Yes. Why wouldn't it be? I sure wouldn't want to listen to the equivalent of musical wallpaper. A true 3-D experience that renders the play back is much more preferable to said 2-D wallpaper play back.
When you can "see" the keystrokes playing on a piano and "see" where the piano is placed and how it is placed. Then see the performer singing behind said piano with other instruments playing behind them in a 3-D field? It offers a more realistic reproductive effort.
Tom
Hello Tom, I agree that imaging should not be flat and two dimensional for a natural presentation of imaging. There should be a sense of presence and dimension and identifiable location and scale for a natural presentation of imaging. I shared my thoughts in what I wrote about 10 pages ago:
Well-Known Member
morricab said:
Where is that line Peter? For me, for imaging to be natural it has to have volume. The precision shoukd be there too but it has to be grainless and 3D. Presence in the room. Big bloomy vague images is simply wrong for most recordings…you might like it better because it is more like distant live listening but from a recording it is usually wrong. It indicates you accept a clear system distortion that happens to fit with your aesthetic sense. That’s fine.
Flat images and soundstage is also a distortion of what is on good recordings and demonstrates a system that doesn’t process ambient and low level information correctly…either through omission or commission or both.
Click to expand...
I do not think it is a line but rather a range depending on system and recording, just like distance to the performers and direct versus indirect sound.
The most convincing imaging I have heard in terms of realism and believability was on David Karmeli’s main system with Bionors. Their was real presence and mass, image specificity and scale, natural location distinctions.
Yet, David never mentions pinpoint imaging. He refers to what I have heard from systems with very precise pinpoint imaging as “pinprick imaging”. I can relate.
I used to have that kind of effect with my old system caused by how my Magico Q3s were set up and with the Transparent wires and cords. The acoustic treatments also contributed. After I reposition those speakers and change power and wires and treatment, the sense of presence and imaging improved and was much more realistic and closer to what I hear live, especially fairly close to my experience with live chamber music but also classical from about the twelfth row center.
My current system has even better (more realistic) imaging because of the higher degree of resolution, and the sense of scale and mass. There is good illusion of dimension and spatial relationships between performers on stage and in a convincing setting or context. The improved imaging is integral to the sense of presence I now experience. There is nothing diffuse or vague about it. It is simply not enhanced like it was with my earlier Q3 With TA wires set up or some other systems I have heard.
I do not have big bloomy vague diffuse images as has been suggested. The sound or energy is big and expansive, but the images are an appropriate scale and location. And they have solid dimension with depth. Sometimes they are startlingly specific, in terms of location, but they are not pinpoint, outlined or flat. I have heard that type of presentation too.
Presence in the room is excellent, even better than with my improved Magico set up because of the increased resolution, it is just not quite as good as from those Bionors. Realistic imaging within a range is important for a natural sounding presentation.
Edit: and imaging should change depending on the recording. The system should not overlay a sameness in term of imaging to all recordings.