What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
I would also argue that a system that never has sharp imaging also probably has something wrong with it.
That was my point Rob, that it doesn't happen in live music but I also meant it in an extreme sense. I've seen the effect from certain brands of cables where they place the musicians in a perfect box each and every time or some cables doing by exaggerating or highlighting certain frequencies. Some others do it with a fake so called black background where musicians pop out from without any interaction with one another. I don't use the term ppi with the stereo image or in relation to the recording unless it's in a negative.Hello David
If your point is that it is an artificial construct that does not, will not, and never has occurred in any live music I have ever attended I couldn't agree more. It's fun and it makes for a more enjoyable listening experience. On a personal note I have switched out HF horns in my mains in my HT to purposely " unfocus" the imagery as I found them to be a bit much.
As far as a coloration from a component that I am not seeing that unless you consider the horns polar characteristics as a coloration. Actually the horn with better textbook polar plots was the "offender".
More reading to do.
Rob
Siemens made an acoustic lens for my horns to focus the sound I don't like them for music either but they're good for speech.
david
Last edited:
For want of better terminology, I have always thought of ppi as ‘audiophile x-ray skeleton sound’. It is sought after at audio shows as a kind of ‘torch mode’ spectacle that can dazzle for a short period, but over time, can be unnatural.
The paradigm is visual, so ppi to tends to be like artificial visualization media that can be spectacular in their own right but don’t reflect the way we see directly with our eyes i.e. x rays of skeletal structures with vague outlines of flesh, electron microscope images, which are reflections off of molecular depositions, images seen with spectra our eyes can’t perceive etc. Black and white photos taken in the infrared spectrum come to mind: dazzling, but not what we see with our eyes.
To carry the a visual analogies further, it can be like turning up the contrast of an image and tilting toward blue spectrum to reveal edge definition at the expense of a natural color palette and balance.
I personally enjoy this ‘effect’ to some extent, but overall prefer the balance of flesh and blood sound clouds over extreme specificity at cost.
The paradigm is visual, so ppi to tends to be like artificial visualization media that can be spectacular in their own right but don’t reflect the way we see directly with our eyes i.e. x rays of skeletal structures with vague outlines of flesh, electron microscope images, which are reflections off of molecular depositions, images seen with spectra our eyes can’t perceive etc. Black and white photos taken in the infrared spectrum come to mind: dazzling, but not what we see with our eyes.
To carry the a visual analogies further, it can be like turning up the contrast of an image and tilting toward blue spectrum to reveal edge definition at the expense of a natural color palette and balance.
I personally enjoy this ‘effect’ to some extent, but overall prefer the balance of flesh and blood sound clouds over extreme specificity at cost.
Of course it happens in my system if I use certain cables or footers, it's a coloration that those components introduce on their own irrespective of recording and setup. PPI isn't the more focused sound you get from toeing in of speakers either. Given the negative context I brought it up in my assumption is that coloration and distortion are a negative for most people.
david
There's such a thing as a soundstage and natural imagery which is very much desired but that's not ppi in the context that I used it in.
david
Hello Morricab
I agree with that it is "encoded" in the recording process. The system and especially the speakers should be capable of reproducing what is on the recording. I do lots of live shows in small venues and yes you do get a soundstage but it's not as sharp or focused for lack of a better word. IMHO A close miked recorded vocal and a live accapella singer do not sound the same nore are spatially equivalent. The singer is there on stage not sitting on my nose or 6 feet away exactly between my eyes as it sounds in some extreme recordings.
Rob
How is "something wrong" with my system if it can pinpoint image, but I deliberately choose it not to do so by toeing out my speakers?
In that manner I get it closer to what I perceive as the live experience. What is "wrong" with that?
That why we have test CD's for set-up which have multiple test tracks devoted to channel balance and specific tracks to aid in speaker set-up for imaging. So it real easy to find out if your speakers are set-up correctly.
Rob
Attachments
I agree, and believe it's more a function of the recording. And once more we have a discussion about gear on WBF that seems to disregard the recording, but focuses on a comparison to live music, which is a flawed perspective imo. Live music is live music, and recordings are done with the artistry of the recording artists placing mics, mastering, generally altering the recording to fit what they want to get out of it, how they feel the music is best presented, which may be significantly different vs someone listening to the performance live.
Once again we need to be aware of the circle of confusion wrt the recording and playback process, since there are no standards for systems and rooms used for recording, mastering or playback there is uncertainty in what is "correct".
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/10/audios-circle-of-confusion.html
That said there are certainly ways to setup an audio playback system that can manipulate the soundstage and imaging, this is obvious. I'd also agree with morricab if the system NEVER reproduces recordings with pinpoint imaging, then either the recordings chosen NEVER have that type of presentation, or the system is setup in accordance to that person's personal preferences and doesn't present a fully accurate version of the recording. Nothing at all wrong with this, but it's simply not what was intended to be heard by the recording artists. This shouldn't be mistaken for thinking that "PPI" is simply an artifact of the playback system, this is not reality.
I think we should also consider that the playback system may be MORE accurate vs the system the recording was made on, in which case imaging will differ between systems, so it's certainly possible a playback system can go the other way and produce images that are more PPI vs intended by the recording artists. This happens all the time with many high end systems, especially ones with Accuton drivers and SS amplifiers. Some of these systems can produce images that seem to be unusually and unnaturally small, to the point it's hard to imagine this is intentionally done in the recording, and the solution is to introduce distortions to make image size larger. This can also go too far and produce images that are much larger than life. In these systems the cables and AC power quality can have MASSIVE effects on the presentation and image size.
Last edited:
Only "wrong" in the sense the presentation differs from what is intended. If the system is tweaked to the owner's preferences I see no issue with that and believe it's always the case to some degree. We all have our preferences for gear or setup and nothing's perfect.
That why we have test CD's for set-up which have multiple test tracks devoted to channel balance and specific tracks to aid in speaker set-up for imaging. So it real easy to find out if your speakers are set-up correctly.
Rob
Good point! It seems like this can certainly help in an overall general sense wrt the circle of confusion issue.
Good points, IMO. Generally, I don't want my studio recordings to sound like single mic live recordings.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
as an aside , I hear the term pin point imaging when discussing Wilson speakers due to the ability of changing the position of the upper modules. Hence only one precise sweet spot where, once seated, you hear pin point imaging
How do you even know what the artist intended? Do you really think most artists give a damn about pinpoint imaging? The artist may or may not be aware of the fact that on the monitor system, which he hears his/her recording on for approval prior to release, there may or may not be pinpoint imaging.
Surely. It is why I requested a clarification. It is not possible to debate "natural" sound imaging with people using such different nomenclatures.
I associate pinpoint with the ability to locate or identify placement and movement in the soundstage with good accuracy. I understand things can become more complicated when we start addressing discrimination of positions in the soundstage.
Really? I was talking about the RECORDING ARTIST. And I directly addressed intent as well. Lol...
You kept reminding it depends on the recording. I think we all understand that. But if you go back to see what ddk and Peter had said since started in other thread they meant the kind of ppi happen over and over regardless of recording. That was their context. And they were saying the repeated over and over ppi that caused by certain gears create homogenization of sound and listening become boredom. That was also the context. I do agree with them. And for me my boredom overtime extended to the etched type sounding recording too. That is why I and many other people I see in this forum choose to prefer the type of recording that does not emphasize etched sound or some say "hi fi" recording.
