As my system has evolved over the years, I've noticed a change in how I perceive resolution. Resolution and imaging now seem inextricably linked to me, in other words, maximized imaging is absolutely necessary to maximizing resolution.
Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.
With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.
And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.
I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.
IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
There have been some odd comments in this thread today - one can't hear instrumental timbre from the back of the hall??? No localization??? You should be able to hear where an instrument is located on the stage from any seat in the hall. Many composers rely very much on the audience's ability to localize sound, on and off the stage, most obviously Henry Brant and other composers of "spatial" music. This is what many audiophiles mean by "imaging", the ability to pinpoint the location of an instrument. And granting we are trained to blend our sounds together as much as possible, you should be able to distinguish different instrumental timbres from each other!!
And yes, there is an equivalent of what audiophiles call soundstaging in any hall - the sound of a great concert hall is very specifically designed by acousticians (with greatly varying levels of success, of course), and the recreation of this in a recording is an important part of "soundstaging." The best recordings do give you a sense of what the specific hall they were recorded in sounds like, though of course it can never be the same as hearing it live. Carnegie Hall presents a very different "soundstage" to Avery Fisher, for example (and a far better one, too), and this has a HUGE effect on what the music sounds like. If an orchestra goes on tour and plays in several different halls over the course of a few weeks, sometimes very big adjustments must be made to account for the different sound, or "soundstage" if you will, of each hall. Another example of how the "soundstage" can change in the same hall is if the orchestra changes their set-up, as they often do. Placing sections on different levels of risers or keeping everyone on the floor makes a very big difference to the sound out in the hall. Or moving a shell backwards or forwards so that there is more or less room on the stage (thus making the distance between players change). Or having movable side panels. All of these things will greatly affect the "soundstage" that is presented to the audience in the hall, and many modern halls are designed with many such features, so that the hall can sound different from week to week.
And for a trained musician, it is indeed possible to pick out an individual member of a violin section, even from the last row, though certainly most concertgoers would not be able to do this. It is easier to pick out individual players of the brass or woodwind sections, especially if you attend concerts by the same orchestra on a regular basis. And speaking of seating location, I hope, Mr. Tennis, that your favored last row is not under an overhang of any kind. If it is, this might indeed interfere with your ability to perceive the music as the performers are intending, for various acoustical reasons, and I would suggest that you change your seat if this is the case.
I did not mean to suggest that soundstaging and imaging are more important than accurate realization of instrumental timbre, of course, just that as Sns originally posted, these things do matter in the attempt to reproduce live music as much as can be done via recording. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!
To hear a recording that represents everything mentioned in this thread...I suggest the Living Stereo Copland "Billy the Kid"/Groffe "Grand Canyon Suite" Morton Gould....if there is a better recording that conveys the genius of these American composers I haven't heard it....A work of art of stunning beauty.
Learsfool, As the poster of one of the 'odd comments', lest I misunderstand, are you saying that you can distinguish the tonal qualities of each violin, and perhaps even be able to identify their maker by their particular tone, when the violins are playing en masse and you are sitting in the back of the hall? If so, you have a hearing ability that I don't possess. Just disregard the remainer of this post.
Or are you using the term in the context of being able to identify a particular type of instrument when it is playing with others, for example when all of the string instruments are playing the same music at the same volume (if this were even possible?) i.e. being able to distinguish between a violin, a viola, and a cello, playing the same note?
When using the term timbre I was using it in the context of how the violins (for example) sounded in comparison to each other, i.e. blended vs individually identifiable, not how they sounded when compared to winds, brass, percussion, nor how the various similar types sounded when compared to each other and what distinguishes their individual tones from each other. Apart from picking out instruments out of tune or players hitting sour notes I have doubts that fine distinguishing observations can be made from this distance between like (not just in the same family) instruments.
I would hope that most experienced folks can tell the difference between various instruments, even when some very similar ones play in the same register, but from the back row in the typical orchestral hall, at least the ones I have visited, I think even this would be very difficult for many folks unless there was a difference in pitch or volume to assist in the discrimination. Now if you can localize the source, its a walk in the park, but that has nothing much to do with timbre I think.
Perhaps we just use the word differently? When I have seen it used in this forum, for the most part, I have assumed the poster was simply referring to a speakers ability to replicate the sound of an instrument reasonably accurately, but only in certain aspects, which has as much to do with the speakers (and other stuff in the chain) level of resolution as anything else.
I think it must be so, since neither you, I think, nor I would ever listen to a speaker reproducing an instrument (let alone an entire orchestra) and think that we might be hearing the real thing and 'thus be able to identify with any sense of certainty subtle differences in 'timbre' between it and others of its kind.
Care to buy a 'Strad' based, not on its reputation nor after hearing it live, but only over a stereo system and relying on only what your hear then (not its reputation/cost/bling factors)? Would you be confident that its tone would be the tone that you would want as opposed to the tone of many other fine, but different, violins?
