What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

[microstrip]

I agree, and believe it's more a function of the recording. And once more we have a discussion about gear on WBF that seems to disregard the recording, but focuses on a comparison to live music, which is a flawed perspective imo. Live music is live music, and recordings are done with the artistry of the recording artists placing mics, mastering, generally altering the recording to fit what they want to get out of it, how they feel the music is best presented, which may be significantly different vs someone listening to the performance live.

Once again we need to be aware of the circle of confusion wrt the recording and playback process, since there are no standards for systems and rooms used for recording, mastering or playback there is uncertainty in what is "correct".

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html

That said there are certainly ways to setup an audio playback system that can manipulate the soundstage and imaging, this is obvious. I'd also agree with morricab if the system NEVER reproduces recordings with pinpoint imaging, then either the recordings chosen NEVER have that type of presentation, or the system is setup in accordance to that person's personal preferences and doesn't present a fully accurate version of the recording. Nothing at all wrong with this, but it's simply not what was intended to be heard by the recording artists. This shouldn't be mistaken for thinking that "PPI" is simply an artifact of the playback system, this is not reality.

I think we should also consider that the playback system may be MORE accurate vs the system the recording was made on, in which case imaging will differ between systems, so it's certainly possible a playback system can go the other way and produce images that are more PPI vs intended by the recording artists. This happens all the time with many high end systems, especially ones with Accuton drivers and SS amplifiers. Some of these systems can produce images that seem to be unusually and unnaturally small, to the point it's hard to imagine this is intentionally done in the recording, and the solution is to introduce distortions to make image size larger. This can also go too far and produce images that are much larger than life. In these systems the cables and AC power quality can have MASSIVE effects on the presentation and image size.

Excellent post Dave. But I would like to add that the Circle of Confusion as defined by F. Toole addressed mainly tonal aspects, not the localization in the soundstage. F. Toole considered that stereo was a system deprived of proper localization and always dismissed the effort of the high-end and audiophiles to improve the system towards a more "realistic" playback.

 

[DaveC]

Excellent post Dave. But I would like to add that the Circle of Confusion as defined by F. Toole addressed mainly tonal aspects, not the localization in the soundstage. F. Toole considered that stereo was a system deprived of proper localization and always dismissed the effort of the high-end and audiophiles to improve the system towards a more "realistic" playback.

Sure, but this talk of PPI is more subtle vs localization and varies from system to system in the same way tonality does.

 

[microstrip]

as an aside , I hear the term pin point imaging when discussing Wilson speakers due to the ability of changing the position of the upper modules. Hence only one precise sweet spot where, once seated, you hear pin point imaging

Not exactly true in my system with the XLF's Steve. Once we adjust the modules we get a good focusing of image in a broad area. As far as I see Wilson people have avoided using the word pinpoint in their writings - they prefer something like "have the image "snap" into focus".

This seems clear from their most frequent choice of recordings to carry setup - the Ragtime Razzmatazz piano CD or the This is the Day - Christy Moore.

 

[Al M.]

Really? I was talking about the RECORDING ARTIST. And I directly addressed intent as well. Lol...

Looking at the average recording studio, it does not seem to me that most have speaker configurations that give them the ability to judge pinpoint imaging, like a more typical audiophile set-up would enable to do. I may be mistaken, but I would guess pinpoint imaging is one of the last things on many recording engineers' mind.

 

[Robh3606]

Looking at the average recording studio, it does not seem to me that most have speaker configurations that give them the ability to judge pinpoint imaging, like a more typical audiophile set-up would enable to do. I may be mistaken, but I would guess pinpoint imaging is one of the last things on many recording engineers' mind.

I wouldn't be to sure about that. I own a pair of JBL M308 Mk 2 and use them as intended so same positioning as bridge top monitors. You have to remember these are inexpensive active near field monitors used with a subwoofer so they are commonly used by many. They do a damn good job as far as imaging and bridge top near field monitors are a very common sight in studios.

Rob

 

[morricab]

How is "something wrong" with my system if it can pinpoint image, but I deliberately choose it not to do so by toeing out my speakers?

In that manner I get it closer to what I perceive as the live experience. What is "wrong" with that?

I never said a word about your system, Al. But if it pinpoint images with all recordings then...

 

[morricab]

Surely. It is why I requested a clarification. It is not possible to debate "natural" sound imaging with people using such different nomenclatures.

I associate pinpoint with the ability to locate or identify placement and movement in the soundstage with good accuracy. I understand things can become more complicated when we start addressing discrimination of positions in the soundstage.

