[frodeni]

This is a thread, that I hope will generate a reasonable and quantifiable definition of soundstage. By that, I mean something that people can listen for, and accurately describe. Listening to the same rig, people should end up describing the soundstage, approximately the same.
 
To do so, we have to leave the notion of emotions, feelings, lofty expressions, and sensations. We need to quantify what to listen for, and agree on how to describe it.
 
I sort of boldly just throw things out here, but these things are not cut in stone. But really, the use of this term and imaging, is a complete chaos. Some speak of what I throw out here, while others speak of the entire sonic experience. That leaves us with a huge language barrier. We need to come to terms, and no, mine is not necessarily the right one.
 
If a better one develops, I will attempt to update this post, to reflect that.
 
If this works, this could be done for more terms. The goal is of course to develop a common language in which we may describe sonic experiences, using the same language. At present, we simply do not. In a way, this is a call for an analytical language, that we can all agree upon. Looking at my result so far, people need to realize, that if this is not described by soundstage, it simply will need another expression. We need to break down the analysis into logical pieces, and name them.
 

What is out there?

Stereophile

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it.

 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-r-s#FZhsxGAGzMYospXZ.99
 

Head-Fi article

Soundstage - The area between two speakers that appears to the listener to be occupied by sonic images. Like a real stage, a soundstage should have width, depth, and height.

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary

Wikipedia

The term soundstage refers to the depth and richness of an audio recording and usually relates to the playback process. According to audiophiles, the quality of the playback is very much dependent upon how one is able to pick out different instruments, voices, vocal parts, and such exactly where they are located on an imaginary 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional field. The quality of this soundstage can enhance not only the listener's involvement in the recording, but also their overall perception of the stage.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_stage
 

Breakdown

The Wikipedia def, talks about 3D-field, but there is only two dimensions in stereo, at best. Current tech do not support vector reproduction of sound, tailored for the physical dimensions of the listener. The Head-Fi def do the same. There is only width and dept, no height.
 
The term typically is used to described a stage, and not the space in which the speakers or headphones renders the music. That is backwards. It the term is to have analytical sense, it needs to apply to the reproduction of the sound, not what it is depicting.
 
Also, there is the conflicting terms, in particular imaging. Imaging needs to refer to something other than soundstage.
 

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width. See "soundstaging," "vagueness," "wander."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-r-s#w6O96HtboD7HDUGd.99
 

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."

http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-i-m#KsZDLsEi4Q1Z1KoO.99
 

Imaging - The sense that a voice or instrument is in a particular place in the room.

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary
 

Wrap-up

 
To separate soundstage and imaging, well, they need to be separate. They should not overlap. Soundstage should describe the space in which the speaker or headphone can place instruments, and imaging is the placement within that space. It also needs to be the space reproduced by the speakers or headphones, not the "stage" being imaged. Those are two very different things.
 
Soundstage is thus:
 
The soundstage is the space, given by width and dept in which the imaginary instruments and voices can be placed. (Probably can do with a lot of work, but it is a start)
 

Quantifying

The whole point of such a definition is that it is quantifiable, easy to recognize, and easy to describe.
 
Width is simply how far left and right, sound can be reproduced. For speakers, this can be within the extended triangle, the sides of it, running between your head, and the speakers. It just seldom is. For headphones, the width typically runs smack through the brain. Yet even then, some cans seems to depict sounds wider, than other cans.
 
Dept is easier to describe for speakers. It is the area in which the speakers are able to place sounds, closer and farther away from the listener. Again, the same triangle. For headphones, this is harder. The distance between the axis running between the can, runs straight through the ears, leaving less room for dept. Since the width is physically so narrow, dept is compressed.
 
Also, some systems are front heavy, meaning that sounds are pulled forward in the reproduction. It would be nice if people would start to call it front biased, instead of "intimate", or "up close". And no, there is no imaging in front of the speakers.
 
