3D Soundstage and How To Get It?

GO DOUG!
Bet you raised more than a few hackles by pointing out how truncated a CD is on spatial information, ha ha.
Personally I find I can "forgive" CD digital for being so dull.
I simply make choices designed to bring out a sweetness from Low Res.
I spent the first five years tuning my "new" system to first work acceptably with 128K MP3!
My reasoning was to make choices that brought out the best in low res---and that would only get BETTER with a better signal, when present.
For example to make 128K MP3 sound acceptable I chose soft dome tweeter and ribbon super tweeter.
In my case I could have discarded this "softer" approach and instead purchased the sharper more precise aluminum dome tweeter/titanium dome supertweeter version of my own speakers but I decided DELIBERATELY to go for a softer sweeter cloth dome instead (Harbeth Monitor 30s INSTEAD of Harbeth Super HL5 Plus).
Then I added those sweet Townshend ribbons to extend the response on up to 100,000 Hz.
No question, once I put on a decent 24/196 or even 24/96 PCM high res version of the same music it opens up tremendously due to the additional timing and timbre information.
And their only equal is the clear un-molested (timing wise) signal off an old fashioned Vinyl Record!
Three D is so much easier with MORE timing information and of course, recordings that were done properly for this effect.
But unfortunately so many speaker designs just don't have what it takes to "do it all,"
YOU with your Dahlquists and ME with my Harbeths, we pick speakers with the potential to be GREAT all rounders with super clear arrival times over at our chairs.
I use all separate boxes and align them physically and then adjust the phase timing to make the image sound "continuous" and image with pin point clarity and a Three Dimensional Soundstage!
That 3D landscape is the BIG DEAL I have chased most of my audio life...
And so it makes sense that both of us are hearing all this soundstage and imaging information that others simply never heard of in their entire lives.
Funny, isnt it?
Except when they tell us we're crazy, ha ha.

 

@Doug Sclar described it well. I was going to add a post about the importance of the equipment in addition to the room then found Doug's detailed description.

One way to find out what is missing is to kick the tires at a good dealer. Go listen at a reputable dealer. I'll never forget an eye opening demo when speaker shopping nearly 20 years ago. I was amazed at the amazingly smooth realistic reverb I heard. It showed me that it was possible to hear much more than I was hearing. This is important because the reverb trails is key to hearing space imo. When truncated the space disappears.

It takes work to put together a system that can replay them. Even if you find a system with that ability, the room is another piece of the equipment needed to get there. A room with flutter echo will mask much of the queues.

You should be warned of the caveat that bad recordings will drive you crazy once you get there. Especially when you find a recording that flips absolute polarity mid album, between tracks, and the spatial queues flip, putting the drummer and backing vocals out in front of the lead singer. Ugh.

A preamp with a polarity switch from the remote, can be helpful when this happens.

 

Thinking of a Peter Gabriel live LP that is polarity flipped. Glad I have a switch for records like this. Sometimes it’s just vocals or bass, which may well be a studio call.

 

Well I have to say, after reading this thread, it prompted me to check my Golden Ear Triton Two's . The left speaker was pointing down 2 inches lower than the right. Adjusting it and all was right in plastico land!
Cheers, Doug

 

What's with the vague advice concerning work? What kind of work? What does one search for? What and where does one search for such a system that appears no one with a middle class income can afford?

All of Doug Sclar, Kyhl including Doctor Fine's comments got very specific with life lesson observation based anecdotes but the mentioning of "work" at getting a 3D sound appears to be an impossible goal or at least suggests it's buyer beware in finding a system that can produce such a response.

What's a well made recording? How do you know a bad one from a good one? I wouldn't say anyone here is crazy, just poor communicators.

 

Agree

 

First of all, a system to reproduce 3D well doesn't have to be expensive. My speaker system cost about $2k and my amps were about $5k.

That's not dirt cheap, but many spend lots more than that on their systems.

My head end is basically a computer and a Grace Design M905 monitor controller. The computer hosts my digital files and a usb cable connects it to the M905. You really can't do much better than that, and that was under $5k for the M905 and the computer.

So you're talking $12k which is not really all that much these days. I've got a lot more gear than that here, but that's the chain I listen to the most.

No doubt you could do it for less than that. The Grace is overkill for most folks as it's really a pro studio piece.

The work I referred to is studying and trial and error. That's what I did.

