Sound Stage and Imaging

@mahgister "...imaging is NEVER achieved by luck or haphazard owners actions , but by acoustic good conditions and gear synergy for sure ..."

Are you speaking about image as a holographic or two dimensional ?

Imaging is the soundfield differentiation in space ...

Soundstaging is the three encompassing global dimensions of the soundfield way out of the speakers plane filling the room...

Holographic is the projection of the soundfield from points imaging in space to volumes distributed in space ...

Immersiveness when timbre perception is relatively accomplished as natural is the soundfield ratio between the sound source dimension and the listener position (ASW/LV ) in a word when the holography include the listener position ... Immersiveness is reached and timbre done relatively well when imaging soundstaging and holography are clearly perceived and distinguished together...

To all this i will add the acoustic aura and air between the volumes of each instrument in super high end systemin a completely controlled room ...(not mine) 😊

The best spatial attributes of sound maybe reached at any price but relatively (a low cost amplifier is not a 20,000 bucks one ) , first with Synergy between gear , at any price, then with mechanical and electrical controls of the working dimensions , and last but not least with acoustic control (not just mere passive treatment ) of the relation between the room pressure zones distribution and the speakers...But all that is not enough ...

Because of problems affecting all stereo system by crosstalk and the irrealism of the phantom images among many problems we need ears internal measures, HTRF measures. moving head measures filmed in real time and on top of that the BACCH filters system of Dr, Choueiri ...

Without all that even imaging will stay an abstraction almost as some points distributed in a spatial dimension between 2D and three D near the speakers and between it ... Even with some costlier system and even with EQ analog or digital, it is simple to deduce that it is not enough ....😁 And the sarcasms of some about any spatial true characteristics of sound as mere "illusions", "echoes", and "artefacts" says a lot about their own experience in their own system ...

Knowledge and creativity create S.Q. ,not  mere price tag nor mere EQ. which is only one among other useful tools ...

In spite of my criticism about some of your posts  where you discredited headphone owners , i appreciate that you are generally not only polite but patient...

By the way i like you as you are and you can be useful for information you deliver rightfully ...

this does not means that all you claims reflect absolute truth as you already know for sure ...😁

Dont change but try to open your eyes for other possibilities ...

Remember that i dont entertain grudges... But i like to be factual and sometimes more philosophical and i argue too much for some ... They even could be right ... 😊😉

my best to you as usual ...

Magister, you are over analyzing me. I am a simpleton, a rather rude one. Blame my parents.

I build my own room mechanical equalizer ...And i modified my speakers and all my headphones for the better i hope that this exclude me from the crowd of ignorant passive consumers audiophiles ?

If you are building your own loudspeakers you are most definitely a true audiophile in the best sense.

I take it negatively guess why ?

In another post you claimed that headphones listeners are not true audiophiles because headphones are inferior to speakers...Do you remember ?😊

In my world , and i disliked headphones all my life , they are different not superior or inferior ...

Each one has his set of problems which must be adressed and these problems are as important and impeding S.Q. in the two cases. and NONE was inferior or superior precisely because of the negative impact of the trade-off implicated in these different designs ...

Crosstalk is the main problem of speakers with the room acoustic complex parameters to balance which problems are huge problems never adressed or even never perceived as problems ( especially crosstalk) by many audiophiles ...

Shell design and flawed acoustic chamber of the headphone and the absence of HRTF function transfer in the design of headphone, and the phantom image very artificial illusion centered in the head and the lack of body response to the dynamic pressure of the sound and the frequency constraints of the cells compared to a real instrument etc...

Neither speakers right out of the box neither headphones are superior to one another contrary to what you claimed associating headphones owners to secondary cheap audiophiles... ( the ratio S.Q. versus price indeed is superior with headphone)..

Then i take your sentence as a sarcasm at least and as a refusal to answer to my criticism of your post above with no arguments save insult...

You can now say what you said out of the context of your posts as if this sentence was not what it really was...i will stop here ...I dont want to inflame this discussion ... but truth matter ..

I have no grudge against you , i just give my opinion ...😊 And i entertain no grudges precisely because i always give my thoughts clearly here with arguments...

I did not mean it to be harsh at all. He is concerned about crosstalk. Headphones are the best way to defeat it.

You remark is sarcasm not an answer...

My post only said that there is acoustics explanation for imaging and soundstage dimension ...

The gear synergy and design play an important role too ...

The electrical and mecanical embeddings controls of the system too ...

I also said that no DSP which is only a useful tool can replace the factors and parameters above nor replace the ears training by the way ... In the opposite DSP work the better when HRTF function and inner ears measures are done ...

I also said that any stereo system at any price will suffer from a lost of spatial qualities information by crosstalk interference in the ears/brain information processing, then no DSP can correct effectively this without timbre degradation in the process save the BACCH filters DSP not the one you play with 😊...

You said that i must stick to headphones which is sarcasm devoid of arguments as is your dogmatic usual posture after reading the DSP manual owner as scriptures ...

Acoustics and psycho-acoustics rule the gear/room relation, Your DSP is not enough ...

Imaging dont appear by luck save perhaps in your life not in mine , imaging appear once the synergy between the pieces of gear is given , and with a system where the room acoustics and the speakers are coupled rightfully as it is explained in acoustics articles or books ... And the only DSP mandatory is the BACCH filters because no other DSP suppress crosstalk without degradation of timbre ..

Inform yourself before insulting as an answer ...

By the way because i dont like to be perceived as an imbecile i NEVER post one line sarcasm or insult detrimental to someone , save in a friendly humor communication ... NEVER because i CAN give sound arguments and if i could not i recognize my errors and mistakes instead of insulting or mocking ...

By the way your sarcasm in another post about  headphones owner reveal the abyss of your dogmatic ignorance  about acoustics  and your snobism about audiophile  matters ...

@mahgister

I think you should just stick to headphones.

If the gear system dont present synergy problem between the pieces to begin with ...

If you can control the room acoustic timing of the directed and reflected waves and some control of the pressure zone distribution with a good ratio between absorption,reflection and diffusion...

If you control vibrations/resonance of the speakers...

Your system will create a relatively good imaging and a soundstage out of the speakers plane ...

If you can add the crosstalk filters of The BACCH system it will improve a lot because the problems of ALL STEREO SYSTEMS at any price is the crosstalk effect on the working brain/ears to compute sound source width dimensions and position in your room..

In a word digital usual DSP is not enough at all, contrary of what says myjostyn, and the most ridiculous claim ever : imaging is NEVER achieved by luck or haphazard owners actions , but by acoustic good conditions and gear synergy for sure ...

I know because BEFORE implementing acoustics necessary condition with my speakers/room , and this two times with different room and different amplifiers and speakers, i did not have imaging well done neither a big soundstage encompassing the listener position ...

Digital DSP with room correction may help for sure, it is a tool, but cannot work replacing room acoustics nor control speakers vibrations/resonance, nor replace the ears specific measures And HRTF measures ...

The best imaging will be reach with a DSP as the BACCH filters , once the room is acoustically done , the speakers response and the inner ears will be measured and the HTRF measures done , once for all , and used to recreate the spatial qualities lost in any stereo installation at any price because of speakers crosstalk impeding perception...

Simple digital DSP will never replace the BACCH nor replace room acoustics nor the necessary ears and HTRF measures ...Period...

Imaging dont result from luck by trial and errors or haphazard actions or accidents....

By  what will appear as luck but is not,  some room content and geometry and topology and dimensions are easier to work with ...Thats all ....Because all room will need acoustics conditions answered and worked with  the right way ... There is no luck in any acoustical manifested phenomena ... We must use the principles and work the system/room ...

Using digital DSP will not replace synergy between all pieces of gear , will not decrease vibrations, nor correct the electrical noise floor and will not transform a bad room acoustics in a better one ... it will put a band-aid on the physical perceived acoustics wounds ...It will not suppress crosstalk ... And if it does it , some DSP does it, it will be  with no comparison with the BACCH filters ...

The best imaging is not so hard to achieve BECAUSE it does not result from luck but from acoustic applied principle and synergy, and mechanical and electrical embeddings controls ... Digital DSP alone, without inner ears measures and HTRF measures which must be used and applied in an already acoustically controlled room, is not enough ... Even the BACCH dsp will need physical room acoustic to work optimally ...And no DSP correct the lack of gear synergy .;..

The best imaging is very hard to achieve. It is impossible in some rooms. The speakers have to be in symmetrical identical environments and have to have identical frequency response curves from 100 Hz to 12 kHz. This is difficult to achieve without digital signal processing. There can not be any serious phase aberrations and all drivers have to be time aligned. Full range loudspeakers with subwoofers are the best way to achieve this. The fewer analog crosses the better. Digital crossovers are better but rare. There is only one preamp that has them and that is the DEQX Pre 8. There are commercial dBx DriveRacks that could easily be used in a home system. Sanders uses one with his Model 10 loudspeaker.

Coming up with an entirely analog system that images at the state of the art is a matter of sheer luck. I use to sell and install systems in a previous life and I have heard only two such systems do it. It also requires the right live recordings. With studio recordings image "depth" is a matter of how much echo is applied. I view studio recordings as a different form of art, fun in it’s own right, surrealistic.

Good speakers and good dac will not be enough for a natural big enveloping soundstage with a natural timbre and good imaging ...

The main element for the retrieval of spatial information encoded in the recording will be the acoustic relation and controls over ears/speakers/room ... No dac no speakers can replace this ...