# How do you define good Imaging? and good Soundstage?



## AudiocRaver

In another thread recently there was some discussion about imaging and the definition of good imaging. I had always assumed there was only one way of looking at it, but of course, as with most things, that is not true.

So now I am really curious to hear how others define good imaging. What is it? How do you define it? How do you describe it? How do you achieve it? And since imaging and soundstage seem to go hand in hand, let's throw it in there, too.

There is a whole list of important qualities that come to mind for me, but here is my first one:

Good imaging is *convincingly natural,* like the vocalist or the instrument is right there in the room with you, reach-out-and-touch real.

What is your definition/description?


----------



## Peter Loeser

Right or wrong, here's how I look at it in very general terms.

Soundstage is the perception of sound sources located in three dimensions, beyond the plane(s) of the physical speaker drivers, i.e. near/far, wide, deep, behind, in front, etc...

Imaging has to do with how focused each source is, i.e. can you pinpoint it's location if, in reality, it should be originating from a single point?


----------



## dBe

Soundstaging is one of those elusive definitions, because it requires everything to be just so to be convincing. By everything, I am talking about proper toe-in of the loudspeaker for localization and size of the image, correct distance for sense of scale, timbral accuracy, proper room treatment for image specificity and on and on. When all of this is correct, the soundstage will be 180 degrees... i.e. wall to wall, depth beyond the wall behind the speakers (front wall) with individual instruments and performers in their own defined space with "air" (hard to describe, but when you hear it you know it) surrounding them. Instruments should be proper in size and fixed in space with no wander. All of this is dependent upon the recording obviously. Many modern pop recordings use digital processing that messes mightily with phase to get a sense of space, so beware. QSound and other spatial correlators will mess with your head when the image is proper. Check out Suzanne Ciani's recordings, Pink Floyd etc. 

Ain't easy but fun when we get there. Here are a couple of pictures of my quickie listening room setup right after we moved into this house a few years ago. Had to have the toons. I threw up the corner and side wall treatments to make the room work. The room size is really good for mode distribution. That was one of the reasons we bought this "House in a Kit". Right size, right place, needed remodeling. I was up to it a couple of years ago. Not so much anymore, but I'm getting there. Even with all of the junk in the room, including the R/C HelicopterMan, this space works with minimal treatment. Wall to wall, 10' deep and no image wander. This room supports that "they are here" realism that we all seek. 

Rooms don't need a lot of treatment for 2-channel if the dimensions are right. I see too many over treated rooms that just suck the life out of the recordings.

This is not my present system, either. My current system is a pair of GR-Research Kinda SuperV's ( I can't leave anything alone), Dodd Audio Buffer and 15WPC Stereo Amp (see pic), Mac Mini music server and cabling by me. I am currently slowly doing the remodel of the room that I wanted to do a couple of years ago.


----------



## tonyvdb

While I agree that the near perfect room acoustics will improve the imaging and soundstage, The biggest way to achieve great imaging is with well made speakers. Ive had many speakers in my lifetime and non have ever sounded as good for imaging as my current EVs. A speaker thats got good clean natural mids and highs that have good off axes response is a must.

Good recordings that have left and right imaging is so important. I have recordings that are amazing to say the least and have to be heard to believe. The issue is that a bad recording sounds really bad with my speakers so thats the downside in a way.
To achieve good imaging several things must be in place. 
one, the recording master must have been well engineered. EQ at the source for both channels (2ch) needs to be identical particularly in the upper frequencies and there must be good channel separation.
two, Introducing delay and even some reversal of phase can give a very wide sound.


----------



## JoeESP9

Imaging is easy. Take two speakers feed them a stereo signal, spread them a couple of feet apart and you've got imaging. Imaging is mostly left to right spread and positioning. While any two speakers will give you imaging many will not produce any type of sound stage. Having a sound stage means you also have the depth that makes the sound three dimensional.

Getting a good sound stage is 50% speakers and 50% recording. Some speakers just don't do a very good job producing a sound stage. Studio albums which are multi-tracked, overdubbed and "sweetened" rarely if ever have any sound stage. Classical, Jazz, live recordings and recordings made with a minimal number of microphones are usually the ones with a sound stage.

In short: You can have imaging without a sound stage but not the reverse. Ideally you want both


----------



## dBe

JoeESP9 said:


> Imaging is easy. Take two speakers feed them a stereo signal, spread them a couple of feet apart and you've got imaging. Imaging is mostly left to right spread and positioning. While any two speakers will give you imaging many will not produce any type of sound stage. Having a sound stage means you also have the depth that makes the sound three dimensional.
> 
> Getting a good sound stage is 50% speakers and 50% recording. Some speakers just don't do a very good job producing a sound stage. Studio albums which are multi-tracked, overdubbed and "sweetened" rarely if ever have any sound stage. Classical, Jazz, live recordings and recordings made with a minimal number of microphones are usually the ones with a sound stage.
> 
> In short: You can have imaging without a sound stage but not the reverse. Ideally you want both


IME the soundstage/imaging thing is 50% room, 30%, recording and 20% speakers.

I've gotten absolutely killer soundstage out of a boombox set up in a good acoustical environment.

Mostly it comes down to personal preference. How much of "they are here" is important to the listener. Some people could care less. For a recording engineer it is paramount. Next is the timbral accuracy and then the effects used.


----------



## tesseract

Soundstage (width, depth, height) is the stage the performers are on. It can be large, medium or small, akin to sitting front row, middle or back of the hall at a live performance.

Imaging is where the performers are located on that stage, and the distance between them (air).


----------



## fmw

I like Tesseract's definitions the best. By the way, soundstage is adjusted with speaker placement and room acoustics. Imaging is adjusted by the recording engineer by using a pan control for each channel during mixing.


