Soundstaging and Imaging
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 440 Registered: Jun-05 | Timothy originally started this thread but we cant just limit it to $500 speakers and other aspects of these affects Jan thought it would be a good idea,and well what do you know I do to so lets see what we can come with about this most magical effect to our listening. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 77 Registered: Jul-05 | What about it do you wish to discuss? I'm sure we have all heard speakers that can image well. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 441 Registered: Jun-05 | Some people think that it is a atrifact,but I think its a strength a speaker has or it doesent. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 79 Registered: Jul-05 | Well, as I've stated before, my speakers are far from high end. I'm listening to Dark Side of the Moon right now (the SACD hybrid version, not that I actually have a SACD player...). A good point to see how well speakers can image I think would be the beginning of Time where all the clocks go off. I can definately pick out several points where the clocks are, although they come from everywhere at the same time. Trippy. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1035 Registered: Feb-04 | To me, most lead vocals appear to come from the center speaker (freaking out friends who initially experience it). On the Diana Krall CD "Love scenes", the bass guitar solo on track 3 "Don't know enough about you" has string plucked like the player is right there, a bit right of center as I recall. It's incredible. Paul doesn't know what he's missing. The imagery and soundstage makes stereo recordings more interesting to me than DTS multi-channel concert DVDs. The magic of it is amazing. I've heard the clocks on a borrowed SACD player... That is some recording! But I haven't heard the redbook version on the same disk. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 80 Registered: Jul-05 | The clock in the center would probably fool a few people even on my system into thinking the center channel is on. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ZiggyzoggyoioiOutside Philadelphia, PA Post Number: 91 Registered: Jun-05 | Another great recording for this is the Pat Metheny Trio 99>00 CD, particularly the acoustic tracks (3 & 10). Metheny's guitar comes right out in the middle, Bill Stewart's drums hard right and Larry Grenadier's bass just off-center left. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 15 Registered: Jul-05 | "...Some people think that it is a atrifact,but I think its a strength a speaker has or it doesent..." I find the whole soundstaging subject to be very interesting, yet I suppose I only agree with you somewhat on this one, Tawaun. True - speakers that are not properly matched produce "shifty" imaging that is not locked in place. A higher quality speaker with driver sensitivity matching would certainly display a better imaging capability in terms of the accuracy and stability of the soundstage. On the other hand, even the cheapest little pair of "full range" computer speakers can create a small (and possibly innacurate) soundstage. I have a pair of older Altec Lansing computer speakers that, while not terrible by early-90's computer speaker standards, are hardly the pinnacle of sound production. Proper placement on the desk, however, allowed for some minor stereo imaging. My guess? You can never discount the quality and recording methods of a particular piece of music, certainly mic setup and studio wizzardry can impede (or help) the potential imaging "information" that is recorded. But if you are listening to something such as Time by Pink Floyd, as DA mentioned, I think it's more of a room setup and speaker placement issue than a characteristic of an individual speaker. Assuming a quality recording, my opinion is that maybe 75% of the imaging quality comes from the placement of your speakers (and other objects like furniture) and maybe only 15% of it relies on speaker quality. Even if a pair of speakers are well matched, improper placement can ruin the soundstage. Sorry for the verbose reply, but you got me thinking about imaging perhaps more than I ever have. I found this website with some interesting info on speaker placement and imaging properties, in case anyone is interested... http://www.blackdahlia.com/tipindex/Tip_32/tip_32.html |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1036 Registered: Feb-04 | Mr. Bias, While I agree that a room and speaker placement can destroy imaging, you made it sound like once you get imaging to work in a room you can substitute just about any speaker and it will work. I don't know if that was your intent. I certainly don't agree with that. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 16 Registered: Jul-05 | No, that wasn't my intent, I'm sorry if that's how my post came across - I didn't really proofread it well. You're point is well taken - if you have brand X pair of speakers and the soundstaging is just amazing at the perfect positioning, you couldn't just insert pair Y and expect the same soundstage to appear...the "placement" of the soundstage, if you will, would also be a factor of the sound dispersal qualities of any given speaker. The placement that works for a floorstander might be drastically different from that of a bookshelf, etc. I just meant that if a pair of speakers were well matched between themselves, then the development of the soundstage would be highly dependent upon how they are positioned. Of course, the frequency range and other sonic qualities of any given speaker would change what part of the soundstage is most vivid, too - so I suppose my 75%/15% guesstimate might be more of a 50%/50% ratio instead. Good point, though. This imaging stuff is complicated, but it's engaging to think about it. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1038 Registered: Feb-04 | Thanks for the clarification. Has anyone ever had a demo of imaging speakers at a big surface store? I haven't. Where I live there are only two audio stores and one isn't even setup to display imaging. I went in a few months ago to hear their most expensive Klipsch hoping to hear the RF-7. Their top model on display was only the RF-25 (C$1100 a pair) and they were placed 2 feet apart on either side of a small audio rack, in the middle of a store alley. I didn't ask to hear them. What's the point. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4695 Registered: May-04 | "A higher quality speaker with driver sensitivity matching would certainly display a better imaging capability." "Driver sensitivity matching" does not compute. Translate please. When you listen to a studio derived product such as the Pink Floyd, how can you tell whether the "image" of all the clocks is correct? There was never an original event with individual placement of clocks to begin with, so there is nothing to use as a reference for what happened and where the "images" should appear. There is a substantial difference between merely creating an image or soundstage and proper, stable and correct imaging and soundstaging. DSOTM is great demo material however. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 442 Registered: Jun-05 | I think most people get centerfill mixed up with imaging. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 82 Registered: Jul-05 | Jan: True enough I suppose, but it's still neat. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 443 Registered: Jun-05 | It still depends on how you like your music,some people like a more front row sound and immediacy.Me I perfer a back of hall speaker,that can really stretch the compounds of the soundstage.One thing that i dissagree with most people on is a soundstage and imaging essential are to creating a believable midrange,some think of them as 2 seperate intities. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 83 Registered: Jul-05 | "Me I perfer a back of hall speaker,that can really stretch the compounds of the soundstage." I thought that would be more a component of the recording, no? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4700 Registered: May-04 | I was unaware soundstage and image had anything to do with a "believable" midrange. I'm obviously not understanding what you're saying. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 445 Registered: Jun-05 | Sometimes it is the case and it should be,but lots of speakers overempasize soundstage or should I say underemphacize it{I know I spelled it wrong}Most front row speakers cant give you everything in the soundstage,because some things tend to get cluttered and start to trip over each other. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 446 Registered: Jun-05 | So Jan do you think a speaker with terrible soindstaging and imaging,can make solo piano sound realistic? