Oh really, what are the objectives in both cases? The recording engineer’s objective is to capture the event as accurate as possible, although he does have some artistic freedom, while the audiophile objective is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, although they do exercise artistic freedom. How do you reconcile trying to reproduce something accurately that you were not preview to? Which rendition out of the trillion of different ones is the most accurate one and how do we judge it to be so?
Oh really, what are the objectives in both cases? The recording engineer’s objective is to capture the event as accurate as possible, although he does have some artistic freedom, while the audiophile objective is to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible, although they do exercise artistic freedom. How do you reconcile trying to reproduce something accurately that you were not preview to? Which rendition out of the trillion of different one is the most accurate one and how do we judge it to be so?
Gary koh of genesis speakers made a recording
at his demos he even played the lacquers and vinyl
he knew where everyone was.
And as Carlos said he them showed us how things can be changed in a system.
I think It’s wrong to say one knows where it is or should be.
anyone’s system is a master of illusion for each of us to understand
Tima s comment I had to read twice and is very accurate but ignored as is Carlos comments
just move your speakers more forward or backwards this changes things ???
If you can't make the difference between mastering and reproduction, then you may as well use any system and tweak the mastering. Ultimately, equipment becomes secondary, and you can simply discuss this with recording engineers. I don't think it is useful for us audiophiles to think in these terms, and for all practical purposes it is pointless as only a very few people can do it.
The other major subjective factor is design, with the fetishism of only liking components that match your aesthetic values, that could include liking high efficiency speakers, tube etc, to lux multi thousand dollar case designs, etc.
Do you know what "objectively" means? Is there a metric for imaging?
Out of all the qualities we attribute to a system, imaging is perhaps the most subjectively interpeted and most difficult to quantity. To many listeners it is also of the least importance.
Do you know what "objectively" means? Is there a metric for imaging?
Out of all the qualities we attribute to a system, imaging is perhaps the most subjectively interpeted and most difficult to quantity. To many listeners it is also of the least importance.
Respectfully disagree. That is subjective depending on your system and particularly your speaker's design capabilities. Given their omni design, MBL's imaging qualities are not their forte whereas a two way speaker design is often praised for its pinpoint imaging. There are also a plethoria of other factors that can affect this sonic parameter.
Not true MBL and bayz image great it depends on setup as well as source.
now do they pinpoint image bayz does not as much on MBL
And im not claiming to a wizard but having them a few times and bayz at shows and showrooms its for me as I said
Having owned the MBL 116's for some seven years and having read numerous reviews about the "omni's" inherent strengths and weaknesses, I respectfully disagree.
And I can agree with your assessment as well on MBL but I can’t on bayz I’ve heard them too many times with great stage and presence. But this hobby is subjective in views and conclusions per person.
That's because it's not subjective. When I had a hifi store, I used to demonstrate imaging, everyone who heard a well defined soundstage with palpable images could described it, like 'I can see one singer at the front left and another back right' , or a group of singers standing in a semi circle etc.
Respectfully disagree. That is subjective depending on your system and particularly your speaker's design capabilities. Given their omni design, MBL's imaging qualities are not their forte whereas a two way speaker design is often praised for its pinpoint imaging. There are also a plethoria of other factors that can affect this sonic parameter.
Except that pinpoint imaging is not a good thing. When I had my last set of two-way monitors I was fortunately able to "de-pin" their imaging. Performers in real music are localizable, at least if you're within a range where direct sound still overrides the contribution of reflected sound, but real music never has small and sharply outlined pinpoint size images. That's an objective fact, BTW.
If everyone who hears system A can accurately locate the singers within the sounstage of a specific recording, yet cannot locate them accurately in system B, then I would say system A has objectively better imaging.
Here's how I parse what you're proposing:
Without measurements, performers judged in each listener's mind relative to one another.
- Front to back.
- Right to left.
- Bottom to top.
And the standard for 'objectively' is agreement.
" ... then I would say system A has objectively better imaging."
I think you'd be better off if you said: ... then I would say system A has better imaging.
I don't think adding the adverb 'objectively' brings anything to your use case. And there doesn't seem to be value in changing the pretty well entrenched meaning of 'objectively' or 'objective'.
Here's how I parse what you're proposing:
Without measurements, performers judged in each listener's mind relative to one another.
- Front to back.
- Right to left.
- Bottom to top.
And the standard for 'objectively' is agreement.
" ... then I would say system A has objectively better imaging."
I think you'd be better off if you said: ... then I would say system A has better imaging.
I don't think adding the adverb 'objectively' brings anything to your use case. And there doesn't seem to be value in changing the pretty well entrenched meaning of 'objectively' or 'objective'.
Well, if 100% of people can consistently locate the singers in front of them, then the location of the singers can be considered a fact based on empirical evidence.