----------



## AudiocRaver

JoeESP9 said:


> Imaging is easy. Take two speakers feed them a stereo signal, spread them a couple of feet apart and you've got imaging. Imaging is mostly left to right spread and positioning. While any two speakers will give you imaging many will not produce any type of sound stage. Having a sound stage means you also have the depth that makes the sound three dimensional.





fmw said:


> ...soundstage is adjusted with speaker placement and room acoustics. Imaging is adjusted by the recording engineer by using a pan control for each channel during mixing.


Interesting viewpoints, seeming to suggest that imaging is easy to achieve and soundstage is not, if I understand these posts correctly.

Everyone so far seems to agree on one thing, at least implying that imaging and soundstage are related. And from there it becomes a matter of definition, how you divide the listening qualities between one and the other.

I think of *imaging* as the qualities of a single sound source in the mix, such as the lead singer, for instance. With good imaging, the voice is precisely located, does not wander or smear on different notes or different vocal sounds. My own view is that this is not easy to achieve, in fact is quite a feat. I think of *Soundstage* as the spacial relationships between the different sounds in the mix, ideally a natural 2-dimensional array that convinces the listener that it is independent of the speakers, each component having its own distinct placement in space. Also not easy to achieve.


----------



## AudiocRaver

tonyvdb said:


> While I agree that the near perfect room acoustics will improve the imaging and soundstage, The biggest way to achieve great imaging is with well made speakers. Ive had many speakers in my lifetime and non have ever sounded as good for imaging as my current EVs. A speaker thats got good clean natural mids and highs that have good off axes response is a must.
> 
> Good recordings that have left and right imaging is so important. I have recordings that are amazing to say the least and have to be heard to believe. The issue is that a bad recording sounds really bad with my speakers so thats the downside in a way.
> To achieve good imaging several things must be in place.
> one, the recording master must have been well engineered. EQ at the source for both channels (2ch) needs to be identical particularly in the upper frequencies and there must be good channel separation.
> two, Introducing delay and even some reversal of phase can give a very wide sound.


This makes a lot of sense to me. Imaging starts with the recording, mixing, & mastering, all with a mind toward preserving the frequency and phase information between channels for a given instrument or sound. Then the speakers have to be designed right to deliver that information and deliver it faithfully. So for good imaging, I would say 40% is recording, 40% is speakers, 20% is room.

Soundstage is more room related, but also depends on a good recording and good speakers.

BTW, we often talk about soundstage being 3-dimensional, and I agree that on occasion the third dimension (vertical) comes into play. But don't we normally mean 2-dimensional, with width and depth?


----------



## tonyvdb

AudiocRaver said:


> BTW, we often talk about soundstage being 3-dimensional, and I agree that on occasion the third dimension (vertical) comes into play. But don't we normally mean 2-dimensional, with width and depth?


Thats a difficult one to answer but given we hear in 3 dimensions its not really accurate to think that 2 is all its about. Look at what Trinnov room correction achieves in the Sherwood/Newcastle R972 I would have never believed you could literally move an image of the sound from a speaker vertically in a room.


----------



## tesseract

AudiocRaver said:


> BTW, we often talk about soundstage being 3-dimensional, and I agree that on occasion the third dimension (vertical) comes into play. But don't we normally mean 2-dimensional, with width and depth?


I think of "height" as the size of the performers. That would also correlate with the size of the soundstage. A smaller soundstage will give the performers less "height". But for all intents and purposes, reproducing that third dimension is going to depend heavily on the end user's gear and setup.




tonyvdb said:


> Thats a difficult one to answer but given we hear in 3 dimensions its not really accurate to think that 2 is all its about. Look at what Trinnov room correction achieves in the Sherwood/Newcastle R972 I would have never believed you could literally move an image of the sound from a speaker vertically in a room.


I have Trinnov and constant directivity speakers waiting in the wings. Still in 2 channel mode here, but cannot wait to give them a try! 

Room EQ, Trinnov in particular, helps overcome room anomalies and less than optimal speaker placement. The R972 works to convey the scale of the recording (X, Y, Z dimensions) intended by the recording engineers and maintain the ITU standard.


----------



## charlieblue

dBe said:


> ...When all of this is correct, the soundstage will be 180 degrees... i.e. wall to wall, depth beyond the wall behind the speakers (front wall) with individual instruments and performers in their own defined space with "air" (hard to describe, but when you hear it you know it) surrounding them...
> ...
> 
> Rooms don't need a lot of treatment for 2-channel if the dimensions are right. I see too many over treated rooms that just suck the life out of the recordings.


Hi dBe,

Do you happen to have a top-view sketch of your listening room ? Could you post that, putting on top the sound sources of a recording? Suzanne Ciani, Pink Floyd or whatever suits you best : )

What I hope for is somth like , "this is the room, that is the position of the speakers inside the room, and in this recording of XYZ here and there and overthere is where the musicians -or other creatures- 'live' ..." 

Particularly interested in the "beyond the (front) wall" presentation, never could get that sense of the walls "not being there". And I've tried various speaker positions in empty / furnished / absorption-panel treated rooms...

Thanks,

Charlie


----------



## charlieblue

tesseract said:


> The R972 works to convey the scale of the recording (X, Y, Z dimensions) intended by the recording engineers and maintain the ITU standard.


Is there a Z component in current releases and recording technology / standards ? I thought stereo and 5(-8).1(-2) home theater meet strictly 2dimensional recording and playback practices, while any vertical perception on the listener's behalf could be attributed to psycho-acoustic properties of the hearing mechanism and/or room reflections.

Having said that, yes, it is entirely possible to have a signal "move" vertically from one speaker. For instance, look at the LEDR concept (hey out of the 5post rule yet?). They do manage UP signals, probably somehow tweaking phase. Still, this and the likes of such signals, are particular *test* signals, and not somth to be found in everyday recordings intended for public consumption.

