What is "Pin-Point Imaging" to you?

[PeterA]

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

Al, have you heard the Dutilleux Cello Concerto on EMI, ASD 3145. Very intimate and plenty of jump. Great immediacy and string tone. Plenty of bow on string texture. The soloist is a bit forward of the orchestra. The perspective is from a row in the front of the orchestra section, center seat. Lovely recording.

I have also been enjoying the recordings of Frans Helmerson on the BIS label. Some of these are recorded in halls and Swedish castles. Incredible sawing and explosive dynamics in real spaces with atmosphere.

 

[Alrainbow]

Al, have you heard the Dutilleux Cello Concerto on EMI, ASD 3145. Very intimate and plenty of jump. Great immediacy and string tone. Plenty of bow on string texture. The soloist is a bit forward of the orchestra. The perspective is from a row in the front of the orchestra section, center seat. Lovely recording.

I have also been enjoying the recordings of Frans Helmerson on the BIS label. Some of these are recorded in halls and Swedish castles. Incredible sawing and explosive dynamics in real spaces with atmosphere.

Link I’ll buy vinyl and ty for suggestions.

 

[bonzo75]

Link I’ll buy vinyl and ty for suggestions.

He gave you the link. If you put Dutilleux Cello Concerto on EMI, ASD 3145 in the browser, it will take you to the discogs page

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Link I’ll buy vinyl and ty for suggestions.

Al; here is one;

https://www.discogs.com/sell/item/1140879779

 

[Alrainbow]

To me it’s what we like and yes I admit some of what I like is wrong but life is short let me enjoy and learn as I do here.
ty all

 

[tima]

...

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.

Yes - very good.

I don't know about icing or dogtails, but if you look at a score you won't find instructions about imaging.

 

[dcathro]

Yes - very good.

I don't know about icing or dogtails, but if you look at a score you won't find instructions about imaging.

I worked in the pro side doing mastering, mixing and recording. I worked with quite a few engineers, and I never new anyone who really focused on imaging. The best classical recordings I have heard were made in the late 50's and early 60's and were done with minimal microphones and far field. I cannot imagine that the engineers were obsessing over imaging.

 

[bonzo75]

I worked in the pro side doing mastering, mixing and recording. I worked with quite a few engineers, and I never new anyone who really focused on imaging. The best classical recordings I have heard were made in the late 50's and early 60's and were done with minimal microphones and far field. I cannot imagine that the engineers were obsessing over imaging.

Are your WVL drivers field coil woofers?

 

[dcathro]

Are your WVL drivers field coil woofers?

Yes, Wolf called them the A150, after the JBL 150 in the Hartsfield. They were made with NOS JBL K145 cones which had the same cone shape but with nomex formers.

I am going to put up a thread in the DIY section on these, as I am in the final stages of the build.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, Wolf called them the A150, after the JBL 150 in the Hartsfield. They were made with NOS JBL K145 cones which had the same cone shape but with nomex formers.

I am going to put up a thread in the DIY section on these, as I am in the final stages of the build.

You can post about it here as well. Otherwise we will get more pages of pinpoint imaging

 

[Blackmorec]

I worked in the pro side doing mastering, mixing and recording. I worked with quite a few engineers, and I never new anyone who really focused on imaging. The best classical recordings I have heard were made in the late 50's and early 60's and were done with minimal microphones and far field. I cannot imagine that the engineers were obsessing over imaging.

Imagine how much better our recordings could be if engineers did focus on capturing the true spacial resolution, not by way of emphasis but rather by accuracy.

In hi-fi and music in general there are 3 ways we differentiate discreet sounds:
Timing....the notes happen at different times
Tone.....the notes have different frequency spectra
Location....the notes originate in different places

If you only have 2 out of the 3 resolved, you’re screwed if the 2 that are resolved are very similar. For example, female voice and violin, sung and played simultaneously. If they have similar frequency spectra and happen at the same time, the spacial difference in note origin is how you‘d easily separate the two, otherwise what you hear is the combination, which generally comes across as harshness, as one adds to the other without being well differentiated. Its why, when you read reports of increased spacial resolution, you almost always read that harshness was simultaneously reduced. The 2 go hand in hand.
When a system lacks spacial resolution, certain recordings that include instruments and voice with similar spectra played simultaneously sound harsh, because your brain lacks the 3rd differentiation element.

