Stereo Depth and Layering

[Spukee]

Hello Experts,

 

Wondering if you have had any experience with speakers that have exceptional depth?

 

I've listened to quite a few speakers in my journey (my own, in demos and in HiFi shows) and whilst I have heard exceptional imaging and soundstaging that extend well beyond speakers, I don't think I've felt "depth" to the point where I can pinpoint instruments layered and locked in a defined space.  I can tell which instruments may be at the front or back, but the distance between the layers is miniscule to my ears.

 

Would like to hear people's opinions on speakers they have heard that achieve this and perhaps a good track to test?  Is depth as important to you than soundstaging or having a wall of sound?

[tripitaka]

I suspect this ends up being more about the room characteristics and the speaker placement than anything else. 

Best, Trip

 

PS you might look into Omnidirectionals or bipolars for a different take on this

Edited April 24, 2024 by tripitaka

[Spukee]

Thanks, yes possibly. Certainly in my rooms, that would be the case. In saying that, I've heard speakers in demos that are placed far away from boundaries and still cannot say they have good depth.

Perhaps I'm experiencing depth and just not able to decipher it.

[tripitaka]

13 minutes ago, Spukee said:

Thanks, yes possibly. Certainly in my rooms, that would be the case. In saying that, I've heard speakers in demos that are placed far away from boundaries and still cannot say they have good depth.

Perhaps I'm experiencing depth and just not able to decipher it.

The experience of depth only exists in our heads, so there is no deciphering shortcoming on your part. But if depth is something you really value then a cardiod radiating pattern may be what you are chasing. That will limit your choice of speakers (and you will still need the room & set-up to be right).

[thimmy118]

A number of factors can and will determine the perception of depth in a soundstage. Room characteristics is certainly one of them. From my personal experience speaker placement and your equipment, including cables, will play a part in determining the layering and the placement of singers and instruments, imaginary or otherwise, within the sound stage. In addition to the perception of depth and width, a good system should also be able to place each instrument in its own 'rounded space' within the sound stage making it almost 3D without you having to 'imagine' this. This sort of sound staging can only be achieved with properly matched equipment, well recorded music and a well treated room. 

[andyr]

6 minutes ago, tripitaka said:

The experience of depth only exists in our heads, so there is no deciphering shortcoming on your part. But if depth is something you really value then a cardiod radiating pattern may be what you are chasing. That will limit your choice of speakers (and you will still need the room & set-up to be right).

 

Sure, Brett - but if there are half a dozen people listening and they all say "wow - that has more depth" ... then I suggest that's a real phenomenon not something "in someone's head"!

 

I vividly remember a listening session I went to about 20 years ago where a couple of amplifiers were compared.  So the same (Dali) box spkrs but:

• one was a standard, powerful Class AB amp - Krell (I think)
• and the other was a 40w hybrid SE Class A amp.

 

We all agreed that with the 2nd amp ... the singer jumped forward so she was in front of the spkrs - instead of being slightly behind.

 

[tripitaka]

I have taken this topic to mean something different from a presentation that sounds 'forward' vs 'recessed', which we have all experienced and which (in my limited experience) has more to do with frequency response in the 'presence' region of the spectrum.

 

 

[Satanica]

50 minutes ago, andyr said:

I vividly remember a listening session I went to about 20 years ago where a couple of amplifiers were compared.  So the same (Dali) box spkrs but:

• one was a standard, powerful Class AB amp - Krell (I think)
• and the other was a 40w hybrid SE Class A amp.

 

We all agreed that with the 2nd amp ... the singer jumped forward so she was in front of the spkrs - instead of being slightly behind.

 

I suggest that these two amps would present a different frequency response, especially under complex load which could produce one having more midrange than the other. Hence some frequencies being more pronounced, such as a human voice.

[Satanica]

3 hours ago, Spukee said:

Hello Experts,

 

Wondering if you have had any experience with speakers that have exceptional depth?

 

I've listened to quite a few speakers in my journey (my own, in demos and in HiFi shows) and whilst I have heard exceptional imaging and soundstaging that extend well beyond speakers, I don't think I've felt "depth" to the point where I can pinpoint instruments layered and locked in a defined space.  I can tell which instruments may be at the front or back, but the distance between the layers is miniscule to my ears.