So when I listen to music over a stereo system I don't think in terms of its ability to resolve subtle timbre issues so much as to allow an open window to what the recording engineers put down. And only the lord knows what that might have been!
I think some are missing one of my points, imaging and lifelike sound are only one point at issue. I'm also saying that resoution is heard and/or at least somewhat defined by how well your system images and soundstages. A more palpable, dimensional image allows more detail to be hear. I contend a sytem that doesn't image and soundstage well is not maximally resolute, ie. the very spaciousness of the image and soundstage allows you to hear things that were formerly bunched up within less dimensional images and soundstaging.
Just think of you room as your own private concert hall that is unique and distinct from any other and don't worry about what the music sounds like elsewhere because it ain't the same so it really doesn't matter.
I'll add some observations about what takes place(my system)when very good imaging,resoltion and transparency are present. Everything has been constant for a while....speakers,cables,preamps..but I have had maybe six different amplifiers pass thru my system. Now when cables break in they morph...I use NBS. The NBS cables when new produce a directional sound from my speakers. Very left..right and vocals are on the same plane as the midrange driver...so there is some soundstage & imaging but limited. When they "come up" the sound is for the most part dispersed much more openly and vocals are center stage with a lifelike precision. I charachterise this sound as "open" and the L&R sound as "closed".
As I listened to each amplifier...I noticed differences in the imaging and soundstage...with verying degrees of openess. I use two amplifiers...one is SS and the other is tube....that is down from six(the others are in various systems(not main). Luckily both exhibit wonderful 3D qualities,resolution and transparency.
These amps morph in the same way as the cables...the tube does when I breakin new tubes and the SS when I recap with new or different capacitors. The amps at first are LR directional as they "come up" the sound is omni directional with the sound eminating with what my father observed as "Is the sound coming from the speakers??...the sound is coming from behind them..." good observation...as now the majority of recordings no longer sound LR or closed..but often are 3D holographic extending beyond the speakers and in fact beyond the room boundries.
What actually happens here is that the speakers work in a extremely coherent and efficent manner...depending on the amplifier(everything else is constant)and I think it goes well beyond just to say there is a synergy. Resolution increases...transparency goe up in magnitudes...and imaging takes on the ability to produce space and volume of the original venue. I am not a engineer so technically I cannot explain what is taking place....but I know that distortion levels must be at low levels to acheive this quality of sound. I think distortion... lack of has more of a impact than anything else. I have come to this conclusion because of the differences I hear between capacitors when I mod my equipment. FWIW
Newbee, I just re-read what I posted, and that does sound crazy (I really should stop making these posts so late at night). If the whole orchestra is playing, and all of the violins are playing in unison, then no, it should be nearly impossible to distinguish an individual member of the violin section, unless, as you say, there is someone very out of tune or playing a wrong note, or an open E string when they shouldn't be. But if it is a very quiet passage, and say someone is vibrating differently than the rest of the section, or is playing too loudly compared to the rest, this can be audible. This is the type of thing I was thinking of when I wrote that.
Timbre does also refer to the tone of an individual instrument, it is not just a general term, though you would usually use the word "tone" when speaking of it in that way. From the back of the hall, an experienced listener should be able to pick out the timbre of the violins as opposed to the violas, even if they are playing in unison and at the same volume, which certainly does happen often. Picking out the tone of an individual violin within the section, however, would be extremely difficult, as you say, and identifying the make of a specific violin would be quite a feat indeed. If one was a violinist, perhaps this could be done, if the violin section was playing by itself. Being a horn player, I could come reasonably close to identifying the make of instrument if I heard it live. With wind instruments, this is quite a bit easier, as our tones are quite a bit more individual than those of a string instrument. I could certainly identify any of my wind-playing colleagues tones in my orchestra instantly upon hearing them, whereas it would be much more difficult for me to do so with my string-playing colleagues, who I almost never hear playing by themselves, except for the principals.
However, I hope it goes without saying that it would be silly for a concertgoer to even attempt to try to identify individual violinst's tones. Why I went there, I have no idea, re-reading that. I plead guilty, with a side of sleep-deprivation. Even to concentrate on a single section would be detrimental to your overall experience of the music. Only music students need to do this. The main thing one should try to do, besides enjoying the whole texture of the music, is to try to isolate the main melody or thematic components from the accompanying ideas, and follow these things throughout the orchestra. The composer assumes his listeners are trying to do this, and of course helps by carefully balancing the sonorities he creates. There is a great book on the subject actually, written by the famous American composer Aaron Copland, called "What To Listen For In Music." I highly recommend it to all who are interested, which I hope anyone perusing this site would be. He asks two questions - Are you hearing everything that is going on, and are you really being sensitive to it. Whatever sort of music you like to listen to, this book will really deepen your understanding and enjoyment of it. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!
when listening to music there is a a "level" of clarity. unfortunately i think most stereo systems sound clearer than what i would observe at a concert hall. i do not want to hear the turning of pages, the movement of a chair, as such non musical "data" is distracting. at a distance from the source of the music, i would not hear these non-musical "sounds".
i do not notice an image at a concert hall. it sounds more like mono, than stereo. i don't notice the spacing that some audiophiles talk about when they listen to recordings.