I would agree as your definition fits with the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[morricab]

You kept reminding it depends on the recording. I think we all understand that. But if you go back to see what ddk and Peter had said since started in other thread they meant the kind of ppi happen over and over regardless of recording. That was their context. And they were saying the repeated over and over ppi that caused by certain gears create homogenization of sound and listening become boredom. That was also the context. I do agree with them. And for me my boredom overtime extended to the etched type sounding recording too. That is why I and many other people I see in this forum choose to prefer the type of recording that does not emphasize etched sound or some say "hi fi" recording.

I also said that if a system always or never makes precise imaging then probably it has something wrong with it. If it has been “detuned “ to reduce imaging capability then it has an additional problem...the user

 

[morricab]

Looking at the average recording studio, it does not seem to me that most have speaker configurations that give them the ability to judge pinpoint imaging, like a more typical audiophile set-up would enable to do. I may be mistaken, but I would guess pinpoint imaging is one of the last things on many recording engineers' mind.

What do you know about typical studios or recording engineers? These statements are based on pure speculation...

 

[Al M.]

What do you know about typical studios or recording engineers? These statements are based on pure speculation...

That is why I said I may be mistaken. So what do you know about typical studios or recording engineers, other than yourself?

 

[morricab]

It doesn't sound like your system fits @morricab 's definition of "never".

If you want to deliberately setup a system to “detune “ its natural traits then you are doing a kind of compensation for a potential flaw or at least a trait you don’t like.
most people are toeing in speakers to affect dispersion to improve imaging specificity.

 

[bazelio]

Looking at the average recording studio, it does not seem to me that most have speaker configurations that give them the ability to judge pinpoint imaging, like a more typical audiophile set-up would enable to do. I may be mistaken, but I would guess pinpoint imaging is one of the last things on many recording engineers' mind.

Al, I have to disagree here on more or less all accounts.

 

[bazelio]

If you want to deliberately setup a system to “detune “ its natural traits then you are doing a kind of compensation for a potential flaw or at least a trait you don’t like.

Yep; this is just the honest truth. The terms "detuning" and "compensation" perfectly describe what's being done - without necessarily implying "wrong", IMO. I just can't get on board with the notion that image specificity is somehow a coloration, but that removing it by toeing out far off-axis is somehow not a coloration. There may be (and probably are) colorations in both cases. The end user just picks his poison. On-axis, nine times out of ten, should be the lesser colored option (purely from the speaker design perspective) - regardless of which option one prefers.

 

[microstrip]

I would agree as your definition fits with the Cambridge English Dictionary

Nice to know that our physics textbooks also fit the Cambridge English Dictionary ... They were my inspiration for my definition - but I will look for Harry Pearson on this subject in the TAS issues of the 80's as soon as I can.

 

[microstrip]

Looking at the average recording studio, it does not seem to me that most have speaker configurations that give them the ability to judge pinpoint imaging, like a more typical audiophile set-up would enable to do. I may be mistaken, but I would guess pinpoint imaging is one of the last things on many recording engineers' mind.

Sound engineers do not need to re-invent the wheel - the sound literature is flooded with such information. No need to guess, sound engineers thought about these aspects since the beginning of stereo. The industry people also carried similar studies - for example see https://www.researchgate.net/public...ources_using_coincident_microphone_techniques .

Just one curiosity - a very early technique for localization of events in radiation wire detectors was acoustical. People located the position of discharge based on the noise emitted by the spark using two microphones!

 

[Al M.]

Sound engineers do not need to re-invent the wheel - the sound literature is flooded with such information. No need to guess, sound engineers thought about these aspects since the beginning of stereo. The industry people also carried similar studies - for example see https://www.researchgate.net/public...ources_using_coincident_microphone_techniques .

Just one curiosity - a very early technique for localization of events in radiation wire detectors was acoustical. People located the position of discharge based on the noise emitted by the spark using two microphones!

Nobody says that there is no localization of sounds without pinpoint imaging. Of course there is.

Stereo is all about localization, just not necessarily about small point sources of sound with exact outlines.

 

[microstrip]

Nobody says that there is no localization of sounds without pinpoint imaging. Of course there is.

Stereo is all about localization, just not necessarily about small point sources of sound with exact outlines.

Intensity stereo is intrinsically pinpoint. However, fortunately sound engineers and audio designers use psychoacoustic ‘tricks’ to extend the capabilities of the system. This opens a Pandora box however - there is no standard to control and evaluate them. All that is possible is listening to the results to evaluate them.

