Please Read and express your feelings and opinions....
I noticed that lately or maybe for the last five yrs, there is so much arguments,name calling, attacking cables , speakers , components makers and more, more of disagreement with members, even Audio dealers are being attack here...Very few know how to apologize when they are wrong.What can we do as Audiogon members to improve our communication to each other? How to give the informations, recommendation to members who need it? This is without involving Audiogon, any opinion or ideas , For me this is fun and place to learn in audio...thank you all
I'm not saying there is no soundstage you goofballs. Of course there is and of course you can get a sense of the recording space. And of course you're intentionally interpreting what I said in an extreme and intentionally wrong way. It's how manipulative people behave.
When you talk about soundstage height, though, not a lot needs to be said. If you were there when the recording was made and you listen to it at home afterwards did it sound about right? If you weren't there but you have been to the place the recording was made did it sound like you'd expect from that location?
When delusional reviewers and charlatans talk about a particular component having a lot of soundstage height, depth, etc. they don't typically relate it to how big the recording space actually was, how the recording was made. When components are compared and one is said to have greater soundstage depth and no mention is made of what the depth of the actual soundstage was, there's no reason to think the component with the greater depth is the more accurate one.
jon_5912, Here’s what you said in your first post, just for the record, no pun intended,
“We cannot measure soundstage height. We also do not know what the soundstage height is on the recording so there is no way to determine what the correct height is. That means we also don’t know whether one component is more or less accurate when it sounds different in this area.
After doing a ton of reading and listening over about 20 years I’ve decided that these types of differences are most likely distortions that will improve perceived performance in one area and degrade it in another.”
>>>>I was attacking your statement that “we don’t know what the correct height of the soundstage is.” We obviously DO know in many or most cases since we DO know WHERE the recordings were made. Frankly, I’m becoming less and less interested in your “findings” over the last 20 years. If success was based on how much reading we did we’d all be geniuses.
jon_5912 also opined,
“When delusional reviewers and charlatans talk about a particular component having a lot of soundstage height, depth, etc. they don’t typically relate it to how big the recording space actually was, how the recording was made. When components are compared and one is said to have greater soundstage depth and no mention is made of what the depth of the actual soundstage was, there’s no reason to think the component with the greater depth is the more accurate one.”
Frankly, I’m becoming less and less interested in your “findings”
You're a complete charlatan, of course you don't care about my opinion, good lord.
How many people do you think really know or care about the height of the recording space? You can tell if it's a full orchestra and the recording was done in a large space because of the echo. You can tell if it's a live stadium recording. If it's a studio recording you get what the engineer wants you to hear and the sound of the space is typically not very prominent. If it's a live recording in a club or something you can probably tell it's a smaller space.
Beyond that it's of little interest. How many people on earth have carefully compared the differences between various heights and can tell if a component is accurate? Can you reliably tell the difference between a recording made with 20' ceilings and one made with 30' ceilings? Can you tell a flat ceiling from a curved one? GMAB.
I am proud to report that my suggestion in this thread on 04-14-2018 12:26pm ****is going to be CONSIDERED by Audiogon development staff****.
To reiterate the suggestion:
The OP of any particular thread should also be afforded the function of removing any particular post and/or blocking a poster altogether from his/her thread.
You had me worried for a minute. You’d be surprised how many folks don’t understand what a soundstage is. I always think it’s maybe because they haven’t been start to finish on a recording project. If you do a few it becomes pretty easy to detect how a soundstage works. The word "distortion" did throw me a little because sound stages are really pretty simple things to replay.
Like for example, when recording, if you get use to doing halos in the live room and go listen to it you can see the tri-miking setup (pretty easily). If I do a setup, I will do 3 rooms. One is the live room, one the control room and I also setup a playback room. I don’t like using a lot of the control rooms out there for judgement calls. In recordings what I typically do is the first set of mics are close up, then I back off for the second layer, and then I pickup the whole room. That lets you blend say your piano. So when I playback a piano on a system I can usually tell if the halos are squeezed cause it makes a certain sound within the playback stage. It’s kind of like when the guitarist knows the different guitars playing in any recording you also get use to how patterns sound. If a playback pattern isn’t working right you know right away. It’s very specific. Also, I don’t know if you know this or not, but anytime you start any recording there’s a pressure that you feel behind your head. If you don’t feel that pressure that means your not getting enough of the content.
