Soundstaging Question/Observation

[garymd]

Since I am fairly new to tubes and the soundstaging tubes so well produce, I've been listening to all my albums and CDs for what seems to be the first time.

I just finished listening to "Wake of the Flood" (Grateful Dead album from early 70s). Almost everything I've listened to thus far has the voice almost dead center. In one song, which is a 2-part song, the voice in the first part was literally in the back corner of the room to my left and behind me. When the second part came on, his voice was back to the middle.

Is this due to having the voice recorded on only the left channel and since my room is 13x24 with the speakers on the long wall, the voice is bouncing off the back wall? It was really cool. For those of you into the Dead, the song was "Weather Report Suite."

My brother was over the other day for the first time since I got the scott and I played something for him and had him close his eyes. He's a Deadhead and really enjoys music but isn't really into the audio thing. When the song was over I asked him which speaker the voice was coming from and he pointed to the academy. Of course I only had the cornwalls on. He'd never heard anything nicer than my system when I used the kenwood. It was pretty amusing. He has 2 small kids and audio is just not a priority in his life right now. My kids are pretty much grown now and it's nice to be getting back into it after many years of system neglect.

[Jalen01]

I for one am very happy for you Gary. I can't wait to get my systems kinks worked out.

Cheers,

Jalen

[Geo1]

I'll try that today. Right now I still have the Quartets connected to the Panasonic receiver, so I'll just try it with the ss. My Jolida should come next Thursday. When it comes, I'll make a direct comparison between the ss and tubes with the same recording. That'll be interesting.

[garymd]

Thanks Jalen. I appreciate that. I'm not 100% there yet myself but getting close I think.

GEO,

I tried to duplicate the effect for my wife later last night and it only seemed to work at fairly high volume. I guess it needed the extra juice to get to the back wall. Lower volumes and the voice stayed left front. I'll be interested in hearing your comparison. No question though, as soon a Let it Grow kicks in the voice is back in the middle.

[Daddy Dee]

Gary,

Seems like I have run across a discussion or review on the web somewhere that had a discussion of soundstage with tube amps. Also being new to tubes and a non-tech type, alot of what I read goes over my head. (But I have just bought some books on intro to electronics and reading schematics,etc hoping I can be taught)

The web reviewer was saying that soundstage is a perceptual thing that can't be measured with instruments. I have no clue as to whether that statement is accurate. You can find people on the internet who will make a case that the sky is not blue!

All that is to say, when you wrote that you were listening to your music collection as if for the first time, I've been thinking the same thing. I haven't enjoyed music so much in years. really. Another thing that is interesting, in that I may listen to something I'd had for years, say some particular tracks on a CD that I just didn't care for, that now I will sit through and listen and hear the recording and blending of instruments, with a richness I hadn't heard before. It wasn't that I didn't like the music. Just hadn't heard enough of it to know.

Probably have repeated this too much in my posts, but the real surprise in discovering the tube world, is that my wife enjoys listening, too.

Regards,

Dee

[garymd]

Dee,

I also posted similar findings before (maybe 2 or 3 times) but one song in particular that I've heard a thousand times I listened to with the scott and heard literally dozens of instruments (mostly percussion) in the jam that I'd never noticed (not to mention the soundstaging and incredible detail I'd never heard). I'd say it was a fluke but like I said, I'd heard that song a thousand times before. I too am enjoying music more than I have in many, many years. Maybe ever. Yes, and my wife is beginning to really enjoy it also. That's a real accomplishment in my book. Every night I play something different for her in the dark. It's becoming sort of a routine. We both look forward to it.

[Geo1]

Gary: OK, this is really unscientific, but at a low volume level, as well as high volume level, using the Quartets in two channel, on Part 1, Weir's voice is coming from approximately mid-way between the left channel speaker and where the center speaker would be if there was one. On Let It Grow, at both low and high volume levels, it definitely shifts to the direct center between the speakers. Interesting. When I hear things like that, I always wonder if the artist and/or the producer intended it.

[artto]

Gary, there are many recordings that do that kind soundstaging or imaging. I have a lot of Dead, but not that one. As Im sure you probably know, the Dead was one of the few rock bands that was really into hi-fi, especially back then. So what you are hearing may have been intentional (hopefully), and not just a reflection off the back wall (bad).

For me, the most notable for these kinds of effects are probably Pink Floyd & Roger Waters. Even some of the later Beatles recordings. On Pink Floyds The Final Cut, theres one part where Id swear there is a person walking from right to left in the hall behind me (no rear channels). And Roger Waters Amused to Death has lots these effects. Sometimes the barking dog sounds like you're outside & the dog is in the next yard, and another dog barking several doors further down the block. Some voices can come from directly to your far left or right, well beyond the spread of the speakers. The sounds are so vivid and stable, you can actually turn your head far left or right and look directly at their apparent location while all the frontal imaging remains firmly intact.

