Which type of speaker Images most realistically?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 10272 times.

Marbles

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« on: 29 Mar 2005, 03:15 pm »
Is there a type of speaker that images better than others?

So far the images from a monitor/sub combo seem more 3D to me than larger speakers.

Do line arrays image as well as (3D) monitors, do large point source speakers?

Can anyone summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the various speaker types?

I really hope the speaker makers here will give their opinions.

Thanks

csero

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #1 on: 29 Mar 2005, 03:58 pm »
I know you are not looking for this answer, but stereo imaging is not the property of speakers, it is an atrifact.
What you get as stereo imaging is a weird comb filtering effect coming from the interaction of 2 imperfect reproduction channels and speakers, mixed with the completely different acoustics of the listening room, built on the foundation of the destroyed ambience info was available on the record  :(

Stereo imaging is highly arbitrary and almost never transferable. What is working with one gear with a specific record in a given room, might not work somewhere else, even with the exact same gear. See all the complaints about acoustics at hi-fi exhibitions.

gonefishin

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #2 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:02 pm »
Hi Marbles :)
 

         I think you have to look at imaging and staging as two separate events that lead to the final picture.  It will be an interesting read to see what the various speaker designers have to say.  I'll be waiting and reading :)

    But another question that I think needs asking is if this "effect" is true to live music.  One speaker/system/room may throw a huge spacious soundstage with pinpoint imaging...but the real event may sound quite different than this "audiophile event."

   Two of my favorite places to catch a concert is at the Chicago Auditorium and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Hall.  Great sound at both of these places...but far from what's recreated on a HiFi ;)  (I usually try to site 10-20 rows back from the stage...although this isn't always possible)


     take care,

  dan

PhilNYC

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #3 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:09 pm »
Quote from: csero

What you get as stereo imaging is a weird comb filtering effect coming from the interaction of 2 imperfect reproduction channels and speakers, mixed with the completely different acoustics of the listening room, built on the foundation of the destroyed ambience info was available on the record  :(
 ...


Frank, what about a studio-produced recording of a close-miked source (or better yet, a direct-source like the output of a sythesizer/keyboard)?  Or pretty much any recording that is taken off a mixing board?  Certainly a recording engineer putting a sound like that down into a recording can specify a left/right panning position and use electronic/digital effects to add "depth", no?  And as such, reproduction of that recorded sound at the properly "imaged" position is not a result of an imperfection, but moreso a very deliberate effort to produce a stereo image, right?

PhilNYC

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #4 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:11 pm »
Quote from: gonefishin


    But another question that I think needs asking is if this "effect" is true to live music.  One speaker/system/room may throw a huge spacious soundstage with pinpoint imaging...but the real event may sound quite different than this "audiophile event."
 ...


I completely agree that "pinpoint imaging" is not something that you get in real live performance venues.  But I don't think that means that a recording that has those qualities is not desireable or enjoyable.

muralman1

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #5 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:12 pm »
I haven't heard all speakers, so I can't say. I believe you are on to something, though when you point to two way as more convincing. Based on my experience, I'm with you.  

There are two three way speakers, that I have heard, that mimic the two way, and are equally adept at image very well.

The Cabasse Artis is one. Their co-axial driver sounds cohesive. I heard them at an HE show. It was best of show IMHO. It was their full range seamless sound-stage that won the day by me.

The Apogee Scintilla, a ribbon speaker, uses an innovative tweeter, mid ribbon arrangement. Two tweeter ribbons wrap over a centrally hung mid ribbon, resulting in a five spot (from above) array. Again, the continuous integration of the drivers mimic the purity of single driver.

These two unusual speakers retain three way design advantages, including increased power handling, and a more optimized driver covering a narrower band.

PhilNYC

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #6 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:20 pm »
Btw - to address the original question... :oops:

The best imaging speakers I've ever heard are the Third Rethms (http://www.rethm.com).  They are a single-driver (based on a modified Lowther) speaker.  After that, I thought the Vince Christian E9 baffleless speakers were among the best imaging speakers I have heard.

Beyond that, I think that monitors tend to produce excellent images, partially because they don't have the bass performance to mask detail or distort the higher-frequency performance.  Also, they have smaller cabinets/baffles that also reduce distortion....

