And interestingly even imaging strongly depends on the tonality which I long knew from the theory but was the last days impressed to see how big the influence is. I recently engineered some 3-way loudspeakers for myself and was listening to them EQed to the usual listening position target I use and the image was completely flat, stuck on the loudspeakers that I even worried that it was due to the problems in the vertical directivity as they are non-coaxial. Then I changed the correction target and my jaws dropped as not only they sounded much better but also suddenly the soundstage became at least 2-dimensional (X,Y) and I could "listen into" some well made recordings.Ah... that favorite word among audiophiles: "imaging." It seems everything is about imaging. If that word doesn't get mentioned for description of audio gear, it must suck.
No, it is not about imaging. First and foremost a speaker has to have faithful tonality. Sit in a blind test of speaker and this is by far what you brain attempts to analyze. Only when you have great and accurate tonality does imaging come in play.
1) "Martin Logans impress few -- there are more serious ESL's out there (Quad, Sanders, Sound Labs, etc.)" -- alienating ML fans a bit -- yes? Ray, want to weigh in here?
It is NOT.Every room is different, and placement also effects it. So, unless you get 100 people who own these speakers to do the exact measurement and average them, getting an anechoic measurement is the next best thing.
Because directivity changes with frequency, it naturally changes imaging as well as you observed.And interestingly even imaging strongly depends on the tonality which I long knew from the theory but was the last days impressed to see how big the influence is. I recently engineered some 3-way loudspeakers for myself and was listening to them EQed to the usual listening position target I use and the image was completely flat, stuck on the loudspeakers that I even worried that it was due to the problems in the vertical directivity as they are non-coaxial. Then I changed the correction target and my jaws dropped as not only they sounded much better but also suddenly the soundstage became at least 2-dimensional (X,Y) and I could "listen into" some well made recordings.
Even with constant directivity or listening in the free field (only direct sound) our sense of direction is influenced by the tonality as I linked above from the Blauert bands (another link, but unfortunately also in German http://www.sengpielaudio.com/DieBedeutungDerBlauertschenBaender.pdf ) due to the adaptation/learning to reflection dips and different HRTFs from different directions, which is also how binaural recordings and systems like the Smyth Eealiser work.Because directivity changes with frequency, it naturally changes imaging as well as you observed.
But isn't that a matter of personal preference? To use examples with whom everyone is familiar, J. Gordon Holt didn't care about imaging, while Harry Pearson was so obsessed with it that he coined the term "soundstage."Ah... that favorite word among audiophiles: "imaging." It seems everything is about imaging. If that word doesn't get mentioned for description of audio gear, it must suck.
No, it is not about imaging. First and foremost a speaker has to have faithful tonality. Sit in a blind test of speaker and this is by far what you brain attempts to analyze. Only when you have great and accurate tonality does imaging come in play.
Then there is the issue of artificial imaging. Much of studio recordings is not about imaging. It is about great and accurate tonality. Fantastic recording. Great dynamics. Where something lands between speakers can almost be secondary. It is artificially created anyway.
Reminds of a story I have told before along these lines:
----
At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year, Blue Coast music had some of their artist come and play live. After one of the performances finished, I asked Cookie Marenco (owner of the labels) if she "sweetens" the mix with reverb and such. She said of course. The signer was shocked. She said that she hated that and wanted the sound to be as we were hearing it there (dead). Cookie then asked for the audiophiles in the room to raise their hand on which way they wanted it, and all said with the reverb!
---
What you cherish is not supposed to be there all the time. It is this "sameness" that wore me off from panel speakers. Everything is not supposed to sound large and have diffused sound and "imaging."
I guess when stereo was new people fell in love with phantom imaging. I know I did back in 1960s when I was young. For people who are stuck playing music of that era maybe that is all there is. But for someone like me that lets Tidal subscription rip through album after album, I want to experience as is and not with artificial "imaging" added to it all. It gets tiring.
I know shaking the addiction to imaging is hard but if you are to enjoy all types of recorded music, you need to get there. Don't sacrifice so many other things in the name of imaging.
Personally, I'd love to hear the LX-521 -- I've never had a chance.
FWIW: Don't. I had MG1.6QR for some 4 years and enjoyed them very much. I ended up selling them because the tweeter was a bit strong for me.Now I regret paying $2390 with tax for my 1.7i. The Kef R3 cost less and probably sound better.
It is!It is NOT.
Imaging isn't unimportant. It's just not a magical component of a specific speaker design. Good imaging is what happens when a good set of speakers is properly set up in a room.
