Whenever imaging or soundstage are mentioned, I like to remind people about these resources: The following provide tests, with which one may determine whether their system actually images, or reproduces a soundstage, as recorded. ie: On the Chesky sampler/test CD; David explains in detail, his position on the stage and distance from the mics, as he strikes a tambourine(Depth Test). The LEDR test tells what to expect, if your system performs well, before each segment. The Chesky CD contains a number of tests, in addition to the LEDR. (https://www.audiocheck.net/
Soundstage and image height, does it exist?
On another site, there is a discussion on soundstage, and there are a few people clamming, that, since there is no vertical information encoded on stereo recordings, that soundstage height does not actually exist. It is a product of our minds filling in missing information.
Are they correct?
Please explain your position, with as much technical details as you feel needed.
- ...
- 63 posts total
To quote Bobby Owsinksi from The Mastering Engineer's Handbook:
Stereophile also has an article about it, written in 1989 (!) by Bob Katz:
Luckily it's 2022 and we don't have to buy expensive CDs anymore, as there is an online version of this test here: http://www.audiocheck. The Stereophile article has a rather lengthy explanation about what you should hear - the short version again quoted from the Mastering Engineer's Handbook is:
|
I apologise as I have not had time to read all the responses to your question about image height but this article was published in the Absolute Sound and was part of a series of articles about being able to determine the best digital audio music files - wav/flac etc - and computer file servers - windows/Mac. The writers of the artiicles used image height as a 'measurement' of sound quality - the higher the image the higher the quality. I use this method - not in a measured way - but listening for the height which equates to me as better/best sound quality. It usually correlates to high frequency content and higher or highest resolution in the music being played. The article - one of them is here - if you scroll down until you find image height the context can be read. Hope it helps?
|
= High Fidelity = Full range. Box/xover speakers aint going to out perform a Full range, = Sensitivity issues. under 90 db vs over 92db, High sens always wins out in a shootout every single shootout. My tech here in new orleans continues his mantra,, **Well you do have a xover in your speaker, ..** I tell him over and over,, sure its a single cap, acting as a filter on the 2 tweeters per channel. Each T has a 8.2 Mundorf SESGO cap,. Which blocks fq's at the 4kish range. I am speaking of xovers on both tweeters and woofers ina typical box design. My Seas Thors had 1 coil + 2 resistors + 4 caps per tweeter then the woofer had like 1 res + 1 coil + 1 massive cap. A Full Range has no xovers. Which allows the purity of the music to sing natural. A woofer never will out shoot a Full Range, = Higher end FR, not lower end. Some FR are garbage. A few are true high end speakers, which IMHO will never be surpassed in high fidelity. I have a 8 inch FR + a 6 inch FR + dual T's per channel. Open baffel. FR sound like garbage ina closed/ported box. But of course most of you here have not heard a FR in action, so you would not know what I am tlking about. For me, FR is top dawgs. 2nd to none. Out shoots all panels/Stats/horns. |
height which equates to me as better/best sound quality. It usually correlates to high frequency content and higher or highest resolution in the music being played
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, the higher sens drivers always presents a cleaner more accurate = more detailed musical image vs low sens drivers.
Ideally no driver under 91db and not over 95db are the ideal sens range for any driver |
- 63 posts total