How many extra channels would it take for the height component to be included in films and music? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it's something that only the next generations are likely to enjoy.


----------



## rongon

First off, room treatment is sooooo important for imaging and soundstage. It almost doesn't matter what speakers you have until you treat your room to minimize early reflections. 

As for the OP, there is so much variance in this imaging/soundstage idea. 

Regarding imaging, some people feel you need to be able to put an orchestral recording on and be able to point to the concertmaster or first clarinetist and say, "He's (she's) right there," and pinpoint the musician's exact location. Others (notably Peter Snell) feel that this is not anything like what you'd experience in the concert hall, so why try to do that? You need a sense of depth and space (soundstage?), but the pinpoint imaging is an audiophool conceit. 

There is the side-to-side 'imaging,' but then there's the front-to-back 'depth' (is that 'soundstage'?). Then there's the pinpoint *localization* of sound sources in the recording. (What is that? Also 'Imaging?')

I find that horn speakers (Klipsch, Tannoy, etc.) excel at pinpoint localization and side-to-side imaging, but are sorely lacking in depth and atmospherics. They put the musicians right in yer face, or in your lap. Like, 'they are here.' 

Many cone-and-dome speakers diffuse the sound more to create an atmospheric spray of sound, creating that 'wide soundstage.' ('You are there.') I have a pair of Snell Type C (early version) that play a wide, atmospheric soundstage, but don't give you a whole lot of front-to-back 'imaging.' Many of the high-end cone-dome speakers can portray a great sense of depth, but aren't as dynamic as the horn type speakers. 

Planar speakers often have spectacular depth (imaging?) but are hard to drive and can sound dynamically constricted. Some are among the best ever designed (like Quad ESL-63, imo). 

Speakers are so imperfect that you basically have to decide what you prefer in the sound, and choose accordingly. I guess that's why some prefer Magnepan and others choose Klipsch. The two are wildly different experiences from each other, yet both are 'good.' How can that be? 

--


----------



## dBe

charlieblue said:


> Hi dBe,
> 
> Do you happen to have a top-view sketch of your listening room ? Could you post that, putting on top the sound sources of a recording? Suzanne Ciani, Pink Floyd or whatever suits you best : )
> 
> What I hope for is somth like , "this is the room, that is the position of the speakers inside the room, and in this recording of XYZ here and there and overthere is where the musicians -or other creatures- 'live' ..."
> 
> Particularly interested in the "beyond the (front) wall" presentation, never could get that sense of the walls "not being there". And I've tried various speaker positions in empty / furnished / absorption-panel treated rooms...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Charlie


I'll try to fire up my old coal fired, steam driven drawing program and grind out a drawing for you this afternoon along with some guidelines for room treatment per "The Geezer".........lddude:


----------



## tesseract

charlieblue said:


> Is there a Z component in current releases and recording technology / standards ? I thought stereo and 5(-8).1(-2) home theater meet strictly 2dimensional recording and playback practices, while any vertical perception on the listener's behalf could be attributed to psycho-acoustic properties of the hearing mechanism and/or room reflections.


I think of the Z axis as depth, which is controlled by the sound engineers through level control. The louder the level, the closer the performer seems to be to the listening position.




> Having said that, yes, it is entirely possible to have a signal "move" vertically from one speaker. For instance, look at the LEDR concept (hey out of the 5post rule yet?). They do manage UP signals, probably somehow tweaking phase. Still, this and the likes of such signals, are particular *test* signals, and not somth to be found in everyday recordings intended for public consumption.


Height, as I described in post #12, is the size (height) of the performer relative to the size soundstage. Indeed, as you have noted, it is largely a property of the room and speaker interface. Also, a viewing screen or something as simple as an object placed above the actual center line of the acoustic soundstage can fool the ear into believing the stage is higher than it really is, being a psycho-acoustic property of the hearing mechanism.

Thanks for the LEDR link, I've come across this before, but didn't really soak it in and had forgotten about it. I'll read up on it again.


----------



## charlieblue

Hi tesseract, very welcome! 

I tend to think of the room dimensions much like looking at a drawing board: XYZ = Width, Depth, Height. But yes, the Height component is more of a whim, coming from our hearing mechanism, and speaker-room interaction. 

I wonder though, if a loudspeaker has a sloping front bafle -and the drivers are not paralel to the floor|ceiling axis- that would probably increase the ratio of vertical to horizontal reflections and possibly the perception of height in a recording. By what factor, I can not say, just making assumptions here...

dBe, thanks for your interest, looking forward to your sketch!

rongon, thanks for the input, interestin you should mention an orchestral recording! You, and all, know how S.Linkwitz has a strong position on soundstage, or the "auditory scene", as he names it. In his "Hearing spatial detail" paper, he includes this interesting scaled diagram of how the recording of an orchestra is expected to sound in his room...:









I attempted a re-scale showing how the same orchestra might be placed if full sized and if the walls in *SL*'s room would actually suddently "drop". And I feel I may have been rather restrained in upscaling .... Keeping *S.L.*'s assumption that the "_... The phantom source will ... essentially not be closer than the distance to the real sources of sound, the two loudspeakers..._ ", I have placed the first violin at the position of the left loudspeaker : ) 


post








The question therefore arises, is there any kind of room treatment -be that mere absorption/diffusion panels, or better yet overall room design and construction including splayed walls, wideband resonators and similar goodies- that will deliver that much sence of spaciousness inside a small -by measure of the original event- actual living room ? Pray tell, especially if you have achieved this in your listening room :unbelievable: :clap: , or even witnessed it elsewhere : | 

Or should we all aggree that listening to the full depth and breadth of an orchestra is to be reserved for either the consert room or for similarly huge living spaces ?

