How does the stereo image in digital audio shrink?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

It is senseless to transfer a vinyl record to a cd recoder and to tape and then disscussing the differences between the two media.

 

And from where should the person who makes such a transfer know where the correct positions in localization accuracy in speaker stereo are. The most important parameters of a mundane stereo recording are:

 

Size of the music group

Ensemble angle

Stage width

 

Microphone technique

Angle of acceptance (stereophonic pickup-angle)

Angle between microphones

Distance between microphones

Distance Factor (DSF), relative distance factor for microphones with different directivity (directional characteristic)

Stage width pickup angle

 

Room size

Stage depth

Position of the ensemble on the room

Reverbrance

Decay time

 

Spatiality

Sound intensity levels

Level and amplitude difference

Stereo Sound localization and localization accuracy in speaker stereo

 

As long one has no information about the reccording as mentioned above, he can make no assertion about the accurate position in speaker stereo.

[alcohol]

My purpose in starting this thread is to question the claims I've read in the The myth of high-resolution audio - busted! thread and other places that digital recording and playback "shrinks the stereo image," not recording techniques.

 

It seems nonsensical to argue that digital recording shrinks the stereo image when simply recording and panning two different sounds shows no evidence of crosstalk. How can the stereo field be shrunk other than through crosstalk?

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

- Panning a single channel (mono) track to any place in the stereo field does not reduce the stereo width because a single channel (mono) track contains no stereo information. You simply place a point source somewhere between left and right with one pan knob.

 

- However, when the panned track is a stereo recording, then we would have to discuss the different stereo mic technique first since every stereo mic technique has different parameters which are relevant in the process of mixing; for example all time-of-arrival stereophony tracks, i.e. ORTF, can not be panned, panning an ORTF stereo away from the original position would introduce comb filter artifacts.

 

- And narrowing the stereo width of a track recorded in intensity stereophony with two pan knobs will reduce the width of course, this normally without introducing artifacts.

[alcohol]

Angelo,

 

yes you're right, but this isn't about mic techniques. This is about the audiophiles claim that "digital shrinks the stereo image"

 

 

For example at this web page: "We've found many DAWs and digital mixers that deteriorate the sound of music, shrink the stereo image and soundstage, and distort the audio. "

 

http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/cd-mastering-2.html

 

So I'd like to know how digital can do that if it isn't a crosstalk problem?

[blue2blue]

 

Kind of sad is that you don't read very well.   I am a studio owner and moderator of a hi fi forum. I have the opportunity to test

[Duddits]

 

It looks kind of that technicians like Ethan are trapped in a certain kind of thinking. I do have access to a studio of a fellow engineer, with a full blown PT HD setup and an ICON board, while I prefer to record to a two inch machine via a big analog board because IMHO it sounds better. That's not a matter of taste, on the contrary, I do have Nuendo, Logic Audio, Cubase, Adobe Audition, Samplitude etc. but IMHO a two inch (well aligned) machine sounds better.

 

 

It may be that Ethan is trapped in a certain kind of thinking.

 

However, I find yours every bit as, well, "consistent." If I see your name on a post, I know what's coming: analog is better than digital. And when I see someone so entrenched in a position, I get the sense that for them it really has become a matter of taste.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

For example at this web page: "We've found many DAWs and digital mixers that deteriorate the sound of music, shrink the stereo image and soundstage, and distort the audio. " http://www.digido.com/bob-katz/cd-mastering-2.html So I'd like to know how digital can do that if it isn't a crosstalk problem?

 

 

No digital production software changes the stereo image. Once the recording is digitized it will have the same stereo image on any known audio production software, and when you burn your cd it still has the same stereo image.

 

I read the article. All this Bob Katz is talking about is how he can restore bad mixes, and that

[rasputin1963]

I don't even understand the premise of this thread. I mean, if you record two different tracks to digital, then you pan one left and the other right and then solo them one at a time, there's no measurable crosstalk between them - unlike tape where there was always some tiny amount of crosstalk on adjacent tracks. So then you burn them on a CD, and the stuff you panned to the left comes out the left speaker, and vice versa. What more can you ask of a reproduction system? The stereo image YOU put there is what comes out. How is that any different from using tape? Terry D.

 

I'm in this camp as well... I don't think I understand the initial question. When you say "I panned two signals" are you referring to hard-left and hard-right?

