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 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
Duke:
That's very interesting! :) I'll have to cogitate on this for a bit. :)


Thanks so much for the detailed background information.

Best,
Erik
Erik, that primary 2 kHz comb-filter crosstalk notch is something recording engineers have to be aware of. When listening nearfield to mixing monitors in a fairly dead room, the notch is not significantly filled in by the reverberant field, so the engineers need to take it into account. Fortunately it is NOT some great mystery, the professionals all know about it, and in fact often use it to precisely locate the exact center of the sweet spot!!  

Duke
Duke,

I'm a little curious about when they were aware of it though.

Having had a HT system with and without a center, the benefit of the center was much better than I had expected. I wonder if that's because the HT system at the time didn't do more than a simple split of the center signal?

Best,
E
I'm also thinking of early sympohonic recordings which used the 3 microphone approach, which were down mixed to 2 channel stereo.