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 17 Registered: Jul-05 | "...Driver sensitivity matching" does not compute. Translate please..." Jan, I was referring to the tendency for some less "precision-engineered" speakers to have audible differences between a "boxed" unit sold as a pair. That is, the two speakers are the same in a general sense, but the drivers within the two speakers might differ in sensitivity by a couple dB. Thus, the level of output is different between the pair - which makes the image innaccurate. Imaging is truly an intrinsic quality, or product, of stereo sound. That said, just about any pair of speakers can create a soundstage (the quality of which, however, may vary drastically). Oh, and Tawaun - I got to thinking about your post: "...I think most people get centerfill mixed up with imaging..." (I'm not trying to be rude, by the way) Isn't "centerfill" part of imaging? Say you were listening to a recording in which the solo instrument was indeed sitting in the center of the stage. For your speakers to then portray this musician between your speakers would be a direct result of imaging, correct? The better the imaging, the more accurate the soundstage - which in this case would be "centerfill". Plus, consider stereo sound - the ideal place to listen to a pair of stereo speakers is directly in the middle. Wouldn't it make sense that "centerfill" is one aspect of imaging - afterall, soundstaging is three dimensional, so the space between the speakers is as crucial as the rest of the space. I'm not trying to argue intensely, just share my thoughts. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 84 Registered: Jul-05 | When I think of imaging + soundstage, I think of the speaker "disappearing", to use magazine lingo. It just doesn't seem like the music is coming from the speakers themselves. My speakers do this fairly well in my opinion, although I'm know more expensive models would do a better job. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 448 Registered: Jun-05 | Yes it is but thats not the whole war like most people think.Their are other things to go along with centerfill,such as height,depth,and width.Wouldnt you think that is just as important,for example every voice isnt smack dead in the middle,or the drums may not be up front centering near the voice like is a lot of times,it could be to the far right or to left. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 18 Registered: Jul-05 | "...Their are other things to go along with centerfill,such as height,depth,and width...for example every voice isnt smack dead in the middle..." True - the dimensions of the soundstage are important too - but I was just saying that to me (not that I'm necessarily correct!) center-fill is another *aspect* of imaging. Since you're listening to a "3D" recording, you would want to have a 3D soundstage - so I wouldn't want center-fill to be neglected, for accuracy's sake. I think this all comes down to my interpretation of the jargon. Plus - all of the processing and mixing of the audio that may occur could also result in innacurate placement of the instruments/vocals on your home system. It's real easy to play with panning and such when recording - which could create a "false" soundstage when listened to - no matter what speakers are used. But, if like you said, a pair of speakers constantly throws stuff in the middle that *shouldn't* be there, then yeah - those speakers suffer from a bad case of center-fill! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 449 Registered: Jun-05 | A good speaker should be able to give you all of those qualities,but at the same time a hard mix to the right or rhe left should not reveal a speakers locations. A Good speaker should be able to show the different compressions of a stage in a recording. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 322 Registered: May-05 | MB, nice article. This is part of why I enjoy this site and come back. Great discussion guys, I'm learning alot. Now, if we could just move my wife off the whole "hidden speaker" agenda and do something with my listening area, I might have a soundstage that's more than a 12" cube. LOL |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 19 Registered: Jul-05 | "...I might have a soundstage that's more than a 12" cube..." Ha! Exactly. Sometimes I get depressed when I read speaker-placement articles, because I realize that my listening room has placement limitations that will not allow an absolutely perfect setup. "...a hard mix to the right or rhe left should not reveal a speakers locations..." Yeah, T, you're right. Mostly! I just mean that I have some albums that have some pretty heavy processing applied (like some newer Radiohead releases, for example) that the imaging has been altered a lot by computers and the like. ...But my solipsism gets me in trouble! What I have experienced and what I consider "proper" imaging might not coincide with another listener's view. Same with the lingo, I suppose. One person might take the term "center-fill" to have a negative connotation - that of improper imaging, while another might think of it as a normal stereo effect. That terminology & communication difference might be the biggest limitation to such discussions - which is unfortunate - especially when they are so interesting. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 761 Registered: Mar-05 | Soundstage test, if you guys have the "Dark side of the moon" lp or cd then play "On the run" (track 3 I think, I have the LP so I dunno) and tell me whether some of that sound is coming from behind you? I know for me, when a system is hooked up right, songs can be more engaging in two channel than a multi-channel setup. Another great two channel test disc for me is Sting's "Sacred love" sacd, great stuff. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 86 Registered: Jul-05 | Yeah, those footsteps were running all over the place. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 764 Registered: Mar-05 | Actually, the footsteps pretty much stay up front on mine, it's the helicopter sounds and the background low-mid syth sounds that envelope me. That's my setup though. |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 765 Registered: Mar-05 | Just to be clear, I am talking about two channel with the Floyd stuff. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 87 Registered: Jul-05 | I dunno. I know the part that you're referring to, but I don't really remember it quite that vividly. Perhaps tomorrow I'll give it another go round. The footsteps pan in the front, but they seem to go a front to back too. But again, my memory might be failing me. Such a shame, I'm so young. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 88 Registered: Jul-05 | Yeah I know. I don't have a SACD player or surround speakers. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4703 Registered: May-04 | Guys, I'm sorry, I'm finding a lot of things being stated on this thread that I just can't agree with. First, center fill has nothing really to do with "imaging" or "soundstage". It's just a convenient way to say there is no gap in the middle of the sound field. That may sound like splitting hairs but consider this; when someone sets up a stereo pair of speakers with one in front of them and one behind them, there is no "center fill". When someone sets up their stereo pair of speakers with too much distance between each speaker, there is no center fill. The sound of instruments or vocals which are equally balanced between each channel are stretched out of proportion to the point where there is a gap in the sound field between the speakers. If you take two stereo speakers which can reproduce a stable sound field and hook the speakers out of phase with one another, you will loose the center fill. The centrally mixed signals will become amorphous and have no definite location or size. "Center fill" has as much to do with the system reproducing accurately what is fed into the system as it does with the proper operation of the system electrically. It has much more to do with the "sweet spot" from which to listen than it does soundstaging or imaging. Which brings me abruptly to my strongest disagreement with the ideas you gentlemen have put on this thread. A speaker, by itself cannot "image" or produce a "soundstage". To begin with, the final result is a function of the entire system and not just the speakers. Do not ascribe powers to components which have none and cannot possess any such qualities. Secondly, a system can only either reproduce what it is fed accurately or it cannot. The idea that "soundstaging" and "imaging" are a function of the speaker or system is wrong. The system can alter what it is fed but that amounts to a deliberate distortion of the incoming signal. A system that is "front of hall" or "back of hall" is distorting the signal if the effect is one that never varies with the signal being fed into the system. In other words, it has to be on the source before you can hear the result. If the system is capable of accurately reproducing the source signal, you might percieve the spatial relationships that were present during the original recording process. If you hear anything other than that, you are hearing a distortion of the source material. Soundstaging and imaging are uniquely American