What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

[bonzo75]

I am a little lost
can someone point me in the right direction in this discourse ?

Just make up your own definition of pin point imaging and join in, no need to read previous posts

 

[dcathro]

You can post about it here as well. Otherwise we will get more pages of pinpoint imaging

I couldn't bring myself to disrupt the flow of this thread. I have posted a new topic here

 

[dcathro]

Yes, certainly early stereo Mercury, RCA, Decca, etc. I don't have a chronology to work from but a certain era of DG (post tulips?) seemed to have lots of mics stitched together in an uneven patchwork - sometimes different 'patterns' across different movements of the same performance.

Several people in this thread, or maybe Peter's, suggest that images are 'in the recording' or 'on the record'. I'm unclear about that. When listening to a stereo, I thought images are a psycho-acoustic effect and are not independent of stereo equipment and to some extent set-up. Or so I've come to believe. The way a recording is made, to the extent it well captures an orchestra in a hall - with the venue being the container of energy as it were - certainly plays a role in facilitating images if I am susceptible. I'm talking about what was carried over from Peter's system thread - cut out images, sharply defined images, not the simple localization of timbre. I'm curious about your take on this.

Hi Tim,

I think when listening to live (unamplified) music in a room or concert hall, much of it comes to us as diffuse reflections. When we try to reproduce music via a stereo in another room, we try to minimize or control the reflections in our room so that we can hear the room reflections in the recording. I think in the best recordings you can hear (almost feel) the hall or room and a sense of the position of musicians within that space. This is captured by the mikes naturally (not close miked) without any special measures by the engineers. For me personally, the greatest sense of realism in reproduced sound comes from correct timing, dynamics, accurate tonality, and a sense of space. A diffuse soundstage fits perfectly into that for me.

 

[Al M.]

I worked in the pro side doing mastering, mixing and recording. I worked with quite a few engineers, and I never new anyone who really focused on imaging.

Thank you for this first-hand information, that is what I suspected. When I made the suggestion in this thread that engineers probably don't focus much on imaging, specifically pinpoint imaging, I got lots of pushback from some with certain biases.

The best classical recordings I have heard were made in the late 50's and early 60's and were done with minimal microphones and far field. I cannot imagine that the engineers were obsessing over imaging.

That makes sense.

 

[ack]

Imaging should be like this thread. No one should be able to pin the point anyone's trying to make, it should be obfuscated all over the place. That is the natural way of forum threads

And I have heard such systems which are also a total mess

 

[bonzo75]

And I have heard such systems which are also a total mess

That can happen because of mess too, but won't be the cause.

 

[dminches]

To me, PPI in my system refers to when I sit in the sweet spot I effectively get the vocals right in front of me (assuming they are centered in the recording, which they usually are) and the music spanning the width of the speakers (again, based on the recording). I have Vandersteen Model 7s and 1 thing that Vandersteens are know for is imaging. Likewise, for mono recordings the music is centered as well.

There are a number of recordings in which I can imaging where on the stage, or soundstage, each of the instruments is located. That's what I consider PPI.

On a side note, I have a center channel for 7.1 sound tracks. I have had people walk up to the that speaker when I am just playing music in 2.0 and they are amazing that nothing is coming out of it.

 

[DaveC]

Thank you for this first-hand information, that is what I suspected. When I made the suggestion in this thread that engineers probably don't focus much on imaging, specifically pinpoint imaging, I got lots of pushback from some with certain biases.

The N=1 sample size is not a confirmation your mistaken beliefs are true.

As I said myself, there are many recordings that are as described by dcathro. But there are also studio recordings that are not live at all, and close-mic'ed recording of live music, etc.

My point is that recordings vary. I even gave examples of music I have of simple recordings done with stereo mic's at Red Rocks for an example, but you should forget about that so you can put me down and argue more. If anyone is biased here Al, it's you. You're arguing from an emotional point of view and can't step away from that and see reason.

When people put down others who suggest you might learn something from reading a book on the subject in a totally respectful way, and others freak out about it, that's telling.

 

[Al M.]

The N=1 sample size is not a confirmation your mistaken beliefs are true.

As I said myself, there are many recordings that are as described by dcathro. But there are also studio recordings that are not live at all, and close-mic'ed recording of live music, etc.

My point is that recordings vary. I even gave examples of music I have of simple recordings done with stereo mic's at Red Rocks for an example, but you should forget about that so you can put me down and argue more. If anyone is biased here Al, it's you. You're arguing from an emotional point of view and can't step away from that and see reason.

He said he worked with "quite a few engineers", so far from a sample size of 1. It appears that you are the one who, because of your emotional biases, cannot process factual information as presented.

 

[DaveC]

He said he worked with "quite a few engineers", so far from a sample size of 1. It appears that you are the one who, because of your emotional biases, cannot process factual information as presented.

Ok, you win! Your "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" argument is too persuasive.

 

[cjfrbw]

Glad to see everybody is still flogging each other bloody over this thread.

I remember reading on audio asylum some years ago that there were cynical mastering engineers who got tired of audiophiles bugging them over their product, so they would add "audiophile sounds", minute imaging errata that the audiophiles could cling to when obsessing over their equipment's performance.

