Is imaging the same as "sound stage" and does it require cleaner electronics?

[MylesBAstor]

Sound staging and imaging is not really my thing for precisely the reasons Tim point out. For the most part it is hit or miss. When done right it contributes to the illusion of reality. When done wrong it can be very annoying. For example when the same instrument ping pong back and forth from left to right. Unfortunately many systems and rooms are incapable of supporting a credible soundstage or image. Even worse the recording engineer (assuming the recording was not done in somebody's garage) has already decided everything for us. Luckily for me I like jazz trios, quartets and quintets. Not particularly challenging or annoying if you err a little. Pity the classical music lover with a small room and small speakers. In my situation having the vocalists stand out front of the band or slightly to either side does not seem to be that big a problem. Often the drummer either picks up his drums and leaves or the trumpet player sits on his lap. Frequently the musicians are layered from front to back on top of one another.

I found this: http://www.deltamedia.com/resource/stereo_microphone_techniques.html . It is a pretty good primer on microphone techniques.

I'm not really a believer in the whatever floats your boat theory. I think there should at least be a standard even if you don't choose to adhere to it.

Sorry greg but that's not my experience with small speakers.

I don't know what you consider a small room but my old room was 19 x13 with the speakers facing the short way. I had the wonderful small Alon speakers in ten or so years ago (whose name escapes me at the moment) and had none of the problems you described. The soundstage and imaging were spectacular and every bit the W/P that I had in house too. In fact, small speakers are usually noted for their imaging and soundstaging--lacking more in low end extension.

When we're talking about imaging and let's restrict it to jazz/classical, the miking technique as you point out, is a major contributor to imaging/soundstaging and centerfill as many companies such as Decca have shown. For instance, M-S is going to sacrifice center fill.

When it comes to jazz, Contemporary was the first jazz label to lock into the idea of the "phantom" middle channel image. Till then, you hear on Blue Note, Riverside, Prestige, etc., with their 2 channel recordings, that "hard left, hard right" or "dual mono" effect. It was the Art Pepper Plus 11 recording that served as the breakthrough in imaging for jazz labels. Contemporary had to bring in extra mixers to accomodate all the instruments and in the end, they had one instrument left over. The question was then, do we put that instrument in the left or right channel? Someone there suggested, "why don't mix mix 1/2 into the right and 1/2 into the left" and voila, they had a center channel image. (something that the classical labels were quick to understand but jazz much slower and later for some reason.)

I also think that's why on many jazz labels the cymbals and drums tend to be sometimes splashed against the back of the stage, eg. they mixed the mikes from the different cymbals, drums, etc into the different channels.

 

[muralman1]

You're saying Scintillas have Bi-pole tweeters, Dipole midrange and bass and the result is a cardioid pattern? Really????

I am repeating what other learned reviewers, and Apogee personnel have said in the past. Scintillas sound so different than other Apogees, something must be radically different. Somehow the tweeters rule the roost. The bass is a dipole. The mid-ribbon is captive between the tweeters. They speak of one voice.

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Imaging and soundstage are normally a trade off. Better pin-point imaging, less soundstage spaciousness. More soundstage spaciousness, less pin point imaging. You can try it for yourself. Move the speakers together until focus is great but the soundstage is quite limited between the speakers, say 6ft speaker separation. It feels like you are looking onto the presentation. Now move the speakers to say 13ft apart (or as wide as you can get them). Soundstage is large, but imaging is very diffuse.

Whilst not perfect the Home Acoustics Alliance have some good terminology on this - they call it Focus and Envelopment.

Maybe imaging can be improved by cleaner electronics, but in my experience the biggest effect can be had by treating mirror points and speaker positioning. Strong reflections from mirror points typically smear imaging in the direction of that reflection i.e. you have an untreated ceiling reflection, your imaging will be smeared upwards. It is possible to design acoustical treatments to someone's preference of focus vs envelopment. If you always listen to orchestral music maybe you want a more enveloping sound, so then you would leave the side wall reflections untreated. If you want a more focused image, absorb the sidewalls. If you want a balance of focus and envelopment then use combination absorptive / diffusive treatement.