On the other hand, dont be to quick to attribute this to tubes. Im sure youre rediscovering your record collection again but these effects can be heard with any decent amp. Being able to hear these effects has more to do with how the speakers & room are setup than with the kind of amplification employed. Although I must admit, with tubes, some of these things seem more apparent. Not glaringly so, just enough to let you know what youve been missing. Also consider that not all the songs on an album are recorded at the same studio/place or mixed or mastered by the same engineers. And sometimes, they do make mistakes that arent caught until its too late. One track may be correct, while another one, they decided to let it slip as it wasnt worth the time or money to go back and correct something that very few people would be able to notice.

[garymd]

----------------

On 7/19/2003 10:10:12 AM Geo1 wrote:

Gary: OK, this is really unscientific, but at a low volume level, as well as high volume level, using the Quartets in two channel, on Part 1, Weir's voice is coming from approximately mid-way between the left channel speaker and where the center speaker would be if there was one. On Let It Grow, at both low and high volume levels, it definitely shifts to the direct center between the speakers. Interesting. When I hear things like that, I always wonder if the artist and/or the producer intended it.

----------------

GEO,

That's what my wife heard also (but at lower volume). I definitely heard it behind me and to the left. Maybe a flashback, who knows. Maybe my room acoustics are different.

Artto,

I had the same setup with my SS, same room, speaker placement, etc. Maybe I'm listening more carefully now regarding soundstaging but the additional sounds/instruments I assure you are new. The clarity on some of the high end sounds is amazing in comparison. Listen to Unbroken Chain (Mars Hotel CD) and check out the highs in some of the wierd sound effects they put in that song. That tinkle of bells or whatever that sound is is a good example. Also the mid to upper bass percussion that Mickey Hart is doing is now clear and I never noticed it before at all.

[Deang]

I don't think there is any doubt, at least in my mind and experience -- that tube amps do a better job of pushing the music out into the room. I have a very nice, well kept minty Adcom 555 II in the house right now, and compared to the Quicksilvers it is very disappointing in this regard. It "sounds" very good, but the soundstage just seems to be stuck to the front of baffle with velcro. I have to play it twice as loud as the Quicksilvers before the soundstage breaks free and moves forward.

Pompous Azz used to use the word "bloom" to describe the expansive and 3 dimensional soundstage of even modest tube amps.

[Manuel Delaflor]

Artto

What you hear in Amused to Death and other recordings is a result of a DSP effect (called QSound) so is not a soundstage or imaging effect in the sense of normal recordings.

[Mike82]

I'm pretty much with DeanG on this. Tubes tend to create a 3-dimensional sonic "space" while s-s tends to get only 2 dimensions (h & w). With tubes, I can definately visualize instruments, performers, room dimensions and place them in space- front to back/side to side.

Granted, this illusion is not experienced on every recording. On older classical recordings (Merc, RCA Shaded Dogs, etc) a microphone tree was used rather than close-miking the instrument sections. Therefore, the "ambience" of the hall is better captured with the old technique than current methods. Of course, it's easier to edit mistakes with the new techniques.

One particular recording demonstrates this quite well: Jascha Heifetz, Bruch Scottish Fantasia on RCA "shaded dog". On the opening of the piece, before the music starts, one can almost visualize the dimensions of the orchestra hall- all this before the music starts.

Put another way, tubes creates a "cloud" of music that envelops the listener. S-s can do a fine job with 2-dimensional soundstage, but as Dean noted, the sound is stuck to a plane across the front of the baffles.

[artto]

Manuel, yes, you are correct. Im quite aware of it, I just didnt want to get into all that. Many modern recordings have all kinds of enhanced processing, even going back to things like the Aural Exciter in the early 70s. My point was simply that its a good thing if its on the recording & you can hear it as it was intended. Bad (IMO) if its just caused by room interference. And that some tracks are not always recorded the same as others on the same recording. So its not unusual to hear the imaging or sound change.

I use both SS & tube. Are they different? Yes. To me tubes are typically more three dimensional. Are they more accurate? I dont know. I suspect good SS stuff is probably reproducing whats really on the recording. My objective is to recreate a believable rendition of a performance. The you are there effect. Not necessarily a pretty sound subjectively. So I guess while the 3-D effect tubes seem to create may not be as accurate in the technical sense, it serves the purpose of being accurate in terms of meeting the objective.

And Gary, now that you mentioned Mickey Harthave you ever heard his recording Dafos on Reference Recordings? Theres one track where he plays this instrument he calls the beast. At one point it sounds like they dropped a Mac truck 10 stories onto a warehouse floor. The first time I heard it, my wife & I were standing waiting outside a room at an Infinity IRS demo at the CES when they were playing it. The floors & walls in the hotel felt like they were buckling. My wife says What the hell are they doing in there? Killing somebody?

I guess I should also add that I've been using class A triodes for nearly 25 years now so it's not so much of a revelation for me anymore. At this point, for me, its only tweaking the room acoustics that brings about any significant change. And even that has been taken about as far as it can go without building another room (which hopefully may happen sometime in the not too distant future).