Other rigs are more back biased or heavy. If all reproduction is at the far rear, the soundstage will be back biased or heavy. "huge soundstage" is not a fair description of this, as the bias makes the stage shallow in dept.
 

Physics

One way to make a soundstage, is to vary the intensity between the speakers. This typically generates an arch between the speakers, on which the instruments may be placed. Echo is added to enhance the effect. Sometimes, intensity is used to try to move along the dept axis. Adding noise also works for this.
 
Time shift. A delay in time between left and right also works. This is why stereo is recorded with approximately the distance of the ears, of a human head. Classical recordings in particular.
 
A combination of the two. There will be a slight difference in intensity between the mics, for acoustic recordings.
 

Subjective testing

This is best tested for level adjusted music, by almost any pop tune. Front or back biased quickly become apparent to.
 
For time shifted recordings, a philharmonic recording of some quality, will be best. Again, front or back, and is there a real dept.
 
The goal is to describe the width and dept. Also look for dept across the entire extended triangle behind speakers. For the HD800, the far back either left or right, actually extend beyond the cans, due to the special design of the HD800. It takes some getting used to.
 

Objective testing

Channel separation can reduce width. If you do not have a clean left or right, sounds cannot emerge from just left or right. This would apply to the signal going into speakers or cans.
 
I have never payed much attention to those numbers, so I cannot make any claims if such measurements would correlate to subjective data.
 
I really have no objective measure of this term for cans or speakers. It will probably remain something only measurable by subjective data. Unless someone has a killer test to come up with. 
 
 
Folks, that was it. So far. Idealy, we will do a couple of these, then tackle digital noise and lossy compression. That is when the fun really starts.

 

[Audioholic123]

Hi
There's more to headphones than just soundstage. Still, I agree that it is one of the biggest factors to consider when buying a headphone. The Soundstage and imaging you get from angled driver headphones such as the Hd800's is very different compared to other ones. The soundstage is more narrow due to the inward-facing angle. Imaging is better though.
 
If this forum is really about how to define certain aspects of sound reproduction, then its a lost cause i'm afraid. Thats because there are many, many words one can use to accurately describe the same thing.

 

[alynx]

I had the exact same thought the other day.  We, as audio enthusiasts as a whole,  need better definitions of the terms we are all using to describe what we are hearing.  Reading so many articles, reviews and forum posts throughout the internet and you really get the idea that actually we are using those terms like soundstage very differently. And that causes confusion.

 

[frodeni]

  Hi
There's more to headphones than just soundstage. Still, I agree that it is one of the biggest factors to consider when buying a headphone. The Soundstage and imaging you get from angled driver headphones such as the Hd800's is very different compared to other ones. The soundstage is more narrow due to the inward-facing angle. Imaging is better though.
 
If this forum is really about how to define certain aspects of sound reproduction, then its a lost cause i'm afraid. Thats because there are many, many words one can use to accurately describe the same thing.

 
Sure. But for the space of which sounds may be reproduced in, soundstage is the one everybody use. Do you rather propose a different word for it? What would that be?
 
I am not sure on the lost part. That is why I try this route. It is not like I plan to define everything myself either. But if people in here could slowly agree on these terms, to some extent, it would make my life on the gear front, a lot easier. Asking people what they mean, would also be easier by having something written down on the sonic traits.
 

  I had the exact same thought the other day.  We, as audio enthusiasts as a whole,  need better definitions of the terms we are all using to describe what we are hearing.  Reading so many articles, reviews and forum posts throughout the internet and you really get the idea that actually we are using those terms like soundstage very differently. And that causes confusion.

 
So I am not alone on this. Thanks for sharing.
 
I once read in a speaker review that the "reproduction was extremely intimate. Too intimate. Artists were over exposed and revealed". Meaning what by sonic traits? I read stuff like that all the time.
 
Please join in, if you got something to say. I try to write another thread on imaging. Hoping to get something started in the longer run.
 
