Pinpoint imaging

[Al M.]

If pinpoint means literally pinpoint then I don't think I have ever heard a system with that level of imaging. Thinking of something simple like a central female vocal. When I setup a system the head is headsized. The sound doesn't come from a spot in space that is 1mmX1mm.

From the Magico M7 thread, to continue discussion here:

Some systems do give small images, but especially, they give sharp images, which adds to the sensation of pinpointing. Real life images are never outlined sharply. They are always diffuse in their outlines.

The two things I typically hear in systems are either the sound is like a blob. Meaning images are huge and blurred together into some unrecognizable thing. Or the images are unstable. Meaning things like the clarinet player is sometimes over in the violin section and sometimes back visiting with the horns and sometimes sitting next to the oboeist.

Agreed, that's all bad. It's also not what opponents of pinpoint imaging advocate.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

moved from the Magico M7 thread.....post#330

in my room tuning process over years of efforts, especially the final 9 months, the room's ability to portray a complete seamless soundstage improved clearly. what exactly does this mean?

now what i get is side to side, bottom to top and above, even behind me to the sides, of coherent information. where the images are certainly different for each recording, but the images and the space around them is compete with full frequency response. sometimes a recording has things tracking side to side, or over the top. better than my Dolby Atmos 9.3.6 Trinnov object based multi-channel can accomplish in my dedicated home theater in my house.

pin point? yes, sometimes exactly that. some soundstage information is exactly at a pin point, many drum kit solos have spooky levels of clear pin point info arrayed around the room. but it's different each time. would everyone appreciate all this equally? reading some posts here maybe not. but visitors seem to appreciate it. when this is really working the gradations of energy and substance seem real. artifact? not to my senses.

and i love where it can take the music. last night i played one of my Jazz at The Pawnshop reels. we all know the recording. but it was very very real. a live club in my room and lots of pin point imaging along with depth and width and huge amounts of ambience and the sense of weight and scale of the room. very real. spooky. and very matter of fact, unlimited headroom, ease and authority. just there and pulsing with energy.

the ability of reproduced music to be real is astounding. part of it is that pin point imaging.

 

[Tuckia]

This is obviously a tangent from another discussion, which I haven't read yet, but I'm here right now.

IMO, live recordings don't contain pin point imaging. Reflected room ambiance, crosstalk in the mics, etc. don't allow sounds like percussion to have specific localization. It's in a cloud area. However, studio engineered soundscapes don't have these limitations. I've found abrupt percussive sounds to be perceived as pin point, with a discrete X,Y, Z coordinate, in the right system. If your hearing is any good and the phasing is accurate, this is not hard to perceive.

 

[Tangram]

This is obviously a tangent from another discussion, which I haven't read yet, but I'm here right now.

IMO, live recordings don't contain pin point imaging. Reflected room ambiance, crosstalk in the mics, etc. don't allow sounds like percussion to have specific localization. It's in a cloud area. However, studio engineered soundscapes don't have these limitations. I've found abrupt percussive sounds to be perceived as pin point, with a discrete X,Y, Z coordinate, in the right system. If your hearing is any good and the phasing is accurate, this is not hard to perceive.

This may seem heretical but I prefer “studio” sound to “live” sound. Most of the music I prefer has been manipulated in the studio.

 

[Tuckia]

I won't go so far as to claim a preference, but in my experience the most interesting 3D sounds are studio creations. Almost all recordings are multi-track, engineered studio creations. Even purist two-channel live recordings rely a lot on decision making by the recording engineer. As a space junky, I value tastefully done 3D sounds. Some of it is borderline in calling it music. Whatever. If you want to hear studio effects running around the room put on something like Felix Laband - Dark Days Exit. If not immersed in pin point 3D imaging, something isn't working right.

That said, pin point imaging for vocals is a perversion of the concept. No one wants to hear a pin head sing. Rather vocals should be an infinite mosaic of a pin point assemblage emanating from the proper volume.

