Sound stage width

[ColoKurt]

I have seen messages on this site where people claim sound stage widths that are much wider than the speaker separation. Somebody even claimed an audible width that was 7' wider than speaker separation. Is this experience widely accepted? I have pretty decent speakers (B&W 802N) and have, at best, only heard a sound stage that was slightly wider than my speaker width--maybe a foot on each side. I also visited about a dozen high quality setups at the Rocky Mountain AudioFest earlier this month and I didn't notice any huge sound stages there either. I'm very curious what the typical audiophile experience is here. Any opinions?

[AB11]

Well, I would say it depends a great deal on the recording. Some recordings are just not very wide, like you mention, but others have impressed me with their almost surround sound sound.
Plus, a well treated room will expand even the narrow sounding recordings soundstage. Once I messed with traps and panels I began to hear the 3D aspect of some recordings as well as a widened SS. I suspect it has to do with cleaning up the phasing that is in the recording that we cannot always hear because of reflections and blurring/smearing.
Seems the toughest part of this hobby too, getting the SS and imaging correct.

[wildfire99]

I can't say I've had the experience of 7' wider separation (at least not without freaky phase tricks on the recording), but I have noticed a good deal of depth, where audio can sound positioned from several feet behind the speaker plane. The width is probably only a couple feet at best out from the sides... and that's in the sweet spot.

[audioqueso]

I can't say I've had the experience of 7' wider separation..

I have, but by DSPs alteration and I didn't like it at all. Wayyy too exaggerated. My B&W 805s, with certain tracks, give me a soundstage that's about 2 feet wider on both sides. (My speakers are 8 feet apart, so my soundstage feels like it's about 12 feet apart)

[gianni]

I have noticed on my system that width does vary with different cd's. I get pretty good staging and width. At best I'd say a cople of feet beyond the speakers as well. But I have noticed while playing with speaker position that I can sometimes get more width but at the cost of something else.

I do suspect when we hear these super wide stages that are described as 6-8 feet beyond the speakers in either direction, that we are hearing reflections off side walls and other surfaces. After all, this is exactly how these one box 5.1 or surround speakers work.

[Armand]

It's definately recording dependent. I find that some Chesky Jazz CD's are amazing in this respect. One of the better ones is Clark Terry's Portraits CD cut 4 (Finger Filibuster). Terry scats about 3 feet outside the right speaker and the piano image starts about a foot toward center of the left speaker to about 4-5 feet outside the left speaker without sounding like it's originating from a speaker. Side walls are about 7 feet away with curtains, so first reflections are not a factor. People are amazed when they hear it.

[Bob]

Like almost all the other posters, I agree that it is definately recording dependent. But, how well different speakers, positioning, and rooms handle the same recording is another thing.
There is two very good recordings that you can use to check out how well your set up reproduces this aspect of a audio system. The first is a all acoustic, no phase tricks, recording from Carnegie Hall. Originally released in 1963 "The Weavers Reunion at Carnegie Hall". On the last track especially, the listener really gets the sense of being at the hall. In my room the sound seems to only be limited by the width of the room and the distance to the front wall (my speakers are around 8 feet from the front wall). The width and depth don't sound artificial or exagerated in the least, you truely get the sense of the stage size. If you have this recording and the sound is constrained by the space between your speakers then either your speakers are not up to the task or, more likely, you haven't optimized your speaker position. A little side note on this, unless your speakers have to be close to the side walls, you should try them with no toe in or with only about 1/2 inch toe in.
The second recording is Roger Waters, "Amused to Death". Most of you are familiar with this recording and know that it uses phase "tricks" to throw the sound all over your room. It probably works to a certain degree no matter what the speakers or set up. But, with the right speakers, room, and speaker set up it can be spectacular. When the dog barks do your ears say that it is comming from outside of your room, like maybe next door, or merely outside your speakers. When the thunder rolls, does it start "outside" of your room on the right and then go over your head and back out the left wall? Or, does it merely go from the right wall to the left wall in front of you?
I have only heard it go over my head in three rooms. Richard Hardesty's living room, the fantastic showroom at Brooks Berdan Ltd., and my own listening room. If I hadn't heard it a Richard's, I would never have known that it was meant to be heard like that. It took a year of moving my speakers around and adding room treatments before I was able to get this effect.
By optimizing my speakers for these two recordings, all my acoustic recordings took on a much more realistic 3D soundstage. Be it a single guitar player sitting on a stool between my speakers or a large orchastra positioned in front of me from wall to wall.

I also visited about a dozen high quality setups at the Rocky Mountain AudioFest earlier this month and I didn't notice any huge sound stages there either.