That said, the big-ass Rockport Antares I heard at CES were also among the best imaging speakers I've heard...but of course, those cost $42K/pair...

gonefishin

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #7 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:26 pm »
Quote from: PhilNYC


I completely agree that "pinpoint imaging" is not something that you get in real live performance venues.  But I don't think that means that a recording that has those qualities is not desireable or enjoyable.



    I should have added that.  Yes...it sure can be enjoyable :)

csero

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #8 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:30 pm »
Phil,

Yes, this ia almost always the standard argument, and the standard reply for this  is:   :)

 " then get a JBL studio monitor, or a yamaha NS-10M, or a boombox, or a car radio, because fidelity in this case is fidelity to the engineers concept how the record should sound on these devices"

But a bit more seriously, hearing is binaural, not stereo. 2 channel recording technologies - even the panned stereo is much closer to binaural, than stereo, as they try to create an illusion by recording or simulating the sound what would enter the ears of a listener. Playing this signal back on an equilateral triangle is a big mistake IMHO, creating a contradictionary set of artifacts.

csero

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #9 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:31 pm »
Quote from: PhilNYC
Beyond that, I think that monitors tend to produce excellent images, partially because they don't have the bass performance to mask detail or distort the higher-frequency performance ...


You can't be serious :scratch:

csero

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #10 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:38 pm »
Quote from: gonefishin
Quote from: PhilNYC


I completely agree that "pinpoint imaging" is not something that you get in real live performance venues.  But I don't think that means that a recording that has those qualities is not desireable or enjoyable.



    I should have added that.  Yes...it sure can be enjoyable :)


Sure, but the question was about realistic imaging.

miklorsmith

Gallo Ref. 3
« Reply #11 on: 29 Mar 2005, 04:51 pm »
I had some Gallo Ref. 3's run with a PS Audio HCA-2.  These casted a huge soundstage with great imaging.  Placement was important because of the side-firing woofers and radial tweeters, but they lived a couple of feet out from each side with narrow, central voices and instruments all over the place.

I didn't experience compressed height, as has been reported by some.  The bass with these is exemplary, especially for the size.  I never felt that the bass clouded or distorted higher frequencies.

I think the problem that larger, multi-way speakers sometimes have is meshing the drivers to sound as one cohesive unit.  Proper execution of crossovers and physical alignment/spacing of drivers are crucial to recreating the illusion.  I think monitors, which are generally two-ways (simpler crossovers) and physically compact have a native advantage in this regard.  Similarly, coaxial or single-drivers continue this benefit.

This does not mean that a larger speaker will not be able to achieve a similar/better effect, but its designer starts with a comparative disadvantage.

konut

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1581
  • Came for the value, stayed for the drama
Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #12 on: 29 Mar 2005, 05:03 pm »
I'm not a speaker designer but I've heard alot of speakers, enough to make some generalisations. Back in the day, the only speakers capable of any type of imaging were coaxials. Tannoy, Altec Lancing and KEF were known as the benchmarks in this area of performance. Then the planars(Magnapans, Quads,etc.) emerged as good imaging performers. The Dalquist DQ10's then arrived and impressed. The first baffle mounted 2 way that produced a realistic image,IMHO, were the B&W DM6, around 1984, that used a stepped baffle to align the acoustic centers in the same plane. Earthworks, Biro, and Lipinsky and others have utilized this arrangement to produce oustanding results. I have reached the same conclusion that small stand mounted 2 ways mated with suitable subs produce the most realistic imaging. It also seems that manufactures that match their drivers to within .5 db are more likely to image better. The weakness of planars and coaxials is that the sweet spot is limited. The 'naked' tweeter (Biro, Eartworks,B&W) seem to offer more latitude in this regard. I have no experience with line arrays.

gonefishin

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #13 on: 29 Mar 2005, 05:13 pm »
Quote from: csero



 

Sure, but the question was about realistic imaging.



    That's why I left it off the first time...but I could have added that the effect is neat :)  But no...I think many times (in systems) it's way overblown and over done.  

   dan

PhilNYC

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #14 on: 29 Mar 2005, 05:59 pm »
Quote from: csero

You can't be serious :scratch:


Sure I can.   :P

John Casler

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #15 on: 29 Mar 2005, 06:09 pm »
This is a very interesting question and one that I have been working on ever since Jon Dahlquist helped me set up my DQ-10s in 1974.

He showed me that proper speaker placement, and room interaction can produce the psycho-acoustic phenomena of "soundstage" and "images" at specific spots within that stage.