[garymd]

----------------

On 7/19/2003 2:54:59 PM artto wrote:

Manuel, yes, you are correct. I’m quite aware of it, I just didn’t want to get into all that. Many modern recordings have all kinds of enhanced processing, even going back to things like the Aural Exciter in the early 70’s. My point was simply that it’s a good thing if its on the recording & you can hear it as it was intended. Bad (IMO) if its just caused by room interference. And that some tracks are not always recorded the same as others on the same recording. So its not unusual to hear the imaging or sound change.

I use both SS & tube. Are they different? Yes. To me tubes are typically more three dimensional. Are they more accurate? I don’t know. I suspect good SS stuff is probably reproducing what’s really on the recording. My objective is to recreate a believable rendition of a performance. The ‘you are there’ effect. Not necessarily a ‘pretty sound’ subjectively. So I guess while the 3-D effect tubes seem to create may not be as accurate in the ‘technical sense’, it serves the purpose of being accurate in terms of meeting the objective.

And Gary, now that you mentioned Mickey Hart……have you ever heard his recording ‘Dafos’ on Reference Recordings? There’s one track where he plays this instrument he calls ‘the beast’. At one point it sounds like they dropped a Mac truck 10 stories onto a warehouse floor. The first time I heard it, my wife & I were standing waiting outside a room at an Infinity IRS demo at the CES when they were playing it. The floors & walls in the hotel felt like they were buckling. My wife says “What the hell are they doing in there? Killing somebody?”

I guess I should also add that I've been using class A triodes for nearly 25 years now so it's not so much of a revelation for me anymore. At this point, for me, its only tweaking the room acoustics that brings about any significant change. And even that has been taken about as far as it can go without building another room (which hopefully may happen sometime in the not too distant future).

----------------

Artto,

We were at a Grateful Dead show in the mid 80s and during the drum solo Mickey went into this enclosure about the size of a shower stall and started pounding on something in there. It sounded just as you described. We referred to it as "The Thunder Machine." We also thereafter referred to that show as the Thunder Machine show. I never heard the recording you are referring to but could it be the same instrument?

[artto]

Gary, good question. I don't know. I've never seen it or heard it live. Your question motivated me to do some searching.

The recording I referred to has a track called "The Gates Of Dafos" in which the beast is used. From what I can gather it sounds like it might be composed of several things used for percussion. There is mention of extremely large steel drums and some kind of 'mystery box'.

From an interview I found:

BK: How about the Apocalypse Now soundtrack sessions, how was that experience for you?

MH: I was ecstatic, you know, I really learned a lot; that was my first movie. . Working with Francis (Coppola) was a real treat and I got to build a lot of instruments. The Beast was built there, you know those big steel drums for the air strikes. It was a monumental experience in my life.

From what I can figure out, on Dafos it sounds like many of the higher frequency percussive effects might be made by hitting the large steel drums on surfaces other than the drum head. The big boom is probably the large steel drum itself, along with some other stuff falling & hitting the floor, bouncing around a few times, like parts flying off the Mack truck after impact. At any rate, it makes things like the Telarc recording of the 1812 Overture with the real cannon shots pale in comparison. I mean this thing is HUGE.

At any rate, the Infinity's (the original 4 piece version, circa 1981?) with their twelve 12" servo controlled woofers in two 8' towers & 3000 watts couldn't handle it. You could hear the voice coils bottoming out. Of course, those speakers couldn't handle the orginal Telarc digital master tapes of the 1812 either. That was definately a 'turning point' for me. I found it rather amusing that I was getting better reproduction from a speaker designed decades before & a few 50 watt tube amps. Even my wife was delighted & started saying out load "Ours is better. OURS IS BETTER!" I had to tell her to be quiet as 3 of the editors from Audio Magazine were sitting right in front of us. I'm sure there were a few idiots who shelled out $50,000 (20+ years ago mind you) for that crap. LMFAO. That's why I don't go chasing the high-end game anymore.

By the way, Infinity was using some massive tube amps for the midrange & tweeter panels. BIG tubes, about 6 per chassis. I don't have any idea what tube type they were. Had the same bottle shape like a 300B, but were about 3 or 4 times the size.

[Marvel]

Recording gongs and steel drums is really hard. Depending on the mic used and the mic placement, spmetomes all you get is overtones, three octaves higher than what your ears are hearing. Must have been a treat to try for something special.

Marvel

[Manuel Delaflor]

Artto, you are correct. For example those Qsound effects disappear with a bad setup. Ah, on the "accuracy" regarding both technologies... my feeling is that I really don't care. To a point, the whole "accuracy" concept is just a myth propelled by some heads in the industry.

[Allan Songer]

The most "real" sounding recordings I listen to on a regular basis are mono LPs recorded, mastered and pressed in the 1950's and early 1960's. Live in the studio with an engineer who knew what a piano or a horn were SUPPOSED to sound like.

We sure have come a long way . . .

[artto]

Allan, ain't that the truth!