If you are interested on this complex and long subject get this great book "Recording Studio Design" by Philip Newell. I found it because Philip Newell wrote a challenging article in HiFiCritic concerning the sound of cables and explaining it! It was the first time I saw a sound engineer writing with some interest on the subject.

I quote a few sentences from the book:

"Most domestic listeners want to hear music in a way that is pleasing. This
is a valid requirement as they are seeking enjoyment, and they are at liberty
to manipulate the above variables to suit their own requirements. However,
what is pleasing should not be confused with what is on the recording
medium. Stereo spaciousness can be very pleasing, but its presence in a
domestic environment, or if created in a control room of any given design, is
by no means necessarily an inherent property of what is on the recording. The
use of early reflexions and reverberation can increase the stereo listening
area, enhance the stereo listening pleasure, and extend it beyond the normal
‘stereo seat’ position, but such techniques often compromise the detection of
fine detail in low level signals, which in a monitoring situation risks allowing
problems to pass by unnoticed."

 

[Al M.]

Intensity stereo is intrinsically pinpoint.

Quite an assertion.

Source?

Proof?

 

[DaveC]

Intensity stereo is intrinsically pinpoint. However, fortunately sound engineers and audio designers use psychoacoustic ‘tricks’ to extend the capabilities of the system. This opens a Pandora box however - there is no standard to control and evaluate them. All that is possible is listening to the results to evaluate them.

If you are interested on this complex and long subject get this great book "Recording Studio Design" by Philip Newell. I found it because Philip Newell wrote a challenging article in HiFiCritic concerning the sound of cables and explaining it! It was the first time I saw a sound engineer writing with some interest on the subject.

I quote a few sentences from the book:

"Most domestic listeners want to hear music in a way that is pleasing. This
is a valid requirement as they are seeking enjoyment, and they are at liberty
to manipulate the above variables to suit their own requirements. However,
what is pleasing should not be confused with what is on the recording
medium. Stereo spaciousness can be very pleasing, but its presence in a
domestic environment, or if created in a control room of any given design, is
by no means necessarily an inherent property of what is on the recording. The
use of early reflexions and reverberation can increase the stereo listening
area, enhance the stereo listening pleasure, and extend it beyond the normal
‘stereo seat’ position, but such techniques often compromise the detection of
fine detail in low level signals, which in a monitoring situation risks allowing
problems to pass by unnoticed."

This is exactly my experience. In an ideal recording, for example recording a single source of sound in an anechoic chamber, or playing test tones as Rob mentioned earlier, results in "pinpoint imaging", I've also heard it called a "Spotlit Presentation". A very resolving and well set-up system can create this "spotlit presentation" to too high of a degree, with the main complaint being the images sound too small vs real life.

I've found it's possible to effect image size in various ways... amplification devices such as vacuum tubes, some class-A SS devices seem to manipulate perception of space and image size. Interconnect cables can make massive differences, believe it or not... a very accurate cable like a UPOCC silver (round wire) IC cable will have little effect. However, switch the wire shape to foil (width>>thickness) and you can get larger than life images that are too diffuse and run into each other, so there's no "air" (space in between images). A ribbon cable (width>thickness) can split the difference and make for larger images vs round wire cables, but not so much that they are larger than life. There seems to be little difference in resolution between these types of cables so fine detail may be preserved, but foil is doing something to the sound to "unfocus" it. I think it has some effect on phase that is very subtle, but has an effect on our psychoacoustic perception of image size.

Ribbon shaped wire has a lot of other, even larger differences vs round wire such as capacitance and inductance so I wouldn't say this image size difference is a main difference, it can be subtle unless you have a certain kind of system. Also, many electronics have enough character to them that they define the presentation more than the cables. So like anything YMMV as far as experiencing this phenomenon in your own system, I've found it more with hard-cone driver/SS amp systems.

My own system uses tubes, so cables don't effect image size nearly as much as many other systems, but I do find SET amps w/ efficient drivers and little to no crossover have other qualities that are hard to beat, so that's what I like. I do think tube based systems can present space in a pleasant and natural way that doesn't interfere with resolution much, no PPI, no 12 ft tall woman singing in front of you.

 

[microstrip]

Quite an assertion.

Source?

Proof?

Any text book on stereo, most test CDs with acoustical signals, simple physics and maths or experience. Fortunately Dave extensive post above explained it, I can rest!