I worship at the altar of imaging

[NorthSky]

I like active imaging, better than passive imaging.

 

[Cosmik]

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. 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?

 

[TBone]

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 can achieve Zero distortion?

 

[fas42]

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...

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 ...

 

[fas42]

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

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.

 

[NorthSky]

But Yamaha is Natural sound. ...My favorite brand of receivers.

 

[fas42]

Sometimes, Bob ... . In fact, Yamaha has been a favourite brand of mine, going way, way back; in the late 70's I went for one of their better cassette components, and was very happy with it. I like the engineering style of their audio, and waited until they put out a good quality CDP before diving into digital - a smart move, the first unit had some reading reliability issues, but the replacement, the next model put out, was the key source unit that gave me the first dose of competent sound - and I have it to this day, still working.

 

[Cosmik]

You can achieve Zero distortion?

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.?

The DSP approach seems to be consistent, at least. It gives a particular sound, with extremely clear distinction between the various layers of the recording. I like it, but maybe that is because it sounds "hi fi" i.e. I can impress people with it! I would like to know if there is another considered viewpoint that can state why another approach is better. 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?

 

[TBone]

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?

We has many sides.

I'm not advocating vinyl, rather a preferred level of mastering, given any format.

On the other hand, you advocate dsp like Easter. I get that, we get that, 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 ...

 

[Sal1950]

On the other hand, you advocate dsp like Easter

No dog in this fight whatsoever
But that quip really did give me a giggle. Nice one TBone.

 

[Cosmik]

...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.

 

[Purité Audio]

Chatting with Ben Lilly of ATC, he readily admits the superiority of active loudspeakers, they use MiniDSP products to prototype their crossovers btw, but the company feels they have to produce passive designs because the market is still so traditional.
Keith.

 

[TBone]

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.

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.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

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?

Zero distortion would be wonderful, and maybe some systems get close enough today. But, I think you are completely ignoring the role played by speaker dispersion and room reflections in generating the image in sound reproduction. What the engineer heard in the mastering studio might not image in the same way at all in our homes, even if we were to use identical equipment. And, we do not want to get into recording and listening to music anechoically to totally eliminate the acoustic effects of hall and room reflections. Humans just do not like that sound. I do not like the sound at live outdoor concerts at all, though it is relatively free of the reflections we hear in the hall. And, playback via outdoor speakers is lacking in so many ways vs. playback in a good room, especially in imaging.

I think I need some independent reference in order to judge the imaging of recordings and systems. All I can do ultimately is to judge them for "plausibility" of the resulting image vs. concert experience with live acoustic music. That is still highly subjective, of course, and subject to inaccuracies. But, we have no way of objectively measuring the imaging in the live venue or on the recording or in the studio or in the home.

 

[Thomas savage]

I found RPG skyline diffusers on my rear wall helped with creating a natural image, really though it's s simple thing stereo image. You can test it with the isotek cd.. All this back and forth about essentially nothing is rather confusing.

We cant compare image via this medium so unless we use the same source for stimulating it we have no chance of conducting a meaningful debate..even then we are relying on self diagnosis..

I tested mine and its solid at the various points determined by the test cd.. Good enough I would say.

Simply putting amps in speakers will do nothing to control rear wall reflections or floor bounce etc... But hey maybe it's magic

 

[TBone]

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?

 

[Thomas savage]

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?

Not if it's missing soundstage test..
This is mine..., look at the sleeve notes

 

[Cosmik]

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.

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.

Well, try this:

• given a choice between high distortion and zero distortion, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
• given a choice between high noise and zero noise, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
  
• given a choice between high stereo crosstalk and zero crosstalk, neutral would be zero. If we can't get zero - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as low as possible.
  
• given a choice between poor cone control and perfect cone control, neutral would be perfect. If we can't get perfect - blah blah there's no such thing etc. etc. - then we get as close as possible.

etc. etc.


To those who mention the room's effects, well we hear the direct sound first and it would seem logical that any 'imaging' will be primarily defined by that.

Beyond that, the question is: if you think that imaging is not just a question of neutrality, then what is? This is what I would like to know! If there is something else, then what is the 'scientific' explanation for it? Just saying "Vinyl and valves image really well" doesn't offer an explanation of anything - and doesn't seem a very convincing assertion either.

 

[Thomas savage]

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.

Having said all that I have never heard anyone say actives image poorly, in fact audiophile assumption is they image well but can lack musically what ever that means

 

[Cosmik]

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.

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?