obssessions. The concept that these qualities should exist is not shared by every manufacturer around the globe. How much soundstaging and imaging "prowess" a system displays varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Many British component manufacturers feel the American obssession with soundstaging and imaging are already distortions of the original signal. Many of the best European brands of audio equipment can accurately reproduce the sound of all instruments, including piano and the human voice, and yet not reproduce the degree of spatial relationships most average American gear will exhibit. Can a speaker with "terrible" soundstaging and imaging reproduce the sound of a piano well? No, any system that is "terrible" at these qualities has too many other problems to reproduce anything well. Can a system that displays less than extreme soundstaging and imaging reproduce the sound of a piano accurately? I believe so. Let me put the question another way. How many speakers do you require to reproduce the sound of a single instrument? Only one. Can a single speaker accurately reproduce the sound of a piano? I believe so. But that also ties into my believe a mono source can still display "soundstaging" and "imaging" if those spatial relationships were captured in the original recording process. As to "sensitivity matched", why not just say matched according to frequency response. Sensitivity is an average number used for calculations much like impedance. The rise and fall in frequency response of a single driver can be attributed to things other than sensitivity. I think you're trying to make this harder than necessary. No time for anything more tonight. Think about what it takes to reproduce the sound of a single instrument. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3513 Registered: Dec-03 | Recently I got some very large, panel speakers. I will not keep on dropping the name - check my profile for ID! The point is, and my wife (who tolerates them) pointed this out, you can easily resolve differences on position of sources even when the distance between them is much less than the size of just one of the panels. If you listen to a mono source, say speech, it sounds like the voice is right in the middle, between the speakers, and it stays like that over a wide range of listening positions. If you listen in stereo, you can hear where all the sources are, accurately, and this "sound stage" extends beyond the line between the speakers, on both sides. On some good stereo recordings, you can hear things to your side, and even behind - you turn around, just like the first time you hear multichannel surround sound. I do not know how it works, and I am not bragging (honest!). But, to me, if this is "imaging", then it is a good thing, with no qualification. It makes everything easier and more enjoyable to listen to. I listen to all sorts of music I never much cared for, before; there are just more interesting things happening. BTW I do not have Jan's experience, and cannot generalize, but I don't think imaging and soundstaging are especially important only in America. The Brit HiFi mags have lots about this, also record reviews. I think these are universal features of good hifi, and always were, after stereo was invented. Mono can be great, especially for a solo instrument or voice, but I do not think these qualities apply to mono, at least when it is comes from just one speaker. |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1062 Registered: Feb-04 | Along the same lines as John, I might I don't like recordings with too many instruments when the system doesn't image. It's a big mass of sound. When the system images, it makes it possible to identify a different source for each instrument and allows you to assimilate and enjoy more of them playing together. That's my experience anyway... |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 456 Registered: Jun-05 | Well this thread in a way ties back to the "do you listen "thread,do you compare your system to live performance.This is one of the reasons I didnt think we would get anywhere on that thread,but it actually turned out good.But it is actually a extenion about a lot of portions of music reproduction,and from the little bit saw on that thread.But imaging and soundstaging seemed to be a very big part of that,espeacially with it being a live performance,when the performers are clearly in thier possitions that you would be able to visually see,much to think about but this may just be extention of that thread,It will be interesting to see what, Jan thinks since he was the conductor of that thread. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Mr_biasPost Number: 20 Registered: Jul-05 | "...A speaker, by itself cannot "image" or produce a "soundstage". To begin with, the final result is a function of the entire system and not just the speakers..." Well, a speaker, by itself, cannot do much of anything, except look pretty, correct? You should read the article that I posted much earlier - it talks of using a single mono speaker to produce realistic sound (spatially). Imaging is mainly a final result of the system, because A) the system supplies the speakers with a stereo signal, and B) the source media contains the recorded music. If center-fill has *nothing* to do with imaging or soundstage, then what is the "soundfield" (if it is the audible area of the speakers, and the center-fill represents localized sound between the speakers with no local source between the speakers...?). It seems to me that you're over complicating the idea with too many definitions. I've sat directly between two stereo speakers, front and back, and experienced "spatial" or 3D sound. Plus - if you are hearing sound between the speakers - you are in the center! That's pretty much rudimentary center-fill! "...When someone sets up their stereo pair of speakers with too much distance between each speaker, there is no center fill..." Yes, but when someone sets their pair of speakers too far apart you also lose much of the imaging qualities - individual speakers start to pop out at you. You cannot just separate these characteristics of stereo sound as separate entities - they are all mutually dependent upon each other. "...Many British component manufacturers feel the American obssession with soundstaging and imaging are already distortions of the original signal..." Really, that seems odd. Imaging is an inherent property of stereo sound! It doesn't take any distortion of the original signal to create imaging - it's a complex result of having two speakers and the direct and reverberated sound that occurs in the listening room. The reverb might, however, be considered a form of distortion - if someone went to the trouble to make their listening room more capable of propagating reverberated sound. "...It (center-fill) has much more to do with the "sweet spot" from which to listen than it does soundstaging or imaging..." Um, when I listen to stereo sound, imaging and the resultant soundstage are very much connected to placing myself in the sweet spot of listening. Move out of that ideal location and one speaker is louder than another - and all of the spatial qualities are gone. I just don't see how it could be separated completely - since it is just as much a part of creating a realistic soundstage. What about a musician who's solo took place in the center of the stage. When you listen to that recording, center placement of that instrument would be part of the soundstage, correct? Please don't read any anger into my post - it certainly isn't intended that way. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 457 Registered: Jun-05 | I know one thing when I hear a system that doesent image and soundstage I am imediatley uninvolved in the music,because without that it doesent sound realistic.Because without imaging and soundstaging the music is imcomplete,which it proves it is essential,and it is deffinately a extention of midrange performance indeed.One can not go without the other{its like having water without fire you need both.