Pin point imaging isn't for everyone


A subject my posts touch on often is whether pin point imaging is desirable, or natural. While thinking about wide-baffle speakers in another thread I came across this quote, courtesy of Troels Graveson’s DIY speaker site. He quotes famous speaker designer Roy Allison:

I had emphasized dispersion in order to re-create as best as I could the performance-hall ambiance. I don’t want to put up with a sweet spot, and I’d rather have a less dramatically precise imaging with a close simulation of what you hear in a concert hall in terms of envelopment. For that, you need reverberant energy broadcast at very wide angles from the loudspeaker, so the bulk of energy has to do multiple reflections before reaching your ear. I think pin-point imaging has to do with synthetically generated music, not acoustic music - except perhaps for a solo instrument or a solo voice, where you might want fairly sharp localization. For envelopment, you need widespread energy generation.


You can read Troel’s entire post here:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Acapella_WB.htm

This goes, kind of, with my points before, that you can tweak the frequency response of a speaker, and sometimes cables, to get better imaging, but you are going significantly far from neutral to do so. Older Wilson’s were famous, and had a convenient dip around 2.4 kHz.
erik_squires
@erik_squires 
Instruments are always louder at the sides than in the center
In the few [under 5] times I've listened to compressed music, I would agree there is a hole in the center. On well recorded material on my systems, never.

Most music, live or recorded is pretty static.

Can you give an example of uncompressed material where a horn on the side is quieter in the center?
@ieales

I’m going to have to listen for a while, in most recordings they don’t actually move around.

Probably going to have to find some choral works. :)

There is by the way quite a body of work on HRTF and how the phantom center can’t compensate for it, which is related to what I’m discussing, and I think a lot of people will have trouble hearing it if they’ve spent decades listening to 2 channel stereo. You don’t notice it until it’s gone.

Kind of like recording a room of people talking. You listen with headphones on and suddenly the acoustics of the room become glaringly obvious.


But again, please put this along with geek curiosities. I'm not going to bang a drum that we must all do something differently. I'm an apartment dweller living happily with 2-channel for now. I learned all of this while having a HT set up and listening to the difference between a real center speaker and phantom, and listening to music with and without a center. It's curious and interesting, but not worth upending how we enjoy music.

Best,
E
@david_ten poses a very interesting question:

"Do differentials in volume guide perception of distance (of the performer) relative to the listening position?."

Volume plays a role, but it is my understanding is that reflections play the primary role in the perception of distance. Two of my kids are amateur musicians and on their recordings they often manipulate the perceived distance of a voice or instrument by adding the appropriate reverberation. When done right, timbre is enhanced as well.

So we have the reflections on the recording, and then we have the reflections of the recording within the listening room.

Unfortunately the speaker/room interaction usually results in "small room signature" cues which tend to be dominant, and which overlay or degrade the soundstage depth that was on the recording.

If the setup does not superimpose a strong "small room signature" atop the the recording we are more likely to hear its inherent soundstage well, including distance of the performers (depth).

At the risk of over-generalizing, early reflections are the ones most responsible for a "small room signature" which (among other things) degrades soundstage depth. And it seems that the ear is able to extract beneficial depth and ambience information present on the recording from relatively late reflections, so apparently late reflections do not convey a dominant "small room signature".

Managing the room reflections well (a complex topic, and something easier said than done) can allow you to readily hear the different soundscapes from one recording to the next, giving you a good excuse to rediscover your music collection, and giving you new appreciation for really good recordings.

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.

Duke
@erik_squires posted an interesting observation:

"Even with very good imaging I notice the following: Instruments are always louder at the sides than in the center."

Several weeks ago I had the privilege of setting up a set of my speakers in a world-class dedicated home audio room. My speakers were not replacing the excellent speakers already in the system, but the owner was kind enough let me set up my speakers in his system for my own education.

I solicited criticism from those present, because I learn more from my critics than from my fans. One listener noticed that instruments were not as loud at the sides as what he was used to hearing! In other words, he was hearing the exact opposite of what you describe, when using my speakers.

I think the difference was this: My speakers were fairly directional and toed in aggressively, so they were generating a very weak reflection off the nearby side walls. The room owner’s speakers had a much wider radiation pattern and were only toed in a little bit, so they were generating strong sidewall reflections.

I’m not saying this is the whole story on why "instruments always sound louder at the sides than in the center", but it may be part of it.

(I am well aware of the inevitable comb filtering in the phantom center image, which is one of the reasons why I do my final crossover tweaking listening to a mono signal over a single speaker.  Comb filtering of the center vocalist could sucker me into making the 2 kHz region too loud.)

Duke