• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Do loudspeakers need to image precisely?

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
4,912
Likes
2,118
Location
Central Fl
#61
To me "imaging" relates to a visual stimulus, not an aural one. True, we have come to accept it as an aural artifact but it is done through manipulation. Very small settings (Jazz trio for example) and sitting at a specific location may present some aspects of what audiophiles termed as imaging but for the most part . it is with our eyes we see. our ears present a much more diffuse "image" ...
That small Jazz trio is a good example of a musical performance that "could" be captured accurately with proper mic techniques but even that is rarely done. Most all recorded music today is the result of manipulations by those involved in the production. I find good image portrayal by a speaker system important as it adds to the illusion of a live experience, even though real imaging at live concert is a rare experience. But how can you tell what is "accurate" since in 95% of the cases it is a totally faked manipulation? Is the experience of the speakers completely disappearing as a point source a result of speaker design or recording technique? Impossible to tell even if two systems are listened to side by side with each producing a different result. LOL
Personally I first try to setup the L & R speakers in a manner that gives the best result IMO. Then I committ the mortal audiophile sin and most of the time use some digital upsampling to include my other 7 surround effect speakers. Contrary to what I may have said before, I'm currently finding Auro 3D to give the best results here. It minimally changes the base stereo L & R image while adding some room reflections all around, I like it.
YMMV
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,018
Likes
892
#62
ANECDOTE ALERT

FWIW,

I once listened to a rock recording on a setup with Trinnov. Without the Trinnov DSP the details of the recording were...incoherent (in lack of a better word). With Trinnov the same recording was more detailed, and relaxed too (less listening fatiguing?).

With jazz material on the same setup, with or without Trinnov wasn’t such a big deal.

Go figure.

It seems like some music needs a setup that is perfected for us to have maximum enjoyment. Both analog and digital measures may get us there towards «perfection», but most (99 percent?) systems aren’t perfected at all or the listener sits outside of sweetspot.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,018
Likes
892
#64
That small Jazz trio is a good example of a musical performance that "could" be captured accurately with proper mic techniques but even that is rarely done. Most all recorded music today is the result of manipulations by those involved in the production. I find good image portrayal by a speaker system important as it adds to the illusion of a live experience, even though real imaging at live concert is a rare experience. But how can you tell what is "accurate" since in 95% of the cases it is a totally faked manipulation? Is the experience of the speakers completely disappearing as a point source a result of speaker design or recording technique? Impossible to tell even if two systems are listened to side by side with each producing a different result. LOL
Personally I first try to setup the L & R speakers in a manner that gives the best result IMO. Then I committ the mortal audiophile sin and most of the time use some digital upsampling to include my other 7 surround effect speakers. Contrary to what I may have said before, I'm currently finding Auro 3D to give the best results here. It minimally changes the base stereo L & R image while adding some room reflections all around, I like it.
YMMV
Auro 3D on jazz only, or all types like TV, film, rock, electronica etc.?
 

garbulky

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 14, 2018
Messages
691
Likes
163
#65
I don't experience great imaging when I listen to an electronically amplified blues band in a small crowded bar without any mixing board and each instrument having it's own amp.

I don't experience great imaging when I'm walking through a train station and hear a busker playing the saxophone down the corridor.

Last night, while eating dinner al fresco in Waikiki, there was a folk guitarist about 70 meters away, across a pond, with palm trees in between, using a cheap portable PA, the sound reverberating around a courtyard. There wasn't anything I would call imaging.

On Sunday there was a street parade, with a marching band, and the wall of sound coming from them had no resemblance to what I think of as imaging.

When I hear a live violin playing through an open window, it's not a sense of imaging that lets me know it's live.

For me, it's transients and dynamics.
I have heard all these circumstances you talk about. In those ocassions, I argue that there is still imaging. The acoustics of your recording venue provide a sense of space and scale to the music. Good imaging can transform your living room into the recording space. The reverberations of the sound bouncing off the surfaces give you a sense of the size of both the environment and the instrument.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
13
Likes
3
#69
To me "imaging" relates to a visual stimulus, not an aural one. True, we have come to accept it as an aural artifact but it is done through manipulation. Very small settings (Jazz trio for example) and sitting at a specific location may present some aspects of what audiophiles termed as imaging but for the most part . it is with our eyes we see. our ears present a much more diffuse "image" ...
That is why i listen to music performances with closed eyes. Also ask a blind person Whatsapp she of het hears. You will get a description of an image of soundstage of however you word it.
 

