At 8:57 AM -0400 8/26/10, clay wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Rob Danielson
><<type%40uwm.edu>> wrote:
>
>As a long-time audiophile, I'm familiar with the words (that can be) used =
to
>describe what I called soundstage accuracy - imaging, soundstaging,
>ambience, depth, localization, body, 3D, etc. What strikes me is that
>there is no way to quantify (i.e. measure) the soundstage for accuracy.
Numbers-wise, I don't know of a performance spec that anyone has come
up with. Using comparative listening tests, localization performance
can be isolated well enough so that people come to consensus about
"accuracy." Depth too, with a little more room for aesthetic
preference. These two tests are comprehensive enough for most folks.
Its much more telling to do the comparison tests in a large space
with very low background sound levels. Side by side recording in such
places is also very telling and having a 4+track recorder is very
useful.
>Perhaps my "eye of the beholder" comment was a bit flippant, as no doubt
>there is a great consistency in what listeners would call proper
>soundstaging (e.g. when discussing loudspeaker performance), but given the
>illusory nature of the soundstage
I agree that it can be healthy to keep in mind that we are beholding
"illusions," and that doesn't take away anything from the desire to
make them align with experience-- perhaps because experience can be
so rich. Rob D.
>, it definitely allows for the possibility of what you called
>"unbridgeable differences" as to what recording style is more
>accurate WRT soundstage.
>
>Thanks Rob, I appreciate your post.
>
>clay
--
|