Of course, the mother of all imaging errata, the clinking glasses and crowd chatter in "Jazz at the Pawn Shop" or "Waltz for Debby".

Nature sounds like bird chirps and falling rain are pretty nice for ballistic imaging.

 

[Kingrex]

A friend loaned me a Tenor phono stage. I listened to one of my favorote albums, a Charlie Brown Christmas. With that phono, I heard the chorus of kids as if they were on a set of bleachers. I could hear each row stepping up and back. Individual voices were distinct. I don't get that with my current phono stage. Or digital. I call that pin point accuracy.

 

[bonzo75]

I have compared the tenor phono to airtight with Benz LPs. It has a large sounds, big stage, and instruments sound large as well. Good macro dynamics. In some ways reminded me of aesthetix on that particular aspect. But I didn't find tenor low noise, good on micro, or transparent

 

[Lagonda]

and you also say...

But Again, I always tell that everything can be discussed in this hobby - but people must be prepared to discuss it in a fair and open way.

But then you say...

You want to ignore Floyd Toole (and the hundreds of experts he quotes in his book) on basic stereo. IMHO no discussion is possible on pin point without such knowledge.

You ask for a fair and open way but what you really mean is your way... the very microcentric view of how we are allowed to perceive and discuss things. Not that your view and your way aren’t valid but just that they are your view and your way.

People using knowledge like a blunt instrument to dominate and control discussion is also long since known... by just closing down the discussion and disable open debate by claiming no discussion is possible without arguing within a very tight and niche specific framework that you conveniently fall back to and draw upon as it also just happens to fit your exact view. But this whole topic is not an exact science at all and no one view can change that.

We are discussing essentially subjective takes on perception. To insist if you don’t argue along total Toole lines then your views just don’t count isn’t open and fair discussion, it’s just a microcentric boundary trick to win a position and enforce then an essentially microcentric only view of the world. Fairness in subjective assessment recognises great differences of perspective and greater latitude in discussion if we are to be truthfully open and to then genuinely fairly explore understanding. There is no Taocentric view thankfully All is nothing and everything and the one thing etc etc... such is the way of Tao lol... fortunately a hard to pin that beast down

Subjective assessment is valid for the subject if what is being put up is simply an authentic description of experience. It doesn’t need any tick of approval to then be validated as the experience. Our determinations on whether we find something as sounding essentially natural or being synthetic sounding or artificial doesn't need your approval to meet up with our views unless we live only in a microcentric universe. You have your perfectly valid call in your own subjective experience and others have theirs and this is as it should be.

If something is experienced as having a natural quality or as sounding artificial it is all just subjective not many really seem to struggle with this determination... and to use once again the famous un-cited micro defence this is also long since known.

Having a different opinion on another’s experience doesn’t invalidate someone else’s experience of that thing. There is much room for various understandings.

Listening isn’t an exact science. Let’s just not be total Tooles on this Fairness and openness means also being open to accepting latitude in other perspectives.

All these rules about what we’re allowed to perceive or ways we can view and discuss our experience in sound is against higher order understanding and risks turning the high end into a closed and static religion when really it can also just be an enriching fun hobby with a range of healthy perspectives and diverse views as well... and perhaps we could reflect on all the approaches and the resorting to inaccessible language that can also preclude the genuine open sharing of ideas (even ones that challenge our own) and evolution of broader more connective understanding and perspectives... and what the is PPI anyway ... at least if I communicate to someone without all the coded language and said does this recording of an instrument (like a human voice or a piano or guitar or violin or flute or cello that many have heard before and do have a reference to the nature of the sound) essentially sound natural most will likely not find it quite that hard to make that call... this all has also has long since been known... and where did I put all my PPI... nothing is quite right anymore unless we absolutely sanitise and mask everything

I agree we should champion openness and fairness and healthy discussion as this hobby is joy also because we can appreciate others takes on things and in the end perhaps no single rightness.

And sometimes you use your superpowers for evil poor micro !

 

[tima]

A friend loaned me a Tenor phono stage. I listened to one of my favorote albums, a Charlie Brown Christmas. With that phono, I heard the chorus of kids as if they were on a set of bleachers. I could hear each row stepping up and back. Individual voices were distinct.

I've heard something similar with ARC 250SE amplifiers on some Brahms choral music, without the bleacher effect.

My question for you, re Charlie Brown: do you know how the chorus of kids was actually positioned? It wouldn't surprise me if they were on risers.

I'm unclear if the individuation of choristers' voices is considered a pin-point image.

I will hear a section of instruments, say first or second violins, playing the same note, same dynamic, etc. as a collection of individual instruments. I sometimes hear what I call a 'harmonic cloud' rising above them not as individuals but as what I call a 'shimmer' or shimmering. The harmonics shimmer because the individual bows, are not in dead perfect sync and each bow and violin is different and in a different location. But qua section I don't hear individuated violins down a line of the section that recedes away from me.

Whereas in choral, among those with the same voice type, such as mezzo-sopranos, the voices are often different enough in timbre that they can be more individuated than violins. Often choristers are organized on risers, facing forward. Sometimes I can follow a single voice, especially at the start of a line or upon pickup from a pause - at a transient. The same sense of a rising harmonic cloud can apply here too.

