[John Ashman]

Remember that there is imaging, which is more about focus and soundstaging which is image size and spaciousness.  You can have imaging with a narrow dispersion speaker, but you won't normally get soundstaging or a wide sweetspot.  If you have a wide dispersion speaker or one that is bipolar or dipolar, you will often get a large soundtage but not necessarily great imaging.  I personally like wide dispersion mini-monitors which, to me, give the best of both, but a lot of times, it's simply a balancing act between the characteristics of your speakers and that of your room.  

I do have to ask Audioengr why his "wide sweetspot" speakers he lists have far more limited dispersion than the "narrow dispersion" speakers he lists  

[John Casler]

Remember that there is imaging, which is more about focus and soundstaging which is image size and spaciousness.  You can have imaging with a narrow dispersion speaker, but you won't normally get soundstaging or a wide sweetspot.  

.

Hi John,

While I agree that the "sweet spot" of a narrow dispersion system is "tight", I would respectfully disagree about the soundstage width supposition.  

Soundstage/Imaging, and Sweet Spot Width, are mutually exclusive properties.

To be sure we are talking about the "reality" of the soundstage, as presented by the original signal.

The soundstage width with a Limited Dispersion type of speaker is accurate and well dimensioned, and based on the recorded information.

I think you are refering to the expansion of the stage width from "reflected sound".  There is no acoustic widening ability to higher dispersion speakers from anything else.

In fact, there is no way the wider dispersion would ever reach your ears, except via reflection.  Highs and Mids travel basically in a straight line.  So any dispersion, beyond your ears, that does not reach them directly, will only reach the ears via reflection.

If you have a wide dispersion speaker or one that is bipolar or dipolar, you will often get a large soundtage but not necessarily great imaging.   .

I again agree about the "imaging" properties of both dipoles and bipoles.

The "size" of the soundstage from a bipole or dipole is dependant of reflected sound

But, wider dispersive properties of any speaker cannot produce a wider soundstage from "direct" sound.  It can only do so from reflected sound, which would have the potential to degrade the image and soundstage overall.

Just because the speaker "throws" or disperses the sound to a wider area, if your ears are not there to harvest (hear) it,  it has no effect in creating a sonic impression in your brain.

[gonefishin]

Hi John...

      Nice topic so far...now if we could just get a mix of information coming from some of the acoustical experts here, we could explore deeper into the topic of speaker/room/system interaction in regards to reproduction (specifically imaging and stage)  


     I know horns could be a controversial subject when talking with "audiophiles".  But I remember a topic at AA, in the HE forum, that dealt with a similar discussion.

 To set the discussion up... Since AA isn't set-up nearly as nice as AC (and newer forums) Mark Seaton was responding to a previous thread that had expired to the dreaded page two (off of the current threads view).  So he was continuing a previous discussion.  

    The discussion was basically started off asking why some horn speakers sound so bad.  But the discussion kind of evolved into this discussion about imaging, staging, directivity and reflections.  

     Here is the link to the thread described.  It's just something that popped into my head when reading the posts in this thread.

    take care,

 dan

[John Ashman]

Soundstage/Imaging, and Sweet Spot Width, are mutually exclusive properties.

Since when?  Sweetspot is entirely dependent on the dispersion of the speaker and the setup.  Soundstaging is generally a combination of spatial cues in the recording + the acoustics of the room + dispersion of the speaker.  Imaging is really about low acoustic, cabinet, driver and crossover distortion.  

The soundstage width with a Limited Dispersion type of speaker is accurate and well dimensioned, and based on the recorded information.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will sound right and it almost certainly means you'll be alone while listening to music.  You could also simply add room treatment if you have a wide dispersion speaker

I think you are refering to the expansion of the stage width from "reflected sound". There is no acoustic widening ability to higher dispersion speakers from anything else.

Sure, but is there something wrong with this?  A limited dispersion speaker sounds like crap on classical music - way too dry.  

