Natural Sound

[R Johnson]

Those are very similar to the seats I went to as a kid when my parents took me into the Chicago Symphony to hear Giulini and Solti. It was a long 2 hour drive from Rockford Illinois for a young kid and I tried not to doze off.

The Gallery seats are pretty much unchanged from the Solti era. The hall had a significant renovation since then - stage expanded, "terrace" seating behind the orchestra and glass reflector added, etc.

I grew up in Rockford and have been a CSO full season subscriber since 1971.

As you might expect as one who has seats near the back of the hall, I am not much concerned about imaging specificity.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Those are very similar to the seats I went to as a kid when my parents took me into the Chicago Symphony to hear Giulini and Solti. It was a long 2 hour drive from Rockford Illinois for a young kid and I tried not to doze off.

I could imagine the gentle sounds of a snoring young PeterA up in the gallery might have Solti mid adagio Mahler 10 suddenly and furiously swapping over to Ride of the Valkyries in full flight and forte!

 

[tima]

IMO, it comes as a consequence of a properly functioning and setup system...no need to specifically choose gear for that function...

That's an example of begging the question ...

Set up a system so that it yields "pinpoint imaging" (or whatever characteristic you like) and then calling that a consequence of a properly functioning and setup system.

That tells us what you like but it's not an argument for it.

 

[PeterA]

The Gallery seats are pretty much unchanged from the Solti era. The hall had a significant renovation since then - stage expanded, "terrace" seating behind the orchestra and glass reflector added, etc.

I grew up in Rockford and have been a CSO full season subscriber since 1971.

As you might expect as one who has seats near the back of the hall, I am not much concerned about imaging specificity.

Wow, what a coincidence. Rockford had its own symphony back then as I recall. I was there in the 60s and 70s. It was a wonderful place to grow up.

 

[jeff1225]

An audio friend and former member here specifically told me he was not interested in imaging from his system. He focuses on tone or accurate timbre. He goes to the Boston Symphony a lot. His son plays a horn instrument and his neighbor is a violinist. He listens to a lot of live music of different scales. He’s not interested in imaging from his panels.

Funny. I’ve had many visitors to my system and the only person that I don’t think really liked it was a panel guy (rebuilt Appogees). He said that imaging was one of the most important things for him, and as we all know, corner horns don’t image well. I’ve heard Peter’s speakers, Bob Crikes KHorns, Hartsfields (obviously), and they excel with tone and ease of presentation.

When I visited MikeL’s system I heard fantastic imaging, and I loved it. Imaging is great and adds to the listening experience IMO. But I think my speakers excel in tone….maybe.

But all speakers are a compromise.

 

[morricab]

That's an example of begging the question ...

Set up a system so that it yields "pinpoint imaging" (or whatever characteristic you like) and then calling that a consequence of a properly functioning and setup system.

That tells us what you like but it's not an argument for it.

No Tîm, that is not how it works at all and worse, I think you know this and are now busy making strawman arguments just so you can argue that “pinpoint” (although I already made clear what it is…and is not) imaging doesn’t guarantee a proper functioning and setup system. Very disappointing…I expect more thought in your posts than this.

I said a properly functioning and setup system will exhibit good imaging and soundstage properties…it’s an effect…not a cause.

 

[morricab]

Wow, what a coincidence. Rockford had its own symphony back then as I recall. I was there in the 60s and 70s. It was a wonderful place to grow up.

I have family from Rockford (my Aunt moved there probably 60 years ago, so some of my cousins were born and raised there) !

 

[PeterA]

No Tîm, that is not how it works at all and worse, I think you know this and are now busy making strawman arguments just so you can argue that “pinpoint” (although I already made clear what it is…and is not) imaging doesn’t guarantee a proper functioning and setup system. Very disappointing…I expect more thought in your posts than this.

I said a properly functioning and setup system will exhibit good imaging and soundstage properties…it’s an effect…not a cause.

I think it is a matter of degree. Great imaging presented naturally (like you hear live) yes. Ultra precise pinpoint imaging, no. IMO.

