I worship at the altar of imaging

[Sal1950]

Boy you guys are going way back.
In my early quality vinyl days I started out with a Stanton 681 EEE IIRC. I later was encouraged by my fav dealer to try a Shure V15 ???. Ran it for quite a while but for me the Stanton kept calling my back. I preferred both the detail in the highs and I thought the Stanton gave me a quicker, tighter bass line. Maybe it was just my familiarity with them. Later I upped to a Stanton 881 S, ran it for a long time and I still believe it was the best MM I ever heard.
I then got bitten by the MC bug, I guess it was pushed more by the media hype then anything. Started out with a Supex 900 Super and then broke our bank getting a Dynavector Ruby. Old lady at the time was none to happy (like raving mad) with me about the big $ (for us) I spent on it. But I just had to have it, that beautiful solid Ruby cantilever and all. She told me she would rather a Ruby ring. LOL
That Ruby stayed with me till the end, as did the 881 S. I kept both mounted up in extra tonearms and would go back and forth when the mood struck me. Everything told me (including the reviewers) that the Rudy should sound superior but that damn Stanton has a special sound for me.
Best news of all was how much guys paid my for the 25+ year old needles when I sold them in 2009 but wish I had held on to them till now. Folks look to be paying crazy money for that old used stuff.

 

[TBone]

It also occurred to me the MC cartridges I much preferred nearly always have a touch of rising high end. This certainly made many LPs sound far more transparent and accurate. Tape, especially several generations from the original with many LPs would have rolled the treble a bit. Was the rising top end of the MC simply a serendipitous reverse EQ for lost treble in the tape?

Interesting perspective. Never really thought of it from that angle.

Yes, i believe it is entirely possible that many vinyl diehards prefer a rising top end, that sunnier disposition could indeed recreate an illusion of greater overall detail/image. My experience with tape is well in the past, but I remember it both fondly and with much frustration. Saturation has a distinct sound of its own and can be somewhat forgiving, however the sound of my tapes -replayed- on other machines was often compromised by tape wear, age, miss-aligned head azimuth and un-caliberated noise reduction techniques, all dulled the sound in the process. So yeah, a rising top end could certainly help provide an illusion of greater detail, and perhaps this is 1 key reason why many "vinyl is best" die-hards prefer certain MC's.

Could the opposite also be true, that some audiophiles may prefer a duller sound (hence why digital was considered too bright by many vinyl lovers). While I've heard some awesome R2R tape transfers (w/impressively wide/deep image) i consider it ludicrous to think that everything put to tape has the potential to sound better. More than likely it will sound a touch grainier, warmer and duller overall ... but that doesn't stop certain audiophiles from waxing poetic about R2R transfers. I got a real kick when I read Cafe Blue was being transferred, sold/hyped, on R2R. A 16 bit digital master, suddenly made to sound superior because its now been transferred to very expensive R2R tape (sigh) ...

As per tubes having a unique image, strictly from a software pov, I've always liked comparing tube based remasters with their regular counterparts, such as certain DCC CDs. Some offer a distinctively different tonal perspective/image.

 

[TBone]

Boy you guys are going way back.

and forward; just built in my area ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/burlington-record-plant-1.3673610

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Sorry, don't share your enthusiasm for modern day recordings sounding better, especially as compared to live, even in mc. Perhaps you can provide an example? When I attend a live concert, and I attend many, i don't hear imaging as per home reproduction devices. When it comes to live vs reproduced, I've long developed very different expectations.

TB - It is clear we have a different focus from a genre perspective and for the majority of what we listen to and maybe how we listen and what we listen for.

I could list hundreds of SACDs in my collection. But, I will give you 3 of my most favorite labels that have been quite active in classical, hi rez Mch recording over the last 15 years: BIS, Channel Classics and RCO Live. There are many other labels I could name, but there are hundreds of discs in just these 3 catalogs. All that I have heard on these labels is truly exceptional.

I cannot vouch for their sound in stereo, because I do not listen that way if a Mch version is available. I do not have the stereo mastered rip, just the Mch in that case. But, with a properly set up Mch system of quality, it is far beyond anything I ever encountered in my decades as a stereo listener to vinyl or CD. Imaging, spatial presentation, immersion, and the general sense of transparency are the best I ever heard. I do not think it is close. They are also sonically far beyond any of the 2 channel remasterings of classic stereo performances I have, including many expensive Japanese "audiophile" hi rez remasterings. Love the music in those oldies and they are enjoyable in their way, but the sound is obviously dated.

I have also heard some more recent CDs, these days typically recorded, mixed and mastered in hi rez before conversion to RBCD resolution. I have found many of them to be superior sonically to older CDs. One recent example is the Stravinsky Rite of Spring with Yannick Nezet-Seguin/Philadelphia Orchestra on DGG. But, hi rez through the recording and playback chain is generally a worthwhile step up, IMO. Hi rez, 96k or better downloads sound somewhat noticeably superior to the CD in my experience. But, Mch in hi rez is still much closer to my sense of the sound heard at a live concert, consistently. I have thousands of LPs and CD's lining my walls. I just never listen to them. Maybe they act as decent acoustic treatments.