But, wider dispersive properties of any speaker cannot produce a wider soundstage from "direct" sound. It can only do so from reflected sound, which would have the potential to degrade the image and soundstage overall.

Room treatment.  Then you can tune the sound.  If you have a limited dispersion speaker and it sucks balls, you're stuck.  It's better to have wide (aka uniform) dispersion and treat it than to be stuck with a beamy, dry, boring speaker that allows you to point directly to it.  

Just because the speaker "throws" or disperses the sound to a wider area, if your ears are not there to harvest (hear) it, it has no effect in creating a sonic impression in your brain.

What about your family's ears?  Or when you're walking around the house?  Or cleaning?  Or working?  I want the music to come to me, not the other way around.

[skrivis]

Since when? Sweetspot is entirely dependent on the dispersion of the speaker and the setup. Soundstaging is generally a combination of spatial cues in the recording + the acoustics of the room + dispersion of the speaker. Imaging is really about low acoustic, cabinet, driver and crossover distortion.

I once heard a pair of Ohm F's in a fairly dead listening room. They had a wide sweet spot, a wide soundstage, and rather precise imaging.

Audio positional information consists of: volume differences, time differences, and spectral differences.

Volume or loudness cues are rather self-explanatory. It's louder in the left channel, so it appears to be coming from the left.

Timing or phase cues come from the distance of a sound source from the listener. The source will be farther from one ear than another, so there will be observable timing differences. The same applies for a pair of microphones.

Finally we have spectral cues due to the shape of the head and ears.

So let's look at a typical stereo pop recording. It's "multiple monoral" and there are no timing or spectral cues at all on the recording (except by accident), just volume cues as the engineer pans from one channel to the other.

Play it back on a stereo pair of loudspeakers and what do we get? Volume cues from the recording itself. Then we get volume cues from the speakers being different distances to our ears. Timing cues from the different distances to our ears. And finally spectral cues.

Note that we're getting timing, and spectral cues from the speakers as if they are the sound source. This is added on at playback time and has no relation whatsoever to the original performance. The volume cues added on at playback time tend to exaggerate the volume cues from the recording.

Making a recording with a stereo pair of microphones? Playing it back on speakers now gives a double set of volume cues _and_ timing cues.

We also haven't even looked at room reflection effects, either during recording or playback. That gets _really_ complicated.

How do we fix it? Binaural recording with a "head" and playback into headphones.

Imaging and soundstage with stereo speakers is mostly an artifact of the reproduction process. It may be pleasing, but it's not accurate except by accident.

I generally visualize it as a wall between you and the performers that has two small holes in it. The holes represent the recording/playback chain.

[John Casler]

 Soundstage/Imaging, and Sweet Spot Width, are mutually exclusive properties.    

Since when? Sweetspot is entirely dependent on the dispersion of the speaker and the setup. Soundstaging is generally a combination of spatial cues in the recording + the acoustics of the room + dispersion of the speaker. Imaging is really about low acoustic, cabinet, driver and crossover distortion.

Hi John,

I didn't say "sweet spot" wasn't dependant on dispersion.  

I said they are mutually exclusive.  That is, while their "relative" quality might be affected by dispersion, they are not the same thing, nor is dispersion the only thing that affects Soundstage and Imaging.

The sonic factors that affect them, with the exception of dispersion, are different.

The "Soundstage" is attempting to recreate an accurate, proportional width, height, and depth of the original event.

Imaging is the "placement" of performers within the soundstage.

The Sweet Seat is a position of auditory observation.


Sweet Seat = Position of observation.
Soundstage/Imaging = performance descriptions

In Audiophile pursuit, it is generally a goal to attempt to approach re-creation of the event.  This usually means trying to reduce any detraction or degradation to the signal, electronically, and environmentally.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it will sound right and it almost certainly means you'll be alone while listening to music. You could also simply add room treatment if you have a wide dispersion speaker    

Your preference for a wider sweet spot is noted.  I also support use of Room Treatment (even with limited dispersion systems)  I have no idea what you mean by "sound right"??

I have no problems with a single sweet seat for "High Perfromance Listening".