 

[morricab]

Funny. I’ve had many visitors to my system and the only person that I don’t think really liked it was a panel guy (rebuilt Appogees). He said that imaging was one of the most important things for him, and as we all know, corner horns don’t image well. I’ve heard Peter’s speakers, Bob Crikes KHorns, Hartsfields (obviously), and they excel with tone and ease of presentation.

When I visited MikeL’s system I heard fantastic imaging, and I loved it. Imaging is great and adds to the listening experience IMO. But I think my speakers excel in tone….maybe.

But all speakers are a compromise.

Your’s and Peter’s speakers are a bit of a special case in that there mandatory placement impacts a certain aspect of stereo reproduction…in the mono era it didn’t really matter so much.
I bet if you pulled them out into the room they would image fine but bass would probably disappear.

 

[PeterA]

Does anyone reading this think that imaging is involved with the sense of presence one experiences from a system?

 

[morricab]

I think it is a matter of degree. Great imaging presented naturally (like you hear live) yes. Ultra precise pinpoint imaging, no. IMO.

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.

 

[tima]

No Tîm, that is not how it works at all and worse, I think you know this and are now busy making strawman arguments just so you can argue that “pinpoint” (although I already made clear what it is…and is not) imaging doesn’t guarantee a proper functioning and setup system. Very disappointing…I expect more thought in your posts than this.

I said a properly functioning and setup system will exhibit good imaging and soundstage properties…it’s an effect…not a cause.

Nah -- I was commenting on your lousy argument. You're free to declare whatever you wish, just don't think you were making a conclusion.

 

[morricab]

Does anyone reading this think that imaging is involved with the sense of presence one experiences from a system?

Yes of course it should…as long as it’s not flat.

 

[morricab]

Nah -- I was commenting on your lousy argument. You're free to declare whatever you wish, just don't think you were making a conclusion.

There was nothing lousy about my argument…just keep twisting what I say though to make your arguments work…

I gather you don’t resonate with the argument because A) you think you have a proper functioning system and setup and B) Your imaging is not so precise

Are these suppositions correct? (Not that I expect an intellectually honest answer).

 

[tima]

 

[PeterA]

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.

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 so David’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 changes 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.

 

[tima]

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.

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.

I can agree about a range as you say with varying conditions. Hearing Ella and Joe Pass on the Bionors there was presence and weight as she 'appeared' before me in my head. I'd say the nature of the image is personal -- we each have our own depictions drawn from our own experience and imagination. I did not have the same experience with Grumiaux playing Beethoven's violin concerto as I had with Ella though it was no less rich. Ella was more dimensional. Dimensionally there was the sense of an orchestra in a hall, but I did not experience three dimensional musicians in outline.

This is where the live experience and the audio room experience part ways somewhat though the divorce is a matter of degree. In our listening rooms we can't escape the Stereophony Effect. In the concert hall I don't have an image in my head as long as my eyes are open -- I have the real thing before me. In the audio room perhaps I am trying to 'naturalize' the expereience -- there, for me, it works better with my eyes closed -- looking at my speakers is a distraction to the having of an image in my head. I suspect my brain puts the sonic inputs together slightly differently between the two scenarios. Afterall I know I am in my room and I know I am in a hall and that may predispose me to how I experience both.

I don't think we hear all that much different from one another. But the area of imaging is so psycho-acousticky that it may lead some to believe we do.

On stereophony:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/magico-m7-2023.37665/page-16#post-921239

 

[Rensselaer]

I can agree about a range as you say with varying conditions. Hearing Ella and Joe Pass on the Bionors there was presence and weight as she 'appeared' before me in my head. I'd say the nature of the image is personal -- we each have our own depictions drawn from our own experience and imagination. I did not have the same experience with Grumiaux playing Beethoven's violin concerto as I had with Ella though it was no less rich. Ella was more dimensional. Dimensionally there was the sense of an orchestra in a hall, but I did not experience three dimensional musicians in outline.