[Han]

 

It may be that Ethan is trapped in a certain kind of thinking. However, I find yours every bit as, well, "consistent." If I see your name on a post, I know what's coming: analog is better than digital. And when I see someone so entrenched in a position, I get the sense that for them it really has become a matter of taste.

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with taste, I'll explain it one more time: I was talking about a bigband recording from the seventies, which was played at my place through one of the best stereo setups money can buy. I and not I alone, but every guy in the room was astonished by that sound which must be one of the best sounding recordings ever, done by a single AKG C24 stereo tubemic.

So this is not a mix of several mono tracks in between left and right, it's true stereo. Standing in the middle between the speakers I could see the musicians when I closed my eyes. I could point to the hi hat, the bariton sax, the lead trumpet, the trombones, the piano and everything was so real that it looked like the band was playing there in front of me.

 

This was a vinyl record and it had a dynamic range that I have yet to hear from a CD and I know a CD can reach 90+dB of dynamics.

This vinyl got recorded to a CDR with the same Thorens player, through that same preamp to a Fostex CD recorder and we listened with a

[Ethan Winer]

Sorry Ethan, but how can it be that a vinyl record sounds better, with a much more precise placement in the stereo field, than a CDR from that very same vinyl, in the same room, with the same amp and speakers.

 

I don't know how you define "better," and that's a subjective assessment anyway. There's no reason a digital recording of a vinyl LP should be audibly different from the original. Especially not in terms of stereo width and placement. Which is the whole point of that article!

 

People swap speaker cables and hear better imaging. Then they replace the power cord in their preamp or CD player and imaging gets better again. Then they replace the fuses inside their power amp with $30 fuses and again the sound improves. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

 

It seems nonsensical to argue that digital recording shrinks the stereo image when simply recording and panning two different sounds shows no evidence of crosstalk. How can the stereo field be shrunk other than through crosstalk?

 

 

Bingo.

 

Though the opposite can happen. Analog tape can seem to make stereo wider due to the (microscopic) stick-slip motion of the tape past the heads. Not only does tape move in tiny jumps, but it also slides around a little. So the left and right channels have slightly different flutter which can make things seem wider. Of course, a digital recording of an analog tape playback will capture perfectly that same exaggerated wideness.

 

--Ethan

[Han]

I don't know how you define "better," and that's a subjective assessment anyway. There's no reason a digital recording of a vinyl LP should be audibly different from the original. Especially not in terms of stereo width and placement. Which is the whole point of that article! People swap speaker cables and hear better imaging. Then they replace the power cord in their preamp or CD player and imaging gets better again. Then they replace the fuses inside their power amp with $30 fuses and again the sound improves. Do you see where I'm going with this? --Ethan

 

I know everything about that Ethan, as a moderator of a very good hi fi forum we've done a lot of blind testing and every time the huge differences were suddenly gone. I don't believe one word from what the cable believers say, the manufacturers say in their advers. I've asked for a pair of

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Han, why do you digitize your perfectly sounding vinyl in the first place?

 

To me it doesn't make sense to transfer one format to another and expecting that it should sound the same.

 

And apropos cd drive, in my experience a $35.00 cd rom sounds 99.999% the same as a $10'000.00 cd player, and a Blu-Ray drive sounds the same as an expensive SACD player and a DVD-ROM sound the same as a DVD-Audio player.

[Han]

Han, why do you digitize your perfectly sounding vinyl in the first place? To me it doesn't make sense to transfer one format to another and expecting that it should sound the same. And apropos cd drive, in my experience a $35.00 cd rom sounds 99.999% the same as a $10'000.00 cd player, and a Blu-Ray drive sounds the same as an expensive SACD player and a DVD-ROM sound the same as a DVD-Audio player.

 

 

We were having a meeting with that hi fi forum in order to compare vinyl records with the first generation CD versions of that same recordings. Nothing serious of blind testing, just an informal meeting to hear about the differences between a vinyl and CD version of a recording. I do have a number of vinyl and first generation CD versions which sound very much alike. A for the third time 'digitally remastered' CD version of a classic recording sounds very much different from the original vinyl version and I don't have to explain why do I? We didn't have a CD version of that vinyl, so we made one. In the mean time I got the original CD released version of that recording and this sounds even worse from the CDR we made, while it's not any louder.