Best, 

Charlie

PS. Please note, I am not including the loudness capabilities of the stereo system itself in the equasion. Quoting *SL*, " _. . . Distance and size of the auditory scene are playback volume dependent. The auditory scene moves closer with increasing volume, it becomes larger and more detailed . . ._" So, for the benefit of this discussion, let's take as a given that the speakers can deliver 105-110 dB to the listening seat (~ what the front rows in a concert hall may experience? ) without compression.

EDIT : just realized, I typed S.R. instead of S.L. for Siegfried Linkwitz... sorry about that :sad:
also, forgot to thank tesseract back for his kind words, double sorry :sad: :sad:


----------



## AudiocRaver

charlieblue said:


> Is there a Z component in current releases and recording technology / standards ? I thought stereo and 5(-8).1(-2) home theater meet strictly 2dimensional recording and playback practices, while any vertical perception on the listener's behalf could be attributed to psycho-acoustic properties of the hearing mechanism and/or room reflections.
> 
> Having said that, yes, it is entirely possible to have a signal "move" vertically from one speaker. For instance, look at the LEDR concept (hey out of the 5post rule yet?). They do manage UP signals, probably somehow tweaking phase. Still, this and the likes of such signals, are particular *test* signals, and not somth to be found in everyday recordings intended for public consumption.
> 
> How many extra channels would it take for the height component to be included in films and music? Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it's something that only the next generations are likely to enjoy.


I think you are correct in that vertical (z-axis) effects and movement can occur either by accident or via manipulation to simulate positional hearing response effects.

Taller speakers and their vertical arrangement of drivers, usually LF on bottom to HF on top, will tend to create some sense of height as well.

My perception is that little of what we perceive in the z-axis is on purpose.


----------



## AudiocRaver

rongon said:


> First off, room treatment is sooooo important for imaging and soundstage. It almost doesn't matter what speakers you have until you treat your room to minimize early reflections.
> 
> As for the OP, there is so much variance in this imaging/soundstage idea.


For sure!! Even in these few posts, all from clearly observant listeners, the definitions and perceptions vary quite a bit.

One exception to your room treatment comment is with near-field monitoring, where speaker frequency and phase response matching seem to carry 80-90 per cent of the weight for good imaging & soundstage. With a more typical arrangement, room treatment is certainly paramount.



> Speakers are so imperfect that you basically have to decide what you prefer in the sound, and choose accordingly. I guess that's why some prefer Magnepan and others choose Klipsch. The two are wildly different experiences from each other, yet both are 'good.' How can that be?


Totally agree.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I will read the articles linked to above. There is certainly room for some clarity of definitions, although I have a feeling that most of us will continue using the definitions we are accustomed to.

Also there will be differences in expectation. When I listen to an orchestra, for instance, if I hear a soundstage that seems natural, clear, and separate from the speakers, the actual size, position, perspective relative to the original recorded area are of little concern to me. Of course, now I will be listening in a different way. The thought of being able to "tune" the soundstage to a certain width seems like a stretch, but a fascinating possibility to consider.

Which room is more likely to have a wide soundstage, a live-but-well-controlled room or a dead room?


----------



## charlieblue

As I understand it, the brain uses sound reflections to make an estimate of the size of a certain: if reflections arive later rather than sooner, and from all over the place, the brain sais "I am now in a large space". So, I would say between the two choices, a live-but-well-controlled room would sound larger than the same room made to sound dead.

Placing the ammount and type of room treatmen on a Likert scale, somthing like this might come through:
very live > treated but live > average > treated to dead > very dead
with each room state measured RT60/30 at various fs

Then again, there is a different aproach that is rather beyond the normal live vs dead discussion: make the room dead so that it has as little contribution as possible, run the input signal through a convolver to emulate the impulse response of larger spaces, then play back the now manipulated signal through the system, close your eyes and, voila, you are now in the Notre Dame, or at the Met Opera house, or in anyplace you can have an IR from. Best done with many speakers, spread arround the room much like in surround setups. Now, that is one for my bucket list : p

Ranking possible setups from bottom to top, I would say:

untreated room: tried it, worked so and so. better with speakers and listener away from walls
dead room: have not tried, need too much absorption which I do not have. Am guessing, biger is better here too
treated room leaning to dead: tried it, worked ok, easier to pick up on recorded details
treated room leaning to live: have not tried it. need many diffusors, which I do not have.
dead room + signal manipulation: have not tried it. need multitude of speakers & amps, plus somewhat of an expertise on how to do signal manipulation on a computer, far beyond my reach. 

Still learning, though : )


----------



## lcaillo

This is a very useful discussion, and timely considering the listening that we did this weekend at Sonnie's. Much of what he is after in his 2 channel system is a good image and sound stage.

So just for the record, and to contextualize the comments that I will be posting about the eight pairs of speakers we auditioned, here are my views.

First, imaging is the ability to produce sound that to some degree convinces the listener that the reproduced sound is not coming from the speakers but from other locations. This is something like suspension of disbelief. We KNOW that the speakers ARE producing the sound, but if we listen for where the sound is coming from it SEEMS like it is coming from between, behind, or outside the speaker positions. I won't get into debates about what effects good imaging, but most stereo systems are capable of it to some degree. Better imaging means more likely to be convincing to me. It also means that the image is robust with respect to the position of the listener, for me. That might not be important to others, but much of my listening is not sitting in the sweet spot. I might be in the kitchen or moving about the room listening casually but would still like to pretend that I have a real performance going on in the house. 

Sound stage to me is the totality of the locations that I perceive though imaging. It can have dimensions of depth, width, and height. Depth is pretty easy, relatively speaking. Fewer systems will locate sounds outside the speakers, and still fewer will distinguish the height of instruments. Imaging and sound stage can both depend upon placement of speakers in a room, more for sound stage, which is the detail of where things seem to be. For instance, in the Nickel Creek song that we used in Sonnie's listening sessions, there was a part where there is very clearly an the acoustic guitar in the same vicinity as a stand up bass. On most of the well placed speakers, sound of the bass was slightly behind and center relative to the guitar and both were behind the speaker in my perception. The bass sounded like it was lower as well. Some speakers located these with more precision than others, and until the best location for the speakers was found, most had trouble with the image at this level of detail of sound stage placement.

