What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

DaveC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ideal recording? Anechoic chamber, test tones...

What does that have to do with real music recorded in real space?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

On my stereo the left channel comes out the left speaker, the right channel comes out the right speaker, and a combination comes out somewhere between them. It depends on how they were mixed. I can point to a space and say there’s the guitar, there’s the drum, there’s the cymbals. Is that pinpoint?

BlueFox said:

On my stereo the left channel comes out the left speaker, the right channel comes out the right speaker, and a combination comes out somewhere between them. It depends on how they were mixed. I can point to a space and say there’s the guitar, there’s the drum, there’s the cymbals. Is that pinpoint?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. My system in its current configuration can do what you describe as well. But are the guitar, drum, cymbals each confined to a relatively small size, with sharply defined, rather than diffuse, outlines? That would be pinpoint imaging.

Al M. said:

Ideal recording? Anechoic chamber, test tones...

What does that have to do with real music recorded in real space?

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Click to expand...

I was the one who brought up the Delos Surround Sound set-up disk. The whole point is that you have sources available, or the Stereophile CD's as well that can be used as tools to evaluate the speaker/system set-up in your room. So beyond the basics like L/R channel, phase and so on is correct so you didn't miss wire anything there are tracks devoted to imaging which are very helpful setting up toe in as an example. The test tones provide the phantom images used to evaluate your set-up

Rob

microstrip said:

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.

Click to expand...

You had a definition of pinpoint imaging in your physics textbook...

morricab said:

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

Click to expand...

The user is never a problem in this forum. No matter how a person's system sound and as long as he is happy with that, everyone else just have to swallow how he wants to hear. You are a frequent participant here you should know that.

Tango said:

The user is never a problem in this forum. No matter how a person's system sound and as long as he is happy with that, everyone else just have to swallow how he wants to hear. You are a frequent participant here you should know that.

Click to expand...

Indeed...thus my tongue out emoji

ddk said:

Maybe Tom should expand on his question, it's not the definition of ppi that we disagree on but wether thinks it's a positive thing or a negative one.

Click to expand...

I'll give a wee bit of pushback.

I believe high-contrast imaging, cut-out imaging - like those cheap plastic 2-dimensional toy soldiers from back in the day - sharply outlined images, etc. can come from equipment that causes or enhances the effect. Thanks to some reviewers, dealers who demonstrate it, and audio forums, some people try to achieve it from their stereos. And some of those who have are entertained by it or enjoy their systems that way - high definition outlines appearing in their head when they listen - it's a unique effect from their stereo.

That the effect is not available listening to live acoustic music is simply not of a concern to them. Some people want their stereo to sound 'better' than the real thing, or at least different. Saying the preference is good or bad gets people stirred up. In the larger picture, preferences are not good and bad, positive or negative - they are preferences. Even if we think they are misguided because our values are different, none of us gets to say what someone else should like. Maybe what they should try, perhaps even urge conversion, but we're not the ones giving the verdict.

Now, within the context of a set of values (and I agree with you about context) we can argree or argue that some particular sonic effect is or is not consonant with that set of values. Thus, those who use the sound of live acoustic music, the concert hall for example, as their guide for building and assessing a system's sound generally agree that the so-called pinpoint-effect is or should not be accepted as a part of that value context. It becomes a given, but only because the majority of those with that value agree and perhaps most importantly can prove it to themselves by going to the concert hall and listening. (Yes, there are a few outliers who can tell that it was the cor anglais player who farted, not the flutist next to her.)

The synthesist bears no burden of proof - there is nothing against which their system is measured other than their own notion of what it should sound like, or perhaps another system. Okay fine. Some (many?) people mix values - "I like the timbre I hear from real instruments, but darned if I don't like those pop-out three dimensional pictures in my head." Sure, no problemo, ultimately they are a variety of synthesist. It's their choice, neither good nor bad - and they are entitled to it.

So maybe not so much pushback afterall: I do agree that "whether we think it's [ppi] a positive thing or a negative one" is the problem - having that as a mandatory question that must be answered or demanding that each must justify their preference is a problem. But, hey, let it go Jake, it's only audio forum...

Here you can clearly pin point the outline and follow it through

bonzo75 said:

Here you can clearly pin point the outline and follow it through

Click to expand...

The use of Youtube videos to demonstrate anything in the world of High End audio is a complete waste of time. Why do people continue to record or to play Youtube videos expecting to judge the quality of the hugely costly equipment being featured when we play low resolution files using our grotty PCs or tablets?

Youtube videos are great for showing us the features of a system but that's about all. Good for car and ship crashes though!

Tango said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks Tang
this is my understanding of the discussion of the topic
with different recording I expect different soundstage depth and imaging
if not I feel something is not right ....

I don’t ever think of the images as “ pin point” but more dynamic breathing having depth and even moving at times with space or air or image depth so called “tangibility” I value tangibility over PPI but that’s just me

Hear Here said:

The use of Youtube videos to demonstrate anything in the world of High End audio is a complete waste of time. Why do people continue to record or to play Youtube videos expecting to judge the quality of the hugely costly equipment being featured when we play low resolution files using our grotty PCs or tablets?

Youtube videos are great for showing us the features of a system but that's about all. Good for car and ship crashes though!

Click to expand...

Did you see what that you tube video was before replying? Lol

Al M. said:

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.

Click to expand...

Recording engineers do create soundscapes with studio recordings and enhance images by a variety of techniques, pin pointing isn’t one of them , only focus on particular tracks ....I am starting to think i have never heard PPI ?

bonzo75 said:

Did you see what that you tube video was before replying? Lol

Click to expand...

You got me! No, I hadn't watched it, so cats causing concert chaos is another good use for Youtube!

bonzo75 said:

Did you see what that you tube video was before replying? Lol

Click to expand...

System video is like holy water to vampire Bonz. Those mega expensive systems are better off far far away from video recorder.

Hear Here said:

You got me! No, I hadn't watched it, so cats causing concert chaos is another good use for Youtube!

Click to expand...

Good. So if you don't watch the real system YouTube videos we post either, it is not appropriate to comment on them

bonzo75 said:

Here you can clearly pin point the outline and follow it through

Click to expand...

LOL!

bonzo75 said:

Good. So if you don't watch the real system YouTube videos we post either, it is not appropriate to comment on them

Click to expand...

why can't we have opinions on low rez video's (of anything for that matter) without watching them? of course we can. the question is whether we want to endure the headwind of posting those very sensible opinions.

i do get there is a matter of staying the heck out of a thread about video's if we are going to pooh-pooh them. i can see the case for that.

i'm personally a fence sitter on the video question. i've posted 2 of them and some interpretations of those i got have caused me pause on continuing. but i think the whole subject 'fair game'......like any other subjective issue.

Mike Lavigne said:

why can't we have opinions on low rez video's (of anything for that matter) without watching them? of course we can. the question is whether we want to endure the headwind of posting those very sensible opinions.

i do get there is a matter of staying the heck out of a thread about video's if we are going to pooh-pooh them. i can see the case for that too.

i'm personally a fence sitter on the video question. i've posted 2 of them and some interpretations of those i got have caused me pause on continuing. but i think it's 'fair game'.

Click to expand...

Well then that's like having opinion on gear without listening to it

bonzo75 said:

Well then that's like having opinion on gear without listening to it

Click to expand...

absolutely not.

it's completely fair to have an opinion that a phone is not worthy of capturing useful information about system performance. and to criticize it's use and prevalence on the forum.

not saying that opinion is right or wrong......it's just an opinion.

those feeling that way mostly are not heard from.