We need a language describing the sonic traits. People seem to stray off into experience description instead, and thus loose the ability to describe the sound itself.
 

intolerable Unarguably and unforgivably unlistenable. See "audibility."

 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-i-m#cxyUUcgvSXLRXsC5.99
 
The quote above says nothing. Nill. It says nothing about what sonic traits makes it intolerable. Sure it is experienced like that, but why? This describes the experience, not the sound. People get lost that way, all the time.
 
So let us try to keep on the topic of soundstage, as in width and dept. Not what the user experience is, but the traits of the sound. If soundstage is not the correct term for this, I sort of wonder what would be. This is how it is used over and over again. 

 

[Audioholic123]

   
Sure. But for the space of which sounds may be reproduced in, soundstage is the one everybody use. Do you rather propose a different word for it? What would that be?
 
I am not sure on the lost part. That is why I try this route. It is not like I plan to define everything myself either. But if people in here could slowly agree on these terms, to some extent, it would make my life on the gear front, a lot easier. Asking people what they mean, would also be easier by having something written down on the sonic traits.
 

 Sorry, i see what you are trying to do with this now. Hmm let me think....maybe instead of soundstage, you could describe it as soundfield... ie the field of the stereo sound...

 

[frodeni]

   Sorry, i see what you are trying to do with this now. Hmm let me think....maybe instead of soundstage, you could describe it as soundfield... ie the field of the stereo sound...

 
Yes. That would make sense.
 
But if I started writing using that, would people get it? If you suddenly started talking about soundfield, I would have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about.
 
Imagespace, imagefield, soundspace, renderingfield, etc. There probably is a lot of terms that could be made up. But none of these are in use, as we speak. Soundstage is the term a lot of people use to describe width and dept. I cannot recollect hearing any other term used to describe that. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[PleasantSounds]

The soundstage reproduced by speakers or headphones depends also on the source material being played. I think we all have experienced some recordings sounding more spacious than others, even on the same gear.
 
If we want to quantify the soundstage, I think we would have to begin with determining the reference sound source, and then measure/describe how the known source placement is reflected by the gear.

 

[frodeni]

  The soundstage reproduced by speakers or headphones depends also on the source material being played. I think we all have experienced some recordings sounding more spacious than others, even on the same gear.
 
If we want to quantify the soundstage, I think we would have to begin with determining the reference sound source, and then measure/describe how the known source placement is reflected by the gear.

 
All good points. Thank you.
 
The real soundstage is of course the same, even if a recording do not use it. The perceived soundstage, will depend on the recording. Should we call this things like real or perceived soundstage?
 
Come to think of it, the max soundstage of a headset is often not available, if limited by the rest of the rig.
 
Using a widely available reference source, and then describe that reproduction of the soundspace, has a lot going for it. If that recording is great on imaging to, and well articulated, and we all use the same the language to describe the sonic traits, that will be extremely helpful. Maybe to recordings? One killer classical, and one acoustic recording?
 
Anyone have some thought on what the recordings could or should be?
 
People not accustomed to this kind of analysis, would also have a lot easier ticket in. This got a lot going for it. And in the end, we will all be utterly tiered by the tunes.

 

[PleasantSounds]

The real soundstage is of course the same, even if a recording do not use it. The perceived soundstage, will depend on the recording. Should we call this things like real or perceived soundstage?
 
Come to think of it, the max soundstage of a headset is often not available, if limited by the rest of the rig.

 
I'm afraid that in this case perception is reality, unless there is a way to determine the "real" soundstage through some other means than a listening test.
 
Quote:

Using a widely available reference source, and then describe that reproduction of the soundspace, has a lot going for it. If that recording is great on imaging to, and well articulated, and we all use the same the language to describe the sonic traits, that will be extremely helpful. Maybe to recordings? One killer classical, and one acoustic recording?
 