Ever since then, I have pursued the "holy grail" of gettting a more realistic image and soundstage.  Over time I did find that the room interaction part was actually a detraction, but I will cover that, read on.

Much of what Frank says is true, and stereo will never give you "perfect" realism, but I have acheived an incredible degree and find it the best I have ever heard.

So what produces the best image and how can it be done?

First you need to understand that "NO" speaker/component system will image well in every room.  There are no speakers that will "turn off" the room interferances that destroy the images that can be produced.

Acheiving a soundstage and imaging is easy.  All you need do is place your speakers away from room boundaries, and sit equidistant between them in a triangle that would be considered "nearfield.  

All that is needed is that the "signal" you are receiving is absolutley "EQUAL" from both speakers and both speakers are equal in amplitude.

That is it.  You will now hear things that come from the left, on the left, and things that come from the right, on the right and things that come from the center, exactly in the center.

But, it can be better.

What makes and places an image?

The image is placed in the soundstage in to ways.

1) is simply by dividing the signal between the speakers in such a way as to "pull" the perception to the left or right to the degree nessessary to acheive placement

2) is by perceiving specific phase information to acheive placement goals

Better imaging is also the product of reproducing the subtle matrix, of delicate ambience from an original live recording.

Many things can compete with and totally overpower this information and without it, your imaging will "NOT" be anywhere as good as it could be.

During the live recording process, the microphone will "pick up" not only the sound of the performer, but also the sound of the perfromer, in realtion to the venue or performance space.

That is, the sound that "actually comes" from the performers original signal interacting with the room and space they are in.  Needless to say, this sonic information is "delicate" and subtle.  It is the perfromers reflected sound energy from the rooms boundaries, reacting on the mike.  This sonic is subtle and dleicate, yet is the essense, of what you are trying to produce, if you want the maximum in imaging.

Only the most highly resloving systems and least interactive rooms can reproduce it.  

To achieve the highest level of imaging, you need to consider the following:

1) Sources, and equipment that offer the highest degree of resolution and detail

2) Speakers that are "limited in dispersion" so that they provide maximum signal clarity with minimum room interaction

3) Reduction and elimination of "all" mid and high frequency reflections and dispersion.

What speakers and speaker design will give you the best (meaning most accurate) imaging?

To answer this, first you have to look at what might "damage" the subtle matrix I mentioned earlier.

Now please realize I am not "slamming" some brand or type of speaker, and also realize that there are many "very pleasing" sonic presentations that will give the impression of presense, air, fullness, and other things, that are not representitive of what the original sounded like, but never the less are beautiful sounding and prefered by some.

So that said, on the speaker side, any sonic information put out by the speaker that does not arrive at the listener "directly" from the speaker "will" have the potential if not dealt with, to damage the signal.

This includes dipolar information (above certain frequencies) which reflects off any room surface.

Any information reflected off the speaker baffle is damaging.

It includes any "large" speaker that does not operate as a point source in relation to the listener in the upper frequency ranges.

Also any speakers that don't operate with minimum phase will not be able to accuratley re-create the "ambience matrix" well since they will smear it.

What room sonics will detroy imaging?  

In the mids and highs, "ALL OF THEM"!!!!

Tips for imaging:

1) Set up speakers away from all room boundaries.  When possible make the largest triangle that can be made with the "rule of thirds".

That is divide both the length and width of the room by three and place the speakers in a triangle within the center third of each dimension

2) Sit as nearfield as possible

3) Treat your room for maximum reduction of "all" reflected sound

4) Assemble gear that has the resolving power to recreate the ambient sonic matrix

5) If room treatment is not possible, try to block/absorb baffle reflection/refraction and driver dispersion at the speaker, by the "hooding" your speaker tweak.

And a few "after thoughts".

A large room will generally "image better than a small room, when sitting nearfield, but never the less, will still be much better when treated.

These comments are based on a 2 channel stereo system, and not multichannel music.

My comments are not to promote or critique a specific brand, design, or line of speakers, treatments, or components, but more to relay my experiences in acheiving the best images with the tools and environment we have.

It should also be known that there are other ways to create, sonic "mirage" images which may even be preferable to some.

And finally the question that generally makes imaging a difficult little guy to pin down.  

Why try at all, since the recording engineer makes the images for us?

And this is a good question.  