First you have to decide what you are looking for. Some people are looking for dynamic range. Some for lots of low bass. Some are looking for accuracy while some are looking for pleasing sound. Some are looking for room filling sound so lots of people can listen at the same time, while some are only concerned with a single sweet spot.

All of these goals are different. That's part of what I'm talking about when I say you have to work at it. You have to figure out where you want to go, if you know, and then do your best to learn the best way to get there for the amount of money you have to spend.

Most likely you'll make mistakes along the way.

The things I pointed out as far as speakers go can be helpful. For example, I loved the tonality of my AR3a's but they didn't image so well because they were not symmetrical.

In some cases you can get great depth from a pair of coaxial speakers, which have a point source and can be time aligned, and those are not necessarily outrageously expensive. You can even get depth on a pair of inexpensive Aurotones, which are just 4" speakers, because since there is only one driver there are not many of the complications more complex systems have.

Pretty much everything in this hobby is a trade off. You generally can't have everything in one system.

For example, studio monitors can be very expensive, but front to back depth is low on the list of qualities you would expect to find with most of them. One of the main concerns with professional monitors is that they have to take tremendous abuse that a consumer would never encounter.

My system is great at depth and detail, but it can't play nearly as loud as a studio monitor, and not as loud as what many here have for their systems. It's all a compromise. Many people would not want my system because if can't play loud enough for them.

As for which recordings have great front to back depth, that's a bit harder to figure. IMO you really need vinyl or hi-res to get the front to back depth I'm referring to, but not all records or hi-res recordings have it. You're less likely to find it on a multitrack pop production though you surely can. It's all a matter of technique.

Mic leakage is a great creator of ambient depth. For example, if there were live vocal mics, they will pick up the instruments as well, but there will be a delay, and that delay can create wonderful ambience and a sense of depth. You're much more likely to find true depth on a simple recording with fewer mics.

Many wonderful jazz recordings and lots of classical recordings are full of front to back depth. Some of the best examples are recordings made in the 50s with just 2 or 3 microphones. Even though they're that old, they still can have great front to back depth. It's more technique than evolution in most cases.

Also, many of the modern audiophile recordings have great front to back depth.

Sometimes I'm really surprised how much depth is on some recordings where I don't expect it , and other times when I expect it it's not there

 

Work means trial, error, and learning. Listening, trying out stuff, setting it up properly then changing it to try something else. Learning by reading. Learning by trial and error. Compromizing things in the room to make it work.

Everything in this hobby is a compromise. My first post in this thread was in regards to what someone is willing to do to get there. There were lots of good suggestions being replied by the OP saying it's not going to happen. That's fine. Not everyone can have a dedicated space to play in. Many spaces are shared use. I get it.

Throwing a bunch of gear into a space won't guarantee it will work. And the space itself is just as important as the pieces put in it. There isn't a magic solution that will automatically work in any space. It will take trial and error, and retrying based on what you learned.

Doug happens to have a lot more experience than most given his resume. It didn't just happen. He had to learn how to make it work for him just like I did. I know my system could be better but that's another compromise and more trial and error for another day.

Edit, was writing while Doug posted. Funny how we both came to "compromise".

 

@Doug Sclar - wow! Thanks so much for your detailed posts. I find them fascinating and also full of practical information.

I will say that my experience has not been that CD, as an entire format, is incapable of the kind of soundstage depth that some vinyl and high-res digital recordings are capable of. But that doesn't mean I think you're crazy, or even that I disagree with you. I've just had a somewhat different experience - but I certainly agree with what I take to be your larger point: good soundstage depth is achievable, but only with the right combination of equipment, room setup, and source material.

Unfortunately I can't say that I've arrived at a system/setup that reliably produces the kind of 3D soundstage you describe. I have, however, experienced greater soundstage "air" and detail, along with a periodic (but not consistent) increase in soundstage depth as I've moved into a new space and worked on tweaking my setup. So I know that the experience/perception of soundstage depth is achievable in a home setup, even though I've only gotten a taste of it (so far!) myself.

 

I get jawdropping 3D sound that extends beyond the speakers with 40-year-old Avid 102A speakers with new caps, a Pioneer linear-tracking turntable, an Oppo cd player, and one of these. Total investment: $350.

 

my first taste of it was some nice affordable advent/1 midsize bookshelfs with the second gen fried egg. finally scored some refoamed OLAs and refoamed 5002's in one deal after some considerable scouring. All of them sound very nice and retain that advent smoothness. The 5002's are overall the best but anyway for something nice and affordable to try and see if you can hear the "holographic sound reach out at you" maybe try a good old advent 2 way.

