This is very easy, and has been covered so many times before. It seems when people don't have a particular experience, they cannot relate to another's, and revert back to their own.
Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I agree with your premise, but a piano and a singer with no amplification does not cover a lot of music. I was recently in a jazz club with seating for 35. The band was acoustic bass, drum kit, guitar, trombone. I was seated dead center at the first table. All were lightly miked except for the drums. The trombone bell was about 7 feet from my head. I closed my eyes specifically to evaluate soundstage. There was nothing resembling the soundstage one gets in a typical high end audio system.
I evaluate sound quality based on, in descending order of importance:
1. Musicality/PRaT (must be musically involving, by far the main criterion)
2. Tonality (no anomalies; too fat or too lean, aggressive treble, etc)
3. Transient response (notes start and stop realistically, snare drums snap, not thump)
4. Detail (it's fun to hear everything in the mix but not necessary for musical enjoyment
5. Soundstage (again, it is impressive and fun to hear left and right, upfront or way in the back, but does not affect musicality)
I have a small audio system in the kitchen (sMS-200 streamer, iFi iOne DAC, Meitner STR50 Plus amp, Raw 1F single driver speakers), which sounds great to me because it does 1-3 very well. But frankly I enjoy music on a car radio, maybe because with no audio system involved, I pay very little attention to anything but the music.
Last edited:
I do not think Ron is the problem, I think Ron is very kind and positive but because of Ron and Steve are site owners so I think Ron can help to solve this problem.
Hi Al, Yes, it does contain negatives, but not the negatives or properties listed in the audio file glossary of terms.
For example, I want to avoid the system that draws attention to itself or to an attribute. This is about the natural balance based on the experience when listening to live acoustic music. I want to avoid pinpoint imaging and stark outlines. In fact, imaging is a strange concept. Image of what?
With eyes closed at a live performance, what you hear is sound or energy expanding from a location where it is produced or where it originates. That’s not an image. That is location and scale.
Does this list really support the argument that I am rejecting the “absolute sound” approach?
- Natural resolution, not “detail”
- No “sound”, only music
- Relaxing, zero fatigue
- No need to crank the volume
- No added or artificial extension
- No analysis of the sound into bits and pieces, music experienced as a whole
What the first two approaches have in common is that they both reference live acoustic music in a space: the absolute sound and natural sound. The problem is that one approach chases and seeks to maximize particular attributes defined in the magazines. When I do not hear those attributes at all or emphasized in live acoustic music, I don’t want my system to present the recordings that way, unless of course the recordings are not natural to begin with.
Last edited:
Before Taylor Swift, there was a 500 year German tradition of Lieder, the French and their Chansons, and the Russians were also game for a poet and a piano. Nina Simone was quite handy on the ivories and used to sing at the same time. More recent candidates might include Cecile McLorin Salvant, to name but one. You might want to have a listen to this rather remarkable recital or at least half of the actual live recital, which was frankly mesmerising.
Hello Amir, David contributed a lot of great content here based on his knowledge and experience. That was a moment in time and those interested in that content benefited. He has no interest in returning or contributing anything further. The owners of the forum can do nothing about it.
Whether something has sharp imaging live or not has a lot to do with your proximity to the sound source and the acoustics of the space. Live can sound very precise and “pinpoint “ when seated up close.We've been talking about how the stereo experience is different from the concert hall experience for some time now, so not so much "all the sudden". There are several threads that go into some depth on this.
Thread topics:
Search results for query: imaging
www.whatsbestforum.com
and particularly, this one, but don't get disuaded by the initial discussion on PRAT:
SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER
I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...
You can experience pinpoint imaging -- meaning the psycho-acoustic idealization of precise location of different sound sources relative to one another and sometimes cashed out as outlined performer images -- you can experience this during the stereo experience, although its not a given. In the concert hall with your eyes closed, not so much. Try it.
Relative to the live experience pinpoint imaging in the stereo room is an artificiality. Some people embrace these types of psycho-acoustic 'virtues' of the stereo experience. Within the context of natural sound it is de-emphasized as something sought after or as a requirement when putting a system together in a room.
It has to always be remembered that most recordings, including classical ones, are recorded up close. This will naturally make them more “pinpoint “ due to the presence of up close recording. I have a couple of recordings that are recorded mid hall and they don’t sound at all like most commercial recordings. They are less “pinpoint” and sound that way when reproduced, even in systems with very precise imaging.