I'm more inclined to think of both situations as 'individuation discrimination' of a sort - resolution - but not as pin-point images, carved out images.

Yes, some of this is semantic hair splitting (pin-sitting?), when put into words. Some folks consider the distinguishing of individuals as pin-point. Some go further and describe carved-out or emphasized outlines of individuals as pin-point. Since this is psycho-acoustic stuff, I'm gonna speculate that we may not all react the same or have the exact same interior experience. Such that hearing the same recording, same system, same time, the degree of "pin-pointed-ness" can be relative across those listening. (I also believe - not speculate - that certain equipment is more likely to exacerbate the effect than others.)

Over the course of this thread there has been a lot of 'he thinks this' and 'he thinks that'. Some of us agree on what is called a 'pin-point image' and some have their own notions. Some are confident they know it when they hear it. I don't see broad accord on the original question of 'what is?'. Perhaps the best fallback is go to the concert hall for ostensive definition.

 

[Kingrex]

Good point on the chorus Tima. For how much I like the album, I have not looked into how it was produced. I will look around.

I don't really know what pinpoint means to others. To me, I want to hear width and height for sure. A good sense of depth is icing on the cake. That is what lacks in most systems i hear.

I am on a plane today to VA. While there I will see my friend Howard with the Live Sound Design Altec theatre replicas with the 15 cell multicell horns on top. We listened to Simon and Garfunkel Live in Central Park one time. That is the only system where I distinctly heard, felt, call it what you want. I sensed I was sitting on a stool on the stage with the band. The crowd was down in front of me. Stunning. Maybe not pinpoint imaging, but in my mind, I have never heard better imaging.

 

[ddk]

I've heard something similar with ARC 250SE amplifiers on some Brahms choral music, without the bleacher effect.

My question for you, re Charlie Brown: do you know how the chorus of kids was actually positioned? It wouldn't surprise me if they were on risers.

I'm unclear if the individuation of choristers' voices is considered a pin-point image.

I will hear a section of instruments, say first or second violins, playing the same note, same dynamic, etc. as a collection of individual instruments. I sometimes hear what I call a 'harmonic cloud' rising above them not as individuals but as what I call a 'shimmer' or shimmering. The harmonics shimmer because the individual bows, are not in dead perfect sync and each bow and violin is different and in a different location. But qua section I don't hear individuated violins down a line of the section that recedes away from me.

Whereas in choral, among those with the same voice type, such as mezzo-sopranos, the voices are often different enough in timbre that they can be more individuated than violins. Often choristers are organized on risers, facing forward. Sometimes I can follow a single voice, especially at the start of a line or upon pickup from a pause - at a transient. The same sense of a rising harmonic cloud can apply here too.

I'm more inclined to think of both situations as 'individuation discrimination' of a sort - resolution - but not as pin-point images, carved out images.

Yes, some of this is semantic hair splitting (pin-sitting?), when put into words. Some folks consider the distinguishing of individuals as pin-point. Some go further and describe carved-out or emphasized outlines of individuals as pin-point. Since this is psycho-acoustic stuff, I'm gonna speculate that we may not all react the same or have the exact same interior experience. Such that hearing the same recording, same system, same time, the degree of "pin-pointed-ness" can be relative across those listening. (I also believe - not speculate - that certain equipment is more likely to exacerbate the effect than others.)

Over the course of this thread there has been a lot of 'he thinks this' and 'he thinks that'. Some of us agree on what is called a 'pin-point image' and some have their own notions. Some are confident they know it when they hear it. I don't see broad accord on the original question of 'what is?'. Perhaps the best fallback is go to the concert hall for ostensive definition.

In a high resolution system and given a decent recording one should be able to distinguish between different voices even multiple sopranos no less mezzos. From differing tone, timbre, loudness and ambience cues one can have a strong mental/aural image of the event, that's the natural stereo image and soundstage. Pinpoint imaging is literally a number of voices of same proportion and very similar and nearly indistinguishable tone and timbre aside from gender. Loudness is also the same for all voices and instruments if any. Literally its a collection of pinpoints without much crossover of voices and sound as there would be in a real life. For me the term pinpoint/cutout have always had a negative and literal connotation, a sharp modified unrealistic and homogenized representation vs the term stereo image and soundstage which can be natural or not. I realize that it's splitting hairs but it's the vocabulary I've always used to distinguish between the two without confusion during the course of a normal in person conversation.

david

 

[tima]

...during the course of a normal in person conversation.

Heh!

 

[Alrainbow]

A friend loaned me a Tenor phono stage. I listened to one of my favorote albums, a Charlie Brown Christmas. With that phono, I heard the chorus of kids as if they were on a set of bleachers. I could hear each row stepping up and back. Individual voices were distinct. I don't get that with my current phono stage. Or digital. I call that pin point accuracy.

And time to get a better phono pre too lol.

 

[ddk]

Heh!

Something else that needs defining !
In person conversation: Two or more people concurrently present in the same space talking to one another .

david