What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

[PeterA]

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 ...

Fransisco, you often ask people to site their sources. I am wondering how you know that most people do not want to compare their system sound to that of live acoustic music? Is this mostly, or ever? Is that not the "absolute sound" that HP advocated? Is his glossary of terms not the authority on which you now seem so dependent? And who is trying to change terminology?

It seems to me that people should be free to use the terms they feel best convey their ideas. I think people have a pretty good understanding of the terms "natural" and "pinpoint" imaging. The question really is whether or not these terms represent the goals they have for their systems. You seem to have gone through a whole lot of gear. Do you really never ever compare the sound of some of that gear to live acoustic music? You wrote that you compared your ESL 63s to live music. I thought I knew what I liked, but now I have different ideas. You seem to still be searching. Perhaps that is what the hobby means to you, always trying new stuff. That is just fine. For many hunters, the hunt is what it is all about, but he does pursue his prey.

The forum is more enjoyable when people are not told by others that their hobby should be about the gear and sound or the music they enjoy. I think most members prefer to make their own choices, though that is just a guess.

 

[stehno]

Fransisco, you often ask people to site their sources. I am wondering how you know that most people do not want to compare their system sound to that of live acoustic music? Is this mostly, or ever? Is that not the "absolute sound" that HP advocated? Is his glossary of terms not the authority on which you now seem so dependent? And who is trying to change terminology?

It seems to me that people should be free to use the terms they feel best convey their ideas. I think people have a pretty good understanding of the terms "natural" and "pinpoint" imaging. The question really is whether or not these terms represent the goals they have for their systems. You seem to have gone through a whole lot of gear. Do you really never ever compare the sound of some of that gear to live acoustic music? You wrote that you compared your ESL 63s to live music. I thought I knew what I liked, but now I have different ideas. You seem to still be searching. Perhaps that is what the hobby means to you, always trying new stuff. That is just fine. For many hunters, the hunt is what it is all about, but he does pursue his prey.

The forum is more enjoyable when people are not told by others that their hobby should be about the gear and sound or the music they enjoy. I think most members prefer to make their own choices, though that is just a guess.

Well said, Peter. You too david.

IMO, pin-point imaging is just another of the many effects of a much raised noise floor.

 

[tima]

But yes, most people wisely do not want to compare the sound reproduction to live acoustic music

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.

If those who compare their stereo's sound with live acoustic music are among the 'unwise', didn't you just contradict yourself?

 

[morricab]

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

Cylinderpoint imaging??

 

[microstrip]

If those who compare their stereo's sound with live acoustic music are among the 'unwise', didn't you just contradict yourself?

No contradiction at all if you read the whole post, the contradiction apparently only exists if the quotes are taken out of context. With what part are you exactly disagreeing? Do you consider that our systems should be compared just considering with our individual perception of life music?

Do you consider that some people have authority to declare what is natural sound, that their systems sound natural and other people preferences are hifi and artificial sounding?

 

[microstrip]

(...) 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! !!!!

Well, IMHO the problem is now not just sound quality related - you seem to ignore what is an hobby. For me the high-end is also an hobby that can be discussed, not a religion.

Such anarchists!
david

Yes, I see a lot of anarchy in this debates. No systematically at all, just doing anything that is against the audiophile usual practice and we have natural sound. But I am happy with it - I am now learning that even digital can become much more natural than the very top analog.

BTW, the big winner is this natural sound discussion is Floyd Toole. People should read his book, even if we disagree with part of it.

 

[ddk]

Well, IMHO the problem is now not just sound quality related - you seem to ignore what is an hobby. For me the high-end is also an hobby that can be discussed, not a religion.

What is that I'm ignoring Francisco? If anything you're turning it into a religion when you tell others what can be discussed and how it should be discussed.

Yes, I see a lot of anarchy in this debates. No systematically at all, just doing anything that is against the audiophile usual practice and we have natural sound.