 
Regarding the reference source, I think a set of test tones generated at known locations in reference to the listener would be easier to quantify than music. In fact something like that already exists, at least for headphones: one of the Chesky Records binaural test discs had some sound sources recorded one by one at specific locations. All that would be needed is a system of describing the perceptual precision of these locations.
 
A concern I have is that every listener's perception can be different (and even the same listener's perception at different times can be different), so how can we ensure consistency?

 

[frodeni]

   
Regarding the reference source, I think a set of test tones generated at known locations in reference to the listener would be easier to quantify than music. In fact something like that already exists, at least for headphones: one of the Chesky Records binaural test discs had some sound sources recorded one by one at specific locations. All that would be needed is a system of describing the perceptual precision of these locations.
 
A concern I have is that every listener's perception can be different (and even the same listener's perception at different times can be different), so how can we ensure consistency?

 
Thanks again.
 
Cine wave tones, might seem like the way to go, but on that i disagree. Such tones has no reference point in the perceived soundstage. Much like moving a single light around in complete darkness. And we really do not listen to tones like that anyway.
 
As for consistency, these are all subjective data. At best, people are talking about the same thing, and describing it approximately the same way. That is the nature of this game.
 
It is like asking supporters, even from the same team, to describe a soccer game. They talk about the same game, and they all get that. They talk about the same situations, and get that. They might even agree on most facts. But usually, in consistent agreement they are not. More like in consistent disagreement. Like people tend to be for most walks of life. But yet, we strive for a common understanding and a common language: It is the key to communication.
 
Like when supporters discuss if a player was off-side half way into the second half. They share a common understanding of the rules of the game, something they have to, to be able to discuss things in the first place. But consistent description of the game by all supporters, ney. Hey, some situations are even filmed in slow motion, and still people disagree like nuts. Yet, rules are more or less in agreement, and the situation in question is often easy to comprehend, even entering the discussion not even watched the game, is fairly easy.
 
Getting into the hifi world these days, people might talk of lofty reproduction, intimate sound, relaxed softness, or inorganic sound. The current situation is so bad, that I regularly find myself wondering, what sonic trait the writer is talking about. Often times I do not get a single word, as what is being said could mean anything. We do not even agree upon, what constitute an "offside".
 
We need shared tools to analyse the sound, and to agree upon the tools and what those tools should represent. Like rules for a soccer game.
 
Beyond that, there will be the usual chaos of life and communication. As it has to be.

 

[poikkeus]

I think the wikipedia article is especially good - but I'd keep the definition to a single line:
 

"Soundstage" refers to the (perceived) depth and richness of an audio recording and usually relates to the playback process.

 
 
I added "perceived" parenthetically, because the perception of depth is there, whether you have a headphone or speakers.
 
The rest of the wikipedia definition is about the quality of the soundstage, and doesn't really define "soundstage."

 

[frodeni]

"Soundstage" refers to the (perceived) depth and richness of an audio recording and usually relates to the playback process.
 
[se original post, as to understand the context of how this is quoted]

 
Assuming soundstage was defined like this. What would it describe as of distinct sonic traits?
 
Width is not given. That the soundstage is some sort of physical field in which sounds might appear is also eliminated.
 
What "dept and richness" is supposed to be, is not given. As it has nothing to do with a field made up by two axes, I sort of wonder where this is going?
 
All that said, I do get this angle of view. It relates more to the sensation of a stage of musicians being rendered in front of you. In such a context, this makes some sense. As for describing sonic traits from a headset or some speakers, I do not see how it is going to end up useful?

 

[poikkeus]

   
Assuming soundstage was defined like this. What would it describe as of distinct sonic traits?
 
Width is not given. That the soundstage is some sort of physical field in which sounds might appear is also eliminated.
 
What "dept and richness" is supposed to be, is not given. As it has nothing to do with a field made up by two axes, I sort of wonder where this is going?
 