 

[Gregadd]

No need to apologize Myles. I should have been more precise. I think the link I provided does a better job of describing the problem. Mini-monitors or point sources say the
Tablette are world champ imagers.
To do a full symphony orchestra justice you need a speaker with:
Excellent off axis response
Capable of high SPL with wide dynamic range
A room large enough to allow for the symphony orchestra size.
To me that usually means big speaker, big room.

 

[fas42]

Well done, Tim! I added a redundant coda to our conversation on Devialet before realising it's all been been happening here ...

It's absolutely fascinating to see this bouncing around of the terms "soundstage" and "imaging" in this thread so far. For me, the only criterion that counts is whether it sounds real, which probably in reality (humour not intended!) encompasses both those terms fully. I want to both "see" the instruments (imaging?) and for them to sound real (soundstaging?); the point is, that you CAN get both.

In all the postings I have come across so far in this and other forums, muralman1 (vince?) has come across as having closest to what I'm talking about (sorry Tim!!!). I know that people have very different criteria: I saw a quite well known reviewer on an audio site regularly some years back, and we listened to two very different setups consecutively, one which was head and shoulders over the other in creating a sense of realism for me, and you could have knocked me over with a feather when he said that the other system was obviously superior! Dear, oh, dear, I thought ...

I will give an example of what I call real, which I have posted elsewhere. A year or so ago, there was a proper big band playing at a festival, through the typical passable PA setup. The stage was low and the setting intimate so I could easily walk around well behind the PA bins, and stand next to the stage, about 10 feet away from a dozen pieces of brass. It was magnificent! The sound rolled over me like a tsunami, a huge, thunderous and exhilarating wave of sensation, and my ears soaked it up with effortless ease. At a climax I yelled at the top of my voice, and I could not hear a skerrick of my addition to the sound! THAT is volume, and THAT quality of sound is my measuring stick ...

Now, that is not what I have at this very second, but within the constraints of what the amp is capable of, that quality of sound is what I want my system to be capable of. I also know, because I have experienced it, that it is possible ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Getting life-size images from all sources of sound is probably very expensive to reproduce and I am not sure what sort of recording techniques and technologies would be able to give you that. Or, I haven't experienced it yet.

ack, I would say the answer to the being expensive point is a "depends". You could either: spend a great deal of time and effort in fine-tuning what you have now OR buy very well engineered gear, which may be (but certainly not necessarily) expensive, and need to do less fine-tuning. It has already been said that the RIGHT pro gear (horror, horror!) can get you very close, by a number of people. As the name of the thread implies (very strongly!), it is all about the system being "clean", that is, producing the least amount of low-level, intrusive distortion. Once you do that, everything else will just fall in place, the recording techniques, etc, have almost nothing to do with it ...

Frank

 

[RUR]

Imaging and soundstage are normally a trade off. Better pin-point imaging, less soundstage spaciousness. More soundstage spaciousness, less pin point imaging. You can try it for yourself. Move the speakers together until focus is great but the soundstage is quite limited between the speakers, say 6ft speaker separation. It feels like you are looking onto the presentation. Now move the speakers to say 13ft apart (or as wide as you can get them). Soundstage is large, but imaging is very diffuse.

Whilst not perfect the Home Acoustics Alliance have some good terminology on this - they call it Focus and Envelopment.

Maybe imaging can be improved by cleaner electronics, but in my experience the biggest effect can be had by treating mirror points and speaker positioning. Strong reflections from mirror points typically smear imaging in the direction of that reflection i.e. you have an untreated ceiling reflection, your imaging will be smeared upwards. It is possible to design acoustical treatments to someone's preference of focus vs envelopment. If you always listen to orchestral music maybe you want a more enveloping sound, so then you would leave the side wall reflections untreated. If you want a more focused image, absorb the sidewalls. If you want a balance of focus and envelopment then use combination absorptive / diffusive treatement.

Nyal, what a timely comment, as it's exactly what I'm tinkering with at the moment. At sidewall FRP, hemispherical diffusion = wide soundstage, too much sibiliance. Full absorbtion = great imaging, loss of width. What combo absorbtive/diffusive products would you recommend? Tall and thin preferred, if possible.