 

Would like to hear people's opinions on speakers they have heard that achieve this and perhaps a good track to test?  Is depth as important to you than soundstaging or having a wall of sound?

It never ceases to amase me that when I listen with my eyes closed, that soundstanging and imaging are very quickly improved.

[Jakeyb77_Redux]

I’ve heard a lot of systems with great 3D sound. I’d say a lot of it has to do with speaker placement and room. 
You can get a great effect with modest systems. 
Usually when set up right in my house the vocals are well back and in the middle of my room. Other instruments move around in the space.

But the best example of this effect was at @tubularbells house with his Duntech Sovereigns. You could literally walk in a space of sound where the speakers appear to disappear.

I even walked a good 6 feet behind the speakers and was in a holographic audio experience. It was sort of like Minorty Report where they’re grabbing images in the sky. 
It felt like you could reach out and touch the musicians in the space. 
 

[Kirby66]

When you can identify differences in the 'depth' placement of instruments or vocals in comparison to others you're very likely hearing a good, very good, complete system. Forward / backward is certainly more demanding than left / right placement. I think @thimmy118's post above is spot on - ALL components, connections and room acoustics play a part. The recording is perhaps the most critical ... if it's not there in the recording nothing can create the separation and placement of an individual instrument in it's own 'rounded space' (I like that description very much).

 

Another soundstage placement I hear less often but find intriguing is vertical placement - especially when it's not the high frequency vertically higher and the low frequency vertically lower in the soundstage. This again makes me think of the music being presented in a 360 degree 'sphere' where individual instruments are clearly separated from each other on x. y and z axes. Think about a drum kit placed up on a drum riser at the rear and to the right side of the stage and someone playing a triangle sitting on the front edge of the stage to the left side.

 

@Satanica said above 'soundstanging and imaging' are improved with eyes closed and this is absolutely the case for me ... not only when critical listening but when listening to a great recording presented well it is my natural reaction to close my eyes.

 

So to the OP @Spukee's question ... "Is depth as important to you than soundstaging or having a wall of sound?" I think of depth as a part of a soundstage comprised of front/back, left/right and up/down ... front/back and up/down are just less commonly identifiable if they are even available in the original recording.

 

I'll have a look for a couple of tracks which demonstrate good depth for me on my system and post here for you @Spukee - thanks for starting a cool thread 

[Keith_W]

The perception of depth or width is due to reflections. They need to be (1) delayed, (2) attenuated, (3) diffuse, and (4) spectrally correct. 

 

The usual recommendation is that any reflection arriving within the Haas fusion window of 20ms should be -15dB down from the axial response. 

 

The reason why speakers in small rooms sound "small" and lacking width or depth is because of early arriving reflections which are from the same direction with not much attenuation. An omni mic will tell you if a reflection is arriving early, and by how much it is attenuated, but it won't tell you the direction. This is why people who treat the first reflection point with absorbers will measure an attenuated reflection, but won't change the timing of the reflection nor its direction (note that the latter can not be measured unless you own a special mic). Furthermore, absorbers distort the spectral content of the reflection, typically by selectively absorbing higher frequencies. I sometimes feel I am alone on SNA for hating overzealous application of these bloody things but that is another story! 

 

The radiating pattern of omnis and dipoles help a lot with depth perception (dipoles) or depth and width (omnis), particularly if they are positioned far from reflecting surfaces, and that reflecting surfaces are treated to scatter and attenuate the sound so that the arrival of reflections fulfils as many of the requirements as possible. But - if you are like many people and have a small listening room - omnis and dipoles will produce early and loud reflections and might muddy up the sound. 

 

I have heard many systems with dipoles and a couple of omnis. All the omnis were really impressive, but I suspect that it's because people who are rich enough to own omnis are also rich enough to have large listening rooms. The dipoles were a bit of a mixed bag. I have heard them sound really awful, especially in those small listening rooms in hi-fi shows. In a large room, they really shine. Some of them are nothing short of incredible. 

[davm]

Isn't BACCH4Mac's claim to fame that it can create a more realistic 3 dimensional listening experience from a stereo system?

 

I think it works by eliminating crosstalk between stereo loudspeakers in a way that allows our mind to construct a 3D sound field.

 

It's quite expensive and I've never heard it myself, but there are threads on here if you search.