Anyway there’s just little things you learn from doing it that I’ve notice a lot of folks don’t know, or if the teachers are teaching.
unsound - Gdhal, You may proud of the suggestion, but I think it’s a terrible idea.
I didn’t realize there was any such thing as a terrible idea. In any case, it will be interesting to find out what Audiogon thinks as opposed to what those who state the impossible think, with the assumption they even do so.
Well I'm going to bow out on this one, but I do want to say in closing (for me). Jon, yes my clients do listen for all of that and more. In fact that's what they expect me to deliver.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think your robbing the hobby a little short of it's potential by suggesting that the listeners aren't interested in the whole recording. I would say a great deal of hobbyist are thrilled when they hear accurate heights.
I personally like if not Luv hearing all the “Acoustic Space” that a recording can give me. Makes the connection to the music that much closer and more enjoyable.
I agree with Geoff and Michael Green. I have appraised 17 recording studios, have performed and recorded on many Los Angeles main stages as an amateur
(from UCLA Royce Hall. Ford Ampitheater to Disney Hall)
(as opposed to my friends like Kevin Grey who is a true professional) and have a large recorded music collection from ancient (1898 to the present) recordings. Soundstaging is an essential element of recording. It is known by the engineers by the venue if a good recording is to be extracted/recorded.
I've gone so far as incorporate the SR Atmosphere XL4 to alter soundstaging to my liking post-recording and attempting to replicate the soundstage on which the recordings was created (or just sounds best to me). I do not know exactly how SR achieves it's results but the tool(s) SR provides are very welcome.
@GDHAL...................... I too think it's a terrible idea. If implemented, anything another person says that the OP doesn't like can delete their post. I thought we are in a Democracy?
stereo5 - .....gdhal I too think it’s a terrible idea. If implemented, anything another person says that the OP doesn’t like can delete their post. I thought we are in a Democracy?
Think it through though. The same functionality and more would be available. Democracy, yes. To your point, technically the same thing could happen now. The OP would simply need to make a personal request (not simply the use the report link) to AG support. It just takes a bit longer that way. Additionally and even more important and compelling, if the OPs intentions were/are genuine then he/she wouldn’t do as you suggest, right? Otherwise, other posters within the thread might decide there is unnecessary and biased censorship by the OP, and also willingly elect not to post in the thread. The concept keeps everyone in check.
Furthermore, if a "clique" forms (which will likely happen) in certain threads, those on the opposing side of the clique could start their own thread, and refer to posts being made by members in the other thread. Again, keeping everyone in check.
Theoretically, if all members believe the function isn’t a good idea, it wouldn't get any usage. There is no requirement or obligation for the OP to use it. Therefore, the current functionality remains identical to the way it is now. Consider the usefulness of the feature/function and what it is intended to do.
I'm not saying that soundstaging isn't important, only that the specifics of things like moderate variations in stage height aren't. Does it sound like 15' or 20' ceilings? If one stereo component makes it sound like 25' while another makes it sound like 20', does it really matter? As long as you've got a plausible sounding soundstage that isn't interfering with the experience it doesn't. Hardly anybody is likely to know what the real height was anyway.
I never believed I could reach this point, but given how many threads get ruined by a handful of people, I would consider some sort of ability to prevent them from further participation in a thread once they pass a certain threshold. Maybe something along the lines of a 3 strikes and you're out thing in terms of warnings, behavior, etc.?
