[Russell Dawkins]

Hmmm, maybe I'm just lucky, but I've never had a problem creating a tight center image.  Is there something I'm missing in your post Russell?

I don't know. Either your concept of "tight" and mine differ or I might not have made myself quite clear - I was in a hurry - but I am talking only of the image produced by a true mono signal - not the centre part of a stereo image. When things are basically right, the impression is of the sound (and you'll have to imagine this) coming through a narrow slit in a very high wall. Most set ups I've heard make a very diffuse smear in the centre. The narrowness of it is the key.

The benefits of this do not show themselves with most of what is called "stereo" - which some call panpot stereo, i.e., mono signals panned across the stereo stage to give lateral position to the elements of a mix or, in the case of orchestral recordings, that plus a "main mic" array consisting of a Decca tree or often widely spaced omnis. These techniques produce a very vague image at best, such that many people, including those keen on the hobby, have never heard what stereo can mean. The advantage most clearly shows itself with true Blumlein recordings. By "true" I mean made with ribbon microphones which, to my mind, work best in this application. With the system fine tuned as described a good Blumlein recording will produce a phantom image of realistic dimension and sharply focused, almost like real life.

The effect could be called holographic without much exaggeration. (I'd say holosonic, but Infinity probably still has copyright on that).

You can hear recordings of mine of solo piano and orchestra on the Royer Labs microphone website on both their demo CDs which illustrate this effect.

I could supply links, but I am aware of already being too self-promotional.

[Letitroll98]

Yes, thanks Russell, the narrow slit using a mono signal describes it for me.  And yes, I have to work at it to get that very narrow beam type image with pink noise.  I actually choose to back off on that to get a slightly, and I mean slightly, more diffuse soundfield.  It's a personal choice and I change my mind on it all the time, I'm always moving speakers and trying out new alignments, I can never leave well enough alone even when I have it right.  In fact you'll prolly have me moving speakers around soon, darn it, I just got it "perfect".

I know exactly what you mean with miking techniques as I have a pretty good layman's familiarity with all of the various techniques, not intimately like you, but enough to identify what you're talking about and hear them on my recordings.  Like you, I much prefer well executed simply miked recordings (you can have bad ones of those too).  I'll check out the Royer Labs site. 

[tesseract]

I don't know. Either your concept of "tight" and mine differ or I might not have made myself quite clear - I was in a hurry - but I am talking only of the image produced by a true mono signal - not the centre part of a stereo image. When things are basically right, the impression is of the sound (and you'll have to imagine this) coming through a narrow slit in a very high wall. Most set ups I've heard make a very diffuse smear in the centre. The narrowness of it is the key.

Agreed, the narrower you can get mono signal to be, the better the imaging will be.

These techniques produce a very vague image at best, such that many people, including those keen on the hobby, have never heard what stereo can mean.

I was a stereo "expert" for 10 years before I understood what soundstage and imaging were. Ah, to be young again.   

[JohnR]

Based on the behaviour and suggestions of people who've listened to my system recently, I'm going to have to change my status from "A lot - speakers intersect in front of me, up to a meter" to "A fair amount - speakers point directly at me." I'm wrestling with it a bit right now but am going to try it that way for a while.

[Quiet Earth]

Sorry but you're not allowed to move your speakers once you vote. The results are set in stone and that's final.

 

[SET Man]

Hey!

    Dang! I'm too late for the vote!  Well, if I voted than it would have been the " A fair amount of speaker pointing at me" choice.

    Anyway, here is a break down with my speaker set up...


 
   The picture were taken a year ago, but my system haven't change much since... actually it hasn't change much at all for a couple of years now.

Room: 9'10" W x 17' L x 8' H with small closet behind listening chair.

Speaker type: DIY based on TQWT Single Driver 6" Fostex with Fostex horn tweeter as super tweeter.
   
  Measured from the center of the woofer front they are...

   29" from sidewall,

   40" from back wall/wall behind speaker (or should it be front wall?  )

   60" apart.

  There are toed-in pretty pointing at me, I can see just a bit of the inside side of both speaker. The picture were taken just a bit behind about 1' of the backrest of my listening chair so you can't see a bit of the inside panel of the speakers.

   I sit 11' from the center between the speaker. There are about 2'6" space left behind my listening chair.

   Single Driver speaker like these are very sensitive to toe-in, just a 1* or 2* can make it or break it believe or not. Also, I distance between the back of the speakers can have big effect on the bass to lower-mid. With that I can adjust the over balance of the system with the distance from the back wall and toe-in. They are probably pickier than most other type of speakers.

   BTW... this room is also my bedroom, I sleep on a futon that can be roll away behind the listening chair. Also, I still have my photo enlarger so it can be my darkroom too if needed. Well, living in NYC where space  is costly you just have to be creative with the use of tiny space you have

Take care,
Buddy