Case in point: if anyone wants PPI, look no further than Wywires Platinum cables. Particularly the speaker cables.
What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
It's both. That's why I find it interesting. There ARE objective facts wrt audio reproduction and as micro states it seems you refuse to believe this. Personally, I don't agree with everything Toole, but I concede he's done A LOT of research and has contributed a massive amount of factual, objective science and knowledge wrt audio.
I've also said many times that I have no issue with setups that deviate from anything approaching a standard, i.e. what you'll find in a typical studio that actually produces the music. It's the claim that these deviations are "natural" while playback systems that more closely approximate what a studio uses is "HiFi", "artificial", etc. It's so backwards it's ridiculous.
Dude, don't be so hard on yourself for using Ching Cheng cords!
Cords that nobody else has or can get, or can replicate, an entirely subjective choice of cable only available from YOU to folks YOU deem worthy. And then you put down other cables that are made to objective standards. You call other people's stuff "shitty"? When you've never even tested it yourself, you're not familiar with it at all? Wow. You're massively out of touch with reality and you constantly put down anything you don't like, regardless if you've heard it, tested it, or know anything about it.
Last edited:
By which objective standards is it ridiculous? Why should listeners have to put up with artifacts of reproduction? How are those artifacts any more meaningful, authoritative and "natural" (see the contradiction?) than the quest of resemblance to live music?
I'm pretty sure I already posted about this, but in short recorded music is not always intended to sound like live music. Some is, and in that case I think it's an interesting comparison. I have some recordings from Red Rocks amphitheater, which I've been to many times, it has a unique sound to it, I really enjoy the fact that my system can make it feel like you're at Red Rocks. However, I don't want everything I listen to to sound like Red Rocks. I want it to sound how it's intended to sound by the person making the recording. If I want to hear something that sounds live, IMO it's better to choose that in the recording than in your stereo setup.
By objective standards, just for example we have the response of the speaker (frequency, power, step) and the decay of the room, commonly shown in a waterfall plot and generalized by an RT60 time. While we have no standard system and room, hence the circle of confusion, we could figure out the average values and standard deviations of systems used by the world's top 100 (just for example) recording studios and come up with a statistical average and standard deviation of frequency response, decay, etc. and have an idea of what's what and could thus make an objective measure of how much your own systems deviates from standard. IMO, defining a system that highly deviates from this standard as "natural" seems very odd to me.
I hope this helps you and maybe others understand where I'm coming from. There is an objective truth to how your system sounds vs what is normal, we just have some issues in defining this. And as I said, if your system deviates, and all do, it's not right or wrong, but it would certainly help with communicating to others exactly what's going on.
Also, of course I don't believe all facets of audio can be measured, but it does get you in the ballpark and I do try to make my own cables as close to technically perfect as possible. While I may not be able to define exactly why it sounds different, I prefer cables that are as close to technically perfect as possible, and for MANY reasons that's not a random $3 cable chosen for it's entirely subjective qualities. Others may prefer this $3 cable and that's fine, but that doesn't make the more expensive objectively designed cable "shitty".
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.
Very cute Dave. Let us hope the moderators don't sanction you for your jab.
I think people agree more or less on the definitions of pinpoint imaging and on what natural means. We have natural fabric, and synthetic fabric. We have natural light, and artificial light. We have live acoustic music, and we have amplified guitar distortion and synthesizers. I think we all get that.
What is at issue here, it seems to me, is whether or not people hear pinpoint imaging when listening to live unamplified music. If they do not, they argue that that is fine because stereo systems are designed to create that type of imaging. Now I do not use that term to describe what I hear, live or reproduced. I never hear it. I do hear stark outlines and very precisely defined images in some audio systems, but I never hear that when listening to live music with my eyes shut. I think the issue here is whether or not people chose to set up their systems to present these types of images. That is a choice, and we are and should be free to make it, or not. Some seem to while others do not. What we have here is an unwillingness by quite a few people to simply accept that others may choose a different audio path than the one they are on.