You ever drive a Formula One car?  That is serious performance, and there is only room for one.

I would venture to say that most "serious 2 channel listeners", listen by themselves 99% of the time.

Dispersion beyond your ears is wasted sonic energy, and as you note, only has to be "cleaned up" later with more room treatment.  No argument there.

Plus another "MAJOR" point is that in over 30 years of serious listening to thousands of speakers and systems, I have NEVER heard reasonably accurate imaging in any other place than "dead center" sweet spot.

Sure, you can get a little bit of "maybe" imaging if you close your eyes and "try" to think of a good image, but it isn't close.  It just doesn't happen.  Stereo speakers "cannot" do this.  Once "amplitude" by position loses the exact balance nessessary, the stage and image collapse.

 I think you are refering to the expansion of the stage width from "reflected sound". There is no acoustic widening ability to higher dispersion speakers from anything else.  

 Sure, but is there something wrong with this? A limited dispersion speaker sounds like crap on classical music - way too dry.  

I might disagree with your assesment, but appreciate your right to subjective viewpoint.  While I have no idea why you have this opinion, I will say that my experiencence and opinion are not the same.

 But, wider dispersive properties of any speaker cannot produce a wider soundstage from "direct" sound. It can only do so from reflected sound, which would have the potential to degrade the image and soundstage overall.  

Room treatment.

Then you can tune the sound. If you have a limited dispersion speaker and it sucks balls, you're stuck. It's better to have wide (aka uniform) dispersion and treat it than to be stuck with a beamy, dry, boring speaker that allows you to point directly to it.    

Again it sounds like you either have very limited preferences, or limited listening experience.  I have limited dispersion speakers and they "kick ass" rather than "suck balls" (you might want to analyze your terms )

I think you "claimed" wider dispersion made for a wider soundstage.  
I then said it cannot do so without harvesting room interaction.  
You then say to use "Room Treatment" to (I assume) clean up the extra reflections????

I must be missing something

And then you go to "beamy", "boring", "dry"???  Again, I have no idea what you have heard that supports this, so I have no argument.

But I will state again that dispersion, beyond the edge of your "pinna" will not support an "accrurate image", and only has the potential to "degrade" the image quality, if not dealt with before reflecting back to the listener

This thread is about what speakers "image best".  My post was about "reproducing an accurate as possible image, from a live recording".

 Just because the speaker "throws" or disperses the sound to a wider area, if your ears are not there to harvest (hear) it, it has no effect in creating a sonic impression in your brain.  

What about your family's ears? Or when you're walking around the house? Or cleaning? Or working? I want the music to come to me, not the other way around.  

My daughter gets the sweet seat whenever she wants it, but as I said, if you are into serious "High Performance Listening" I would bet that 99% of your "critical" listening is done solo.  How many hours of "serious critical" listening a week do you do with your family?

As far as work, walking, cleaning, you don't expect anyone to beleive that you get "imaging" while doing those things do you?

This thread is about quality imaging, and I would think that to even approach the subject we have to be in the sweet spot.

[PhilNYC]

I said they are mutually exclusive.  That is, while their "relative" quality might be affected by dispersion, they are not the same thing, nor is dispersion the only thing that affects Soundstage and Imaging.
 
.

Just to get everyone on the same page, "mutually exclusive" is generally defined in logic as "two propositions that cannot both be true".  So saying that "imaging/soundstage and sweetspot width are mutually exclusive" might be interpreted as saying "you can't have both".  I know that's not what you meant (as you have stated above), but people might be responding assuming that's what you meant...  

[John Casler]

Just to get everyone on the same page, "mutually exclusive" is generally defined in logic as "two propositions that cannot both be true".  So saying that "imaging/soundstage and sweetspot width are mutually exclusive" might be interpreted as saying "you can't have both".  I know that's not what you meant (as you have stated above), but people might be responding assuming that's what you meant...  

Hi Phil,

You are correct.  I should have said "independant" concepts, because you certainly do need a "sweet spot" to get Soundstage and Imaging.