} |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4707 Registered: May-04 | I've read Olsher's article and in that particular instance the mono speaker reference was to illustrate the point of how damaging room reflections can be to the "stereo soundstage". The fact that Mr. Sakuma listens in mono is another issue. I'm not advocating everyone turn off one speaker just pointing out that we're assuming the system has some powers that can't logically be attributed to mechanical and electronic systems. Yes, this thread ties into "Do you listen" in that this thread discusses the very words I was trying to avoid in that thread. As I stated early on in that thread; "The terms detail, imaging, soundstage are thrown around this forum and I wonder how you decide what those terms mean if you are only comparing one speaker to another speaker." What I wanted to do with "Do you listen" is get away from the hype of the system and return to the organic nature of the original source - the music. The products of recording and reproducing the music seem to overtake our goals of listening to music. We begin to listen to our systems and judge the system's worth based on items such as imaging, soundstaging, focus and detail. None of which have much of anything to do with the music. They only occur when the music is recorded and reproduced. As Mr. Olsher says: "Audiophiles, on the other hand, have developed their own detailed terminology to deal with the spatial perception of two-channel audio. Soundstaging, imaging, focus, depth perspective, stage width, and image palpability are descriptive of spatial impressions. These terms originate from our everyday experience in localizing sounds, yet they go beyond the concert hall experience. My personal conclusion is that the home hi-fi experience is distinct from that of live music. First of all, you can't beat the illusion of being there when you are actually there. The combination of aural and visual cues, the sensation of being enveloped by sound, these are all unique to concert hall sound. Its quite a trick, even for a high-end system, to transport the listener to a different space or, alternatively, to import a concert hall acoustic into your own living room. Bottom line: it's all an illusion. Close your eyes, dim the lights, have a glass of wine, smoke your favorite herb - do whatever it takes to heighten the illusion. But in truth, there are no musicians arrayed between the speakers. Second, high-end audio has succumbed to a quest for heightened reality, with more detail, and greater focus than that of the real thing. I've yet to hear holographic imaging or pinpoint focus in a concert hall. The effect is partly an artifact of multi-mic, multi-track recording techniques, which generate extreme near-field recordings with artificially etched detail and jumbled perspectives. The quest for detail and focus at all costs has driven a wedge between audiophiles and music lovers. If you still value timbre and dynamic integrity above all else, count yourself as a music lover. If, on the other hand, you delight at the discovery of subtle noises such as lip smacking or foot tapping, previously buried in the mix, then take my word for it: you're an incurable audiophile." I feel the number of people who joined in the discussion on "Do you listen" is indicative of the first question that was posed on that thread, "How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis?" While I am wholeheartedly disappointed more people couldn't answer in the affirmative to that question, I am not judging anyone who has attended a concert as unfit to own a system. That level of response was about in line with what I found to be true in twenty five years of audio sales when I asked the same question of each client. In general people are judging the quality of their audio system based on the quality of other audio systems and more often than not they are not using music as their reference. As an example of how the ideas of soundstaging, imaging and "hifi words" have become the Holy Grail of audio systems I would point to DSOTM as an excellent example. There is nothing that represents a live event on that recording. As with most studio recordings it was constructed within the studio mixing boards and effects machines. The majority of what we listen to has no real event you can point to. Pop, rock, jazz, etc., recordings are constructed in the production and post production areas and not in a single live event. Individual signals are panned, phased, flanged and potted to create the soundstage and images audiophiles prize so highly. While it is highly entertaining at times, we are valuing things created electronically and reproduced electronically. I find it difficult to understand how audiophiles can value something so much when they can point to nothing that would say what is right and what is wrong about the whole affair. This is tantamount to the nuns explaining the Holy Trinity. Faith is everything. What we believe we hear is what is important. The value placed on these qualities of the system's resolving power are not fixed in stone. Every manufacturer has a somewhat different approach to how much importance they place on the spatial characteristics of music reproduction. Just as every recording engineer has a different feeling for how much space to give an instrument or an orchestra. But how do you decide how much is enough when one drum kit can have as many as twenty four microphones placed on and around it and each mic is fed to an independent channel on the mixer? The "focus" audiophiles prize so highly is most often nothing more than close mic'ing techniques that we can't replicate from our vantage in the audience. Again from Mr. Olsher, "The effect is partly an artifact of multi-mic, multi-track recording techniques, which generate extreme near-field recordings with artificially etched detail and jumbled perspectives." Add to this the desire to "spotlight" the performer which is all too common in modern recording techniques and the emaciated concept of soundstage and image is thrown into the pit with the voracious lions. Unlike Mr. Olsher, I have the experience of having life sized instruments and vocalists being reproduced in my main two channel system. Though it is dependent on the recording techniques employed, I can envision a piano that occupies a realistic space. Mr. Olsher infers that the sound of an eight foot wide piano must stretch that distance while in my experience it does not when heard from the audience. And it is that listening experience I am trying to recreate. I can sit in front of my stereo system and have a space presented to me that is believable when I remember what I heard at the symphony. Not an image that results from placing dozens of microphones across the stage width but a space that resembles what I hear from row twelve or further back. I can hear a jazz piano that sounds realistically sized when I remember what I heard in the small venues that such groups inhabit. I can envision a body with legs, chest and head (at least) performing in front of me. I find little use for systems which present nothing but the head. And, when they are present on the recording, I hear the spatial relationships between the instruments. Do not get me wrong, I am not against imaging and sounstaging as they do exist in a live performance. Classical music is rife with examples of composers and conductors manipulating the spatial relationships between competing or compelling sounds. However, I find little to hang my hat upon when I have no reference for what I should have experienced because there never was an experience to be had. It is this I think that drives many audiophiles/listeners to seek out a better system based mainly on another system. Or on a system they've read about in a magazine full of "awesome", "jaw dropping" experiences. Mr. Olsher rightly points out that many who seek this apex often fall like Icarus back to a flat two dimensional groundfield. Regarding the idea of "center fill", the concept offers a good example of the gap that exists, in my opinion, between people who listen to the music and those who listen to their system as Mr. Olsher describes each sort. It is probably best we simply agree to disagree about whether center fill is a part of imaging or tied to it in any fashion. I see this as a further example of how words are uased in hifi without a full agreement regarding their true meaning. We are each speaking our own dialect and misunderstandings all too often occur. The example quoted by Bias of the image shifting as the listener moves from the sweet spot is exclusive to a reproduction system. When you hear a live performance the relationship of the performers remains fixed no matter where you sit until you are far, far off center. Sit in the cheap seats behind the violins and you will hear predominantly the violins. But there is never a hole in the middle where two independent soundfields exist. There is always center fill in a live event. Move your speakers far enough apart that you eventually hear just two speakers with sound cluttered up around each speaker to demonstrate center fill? Well, I'm not sure how far apart you'd have to get the speakers since the claim is made that moving the speakers to diagonal corners and sitting between them still results in center fill. These two arguments seem, to me, to disprove one another. Center fill has to do with the sweet spot, not imaging. Can you move your speakers so far apart you loose the center and sound bunches up? I suppose so, depending on your speakers. In my experience, most speakers used for home audio of any quality will extend and exagerate the soundfield width and to some extent the size of individual "images" and create gaps in the soundfield before finally giving up and grounding the sounds in sheer desperation around the anchor of an individual speaker. Some systems accomplish this task better than others, that is mostly a matter of dispersion and would require more space than necessary to explain in full. I will assume most of us have a good enough grasp on how dispersion affects the sweet spot while