Certainly, the quality of the recording, the original hall that the performance was in, the mix, the equipment in the recording and playback chains, the room, speaker placement, listening position, and the listener all play a role in imaging and sound stage. I won't debate the relative importance of each, but the ones that we have the most control over are speaker selection and placement.


----------



## charlieblue

1 room, 2 days, 8 pairs of speakers... love it, can't wait to read about it!


----------



## PlanoDano

Very informative thread,

Siegfried Linkwitz, has quite a bit to say on this on his site http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm


----------



## AudiocRaver

With the 2-way speakers I have played with, I almost always prefer the soundstage I get when aligned closer to the low-mid driver height rather than being aligned with the tweeter - this mainly in near-field and mid-field arrangements. Anyone else have experience with this?


----------



## tweakman

I experienced that before. I ended up tilting the speakers back slightly because my listening seat was higher. It's always good fun to play around with speaker placement when I have the time and energy for it.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Anyone have techniques they can share as to how they go about getting the best soundstage & imaging out of a pair of speakers?


----------



## tweakman

A seasoned pair of SF Concerto I had for nearfield listening benefited immensely from a slight rack angle. Tedious work involved applying quarter turns to the front spikes and listening on a good vocal track for that "sudden" moment - center vocal image with natural weight and density hanging in clear 3D space.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Anyone have techniques they can share as to how they go about getting the best soundstage & imaging out of a pair of speakers?


Kind of like that millionaire show, I use call a friend. It helps a good deal with moving speakers and prevents set up burn out.


----------



## mvision7m

AudiocRaver said:


> Anyone have techniques they can share as to how they go about getting the best soundstage & imaging out of a pair of speakers?


That's very tough to nail down in a general sense because so much comes into play for each individual person's ears, room, ancillary equipment, amplification and speakers. 

In my previous residence a coupla years ago, I had my system in a very large open space which allowed me to have my tower speakers well away from any walls. The room also had 9' ceilings so reflections off of that surface were a little less than usual. My system at that time consisted of a Yamaha RX-V3800 AVR connected to an Emotiva XPA-2 amp via the pre-out section and my main speakers were and still are Paradigm Studio 100 V.4s. My source was (still is) an OPPO BDP-95 and an iPod connected via Yamaha's iPod connector. In that room, which had hardwood floors and a 100% wool area rug between the listening seats and the speakers (no coffee table or other obstructions), I was able to achieve wonderful soundstage and imaging with the speakers toed in directly towards the center listening position. At the time I didn't use an SPL meter (might have made things easier) and I didn't use any auto EQ even though the Yamaha had its YPAO system. I used my ears and I'd get up, make an adjustment, sit down and listen for its effect on the sound. Multiply that by about what felt like a million times and with the extreme toe in everything came together audibly. I could clearly hear each performer's place within the wide soundstage I achieved. 

I uploaded a video back then to YouTube to somewhat demo the 2 channel sound I was getting with that amount of toe in and someone commented on the vid saying that while the sound was really good, the amount of toe in was extreme. It was, even for me but, my system never sounded so good until I toed the speakers in to that degree. You would think that toeing them in that heavily would produce a very narrow (head in a vice) listening window but to my surprise it didn't. Anywhere in the room that I moved to the sound was clear, cohesive, rhythmic, musical and involving and because of that, it sounded much more like live music than merely reproduced music. It's very difficult indeed to know what will work best for every speaker, room, set-up, situation or person. 

It took me a long time and a whole lot of fussing to get the sound to finally click. A nudge of the left speaker this way, a nudge of the right that way and on and on etc. but eventually (after plenty of cursing and frustration) the sound "locked" and everything snapped into place. Not just the "phantom" center image but the entire musical presentation just sounded "right" with sound coming from between and outside the plane of the speakers. It sounded like music. It had three dimensional life and real dynamic expressiveness. The soundstage depth, which was the weakest area of the overall presentation, could have been deeper to be more realistic but it was pretty wide reaching beyond the outer boundaries of the speakers. Highs were believable with a nice 'ting' and clarity that wasn't tizzy or shrill nor dull or dry, mids were rich and expressive and bass was tight, sounded tonally and rhythmically right and it was deep. 

Without the extreme toe in, I was able to achieve one or two of those attributes but not all of them at once. In that particular room, with my particular set up at the time I was able to achieve that great sound. In my new place I don't have quite as much room and because of the way my living room is situated, I can't toe the Studios in to the degree that I had in my previous place so when it comes to 2 channel music listening, while it sounds "good", it doesn't sound like it did back then. The sound isn't locked in and it could solely be the lack of extreme toe in or, it could be the different room layout or a combo of both. 

I had the 100s for a couple of years by that time and they never sounded as good as they did after I toed them in that much. Paradigm's website at the time spoke about how the Studios had wide dispersion etc. but I find them to be very fussy to get to lock but if you're determined and keep trying, once their locked in, you'll be surprised by how good they can sound. I didn't and still don't have extremely high end equipment and the Studio's aren't truly high end speakers in my opinion but at that time my system sounded better than some very high end systems I had heard at shows and audio shops. Speaker position is so important and for speakers like mine, I mean down to the millimeter. 

I really think a lot of speakers in show rooms and even at audio shows are not always truly set up or positioned to sound their absolute best. 

What worked for me and my system in that particular space isn't likely to work for others and with their equipment in their particular spaces. 

Some speakers may lock in easier or be less fussy with positioning than mine. 