[pete_mac]

2 hours ago, Keith_W said:

The reason why speakers in small rooms sound "small" and lacking width or depth is because of early arriving reflections which are from the same direction with not much attenuation. An omni mic will tell you if a reflection is arriving early, and by how much it is attenuated, but it won't tell you the direction. This is why people who treat the first reflection point with absorbers will measure an attenuated reflection, but won't change the timing of the reflection nor its direction (note that the latter can not be measured unless you own a special mic). Furthermore, absorbers distort the spectral content of the reflection, typically by selectively absorbing higher frequencies. I sometimes feel I am alone on SNA for hating overzealous application of these bloody things but that is another story! 

 

Keith, I’m very much guilty of this myself - simple Polymax XHD absorbers at the first reflection point. No diffusion.

 

I have no data to support the use of either absorption or diffusion in my application, but the addition of absorption sounds subjectively better than the untreated room.

 

I do, however, feel this room and system have ‘more to give’ on the imaging and sound stage front.

 

You have piqued my interest re: diffusion! 

[stereo coffee]

The perception of depth is in the recording, and does not require specific room treatments, other than common sense with speaker placement to experience it. ie it is fully intended to be heard. It examples the best use of microphones and placement.  A fine example being Keith Jarrett Trio at the Blue Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Jarrett_at_the_Blue_Note

 

"Stereophiles Wes Phillips called the sound "Amazing.... A piano trio recorded this well makes an impressive demonstration disc. DeJohnette is placed near the right speaker, Jarrett near the left, and Peacock stands well back in the middle—hey! where'd he come from? The instruments are prominently featured, but there's enough room acoustic to convince you this really took place somewhere. Somewhere intimate—not merely small, but close and personal."[4] "

[andyr]

2 hours ago, pete_mac said:

You have piqued my interest re: diffusion! 

 

Many years ago, I found that some diffusion behind my Maggies, in the line of the rear ribbon tweeter output reflecting off the front wall to my ears ... improved the depth of the soundstage I was hearing.

 

So - even if you don't have dipoles ... you might like to try out this concept.

 

[andyr]

7 minutes ago, stereo coffee said:

The perception of depth is in the recording, and does not require specific room treatments, other than common sense with speaker placement to experience it. ie it is fully intended to be heard.

 

Mmmm - that's not my experience, Chris.

 

Absolutely "The perception of depth is in the recording" - but how well this relates to what you hear from your spkrs ... depends on a number of factors, including:

• the type of spkrs you have (dipoles do it far better than 'monkey coffins'   ).
• the size of your listening space (which influences how far you and the spkrs are away from the walls).
• the amplifier you are using (Class A does depth much better than classic Japanese, low distortion / high global feedback Class AB amps).

 

[stereo coffee]

1 minute ago, andyr said:

 

Mmmm - that's not my experience, Chris.

 

Absolutely "The perception of depth is in the recording" - but how well this relates to what you hear from your spkrs ... depends on a number of factors, including:

• the type of spkrs you have (dipoles do it far better than 'monkey coffins'   ).
• the size of your listening space (which influences how far you and the spkrs are away from the walls).
• the amplifier you are using (Class A does depth much better than classic Japanese, low distortion / high global feedback Class AB amps).

 

Yes indeed there are always fascinating factors, which the keen audiophile will be on to exploring  with regard to how amplification and attenuation , and speaker choice influence. The cascode is a great example of a circuit that just serves music's purpose

https://www.passlabs.com/technical_article/cascode-amp-design/     particularly when its extended to it's DC form as well

 

 

Without spending too much though and getting common sense speaker placement sorted, you can with a fine recording experience pretty good perception of depth, as it's in the recording. The Blue Note Keith Jarrett trio CD's or LP's are available too as single disc's particularly of the Saturday recording.  If you happen to hear "more than before' with equipment changes or speaker placement  then make notes of why and how that occurred,    

 

 

[Spukee]

Thanks for the valuable feedback all. Many more things to research now. 

Perhaps I am experiencing depth to some extent. I can certainly hear instruments in various spaces, and in some tracks firmly behind me.

I guess what I cannot say I've felt in any system I've heard is the sense that you can walk around every musician like some of you have described.

Class A amplification, R2R and tubes in the chain definitely helped create a 3D effect in my setup, but I would not be able to declare that "the lead guitarist is 3ft and slightly behind the bassist and the drummer is firmly at the back of both". Looking forward to testing the tracks/albums people have suggested.