Sorry if I confused anyone.

[skrivis]

Just to get everyone on the same page, "mutually exclusive" is generally defined in logic as "two propositions that cannot both be true".  So saying that "imaging/soundstage and sweetspot width are mutually exclusive" might be interpreted as saying "you can't have both".  I know that's not what you meant (as you have stated above), but people might be responding assuming that's what you meant...  

Hi Phil,

You are correct.  I should have said "independant" concepts, bec ...

Well, that's why I pointed out that I had heard a pair of speakers that had a wide sweet spot, large soundstage, and pinpoint imaging.

I then explored some of what makes up imaging, and concluded that imaging is likely an artifact of the recording/playback process, and not based on reality.

It's quite possible that the Ohm F's I heard simply did a good job of distorting the sound so that you wound up with all 3 aspects at once. If I remember, they were horrible at, for instance, reproducing the dynamics of the piano, so it wasn't a win-win situation.

[John Ashman]

The "Soundstage" is attempting to recreate an accurate, proportional width, height, and depth of the original event. Imaging is the "placement" of performers within the soundstage.

Sure, but when it was stated "realistic" imaging vs precision imaging, that, to me also includes soundstaging which helps a precise image also sound realistic.  

I have no problems with a single sweet seat for "High Perfromance Listening".

I guess my problem is, for all my selling of cool toys, I'm not an "audiophile".  I love music, so I don't often sit down for "high performance" let alone "critical" listening except at work.  

I would venture to say that most "serious 2 channel listeners", listen by themselves 99% of the time.

I'm not a lonely audiophile

Dispersion beyond your ears is wasted sonic energy, and as you note, only has to be "cleaned up" later with more room treatment. No argument there.

Not wasted.  But it needs to be proportional and not over done.  That's why, if you build an anechoic chamber, you'll get more precise image focus, but it won't sound real or enjoyable.  We expect to hear the room and a speaker that has wide UNIFORM dispersion will sound more realistic.  If it is only wide in one area (as most "narrow dispersion" speakers are), it won't sound all that great.  It is easier to take too much ambience and dampen it than take a system that is too dead and give it life.  

Plus another "MAJOR" point is that in over 30 years of serious listening to thousands of speakers and systems, I have NEVER heard reasonably accurate imaging in any other place than "dead center" sweet spot.

Reasonably accurate over a wide area?  I've heard speakers that can do that.  The *best" imaging?  Sure, that requires being dead center.  

Sure, you can get a little bit of "maybe" imaging if you close your eyes and "try" to think of a good image, but it isn't close. It just doesn't happen. Stereo speakers "cannot" do this. Once "amplitude" by position loses the exact balance nessessary, the stage and image collapse.

With speakers that have poor off-axis dispersion, sure!  

.

Again it sounds like you either have very limited preferences, or limited listening experience. I have limited dispersion speakers and they "kick ass" rather than "suck balls" (you might want to analyze your terms  )

Limited preferences, probably.  While I can hear a speaker that does well in a perfect little sweetspot, I wouldn't buy one for myself.  My limited preferences are not so limited in where I enjoy music

I think you "claimed" wider dispersion made for a wider soundstage.
I then said it cannot do so without harvesting room interaction.
You then say to use "Room Treatment" to (I assume) clean up the extra reflections????

Wider soundstage, wider sweetspot, more realism.  If there is too much energy in the room, it is easily damped.  Of course, if it's an anechoic chamber, a limited dispersion accurate speaker and a wide dispersion one will sound about the same.  

And then you go to "beamy", "boring", "dry"??? Again, I have no idea what you have heard that supports this, so I have no argument.

Depends on the room.  In a reasonably well damped room, a narrow dispersion speaker will generally sound kinda dry.  To me.  

As far as work, walking, cleaning, you don't expect anyone to beleive that you get "imaging" while doing those things do you?

Nope, but I still get great sound!  

This thread is about quality imaging, and I would think that to even approach the subject we have to be in the sweet spot.