Anyway, I typed this out on my iPhone so I hope I didn't ramble on too much here. 

Good luck everyone.


----------



## bkeeler10

That's a very interesting experience, and highlights comments by other regarding the experimentation and precision it often takes to get the magic to flow. I find it quite fascinating really. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## lcaillo

AudiocRaver said:


> Anyone have techniques they can share as to how they go about getting the best soundstage & imaging out of a pair of speakers?


My general approach has always been to start with my best guess based on experience for the type of speaker, then make a move and decide if I have improved or not. I try to identify in a given direction or orientation which direction improves the sound then how far I can go until it is too far. 

General starting points for conventional unipolar speakers is away from walls as far as practical, slightly farther apart than the distance to the listener from each, and toed out slightly from the directly oriented to the listener. For dipoles, generally farther from the listener ( if the room permits) and on axis and closer together.

Successive approximation using the 50% rule (think about where you think you want to move from where you are and move half that far) keeps you from overshooting on any change and avoids wasting time chasing your tail.


----------



## Andre

I look at it this way:

When sitting in front of the speakers think of a band on a stage. A wide soundstage will spread out in front of you. Imaging is being able to close your eyes and point out the instruments


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> My general approach has always been to start with my best guess based on experience for the type of speaker, then make a move and decide if I have improved or not. I try to identify in a given direction or orientation which direction improves the sound then how far I can go until it is too far.
> 
> General starting points for conventional unipolar speakers is away from walls as far as practical, slightly farther apart than the distance to the listener from each, and toed out slightly from the directly oriented to the listener. For dipoles, generally farther from the listener ( if the room permits) and on axis and closer together.


I believe this is the best way to get started actually. Most speakers of like kind and quality will act similarly if placed into the same room with the same conditions. For proper imaging and providing a good soundspace or sound field if you will, I find of all the speakers do have to be away from the front wall at the very least. Some speakers are designed to be corner loaded, or to sit against a wall, but that is not often. Take the Kilpschhorns, that is how they are used. Also, it would be good to good to keep the speakers away from the side walls to prevent reflections, or at least to delay them a bit. 

So start with some of your favorite musical pieces that you know after repeated listening can provide the information you will need. They should have sounds that appear very solidly in the center of the sound space between the speakers, they should have sound space depth and width that can extend way beyond the plane of the speakers, front, back and to the sides of the speakers. A good starting point would be to look at the list of music listed in the speaker shoot outs right here on the forum. Many of those I had not used before but will try now.

A good idea is the listening triangle as mentioned herein many times. Be sure, and this is important that the speakers are equally distant from the walls. In other words, if one speaker is 2' from the front wall and 2' from the side wall, if possible the second speaker should mirror those measurements. Being equidistant from the front wall is the most important. Start with the speakers aimed straight out into the room, no toe in, drop your chair roughly as far away from the plane of the speakers as the speakers are away from each other. Start your music and listen, if you're familiar with the music, which is really the key, sound cues will start right way. 

Many years ago, I was given the image of a dollar bill to use. Imagine your front sound-stage is a rubber dollar bill that is held in front of you with George facing you and the edges of the bill running parallel to the , floor and ceiling. The bill should, once the speakers are set properly in place, be of equal proportions side to side. Now if the speakers are too close together, the dollar bill image would smush up in the center and like the music would not present a clear image of the bill. Now imagine the speakers are too far apart, the dollar would be stretched and the center of the bill would start to get much thinner and will not appear natural any longer. Again, too close and the dollar bill looks chubby in the middle, to far apart and the dollar bill looks to thin in the middle. 

Once the speakers are out from the front wall and are at their starting position, light off the music and start. 

For depth and width I have used Supertramp, "School". In the beginning there are kids playing about off in the distance, way behind the speakers, and one should be able clearly locate the kids screaming and playing many feet behind the right speaker especially just before the music starts. His voice also tends to disappear off into the distance as the song ends. 

For side imaging a good tool is Roger Waters, Amused to Death, the very beginning when the lady is speaking. Her voice should run along the left side wall approximately half way into the room.

For center there is a good cut from the Raul Malo disc called After Hours and the first song is "Welcome to my World". His voice is so pure and large he should be directly between the speakers and one can adjust the space between a bit to make his voice sound larger or small until you feel it may be correct. Also there is a clarinet behind him to the left and drums using brushes in a large sound space behind hm.

For providing one of the most natural sound spaces I have heard get the Bucky Pizzarelli disc called Swing Live. Forward to Limehouse Blues and you should feel as if you are sitting at the Makor club with the audience around you and the musicians before you playing in a very natural space. This should help as most of us have sat by a smaller ensemble and memory will serve you will.

As far as toe in, move them in towards the listening position a small amount at a time until the sound becomes less and less alive. In my case if I toe the smaller speakers in too far so that the actual driver (s) is pointing at me, the sound gets dull and very lifeless. Once something happens to let you know you went too far, start turning the out again until the sound snaps into place and you can smile. 

There are more examples but I think this is my start. Be Well and enjoy.


----------



## Medi0gre

In my experience/opinion a sound stage cannot be altered by the end user. The sound stage was created by the studio it was recorded in and the techniques used by the engineer and recording artist. It is a sonic signature.

Imaging, is a representation/replication of the sound stage the artists were trying to capture in the studio. We can control speaker setup and selection, hardware, software and acoustic treatments to try and emulate that. 
If a person gets the setup right, you'll have a good "image" and the best possible recreation of the intended "soundstage". Just throwing it out there.:gulp:


----------



## JoeESP9

IME/O most heavily processed, tweaked and massaged studio recordings (pop, rock) don't have much (if any) of a sound stage. Sure, they have great imaging and clear clean sound. However, that sense of musicians playing in a large room "over there" where your speakers used to be is lacking. Without that "sound" you don't really have any kind of a sound stage. Those same recordings always have great lateral imaging. It's easy to do that with a pan pot. OTOH no amount of level manipulation will give a sense of depth.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Wow, great contributions and suggestions. You guys have made this a "keeper" thread.



