What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
Whatever Dave, I know you have nothingDavid, I'm sure if I made a long, careful and reasoned post you'd see the light of day.
!
Is it just me or do I see ample fodder?
In all seriousness, I think I see a thread actually taking a turn for the better. How 'bout that?
What seems clear to me is we can converse routinely for years with others thinking most are on similar pages, aiming at somewhat similar targets, etc. when clearly that is not the case.
Instead we're a bit all over the map in most everything. In fact, it's probably safer just to say about this 100% subjective hobby is that the only common ground we really have is, we all have playback systems. Hopefully. And not much else.
Anyway, I think anytime there's dialogue like this, in some ways it gives a better perspective of this hobby and hopefully give us some opportunity to get closer to being on similar pages or at least better understanding of others' perspective.
On a slightly different note. Over the past year, I've come realize nearly every aspect of high-end audio is all over the map about most everything. Pretty fasinating actually.
In all seriousness, I think I see a thread actually taking a turn for the better. How 'bout that?
What seems clear to me is we can converse routinely for years with others thinking most are on similar pages, aiming at somewhat similar targets, etc. when clearly that is not the case.
Instead we're a bit all over the map in most everything. In fact, it's probably safer just to say about this 100% subjective hobby is that the only common ground we really have is, we all have playback systems. Hopefully. And not much else.
Anyway, I think anytime there's dialogue like this, in some ways it gives a better perspective of this hobby and hopefully give us some opportunity to get closer to being on similar pages or at least better understanding of others' perspective.
On a slightly different note. Over the past year, I've come realize nearly every aspect of high-end audio is all over the map about most everything. Pretty fasinating actually.
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.
Last edited:
No Peter, I do not find this is not the real issue at all. People "hear" pinpoint image at live music because they combine the information coming from the eyes and ears. What IMHO is in the origin of the discussion now is if the recording, created by the artist and sound engineers includes pinpoint information with the express intention of their creators or not, and if also this information should be reproduced by our systems.
If you are really interested about the subject please google "Blumein pair", "near coincident pair" and "Decca Tree" ( techniques known for different localization properties) and read the opinions of sound engineers on them. You will also find that curiously most of the research and development of microphone techniques was not just due to our audiophile requirements, but also for good mono compatibility
.Or just go through known books, such as The Recording Engineer Handbook or Introduction to Professional Recording Techniques concerning microphone techniques.
BTW, can you explain me how you listen most of the time to real music with open eyes and then compare at home what you imagine is the sound of music listened with closed eyes with your system? Did you get trained to completely ignore the visual stimulus?
...
Let’s just not be total Tooles on this
...
You sure do have a way with words.
Again a partial quote distorts my intentions. I suggested two approaches to objectively address pinpoint - basic physics and maths or a reference book. I have described the F. Toole book several times, I repeat it. It includes a first part including an objective study of the physics of stereo. Pretending it is not an exact science is not acceptable for me - I see no reason why we need special physics and maths to address objective audio points. Surely I and many others disagree with many aspects concerning the subjective methods and conclusions show in the book, it is not what is being addressed.
I have often said, if we look for explanations, they must be compatible with the objective data and facts - this does not imply that measurements can explain what we subjectively listen.
Sorry if you feel differently. But I like building my house from the basement, not from the roof. It is not possible to debate stereo ignoring exact science - psychoacoustics complements it, it does not reverse it. Would you accept debating a perpetual motion machine on the basis that the Thermodynamics laws were wrong ?
FIY
Sound Reproduction
Loudspeakers and Rooms Floyd E. Toole
PART ONE
Understanding the Principles
PART TWO (that is the source of most disagreements with audiophiles).
Designing Listening Experiences
I'm not Peter who van speak for himself, but that's easy. If I really want to know how something *sounds* live, I close my eyes. My criticism in discussions with some members on WBF about how live music actually sounds has been exactly this, that they seem to ignore that live music *sounds* different, sometimes very different, with eyes either open or closed. Precisely because the visual stimulus alters the brain's perception. You can only make an assessment of the actual sound in relation to the experience of home reproduction with eyes closed.
Listening with eyes closed, by the way, also very much affects the spatial perception of live sound. It can be psychologically disconcerting how spatially small (but with big, powerful timbres) an orchestra can sound further back in the hall with eyes closed, even though with eyes open you *see* the large orchestra. On the other hand, in the front seats an orchestra can sound incredibly wide, as is practically impossible to reproduce at home.
For that exercise of checking the sound with eyes closed I usually don't have to spend that much time of a concert. The rest I can enjoy with eyes open.
Last edited:
Fransisco, first you write that most people do not compare their systems to live unamplified music. Now you refer to most people as the majority of audiophiles. And it is no longer live unamplified music but frequent concert goers. You are in fact the one who keeps changing definitions. Why keep moving the goal posts?
I never wrote that one has to be a frequent concert attendee to be able to know what live unamplified music sounds like. One does not even need to go to concerts. Just listen to a guitar or violin or piano somewhere. When non audiophile friends visit and want to hear my system, they often remark on how real it sounds, or that the singer or piano seems like it is right in the room. How the heck could they make such comments if they were not in fact referencing the sound of those live instruments.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have lost me on this one. I think we should simply agree to disagree about people, any people, most or some or audiophiles or anyone, thinking about the sound of real instruments when they hear what sounds like something on an audio system. If they don't think of the actual instrument, then it is beyond me to understand how they even know what it is they are listening to.