As an example, the fuse threads devolve into some repeating the same point again and again and again and again, name calling, and overall chaos where the thread itself loses all value to most people. And that's from people on BOTH sides of the issue. Removing posts has been of limited value in my opinion. If instead a member can no longer insert themselves into the thread, perhaps things would improve
As I have stated before, it is open game, and should be. Any postings not appreciated by others can be ignored. On the subject of soundstaging. Although soundstaging in a system is very important, it is not one of my top five or six most important characteristics. Tone, coherence, flat frequency response, top to bottom extension, prat, and dynamics are. Putting a system together would also include : black, quiet background ( lack of distortions ), including hum, hiss, unnatural echos and reverberations ( room acoustics ), minimal mechanical and acoustical vibrations or feedback. If a system fails in any of my top five or six, the soundstaging will not make up for what is lacking elsewhere. I want it all. I am quite pleased with my systems soundstaging.
Michael, I'm pretty sure I responded to that stupid statement of Geoff's, as well as citing examples of how it's synthesized. It seems to me we must have figured out how to measure those spacial attributes if we're creating devices and techniques that simulate them. My recording/production engineer friend has all kinds of tricks up his sleeve for adding depth, height, and width to mixes.
+100 mrdecibel, My priorities in sonic presentations as well.Soundstage is about the least important attribute to me but I do want it conveyed in a convincing manner too.
If a system is lacking the correct Tone and Timbre,for me,It’s a deal breaker and something has to change.
@kdude66 Yes, timbre as well ( I put tone and timbre together ). Of course, clarity and detail would need to be added to my list.......As an old timer and more experienced in audio, it is easier to decipher the critical elements important to me. The newbies rely on information spoken here. They are like the kids of today, as all the information is available on the net. But lest not forget, listening is the ultimate criteria. Enjoy, MrD.
While soundstage height is not very important to me, my engineer friend is constantly harping on the openess from top to bottom and side to side his system has with similar equipment and wiring. Where his system and mine greatly differs is that he is using a two way monitor speaker with 1st order crossover in a smaller, acoustically damped room. My speakers are 4.5 way, 7 driver large speakers in a large, live sounding room. Totally different. Missing some height in some Ellington and Santana recordings (such as bells and xylophones above my head) doesn’t bother me as it does him. I am more concerned as several posters are above with tone, timbre, timing, clarity and detail. With my SR and TC treatments, the soundstage width is adequate for seating along a 10’ couch (or nearly anywhere in the room) to be very enjoyable and not locked into the center only. So, I’m not missing the height my friend has.
I tried that (I have an HFT 2.0 at 18" from the floor, a pair of HFTs at 5’ mid-way between speakers, a HFT-X at 5’ between speakers and an HFT at 7’ high between speakers). When I added the Blackbox and Atmosphere XL4 is when I apparently lost height but gained so much more in width and tonal warmth. When I added HFTs on at 7’ above the 5’ HFTs, the balance was thrown off, too much highs relative to mids and bass. I also have mid-wall to the seating area 5’ high HFT 2.0 and 7’ high HFTs, and at the corners behind the speakers (they are literally corners with record shelving at an angle facing the room) I have 5’ high HFT 2.0s, 6’ and 7’ high HFTs.
Also, an anomally from the suggested SR setup is that I cannot put any HFT types on the face of the speakers (top, sides and rear work great). They tend to alter the frequency balance, especially bad is placing either an HFT or HFT-X below the dome tweeter or below the ribbon supertweeter. I also tried at 8 and 4 o’clock positioning. I just leave them off and voices, violins and guitars retain a beautiful balance of body and head. It’s only in Jazz Party opening cut and Abraxis that I lack the placement of the highs above my head which annoys my friend who has it all. He has ZERO room treatment, a congested room with speakers nearly flush against the wall and a 80s 27" tube TV smack in the middle between the speakers. Those little speakers (his own folded bass design) are remarkable, with fabulous soundstage (height and width) and all the other requirements put forth as well as high volume level without distortion. What they lack is body type dynamic punch (his room mitigates against that as well) like my system or a good horn system.
I'm all for science when it applies....the earth is round,rotates and revolves around the sun,dinosaurs once roamed the earth as evidenced by their fossil remains etc. et al ......but I listen to music with my ears and do not rely upon test results to determine what I like to listen to. Otherwise I'd get an app that could listen with me,and let me know whether I liked the music or not. But then again,I always thought I had a cool enough voice until I hear it on a home video and cringe at the sound of it,so now what do I do ? What a world,what a world.