Medi0gre said:


> In my experience/opinion a sound stage cannot be altered by the end user. The sound stage was created by the studio it was recorded in and the techniques used by the engineer and recording artist. It is a sonic signature.
> 
> Imaging, is a representation/replication of the sound stage the artists were trying to capture in the studio. We can control speaker setup and selection, hardware, software and acoustic treatments to try and emulate that.
> If a person gets the setup right, you'll have a good "image" and the best possible recreation of the intended "soundstage". Just throwing it out there.:gulp:


Yeah, it is getting that recorded soundstage to show up in your room that is the hard part. With depth is harder. With tightly defined depth is the hardest.



JoeESP9 said:


> IME/O most heavily processed, tweaked and massaged studio recordings (pop, rock) don't have much (if any) of a sound stage. Sure, they have great imaging and clear clean sound. However, that sense of musicians playing in a large room "over there" where your speakers used to be is lacking. Without that "sound" you don't really have any kind of a sound stage. Those same recordings always have great lateral imaging. It's easy to do that with a pan pot. OTOH no amount of level manipulation will give a sense of depth.


Probably largely true. I am biased, being attracted to the rock that IS recorded to have spaciousness and depth, and there is a fair amount of it out there, mainly in the progressive, experimental, alternative, indie genres, plus instrumental, bluegrass, singer-songwriter genres. Not so much in metal or straight pop areas.


----------



## Savjac

JoeESP9 said:


> OTOH no amount of level manipulation will give a sense of depth.


Depth in studio recordings that are not a live event, tend to also be manipulated by the board. Everything pretty much is controlled by the engineer and a good recording engineer that has the artists approval can make or break the whole shebang. 

Too much overdubbing and the sound space can be confusing, too little and sound can thin out and maybe even become a thing of beauty. Width, depth, multiple versions of each person, placement of everything is in the hands of the person working the board.


----------



## JoeESP9

My music collection includes a very wide variety of recordings (3500+ LPs, 1600+ CDs) that have been collected over the past 46+ years. I have a system with dipolar speakers that is a standout for exhibiting a wide deep and spacious sound stage when one is there. In addition, I have experience with three aspects of recording, in front of the microphone, at the mixing board and in front of my stereo. It's my experience based on my system and recordings that most (almost all) heavily processed studio recordings have little if any type of real sound stage. At best they give the impression of cardboard cut out musicians that are in very close layers. Almost none of them have the kind of depth and width (height also) that a good Telarc, Mercury, old RCA recording or most especially any direct to disk recording has. 

IME any and all the level adjustments that are made at a mixing board cannot substitute for a recording made "live" with a minimal number of microphones, no studio manipulation of the signal and all the musicians present and playing together in real time. Pan potting and level adjustments are simply incapable of providing a real sense of depth.


----------



## Savjac

Very interesting opinion you have and something we may all wish to explore more in depth. It is even more fascinating that we are close to the same age, have been listening for about the same amount of time, both of us have worked on both sides of the mic, yet have similar and different opinions in these matters. 

I do also appreciate when you mention telarc, mercury, rca and what have you as some of those are truly golden, especially when Wilma was at the help and Fritz was on the performance side. (I am a Chicago boy to be sure but not quite that old)

I hope you do not mind discussing further as we have such similar and yet diverse opinions and I truly wonder how that comes to fruition. I like very much dipole sound, I have had many in my life ranging from Magnepan to Martin Logan but for reasons not even clear to me, I found the sound space provided by a good moving coil type speaker to on occasion edge out dipole, although I think open baffle may be a slightly different animal but the Dahlquist DQ 10 still reigns strong in my speaker loves. (Yes I still have a pair made in '83)

Interesting, I look to learn a bit here.


----------



## fmw

Savjac said:


> Depth in studio recordings that are not a live event, tend to also be manipulated by the board. Everything pretty much is controlled by the engineer and a good recording engineer that has the artists approval can make or break the whole shebang.
> 
> Too much overdubbing and the sound space can be confusing, too little and sound can thin out and maybe even become a thing of beauty. Width, depth, multiple versions of each person, placement of everything is in the hands of the person working the board.


I agree completely here. Imaging is controlled on the mixing board. Position is determined by the use of pan controls and depth is controlled with the level sliders. Yes, room acoustics can affect the way we respond to the imaging but, for the most part it is just a part of the recording. I isn't anything the end user should worry about because it isn't adjustable. 

Soundstage can be affected by the end user. Speaker placement an room acoustics can affect it without question to say nothing of signal processing.


----------



## JoeESP9

Savjac said:


> Very interesting opinion you have and something we may all wish to explore more in depth. It is even more fascinating that we are close to the same age, have been listening for about the same amount of time, both of us have worked on both sides of the mic, yet have similar and different opinions in these matters.
> 
> I do also appreciate when you mention telarc, mercury, rca and what have you as some of those are truly golden, especially when Wilma was at the help and Fritz was on the performance side. (I am a Chicago boy to be sure but not quite that old)
> 
> I hope you do not mind discussing further as we have such similar and yet diverse opinions and I truly wonder how that comes to fruition. I like very much dipole sound, I have had many in my life ranging from Magnepan to Martin Logan but for reasons not even clear to me, I found the sound space provided by a good moving coil type speaker to on occasion edge out dipole, although I think open baffle may be a slightly different animal but the Dahlquist DQ 10 still reigns strong in my speaker loves. (Yes I still have a pair made in '83)
> 
> Interesting, I look to learn a bit here.


