I agree with @willgolf above: I welcome more info on 'imaging'. What exactly is it, and how do you test or listen for it? I understand that it has to do with the localization of instruments and voices in space, and maybe also with the speakers 'disappearing'. But how is it different from similar terms, like 'soundscape'? One reason I ask, is that imaging seems to be very different things in my sound systems. On the one hand, the floorstanders in my main rig are bipoles that fill the room with sound, very lively, but maybe not the last word in precision. On the other hand, the Arche Fr2 single driver speakers give a very sharp pinpoint type of sound picture - extremely different. My Nightowl headphones, also single drivers, give a third kind of picture, somewhere in the middle, but more like the floorstanders. I find that with these very different presentations, deciding what is 'best' is difficult.
- ...
- 44 posts total
@linkoping perhape2 the Volti Razz: "....the stereo image projected by the Razzes was proportionately larger, and the musicians (and groups of musicians, including whole orchestras) seemed more real than with the Zus...." Stereophile here " ....to cast a wide and deep soundstage, even with their rear panels placed close against the wall (front porting helps here…). These speakers do a more than decent job of “disappearing” in spite of their size, Presentation of image was also considerably better than I would have suspected, with solo instruments or vocalists suspended in precise three-dimensional space within the soundstage ..." Part Time Audiophile here
|
The main thing that hinders imaging in my systems, is wrong cues, nonharmonic distortion especially in the high treble. It the treble is wrong the image gets blurred. This is a problem with many causes, including bad recordings and production, use of compression, as well as the playback system. Testing Tori Amos: Speaking with trees (streaming). Her voice is distorted. No matter the system I use for playback. Otherwise the image is quite good, but this - no thank you. I have not heard the LP, though. |
Checking a ’standard’ LP in terms of sound, Stones: tattoo you, I find that the sound is quite good and coherent, but here also, the recording is a bit too hot when the band sings and plays at full throttle. This is a remarkably "thoughtful" album, and the music sounds best when it is more subdued, moody, Even with Mick singing falsetto. On the other hand, my best sounding LPs display few of the problems mentioned. The music is just there, I don’t worry about imaging or depth etc. Recently, Endresen and Wesseltoft Out here in there. Shelby Lynne Give me some loving. Cooder etc By the river. The best ECM and Speakers Corner records. Analogue Productions Doors at 45 rpm. And many others. All LPs. Streaming is still not up to the same level of emotional involvement in my system. It has been argued that bipole speakers give a somewhat diffuse image, not as sharp as monopoles. This may be true, but a lot can be done by positioning the speakers and tuning the system including the room. I find that, with my best-sounding LPs, my bipole speakers sound sharp and detailed - I am not sure if I need any more. The precision, needed for a good image, is good. Atlhough not quite as good as with the best pinpoint speakers I've heard. The same thing goes on, with my medium or not so good sounding recordings, but now the outcome is no longer so good. My system is musical but also analytical, so it is like the system can now sound worse. Or more revealing. I hear the problems of bad recording, production etc. Its a give and take.
|
@willgolf wrote:
+1 From Alex Halberstadt’s Stereophile review of the Klipsch La Scala AL5’s:
This to me underlines how a vital aspect of speaker "imaging" has become or rather for long has been a (limited) thing of itself in audiophilia - that is, as something that is less a representation of a live event and more a cultivation of sorts into the the smaller, more laidback ".. razor-sharp sonic holographs" that is so prevalently hailed by many in this hobby of ours. Later in his review Halberstadt writes:
This may (or may not) to some degree tie into the following comment by John Atkinson in his measurements section of the La Scala’s:
Using horn-based speakers myself I can attest to the importance of either physically time aligning or (actively) digitally delaying the individual driver segments to more properly cohere into a sonic "simultaneity" of a presentation as a whole. One can almost "see" the radiation bubble forming more smoothly in front of you when carefully applying the right amount of delay, and the positive effects it has on spatial acuity. Certainly the "life-sized" aspect of imaging or overall presentation that Mr. Halberstadt touches upon - ideally in proper conjunction with delay or timing execution as well as attention into power response and dispersion pattern matching at the crossovers - in general is severely overlooked. However to think that he was only presented to a fraction of a larger potential, while still being so enthused about what he heard through the La Scala’s, puts into perspective the outlook that is possible (and fully attainable) with horn-based speakers when more closely considering all or at least additional aspects in their implementation. |
- 44 posts total