Usual practices according to whom? So the rituals are sacred and can't be challenged, how's that not you turning it into a religion?

david

 

[DaveC]

Do you consider that some people have authority to declare what is natural sound, that their systems sound natural and other people preferences are hifi and artificial sounding?

I'm not exactly convinced that one person's personal preferences that massively deviate from any normal audio setup that a studio would use to create the music we listen to is "natural".

But if you write in a crafty way, twisting the meanings of words to fit one's own agenda, then sure...

 

[microstrip]

Fransisco, you often ask people to site their sources. I am wondering how you know that most people do not want to compare their system sound to that of live acoustic music? Is this mostly, or ever? Is that not the "absolute sound" that HP advocated? Is his glossary of terms not the authority on which you now seem so dependent? And who is trying to change terminology?

It seems to me that people should be free to use the terms they feel best convey their ideas. I think people have a pretty good understanding of the terms "natural" and "pinpoint" imaging. The question really is whether or not these terms represent the goals they have for their systems. You seem to have gone through a whole lot of gear. Do you really never ever compare the sound of some of that gear to live acoustic music? You wrote that you compared your ESL 63s to live music. I thought I knew what I liked, but now I have different ideas. You seem to still be searching. Perhaps that is what the hobby means to you, always trying new stuff. That is just fine. For many hunters, the hunt is what it is all about, but he does pursue his prey.

The forum is more enjoyable when people are not told by others that their hobby should be about the gear and sound or the music they enjoy. I think most members prefer to make their own choices, though that is just a guess.

Peter, the majority of audiophiles are not frequent concert goers. It is known since very long. Even in WBF. My sources are dealers, manufacturers and a few accessible texts - I often refer to Keith Yates on the subject. http://keithyates.com/652/

Considering terminology, I could be ready to accept your approach. It would become the terminology of a few members of WBF, only understood by a minimal number of participants.

Most of our members, consumers, dealers and manufacturers will be considered as discussing artificial, hifi sound.

And yes, Peter I am still searching. I know that this hobby is a permanent experience, and we can have great musical and instrumental pleasure while carrying it. And sorry, I can't understand your sentence concerning gear. My opinion is that everything in this hobby can be discussed in a friendly and fair way, using a common language.

 

[microstrip]

What is that I'm ignoring Francisco? If anything you're turning it into a religion when you tell others what can be discussed and how it should be discussed.

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.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Currently in venice .
Nice concerthalls they have here .
Teatro la fenice (phoenix)
Rehersals were taking place
Lots of live unamplified music piano violin etc .in venice everywhere.
No pinpoint imaging aint a thing i would call natural /live .
May be its a bit more a mic placement /amplification related issue.
Still try to figure out if pianorecordings can be better reproduced by top tube amps or may be better by the latest greatest transistor design

 

[Al M.]

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.

That is not what I perceive here. If people do not want pin-point imaging it is called "editorializing" -- by what Supreme Authority I ask? So who is prepared to discuss things in a fair and open way?

Rather, it seems that the high-end religion is constantly rearing its ugly heard -- how dare you speak against our sacred and "by all agreed upon" "conventions"?

And no, Mr. Toole whom you constantly bring up is not a demi-god either. He may be an authority, but he is not the Last Word. Nobody is.

 

[Al M.]

Usual practices according to whom? So the rituals are sacred and can't be challenged, how's that not you turning it into a religion?

david

Bingo.

 

[DaveC]

That is not what I perceive here. If people do not want pin-point imaging it is called "editorializing" -- by what supreme authority I ask? So who is prepared to discuss things in a fair and open way?

Rather, it seems that the high-end religion is constantly rearing its ugly heard -- how dare you speak against our sacred and "by all agreed upon" "conventions"?

And no, Mr. Toole is not a demi-god either. He may be an authority, but he is not the Last Word. Nobody is.

There's no "supreme authority" and that's kind of the issue here.

If we did have a standardized system as Toole suggests than we would have a standard to compare our playback systems to.

