What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

[bonzo75]

absolutely not.

it's completely fair to have an opinion that a phone is not worthy of capturing useful information about system performance. and to criticize it's use and prevalence on the forum.

not saying that opinion is right or wrong......it's just an opinion.

those feeling that way mostly are not heard from.

Any opinion should have investigation on the part of the person making the opinion.

 

[Al M.]

That's funny. A whole discussion about an unseen video, where without watching it you can't get the joke.

Ked, you win the day!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Any opinion should have investigation on the part of the person making the opinion.

Ked. i see your side of this question. but there is another side too. and it's easy to list multiple limitations of phone video's and the variability of methodology of doing it. and therefore have a reasonable opinion to deny it's validity.

it's also valid to claim unless you listen to lots of them, and work on learning how to do them, how can you judge?

both solid perspectives.

maybe we have a video forum where it's video friendly only?

 

[microstrip]

You had a definition of pinpoint imaging in your physics textbook...

One of my fields of work was developing imaging radiation detectors ...

 

[PeterA]

I got a chuckle this morning watching and listening to the news. The NFL is going to start this week. The commentator asked his guest if we are going to “See” the national anthem.

I always thought we hear the national anthem being sung and sometimes we see the person who is singing it and sometimes we watch the reaction of the people listening to it.

Whoever heard of seeing something that is being sung? When are the images of the people listening to and reacting to the national anthem being sung or the singer herself ever conveyed as a pinpoint image?

 

[Hear Here]

Well then that's like having opinion on gear without listening to it

Absolutely not. We're not listening to it if we watch a Youtube video - are we?

Listening to the equipment itself will give an indication of what it sounds like. Having someone point a mobile phone at it and recording its sound through a poxy little inaccurate microphone in low resolution, then playing back via a PC is a waste of time if we want to get any realistic idea of the true sound.

Good for car crashes - and I'll give you this, cats on stage. Peter

 

[bonzo75]

Absolutely not. Listening to the equipment itself will give an indication of what it sounds like. Having someone point a mobile phone at it and recording its sound through a poxy little inaccurate microphone in low resolution, then playing back via a PC is a waste of time if we want to get any realistic idea of the true sound.

Good for car crashes - and I'll give you this, cats on stage. Peter

No one actually contended it is a substitute for listening to equipment. This has been clarified over many posts.

 

[Blackmorec]

For me applying the term Pin-point to hi-fi imaging is simply poor use of the adjective. Every recording has its own individual soundstage, created by the recording engineer and every single instrument within the recording has its own individual note shape, acoustic and dynamic ie. It has a start, a blooming phase and a decay. How can any of that be described as pinpoint?

 

[the sound of Tao]

That's funny. A whole discussion about an unseen video, where without watching it you can't get the joke.

Ked, you win the day!

and the cat comes a close second... Ked was clearly playing out a significant near cata-tonic incident. Betcha that cat didn’t even have a ticket let alone sit in the right seat .

 

[BruceD]

Hey!--easy on the Cat jokes

 

[the sound of Tao]

Lol... that’s beautiful Bruce, cat playing the world’s smallest and most lethal violin hehe dare I say it... purrfect!

 

[cjfrbw]

LOL! Take your poxy microphone and depart my listening room, heathen!

 

[ddk]

I But, hey, let it go Jake, it's only audio forum...

That's exactly what I did after seeing that people are debating totally different, irrelevant and unrelated things !

david

 

[stehno]

That's exactly what I did after seeing that people are debating totally different, irrelevant and unrelated things !

david

You mean almost like obfuscation and/or ignorance are potentially viable audio forum strategies? Interesting.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I'll give a wee bit of pushback.

I believe high-contrast imaging, cut-out imaging - like those cheap plastic 2-dimensional toy soldiers from back in the day - sharply outlined images, etc. can come from equipment that causes or enhances the effect. Thanks to some reviewers, dealers who demonstrate it, and audio forums, some people try to achieve it from their stereos. And some of those who have are entertained by it or enjoy their systems that way - high definition outlines appearing in their head when they listen - it's a unique effect from their stereo.

Nice to know that the proclaimed whole industry, dealers and crowd of unhappy listeners are in reality just a few!

That the effect is not available listening to live acoustic music is simply not of a concern to them. Some people want their stereo to sound 'better' than the real thing, or at least different. Saying the preference is good or bad gets people stirred up. In the larger picture, preferences are not good and bad, positive or negative - they are preferences. Even if we think they are misguided because our values are different, none of us gets to say what someone else should like. Maybe what they should try, perhaps even urge conversion, but we're not the ones giving the verdict.

But yes, most people wisely do not want to compare the sound reproduction to live acoustic music. For them this is not the purpose of sound reproduction. It is a little more complex than that - oversimplification is sometimes very dangerous.

The misguided guys in the stereo affair are the high-end people if they try to judge others according to their particular preferences and beliefs. However if we want to have interesting discussions about our views and techniques to reach our preferences we must have a common terminology to address situations and preferences. 99% of our current discussions are pure semantics because a small group of people want to change the terminology used since long.

If you want to see a nausea inducing density of the word "natural" in audio reviews go back to the 80's and read reviews of the ESL63. Although these speakers have limitations, that are particularly relevant to rock or electronic music listeners, every review or comment praised about their natural imaging, natural soundstage, natural tone, natural transients, natural continuity, natural timbre, natural something else, but also pinpoint three-dimensional imaging ...

I still own the ESL63. From time to time I re-connect them - and yes, I agree with all these people. If it was not for these few moments I want to listen a little louder or make a few audiophile experiences, including comparisons with my last perception of real live music , I could happily live with two pairs of modified ESL63.

BTW, do not believe in people who tell you that because technically the ESL63 are dipoles room and distances to boundaries are not critical - I have found that these speakers will only shine in an appropriate room.

 

[Alrainbow]

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

I need deep boots now

 

[Alrainbow]

How does line source compared to point source show pinpoint imaging ?

 

[Alrainbow]

Here you can clearly pin point the outline and follow it through

On my iPhone lol

 

[ddk]

Nice to know that the proclaimed whole industry, dealers and crowd of unhappy listeners are in reality just a few!

But yes, most people wisely do not want to compare the sound reproduction to live acoustic music. For them this is not the purpose of sound reproduction. It is a little more complex than that - oversimplification is sometimes very dangerous.

Ooooh very dangerous, how dare we radicals compare live acoustic music with reproduced sound, I wonder how many people wised up from the experience ?

The misguided guys in the stereo affair are the high-end people if they try to judge others according to their particular preferences and beliefs. However if we want to have interesting discussions about our views and techniques to reach our preferences we must have a common terminology to address situations and preferences. 99% of our current discussions are pure semantics because a small group of people want to change the terminology used since long.

Yet, at least in this forum those who use real music as reference and understand and use "natural" sound as standard have simplified and happily listening to their systems but you who never got it and is trying to figure it out after decades in this hobby theorizing, buying tens of thousands of euros of top equipment and still can't get satisfaction call us misguided! It's not a judgement, it's a judgement call PROFESSOR! !!!!

99% of our current discussions are pure semantics because a small group of people want to change the terminology used since long.

Such anarchists!

david

 

[Al M.]

Ooooh very dangerous, how dare we radicals compare live acoustic music with reproduced sound, I wonder how many people wised up from the experience ?

The main way, together with like-minded friends' input, I have made progress with my system. Without such reference, how else do you know what sounds natural? Oh forgot, that term is unbecoming in the illustrious 'high end world' .

Such anarchists!

david

Hehe. Love anarchy