recording of Bartok's Bluebird's Castle is gynormous.

[lasercd]

I just find the best of classical--or a live jazz recording--have far more soundstage depth than certainly almost any rock and most studio jazz recordings. Mercury, RCA and especially Decca classical releases. The soundstage depth on the Decca recording of Bartok's Bluebird's Castle is gynormous.

Myles

I would suggest you are not listening to the right jazz studio recordings. Listen to Collin Walcott "Grazing Dreams" and Eberhard Weber "Later That Evening". Both on ECM (US version of the Weber was cut by Bob Ludwig at Masterdisk). Extraordinary soundstage depth and pinpoint imaging. On the digital side, Salvatore Bonafede "Journey To Donna Fugata" is scary. Redbook no less.

[Guest]

Show me an audiophile that says they don't care about soundstage and we'll immediately revoke their audiophile society membership.

Sure soundstage is an artificial construct depending upon many factors not the least of which is the original mike set-up, but it's one of the most important factors to me. That's what stereo is all about. I live for that sense of the musicians being spread out in front of me like I hear at a concert or club. Orchestral recordings should sound big and chamber music/small ensembles should be more intimate. (of course, we can discuss the pros and cons of multi-miking vs. minimal miking vs. even Blumlein techniques too.) And yes, I occasionally get a kick out of those early stereo LPs like Sounds Unheard of that show off all the stereo effects to their best advantage. ... .

I hope I don't get my membership card pulled...

I'm not sure soundstage is an artificial construct. My ability to assess a sound's direction or source location is as native to me as discriminating live music versus reproduced. It may be a construct (or an act of constructing, ie part of hearing) but it comes from ancient roots ... when the twig snaps - behind you - there's no time for syllogizing.

As Ralph K is fond of saying: we’re stuck with the ears we have and the perceptual rules that govern them. The fact that sound travels and can bounce around along the way and from that we generally are able to perceive a field of sound or soundfield as a result of having two ears and differentiating arrival time differences suggests the whole soundstage thing is an aspect of music as a performance event - a function of our being in the world and within the context of music's perception. That would suggest a very natural construct. (no Heidegger comments please.)

If an orchestra performs in a forest and no one else is around to hear it, is there a soundstage? Is it some Heisenbergian phenomena where the act of perceiving the soundstage creates the thing perceived? Maybe that's what you mean by artificial construct.

But soundstage is not part of music per se. Look at the score - there are no soundstage instructions. Ask a musician - he'll probably say he follows the score and conductor regardless any concern about the soundstage aside from his hope of not stepping off his riser in the wrong way. Ask a composer or teacher and they likely say they have nothing to do with the soundstage. Although someone like Mahler, with his "orchestra at a distance" off-stage musicians may admit to striving for an effect that is best described in soundstage terms.

I think audiophiles may have a hyper-extended interest in soundstaging because: 1) our language skills in general are more adept at describing what we see and soundstage is a way to translate talk of the audible into talk of the visual. (Possibly a reason why the whole soundstage topic becomes insignificant in the face of the live orchestra); 2) the ability of a system to reproduce the soundstage of the recording reflects well on its likely ability to sustain and reproduce timing differences in the music signal, subtle ones at that. The better the soundstage the more likely other better stuff such as dynamics and tonal density while also indicating proper speaker setup; 3) it creates the performance event in our listening area, gives us - in the face of otherwise staring at speakers or a wall - a sense of musicians making music, there, there and there.

[MylesBAstor]

I hope I don't get my membership card pulled...

I'm not sure soundstage is an artificial construct. My ability to assess a sound's direction or source location is as native to me as discriminating live music versus reproduced. It may be a construct (or an act of constructing, ie part of hearing) but it comes from ancient roots ... when the twig snaps - behind you - there's no time for syllogizing.

As Ralph K is fond of saying: we’re stuck with the ears we have and the perceptual rules that govern them. The fact that sound travels and can bounce around along the way and from that we generally are able to perceive a field of sound or soundfield as a result of having two ears and differentiating arrival time differences suggests the whole soundstage thing is an aspect of music as a performance event - a function of our being in the world and within the context of music's perception. That would suggest a very natural construct. (no Heidegger comments please.)

