Can audio "dimension" be described physically? Like when you do an A/B test
with some really excellent converters verses some really cheap ones, and the
good ones sound as if they have more "dimension". Some sources through
better equipment sound as if they have greater stereo width as well, often
associated with or described as "dimension". In this case, is there indeed
greater stereo width? Is the cheaper gear somehow shifting the stereo
source toward a state of mono? Is it just a panning issue? It seems to
sound this way, but does not really make sense.

I know when I compared mixes I did inside a DAW verses mixes done in the
analog domain, the analog mixes definitely had more "dimension". The DAW
mixes had more of a "flat" sound... not flat in terms of equalization, but
flat in terms of "dimension"...hard to describe. The DAW mixes sounded like
a "straight line" where as the analog mixes sounded more like a "big
sphere".

A friend recently did an A/B test comparing an LP vinyl album against a
compact disc of the same album. His report was that the vinyl had way more
"dimension" and "width". Sounded more "stereo". I found this interesting.
I realize that this may be due to MANY factors and was not a fair "vinyl
verses cd" shoot-out, but was kinda interesting anyway.

Finally, I am just wondering what exactly dimension and width actually IS.
Why do higher quality sources have more dimension and width? Is it merely a
stereo panning thing? Or are there some phase issues going on that cancel
out certain frequencies and/or harmonics that might otherwise add to a sense
of "width", or...? Perhaps important information is just getting lost in
the digital realm thus leading to this degraded state of being?

All I know is that for me, when doing any recording work, I need to have
that dimension and width, I feel it's quite critical, so I'd like to know
more about what it actually is and what factors cause it to become
decreased. What is it about inexpensive converters, cheap digital summing,
etc. that cause this problem? Can we pinpoint this problem? fj

"Freddie Jobson" wrote in message
et

Can audio "dimension" be described physically?

Maybe.

Like when you do an
A/B test with some really excellent converters verses some really
cheap ones, and the good ones sound as if they have more "dimension".

People say that. However, even really cheap converters can be disgustingly
really pretty good these days.

Some sources through better equipment sound as if they have greater
stereo width as well, often associated with or described as
"dimension". In this case, is there indeed greater stereo width?

The perception of dimension is (to me) clearly associated with smaller-sized
(or larger-sized) differences between the channels. It is also associated
with combinations of reflections, which are like time delayed copies of the
direct sound.

Is the cheaper gear somehow shifting the stereo source toward a state of
mono?

Depends on what you call "cheaper gear". If audio gear is by modern
standards quite defective, then it will make the small differences between
the channels, and the small reflections either go away or mask them with
spurious responses and/or noise. Or, it will distort their timbre so that
the ear isn't naturally cued to perceive them.

Is it just a panning issue?

I don't think so although panning can lead to some very obvious differences
of this nature. Pan all tracks mono and a lot of "dimension" goes away. But,
not all of it. Back in the days of mono dimension was still an issue, and
some recordings had it and some didn't.

It seems to sound this way, but does not really make sense.

I believe that I just read a post about cheap monitors being far more
damaging to the sense of dimension than cheap converters. I'll drink to
that!

I know when I compared mixes I did inside a DAW verses mixes done in
the analog domain, the analog mixes definitely had more "dimension".

I don't know why that would be. State of mind while mixing? State of mind
while listening? The possibility of the analog domain having a higher random
and uncorrelated noise floor, which could impart a sort of ersatz sense of
dimension?

The DAW mixes had more of a "flat" sound... not flat in terms of
equalization, but flat in terms of "dimension"...hard to describe.

I'd like to hear a close comparison of truly comparable analog and digital
mixes of the same tracks.

The DAW mixes sounded like a "straight line" where as the analog
mixes sounded more like a "big sphere".

I'm groping for something to grab onto, here.

A friend recently did an A/B test comparing an LP vinyl album against
a compact disc of the same album. His report was that the vinyl had
way more "dimension" and "width". Sounded more "stereo". I found
this interesting. I realize that this may be due to MANY factors and
was not a fair "vinyl verses cd" shoot-out, but was kinda interesting
anyway.

There's no doubt that there are far more ersatz sources of the perception of
dimension in vinyl reproduction. But we have to remember that a CD mix is
more likely to be a modern mix & mastering job, and many trends in modern
mixing and mastering have nothing to do with a search for naturalness or
exploitation of the advantages of digital media.

Also, the sentimentality aspect of vinyl listening can IME be quite strong.
When I was a boy and a young man, for all intents and purposes all we had
was vinyl. Good days, those but maybe not because all we had was vinyl and
tubes.

Finally, I am just wondering what exactly dimension and width
actually IS. Why do higher quality sources have more dimension and
width?

Somebody worked harder to make sure that they are there?

Is it merely a stereo panning thing?

If it was that simple.

Or are there some phase
issues going on that cancel out certain frequencies and/or harmonics
that might otherwise add to a sense of "width", or...?

Closer. There's some interesting things, that can be done on a DAW related
to making millisecond-sized adjustments to the timing of various tracks.
Especially with tracks that have some of the same sounds in them, just from
other acoustic perspectives. Of course, this can be simulated to some degree
if the original tracks lack the content.

Perhaps
important information is just getting lost in the digital realm thus
leading to this degraded state of being?

If information is getting unintentially lost or masked anyplace, it would be
the analog domain, as opposed to the digital domain. Playback and recording
in the digital domain can be sonically transparent (nothing audibly added or
subtracted) while playback and recording in the analog domain can always be
detected due to audible things being added or subtracted. Those are
demonstrable facts. What can't be scientifically demonstrated is: a priori,
what someone might prefer.

All I know is that for me, when doing any recording work, I need to
have that dimension and width, I feel it's quite critical, so I'd
like to know more about what it actually is and what factors cause it
to become decreased.

More interesting to me - managing it. I've been playing around with making
two mixes of the same set of tracks, one I'd call "vocalist friendly", the
other I'd call "vocalist critical". The VF tracks generally have more sense
of dimension, but its not always a good thing.

What is it about inexpensive converters, cheap
digital summing, etc. that cause this problem?

Perhaps more significantly, why would the elimination of formerly
uncontrolled variables lead to perceptual dissatisfaction?

Can we pinpoint this problem?

It's perceptual, and that makes it a deep subject, susceptible to
pontification.

"Freddie Jobson" wrote in message
et...
Can audio "dimension" be described physically? Like when you do an A/B
test
with some really excellent converters verses some really cheap ones, and
the
good ones sound as if they have more "dimension". Some sources through
better equipment sound as if they have greater stereo width as well, often
associated with or described as "dimension". In this case, is there
indeed
greater stereo width? Is the cheaper gear somehow shifting the stereo
source toward a state of mono? Is it just a panning issue? It seems to
sound this way, but does not really make sense.


I've never been able to do blind comparisons and the results are sometimes
subtle but I certainly know what you are talking about. As to why it
happens I have theories but no proof.