I would argue, therefore, if your system is defocusing the images and you are taking this as “more natural” that this is not correct because you are altering the majority of recordings. Midhall presentation should be the exception not the rule.
You want them to kidnap him and force him to type out posts on this forum or what? They have told him he can return…if he chooses not to do so then what would you propose to do if you want him back so badly?
I don't think a system can create pinpoint imaging if it's not in the recording. We would have to get into specific examples. Perhaps there is something else that you are missing on those "hifi" systems.
Define "pinpoint". I agree that you can very precisely localize players as long as you're sitting (or recording) so close that the contribution of direct sound exceeds that of reflected sound.
Yet precise location and small size are two different things. Live sound images of players are always of some size, they are *never* "pinpoint" small.
A system needs to be able to provide precise location of players. Yet should it routinely portray pinpoint small sizes? Highly debatable.
This is the problem I think…you are taking the word “pinpoint “ too literally. It doesn’t mean tiny images, it means very precise.
Definition of PINPOINT
something that is extremely small or insignificant; the point of a pin; an extremely small or sharp point… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Please note, we are talking about an adjective, not a noun. Both adjective and verb form are relating to fineness and/or precise.
pinpoint
2 of 3
adjective
1: extremely fine or precise
2
: located, fixed, or directed with extreme precision
pinpoint targets
3
: small as a pinpoint
pinpoint
3 of 3
verb
pinpointed; pinpointing; pinpointstransitive verb
1
: to locate or aim with great precision or accuracy
pinpoint a source
2
a
: to fix, determine, or identify with precision
pinpoint the cause
b
: to cause to stand out conspicuously : HIGHLIGHT
I don’t think anyone here who doesn’t have an agenda would ever say “pinpoint” imaging means tiny images that are pinpoints. They mean everything is laid out precisely on a stage and easily mentally located in space and distinct from other perceived images.
This is the problem I think…you are taking the word “pinpoint “ too literally. It doesn’t mean tiny images, it means very precise.
Definition of PINPOINT
something that is extremely small or insignificant; the point of a pin; an extremely small or sharp point… See the full definition
Please note, we are talking about an adjective, not a noun. Both adjective and verb form are relating to fineness and/or precise.
pinpoint
2 of 3
adjective
1
: extremely fine or precise
2
: located, fixed, or directed with extreme precision
pinpoint targets
3
: small as a pinpoint
pinpoint
3 of 3
verb
pinpointed; pinpointing; pinpoints
transitive verb
1
: to locate or aim with great precision or accuracy
pinpoint a source
2
a
: to fix, determine, or identify with precision
pinpoint the cause
b
: to cause to stand out conspicuously : HIGHLIGHT
I don’t think anyone here who doesn’t have an agenda would ever say “pinpoint” imaging means tiny images that are pinpoints. They mean everything is laid out precisely on a stage and easily mentally located in space and distinct from other perceived images.
Maybe everyone views the definition of pinpoint the way you say they do, but I wouldn't be so sure. In fact, if I am not mistaken, some like (excessively) small images.
You say:
"everything is laid out precisely on a stage and easily mentally located in space and distinct from other perceived images."
I agree that this is the way it should be, but that should not be called "pinpoint", given that the Merriam-Webster defintion 3 still is a possibility of interpretation: Small as a pinpoint. (And again, it seems to me that this is what some audiophiles want, and what some systems/speakers produce. I mentioned my previous Ensemble Reference speakers.)
Now you are just parsing to be argumentative. It is clear from the definitions of adjectives and verbs that the major ones revolve around precision or exactness of something.
Show me one audiophile that likes excessively small images…what a nonsense….what most don’t like are bloated excessively large images (a problem that some large speaker systems can have) and I would say most want realistically sized images…precisely located in space…aka pinpoint imaging.
Yes, you are because you have focused on the least common definition for the adjective form of this word and then you and others have built up a strawman around to say “Look pinpoint imaging isn’t natural because real images aren’t so small”, which isn’t the main definition to begin with!
Now, rather than conceding that the definition you were using was not really what is meant, nor the main definition used for the word, you want to parse and argue that SOME people mean the unlikely use of the word. However, you have no idea if your position holds any water or not. It’s because you thought, incorrectly, that pinpoint imaging meant tiny images, other people must have meant that too.