Thats funny I'm also using an 80s digital tuner era realistic STA2280. Fed with a bare bones head-fi grade usb dac (the odac) I have to say it avails itself well. Though doesn't like 4 ohm duty all that much things get a little bloated. But with the advents I definitely was taken aback by the 3Dness that I had never noticed much with anything else prior. Now addicted and researching my next logical steps up from the advent sealed 2 way/realistic 3d smoothness. Maybe stacked 5002's. Maybe even stacked /1's. Maybe bigger power and maggies. Or tube amp and cornies or L150s or A/D/S or AR3a or something from EPI I dont even know which (perhaps even something modern). But that is definitely what I crave. the 3d sound. Ear candy.

And again the avid 102a is also a 2 way from the late 70s/80s. Hi five bud we're on to something here.

Holy **** and you're from pittsburgh lol...

Ok people we've got this ironed out. What you need to do to experience true 3d sound is this. Buy some 70/s-early 80s well regarded sealed 2 way speakers. A 40 dollar realistic from the 80s with square buttons and digital tuner and midrange tone knob. It's all about that loudness button... Lastly, you have to pick up and move to pittsburgh area. It is the only way.

 

A lot has to do with the recording itself. Some recordings are just flat others create a really wide and deep sound stage. Next is the arrangement of speakers to walls and sitting position. I have found the further out into the room the speakers can be placed the deeper the sound stage becomes on certain recordings. The relationship between the front wall and side walls to the speakers needs to be different. You should not hold the speakers off the front wall three feet and the side walls three feet also. The speakers should have a much greater distance off the front wall than the side walls or the other way around but they should be far from equal. Most important is pulling them away from the front wall as far as possible, for me a minimum distance is 50 inches. You should also make sure you do not pile up equipment between the speakers which will affect the reflected sound. The side walls should match as closely as possible in terms of their profile, material and openings. Lastly the distance between the speakers should match as closely as possible the distance to the listening position and the listening position needs to be dead center. Wall treatments are also important, bass traps in the front and rear corners but definitely in the front and absorption panels at the first reflection points just in front of the speakers. If you are sitting close to a rear wall then sound absorbing panel directly behind your head on the rear wall will be critical. Lastly the equipment must be up to a minimum standard to be able to pull this 3D information out of the recording. From what you describe you own your equipment should be up to the task of a 3D sound stage assuming the other criteria as described above is met.

 

still though you have to be in pennsylvania for it to work right also.

 

Some of my music recorded in stereo sounds so dimensional it has made me suspect that my Prepro was in Surround Sound mode. Thing is, I did not work at anything, nor did I adjust anything to get the dimensional result other than following the speaker manufactures speaker placement instructions. Hey, boy did I get lucky, or what.

 

I've had that happen in my office system. It's a 5.1 near field system and the imaging is astonishing. On really good recordings I have to check that the surround modes are all disabled.

 

Found this example of 'the work' this morning. Hadn't read the thread until today. While his posts can be difficult because of the amount of passion in the writing style, this sentence stood out, "THAT was hard as heck and I spent five years shifting boxes around..."

I can empathize with that. It has been a long journey for me and I'm still not fully there. I doubt I'll ever have a sweet spot as he defines it. I've heard it before in another's house. It was pretty neat. I'm just focusing on getting the listening spot right.
There is something in my room that has bothered me for 15 years and I think is a big source of flutter echo. I still haven't fixed it because it will take planning, buying supplies, building something (elbow grease) to fix, and need to be able to hide it and/or fit the decor. 15 years, and I still haven't dealt with it.

I'd like to think it could be a winter project this coming season but my life is a bit upside down at the moment and I know it won't happen. Maybe next year.

 

The room is so important. Reflections will kill a soundstage. Positioning speakers as far out into the room as possible helps too. My Ref 1s tweeeters are about 52" out from the front wall.

For speakers, my LS50s and KEF Reference 1 are absolute monsters for imaging. 3D, holographic sound with instruments clearly separated in space. When you hear music coming from behind the speakers or on some recordings from behind your head in the listening position, it is uncanny.

Two recordings I love for imaging are "Angel" by Massive Attack (Abbey Road LP cut) - The percussion should be about 2 ft behind the speakers and a little right of center.

"Out on the Weekend" by Neil Young (Sterling LH or reissue CB) - The drums should be dead center and a little behinf the speakers.