 

[dcathro]

You can post about it here as well. Otherwise we will get more pages of pinpoint imaging

That made me laugh!

 

[dcathro]

Imagine how much better our recordings could be if engineers did focus on capturing the true spacial resolution, not by way of emphasis but rather by accuracy.

In hi-fi and music in general there are 3 ways we differentiate discreet sounds:
Timing....the notes happen at different times
Tone.....the notes have a different frequency spectrum
Location....the notes originate in different places

If you only have 2 out of the 3 resolved, you’re screwed if the 2 that are resolved are very similar. For example, female voice and violin, sung and played simultaneously. If they have similar frequency spectra and happen at the same time, the spacial difference in note origin is how you‘d easily separate the two, otherwise what you hear is the combination, which generally comes across as harshness, as one adds to the other without being well differentiated. Its why, when you read reports of increased spacial resolution, you almost always read that harshness was simultaneously reduced. The 2 go hand in hand.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against imaging.

The great early recordings were made without the engineers focusing on something that their replay systems may not have produced, yet to my mind, many of those early recordings provide the most realistic recreation of the event.

Modern close miked recordings are usually constructs where the spatial characteristics are artificial.

 

[bonzo75]

Please don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against imaging.

The great early recordings were made without the engineers focusing on something that their replay systems may not have produced, yet to my mind, many of those early recordings provide the most realistic recreation of the event.

Modern close miked recordings are usually constructs where the spatial characteristics are artificial.

Completely agree. Listen to Archiv digital LPs. Some nice performances, very artificially and centrally imaged.

 

[Blackmorec]

Please don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against imaging.

The great early recordings were made without the engineers focusing on something that their replay systems may not have produced, yet to my mind, many of those early recordings provide the most realistic recreation of the event.

Modern close miked recordings are usually constructs where the spatial characteristics are artificial.

The problem with forums is that we only post and read ‘thought bites’, and we all know how easy it is to misunderstand something when it lacks more extensive context.

I do get what you’re saying about far field, simply-miked recordings vs. a lot of modern close- or multi-mike creations. These days, in many studio recordings, the spacial stuff has become almost as important an element as the music itself.

All I’m saying is that for me at least, the most realistic recordings are those whose spacial characteristics have either been well preserved (for example the 50s and 60s recordings you mention) or carefully engineered in the studio. Spacial resolution provides a far more accurate picture of the venue, makes differentiation of instruments easier and more relaxing. Some of the worst recordings I’ve heard are those which are spacially undifferentiated. No two instruments can occupy the exact same position and your brain knows that, so its sounds odd when the notes from 2 different instruments originate from exactly the same position.
For me, a system or recording that fails to accurately portray spacial differences is
less entertaining
less accurate
less convincing
less enjoyable
less relaxing to listen to
less realistic

 

[tima]

The great early recordings were made without the engineers focusing on something that their replay systems may not have produced, yet to my mind, many of those early recordings provide the most realistic recreation of the event.

Modern close miked recordings are usually constructs where the spatial characteristics are artificial.

Yes, certainly early stereo Mercury, RCA, Decca, etc. I don't have a chronology to work from but a certain era of DG (post tulips?) seemed to have lots of mics stitched together in an uneven patchwork - sometimes different 'patterns' across different movements of the same performance.

Several people in this thread, or maybe Peter's, suggest that images are 'in the recording' or 'on the record'. I'm unclear about that. When listening to a stereo, I thought images are a psycho-acoustic effect and are not independent of stereo equipment and to some extent set-up. Or so I've come to believe. The way a recording is made, to the extent it well captures an orchestra in a hall - with the venue being the container of energy as it were - certainly plays a role in facilitating images if I am susceptible. I'm talking about what was carried over from Peter's system thread - cut out images, sharply defined images, not the simple localization of timbre. I'm curious about your take on this.