(this is not my own opinion, other people have the same opinion)

 

And indeed, audiophile people were shocked when they couldn't hear any difference between a

[rlindsey0]

One issue with the above test is that the CD goes through two layers of conversion (master tape -> vinyl -> CD), whereas the vinyl goes through only one (master tape -> vinyl). This is a source of possible error that should be ruled out. Has anyone done a test where you compare a vinyl LP taken from the master tape with a CD made directly from the master tape? (EDIT: I now see this was addressed in the post just above.)

 

Also, how was the vinyl converted to digital? You can be listening on the best sound system in the world, but if the conversion process used to digitize the recording has issues (whatever those issues might conceivably be), then that could have an effect. This may not play a role in this particular case, but then, it might.

 

Along slightly different lines, has anyone ever taken a CD and made a vinyl record from it? If vinyl is really a far superior reproducing medium, then the LP should sound nearly identical to the CD, shouldn't it? So does it?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Han, why do you digitize your perfectly sounding vinyl in the first place?

 

 

Because going over bumps in the road makes his turntable skip?

[MikeRivers]

 

It seems nonsensical to argue that digital recording shrinks the stereo image when simply recording and panning two different sounds shows no evidence of crosstalk. How can the stereo field be shrunk other than through crosstalk?

 

OK, you're right. The stereo image doesn't shrink. All the people who hear that effect need a shrink.

 

What makes you think that the equivalent of crosstalk can't occur as a form of distortion in digital playback?

[MikeRivers]

 

We were having a meeting with that hi fi forum in order to compare vinyl records with the first generation CD versions of that same recordings.

 

Be sure to get several copies of each CD version (or make several if you're making them yourself). Also, unload, reload, and re-play each one a few times. Listen closely for differences in the sound stage.

[Han]

One issue with the above test is that the CD goes through two layers of conversion (master tape -> vinyl -> CD), whereas the vinyl goes through only one (master tape -> vinyl). This is a source of possible error that should be ruled out. Has anyone done a test where you compare a vinyl LP taken from the master tape with a CD made directly from the master tape? (EDIT: I now see this was addressed in the post just above.) Also, how was the vinyl converted to digital? You can be listening on the best sound system in the world, but if the conversion process used to digitize the recording has issues (whatever those issues might conceivably be), then that could have an effect. This may not play a role in this particular case, but then, it might. Along slightly different lines, has anyone ever taken a CD and made a vinyl record from it? If vinyl is really a far superior reproducing medium, then the LP should sound nearly identical to the CD, shouldn't it? So does it?

 

The vinyl was/is a Direct Cut vinyl (The James Version of the Harry James bigband) so there wasn't any tape involved.

 

But that's not the issue and I don't have any problems with the fact that a sound changes when it gets converted. I do have problems with the fact that people keep saying that when a sound (from vinyl or tape or whatever) gets converted and recorded to digital it will sound exactly the same, because I have never had that experience. I dont's say it sounds worse because that is my own subjective opinion, but it sure doesn't sound exactly the same. I do say that I like the sound of the original, before it went digital, better, but again that's my subjective opinion. (taste)

 

And yes, if you record a CD to a DC vinyl, it will sound different and when you record a CD to a neat analog two track it will sound different. I have heard a couple of wow's from clients when I did, it's like the sound gets an oil change.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

And indeed, audiophile people were shocked when they couldn't hear any difference between a

[Han]

@ Angelo:

 

 

This is the psu for the almost

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

You poor sinner!

 

No wonder you hear ghosts in the machine. But I

[alcohol]

 

OK, you're right. The stereo image doesn't shrink. All the people who hear that effect need a shrink. What makes you think that the equivalent of crosstalk can't occur as a form of distortion in digital playback?

 

 

You mean all those people that notice the difference in double blind test. Of course I respect their opinion.

 

Why do I think that the equivalent of crosstalk can't occur? I've mixed with tape and mixed with digital. I've heard crosstalk plenty of times with tape, never with digital.

[alcohol]

 

The person whose portrait is on your right could use a good orthodontist.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

alcohol, here a top secret German paper (page 13437d), about stereo microphone technique.

 

 

 

Localization in loudspeaker stereophony by different stereo microphone technique

 

First graph:

The size of the music group in this graph is