Hi Mr T, have you ever thought of putting both of your speakers side by side in the middle of the room, IE: just move them close together, as opposed to usual distance spread apart? I would think that that would give you what you are "looking" for.
Any thoughts on this, by youself or anyone else? Bob
Back to live music and imaging. I've lived in Ann Arbor, Mi. environs my entire life. Living so near the University Of Michigan has allowed me the opportunity to hear countless musical performances by UM music school students.
The music is generally classical, groupings cover the whole gamut, all the way from orchestral to soloist. There are many venues to choose from, with acoustics ranging from world class to hopeless. Since most are free, I can choose to sit wherever I like, I'm pretty sure I've sat in nearly every possible position. Sound reinforcement varies from minimal miking to natural acoustic.
The variability in imaging at these concerts is astounding! Yes, there can be more of a flat perspective with the large symphony playing very dense and dynamic pieces. But with smaller ensembles, and even the symphony playing more intimate pieces, there is a multitude of imaging effects. Live music can cover the broad spectrum of imaging effects, from holographic to dead flat, it is all there.
For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging.
As to what Learsfool hears as far as tonality and image specicifity, I hear the exact same thing. I do think one has to train themselves to hear these things. My early training came from Jimmy, my audiophile/sound reinforcement friend, and later on, music appreciation courses at UM.
Imaging live is different than imaging from 2 speakers but there is imaging occurring nonetheless in both cases.
I have heard systems morph as Wavetrader describes. I often wonder though how much of it is the system itself changing as opposed to our ears adapting and tuning in to the new sound? I suspect it is some of both in most cases.
"For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging."
It should try to but the results will never be exactly the same though because there are too many variables.
You can throw as much money as you want at this problem and it will still always exist.
Better to accept this fact and live with the reproduction that sounds good to you. If its flat and lacking imaging or dimensionality, so be it.
Learsfool, Thanks for the clarification regarding what I percieved as a superhuman hearing ability mostly achieved after the signal hit the grey matter. :-)
FWIW, my use of the word timbre in that context was not from ignorance of common usage so much as I can't imagine that anyone at an audiophile level would accept speakers in the first place that couldn't resolve differences between mic'd violins and cellos (for example) playing in the same register. Its just not that subtle, I think.
I think this has been said somewhere (probably in this thread) but all of the discussion about a live acoustic and imaging is IMHO nothing more than the ability of the forces to drive or overdrive a room, not much different that what a stereo system does in your home.
As evidence, listen to Mahler in a small auditorum - listen to some Bosendorfers in a small chamber. Either could put you off your lunch. Now move them to appropriate space and you get to hear a lot more inner detail. Remove the room factor entirely, i.e. outside, and Mr T would (at least I would argue he could) hear all of that imaging that he does not hear in his home or in a symphony hall in his favorite seat even if the distance to the orchestra was identical. But I suspect most would find the sound a bit sterile, being acoustomed to the reverberations added by the room. I do.
So, in the final analysis I tend to agree with Mapman's last sentence, and like Goldylocks I have chosen to set up a system which is not overly analytical, yet has enuf overall resolution so that I can get very good imaging including front to back 'depth of image'. Not because I think that this is 'real' so much as it is just the sound I like most.
Mapman, I'm not saying reproduced images are exactly like 'real' images. I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system. Yes, there are flat recordings, these should be reproduced as such. The point is, imaging exists in live music, and should also exist in audio reproduction if it is on the recording.
The greatest problem is knowing exactly the imaging properties of the original recording. I suppose we would have to be at the recording session (in some cases) or at least hear the master tape.
I think that Sns and Mapman are both correct. Sound reproduction should attempt to mirror the effects of live music as closely as possible, however it will never achieve this goal because of all the variables involved, not the least of which is a bad recording job in the first place. I know I have said this before, but I think too many audiophiles are too quick to blame their systems instead of the recording. The bottom line is you need to have a system that you like the sound of. And many of us cannot afford to buy the equipment we might really like. It's all a compromise of some sort. Shouldn't stop you from enjoying the music.
Newbee is right that often live music must be played in very inappropriate rooms, which makes it hard for the performers to adjust. Just last night, for instance, my orchestra performed in a church gymnasium, ooh aah. And at both of the schools I went to, the orchestra had to perform in a hall too small for it, though both were great for chamber music and recitals.
By the way, Sns, does anyone ever play any concerts in Hill Auditorium there in Ann Arbor anymore, or has it fallen into disuse/disrepair? I had the pleasure of playing in that hall back in the mid-eighties. It would be a shame if that great old hall died.
"I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system."
I would agree.
Sometimes the imaging cues are there and make for a special listening experience. Sometimes they are not there, or they are there but too scrambled during the recording process to be recovered, and listening merit has to come from other recording factors.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