Some other great titles for 3D imaging are I Robot by Alan Parsons Project, DSOTM or Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd (the organ on Welcome to Machine should float around the 3D field in layers and well in front of the speakers).

Synth music is great for this. On Kraftwerk's Autobahn (US Vertigo LP), the synths just float all over the room. I also have a Spain issue LP of Depeche Mode's A Broken Frame where the synths on "Nothing to Fear" are richly layered front to back. Really breathtaking.

 

Ha, I also have this one in my collection (Spain issue). But it must have been 20 years since I played it, will get it on the TT one of these days, promise !

 

I use a Bang & Olufsen Ambiophonic control box in my system............................

 

Once I discovered how 2 dimensional CD's sounded on my system, it made me think for a while that my record playback system was exaggerating the spatial cues on records. After all, the cartridge is inductive and that can mean phase issues which we know can affect depth.

But once I started noticing that the hi-res recordings I had sounded very similar to their vinyl counterparts in terms of that depth, I came to the conclusion that that depth was really on the records and not something that my system was synthesizing.

Of course I was pretty sure about this from the start, but it was nice to get that depth from hi-res digital sources to verify my original impressions. That is something that I once though would never happen. Never say never.

 

Yeah right on, Doug.
In my case I hear the exact same phenomenon.
That is, the "extra detail/better sense of room/correct timbre/better highs" that I THOUGHT were the exclusive properties of Vinyl Records---well High Res 24/192 came along and kicked THAT pre-conception right in the can.
I have $2500 worth of cartridge/step up transformers/table/phono preamp versus a decent sounding (Topping D-50) DAC ($170).
The High Res and the Vinyl sound identical except that High Res has even better separation than my Denon DL-103r cartridges can squeak out of records.
But all the "magic" is identical in both formats.
BOTH formats let me hear reverb tails that go on for miles.
BOTH formats let me hear Zildjian cymbals after never hearing them on CD.
BOTH formats are clear/clean/musical beyond belief.
Yeah.
24/192 High Res really comes alive when you already have a great system.
BUT.
I'm still happy that I built my system to perform at its best with LOW RES 128 KBPS MPEG 3 compressed streaming.
What is weird is how awful CD still sounds (unless the mastering borders phenomenal).
CD sounds distorted as heck in the upper registers.
I truly am beginning to believe CD is the WORST of all formats.
Data hungry.
Low res in the treble with some kind of awful distorted thing going on there.
Thank goodness for vinyl AND 24/192 PCM (and of course SACD).
This hobby is getting better now that high res is gaining ground.
I appreciate all the hard work that goes into making recordings.
What is cool is how good some of it is now finally beginning to sound.
Long live DIGITAL!
My two cents.

 

Regarding the reverb trails, the thing that convinced me was in 2010 when we transferred all my studio tapes to 48/24. Granted that's entry level hi-res, but I was blown away to finally hear the reverbs sound like they did in the studio. I'd never heard any of that on CD.

 

Everyone has their favorite demo for sound stage, so I will share mine. Chesky recording, Live from Studio A in New York City. This is a Johnny Frigo (jazz violinist) led band which includes guitarists Bucky Pizzarelli and John Pizzarelli, bassists Ron Carter and Michael Moore (one of whom played on each track), and drummer Butch Miles. Excellent recording both sound and performance. I would rate this a 10/10. You can pick this up as a regular Redbook or SACD. Both sound wonderful and this is one recording where you can say the Redbook matches the SACD in sound quality, I own both thinking the SACD would be an improvement, not so. The soundstage depth and positioning within the recording studio brings smiles and disbelief from people I play the recording to.

 

Have you considered the actual physics of a needle passing through and oscillating within a vinyl groove for both left and right channels (taking into account the effects of recording and processing of the waveform in studio) might provide a slight millisecond delay to create an opened up time shift effect could be the cause of vinyl's depth of front and back staging. That's the one thing no one can control is what a needle does physically within micro fine plastic grooves even if technology claims otherwise.

On the hi rez digital side I think the effect is created by too much data passing through a DAC's processor that can't keep up causing the same time shift oscillation between left and right channels.

Just a guess based on watching a close ups of how a micro fine needle behaves within vinyl grooves.

 

Let's start with basics first.

When you listen in stereo (on average) can you hear what's going on in the left and right speakers, with the vocal (or whatever) centered in front of you?

When you listen to a mono recording does the music float in the space directly in front of you?