 

[tima]

In hi-fi and music in general there are 3 ways we differentiate discreet sounds:
Timing....the notes happen at different times
Tone.....the notes have different frequency spectra
Location....the notes originate in different places

In terms of sound, not necessarily music, if you're not watching, isn't location mostly determined by the brain ascertaining time differences? An ancient survival skill.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The problem with forums is that we only post and read ‘thought bites’, and we all know how easy it is to misunderstand something when it lacks more extensive context.

I do get what you’re saying about far field, simply-miked recordings vs. a lot of modern close- or multi-mike creations. These days, in many studio recordings, the spacial stuff has become almost as important an element as the music itself.

All I’m saying is that for me at least, the most realistic recordings are those whose spacial characteristics have either been well preserved (for example the 50s and 60s recordings you mention) or carefully engineered in the studio. Spacial resolution provides a far more accurate picture of the venue, makes differentiation of instruments easier and more relaxing. Some of the worst recordings I’ve heard are those which are spacially undifferentiated. No two instruments can occupy the exact same position and your brain knows that, so its sounds odd when the notes from 2 different instruments originate from exactly the same position.
For me, a system or recording that fails to accurately portray spacial differences is
less entertaining
less accurate
less convincing
less enjoyable
less relaxing to listen to
less realistic

And this just demonstrates simply how different everyone’s priorities are I suppose. For some imaging is the alpha and omega and for others it’s also other qualities. It’s really important to understand where your sensitivities lay. None of the essential parameters are well served by poor performance but absolutely sharply holographic doesn’t reflect for me how musical instruments sound in life.

So it really depends on how clearly articulated the defining of spatial imagery is expected to sound as to whether this is then also representative of natural sound or otherwise. Music can be equally absorbing, expressive, rich, alive, meaningful and deeply emotionally resonant (and even entertaining) with or without complete cut holographic imaging exactness. The sonic roadshow also has value but if the sound aligns with the composers expectation of experience from natural performance then some sonic and musical truth will also then be conveyed.

 

[Blackmorec]

In terms of sound, not necessarily music, if you're not watching, isn't location mostly determined by the brain ascertaining time differences? An ancient survival skill.

Your ancient survival skill works on spectral content (frequency), time (phase) and amplitude differences.
The ears register a sound. The brain analyses the spectral content and makes a first pass at identifying the source (prey or predator) The sounds reach each ear at a different time (phase) and amplitude. The brain uses this information to locate the approximate position of and distance to the source. The head is then rotated until the phase and amplitude reaching each ear are equal, thereby aligning the focal centre of the eyes with the source, providing a more accurate conformation of identity, position and distance to the source.
Music is sound. Sound with particular frequency spectra and regular (rhythmic) amplitude changes.
Hi-fi uses this natural survival ability by providing 2 dependent sources of sound, thereby manipulating the phase and amplitude of each instrument as it reaches each ear, which your brain then uses to create a sense of where each instrument is placed in the sound stage. All that’s happening in your room is 2 direct sound energy sources and whatever reflections they generate. The soundstage or images are created in your head based on the differentials between the 2 sources. The dimensions, relative focus and specificity of your soundstage and imaging depend on:
a. your system’s ability to preserve and accurately replay the differential signal‘s amplitude, phase and frequency
b. your room’s ability not to interfere with (a) via overly strong reflections and too high a reverberation time.
c. and what’s most important.......what’s on the recording

Ideally a system should allow your brain to create a recording-specific soundstage.....huge and atmospheric for some, pinpoint holographic on others and compressed and congested on a few....all depending on what the sound engineer created...whether naturally recorded or artificially created.

 

[awsmone]

I am a little lost
can someone point me in the right direction in this discourse ?