[James Tanner]

Hi All

I have been wondering what your thoughts are on ‘IMAGING” as it applies to an audio/video system.
Some say they feel different electronics (preamps, amps etc.) can provide a different perspective and soundstage presentation.

At the recording end of the chain, depending on the microphone arrangement and set-up, the amplitude (volume) is generally used to place specific instruments or voices in space. The louder sounds appear more forward the lower sounds appear further back etc. Images between the speakers, as we all experience in our typical stereo set-up, is a function of the amplitude levels being equalized or averaged between the left and right speaker to provide our ear/brain with a phantom image. Phase is used to place images outside the boundaries of the loudspeakers – Q Sound comes to mind. Also the timing and arrival times being recorded with simpler microphone techniques are used given that the left ear hears the sound slightly before the right ear and visa-versa.

So after all this ramble my question is – where do you think the images come from in the playback scenario. My experience has taught me that the LOUDSPEAKER and the PLACEMENT in the room is the main contributor to how an audio system will image and that electronics (assuming adequate design) in the signal chain (other than the ones used in the recording to manipulate the images as the engineer sees fit) are not contributing all that much to the overall soundscape?

[Dilbert]

James, I definitely agree with you. I have found that control of the first speaker reflection is especially critical.

[95Dyna]

My experience tends to confirm this assumption, James.  My speakers are placed asymetrically firing from the long wall with stage right being about 1.5 meters closer to the side wall.  I am more likely to hear imaging beyond the right speaker than the left and the sweet spot is a tad off center left.  I have had these speakers placed more symetrically in the past and these conditions equalized.  I have upgraded all my electronics this past year and what they have done is enhanced what was already there:  images in the same places but more pronounced and precise, soundstage of the same proportions only larger (especially in the vertical dimension).  I find that the recording more than anything else outside the speaks and placement has the most significant contribution to the equation.  Now, the reason I'm set up this way is another story and not necesarily my preference so I don't want to take the thread off track by going into detail.

[Mag]

IMO bass for example if not properly amplified by a sub will sound boomy. When the bass is fast and clean then there is no boom and bass is articulate. So this means an inaccurate wave produced by combination of amp and speaker will smear with multiple reflections instead of having just one accurate wave.

Also in playback the speakers are a source of sound. Like you say with stereo placement we get a phantom image between two speakers. I have observed when being out in the city sound reflects off of buildings. Giving the impression of coming from another direction. So speakers can have this image reinforced positivily with proper reflections off of back wall giving a 3D image with a focused reflection.

[bmckenney]

Speaker placement is the biggest factor to proper or good imaging IMO.  And sticking with the room and acoustics, absorption or diffusion at reflection points which was already mentioned.  And equally important is keeping things clear of the speakers themselves.  No TV between the speakers.  No rack of equipment between the speakers.  And to a lesser degree, bass trap absorption which cleans up frequency response, and as a byproduct decreases smearing of images.  And also good AC power is a factor in achieving the imaging that is in the music recording.  If the AC power is dirty, the noise makes it way in to the signal path resulting in smearing of image location.  I believe that if you do all of the above really well, and you take a good pair of speakers and average or decent electronics, the result will be pretty darn good imaging.

And I don't look for a change in electronics like a preamp to do anything for imaging or soundstage.   To me the changes are so small and pretty much irrelevant compared to what acoustic tweaking does.  I'd rather a change in electronics improve other areas of playback.

I think that's pretty much what you said, James.  So count me in as agreeing with you.

To me imaging is important but not as much as dynamics, frequency response or tone.  Imaging is the location of where some note occurs in the recording.  But it's not the note itself.  Big difference.

The above factors for getting good imaging are also the keys for dynamics, frequency response etc.  So if you can get the acoustics setup right and good AC then EVERYTHING, not just imaging, will fall in to place.

The problem is, a lot of people want great sound and will spend a lot of money on a stereo including speakers and electronics hoping that the more they spend on better quality equipment the better things will sound, but IMO most audiophiles have horrible speaker placement.  Almost every dealer room I've heard or seen had poor speaker placement and the sound is poor to average but hardly ever stunning.  Most but not all audiophiles I know don't have a dedicated room and have poor speaker placement and setup and the sound pretty much sucks.   But the components themselves are top notch!