Incidentally, I listen to stereo sources in stereo, not with artificially derived Mch. Some like derived Mch, but I don't.

 

[NorthSky]

Is digital multichannel/stereo (SACDs, DVD/Blu-ray Audios, etc.) images better than analog stereo/mono (LPs, cassettes/tapes, etc.)?

 

[RayDunzl]

I'm stereo only here. Never experimented with additional channels, though I could, and I might sometime.

I used to spend more time in the sweetest spot, but that is where the only seat was. Now the SP is in the middle of the couch.

It's quite tolerable where ever I sit now, and I can't even imagine better at the sweetest spot, so...

If it's only me I'll sometimes offset the timing of the output of the speakers to bring the impulse response at my end of the couch or at here at the PC from offset to normal.

Here's the unadjusted stereo impulse response from a log sweep with the microphone at the right end of the couch. The left speaker is the timing reference so the right speaker shows up too soon, before the reference time - 0 ms.

Other test-tone experiments say to me timing is more effective than volume offset at repairing an offset listening position.

Here, I would delay the right speaker by 1.792 milliseconds to bring the two speakers back into time alignment at the napping spot and merge the two impulses into one.

You can see (as I interpret it) a very small volume difference (based on the compared height of the two impulse arrivals).

I haven't tried auto-creating a new correction filter for the DSP by putting the microphone at the alternate locations.

Hmmm... now I have something else to try when I get around to it. Will it do the timing adjustment and merge the impulses or not? I've only set DRC up from dead center so far. * mine doesn't...

 

[TBone]

Fitz, I've heard some really nice MC HT setups, they image nothing like real life to me, but that doesn't make 'em any less impressive. I've also heard some dreadful HT applications.

A few recent MC to stereo down-mixes have proved excellent. I would imagine that MC follows the same basic set of rules; sq being slaved to orig recording/transfer. MC is just not my preferred game, perhaps I'm challenged ... took me near forever to get 2 channels correct.

I think; hi-rez is only justifiable if the original material was natively recorded in hi-rez digital. Otherwise?

When sharing rips, I'm often asked why I still rip LP to only 16 bit, as if that limitation represents a constant liability. Such a big misnomer is the supposed advantage of 24 bit ripping; the biggest liability of ANY vinyl rip is rarely related to #samples & bits, but rather the turntable, arm, cart, phono-stage & setup itself.

16 bit digital demonstrates those dependencies perfectly.

 

[TBone]

I used to spend more time in the sweetest spot, but that is where the only seat was. Now the SP is in the middle of the couch.

You're not kiddin' ...

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm stereo only here. Never experimented with additional channels, though I could, and I might sometime.

I used to spend more time in the sweetest spot, but that is where the only seat was. Now the SP is in the middle of the couch.

It's quite tolerable where ever I sit now, and I can't even imagine better at the sweetest spot, so...

If it's only me I'll sometimes offset the timing of the output of the speakers to bring the impulse response at my end of the couch or at here at the PC from offset to normal.

Here's the unadjusted stereo impulse response from a log sweep with the microphone at the right end of the couch. The left speaker is the timing reference so the right speaker shows up too soon, before the reference time - 0 ms.

View attachment 2521

Other test-tone experiments say to me timing is more effective than volume offset at repairing an offset listening position.

Here, I would delay the right speaker by 1.792 milliseconds to bring the two speakers back into time alignment at the napping spot and merge the two impulses into one.

You can see (as I interpret it) a very small volume difference (based on the compared height of the two impulse arrivals).

I haven't tried auto-creating a new correction filter for the DSP by putting the microphone at the alternate locations.

Hmmm... now I have something else to try when I get around to it. Will it do the timing adjustment and merge the impulses or not? I've only set DRC up from dead center so far. * it doesn't...

Which works best to fix offset imaging with test tones is going to come down to the frequencies involved. With simple tones we hear position based upon timing to 800 hz. Position based upon intensity above 1500 hz and a mix between 800 hz and 1500 hz. The intensity will somewhat predominate unnaturally between 800 and 1500 hz with stereo speakers because the separated speakers create a timing offset between your ears. The louder signal will combine so the crosstalk result of two speakers is delayed and the intensity once again over-predominates vs natural sounds that don't rely on phantom images.

If using headphones the results would be different.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Fitz, I've heard some really nice MC HT setups, they image nothing like real life to me, but that doesn't make 'em any less impressive. I've also heard some dreadful HT applications.

