Revisiting "Imaging"

[toddalin]

To which:

The responses on the Wilsons have always "baffled" me. They go to extensive steps to line up the acoustic centers and aim them all at the receptor location. But the the step responses still show three distinct driver signals arriving at the mic. If things are time aligned, shouldn't the signal from three drivers hit the mic simultaneously??? What am I missing here?

[Robh3606]

Hello Rob;

The Dunlav response is an ETC measurement, unlike the two above that are impulse responses. There is no return through zero in an Energy Time Curve display. Dominated by the HF energy it looks great but it is not at all a fair visual comparison.

Barry.

Hello Barry

Let me go back and check the other 2 certainly could have made a mistake.

Here is the Dunlavy review and they have both Impulse and Step Take look what do you think?

Rob

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

[Robh3606]

Ok here is the Array 1400 review it's a step response have a look. No impulse shown???

Rob

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

[1audiohack]

Hi Rob;

Thank you for the link. #3 is the impulse response of the Dunlav. It is very good indeed.

Barry.

[Robh3606]

To which:

The responses on the Wilsons have always "baffled" me. They go to extensive steps to line up the acoustic centers and aim them all at the receptor location. But the the step responses still show three distinct driver signals arriving at the mic. If things are time aligned, shouldn't the signal from three drivers hit the mic simultaneously??? What am I missing here?

Just went back to look at the review and I made a mistake they are calling in Coherent and not Aligned. He had an issue with the measuring distance and he goes through it in the review. He didn't measure at a point that the speakers were adjusted for. Kind of clouds the measurement. Also look at Foot Note 2 That is again labeled as a step response.

Check out the review here:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

[Robh3606]

Here is another time aligned Vandersteen so you can compare the step to the Dunlavy

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...dersteen-seven

Rob

[1audiohack]

You are right Rob, no ETC measurement on the 1400 ARRAY article.

Barry.

[rusty jefferson]

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-SMAA...a/s-l1600.webp

Todd, I'm not sure if you've also been following the UREI Discussion thread and the Differences Between Compression Drivers thread but there's overlap in both of those that brought us back to this thread. The parameters needed for good imaging and soundstaging, which are not necessarily the same thing. The UREIs image well but can't create a soundstage. Recently, Mr. Widget asked...

I would love to see the impulse response of a UREI coax... I'll bet it is not truly time aligned. I would expect that it is improved over the original Altec/JBL, but I doubt they were able to nail the impulse response with simple passive components.
Widget

...to which there has been discussion about whether the UREIs are actually time aligned since none of us has seen an impulse response of a UREI monitor, and now discussion of the Dunlevy impulse response (passive components) that is likely much better than the 40 year old UREI design.

[toddalin]

I'm of the opinion that proper/good imaging goes hand-in-hand with a proper/good soundstaging.

Imaging is the ability to precisely place an object/instrument/voice in space and soundstage provides that space for this to occur. If there is no real soundstage (i.e., clearly defined space), how can you locate anything in it?

[Mr. Widget]

I'm of the opinion that proper/good imaging goes hand-in-hand with a proper/good soundstaging.

Imaging is the ability to precisely place an object/instrument/voice in space and soundstage provides that space for this to occur. If there is no real soundstage (i.e., clearly defined space), how can you locate anything in it?

By the nature of the topic you are absolutely right, and if Rusty or anyone else disagrees 100% he is also right.

To my knowledge there has not been a thorough and definitive definition put forth by someone of the standing of Floyd Toole, so I think we will have to assume that imaging, soundstage, and their interaction or overlap are almost uniquely defined by each of us.

I am sure there is plenty of overlap in our definitions as well in what we deem good or important, but short of gathering a group of us in one place, with each of us experiencing the sound from the sweet spot and then comparing notes... this becomes tricky to define at best.

I would submit the soundstage is the entirety of the sound being played back in a stereo or multi-channel audio system and the image is the illusion of what is happening within that soundstage.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Hi Rob;

Thank you for the link. #3 is the impulse response of the Dunlav. It is very good indeed.

Barry.

Can you say textbook?


Widget

[Robh3606]

I would submit the soundstage is the entirety of the sound being played back in a stereo or multi-channel audio system and the image is the illusion of what is happening within that soundstage.


Widget

Hello Widget

I agree with your definition

Rob

[toddalin]

Just a broader way of saying the same thing. So then, what determines what is a good soundstage/image?

Would you want to listen to some "nebulous" bubble of sound floating infront of you, or a clearly defined space with width, depth, and height?

[Robh3606]

Just a broader way of saying the same thing. So then, what determines what is a good soundstage/image?

Would you want to listen to some "nebulous" bubble of sound floating infront of you, or a clearly defined space with width, depth, and height?

Simply put you do. You seem to be very happy with your speakers and you worked hard to get there.

Many others would and could be happy with less as far as accepting what they hear. Saying "I like that" and just stop there.

I can't hear what you hear unless we are in a shared space. Together we could probably come up with a shared definition after that experience.

I may hear things and point them out and you may as well.

Even a shared experience is personal as we undoubtably have different bias's.

Beyond that I think we are kind of limited to the broad terms used to describe the experience. Especially trying to work this out over the internet.

Rob

[Mr. Widget]

Just a broader way of saying the same thing. So then, what determines what is a good soundstage/image?

Would you want to listen to some "nebulous" bubble of sound floating infront of you, or a clearly defined space with width, depth, and height?

What determines the image good or bad is one of the topics we have been discussing and speculating on... phase, time alignment, cabinet diffraction, directivity etc.

But I think you meant what do we think is a good image within the soundstage? That is an interesting question and one I have been pondering for a while. A bit over five years ago I started this thread with this quote:

To me a speaker with outstanding imaging will create a holographic soundstage when playing back recordings that are recorded in a manner where there is the appropriate sonic information. If the recording has been recorded in a manner that preserves spatial details, you may hear sounds apparently coming from deep behind the plane of the speakers as well as infront of them. A vocalist may be so locked into the center there appears to be narrow window from which they are singing, and sounds may appear far to the left or right of the speakers and sometimes sounds or instruments even seem to be behind you. I've heard "audiophiles" refer to this as having speakers that "disappear".

Most speakers will throw some form of image and create a soundstage that is likely not that far off from what we are likely to hear at a typical live musical performance. That said, speakers with outstanding imaging create an immersive soundstage that can be quite compelling. This sort of imaging occasionally occurs in live music, but not typically.

And what I was getting at was that while I find holographic imaging wonderfully fun and captivating, real music rarely if ever sounds like that. I listen to a fair amount of live unamplified classical music and the soundstage is huge for a symphony with a large orchestra. The violins are vaguely off to the left, the cellos are slightly to the right, the basses are off to the right, the woodwinds to the center but in the rear etc... but a "well recorded" classical recording can sound anything from a representation of this to a hyper focused audiophile "image"

So which do we prefer? My DIY TADs create a more diffuse image that more closely recreates live music, my point source Meyer speakers create the holographic audiophile type image. I like them both.


Widget