I think the term was "imaging realism" which is different from precision imaging.  Anyway, most of the argument started with the "mutually exclusive" comment which appears as though you said something that was not what you meant, so I think we just have different preferences, that's all.

[Redbone]

Sonic imaging is the ability of the mind to percieve the location of the origin of a sound.  It shares some common features with visual depth perception, mainly that it takes two sense organs, ears or eyes, for good imaging.  But even with just one eye, the mind can calculate some depth information, and even with one ear the mind can partially calculate a sound source location.  The mind also can be "tricked" into perceiving visual depth or sonic imaging.  Imax theaters do a great job of tricking the mind into perceiving visual depth from a flat screen.  This cannot be done with one eye only.  Stereo speakers can do a great job of tricking the mind into hearing sound origins.  This cannot be done with one ear.

But sound waves are physically much different than light waves, and as far as perception, more complex.  The phase of the sound wave is important to hearing, while the phase of light waves, in ordinary circumstances, has no effect on vision.  Sound waves dynamically react with each other, causing constructive and destructive interference.  Overtones, resonace, harmonics, all depend upon the phase of sound waves.  If the speakers/crossovers mangle the phase with which the sound waves are created, imaging and other subtle aural cues are lost.

[John Casler]

Now this thread is really getting interesting.

John, Skirvis, Redbone and all are displaying that imaging is an "illusive" quality, that we have all heard, but there is little to no way to place a "quantitative" evaluation on just what differences we all hear, and why we think they sound more realistic.

I think we all agree that the "soundstage" is the sonic presentation from left to right, top to bottom and front to back.  It is the "aurally" palpable holographic presentation of the recorded information.

Imaging, then is the clearly positional placement of sonic images within this soundstage.

Realism???  What is it?  That is purely a subjective quality, based on an objective perception (reality)

There is no way to "measure" realism.  Amplitude, phase, and such cannot convey what is heard in total.

So to my way of thinking, (and I am an imaging freak) there are several things that are needed to make the "most" realistic and defined images "when" they are in the recording.

Obviously the degree of amplitude of the sound produced in each speaker will pull or direct the "image" to the proper section of the soundstage.

Generally the physical height of the speaker itself will create the "height image" of the performance.

But now we get to the "hard stuff".

I mentioned earlier that a "realistic" image would be the "most" realistic if all the sections of the reproduction chain were as quality as possible, including the room.

While it is surely possible to have "enjoyable" positioning and placement within the soundstage with "any" well set up and reasonable system, just like most other qualities, imaging gets better the more "pure" the signal is.

In a live recording, the image and spatial information of a performer is recorded onto the source software.

That is, NOT, just the postion on the soundstage defined by the amplitude of signal on the left and right, but the more "subtle matrix" of venue information, that is recorded as the reflected sounds from that individual performer in that space, interact with "THAT" space.

These sonics are extremely subtle and delicate.  It takes a highly resolving system to reproduce them.  It also takes a listening environment that has minimal interaction in the mid/hf to allow this matrix to be perceived.

When a system/room has the ability to reproduce these "additional" parts to the sonic matrix "THEN" we have the ultimate in "imaging".

Now it is not uncommon to enjoy "room assisted" sound, and it is perfectly acceptable for this to be so.  It is a preference.  

To acheive what I am talking about, is difficult and requires more dedication to "function" than "form". (read: sounds good, maybe looks bad)

Some have mentioned that they find "interaction reduction" to the point of anechoic conditions not their cup of tea.  They have pointed out that they find this direction "deadening, or too damped".

I would take issue with this and suggest that they are responding to a lack of experience in this type of environment, or attempting to use this environment conventionally and expecting it to work.

Sonic Energy, Dynamics, Detail, Resolution and almost all elements of the recording are "more clear" when room interferance is reduced.