Just one thing. Soundstage height should not be taken all by itself, but as one dimension of the 3 dimensional space of the recording venue. What we should be striving for is a more and more accurate portrayal of that 3 dimensional space, as the system is improved - an “expanding sphere” of the soundstage, as it were. A sphere with dimensions of width, depth and height. Dealing with the 4th dimension is beyond scope. It wasn’t that long ago that audiophiles were exclaiming, “Whoa! The sound is coming from outside the speakers!”
geoffkai"Just one thing. Soundstage height should not be taken all by itself, but as one dimension of the 3 dimensional space of the recording venue."
This is a completely incomplete response but it is what would be expected from someone not practicing the pursuit of Tru-Fi in they're Music Reproduction System which is the only proven way of actually obtaining in the specific listening room the actual realistic characteristics of music this is obtained by working with properties and understanding the properties of each component within the
Music Reproduction System and how those properties interact to form the whole that is the sound that we perceive. Understanding Tru-Fi and the more recently discovered ICSS factor are what is necessary for anyone assembling, adjusting or optimizing a Music Reproduction System if they hope to achieve any success other than that which can be obtained by random trial and error.
One of my best friends said it best "haters will always hate", so I just try to read past all those hostile postings, enjoying the good things others contribute on this site.
I sometimes visit a sailing form where they (almost) never remove any posts, but the software does provide an option to ignore posts by particular members.
If you are reading a thread and come across a post by (for instance) <ignorant_flaming_idiot> whom you have added to your block list, it will show up as “Post by Ignorant_Flaming_Idiot hidden. Click to view.”
I think this works well, and serves to make things more civil, or, at least, to make them appear more civil.
geoffkai"Just one thing. Soundstage height should not be taken all by itself, but as one dimension of the 3 dimensional space of the recording venue."
This is a completely incomplete response but it is what would be expected from someone not practicing the pursuit of Tru-Fi in they're Music Reproduction System which is the only proven way of actually obtaining in the specific listening room the actual realistic characteristics of music this is obtained by working with properties and understanding the properties of each component within the Music Reproduction System and how those properties interact to form the whole that is the sound that we perceive. Understanding Tru-Fi and the more recently discovered ICSS factor are what is necessary for anyone assembling, adjusting or optimizing a Music Reproduction System if they hope to achieve any success other than that which can be obtained by random trial and error.
>>>The name is geoffkait. Furthermore, I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean. Do I need a decoder ring? I am not advocating trial and error at all. Actually the opposite. What are you selling?
kosst_amojan Michael, I’m pretty sure I responded to that stupid statement of Geoff’s, as well as citing examples of how it’s synthesized. It seems to me we must have figured out how to measure those spacial attributes if we’re creating devices and techniques that simulate them. My recording/production engineer friend has all kinds of tricks up his sleeve for adding depth, height, and width to mixes.
>>>>Sorry, we don’t want that synthetic crapolla. We don’t want artificial soundstage and we don’t want your synthetic noise reduction and we don’t want your dynamic range compression. We know how to go about getting the real thing, which is buried in the recording, so we don’t need any recording/production engineer’s tricks, but thanks anyway. We don’t want added depth, height or width. We don’t want anything added. Have the decency to stay out of the high end.
We have sort of gotten off track from the original intent of the message, which I have already responded to. No, I don't that anyone other than the manager of the site should have veto power and delete anyone's posts. All that would happen as a result would be posters deleting contrary viewpoints.
Again, rude behavior should be addressed. Differences of opinion, (and yes, most times, it comes down to opinions). If it isn't provable by confirmed science technology and standards and isn't accepted scientifically, it is opinion.
Now before you all take my head off, pray indulge me Any device, fuse, transistor, resistor, circuit, capacitor, tube,etc. that is placed in the signal path will affect the signal. But there are technical reasons behind this. I don't begrudge people for not getting engineering or technical degrees, but this really comes down to what is scientific fact and other's opinion. Either you know what you are talking about or you don't and it is opinion.
Take for example fuses. This is a long standing argument. But, if that fuse is in the signal path, then yes, it will have an impact. Current, voltage, VA rating, impact the signal. also, impedance is quite important.