Obfuscation just isn’t a great pathway to understanding. You muddy what is one of our most essential ways of being, sensations and feelings registered in experience and how we then interpret these things and what then perhaps they mean to us. You apply more noise and not signal here. There just is no one way of perceiving and so applying objective contexts as to why a subjective experience has to then absolutely conform to objective ways of appraisal...it isn’t logical or rational since we are social constructs as well as complex machines for living. Experience is not linear, it is modified by retention and anticipation. There are correlations and themes but no limits of exactness and therefore no absolutes in rightness.
Subjectivity requires no qualifications... objectivity does.
Subjectivity is variable and also limited but a quality that brings meaning to being, it is what it is and no amount of clever debate trying to make it something else and only the way that you want it to be can change that.
Not everything can be boxed in just so that we can feel comfortable like we are masters of these things. Genuinely happy to agree to completely disagree. Just a middle of the road learner here as always but I see little correlation to life in what you routinely absolutely insist.
Last edited:
Thanks, it is the major source of our disagreement. No sound engineer I have read about aims to create a recording that matches exactly what we listen with closed eyes. They want to match the experience - it is what people perceive. And some times enhance the experience - for example the Reference Recording orchestral LPs.
Anyway, unless you listen from start to end with closed eyes you are distorting the experiment. I have tried it - even with closed yes I still "hear" the positions in the orchestra after seeing them.
Let us hope others chime on these very clear points.
"I suggested two approaches to objectively address pinpoint - basic physics and maths or a reference book."
LOL Francisco, do you think this forum is one of your classrooms? I hope you're joking when you tell people to go read some books and then come back to discuss the theories with you! Is this how you approach what you wanted us to remember is a hobby and? Isn’t the main activity listening? It's a simple concept that was discussed Francisco and had nothing to do with science or physics; audible fake imaging as a result of speaker setup, distorting components or both. Many of us have decades of experience and are capable of using our ears and brain to make value judgments for ourselves!
david
PS. Please count from the start in Peter's thread up to now how many times you've posted without saying anything about the OT.
Last edited:
Whatever Dave, I know you have nothing
I'd love to argue but I don't have time... I suppose I could just copy and paste the last time we argued about the validity of a $3 "reference" power cable.
At least you do have good taste in cars, I've gotta get mine ready to race tomorrow....
You miss the point and avoid the important aspect. No problem. I was not appraising anything - just physically describing it. As many did before, nothing new. Some one once said in this forum that the electrical level of his amplifiers changed by almost 4dB at the same volume control position when he changed one power cable. I told it was objectively impossible in the conditions he described, but he classified my statements of the Ohm law as obfuscation, all his friends could subjectively confirm it ...
Micro perhaps it is you that continually miss the point and avoid the... oh let’s not bother lol All good. Enjoy
All good. Enjoy
Last edited:
Perhaps I was not clear, but in the first paragraph of my post I talked about how it sounds in terms of *timbre* with eyes open or closed, and those two experiences of timbre can greatly differ. The second paragraph, which you left out from your quote, then contrasted this with spatial presentation.
The recording engineer may want to transfer the visual component of the spatial experience to audio. That's fine, but as a listener I can choose to hear to what the recording engineer may have intended in terms of spatial presentation, or I can choose to make the audio experience more to conform with what happens live without the visual stimulus.
What is more, even with visual stimulus I never experience pinpoint imaging live. Sound images always lack defined outlines, no matter how much I look at the performers.
I have more than once affirmed that yes, you can localize the performers live, at least as long as you sit close enough where the contribution of reflected sound does not yet overwhelm the one of direct sound. We are in agreement on this point. But being able to localize is not the same as hearing a pinpoint image with sharp outlines. This just does not happen live, neither with eyes open nor closed.
Concepts without percepts are empty.
Percepts without concepts are blind.
To generate objectively valid judgements.
But...
Blind does not mean bogus or meaningless.
Last edited:
Geezzz one word and pages of conjecture, love it
to me and this maybe just me image is not localized if we say pinpoint. If I use headphones as an example all we get is local In most all phones with few exceptions. speakers are far more complex in room and placement.
if towed in we get less stage more focus right ? if we use less tow less Pinpoint more stage. but in all cases it’s how it was recorded, how many mic s , location of them and lastly how it is mixed. to me pinpoint is an near exact position in all 3 dimensions.
to me and this maybe just me image is not localized if we say pinpoint. If I use headphones as an example all we get is local In most all phones with few exceptions. speakers are far more complex in room and placement.
if towed in we get less stage more focus right ? if we use less tow less Pinpoint more stage. but in all cases it’s how it was recorded, how many mic s , location of them and lastly how it is mixed. to me pinpoint is an near exact position in all 3 dimensions.
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
Ked what you like is a big stage and no pinpoint as in large classical house. This is fine but not me I actually prefer studio over live if not done close up mic
most classical for me and this is me is done too get back. Lacks intimacy and wile it has Dynamcs it lacks jump unless it’s close mic. I like to hear the strings being sawed. It’s horses for courses