As far as "PPI", it's part of what stereo systems do, this has been explained to you a few times yet you seem to refute facts. If you get a test CD and play test tones or record a point source in an anechoic chamber the result will be PPI. No doubts about it, it's fact, it's how stereo works. If you can't accept this and can't accept dictionary definition of words, how is communication possible?

This is turning into bizarro-land and a bizarre conversation when facts and meanings can't be agreed upon. But I suppose that's how it is these days, people can have their own facts and definitions with no regards to objective reality. This is what happens when a leader who is out of touch with reality manages to influence a group of people.

 

[ddk]

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.

Then discuss instead of taking potshots and pretending that you're above it all.

david

 

[microstrip]

That is not what I perceive here. If people do not want pin-point imaging it is called "editorializing" -- by what supreme authority I ask? So who is prepared to discuss things in a fair and open way?

Rather, it seems that the high-end religion is constantly rearing its ugly heard -- how dare you speak against our sacred and "by all agreed upon" "conventions"?

And no, Mr. Toole whom you constantly bring up is not a demi-god either. He may be an authority, but he is not the Last Word. Nobody is.

Well, you refused to discuss the most basic effects of two channel reproduction. 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.

Please note that we are not referring to high-end conventions - we are addressing conventions and terminology of the whole sound industry, including the professional recording and gear manufacturers. The high-end wants to add something over the basic stereo, not to deny it.

 

[Al M.]

As far as "PPI", it's part of what stereo systems do, this has been explained to you a few times yet you seem to refute facts. If you get a test CD and play test tones or record a point source in an anechoic chamber the result will be PPI. No doubts about it, it's fact, it's how stereo works. If you can't accept this and can't accept dictionary definition of words, how is communication possible?

And I replied to you on that. That you can get pinpoint imaging from signals in an anechoic chamber or from test tones is not the issue here.

This is turning into bizarro-land and a bizarre conversation when facts and meanings can't be agreed upon. But I suppose that's how it is these days, people can have their own facts and definitions with no regards to objective reality. This is what happens when a leader who is out of touch with reality manages to influence a group of people.

You are conflating scientific facts that have an impact on health with a hobby guided by personal taste. Apples and oranges.

And nobody has even convincingly responded to my challenge to prove if it's in the recording, or rather an artifact from playback.

And even if it's an artifact from the recording, why am I not supposed to overrule it with choices of set-up? Because it is the recorded truth and I should listen to the "truth"? Audio is not a science experiment, but a personal hobby of enjoyment.

But hey, to some audio seems to be a Supreme Religion of objective demands too.

 

[ddk]

There's no "supreme authority" and that's kind of the issue here.

If we did have a standardized system as Toole suggests than we would have a standard to compare our playback systems to.

As far as "PPI", it's part of what stereo systems do, this has been explained to you a few times yet you seem to refute facts. If you get a test CD and play test tones or record a point source in an anechoic chamber the result will be PPI. No doubts about it, it's fact, it's how stereo works. If you can't accept this and can't accept dictionary definition of words, how is communication possible?

This is turning into bizarro-land and a bizarre conversation when facts and meanings can't be agreed upon. But I suppose that's how it is these days, people can have their own facts and definitions with no regards to objective reality. This is what happens when a leader who is out of touch with reality manages to influence a group of people.

We can go in circles and you can take potshots as much you like Dave but it doesn't alter the fact that shitty powercords and cables alter and distort the sound including fake PPI. Please explain what's the reality you're talking about Dave?

david

 

[ddk]

Well, you refused to discuss the most basic effects of two channel reproduction. 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.

The PPI conversation wasn't about basic effects of two channel reproduction and we mentioned that over and over again, it started off as a negative comment that certain equipment, specifically cables create a false PPI. You don't need to pretend you're arguing the same thing when you're not just start another thread if you want to change gears.

david

 

[microstrip]

Then discuss instead of taking potshots and pretending that you're above it all.

david

Sorry you feel that way. I am addressing objective facts, not subjective matters. I have respect for your very coherent approach, I feel it should not be mixed with anarchy.