2. misc-audio
  3. 1226673073

resolution and imaging

As my system has evolved over the years, I've noticed a change in how I perceive resolution. Resolution and imaging now seem inextricably linked to me, in other words, maximized imaging is absolutely necessary to maximizing resolution.

Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.

With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.

And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.

I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.

IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
sns
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
must maximize image dimensionality

Well maybe. If it is on the recording sure but a system that maximizes image size or dimensionality on every recording simply lacks precision. The hallmark of precision is razor sharp tight imaging where things fall precisely along a line between the speakers - on recordings mixed that way of course.

As an example, I listened to a system the other day with $16K speakers and as much if not more in ancilliary gear. I listened to track 3 of Amused to Death. The soundstage was incredibly wide - impressive as hell - backgroud vocals coming as if somebody was speaking immediately on your left close to your ear - but, unfortunately, Roger Waters and the female vocalist where NOT centered precisely (as if standing there) - a kind of broad vague supersized female vocalist and broad inflated oversized Roger Waters is what I heard - an image roughly the size of the width of the speakers from the front - hardly convincing but "maximized dimensionality" for sure.

I am sure many of you know this recording - so you can go check your system - does it "inflate" the dimensionality or do you get BOTH the outrageous sound effects (in the left ear) AND the tight small correct sized image of a female vocalist and alternately Roger Waters in front of you.

Food for though - inflated dimensionality is not always better - it just means the system has phase issues. Like a good camera lens - every blemish or defect to the lens and its construction will broaden or blurr an image and lens perfection will make things as sharp and narrowly defined as they can be.
ptmconsulting
1,000 posts
 
"Laugh" - I've heard this oversized imaging on a lot of line arrays. It's like Nat King Cole's nose is 3 feet high and 2 feet wide right between the speakers. The sax stands 8 feet tall, etc.

Yes, the spaciousness is precise and the dynamics are great, but in my view the line arrays I've heard belong in a concert hall.

Enjoy,
Bob
jax2
3,031 posts
 
Food for though - inflated dimensionality is not always better - it just means the system has phase issues.

Amused to Death deliberately takes advantage of some very distinctive technology called Qsound to create spatial effects via processing. There are not that many projects recorded using this effect and it is more of a novelty in my opinion. Here's a quote from that wiki:

It is important to distinguish 3D positional processing (example: QSound i.e. the multi-channel QSystem professional processor used in the production of pop music and film audio) from stereo expansion (examples: QSound QXpander, SRS(R)Sound Retrieval System). Positional 3D audio processing is a producer-side technology. It is applied to individual instruments or sound effects, and is therefore only usable at the mixing phase of music and soundtrack production, or under realtime control of game audio mixing software. Stereo expansion (processing of recorded channels and background ambience) is primarily a consumer-side process that can be arbitrarily applied to stereo content in the end-user environment using analog integrated circuits or digital signal processing (DSP) routines.

That said, holographic presentation is very important to me in listening to my system, and is the primary reason I think I prefer SET amps. As far as live music, I think it depends entirely upon the space/venue and the way the music is amplified (if it is). In general, it certainly does exist in that we can hear spatial cues, but many performances I hear live do not occur to me as spatially compelling, for lack of a better descriptor.

Furthermore, I think it's pretty absurd to compare, or rather to base one expectations of a home system upon what live music sounds like. They are two entirely different things and can be enjoyed on different levels and to different degrees. Fundamentally they both present music and connect with us emotionally on that level, but trying to reproduce "live" at home is the proverbial carrot on the stick - it's never going to happen and is a sure way to stay on the merry-go-round of continuing to strive for the impossible (when there is SOOO much to enjoy in what actually IS possible and holographic presentation is part of that).

I do enjoy, Amused to Death, by the way, I just consider it's spatial presentation to be a novelty and I don't think I'd want to hear all my music presented that way.
newbee
4,768 posts
 
Its hard to take issue with your observations as resolution/imaging is a priority for me, especially when the resolution is so fine that you get excellent front to back spaciality. BUT...........

I go to live unamplified performances regularly, and I try when at all possible to sit in the center main floor seats in rows D thru H. Apart from fantastic dynamics which I do hear, what I don't hear is high frequency overload from the strings, great seperation of individual instruments, and the general spaciality effects of a recording. Now I'm sure that if I was on the podium I would hear it differently.

So when folks say they don't need all of the 'imaging' that we prize I can easily understand why. Interestly I lived without it (the appreciation of these reproduction qualities) for years and still enjoyed music thoroughly. Perfhaps even more so then than now.

Lets face it. Excellent imaging is a product of excellent components AND set up, but it is far more the result of fantasy that the stereo recording/reproduction process creates than anything else. And 'imaging' is, IMHO, what drives so much of the interest in Audio as a hobby. And this is exactly what music enthusiasts do not NEED, all of this audio refinement, to get a full measure of what is recorded. Ignorance can be blissful! :-)
Post removed 
More to discover