ACTUAL MUSICAL SOUND VS. MEASUREMENTS

@mikhailark

I’m not taking about a sound field distribution across a room, which I would call "soundstage," but more the ability to "precisely locate" specific instruments in a 3-dimensional space, which I would call "imaging."

If this can in fact be shown with some calculations and a waterfall plot, I’ve never seen one and I’m asking you to show us all some representative examples, because I think that if it could be done, it would be done.

In fact, I've never seen "soundstage" calculations/graphs presented, so maybe you could steer us to some of those too.  Comparisons would be most interesting.

@toddalin - It can be done, but who exactly needs it - as in who would pay for it. Audiophile community does not care. Speaker measurements exists because they are used in professional audio where no one "just trust their ears". Now, imaging is a sound field distribution over time. So it is minimum 6-dimensional measurement that is hard to visualize. 3 space variables, time, then as a minimum - frequency and amplitude at a given point in space. More realistically several frequency variables (coefficients in frequency domain after Fourier transform). So we are facing many, many variables. Hard to visualize, but it can be measured and compared. Will require several microphones at different points, measurements of the room itself and a bunch of math to extrapolate the complete field.

I care, and I’m betting a whole lot of other people do too!  And don't think that any company that could show that theirs excels above more expensive others wouldn't do it just for bragging rights.

Stereophile Magazine reviewers continually talk of soundstage and imaging or lack thereof. If it could be measured, there would be mention of it.

So then, show us some/one example.

https://youtu.be/lwFaSzavd9c

And if you could reasonably measure such a thing, how do you determine what is better?  It's not like S/N ratio where you shoot for a lower number.