To simply throw one's hands up and say it doesn't have an impact is irresponsible. If the device is constructed such that under normal or extreme loads the voltage doesn't dip and the current carrying capability is handled by the device and the impedance does not change. Then no, it will not impact the signal. If, however, those do change, then it will impact the signal. This is engineering 101.
If a person tells me that changing the fuse made a noticeable difference in sound quality, I guarantee you there is a technical explanation.
But, there had better be a A/B comparison and the circumstances must be exactly the same to make such a claim.
Same with listening to pre-amps, speakers, amps, etc. Did you set and write down the volume level and make sure they were matched first? If you changed any other component during this evaluation, then is was not a fair A/B comparison.
Soundstage??? come on people. First how was the recording done in the first place? On some digital recordings going straight to a mixing board there isn't a sound stage in the first place. The engineer may put an artificial one in, but that is what it is. If, however, the engineer knew his/her stuff, the proper mike placement and use is paramount. Proper equipment, etc. The only real way to know for sure is for the engineer to hear the play back and make that determination. The rest of us weren't in the room and your playback equipment may have been designed to insert artificial characteristics into the sound.
The reasons why some things aren't scientifically tested or proven is quite simple. They are not cost effective to do so. Who is the audience? Will I recover my costs if I come up with the scientific technique? In the case of audio, the answer is NO. Of course scientist and engineers can come up with the test and methodology. There is simply no real reason for them to do so here. If there was mass market, military, or large consumer implications, then they would be all over this. This is a technical universe. Of course it can be done. There is at this time no real justifiable reason for anyone to take the time and great expense to do so, to simply satisfy a few high enders.
Autos are different. the technology trickles down from extreme super cars to mass market cars. GPS tracking was/is military based. But, look at most car adds today. It isn't the car most are selling, it is the new/latest and greatest electronic bells and whistles. This won't fly for mass market audio (at least I don't think it will). Most non-audiophiles listen to music as background music. They couldn't care less about soundstage and dimensionality, etc.
Just my two cents worth. However, I don't like rudeness in any form. I agree that must be called out and stopped. We can disagree and have rational discussions, but to call names, and add insults, well. That's another story.
Well, Geoff, you and Mikey are out there just spinning your fictions about how characteristics of perception can't be measured and I just proved you're both just making it up.
And by the way, Mike, you're long winded agreement with Geoff really takes your authority and respect level WAY down.
kosst_amojan"Well, Geoff, you and Mikey are out there just spinning your fictions about how characteristics of perception can't be measured and I just proved you're both just making it up."
Actually you have not proven anything you are just like all the others here to want to portray yourselves as serious disciplined intellectual scientists when in fact you are afraid to conduct your own tests and afraid of anyone who's experience exceeds yours you offer no evidence you just keep repeating the mantra that it all sounds the same and if it doesn't your being fooled or biased or the old emperors clothes fairy tail.
Geoff - After installing the SR Blackbox, I am enjoying listening to 78s where even 30's and 40's piano recordings sound like the piano is in the room, occupying a space as wide as the speakers and as deep as the studio or hall they are recorded in. Almost stereophonic. You are so right that there is so much soundstaging potential in recordings (especially simply miked ones) where there is ample depth, width and height. I just get complaints on the heighth of some of my stereo recordings where my friend harps on knowing that the instruments were recorded on an elevated stage above the mics. He could be correct but I really care if that's all I'm missing in my soundstage.
Why do I need to do the research myself to prove whats already well understood technology deplyed throughout the recording and reproduction industry? If all these perceptual characteristics can't be measured, how is it that recording engineers have been reproducing and enhancing these phenomenon for decades? Prove it? Go to Best Buy! Buy a CD! Talk to an engineer! You people talk like all a recording engineer does is throw some mics in a room, pick up the sound, balance the levels, and send it out the door. Not even close! The guy who advised me on my room is a Billboard charting producer and engineer. I've seen, heard, and watched what he does. There's no snake oil, myths, or guesswork. The guy knows what you're going to hear because he knows what information he's incorporating into the mix to create the illusions. "Can't measure a soundstage..." Whatever!
