Pin point imaging isn't for everyone

In many things audio, tradeoffs are inevitable.

There is a tradeoff relationship between imaging precision on the one hand, and envelopment/immersion on the other. The tradeoff has to do with how much energy is in the reverberant field.

Imo a reverberant field "done right" benefits timbre, soundstage depth, and a sense of being immersed in the acoustic space on the recording (as opposed to being immersed in the acoustic signature of a small listening room).

Imo the way to minimize the detriment to imaging precision from having a well-energized reverberant field is to minimize the amount of energy that goes into the early reflections, as these are the ones that have the most effect on imaging precision.

Erik wrote: "I think a lot of that is in the reverb too, so there’s something to be said for speakers with rear facing drivers."

I agree, which is rather predictable, since I’ve been using rear-firing drivers for years, along with relatively narrow-pattern front-firing drivers (which minimize early reflections). Still, I would have to concede that achieving the most pinpoint imaging would call for minimizing all reflections.

Duke

I think you missed the point a little, Miller.

How natural is pin point imaging in acoustic music? Roy argued, as do I, that it’s really not.

The second question is whether you want it, and want it more than other features of reproduction.

@Eric>

A subject my posts touch on often is whether pin point imaging is desirable, or natural. 

blindjim>

desirable?

 of course!

natural?

  many factors affect  that out come.

imaging intimates a couple things, first off is harmonic integrity and thereafter geographical identification  of the musicians within the sound field/venue, and for some, the atmosphere or physical attributes  of the venue itself.  

Which version of imaging is being taken to task here? geographic localization, or harmonic  integrity?

I’ll presume the former.

precise = marked by exactness and accuracy of expression and detail.

pin point adj.  to fix, determine or identify with precision

although these definitions are  not  the whole shooting match when the job of speakers is concerned, it does  define   their basic criterion during their performance. 

recreating localized imaging as has been said already is the predominate result of how the venue was miked and or how the studio demo was thereafter processed or mixed down.

speakers is ignert, but they ain’t stupid! you can’t fix stupid but you can fix ignert, .

the electrical signal educates the speakers to what ever level the speaker’s aptitude will allow.

many though not all  speakers can demonstrate very good imaging IF the upstream components and room are well accomplished.

this is why I profess spending more on the electronics than on the speakers usually. especially when the ‘ducket’ bucket only has so many frog skins  in it.

sit in the front few rows of any acoustic show/concert, and if you can not distinguish who and where singers or musicians are on the stage, then save your concert going money  and stay home.

alternatively if you are at the rear of the venue/hall, it becomes a tuffer task, unless of course you can actually see the performers. together, the visual and audible information locates ‘precisely’ the artists.

at school or church you can pick out your kids voice, or some other’s in the choir or on the stage, can’t you?

even with orchestras one can readily fix where the strings, brass, reeds, etc., are set.

I suppose at WoodStock 50 years ago this week, if you were standing or stumbling way on back from the stage, it was all a mono affair.

 so why can’t we expect speakers to do the same provided we’ve done our jobs and thoughtfully considered for our speakers, their room, positioning, their electronics, and of course, the media itself?

the design philosophy of any loudspeaker build should be to create a system which emmulates as closely as possible harmonic integrity, instrument localization, as given by the source, and the chosen media and dependant on the mixing process when it was mastered in as listenable a fashion as possible.

that said, I’ve yet to hear or own a system which I can undeniably state that from listening to a recording, I can ‘precisely’ locate everything within the concert including what material is making up the venue’s walls, curtains, width and or depth of the stage, etc., as some reviewers seem to enjoy accounting from time to time.  

perhaps the only way to actually gain such insight is to be there during that recording, and hopefully have a perfect auditory and otherwise, memory along with an outstanding uber performing audio rig. 

imaging, both localized and harmonic,  is the thread which connects the demonstration together propelling it to greater heights of enjoyment for many in this hobby.  when a recording combines positioning information, and tonal accuracy the depiction is considered excellent, but it all lives or dies with the recording itself and how much attention and effort went into its production.

how the recorded media content  is going to be conveyed is another crucial responsibility for the speaker system designer to develop.   

RE Mr. Allison

sounds to me like Mr. Allison is making an argument  for how he has chosen to build speakers or for his own philosophy for listening to them. His  position is a more relaxed perspective on designing speakers as it seems to lower the bar for the build.

physically locating the components of any musical production is part and parcel a result. how well it was rendered depends on numerous concerns, yet the source media is the primary  ‘person of interest’ in unraveling the   soundstage’  conundrum. 

if a system does not image well,  on both sides of that coin, I lose interest quickly

When I’m in a small club, with no mics on the drumset or guitar/bass amps---just the vocal mics, yes, the location of each instrument is very concrete. But what does that have to do with reproducing the imaging contained in any given recording? Nothing!

Expecting a loudspeaker to recreate the ambience and instrumental/vocal imaging heard in any given space---whether a concert hall or Jazz/Blues/Folk/whatever club---is folly. That’s one reason the Bose 901 sucks!

Recording engineers choose their mics, the locations of those mics in relation to the performers, how the numerous mic signals are mixed, in order to create a "sound field"---a sonic picture. It is the loudspeaker’s job to reproduce that recording, not to create the sound of a concert hall, small club, etc. If the recording contains pinpoint images, the loudspeaker should recreate them. If the recording contains diffused image locations, that's what it should sound like when played on your loudspeakers. Duh.