I have spent hundreds if not thousands of "critical listening" hours in  to "anechoic" (or close to) listening conditions.  Most who make negative comments have spent zero.  The negative comments generally arrise from a short stint in such a chamber and realizing that when "no music is playing" that there is "NO" sound.  This can be quite strange and unfamiliar.  It can be foreign and offputting.  But the idea is to take the room "out" of the sonic equation.  It is like being placed in a totally dark room.

If we are in a totally dark room and there is just a "pinhole" of light, we will see it.  We will know exactly where it is, and we will be able to totally sense it.  In fact it becomes "VERY" clear to us.

If we then turn on the lights so that all the room is fully illuminated, we could never even find that pinhole at all, much less have it affect our oveall sensation.  This is the type of subtle details I am saying are "more available" when we reduce the reflected sonic illumination.  These are the details that reproduce a more realistic image, with body and texture.

But in any event, under these conditions, what was recorded can be heard more clearly and the "realistic" imaging becomes a more "palpable sonic presence".

Just my TWO "sense" about sonic images., but I might have to think about it some more

[Redbone]

Obviously the degree of amplitude of the sound produced in each speaker will pull or direct the "image" to the proper section of the soundstage.

This is the point that I would like to focus on.   It is not just the amplitude (volume), but the frequency (pitch) and phase (timing) of each wave which allow us to perceive imaging.  Two pure sinusoidal tones of different frequency will not produce an image.  Two pure sinusoidal tones of the same frequency and amplitude produce an image, or illusion that the sounds originates from between the speakers, but this image is degraded by phase differences.  Room reflections and speaker size/placement are other important considerations.  And of course imaging is allusive, it simply does not exist outside of our mind !

[John Casler]

This is the point that I would like to focus on.   It is not just the amplitude (volume), but the frequency (pitch) and phase (timing) of each wave which allow us to perceive imaging.  Two pure sinusoidal tones of different frequency will not produce an image.  Two pure sinusoidal tones of the same frequency and amplitude produce an image, or illusion that the sounds originates from between the speakers, but this image is degraded by phase differences.  Room reflections and speaker size/placement are other  ...

Hi Redbone,

I concur.  I mentioned in my first post about the role "phase" plays in image placement.  Amplitude is just the "key" player for general placment, but the much more complicated phase relationships can then further add to imaging.

These are much too complex for me to grasp with my current awareness.  All I can do is acknowledge their contribution, since I have heard how they work.

Not sure how you feel frequency will affect imaging.  Please expand on that???

[ctviggen]

I think he means two pure sinusoidal tones, one emanating from one speaker and one emanating from another speaker.  A sinusoid is A sin(wt + theta), where A is the amplitude, w is the frequency (in radians, which are 2pi times the frequency in cycles/second), and theta is the phase (and t is time) relative to some starting point. For a sinusoid to exist, it has to have an amplitude.  So, if you have one signal going to each speaker at exactly the same frequency, phase, and amplitude, you should hear an image spaced exactly between the speakers (ignoring any and all room and other effects).  If the amplitude changes, say lower on the right side only, the image should shift to the left (as the left would be louder).  I think phase would have a similar effect -- if you increase the phase on the right side, that wave should arrive slightly before the one from the left speaker, meaning that you should hear the image shift to the right.  

What's weird to me is that the RM40s are recommended to be crossed over in front of a person.  One would think that the ideal situation would be to beam the right speaker into a person's right ear and the left speaker in a person's left ear.   If the waves cross in front of the listener, I would think that this would be bad, but my own tests suggest this is good and not bad.  I'm not sure why.

[Redbone]

Hi Redbone,

I concur.  I mentioned in my first post about the role "phase" plays in image placement.  Amplitude is just the "key" player for general placment, but the much more complicated phase relationships can then further add to imaging.

These are much too complex for me to grasp with my current awareness.  All I can do is acknowledge their contribution, since I have heard how they work.

Not sure how you feel frequency will affect imaging.  Please expand on that???

I agree John, that all of the attributes are too complex to fully understand.  When faced with such complexities, I try to separate out the ones that are most important and that I can understand, and go from there.  That makes this an art, not a science, at least for me.