listening. "...Many British component manufacturers feel the American obssession with soundstaging and imaging are already distortions of the original signal..." "Really, that seems odd. Imaging is an inherent property of stereo sound!" Now that sounds like the debate that occurred between the American manufacturers and the Brits in the late 1970's as brands such as Conrad Johnson and Audio Research began to make their way across the pond. Again I don't have time to go through all the arguments on both sides, suffice to say the Colonies won this squirmish also. But, the shift came more from the general shift to different recording techniques which included close mic'ing and studio production than it did from the shift in the inherent ability of the system to reproduce a certain focal point. There are still hold outs on the British side which you can find if you ask a Naim dealer to demonstrate their gear against almost any American product. I didn't mean to imply the British manufacturers didn't believe in the existence of a soundstage, merely they place their emphasis elsewhere in terms of what was required to reproduce music properly. Also keep in mind the halls the Europeans listen in are significantly different in many respects from what Americans are used to. "What about a musician who's solo took place in the center of the stage. When you listen to that recording, center placement of that instrument would be part of the soundstage, correct?" Well, that would depend on where the microphone(s) was (were) placed; wouldn't it? Once again we assume too much all too often! My question would be; is it important to the music to have the instrument centered in front of you? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4708 Registered: May-04 | Whew!!! |
|
Bronze Member Username: TwochordcoolPost Number: 81 Registered: Jun-05 | "I listen to all sorts of music I never much cared for, before; there are just more interesting things happening" It's so interesting that you said that! I normally HATE American FM radio stations - they usually play so much garbage. But there is one where I am currently living that really plays a lot of good eighties stuff, and I found myself really enjoying music that I haven't in the past...and very eager to know what certain songs would sound like on a good stereo in a good room! I am VERY excited about putting this stereo/theater together, and I really want to "get it right" with the money that I have.  |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4709 Registered: May-04 | Tawaun - I just don't see your point about midrange being tied to imaging and soundstaging. How about making this air and fire and tell us how one supports the other. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3517 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I think Tauwan has got a point, there. We get more cues about direction from high frequencies, that is true. But a good midrange sort of gives a sense of reality to the sound. Probably good "imaging" is being able to tie the two together, easily, and so say "I can hear the whole piano (or whatever), it sounds just like a piano, and it seems to be right there". When you can do that with a lot of other instruments playing, and say the same about each of them, then you have good imaging. That word "seamless" seems good, if it means the highs and midrange are obviously coming from one place, and from one voice or instrument. Then you can stop worrying about the system, stop trying to figure out what is supposed to be where, and just listen to the music. "Effortlessly". I agree we touch on "Do you listen" - but these are all words about the system. The real thing - live music - does not have qualities lile "seamless" and "effortless". It is just there. That was the point I was trying to make on that thread. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3518 Registered: Dec-03 | "Tawaun" Sorry, Tawaun, I can't spell! |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3519 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, I just say, quickly, I do not agree with that Mr Olsher - there is no "wedge" between loving music and wanting it to be replayed as accurately as possible. Quite on the contrary. That bit " I've yet to hear holographic imaging or pinpoint focus in a concert hall. " suggests to me that Mr Olsher hasn't been to a concert hall, or else he was not listening, when he was there. A friend, years ago, who only listened to rock, and had a good system, said to me "The first time I heard a real symphony orchestra, live, it was like each violin was sending little daggers that I could feel on my skin". |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4714 Registered: May-04 | "The real thing - live music - does not have qualities lile "seamless" and "effortless". It is just there. That was the point I was trying to make on that thread." And many of us disagreed. You, however, persisted despite our arguments to the contrary. *************** Personally, I've not heard the type of pin point imaging many of my clients wanted from their systems. To my ears there is a difference between the hard edges that define this instrument and then that instrument that audiophiles often desire and what I hear when I sit in a symphony hall. As the music gets smaller in scale, that "palpable presence" is more likely to happen. If there are only a piano and a cello on stage, I can tell where they exist even though the space they occupy shifts with the music. A solitary horn has a large space when played with an open bell and a small space when play with a mute; massed violins, however, when playing together are massed violins. The separation of violins to violas is defined by a fluid space, not a hard edge. The issue was touched upon when Margie and I discussed similar instruments playing the same notes or octaves above one another. The sound combines to manufacture a larger cushion of sound in space than either single instrument. If the instruments are playing discordant sounds to one another, then space becomes more defined because of the manner in which my brain processes the information, trying to make sense of each sound. But the effect of a symphony orchestra is not one that begins with a paint by numbers delineation of each instrument and never varies from that scheme. In "Do you listen" we began to discuss how each instrument can occupy a space unique to that instrument and how that space can change and shift as the range of the instrument is explored and the manner in which the instrument is played is altered, i.e. plucked or bowed, open or muted. Think of how the space a piano exists within changes when the lid is open or closed. I interpret your friend's comment about the violins differently than you do, John. ********* " ... there is no "wedge" between loving music and wanting it to be replayed as accurately as possible." No one said there was, John. You'll have to point out where that statement was made. Olsher and I are both talking about the wedge between those who want their music reproduced well and those who want their audiophile "artifacts" produced well. Finally, I am still unclear on how to make John's "We get more cues about direction from high frequencies" fit with Tawaun's "Because without imaging and soundstaging the music is imcomplete,which it proves it is essential,and it is deffinately a extention of midrange." There is no correlation between the high frequencies clueing us to direction and Tawaun's idea of imaging and soundstage tied to midrange that I can see. As Olsher has stated, and you have repeatedly reminded us on "Do you listen", John, there are no real instruments sitting between our speakers. At whatever frequency range we take clues to tell us where a sound is coming from, in our home stereo systems the sound is coming from in front of us and sourced at two locations called speakers. If midrange was important to imaging or high frequencies important to clues about direction, how would we be able to tell ourself the triangle is coming from stage left about 2/3 back? I understand how that is possible in a symphony hall. I need more information to understand how that ties into a music system in my room. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 462 Registered: Jun-05 | So,Jan in other words you are saying a total performance can be beleivable,that you are looking at without it being placed correctlly.the performance can be realistic to you and,in no way the midrange and the soundstage has absolutely nothing to do with each other?I dont see it, you are gonna have to explain this to me,where I can watch a whole performance and soundstaging in reality has absolutely nothing to do with the event at hand.I really dont see how thats possible. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4718 Registered: May-04 | Uh, Tawaun, I think I asked you to explain your statement first. Tell me how you see them tied together and I'll tell you if the concept makes sense to me. Midrange is tonality. Soundstage is spatial. I don't see one as being dependent upon the other. I'll go back to my example of a single speaker mono system. It can have absolute fidelity through the midrange in terms of tonality. A single channel, however, will not produce the sort of soundstage I assume most of the members on this forum consider appropriate. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 106 Registered: Jul-05 | Joe: In answer to your question, no, it doesn't sound like its behind me. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3524 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, "And many of us disagreed. You, however, persisted despite our arguments to the contrary". Yes, and that was because I had a clear impression that my point was not understood, and it still isn't - there was no response to it, and no argument against it. Please tell me, if I missed it. I'll try again. Adjectives describing real music can also be applied to reproduced music. But they can never apply, literally, to the reproduction process iself. The music is not the system and the system is not the music. A good system will deliver many qualities in the music. But that is where they reside - in the music. You were asking for qualities in music that can be applied to systems. I said "there are none". I still have no response to that. "' ... there is no "wedge" between loving music and wanting it to be replayed as accurately as possible.'" ..... "No one said there was, John. You'll have to point out where that statement was made." That was my stab at summarising part of your quote from Olsher. I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but, again, it is not easy to see which is the right end. Here it is: "The quest for detail and focus at all costs has driven a wedge between audiophiles and music lovers. If you still value timbre and dynamic integrity above all else, count yourself as a music lover. If, on the other hand, you delight at the discovery of subtle noises such as lip smacking or foot tapping, previously buried in the mix, then take my word for it: you're an incurable audiophile." IMHO that is just another example of someone playing with words ("dynamic integrity", anyone.....?). In this case, he is trying to create a distinction which does not exist. Music IS sound. It is that simple. I submit we want the sound, the whole sound, and nothing but the sound. When we've got it, we decide which parts we count as music. "Music lovers" like to make up their own minds about that. Now, the other issue.... I persist in supporting the notion that a clear, "seamless" midrange is required for imaging and, so, for soundstage. I take this to be Tawaun's point. You wrote to Tawaun "Tell me how you see them...." (midrange and soundstage) "....tied together and I'll tell you if the concept makes sense to me. Please let me have a go. I'll be interested to know if it makes sense to you. "If midrange was important to imaging or high frequencies important to clues about direction, how would we be able to tell ourself the triangle is coming from stage left about 2/3 back?" My answer: because we need the midrange to know it is the triangle, and not something else. When the high frequencies and the mid-range from the same instrument arrive in-phase and at the same time, then we can easily identify the instrument, and easily know where that instrument was in the original space. And, although it's a nice try, I think you can't escape by choosing a triangle, Jan! But, consider and oboe or a guitar, and the point seems fairly obvious. Joe and DA; I'll try and get my copy of TDSOTM and listen for the footsteps. Even footsteps have treble and mid-range. I do believe they are both required for soundstage. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4721 Registered: May-04 | " You were asking for qualities in music that can be applied to systems. I said "there are none". I still have no response to that." Ditto that, roger and over! John, you and I are never going to understand each other on this issue. There are almost 700 posts on "Do you listen" and people were coming up with descriptions while you said the music is the music. I don't know how to explain the question any better than I have several times, Rantz knows what I mean but doesn't know how to explain it any better than it has been and there seems to be no progress on that front. We are at loggerheads on this issue, John; why do another chorus? If it has to do with this thread, you can have at it. If it has to do with "Do you listen", post on that thread so people can have some consistency. Concerning the second issue you address; toe tapping, lip smacking and cars passing outside the studio are not the music. You may want all the sound, but it has nothing to do with the music. It may be interesting the first dozen times you hear it, but it has nothing to do with the music. What is wrong with "dynamic integrity", John? As Rantz suggested, it's merely someone else's idea of how to convey a thought and you don't care for it. You really have to read more than one word at a time, John! The point Olsher is making is obviously one you did not catch as it was flying past. Music = gooooood! Butt scratching musician = not music!!! "Music IS sound! It is that simple." Thank you for the lesson, John. Now it's my turn. Sound IS NOT music! It's just that simple!!! Now, on to the midrange stuff. GOOD FRICKIN' GRIEF, JOHN!!! WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT IDEA? "When the high frequencies and the mid-range from the same instrument arrive in-phase and at the same time, then we can easily identify the instrument, and easily know where that instrument was in the original space." Come on, John, "in phase and at the same time"?????????????? What sort of gobbledeegook is that? If the signals arrive at the same time THEY ARE IN PHASE! Unless you want to get esoteric and we'll discuss how fast varying frequencies travel through air. Shall we agree on a specified humidity level to begin this discussion? And you accuse Olsher of playing with words. For shame, John! " ... and easily know where that instrument was in the original space." Once again, I know you know that's not true. Hearing just the sound of the instrument at the back of the stage does not locate it in space for us. Maybe if we listened in an anechoic chamber your example would hold water. Our hearing takes the original signal and the reflections from various parts of the hall and the time and pressure differences between our two ears and determines location from a much more complex array of signals than just the simple sound directly from the triangle. If we hear too many reflections not spaced far enough apart in time, we'll find it difficult telling exactly where that triangle is situated. John, I hope your hearing skills work better than your explaining skills before you step out into traffic. "And, although it's a nice try, I think you can't escape by choosing a triangle, Jan!" If the issue at hand is midrange frequencies, why can't I escape by asking about a signal with no midrange frequencies involved? Your argument escapes me why my argument escapes you. "But, consider and oboe or a guitar, and the point seems fairly obvious." What point? You done lost me on this one, John! "Even footsteps have treble and mid-range. I do believe they are both required for soundstage." I think you've missed the issue here. It is not whether midrange and treble or required for "soundstage". Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember Tawaun's point being; (Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 04:51 pm) "One thing that i dissagree with most people on is a soundstage and imaging essential are to creating a believable midrange,some think of them as 2 seperate intities" To be honest I still don't know what constitutes a "believable midrange". But I suspect it is more than just having some midrange (and treble)frequencies present. I can argue all around my own defintion of accurate or natural midrange; but until I know what I'm discussing concerning believable midrange, I'm at a loss. Is it like obscenity; I'll know it when I hear it? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3527 Registered: Dec-03 | "We are at loggerheads on this issue, John; why do another chorus?" You brought up that thread, here, Jan, and I was agreeing with you that it was relevant. You went on "And many of us disagreed. You, however, persisted despite our arguments to the contrary." I still see no arguments. Really. I'll post this opinion there, too, if you like. But I think that would be unnecessary repetition, don't you? If anyone has no idea what this about, the thread is Do you listen. It began with Jan asking "How many of you listen to live music on a regular basis? If you do, do you use the sound of live music as a reference to make an audio purchase? If so, how? " The issue on which we diagree came up later. It is Jan's question: ""What qualities do we hear in live music that we would like to have our audio systems possess?" My answer is "NONE". That is my preference. But it goes further than that. I suggest that audio systems that are any good will not have musical qualities. They will reproduce them accurately. That is a totally different set of requirements, skills, and technology. Mixing up the music with the system produces confusion imho. I just got a "flat battery" warning. I shall come back to the other issues later. Let me just say, before my lights go out, I am OK with poetry, allusion, metaphor, ambiguity, all that - I demonstrated that, I think. And caused real offence, for some reason, But we have to use simple and direct language sometimes if we are to understand each other. Olsher can say "dynamic integrity" if he likes. But what does it mean? And whatever it means, is it in the music, or the system? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4725 Registered: May-04 | If it's in the music, an acurate system will let it pass through. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3528 Registered: Dec-03 | Jan, We are now making category mistakes all over the place. I take some responsibility for this. I am going to try to use words simply and literally. Category problem 1. All music is sound. Therefore it is true to say "Music is sound". I did not say that all sound is music. That would be absurd. When you write "Sound is not music" there are several things that could mean. Let me take the one we can probably agree on. Not all sound is music. Ok, how do we decide whether a sound is music, or not music? I am suggesting that the decision is an individual's decision; it is subjective. If this is the case, then to retain our ability to make up our own minds, we need to hear all the sound in a recording. I quoted John Cage's 4' 33" on another thread. For most people, there is no music there at all. Play the recording accurately, and people can decide for themselves whether it is recording of music or not. Deciding for them, and editing out just sound, not music, is making the judgement for them, essentially telling people what to think - doctoring the evidence. I am against that. So, I wrote:- "I submit we want the sound, the whole sound, and nothing but the sound. When we've got it, we decide which parts we count as music." Category problem no. 2 "Come on, John, "in phase and at the same time"?????????????? What sort of gobbledeegook is that? If the signals arrive at the same time THEY ARE IN PHASE!" Please try to calm down a bit, Jan. Yes, if they arrive at the same time they are in phase. But they can be in phase and arrive at different times - if one is delayed by a whole wave number (this came up in a discussion of crossovers). So "in phase and at the same time" is perfectly sensible. This is not esoteric at all. Any one can hear it. A good speaker will deliver the treble and mid-range components of any sound just as you would receive them from the original source. OK, next point. Not a category problem, this time. "" ... and easily know where that instrument was in the original space." Once again, I know you know that's not true...." Let me be more precise. "When the high frequencies and the mid-range from the same instrument arrive in-phase and at the same time, then we can more easily identify the instrument, and more easily know the direction from which the instrument is playing....than we can if there is either a phase difference or a time difference between them". I will stick with that. Other factors come into play, I know, so "more easily" is better. "If the issue at hand is midrange frequencies, why can't I escape by asking about a signal with no midrange frequencies involved?" I'll wager a triangle has some mid-range. ""But, consider and oboe or a guitar, and the point seems fairly obvious." What point?" The point that the midrange has to be connected (in phase and in time) with the higher frequencies before anyone can accurately - OK "more easily" - position the source of all frequencies coming from one instrument, with its characteristic waveform and frequency distribution. I cannot speak for Tawaun. But I would put it like this: an accurate ("natural" is OK) midrange (by which I mean in-time and in-phase, both within itself and the with other ranges, plus some other things) is essential for imaging and therefore for a believable sound stage". If I read Tawaun wrong, I apologise to all. But I think there is some insight in that. Also, a "believable midrange" is OK - it is a midrange of the type I described, and one that does stick out and sound "artificial". I think I've said it on the subject of Mr Olsher's words of wisdom, but let me put it another way. No sane person pursues a "quest for detail and focus at all costs" or "values timbre and dynamic integrity above all else". It is a false distinction. (Though I still don't understand what he means by "Dynamic integrity" - what is its opposite?). We want is the original sound, man. The sound. With that, we get the music. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3529 Registered: Dec-03 | "If it's in the music, an acurate system will let it pass through". Agreed. Whatever it is. So we want "accuracy", "transparency", and such things from the system - these qualities of the system allow reproduction of any and all qualities in the music. We do not want a loudspeaker to have the qualities of a violin, or the qualities of the sound of a violin. We want the loudspeaker accurately to reproduce them. That's all. You now, I think I am finally getting through.... |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3530 Registered: Dec-03 | "You now" = "You know". I can't type, either. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3531 Registered: Dec-03 | There is a missing "not", too; it was intended to read: "one that does not stick out and sound "artificial". |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4726 Registered: May-04 | This has gotten so deep and thick, I can't begin to slog my way through. John, you have now constructed a labyrinth of such enormous, tortuos proportions, I doubt anyone could follow any of the various paths and find an exit strategy. " ... if one is delayed by a whole wave number (this came up in a discussion of crossovers). So "in phase and at the same time" is perfectly sensible. This is not esoteric at all. Any one can hear it." No, no, they can't hear it and it is not sensible. No one is capable of hearing a wavelength of the size created by a triangle delayed by a 360°. This whole thing is an argument that goes so far beyond "category mistakes", I can't find the category we started from. That ol' Texas saying, "when you find yourself in a hole; stop digging" easily applies here. Would someone please hand John and I a ladder so we can get out and get back on solid ground. P.S. - John, I thought we'd resolved the whole issue of 4'33" months ago. Cage's point is there is music there if you listen. However, rebutting this will surely take us down a path certain of egoistic hedonism and further away from the issues of this thread. Let's move on. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3535 Registered: Dec-03 | OK, OK, Jan. It's a strong point you make there. But I do not yield. Truce, for now, if you like. I know the Cage produced anger and all that. Parting shot; can you have a recording of a performance of 4'33''.....? (There are several CDs, claiming to be that, on the market). Would you get an accurate reproduction of that performance if you just switched off your amp for the same length of time...? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4727 Registered: May-04 | "I know the Cage produced anger and all that. Parting shot; can you have a recording of a performance of 4'33''.....? " Of course; why not? " Would you get an accurate reproduction of that performance if you just switched off your amp for the same length of time...?" No. You have to ask? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4729 Registered: May-04 | "No sane person pursues a "quest for detail and focus at all costs" ... " It is a false distinction." Anyone who finds themself agreeing with John on this, please turn your attention for the moment to: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/151604.html Sorry, Timothy, but there doesn't seem to be a pursuit of music in that thread. Or this one either: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/151299.html |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 466 Registered: Jun-05 | Jan and John I will comment when my brain gets rolling later on. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3536 Registered: Dec-03 | Tawaun, I think Jan and I have sort of called "Truce" on this, and are talking at cross purposes. There is another "category mistake", just to illustrate what this is: "you need more sex than all this Hi-Fi crap". Huh? A night between the sheets with a loudspeaker does not appeal to me, personally. And who wants a luscious lady to spend time making the exact sounds recorded onto a CD? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4766 Registered: May-04 | Is there anything left to say on this thread? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 113 Registered: Jul-05 | I am looking for speakers with good imaging. Can you help me? |