 

[microstrip]

Although people usually consider that Imaging and soundstage are normally a trade off, I have owned a speaker with excellent imaging and soundstage - the electrostatic Quad ESL63. Properly placed and amplified they were able to have a very large soundstage, exceeding room dimensions, and pinpoint imaging, when played at the proper level. The proper level and the bass limitations were their main limitations - too many times this optimum level was close to the physical limits of the speaker.

With several of the speakers I have owned I found that soundstage size was also associated with position that handled the best bass performance.

Imaging can be also influenced by the capability of differentiating the sources but not exactly locating them with pinpoint accuracy. For example, if you have two sopranos singing simultaneously close to each other, sometimes you can source their relative position and separate them very easily, suggesting excellent imaging, but the localization can be diffuse.

 

[fas42]

Although people usually consider that Imaging and soundstage are normally a trade off, I have owned a speaker with excellent imaging and soundstage - the electrostatic Quad ESL63. Properly placed and amplified they were able to have a very large soundstage, exceeding room dimensions, and pinpoint imaging, when played at the proper level. The proper level and the bass limitations were their main limitations - too many times this optimum level was close to the physical limits of the speaker.

My point exactly. In this case, the physical capabilities of the speaker driver mechanism restrict what is possible ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Oh dear, I can see where this thread is heading ...

I once knew a chap whose car had square wheels. He complained that the ride was terrible, so he talked to his friends and they said things like: "You've got to improve the cushion in the car seat", "No, no, put pillows on top, and above your head so that when you bounce up and down it doesn't hurt as much", and "Hmm, maybe, but what I did was wrap these great air bags around and between the springs; that helped a lot!"

I said, "Why don't you get rid of those square wheels?"

He said, "Naah, it's impossible to get anything but square wheels. It's just a fact of life!"

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

In all the postings I have come across so far in this and other forums, muralman1 (vince?) has come across as having closest to what I'm talking about (sorry Tim!!!).

No offense taken. Given that the overwhelming majority of source material out there consists of studio recordings or close-mic'd live recordings, what "real" sounds like coming out of a reproduction system is totally up for grabs. My objective is to reproduce the recording, within the limits of my budget and my physical space, and the result within those limits is excellent clarity, coherence and pinpoint imaging in that limited space. What Muralman has going on with large di-pole ribbons in a medium to large room is very different. I have the opportunity to listen to very good bi-polar and di-polar systems regularly, and I appreciate the effect. Given the space, I'd have both. But if I can only have one, I'll take the one I have. I love that pinpoint imaging effect.

Tim

 

[fas42]

My point is that muralman1 appears to have broken through the barrier of the speaker becoming completely invisible (and I could be wrong about this!). At one point he mentioned being able to put his ear literally against the ribbon of one speaker and hear nothing but music. He also very specifically says that this effect is extremely fragile: if he does one tiny, tiny thing wrong or changes the slightest aspect of the electronics of his setup the illusion is completely lost. These to me are key markers that he HAS got it, even though it may be tenuous ...

muralman1?

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

My point is that muralman1 appears to have broken through the barrier of the speaker becoming completely invisible (and I could be wrong about this!). At one point he mentioned being able to put his ear literally against the ribbon of one speaker and hear nothing but music. He also very specifically says that this effect is extremely fragile: if he does one tiny, tiny thing wrong or changes the slightest aspect of the electronics of his setup the illusion is completely lost. These to me are key markers that he HAS got it, even though it may be tenuous ...

muralman1?

Frank

If Muralman has broken through the barrier to a completely invisible speaker, he has accomplished, through tweaks, what audio engineering has been unable to accomplish through decades of research and development. I have my doubts. I do not doubt a bit, however, that if he puts his ear right next to the transducer he hears "nothing but music." I accomplish that with my headphone system daily. It's not that there is no noise there, it's that masking effect keeps me from hearing it. In any case, it seems that Muralman has worked hard on his system and has accomplished one thing that seems to elude even the most dedicated audiophiles, perhaps especially the most dedicated audiophiles: Muralman, it seems, is satisfied.