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
4,912
Likes
2,118
Location
Central Fl
#70
Auro 3D on jazz only, or all types like TV, film, rock, electronica etc.?
I use Auro 3D to upsample most stereo music sources. Video sources are usually decoded in their native format Dolby Digital + 5.1 for TV, BD discs in Atmos, DTS MA, etc. Auro coding isn't used for BD discs in the US and looks to be dieing out overseas.
 

Ron Texas

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
925
Likes
492
Location
Equidistant From Everywhere
#71
That small Jazz trio is a good example of a musical performance that "could" be captured accurately with proper mic techniques but even that is rarely done. Most all recorded music today is the result of manipulations by those involved in the production.
Perhaps that's why early stereo recordings from the late 50's and early 60's sound so good. Back then they used simple setups like 2 or 3 microphones, or a single stereo microphone. Perhaps modern recordings are "overcooked" and dynamic range compression isn't the only sin.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
4,271
Likes
1,354
Location
Seattle Area
#73
Perhaps that's why early stereo recordings from the late 50's and early 60's sound so good. Back then they used simple setups like 2 or 3 microphones, or a single stereo microphone. Perhaps modern recordings are "overcooked" and dynamic range compression isn't the only sin.
Vintage mono is even better.
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
6,251
Likes
2,296
Location
Riverview, FL
#74

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
4,271
Likes
1,354
Location
Seattle Area
#76
I have heard all these circumstances you talk about. In those ocassions, I argue that there is still imaging. The acoustics of your recording venue provide a sense of space and scale to the music. Good imaging can transform your living room into the recording space. The reverberations of the sound bouncing off the surfaces give you a sense of the size of both the environment and the instrument.
Unless your listening room is anechoic, what you're hearing on playback is a mashup of the acoustic venue of the recording and your room.

Now, I'll agree that can sound pleasant and convey emotion. But it's an artifice and not strictly accurate. Play that same recording back in a different room and it will sound different.
 

SIY

Major Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
1,492
Likes
2,145
Location
Phoenix, AZ
#77
Perhaps that's why early stereo recordings from the late 50's and early 60's sound so good. Back then they used simple setups like 2 or 3 microphones, or a single stereo microphone. Perhaps modern recordings are "overcooked" and dynamic range compression isn't the only sin.
IME, most of the jazz recordings from that time are almost exaggerated pingpong. Lots of hard left, hard right stuff, maybe to show off the stereo effect. I assume that the classical recordings from that era better?

I do remember Gordon Holt complaining about multi-miking classical stuff back in the mid to late '60s, so any simplicity in recording didn't last long... That said, the multimiked recordings from John Eargle are fantastically good.
 

watchnerd

Major Contributor
Beer Hero
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
4,271
Likes
1,354
Location
Seattle Area
#79
Early recordings were direct to disk. There was no mixing. Artists approached the microphone for solos. Some of the stuff in American Epic is amazing.
FWIW, some of my mono recordings also have a great sense of depth, which leads me to believe imaging isn't just a stereo thing.
 

DDF

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
62
Likes
35
Location
Ottawa
#80
Churches have wonderful acoustics, interesting.
I think precision in speech is important, and I didn't say that this was true unequivocally. Some do, some don't. I've noticed that amateur or student orchestras often play in churches so reverberant that its difficult to hear individual flubs. I wonder if this is by intent? I recall seeing one university concert (Shostakovitch) where a cello was playing solo but accompanied and I could see the bow move but couldn't pick the cello out of the reverberant sea of bass and viola. The venue was "forgiving" and larger sounding than most, maybe akin to unresolving and euphonic audio gear. For these orchestras, the synergy works.

OTOH, sonics are glorious at the following church, for chamber music or choral. I've been to many concerts here and even the balcony sounds fantastic (which is the opposite of our orchestral hall)
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/loca...rees-to-talks-to-buy-dominion-chalmers-church

The top chamber groups usually play there (I just saw Romeros a couple weeks back). The venue is starting to be used for orchestral works, and it'll be interesting to see if it can contain the larger scale without getting mushy.
 
Top Bottom