Not quite. For example, Dick Olsher reviewed my old Ensemble Reference speakers in Stereophile in 1990, and among other high praise highlighted their presumed great soundstage capabilities. Yet a few months later he had very critical words about the too small image sizes ("like stars in the night sky"). He was right in that later assessment, and wrong in his initial praise where he must have found the precise "pinpoint" (small) imaging a virtue. Also my later Reference 3A monitors were prone to throw relatively too small image sizes of instruments or instrument groups even though it wasn't nearly as bad.
Yet even bigger speakers can portray pinpoint imaging in the worst sense of the word. Since some like the sound it is safe to assume they also like the imaging.
I have heard Rockport Altair speakers in the large room of Goodwin's portray the players of a string quartet with far too small image sizes. In fact, it was the most ridiculous spatial presentation of string quartet that I have heard from a system, since the small image sizes were combined with completely exaggerated with of the ensemble. The outer players seemed to sit as much as 30 feet apart! Perhaps this could have been corrected with different electronics and set-up, I don't know.
On the other hand I have heard Rockport Lyra speakers in the same room portray the size and mass of the orchestral violin section in a Bruckner symphony recording in a *very* satisfying and convincing manner.
Having owned three pairs of Reference 3A speakers, I cannot concur with your assessment of their image sizes. Don’t know Ensemble speakers.
Well I guess that's a problem right there. You must have liked the relatively small images then (don't worry, I did too -- until I didn't).
It's not on all music, but certainly on some orchestral music. Wide soundstage, but relatively too small images.
I must be one of the others to whom you refer, Brad. I assure you that I am not describing tiny images. I am not arguing about "pinpoint" but rather about "pinpoint imaging" and outlined images. My question is what is meant by "image". Image of what exactly? I imagine no image of a musician bowing his violin, nor do I imagine seeing the bow and the violin. And this is regardless of where the mic is. I agree that different mic locations will change the listening perspective of what is presented at our listening seat when listening to the recording. That is not the issue.
When I close my eyes at a live concert, I hear the sound, the energy, from a bow against the strings of the violin being played by the musician. He or she is standing or sitting in a chair. I do not hear the sound of the chair. I hear the sound of the instrument. There is no image of anything. There is the location of the violin producing sounds and that location and that scale are specific in that moment. If recorded, that information should be later presented more or less naturally by the system in the room, if that was indeed the intent of the recording engineer. The system should not editorialize, emphasize, embellish, or otherwise change the information on the recording. That is natural. The system should disappear.
You mentioned focus before. I do not advocate for a "de-focusing" of the sound in the presentation. That is nonsense. I want focus. I want specificity, whatever is on the recording. What I do not want is a hyper focus, an etched and overly detailed image. Natural sound is what it is. It is what we hear. With a good recording, that sound should be presented in such a way that it reminds us of what we hear live. I am all for clarity and focus, as long is it is not more or less than what I hear live. And yes, it is dependent upon the recording and where the mic is located, and it is dependent upon the quality of the system.
I agree with you that people do not want the origin of the sound, whether it is a voice or or cello, to be the size of truck in the front of the living room. Nor do they want the location of that sound to be tiny or pinpoint. I want the scale and the location to be convincing and relative to the scale and location of the other instruments up on the stage or in the room.
I never think of an image. I think of Ella's voice in front of me next to Joe Pass' guitar sounds, presented in a realistic and convincing and natural scale and position up on stage or wherever they were when they were being recorded. And then I want the energy from that voice and guitar rapidly expanding into the room.
For me, "image" is simply the size and location of the origin of a sound in a recording in a virtual setting. It can be large or small, the air out of an organ pipe, or the ting of a small triangle. These are very distinct from the expansion of that sound into the listening space. One has specificity in size and location, the other is grows as it expands, and then it decays. One occurs quickly in time, and remains the same size and in the same location, unless the musician is moving around the stage. The other is the energy, soft or loud, and it grows and then fades. These are different from each other and I think some think of the former mixed with the latter, as an image or imaging when discussing sonic attributes. They are sounds with cues, not images with shape and edges.
Last edited:
lol! You really have no idea. I have owned some of the biggest speakers,, like 4 tower Infinty, 8 foot tall Acousta etc., so tiny images aren’t what I like. Of course the Ref 3A speakers couldn’t display a full orchestra in all its glory…(hint none can) but image sizes of vocals, instruments (including piano) were more or less sized just fine.
Similar threads