All that said, I do get this angle of view. It relates more to the sensation of a stage of musicians being rendered in front of you. In such a context, this makes some sense. As for describing sonic traits from a headset or some speakers, I do not see how it is going to end up useful?

Thoughtful questions. I'll defend the first wikipedia definition the best I can. 
 
There are only a few things that need to described.  
"perceived" pertains to the perception of a sound's quality
"depth" implies that a sound is part of axes than include "flat," "wide," and "deep"
"richness" refers a sound that can have a lower fidelity (lack of richness, like a tinny recording" to one that's fuller (like well-recorded music)
"audio" implies that the sound can be heard
"recording" implies that we're referring to something like a CD or sample
 
In other words, this definition of "soundstage" implies that we're talking about a sonic field. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that "soundstage" has even been validated yet, so this definition is more descriptive than anything else. 
 
Is there anything in this definition that's inaccurate or wrong? That's the reason why alternate definitions are always a good idea. Different people define things differently.

 

[frodeni]

 
 

 
Thoughtful questions. I'll defend the first wikipedia definition the best I can. 
 
There are only a few things that need to described.  
"perceived" pertains to the perception of a sound's quality
"depth" implies that a sound is part of axes than include "flat," "wide," and "deep"
"richness" refers a sound that can have a lower fidelity (lack of richness, like a tinny recording" to one that's fuller (like well-recorded music)
"audio" implies that the sound can be heard
"recording" implies that we're referring to something like a CD or sample
 
In other words, this definition of "soundstage" implies that we're talking about a sonic field. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that "soundstage" has even been validated yet, so this definition is more descriptive than anything else. 
 
Is there anything in this definition that's inaccurate or wrong? That's the reason why alternate definitions are always a good idea. Different people define things differently.

 
First of all, I hope we can avoid the defend-attack tone that riddles forums on stuff like this. Thanks for such a great answer. All of your writing makes sense to me.
 
In the world of defining, things quickly end up by the discussion of usefulness, and useful for what.
 
In my line of work, we often refer to the 46 definitions on income used by the tax government in Norway. They are just different to cover different needs.
 
I sort of think this is where we are at with this.
 
I am at the stage in which I try to find some common ground for a more accurate language to describe sound form headphones, and need a distinct term for the field of width and dept of sound reproduction. I hope we could land on soundstage for that. It is actually in active uses as such, by many.
 
This wikipedia definition, and your writing, is more about describing the staging of sounds, probably closer to the sensation of having musicians playing as on stage in front of you. Maybe more in the context of soundstaging. Such soundstaging would cover a lot of sonic traits, like articulation, clarity, and imaging. Just to name a few. In such a context, the definition is just fine. But it would have a different meaning and purpose, than the one I seek to cover.
 
If used only as by wikipedia, we would still need a term for the width-dept-field. And that sonic trait, and a host of others, the list is actually seriously long, would influence the wikipedia term.
 
As for all words in the dictionary, soundstage will have duplicate meanings.
 
I guess, my question is rather if you could agree on the usage proposed sound analysis as width and dept?
 
It should be pretty obvious for everyone now, that the term also will be used as to describe the staging of sound, as in reproducing a stage of musicians. But that is a different story.

 

[poikkeus]

For me, a good definition is succinct, accurate, and doesn't rely on too many undefined (or indefinable) terms. If a definition is inaccurate, or too long, and too vague - this suggests a potential problem. The word "soundstage" deserves multiple definitions, depending on the use and context. 
 
By the criterion of usefulness, all three definitions are just fine. From the standpoint of succinctness, the short definition from wikipedia (with the "perceived" addendum) wins hands down. 
 
"Width" and "depth" are easily enough understood by many audiophiles to know what they mean, generally. "Depth" can refer to how low a tone goes, and "width" possibly to how concentrated the sound is. I'm more convinced with "depth" than "width." You can talk about a "deep" sound, but I'm not sure about "width." What does something "wide" sound like?