My point about frequency is that the image is created in our mind, by our mind.  The mind decides that there is a single sound emanating from somewhere between the speakers based on information it receives from each ear.  There is nothing in "reality" that creates a sound from between the speakers, it is all in our perception of that reality.  A key role in the mind deciding that the sound from each ear is the same, and thus originates not from two separate locations, but one "imaged location" is the frequency or pitch of that sound.  If the left speaker played a solid pitch or note, and the right speaker played a different note, at exactly the same amplitude, the mind would not image or interpret the sound to come from somewhere between the speakers.  It is only when the sound heard by the left and right ears is similar in amplitude, phase and frequency that the mind images.

[skrivis]

I mentioned earlier that a "realistic" image would be the "most" realistic if all the sections of the reproduction chain were as quality as possible, including the room.

While it is surely possible to have "enjoyable" positioning and placement within the soundstage with "any" well set up and reasonable system, just like most other qualities, imaging gets better the more "pure" the signal is.

In a live recording, the image and spatial information of a performer is recorded onto the source software.
...

I'm not convinced this is true. Binaural with headphones would seem to be the most ideal method of recording/reproduction, but it isn't always practical or available.

Once you get away from a simple recording with crossed cardioids, and once you use speakers in a listening room, all bets are off.

We can sometimes get a pleasing illusion, but it's not accurate.

Point source speakers with aperiodic enclosures, 1st order series crossovers, and well-chosen crossover points (well away from the midrange) seem to provide the most pleasing illusion, but it varies a lot with the recording being played.

[John Casler]

My point about frequency is that the image is created in our mind, by our mind. The mind decides that there is a single sound emanating from somewhere between the speakers based on information it receives from each ear. There is nothing in "reality" that creates a sound from between the speakers, it is all in our perception of that reality. A key role in the mind deciding that the sound from each ear is the same, and thus originates not from two separate locations, but one "imaged location" is the frequency or pitch of that sound. If the left speaker played a solid pitch or note, and the right speaker played a different note, at exactly the same amplitude, the mind would not image or interpret the sound to come from somewhere between the speakers. It is only when the sound heard by the left and right ears is similar in amplitude, phase and frequency that the mind images...

That's what I thought you meant.

I also assume that when you say "mind" you mean the perception from the ear/brain information in what many call, the "mind's eye".

That is our "perceptual conciousness".

[John Casler]

I'm not convinced this is true. Binaural with headphones would seem to be the most ideal method of recording/reproduction, but it isn't always practical or available.

...

Hi Skirvis,

Actually I don't think that headphones would offer the idea, since they don't present sound to the "pinna" in a way that will allow it to provide the directional and localizational information to form a soundstage and imaging.

Once you get away from a simple recording with crossed cardioids, and once you use speakers in a listening room, all bets are off.

We can sometimes get a pleasing illusion, but it's not accurate.

 

I agree, to a degree.  Since "realism" cannot be measured objectively "one man's image, will be another man's sonic mush".

So I would certainly agree that we probably will never approach 100% accuracy (especially since there is no way to measure that accuracy)

And after all my "detailed" prosthletizing, I would have to say that many would certainly prefer a manufactured type of image using room interaction with some speaker types.

The original question, was "What speaker Types image most realistically".

While many "do the deed" in different ways, my suggestion was that by attempting to reproduce the "recorded ambient detail" and limiting the detracticting sonic "overlay" of the listening room, you would acheive a greater degree of realism.

And speakers need to be used as reverse microphones.  The idea is that the mikes are the collectors and the speakers are the reproducers.

The more pure the chain from one to the other the better.

But I think most know that even in the "best" recordings, the degree of accuracy (needed to maintain any degree of realism) is hard to acheive.

[skrivis]

Actually I don't think that headphones would offer the idea, since they don't present sound to the "pinna" in a way that will allow it to provide the directional and localizational information to form a soundstage and imaging.

...

That's why they were using those "heads" to do binaural recording. The shape of the head and it's "ears" mimic the human head, therefore providing the cues we need.