Bryan

[Mag]

As I mentioned before Metemorphesus by Jean Michel Jarre I get this ghostly voice image that I never noticed before getting my 3B SST/2. This suggests that imaging is also dependant on the linearity of the sound spectrum as I also use an enhancer that doesn't roll off the high freq..

When you get this level of imaging it is impressive!

[werd]

Hi All

I have been wondering what your thoughts are on ‘IMAGING” as it applies to an audio/video system.
Some say they feel different electronics (preamps, amps etc.) can provide a different perspective and soundstage presentation.

At the recording end of the chain, depending on the microphone arrangement and set-up, the amplitude (volume) is generally used to place specific instruments or voices in space. The louder sounds appear more forward the lower sounds appear further back etc. Images between the speakers, as we all experience in our typical stereo set-up, is a function of the amplitude levels being equalized or averaged between the left and right speaker to provide our ear/brain with a phantom image. Phase is used to place images outside the boundaries of the loudspeakers – Q Sound comes to mind. Also the timing and arrival times being recorded with simpler microphone techniques are used given that the left ear hears the sound slightly before the right ear and visa-versa.

So after all this ramble my question is – where do you think the images come from in the playback scenario. My experience has taught me that the LOUDSPEAKER and the PLACEMENT in the room is the main contributor to how an audio system will image and that electronics (assuming adequate design) in the signal chain (other than the ones used in the recording to manipulate the images as the engineer sees fit) are not contributing all that much to the overall soundscape?

With all due respect i cant believe you said that. Massive power supplies with almost absent distortion is what gets the image forward. The 4bsq images better than the 4bsst imo. How you position your speakers is the most important only because this is where a person can can screw it up.

The Phantom center is where you find all the cues imo that seperate a good amp from a great amp. spacial cue with excellent timing won't be believable if the amp bogs out. And lets not forget about the mono left and mono right channels, these channels are where holographic images are portrayed and the basis of MF's contempt of the 7B's. Here the amp(and other gear) will provide energy or not. Again low distortion and big power will layer the soundstage with a sense of effortless power. MF just picked the wrong speaker and kept with it. Speaker placement and synergy plays its biggest part in the mono channels... all imho.

[*Scotty*]

I will give opposing testimony here. Firstly what we might experience as imaging is inherently contained in the recording. I have experienced large improvements in imaging just from changing from one amp to another. Imaging information appears to consist of amplitude and phase information and the phase information seems to be easily corrupted by passage through the chain of electronics. A flat sound-stage with a little depth and occasionally an image just beyond the edge of the loudspeaker is probably considered the norm for a stereo image and almost any system can meet this standard of performance, which is just this side of musical wallpaper. You can do better. Many recordings when properly reproduced will envelope the listener within an acoustic space. The sources of sound won't just come from in front of you in the plane of the loudspeakers, it will appear to come from any and all directions including above and behind you. You can also have apparent sources of sound that appear to be located between you and the loudspeakers which seem as though you could reach out and touch them.  The higher the fidelity of your reproduction of the information contained in the recording the more often you will experience this type imaging,particularly from studio recordings.
Scotty

[James Tanner]

With all due respect i cant believe you said that. Massive power supplies with almost absent distortion is what gets the image forward. The 4bsq images better than the 4bsst imo. How you position your speakers is the most important only because this is where a person can can screw it up.

The Phantom center is where you find all the cues imo that seperate a good amp from a great amp. spacial cue with excellent timing won't be believable if the amp bogs out. And lets not forget about the mono left and mono right channels, these channels are where holographic images are portrayed and the basis of MF's contempt of the 7B's. Here the amp(and other gear) will provide energy or not. Again low distortion and big power will layer the soundstage with a sense of effortless power. MF just picked the wrong speaker and kept with it. Speaker placement and synergy plays its biggest part in the mono channels... all imho.

Hi werd,

I said it because I have been running some tests recently with a few people that I trust for their listening abilities with a few speakers I have on hand. The new Tannoy’s , the Thiels, the PMC’s and the Quads in my main sound room. The electronics are all Bryston of course but the differences in the way the different speakers present the soundstage is really quite large.

So I thought it might be of interest to get some feedback from all of you out there. Sorry if I spoiled your opinion of me.

James

[werd]

Hi werd,

I said it because I have been running some tests recently with a few people that I trust for their listening abilities with a few speakers I have on hand. The new Tannoy’s , the Thiels, the PMC’s and the Quads in my main sound room. The electronics are all Bryston of course but the differences in the way the different speakers present the soundstage is really quite large.