A few recent MC to stereo down-mixes have proved excellent. I would imagine that MC follows the same basic set of rules; sq being slaved to orig recording/transfer. MC is just not my preferred game, perhaps I'm challenged ... took me near forever to get 2 channels correct.

I think; hi-rez is only justifiable if the original material was natively recorded in hi-rez digital. Otherwise?

When sharing rips, I'm often asked why I still rip LP to only 16 bit, as if that limitation represents a constant liability. Such a big misnomer is the supposed advantage of 24 bit ripping; the biggest liability of ANY vinyl rip is rarely related to #samples & bits, but rather the turntable, arm, cart, phono-stage & setup itself.

16 bit digital demonstrates those dependencies perfectly.

As I mentioned earlier, your vs. my own genre preferences come into play in a big way. Hi Rez and Mch are niches, classical a tiny niche as well. However, classical music provides the most widely available and the best live performance situations in good halls from which to develop a listening standard for the sound of live, unamplified, acoustic music, IMHO. And, yes, hearing a good Mch setup optimized for music is not easy. Dealers typically have a Chinese Wall between high end, stereo music systems and HT Mch systems not geared for music, so never the twain shall meet in the showroom. But, I can do it in my home.

I do agree that hi rez is only justifiable with natively recorded hi rez material. Mark Waldrep of AIX recordings says the same thing. Remasterings from analog or up conversions of RBCD digital might be slightly preferable, but they are hardly worth it.

 

[TBone]

Mark Waldrep of AIX recordings says the same thing

yes, heard his music/system, Mark's certainly not shy about voicing his opinion on any format, that said, his excellent Paul Rogers / BadCo saga's were more of interest to me ...

 

[NorthSky]

This Paul Rogers? → http://www.allmusic.com/album/muddy-water-blues-a-tribute-to-muddy-waters-mw0000095931

Good Blues album.

 

[Cosmik]

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...

 

[TBone]

Imaging is a construct of recorded music, therefore dependent on its source/recording techniques. The vast majority of studio recordings include artifacts which provide an illusion of greater solidity, width & depth. In my experience, frequency response deviations often alter image. Some of my early Eagles recordings sound woolly - regardless of system/speaker.

 

[NorthSky]

I listen to music and watch movies with DSP bass management and room eq and I don't feel shortchanged in imaging for one cent.
And the same when I listen in the "naked", totally transparent, without any added DSP or control of the tones.
The speakers and amps and sources and rooms are already controlling the tones. But not always perfectly, so fine tuning helps for sure, even tweaking.

And I 100% agree with TBone above; imaging is mainly the characteristic of the music recordings themselves. There are more bad music recordings than there are good ones. Music evolution teaches us that. We learn how to spend our money more wisely as we evolve in our pursuit of musical high fidelity. Even our music taste follows the chords of our soul. ...The music that vibrates best with our own relaxing comfort zone. ...Where and when we're in harmony with the entire ground under our feet and the entire sky above our heads.
...When we're one with the universal space.

 

[Cosmik]

Imaging is a construct of recorded music, therefore dependent on its source/recording techniques. The vast majority of studio recordings include artifacts which provide an illusion of greater solidity, width & depth. In my experience, frequency response deviations often alter image. Some of my early Eagles recordings sound woolly - regardless of system/speaker.

It is obviously dependent on the recording, but if the recording contains some strong imaging, an inferior system can still lose it. The key to not being inferior - I suggest - is low distortion and perfect matching between the channels, with good separation, accurate time domain, flat frequency response etc. all being bonuses.

For the most accurate crossovers and all the other good stuff it has got to be... DSP.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It is obviously dependent on the recording, but if the recording contains some strong imaging, an inferior system can still lose it. The key to not being inferior - I suggest - is low distortion and perfect matching between the channels, with good separation, accurate time domain, flat frequency response etc. all being bonuses.

For the most accurate crossovers and all the other good stuff it has got to be... DSP.

Even actives without DSP image very well. Distinctly better than passive systems.

Tim

 

[Thomas savage]

Even actives without DSP image very well. Distinctly better than passive systems.

Tim

Yea and if we all put the amps in the speakers world hunger would be history..

My passives image well

 

[Cosmik]

Even actives without DSP image very well. Distinctly better than passive systems.

Tim

I guess so, but you know, the best capacitors might be 1% and resistors 0.1% - if people go to those extremes - but DSP crossovers are much better than that. Plus they're infinitely adjustable etc. etc.

 

[TBone]

It is obviously dependent on the recording, but if the recording contains some strong imaging, an inferior system can still lose it. The key to not being inferior - I suggest - is low distortion and perfect matching between the channels, with good separation, accurate time domain, flat frequency response etc. all being bonuses.

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 ...

For the most accurate crossovers and all the other good stuff it has got to be... DSP.

Yes, you covet DSP active speakers, passive is beyond the pale, I know your preference, certainly doesn't have to be mine.