I might add that even the perceptions at a "live" perfromance will vary.  That is, if you are front/center at an "unamplified jazz quartet", you will hear more specific imaging than the person(s) a few rows back.

When this is recorded with a multimiked set up, and reproduced, as I suggest, the imaging you will get is the front/center image, not the rows farther back.

In fact, in my current set up, I can not only "hear" the rooms of each live performance, but in studio recordings, I can hear the damped booths and even the fake ambience sometimes thrown in by the engineer.

I like it. :mrgreen:

audioengr

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #16 on: 29 Mar 2005, 06:25 pm »
I have found that good imaging can be accomplished two ways:

1) with speakers that "beam" rather than have large angular dispersion.  If these use good drivers, particularly tweeter, then the sweet-spot is usually small, but the imaging is superb.  This type of design is relatively easy to place in the room and is not overly impacted by the room acoustics.   Usually, the equalateral triangle works reasonably well, but the optimum listening position is usually farther than the distance between the speakers.  Examples are KEF Reference 104/2, Dali Euphonia, Harbeths

2) speakers that have large uniform angular dispersion (horizontal).  These create a large sweet-spot, but interact with all of the room boundaries and acoustics.  Placement is more difficult, requiring larger rooms, and the imaging is usually not quite as pin-point, but can be more interesting for more listeners because of the large sweet-spot.  Again, the quality of the drivers is critical.  The polar response must be very uniform.  Line-sources and bi-polar designs have their own idiosyncrasies.  Examples are Magnepan 1.6, Martin-logan, Gallo Ref3, Quads, ESP.

ehider

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #17 on: 29 Mar 2005, 08:27 pm »
Having been around high end audio for quite a while and having heard at least 400+ audiophile speakers I can say without question that the original Acoustats imaged better in more listening rooms than anything else I have ever heard. Since those speakers were HIGHLY directional with a "head in a vice" listening sweet spot, it would be safe to assume that much of what was occuring was a realtionship where the room interaction was much less predominant than other types of speakers.

I've also heard the Acoustats with less than perfect electronics and cabling (read mid-fi) that also managed to throw a credible "sound not coming from the speaker" type of soundscape. So those claiming that you "have to have great electronics" to get excellent imaging just don't realize what a highly directional speaker like the Acoustat does with the ear/brain relationship, subsquently getting the sound "into the field" between and away from the speakers.

Now don't get me wrong here, there are many great soundstaging speakers out there. In my experiences though, the Acoustats (orignal design) were just the most consistent "over the top" imagers no matter what environment I heard them in as compared to many other speakers that were "hit or miss" depending on room environment, treatment, etc...

BTW: I've been told that the new Inner Sound speaker line has taken up where the orignal Acoustat left off years ago. I'm not sure if they are as directional as I have yet to hear them myself. If they are similar in directionality like the original Acoustat with the "listener head in the vice" charactaristic,  I feel it's a safe bet that these will image better than most other types of speakers regardless of room, etc...

_scotty_

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #18 on: 29 Mar 2005, 11:20 pm »
John, can you explain why some recordings played back in some systems can place discrete images from only 2 loudspeakers that appear to come from multiple directions 360degrees around the listening postion. Some of these same recording also exhibit images that appear to emanate from a position higher than the ceiling in my room.  Scotty

John Casler

Which type of speaker Images most realistically?
« Reply #19 on: 30 Mar 2005, 04:10 am »
Quote from: _scotty_
John, can you explain why some recordings played back in some systems can place discrete images from only 2 loudspeakers that appear to come from multiple directions 360degrees around the listening postion. Some of these same recording also exhibit images that appear to emanate from a position higher than the ceiling in my room.  Scotty


Hi Scotty,

I would suggest that "phase manipulation" can cause a "phantom directional perception" either by design or unintentionally.

A whole application schematic has developed out of just this technology and it is called Q-Sound.  While I am not an expert on it, I know that through phase manipulation, they have produced CDs that have sonics "well outside" the bounds of the speakers.

While I can't claim to have heard sounds emanating from the rear, I can certainly say that I have heard Q-sound encoded discs (Roger Water's Amused to Death is a good example) with "very" distinct and clear sonic images directly to the left and right.  And I mean these are as defined and clear as if they were coming directly from the speaker.

There are other things that "might" also produce this phasing, but as well sometimes "well reflected" sound can produce rather clear images beyond the speakers, such as highly reflective rear walls close to the listening position.