I am with Fransisico in the sense that we should be able to discuss aspects of our hobby with each other. What makes it difficult is the virtual distance and the physical separation between members. We do not have the opportunity to listen to each other's systems to form our own opinions about what someone else may value. All systems sound different, though I think we can agree that many fall into broad camps of sound. This is what makes the hobby interesting, and we should celebrate these differences and learn from them.
I try not to ascribe a character to systems I have not heard. I have been mostly describing my own system and its transformation from what I consider a more "hifi" sound to one that to me sounds more "natural". Why that is controversial or worth arguing about is beyond me.
But then, we audiophiles seem to enjoy arguing. We tell people what something should sound like in their systems, systems we have not heard, and then get angry when they report that no, the device does not actually sound like what they were told it would sound like. This is what I find bizarre.
So you prefer instead to define a standard that creates an artifact, like pinpoint imaging, as "natural" -- just because it's the standard? That seems very odd to me.
Where is the anarchy, Francisco? Just because some people decide not to follow Audiophile conventions? I think people should calm down. If people decide to toe the speakers out even though the manufacturer recommends being right on axis, that should not upset people. If anything it might spark some curiosity from others for some further investigation.
I think people understand what these terms generally mean and we can have informative discussions
But that's what stereos do... naturally.
Great. You have perfectly distilled a viewpoint that advocates for an artifact to be considered natural.
I rest my case, thank you.
Since you're so knowledgeable and well read please show me where Toole says that no audiophile cables distort and color the sound and they're all made objectively.
You obviously haven't been in too many studios there's no such thing as a standard studio or setup standard. Have you ever even been to recording sessions or how many masterings have you sat in? If you had any real experience you wouldn't make a comment like this. Also since when people have to abide by standards and what are they anyway?
IDude, don't be so hard on yourself for using Ching Cheng cords!
Cords that nobody else has or can get, or can replicate, an entirely subjective choice of cable only available from YOU to folks YOU deem worthy.
I don't know where you're dreaming up these things Ching Cheng cables aren't a boutique brand like your stuff that's exclusive to you. They're manufactured in gigantic numbers and available in almost every country around the world from hundreds if not thousands of vendors, anyone including can you get them from any of them. The argument has never been about specifically CC cables but using ANY good generic power cord vs audiophile ones that distort and color the sound.
1st- Properly engineered and manufactured industrial UL certified powercords like cheap ass Ching Cheng are what's made objectively buying some conductors and plugs from third parties and assembling cords that make electronics "sound" a certain way is anything but objective! I'm not arguing preference here just stating facts.
2nd- What I call shitty cables are those with strong coloration and sonic signature which becomes the clear dominant character of a system, that's my and many other people's standard and we don't need your approval for it.
3rd- I'm still waiting for you to define which reality you're talking about! If I ever specify any brands rest assured that I have direct experience with it and I can prove it and will tell exactly what it's doing.
Anything else dude?
david
My whole point is it's NOT an artifact, it's how stereo works.
And my whole point is that you don't see the irony.
I do, I just accept that stereo is what it is, and I want to hear what the recording artist intended. You don't seem to get that you don't understand how stereo works.
I am sorry to see you guys busting each others heads over a definition.
My own 5 cents on this is that imaging is icing on the cake. I don't even worry about it until everything else is right - tonality, coherence, timing, dynamics - and then the imaging just comes along for the ride like the tail following the dog. I have found that if I focus on imaging, then I never get the other things right.
My own 5 cents on this is that imaging is icing on the cake. I don't even worry about it until everything else is right - tonality, coherence, timing, dynamics - and then the imaging just comes along for the ride like the tail following the dog. I have found that if I focus on imaging, then I never get the other things right.
Hilarious. I've had pinpoint imaging for almost three decades, so you don't need to "educate" me.
I'm not the only one commenting that you don't seem to understand how stereo works. You have in this very thread refuted factual information on the subject.