DQ10's are one of the few non planar speakers that I could maybe live with. I've also heard some open baffles that sound quite good to me. I think a large part of what open baffle and high efficiency speakers bring to the table is the ability to use SET amplification. There is a certain seductiveness in the sound of SET's. I would probably use them except that all the speakers I really like and those I own need substantial amounts of power and high powered SET's are quite expensive.

I'm sticking to my guns about level adjustments in the mix being incapable of creating any sense of depth. I've never heard it either in the studio or on any system I've heard. OTOH direct to disk recordings and other recordings (Mercury, old RCA, etc) made live with a minimal number of microphones and no studio signal manipulation can and do have wide and deep sound stages. For those who don't do LP's a good CD example of this is any Groove Note recording. They are recorded live to a two track master using a minimal number of microphones, passive mixers and no post processing whatsoever. 

IMO it's all about phase differences in the signals reaching the microphones. Those differences can't be duplicated in a mixing board.

Incidentally: I used Magneplanars from 1976 to 1983 (MG-1, 2 and 3). I then switched to Acoustats. I've tried most of their models and am quite happy with my current two pair. I've tried ML's but I think the crossover frequency for many of their models is high enough that there is a sound discontinuity at the crossover frequency caused by the different radiation patterns between the esl panels and the cone woofers. The same thing occurs when any planar is paired with cone type woofers. It's just a lot less audible with lower crossover frequencies. That's why my cone subs operate only below 85Hz.

More thoughts: Concerning headphones; I often read comments about the sound stage "X" headphones produce. I guess my ear brain combination is different. I've never heard any kind of sound stage from any headphone I've ever heard. All I ever get is sound in a line from one ear to the other. I wish it were different as I've used headphones more frequently in the last two and a half years while undergoing radiation and chemo therapy sessions. Even without a sound stage my Grado's and ClipZip full of FLAC files are indispensable.


----------



## MrAcoustat

*How do you define good imaging & good soundstage ????? that's an easy one*

*All you need is PANELS - PANELS - panels - *























































































































*With ALL of these IMAGING & SOUNDSTAGE is in the bag.*


----------



## Savjac

First and foremost, let me say I am very sorry to hear of the perils you are passing through. Those treatments can be horribly difficult to go through and I do hope that they are doing well and removing all the bad juju from your body.

I really like Maggies and while my knowledge of Acoustat is ok, I have only heard a small number of them, and then only at resale facilities. I still remember the first time I heard the 3's, it was simply amazing, cj Premier one and two and a telarc classical recording, I thought I could hear the space between the rows of players so good it was. Yum !!

I have just been experimenting with high efficiency speakers and low power tube amps and I am really excited at what I hear. Using the Tang Band speakers is a 30L cabinet is eye opening indeed, no crossover, no issues with frequencies just beautiful pure music and sound stage as big as the out doors. A little light in the bottom end but, oh well, cant have everything.

I have no issue with your thoughts on good sound space placement. I understand your point very clearly. However, I do believe that good solid 3 dimensional imaging does occur on non live recordings even if it is manipulated. Maybe we are just speaking to different ideas here. 
May I ask if any of those photos are yours ??


----------



## MrAcoustat

Savjac said:


> First and foremost, let me say I am very sorry to hear of the perils you are passing through. Those treatments can be horribly difficult to go through and I do hope that they are doing well and removing all the bad juju from your body.
> 
> I really like Maggies and while my knowledge of Acoustat is ok, I have only heard a small number of them, and then only at resale facilities. I still remember the first time I heard the 3's, it was simply amazing, cj Premier one and two and a telarc classical recording, I thought I could hear the space between the rows of players so good it was. Yum !!
> 
> I have just been experimenting with high efficiency speakers and low power tube amps and I am really excited at what I hear. Using the Tang Band speakers is a 30L cabinet is eye opening indeed, no crossover, no issues with frequencies just beautiful pure music and sound stage as big as the out doors. A little light in the bottom end but, oh well, cant have everything.
> 
> I have no issue with your thoughts on good sound space placement. I understand your point very clearly. However, I do believe that good solid 3 dimensional imaging does occur on non live recordings even if it is manipulated. Maybe we are just speaking to different ideas here.
> May I ask if any of those photos are yours ??[/QUO
> 
> 
> * Hi Jack All Acoustat models are mine and friends others are all panels taken on the net.*


----------



## JoeESP9

Savjac said:


> First and foremost, let me say I am very sorry to hear of the perils you are passing through. Those treatments can be horribly difficult to go through and I do hope that they are doing well and removing all the bad juju from your body.
> 
> I really like Maggies and while my knowledge of Acoustat is ok, I have only heard a small number of them, and then only at resale facilities. I still remember the first time I heard the 3's, it was simply amazing, cj Premier one and two and a telarc classical recording, I thought I could hear the space between the rows of players so good it was. Yum !!
> 
> I have just been experimenting with high efficiency speakers and low power tube amps and I am really excited at what I hear. Using the Tang Band speakers is a 30L cabinet is eye opening indeed, no crossover, no issues with frequencies just beautiful pure music and sound stage as big as the out doors. A little light in the bottom end but, oh well, cant have everything.
> 
> I have no issue with your thoughts on good sound space placement. I understand your point very clearly. However, I do believe that good solid 3 dimensional imaging does occur on non live recordings even if it is manipulated. Maybe we are just speaking to different ideas here.
> May I ask if any of those photos are yours ??


Thanks for the kind thoughts. Fortunately most of my therapy is over. I have monthly checkups and regular visits to speech therapist.

I'd be interested in any "studio" recording that has a sound stage that you'd care to recommend. 

The lack of any crossover is what IMO makes many HE systems sound so smooth and clean. Have you considered using H frame sub woofers? I've been hearing very good things about them from HE speaker owners. 

Sorry, none of those pictures are of my system. Sometime soon I'll post some pictures to my gear list here.


----------

