NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 946
I like active imaging, better than passive imaging.
Yes, but without a proper benchmark, without knowing how the recording originally was recorded, you can't possibly know if your speakers are "imaging" it as designed. You might fiddle and prefer the effect your DSP back-end forwards, but that remains very much subjective ...
But I am saying that it seems highly likely to me that zero distortion, perfectly matched speakers (and everything else if we can get it) automatically gives us the imaging "as designed" - there is nothing subjective about it.
You've got it!! The better the imaging, the more irrelevant are FR anomalies - I used to amuse myself with a half decent Sony amplifier, years ago, that I could prod into producing reasonable sound: I would swing the treble, and bass tone controls all the way from one end to the other - and I was struggling to pick anything happening! The illusion generated from the replay was overriding my awareness of treble or bass altering - of course, on normal crappy audio the effect of these controls is very obvious ...If I sit and fiddle with my (DSP-based) speakers' crossover settings, I can do all sorts to mess up the sound - frequency response etc. but the imaging isn't really affected (if my definition of imaging is the same as yours, that is). Voices and instruments stick to the same places left to right. In fact, the imaging creates such a strong illusion of reality, that I think the frequency response maladjustments are forgiven more easily than if the imaging was woolly. Imaging may be the DSP active speaker's secret weapon...
As Cosmik is implying, accurate imaging is locked in 100% with what is in the recording - yes, you can play games with speaker configurations, with less than optimal playback, to produce certain sorts of 'imaging'; but this is in the same category as those Yamaha, etc, units that produce spatial effects, i.e., it's completely artificial. Put 3 different recordings on a competent system, and the imaging changes completely with each one - you're hearing what was "put down" on the album.Yes, but without a proper benchmark, without knowing how the recording originally was recorded, you can't possibly know if your speakers are "imaging" it as designed. You might fiddle and prefer the effect your DSP back-end forwards, but that remains very much subjective
It's what we would aspire to. As low as we can go - unless there is another viewpoint? As was said the other day, without some distortion panpot stereo may resemble "cardboard cutouts" to some people's ears..? If so, is it the responsibility of the record producers to smear it a bit, or to record it differently? Or is it our responsibility to do it through our choice of cartridge, particular pressing/stampers, choice of valves, speaker cone material etc. etc.?You can achieve Zero distortion?
If so, why would we choose to do it with the shot-in the-dark approach of vinyl and valves when we could do it 'scientifically' with DSP?
No dog in this fight whatsoeverOn the other hand, you advocate dsp like Easter
No, in that case I agree with Ray. I am saying that because it is infinitely tweakable, the technology that begins with D... is the only way to actually get close to a 'neutral' system. My version of perfect imaging is the one that comes from a neutral system - regardless of how it sounds. No subjectivity involved....you have the ability to fiddle and create an image of preference, without comparative benchmarks. Subjectively! Consider Ray's approach, state a preference, show comparative data w/relate-able benchmarks. Other than that, we can't really discuss scientifically ...
No, in that case I agree with Ray. I am saying that because it is infinitely tweakable, the technology that begins with D... is the only way to actually get close to a 'neutral' system. My version of perfect imaging is the one that comes from a neutral system - regardless of how it sounds. No subjectivity involved.
But I am saying that it seems highly likely to me that zero distortion, perfectly matched speakers (and everything else if we can get it) automatically gives us the imaging "as designed" - there is nothing subjective about it. What I would like to know is what the alternative theoretical viewpoint could be. Can you say something like "Ah, well it's obvious that we need to increase the stereo crosstalk above 1kHz, introduce a modicum of intermodulation distortion and reduce the damping of the woofers to a factor of 4. That's how stereo should be heard". What is your theory?
Not if it's missing soundstage test..Thomas, I've an Isotek cd which came packaged with Hi-Fi choice magazine a very long time ago. Part one is "warm-up" tones, part two contains a hearing refresher w/progressive removal of bass, Blumlein left to right image test, loudspeaker and headphone imaging tests, speaker resonance shakedown and other frequency sweeps. Is this similar to yours?
Hmm. I didn't realise that neutral was a controversial concept. Is there any data that defines "neutral"? It would possibly include a few zeroes and infinities to which a person well versed in the art of deflection would say "You can't have zero/infinity in the real world". This is no different from the well-known "Everything matters". A statement of the truth at one level, but of no practical use whatsoever.Not a simple matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Ray, more a matter of providing data to back up your claims and/or personal preferences, as Ray often has, otherwise your version is just that, your version, just another subjective preference shrouded by objective meanderings.
Like all audio buzz-words, neutrality offers little relational meaning without relate-able data.
DSP is just the means to get to a neutral system. Sure, you can treat the room on top of that. The crucial point is what is "high fidelity"? How are the vinyl/valves/passive crossovers combining to achieve high fidelity if the measurements say they're not?For my room creating a diffuse sound field via the use of RPG skyline like products has yielded a significant margin of enhancement subjectivity speaking. Simply using active speakers even with dsp would not achieve this.
It really is total nonsense to say the only way you can get good image and high fidelity sound is through active speakers. There are advantages of course but it's no magic bullet and the be all and end all as some seem to think.