If an orchestra performs in a forest and no one else is around to hear it, is there a soundstage? Is it some Heisenbergian phenomena where the act of perceiving the soundstage creates the thing perceived? Maybe that's what you mean by artificial construct.

But soundstage is not part of music per se. Look at the score - there are no soundstage instructions. Ask a musician - he'll probably say he follows the score and conductor regardless any concern about the soundstage aside from his hope of not stepping off his riser in the wrong way. Ask a composer or teacher and they likely say they have nothing to do with the soundstage. Although someone like Mahler, with his "orchestra at a distance" off-stage musicians may admit to striving for an effect that is best described in soundstage terms.

I think audiophiles may have a hyper-extended interest in soundstaging because: 1) our language skills in general are more adept at describing what we see and soundstage is a way to translate talk of the audible into talk of the visual. (Possibly a reason why the whole soundstage topic becomes insignificant in the face of the live orchestra); 2) the ability of a system to reproduce the soundstage of the recording reflects well on its likely ability to sustain and reproduce timing differences in the music signal, subtle ones at that. The better the soundstage the more likely other better stuff such as dynamics and tonal density while also indicating proper speaker setup; 3) it creates the performance event in our listening area, gives us - in the face of otherwise staring at speakers or a wall - a sense of musicians making music, there, there and there.

Wouldn't you say we need the soundstage or a well detailed soundstage to make up for the lack of visualization of the musicians like we hear live?

[Guest]

Wouldn't you say we need the soundstage or a well detailed soundstage to make up for the lack of visualization of the musicians like we hear live?

Great question.

There are times when I find myself sitting outside my listening consciousness observing myself while I'm listening. It really messes with the listening experience and once I realize I'm doing it, it all collapses. But sometimes for a brief few moments before I catch myself watching myself (and can remember those moments!) I believe I have insight to my listening consciousness. It's all squishy.

To answer your question, I think we do it automatically, naturally if you well - have in our mind's eye a representation of performers laid out before us based on aural, not visual, input. To the extent we have visual familiarity with specific performers and groups, or types of ensembles (choirs, quartets, orchestras, three or four man jazz groups, etc.) what that is in our mind's eye is more or less formed based on that familiarity. I have a familiarity with orchestras and their various layouts, and, when I hear symphonic music on my stereo, an orchestral soundstage falls readily to hand. I don't work to conjure it, it just happens.

On the other hand if I listen to my LP of Japanese synthesizer artist Isao Tomita playing Debussy's 'Snowflakes are Dancing', I really struggle soundstage-wise. But that struggle is momentary - my mind knows its not gonna happen and I still enjoy the music without the minds-eye visualization. So I think I'm naturally biased toward soundstaging just as I'm naturally biased to see and describe things in visual terms.

Now for the messy part...

Above I talked about my listening consciousness and meant that in the literal sense. I sometimes refer to this as analytic listening because I find my cognitive faculties are often active when I listen. In the extreme this analytic listening can happen when I'm taking notes for a component or music review. In a more passive mode I'm thinking about, or at least consciously aware of, sonics, or a performer's technical virtuosity or a clever key change. I believe having the soundstage experience occurs during analytic listening. Partly because soundstaging (my having one) - even though it may happen automatically - is an on-going activity. In the absence of real visuals my mind actively creates something in my mind's eye.

But I believe their is another form of stereo system music experience that takes place on a non-cognitive level, at what I best describe as the limbic level. Here is a sensuous plane of awareness that happens deep in our lizard brain. I believe you know of people who talk this way, such as Aaron Copland: "a kind of brainless but attractive state of mind [that] is engendered by the mere sound appeal of music." I find it a pre-analytical experience of music that frees me from the sort of spatio-temporal parsing that my conscious mind automatically does in its moment by moment construction of reality, when it applies structure to external inputs. Soundstaging is spatio-temporal parsing. In limbic land the structural application stuff happens weakly at best. Sure the brass still enters from right field, but at the lizard level I simply don't regard it that way.

So I'm conflicted about the relative importance of the soundstage. I do it (have the experience of it) just like everybody else. It's fun. It makes the listening experience interesting and often more live or real. The first time your hear that rattle in Yulunga jump six feet out from the soundstage in the left channel, you almost have a bio-function. But I can't deny the siren call of the limbic level. Its a place I cannot easily will myself to, but when I come back from it, damn it was good. :-)