[aaronttan]

4 hours ago, stereo coffee said:

The perception of depth is in the recording, and does not require specific room treatments, other than common sense with speaker placement to experience it. ie it is fully intended to be heard. It examples the best use of microphones and placement.  A fine example being Keith Jarrett Trio at the Blue Note

I looked it up and started streaming this whilst reading this thread and wifey says “what a lovely recording, what is this?”

 

Love it!!

[Satanica]

20 hours ago, Keith_W said:

The perception of depth or width is due to reflections.

 

I don't think this is true, reflections may enhance it, but the fundamental width and depth information is in the recording, more or less.

Edited April 25, 2024 by Satanica

[Keith_W]

55 minutes ago, Satanica said:

 

I don't think this is true, reflections may enhance it, but the fundamental width and depth information is in the recording, more or less.

 

Actually that is an interesting question that I have not fully made up my mind on yet. I agree that the depth and layering needs to be captured on the recording for it to be reproduced. But what characteristics of a system are best for reproducing it? If it was purely a matter of delivering the left channel to the left ear and right channel to the right ear, then headphones and IEM's should produce superior imaging. But they don't. So I wonder whether some sort of personalised HRTF is required. Conventional recordings have no HRTF built-in, so they are an unnatural experience on headphones. Everything I said in my previous post was an amalgamation of what Toole and Linkwitz have said. 

 

Perhaps the ultimate experiment would be to put a personalised HRTF on a headphone with head tracking (something like a Smyth Realizer) and see whether that does better or not. 

[Grimmie]

On 24/04/2024 at 9:27 PM, Satanica said:

It never ceases to amase me that when I listen with my eyes closed, that soundstanging and imaging are very quickly improved.

We're a strange and diverse lot arn't we? My experience being the opposite. A darkened room, yes but I find if I look toward the soundstage and even focus on each individual instrument where it's positioned in space I can picture the whole group of instrumentalists arrayed in front of me with some deeper layering. Only on a few good recordings do I get the full front to rear distance effect though.

Similar albums to compare, Jagga Jazzist, 'One Armed Bandit' vs Rymden 'Space Sailors'. The former has this great ball of sound presentation with little separation of instruments and a tight confused sound - albeit terrific music, whereas Rymden is similar in style musically but the instruments do have that spacial positioning and there is a depth perception to be observed. Both very enjoyable musically Jazzy, but with electronic, rock, and even prog influences. The quality of recording does give Rymden the edge in listening pleasure.

(Buggeie Wesseltoft is the main man of Rymden with Dan Berglund and Magnus Ostrom both of E.S.T. fame. if you like E.S.T. try Rymden, a bit more trippy / proggy but very classy)

 

 

19 hours ago, pete_mac said:

Keith, I’m very much guilty of this myself - simple Polymax XHD absorbers at the first reflection point. No diffusion.

 

I have no data to support the use of either absorption or diffusion in my application, but the addition of absorption sounds subjectively better than the untreated room.

 

I do, however, feel this room and system have ‘more to give’ on the imaging and sound stage front.

 

You have piqued my interest re: diffusion! 

 

Heh! heh! - you want sound diffraction/ absorption that doesn't ruin the dynamics?

Home made of course but very effective, if something of an eyesore to some.

[pete_mac]

1 hour ago, Grimmie said:

 

Heh! heh! - you want sound diffraction/ absorption that doesn't ruin the dynamics?

Home made of course but very effective, if something of an eyesore to some.

Nicely done! Yeah, that particular look wouldn’t work at my place, but one of the DIY designs that adopt the same principles are on the cards. 

[sir sanders zingmore]

21 hours ago, davm said:

Isn't BACCH4Mac's claim to fame that it can create a more realistic 3 dimensional listening experience from a stereo system?

 

I think it works by eliminating crosstalk between stereo loudspeakers in a way that allows our mind to construct a 3D sound field.

 

It's quite expensive and I've never heard it myself, but there are threads on here if you search.

the pricing of BACCH continues to confound me. The intro version is USD 980. To me it is one of the great bargains in hifi. 
The jump in price to the next level is massive (an extra USD4k). I haven’t tried the next level up but the intro version is so good, I just can’t imagine how the upgrade could be worth it.