Well, on my acoustic recordings, the recording engineer threw a horn in the room, picked up the direct sound on a master disc and decided (sometimes heard as an intro on the disc) to step forward or backward, sing or play louder or softer. Sometimes he just rearranged the performers.
In the electric era, most of the time only a mic replaced the horn. By the 40's, sometimes multiple mics were used and the producer chose the best sounding take from that (Rhino put out CDs of stereo film recordings from that era).
In the late 78 and mono LP age, the engineer had more tools including equalizers to adjust the sound.
You're certainly correct that in the past decades (maybe six decades), recording engineers have at their disposal an infinite variety of sound altering tools. The most knowledgeable who understand their equipment also make the best recordings. However, I'm amazed that the early stereo (mid to late 50's) recordings had the fewest alterations to the sound after they were captured by simple miking using 2 or 3 mikes. Those engineers were brilliant and had an acute grasp on sound and miking.
I'm sure a lot of us here are studio brats, shoot I practically was born in one. We all have our thing, and yours is as important as anyone else's here. If you feel all is measurable sometime show us (or me) and we'll be happy to take a look, but don't stay up at night man. What my friends or clients feel or do is cool and what yours do is just as cool.
The OP I believe is saying "cool down cats enjoy each other". If you believe different from me it's not that big of deal. People hire me because I do what I do, but I hope it's more than that. I hope they hire me cause I dig what I do and comfortable in my skin to do a good job for them. I can't picture any of my clients sitting there wearing a mic on their head while listening, but if they do that's fine with me. They call me up while listening, tell me what they're hearing, ask me what to do, I tell them, and they go on with their fun.
I'm finding this sound stage aspect rather interesting as you can certainly measure the recording intended output and could potentially create based average pair of microphone pickup with acoustical guides that emulate our hearing structure and use software to map the effect. But you also have an interesting decision if to either allow or cancel the room effect. Since we never listen to any speaker without the room and every speakers patterns will have notable impact on effective room response and impact to soundstage, it would only provide an idea of what the potential is and not quite how it will integrate to your room.
Some spend a bit time in placement to achieve this effect and a speakers measured pattern might work well in a room while another will fail, not entirely due its inherent ability of each but on how well it integrates to the space. Its also often a balancing act as more than a singular factor plays a role in choice.
In ending, we could develop a measurement system that give us a chart in free space, but no speaker is really ever applied in that manner. Its certainly scientifically interesting, but the best use is really as a guide on how to best setup more than anything else. I've used a calibrated microphone and various tools as an aid, but I can tell you from moving homes and setting up all over again, every room brings its own set of unique challenges.
I've been pondering the "...and Walla conflict." text and your response to it for the last four days and couldn't make heads or tails out of either or get it out of my head, for some reason. But we might have a breakthrough.
Is it possible that what was intended should have read "and, voila, conflict."? If this is, indeed, the case and you picked it up that quickly then my hat's off to you.
BTW, I'm on the northshore. Ever considered attending any BBAT meetings?
kosst_amojan"Why
do I need to do the research myself to prove whats already well
understood technology deplyed throughout the recording and reproduction
industry?"
Of course there is no reason that you are obligated in any way to conduct such research but prior to you becoming indignant that any one should challenge you on this stated position you should accept that no one else is obligated to perform any such research either and if THEY are challenged by the faith based religious naysayers to conduct they're own test then it is only fair for them to request the same of you it is insufficient to simply proclaim as you have here that it is "already well understood" because if that was true they'res no way to explain the result so many have achieved other than to say 1000's of people are delusional which is patently absurd on the face of the claim.
Buying audio products and listening to music is not about scientific measurements, although it can help in selecting and matching components together.... It is, for me, to capture to the best that I can, what is on the recording, to " my " liking. It is as simple as that. The addition of cables, fuses, isolation devices, a new amplifier, whatever, it is about me, and only me. And I listen. Other than measuring room acoustics, which I find is necessary for me to achieve my end goal, I am open to anything, and I use my ears. Thankfully, my ears still work.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