Quite possibly you would not like their measurements, there are some speakers which we "subjectively" tend to like "because" of their flaws or in "spite" of them. However you want to spin it. Objective measurements are great in that you know you will get a top notch product that likely will satisfy you, but there are some speakers (things) that you just choose subjectively. The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car. Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?... I would love to see some proper measurements of Quads...
I could go through the reasons why an on-axis anechoic measurement is completely inappropriate for a dipole radiator but why bother. Pearls before swine...It is!
Once again this is why I have multiple speakers, front ends and amps. Sometimes I want the effects some equipment adds and sometimes I want the absolute clarity and unadulterated truth of the particular recording as it exists. Some people find an as-close-to-totally-neutral-as-possible system boring and lacking in ALL of the audiophile buzzwords, but I find getting close to the real recording very instructive and fascinating if not always “euphoric.” Sometimes I want to enjoy a few effects, like the “space” of my panel speakers or the tone control and distortion add-ons of tubes (especially SETs) and then sometimes I just want to goof around with the sound.Ah... that favorite word among audiophiles: "imaging." It seems everything is about imaging. If that word doesn't get mentioned for description of audio gear, it must suck.
No, it is not about imaging. First and foremost a speaker has to have faithful tonality. Sit in a blind test of speaker and this is by far what you brain attempts to analyze. Only when you have great and accurate tonality does imaging come in play.
Then there is the issue of artificial imaging. Much of studio recordings is not about imaging. It is about great and accurate tonality. Fantastic recording. Great dynamics. Where something lands between speakers can almost be secondary. It is artificially created anyway.
Reminds of a story I have told before along these lines:
----
At Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year, Blue Coast music had some of their artist come and play live. After one of the performances finished, I asked Cookie Marenco (owner of the labels) if she "sweetens" the mix with reverb and such. She said of course. The signer was shocked. She said that she hated that and wanted the sound to be as we were hearing it there (dead). Cookie then asked for the audiophiles in the room to raise their hand on which way they wanted it, and all said with the reverb!
---
What you cherish is not supposed to be there all the time. It is this "sameness" that wore me off from panel speakers. Everything is not supposed to sound large and have diffused sound and "imaging."
I guess when stereo was new people fell in love with phantom imaging. I know I did back in 1960s when I was young. For people who are stuck playing music of that era maybe that is all there is. But for someone like me that lets Tidal subscription rip through album after album, I want to experience as is and not with artificial "imaging" added to it all. It gets tiring.
I know shaking the addiction to imaging is hard but if you are to enjoy all types of recorded music, you need to get there. Don't sacrifice so many other things in the name of imaging.
Can’t imagine why somebody buys a Mercedes - just a car - but a Ferrari is a different animal...Quite possibly you would not like their measurements, there are some speakers which we "subjectively" tend to like "because" of their flaws or in "spite" of them. However you want to spin it. Objective measurements are great in that you know you will get a top notch product that likely will satisfy you, but there are some speakers (things) that you just choose subjectively. The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car. Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?
The point being: If we always would be objective in all our choices, maybe we would all have a Toyota Camry as a car.
Why would you even think of a Mercedes, or Ferrari?
I could go through the reasons why an on-axis anechoic measurement is completely inappropriate for a dipole radiator but why bother. Pearls before swine...
I'm not totally sure. For a few very good recordings my K&H O300D throw a bigger (and much more convincingly) soundstage than I ever remember my MG 1.6 were able to.[..] I do not doubt that you can find better speakers that work with every type of music. That said, the larger-than-life soundstage of the Magnepans is not something I've heard from Genelec's.
I don't think this explanation is correct. With magnets on one side of the foil you should get 2nd order THD because the magnetic flux increases when the foil moves towards the magnets, and decreases when it moves back.[..] The very highest end Magnepans have magnets in front and behind the panel. The older magnets-in-front generate the great EQ effect. As the mylar membrane moves toward the magnets, the field flux density increases, which increases efficiency (even more excursion). That mechanism creates the acoustic "peaks" not found in the electronic signal. This is why the classic large Magnepan speakers can be so intoxicating for specific music. With larger panels, you get more bass and with true aluminum ribbons, you get more extension.
Later, Magnepan moved the magnets to the rear so that there is nothing "blocking" the mylar and it's more "transparent." This is great for audiophile advertising, but the Magnepan geometry (as seen with this LRS test) is not a low diffraction setup anyway. With rear magnets, the field flux decreases so you don't have the same "speed/attack" as before.
Whereas the front models are adding extraneous EQ, the rear magnets are also generating an attenuating EQ.