This is where the live experience and the audio room experience part ways somewhat though the divorce is a matter of degree. In our listening rooms we can't escape the Stereophony Effect. In the concert hall I don't have an image in my head as long as my eyes are open -- I have the real thing before me. In the audio room perhaps I am trying to 'naturalize' the expereience -- there, for me, it works better with my eyes closed -- looking at my speakers is a distraction to the having of an image in my head. I suspect my brain puts the sonic inputs together slightly differently between the two scenarios. Afterall I know I am in my room and I know I am in a hall and that may predispose me to how I experience both.

I don't think we hear all that much different from one another. But the area of imaging is so psycho-acousticky that it may lead some to believe we do.

On stereophony:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/magico-m7-2023.37665/page-16#post-921239

If we can agree that the majority of the imaging is determined by the recording set up (example: three microphones in a Decca Tree formation, volume of each player balanced by moving that player closer or further away from the microphones so that no processing of the signal is committed upon it as it is recorded to tape), then evaluation of any speaker’s ability to image well (includes upstream equipment) should be done with the same recording, no?

 

[morricab]

If we can agree that the majority of the imaging is determined by the recording set up (example: three microphones in a Decca Tree formation, volume of each player balanced by moving that player closer or further away from the microphones so that no processing of the signal is committed upon it as it is recorded to tape), then evaluation of any speaker’s ability to image well (includes upstream equipment) should be done with the same recording, no?

Not clear on what you mean by "should be done with the same recording, no?" Can you please clarify?

 

[morricab]

I can agree about a range as you say with varying conditions. Hearing Ella and Joe Pass on the Bionors there was presence and weight as she 'appeared' before me in my head. I'd say the nature of the image is personal -- we each have our own depictions drawn from our own experience and imagination. I did not have the same experience with Grumiaux playing Beethoven's violin concerto as I had with Ella though it was no less rich. Ella was more dimensional. Dimensionally there was the sense of an orchestra in a hall, but I did not experience three dimensional musicians in outline.

This is where the live experience and the audio room experience part ways somewhat though the divorce is a matter of degree. In our listening rooms we can't escape the Stereophony Effect. In the concert hall I don't have an image in my head as long as my eyes are open -- I have the real thing before me. In the audio room perhaps I am trying to 'naturalize' the expereience -- there, for me, it works better with my eyes closed -- looking at my speakers is a distraction to the having of an image in my head. I suspect my brain puts the sonic inputs together slightly differently between the two scenarios. Afterall I know I am in my room and I know I am in a hall and that may predispose me to how I experience both.

I don't think we hear all that much different from one another. But the area of imaging is so psycho-acousticky that it may lead some to believe we do.

On stereophony:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/magico-m7-2023.37665/page-16#post-921239

This is more in line from what i have come to expect from you, Tim. A thoughtful and interesting post. I have found that presence is both a system and recording trait. If you sit very close to a trumpet, singer or whatever instrument then you get that presence live. Its big its bold and usually pretty loud...although it rarely hurts.

I also think that a system should "breathe" with level, recording allowing. A lot of recordings are sufficiently deficient in this that no system will bring it out in a lifelike manner. Some older jazz albums where a singer or particular instrument is highlighted (like Ella you mentioned) do this rather easily but it is also a clear production choice to push the rest of the band back in the mix. Quite a few Riverside and Blue Note recordings are this way.

Some really great Jazz recordings on ECM and ACT manage to have presence without losing the rest of the band. On the wrong system they will sound overwhelming or, in some cases with the slower music, boring, but not if you have your low level resolution and spatial resolution at a high level...then you can revel in decay of notes and interaction between musicians.

I was often at jazz concerts sitting right at the stage and I noticed that the saxophone sound was very contained at the instrument at low volumes but as he went up in volume the sound expanded out away from the instrument like a bubble and then contracted back as he went back down in volume...like breathing. Very few recordings or systems allow for this breathing to happen the way I have heard it live.