Mike Lavigne. I've never heard a system like yours. Must be a treat.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This may seem heretical but I prefer “studio” sound to “live” sound. Most of the music I prefer has been manipulated in the studio.

i'd have to say that my best sounding tapes are live recordings. but this is a few dozen recordings. whereas my best vinyl recordings are not always 'live'.....many are studio recordings. but those are generally 50's and 60's recording direct to 2 track, not multitracked.

so my 'truth' is that the simpler the recording process combined with inspired performance is where the magic is.

large scale recordings are a separate category. so many variables. early ones seem to be better generally, which were also simpler. but many exceptions.

 

[Tuckia]

Natural coherence is the most rare attribute. If initial quality, performance and recording, is high, further studio perversion can muddy the waters.

 

[Tangram]

Natural coherence is the most rare attribute. If initial quality, performance and recording, is high, further studio perversion can muddy the waters.

That’s a matter of perspective. For example, if Dark Side of the Moon is your favourite recording, then you would disagree. For the music I like, studio effects often enhance my enjoyment of the music.

 

[PeterA]

This is obviously a tangent from another discussion, which I haven't read yet, but I'm here right now.

IMO, live recordings don't contain pin point imaging. Reflected room ambiance, crosstalk in the mics, etc. don't allow sounds like percussion to have specific localization. It's in a cloud area. However, studio engineered soundscapes don't have these limitations. I've found abrupt percussive sounds to be perceived as pin point, with a discrete X,Y, Z coordinate, in the right system. If your hearing is any good and the phasing is accurate, this is not hard to perceive.

Two questions:

1. What are the dimensions of that pin point percussive sound as presented by your system in your room?
2. Do you hear an actual image with dimension and edges (like a real image you see), or are you really hearing and identifying a location in space from which the sound originates?

 

[Tuckia]

Two Answers:

1. A sphere of radius .43 inches. Please excuse the faux specificity. Hard to prove. Hard to disprove. I mention a percussive sound, which I would suggest is in a limited frequency range, which human hearing can successfully echo locate. Also, the emanating source must have a small surface area. Think snapping twig. It's enough for Clint Eastwood to work with. As emanating surface area increases in size and complexity, such as human head or piano, this is much more difficult for a system to reproduce.

2. In my cumulative experience, an aggregate of systems owned - I have heard parts of edges, surfaces, and specific points within a location. I believe this incompleteness to be an issue of recording, medium, and replay system fidelity. It doesn't quite do it all. The best recordings in the best formats in the best systems should be able to provide greater clarity of this assembly of sounds. With all of the engineer's sonic patchwork, injected noise, and myriad of phase shifts within a replay chain (inductance, capacitance) which is variable throughout the frequency ranges, this is a tough illusion to pull off. In the best moments I have perceived a singing, breathing head in 3 space with sides, top, and bottom with vocal cords separate from mouth opening and nostrils. I assume this is a psycho acoustic perception trick as most vocals are recorded with only one microphone - not four. Also, occasionally I can perceive a visual of a drum kit, percussive sounds emanating from specific locations surrounded by ambient room reflections to augment the virtual construction. Studio sounds, say electronic sounds, are easier to reproduce because they are simpler in origin and located in two channel by the engineer. Live two channel recorded well may be the most revealing test for a system's phase coherence.

Please elaborate on what you hear.

Where I work we have a 3D laser scanner to document industrial equipment and buildings. A single scan looks proper until you rotate the rendered model on the computer screen. Once you do this the missing information is apparent. We can't visually autofill the missing information. It's relatively 2D. So a better scanning technique is to take readings from two different locations for a stereo effect. The computer combines these scans. This is a much better rendering. However it is still not complete as the blind spots become apparent once rotated. A third scan, optimally located, can fill in even more of the gaps. Point is, even with purist two channel, we are not capturing all of the 3D information within an acoustic space. It is a fixed perspective which limits the degree of recreation possible. Move to the side of the bandstand it sounds different, right? Whether that matters is entirely debatable.

Add a few more audio channels to the recording and playback and much more is possible. Not referring to cinema systems used today.