So I thought it might be of interest to get some feedback from all of you out there. Sorry if I spoiled your opinion of me.

James

Nah..... no spoilage... But there in lies your conundrum. You are using the 28's which are world class. So you are going to get all that i talked about but with a different speaker soundstage.

You should go get a box store receiver... even an expensive one. You will see what i and Scotty are talking about. Listen to that for a couple of days.

[*Scotty*]

James,do any of the speakers produce the type of three dimensional imaging I described in my post. Can you describe the type of sound-stage each speaker produces when a single recording is used and how the sound-stage changes from one speaker to the next.
Scotty

[James Tanner]

Hi Scotty,

I just had Steve our Ontario rep here this morning and I currently have the Thiel SCS4's set up with the Thiel SS1 subs (2) and his comment was - "James I have never heard a better system - the speakers totally disappear!"

So far the Thiels seem to be giving me the best out of box experience and the sound stage is not the dreaded "U" shape.




james

[Stu Pitt]

My experience tells me that the recording, speakers, and speaker/room interface (set up and acoustics) have far more influence than anything else.  But that doesn't mean nothing else matters either.

Keeping the speakers and placement the same, I went from an NAD 320BEE and 523 CD player to my current system, piece by piece.  The Rega Apollo changed the soundstage and imaging (among other things) for the better.  Everything was improved.  The B60 replacing the 320BEE improved everything yet again.  The Audio Physic Yaras replacing the PSB Image T55s improved it further.  I didn't have the desire to swap piece after piece in and out to figure out which caused the most changes, not that I was thinking about it anyway.

I can't say definitively which electronic upgrade had the most effect, but I can say the speakers had the most.  If the speakers were underdriven, I'm sure an amp upgrade would have had a more profound effect.  Moving my system from one room to another had a pretty big effect too.  Cables had very little effect on this aspect to my ears.  One cable opened things up a little more than the rest, but nothing on the level of anything else. 

[turkey]

My experience has taught me that the LOUDSPEAKER and the PLACEMENT in the room is the main contributor to how an audio system will image and that electronics (assuming adequate design) in the signal chain (other than the ones used in the recording to manipulate the images as the engineer sees fit) are not contributing all that much to the overall soundscape?

+1

The actual acoustic environment on the room will be important too, and the recording you're playing also makes a big difference.

The electronics, unless they're broken or use some funky design, shouldn't influence the imaging much at all.

[turkey]

You should go get a box store receiver... even an expensive one. You will see what i and Scotty are talking about. Listen to that for a couple of days.

I did that. Some friends and I got together and did some blind listening tests. One of the selections was an inexpensive Pioneer HT receiver.

Given good recordings, my speakers image extremely well, and they continued to do so when driven by the receiver.

[95Dyna]

Hi Scotty,

I just had Steve our Ontario rep here this morning and I currently have the Thiel SCS4's set up with the Thiel SS1 subs (2) and his comment was - "James I have never heard a better system - the speakers totally disappear!"

So far the Thiels seem to be giving me the best out of box experience and the sound stage is not the dreaded "U" shape.




james

Is this combination better sounding than the 3.7 alone?

[Dilbert]

When it comes to electronics, I think people may confuse imaging with resolving power or resolution. This is where I think there are major differences due to electronics and to a lesser extent, speakers.

[Stu Pitt]

James -
Are those Thiells coaxial?  I think that's the right term - tweeter in the middle of the driver like in car speakers.

Of the ones I've heard, they've all imaged and soundstaged phenominally with a very cohesive sound.  Their downfall has been they didn't go very high or low in frequency.

I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions/observations about them.

[konut]

Have not heard the Thiels, but looking at the specs its no surprise they sound so good. Coaxially-mounted drivers and aluminum baffle with 1st order crossover would lead one to believe that the phase varies no more than + or - 45 degrees, if that. I would venture to say the other speakers varience is more than that, contributing to the large difference in soundstage. Getting crossovers right is no easy feat.   

[turkey]

Have not heard the Thiels, but looking at the specs its no surprise they sound so good. Coaxially-mounted drivers and aluminum baffle with 1st order crossover would lead one to believe that the phase varies no more than + or - 45 degrees, if that.

At only one point in front of each speaker though. It's not terribly useful, and phase has been shown to not make an audible difference anyway.

Then there are the major drawbacks of using a 1st-order crossover like increased IM, poor power-handling, lobing, etc.