|
Silver Member Username: JimvmLouisiana U.S.A. Post Number: 151 Registered: Apr-05 | Paradigm Reference Studio 20's. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4767 Registered: May-04 | "I am looking for speakers with good imaging. Can you help me?" You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me??? No, I can't help 'cause I'm about to give up on this whole imagin' speaker thing. SPEAKERS DON'T IMAGE!!! |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 115 Registered: Jul-05 | Tell that to someone at work! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4770 Registered: May-04 | ? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3548 Registered: Dec-03 | Let me suggest that there is some room for discussion if we read "Speakers alone don't image!!!" It is true. Speakers are just part of the whole system. And it is the system that carries imaging. Imaging is a property arising from the whole system, including the recording, the listening room, and all things in between - and from the interactions between them. So there is no short answer to "I am looking for speakers with good imaging. Can you help me?". Except, possibly "No". Would you agree, Jan? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4772 Registered: May-04 | YEP! |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 478 Registered: Jun-05 | I agree it is a team effort,but some speakers do it better than others,but I'll roll with it though,well I guess we need whole thread about it. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3555 Registered: Dec-03 | I think that's right, Tawaun. Yes, a team effort. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 480 Registered: Jun-05 | Well,John do you want to do the honors of starting the thread? |
|
Silver Member Username: Joe_cOakwood, Ga Post Number: 796 Registered: Mar-05 | I think that the actual recording has the most to do with imaging, but let me put it this way(since I like to compare photography with audioholicism). I would say that recorded music(lets leave that one alone and make it irrelevent to this analogy) is the image we are trying to capture, the film is our ears, and the parts inbetween that are the source, amp and speakers. Now, with a crappy lens, you will see incorrect coloration, distorted image and finally your picture will not be as clear as it could be. With a professional grade lens(say a Nikkor 28-70 ED IF) the image would be as close to the real thing as possible, but you still have to go through all the lens elements before that image hits the film plane. So what makes it different, well price for one. You DO get what you pay for. Also, the fact that the more expensive lens contributed less to the image than the cheaper lens means the image stayed as close to "neutral" as possible. So in saying that, if a recorded song has good imaging layed down by the studio, the different layers of "lens" that that song has to go through will determine how close to the original the end result will be. If that professional lens has some dirt on the outside (say a consumer grade source) then the effect will be exponentially greater and the end result. Same if the back of the lens or one of the middle components is faulty. You get the point. I do agree however that speakers have the least to do with imaging. Why is it I can put on a cheapie pair of headphones, and the imaging is almost perfect? Placement is my guess. So room dynamics, acoustic treatments, wires, source power are all lens components. Even the wax buildup in our ears, Paul has a real problem with that so be empathetic. I am rambling again so I will shut up for a while. |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 481 Registered: Jun-05 | Ok ,John we will get serious on this matter a little later when some more people come on here and join this disscusion a little later its gonna take more than a few on this matter{Yeah teamwork}can you smell 500+ posts? |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aLondonU.K. Post Number: 3558 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, I think another thread should wait, Tawaun. After all, we are on "Soundstaging and Imaging" under "Speakers". DA's question should find an answer here. I have already suggested Quad ESLs, and Magnepans are recommended by people who know things, but with the reservations Art makes. Yes, imaging is a system team effort. LS3/5a speakers such as Jan's were always noted for imaging, and there are new models based on this design, but everything depends on the signal the speakers get. There is no magic wand to wave. Maybe that is saying the same thing over again. |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 123 Registered: Jul-05 | Sorry to mislead John, that was just a joke about wanting speakers that image. |
|
Silver Member Username: DakulisSpokane, Washington United States Post Number: 344 Registered: May-05 | Geez, I'm now read back quite a ways to catch up. This thread started so well and then John and Jan went crazy and I've kind of lost the point. I believe we reached consensus on the fact that it's the entire system that allows imaging. I'm not sure if we resolved the question of whether imaging is good or necessary. I know we didn't resolve the issue of whether "midrange" and "sound stage" have anything to do with each other. Oh, never mind, I give up. What's the question, again? |
|
Silver Member Username: Devils_advocatePost Number: 124 Registered: Jul-05 | I would think imaging is simply a byproduct of an accurate system with decent sound dispersion qualities. I could of course be wrong. I would be interested to hear more of Jan's commentary on the matter though. I second Dave's questions on whether imaging is good/necessary. As for the soundstage vrs midrange, it goes over my head. I just thought it was a matter of the dispersion capabilities of the driver rather than perceptions of midrange frequencies. But I'm listening to what Tawaun has to say. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 4785 Registered: May-04 | I'm going to have to say I still find "an accurate system with decent sound dispersion qualities" to be a little too ambiguous. To begin with, it's not that I so strongly disagree with the term "accurate" as it is I think you'll find it difficult to get ten people on the forum to agree to what "accurate" actually sounds like. No one usually wants to think of their system as "not accurate", but the sound you would hear from ten different systems would probably stretch over a rather wide range of "accuracy". I assume Peter considers his Klipschorns to be accurate. I consider my LS3/5a's to be reasonably accurate. The sound produced by those two speaker systems can't have less in common. No one would mistake one for the other. I think it would take very little imagination to consider all the variables the word "accurate" might entail in the real world. My McIntosh tubes would not easily be mistaken for a typical HT receiver. Even the same speaker placed in two different rooms will no longer be "accurate" unless both rooms are heavily treated to account for the room's interaction. "Decent dispersion" is an even bigger can of worms. What exactly is that? Some designers prefer very controlled dispersion that establishes a sweet spot for listening, but reduces the room's contributions to the sound. Other designers utilize the broad dispersion of dipole designs that add ambience but take judicious set up to eliminate the room's response. How can one design be judged "decent" and the other not? Even if we can agree on what dispersion pattern is decent for a speaker; what if the rest of the system has enough problems that imaging and soundstaging are affected. My Mac tubes do not image in the same fashion as my HT receiver. So, while I think you're on the right track, you're a long way from the station with "an accurate system with decent sound dispersion qualities". Is it important to the music that a system image and establish a credible soundstage? No. Is it important that a system reproduce only what the source signal feeds it without adding or subtracting anything? Unless you're willing to live with obvious distortions and colorations to everything you hear; yes, the system should be as nuetral as possible. Is that possible in the real world? No. Is a soundstage and image, as we infer the term here, important to the enjoyment of music? Not for me. Since I occasionally listen to music that was recorded fifty to ninety years ago, there is no soundstage as we know it on those recordings. Is the music enjoyable? Very much so. Yes, the presentation of the music is more realistic when there is a sense of the performers in front of me. How about behind me? Or to the side? When is enough enough? That's a question some of us have kicked around on this forum for quite some time. If having a soundstage in front of you is good, is it better to have a soundstage all around you? Does it make the music better or just the hifi? We ended up agreeing to disagree on that matter. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics