I think you are getting hung up on language…pinpoint is just another way of saying precise or very specifically located in the soundstage. It doesn’t mean literally small pinpoints as images.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Ironic given panels can give very good imaging. Honestly, if the imaging of a system is poor then something is wrong.
Our ability to geo-locate a sound source -- the snap of the twig behind you in the dark -- is independent of forming an image. If you recognize the sound you may have an image in your head.
How can this phenomenon be considered remotely ‘Natural’ as this is not how the Human auditory system works Viz :
Sound localization - Wikipedia
An article suggests that "pinpoint imaging" is possible provided the event recorded by the best binaural technique, the dummy head being identical in shape and density to that of the listener and the listener listening through headphones.I posted the following in a different thread, but want it here as it reflects my thinking on the topic of natural sound:
Live music is my reference, and the reference for many here, but not all.
In my opinion, very precise, pinpoint imaging, usually with outlines, is an artifact, and to me it sounds artificial. Some gear and combinations of components and acoustic treatment set up in particular ways will create this effect. Sure, some people like that. It gives the illusion that someone is there in the room with you, but it sounds fake to me. When I close my eyes when listening to someone speak or when listening to live acoustic instruments, I do not hear this effect. Therefore, I do not want to recreate it in my listening room. My goal is a more natural presentation, reminding me of what I hear live.
I am talking about the origin of the sound, the location of the musician with his instrument as it is presented before me. My focus is the sound that the musician or singer makes with his or her instrument. The musician himself is not making a sound. We should not see/hear/imagine a pinpoint image of the musician or his instrument but rather the location from which the energy originates and then expands into the space. Is that precise? To me, it is about the spatial relationships between the instruments up on stage and how the energy moves outward and around and is reflected. I can tell that the violins are to the left of the piano and cello and that the timpani is further back in center and where the brass section and wind instruments are. The triangle may pierce through the mix and be on the left side, but where exactly is hard to tell, especially if you sit further back in the hall. Of course Ella is sitting there right next to Joe Pass in front of me in my room, but even then, it is not pinpoint and certainly not outlined. I hear her voice and his guitar. I hear the moment the sound is created and roughly where, but no pinpoint and no outline. The scale is believable and their relationship within the space is convincing. I can imagine them there singing and playing, but it is only the origin of the sound in space as captured by the recording and presented by the system in the room. Pinpoint imaging also implies to me at least a very small and precise point in space. Hearing a piano or cello or voice singing is nothing like that.
Yes, we all certainly have different approaches, observations, and goals.
Boston symphony hall last week just prior to the beginning of the program. When the musicians started to play, I could see pinpoint imaging. But when I closed my eyes, I did not hear it. The right most cello is 3 feet in front of the bass player. That is pinpoint imaging. There is no way I could discern that distance with my eyes closed. But I could hear a wave of low frequency energy coming from the left middle front of the stage and the two instrument sections playing very distinctly. The timbres were unique and the spatial relationship was clear but there was nothing pinpoint about it.
During Tchaikovsky’s piano Concerto, I could clearly see the pianist’s two arms rising above the keyboard, with fingers hidden. I could clearly hear 10 fingers on two hands playing different keys. Although I am certain the two hands attached to 10 fingers we’re only playing inches apart, I could not tell that by simply listening to the sound. What I heard was the energy leaving the soundboard to fill that great hall with beautiful music and the piano in the middle of the string sections and in front of the brass with the tympani even further back. There was an occasional triangle strike. Its energy pierced through the fabric, clear and high from somewhere behind the violins and to the left of the piano.
The sound from that orchestra simply did not have any pinpoint imaging.
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/stereo-microphone-techniques-explained-part-2
Personally, though I prefer simply miked (Decca Tree) small group pure analogue recordings (wherein the sound stage is very identifiable, if not "pinpoint"), I can equally enjoy mono wherein the music comes from a lump between my speakers (providing tone and timbre are correct).
The only time I found a soundstage unacceptable (I had to get rid of the record) was a chamber orchestral recording of Vivaldi from Chasing the Dragon which had the orchestra sitting in a circle with several microphones suspended over their heads in a circle as well. I knew from reading the cover and seeing the setup off the record jacket that this was the microphone placement, but my mind just couldn't adjust to the soundstage of people sitting on each others shoulders to form a big vertical circle between my speakers.
How can this phenomenon be considered remotely ‘Natural’ as this is not how the Human auditory system works Viz :
Sound localization - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I am describing what I hear and criticizing the audiophile language which does not seem to match it. Why don’t you try to describe what you actually hear?
Yes, I am talking about the language. It does not make sense to me. I keep saying there is nothing “pinpoint” about it and you seem to agree. I prefer simply imaging or locating the origin of the sound. Sometimes doing it with precision is possible, sometimes it is not.
Pinpoint is a descriptor of how precise people perceive that localization...I think this is pretty common use of language and readily understood by most native speakers...which I believe you are.
Well, to deliberately detune your system or not to give any care to placement of speakers to get good imaging because "I don't hear it like that live" is frankly stupid. I can understand not caring too much about ultraprecise image placement but to say you don't care at all is throwing away a lot of potential information on the recording.
Keep in mind that precision of placement on recordings is generally better by design...mic placement, mixing, addition of reverb and ambience are all part of the product. What I have found, particularly for small ensembles heard live and where I sat very close, I get a very good facsimile of that live event in a reproduction at home. That is, IMO, the best one can do for a comparison (IMO, comparing large works live and at home makes no sense as the recordings are too compromised compared to the real thing and you rarely get to sit in the right place to have a "microphone" perspective). I got to hear a lot of house concerts for classical and for many years there was a small Jazz club in Zurich where you could literally sit within touching distance of the performers...no amplification needed (although I think some was used by the double bass). When you sit in that proximity it is a lot like many of the recordings. That is my reference...not big concert halls, which are too hard to compare with what is on recordings.
I think “pinpoint” is a poor word to describe music or any other sounds. Some sounds have shorter wavelengths with less reverberation and so pop out from the overall sonic texture, but aren’t tiny points.
Right now I’m on our deck, surrounded by forest and a huge symphony of different sounds. There’s the background drone of a distant interstate overlaid with a 360 degree kaleidoscope of a dozen different bird calls, close and hundreds of yards away. Their calls are intense and each precisely locatable. None of these sounds would I describe as pinpoint or as having “outlines”.
As far as recorded music goes, I’ve heard plenty of bad overly bright and etched sound — both digital and analog. I’ve also heard plenty of poor sounding live music. Amplified being by far the worst, but acoustic concerts can also be pretty mediocre depending on venue acoustics. In those instances , I’d much rather listen to a good recording at home.
In any of these cases I’ve never heard outlines. This seems more like a mental/verbal construct than anything.
Right now I’m on our deck, surrounded by forest and a huge symphony of different sounds. There’s the background drone of a distant interstate overlaid with a 360 degree kaleidoscope of a dozen different bird calls, close and hundreds of yards away. Their calls are intense and each precisely locatable. None of these sounds would I describe as pinpoint or as having “outlines”.
As far as recorded music goes, I’ve heard plenty of bad overly bright and etched sound — both digital and analog. I’ve also heard plenty of poor sounding live music. Amplified being by far the worst, but acoustic concerts can also be pretty mediocre depending on venue acoustics. In those instances , I’d much rather listen to a good recording at home.
In any of these cases I’ve never heard outlines. This seems more like a mental/verbal construct than anything.
I understand that. And some choose gear and set it up in a particular way for extremely precise imaging. Different values and goals. No worries.
Some reviewers and some audiophiles like the effect and strive for it. They use the phrase to describe reproduction. I never hear people use it to describe live sound. Makes me wonder why.
Last edited:
Sure. Not my system, nor my goals. I only mentioned it as an example of people choosing different approaches. No need to discuss his system in detail. He left WBF a long time ago.
IMO, it comes as a consequence of a properly functioning and setup system...no need to specifically choose gear for that function...
Or maybe the Martin Logan guy who gave a last book review at his parting ?
Yes, both gear and set up do make a difference to the presentation. These are choices people make for specific results. Like with other things, it is often a matter of degree and these things fall within a range. We choose where on that range we want to lie. I started this thread to describe my particular approach to sound. It is my system thread in which I describe my goals and what I hear. I also occasionally ruminate about the hobby as it relates to what I am doing.
Last edited:
No, that is a very interesting and excellent sounding system. He got a new turntable recently. He is still a member here. Jazzdude99.
Last edited:
Similar threads