No small feat, that.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Ah-ha, thank you, Tim! The headphone thing is another aspect of what I am talking about, and I have vaguely referred to it at times ...

Yes, headphones ARE speakers, and speakers ARE headphones.

What the ...?!!?

Yes, I have hooked up up a set of (cheap!) headphones and set them up as speakers. That is, stuck them at a reasonable level above the floor midway between the speakers, with the ear pieces pulled as far apart as possible and facing me, wound up to max clean volume, stood back and listened to them as speakers. Obviously, the bass is nothing to speak about, and it's relatively quiet, but how about the rest of it? An interesting experiment ...


Likewise, you mentioned earlier moving forward until your head was literally midway between the speakers. My goodness, what big headphones you've got!! Just reach out and pull those speakers towards you, shrink them down a bit, put a wad of sponge around the speaker edge and glue that around your ears -- voila!

How does that comparison work out?

Frank

 

[muralman1]

My point is that muralman1 appears to have broken through the barrier of the speaker becoming completely invisible (and I could be wrong about this!). At one point he mentioned being able to put his ear literally against the ribbon of one speaker and hear nothing but music. He also very specifically says that this effect is extremely fragile: if he does one tiny, tiny thing wrong or changes the slightest aspect of the electronics of his setup the illusion is completely lost. These to me are key markers that he HAS got it, even though it may be tenuous ...

muralman1?

Frank

Hi Frank, it is Vince. You are taking me literally, and I thank you for that. Being a survivor of parochial school through hi-school, I have an allergy against lying.

 

[MylesBAstor]

No need to apologize Myles. I should have been more precise. I think the link I provided does a better job of describing the problem. Mini-monitors or point sources say the
Tablette are world champ imagers.
To do a full symphony orchestra justice you need a speaker with:
Excellent off axis response
Capable of high SPL with wide dynamic range
A room large enough to allow for the symphony orchestra size.
To me that usually means big speaker, big room.

That's different

Bartlett's book on microphoning techique is excellent and easy to understand!

 

[fas42]

Sorry, Vince, I don't quite get the "parochial school through hi-school" reference ??

Thanks for getting on-board!
Frank

 

[fas42]

It's not that there is no noise there, it's that masking effect keeps me from hearing it

Bingo, you've just said it, and it didn't register to me reading it the first time through. Yes, it IS a masking effect, the same masking effect that allows you to listen to a good busking musician on a noisy street! My God, how can you possibly appreciate what the chap's doing with all that that terrible noise around. Easy! The ear/brain is getting enough good stuff, "clean" sound from the instrument, to be able to mask out the extraneous noise and "distortion" from the street. Your head is clever enough in this case to know what is coming from the instrument, and what is coming from everything else. It easily discards what is not relevant and allows you to focus on what you're interested in at that moment, the music, quite easily.

That's exactly what one should be trying to get their system to achieve ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

A bit late for this now, but may be useful to reference:

From J. Gordon Holt's An Audio Glossary ...

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage

stereo imaging The production of stable, specific phantom images of correct localization and width

soundstaging, soundstage presentation The accuracy with which a reproducing system conveys audible information about the size, shape, and acoustical characteristics of the original recording space and the placement of the performers within it

Frank

 

[Nyal Mellor]

Nyal, what a timely comment, as it's exactly what I'm tinkering with at the moment. At sidewall FRP, hemispherical diffusion = wide soundstage, too much sibiliance. Full absorbtion = great imaging, loss of width. What combo absorbtive/diffusive products would you recommend? Tall and thin preferred, if possible.

The ones I am familiar with and work best are the RPG BAD ARC and the Primacoustic FlexiFuser. RPG BAD can be done in all kinds of custom sizes and fabric colors (at a cost) and is 4" thick. The FlexiFuser is 8" deep and only comes in a 2ft by 4ft. The FlexiFuser in particular is an awesome product since it is user adjustable so you can tinker with the balance of absorption vs reflection to your hearts content. PM me if you need more details I am a dealer for both companies.