The rooms at these shows seldom are cabable to showing off the real potential of a audio system. The seating is set up for a crowd, their are bodies walking around acting as sound baffles, the rooms are limited in size, the speakers usually have to be to close to the walls in order to make room for visitors, etc.

[ThomasW]

I also visited about a dozen high quality setups at the Rocky Mountain AudioFest earlier this month and I didn't notice any huge sound stages there either

The Avalon Isis speakers driven by Boulder electronics had one of the best soundstages I've ever heard....

[tboooe]

Sting's "Soul Cages" CD has phenomenal soundstaging. I get a soundstage at least 7ft wider than my speakers. AMAZING CD!!!

[Jack Keck]

I first noticed the sound coming from beyond the speakers when I got my Rega P2 turntable. I never noticed itas much with cds. However, I still prefer cds. Just more convienient and sound fine to me. I respect those who prefer vinyl, but I burn mine to cd-r.

[gianni]

Two things for those of you with poor soundstaging:

1) Armand is right on regarding the Chesky CD's - they have some great recordings.

2) Listen to what Bob is saying. This is critical and can make as big or bigger difference than you will ever experience from a component upgrade.

[Blazar]

extremely lateral soundstaging is simply recording tricks such as with the "Soul cages" cd mentioned above. I have this cd and I agree there is certainly trickery involved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, soundstage is improved markedly by absorbing early reflections from the speakers and possibly utilizing some dispersion. Improved bass reproduction helps give the feeling of depth and this can be accomplished with decent bass traps.

I played a lot with my 802D speakers and I also own the 802N's as well. I have now finally got them to what I believe is the appropriate amount of toe-in and physical separation. my sound stage "lateralizes" more with electronic music in which they use a lot more phase trickery to achieve unusual effects. Otherwise It's quite easy to "widen" the soundstage by separating the speakers more.... this doesn't always improve the overall sound though. If the speakers are too close or too far apart, I don't get the sense of the "dissapearing speaker" effect. I have to get the positioning just right to get maximum effect.

[Bob]

I have to get the positioning just right to get maximum effect.

No toe in, with the sitting position forming a 60° triangle is a good starting point. To get a 60° triangle measure from the center of one speaker to the center of the other speaker. Whatever that distance is, have the sitting position the same distance from the center of each speaker. So, if the width is 8 feet, the center sitting position is 8 feet from the center of each speaker.
This is only a starting point. I have found that in most rooms, the sweet spot tends to be a little further back than the width of the two speakers. How much toe in depends mostly on how close your side walls are. If you have no choice about putting your speakers close to the side walls then you need more toe in, maybe even alot to minimize 1st reflections. If you have plenty of space between your side walls and the speakers you need very little toe in, if any.
Most important, the distance from the front wall and the side wall should not even be close to the same distance.

[thepogue]

sound stage with ML's

I also find that Martin Logans tend to have a larger than life soundstage...sometimes it as good as it gets...other times it can sound weird. I have a mapleshade sampler that is out of this world...and yes it's larger than 7'...more like 17'!!

Pogue

[dyazdani]

Yep, sometimes it seems like the stage is WAY too high. Most of the time though, it's great.

It's really cleaned up since I finally got my room into shape.

[zmanbands]

Soundstage and Imaging Compromizing.

Some general guidance given by a highly regarded expert. With the listening position fixed, the more toe in the better the imaging but less sound stage spaciousness. Less toe in better sound stage width but reduced imaging. Of course zero toe in [straight ahead] is as far as you want to go for your set up. Ie you don't want negative toe in. Toe in for each speaker must be identical relative to the listening position.BTW on axis toe in provides maximum brightness. Less toe in smooths out the brightness as you reduce it.

[Briz vegas]

I have read that standmount speakers image/soundstage better (on average)
although I think that this is within a given price/quality range.

Red White and Blues DVD (recorded at Abbey Rd) has a stereo only "extra" featuring a piano. With my 705s it sounded like it was off to the far left of the seating position (1.5m outside the speakers) against the wall and in front of the speakers. I don't get the same extreme effect with my 804s but they are toad ;h in further. On a friends Martin Logans the effect is completely absent - the piano is just everywhere at once and the "image" is way too big. With basically the same electronics we agree that the 804s and Aeon I have very similar sound quality but the big difference is that the Martin Logans create this huge image that goes almost up to the ceiling while the 804s is much more intimate in scale. We both prefer our own speakers but can appreciate each others speakers as well.

[LikeCoiledSteel]

I love a wide soundstage. That is why I bought the Gallo Reference 3.1's. They have a 320 degree tweeter dispersion and the sound stage is one of the largest I have heard. The downside is in a reflective room, it can be havoc.
Steel