Revisiting "Imaging"

[jpw retired]

Thanks for posting this here. I had completely forgotten about my posts and this thread.

For me personally it is interesting to see how my viewpoint has evolved over time as I have had more experiences in different rooms and with different systems. I would say I still agree with much that I posted earlier in this thread, but I have learned a lot over the last 5 plus years and not everything I believed then do I still have confidence in. (It would be interesting and probably cringe worthy to go back and read some of my posts from 20 years ago.)

Along those lines, in my initial post on this thread I elaborate on the electronics suggesting that they are potentially significant in the imaging of the system. My current understanding is that the electronics will have minimal if any effect. I should have spent more time discussing the room and layout.

Regarding Phil's comments on the imaging/soundstage of the 250Tis his description is more in line with how my Project Widgets portray music including Kind Of Blue. As a reminder: https://www.audioheritage.org/vbulle...Project-Widget

These speakers create a deep and wide image/soundstage. The TAD TH4003 horns have controlled dispersion that is very tight vertically and fairly tight horizontally and below them there is a fairly flat profiled 10" driver covering most of the rest of the spectrum. These speakers place images across the space between the speakers and even beyond. (my current understanding is that this is a function of reflections from the side walls) The image is stable and layered, but it is also more diffuse when compared to the 1400 Arrays that had previously been set up in similar locations in the same room. The compact Meyer Sound "point source" speakers as deployed in my HT are a significant step further in this regard. In that system (room and speaker position within the room) certain recordings sound like a surround sound recording and a center panned source is completely detached from the left and right speakers. My DIY TADs have a more defined image than say my previous Everests did, but that could be the room as much as the speakers. As I have gained experience, I have learned more and more how important the room and placement within the room truly is. I had previously compared the same 1400 Arrays with the Everests in my old listening room and there too the 1400 Arrays had a more focused image than the Everests so there is a consistency there.

So then, how important is imaging? I enjoy the heck out of both of my systems... one super focused and one fairly diffuse. I have never heard a live performance that sounded anything like audiophile imaging, but it is fun. Then again, a well recorded live recording played back through the more diffuse TAD system sounds pretty darned close to a live experience.


Widget

I completely agree that I seldom, if ever, have heard a live performance that sounds like audiophile imaging.

Although there are many large format speakers I haven't heard my general experience has been that they don't offer the "holographic imaging" (for lack of a better term) that many audiophiles value.

Narrow baffled speakers with petite drivers that do offer that kind of imaging sound like toys compared to large format speakers especially when it comes to dynamics.

To my audiophile friends who generally disdain horns, I like to point out that wide dynamics are undeniably a part of live music while "holographic imaging" is not. When they disagree I have them over to hear my band.

[Mr. Widget]

I have had a stereo pair outside and the sound is much more like separate sources. I also have a stereo pair installed on edges of my shed with a subwoofer inside. They will image if you are between them but the sound field isn't anywhere near as cohesive as it is indoors.

In this context, what does cohesive mean?

As you add distance it becomes more wall of sound. There is no sense of envelopment that I can hear. These are relatively low cost outdoor speakers. 6" drivers 1" tweeter. They sound really good but different compared to indoors IMHO.

This makes sense. Since there are no reflections to create a larger sense of soundstage.

To my audiophile friends who generally disdain horns, I like to point out that wide dynamics are undeniably a part of live music while "holographic imaging" is not.

Yep... I guess it comes down to what do you want?

Personally I admit that I get a kick out of the audiophile image thing, but I also like live music to sound like it's alive! I agree that large format compression drivers and horns tend to do that best. I think cone size matters too.

My little Meyer speakers have a 3" compression driver in-between a pair of 5" LF drivers. They are reasonably dynamic, but not in the league of a larger JBL or Altec. But then again, they will do the audiophile image thing better than anything else I have heard. Glad that so far I can still have multiple systems, someday downsizing may have to happen... that will be a sad day.


Widget

[Robh3606]

In this context, what does cohesive mean?

This makes sense. Since there are no reflections to create a larger sense of soundstage.

Yep... I guess it comes down to what do you want?

Personally I admit that I get a kick out of the audiophile image thing, but I also like live music to sound like it's alive! I agree that large format compression drivers and horns tend to do that best. I think cone size matters too.

My little Meyer speakers have a 3" compression driver in-between a pair of 5" LF drivers. They are reasonably dynamic, but not in the league of a larger JBL or Altec. But then again, they will do the audiophile image thing better than anything else I have heard. Glad that so far I can still have multiple systems, someday downsizing may have to happen... that will be a sad day.


Widget

Hello Widget

What does cohesive mean. Hard to describe even though they image it's more obvious that it is from 2 sources?? Not sure how else to say it. It's much easier to move left/right and it falls apart. You really have to depend on precedence as there is no other thing working for you?? Hope that makes some kind of sense. Their is nothing else to reinforce the image???? Your are essentially in free space.

Rob.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Hi Rusty,

Thanks for re visiting this thread. Looking back l do recall the Dunlavy loudspeakers which were well know for their imaging. An LHS member over here has a pair of the large Sovereigns. I must have another listen

Attached is a similar model.

[BMWCCA]

Hi Rusty,

Thanks for re visiting this thread. Looking back l do recall the Dunlavy loudspeakers which were well know for their imaging. An LHS member over here has a pair of the large Sovereigns. I must have another listen

As a long-time JBL owner, something about all that Dunlavy symmetry is upsetting my equilibrium.

[Ian Mackenzie]

As a long-time JBL owner, something about all that Dunlavy symmetry is upsetting my equilibrium.

The L250ti does similar things. Just packaged differently. Neither is an oil painting. Nor the Project Array for that matter. Had JBL done what ESS did with the AMT1 it might have been more accepted.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Here is a question?

Who thinks Dipole loudspeakers image better than a conventional box loudspeaker?

[BMWCCA]

The L250ti does similar things. Just packaged differently. Neither is an oil painting. Nor the Project Array for that matter. Had JBL done what ESS did with the AMT1 it might have been more accepted.

It was humor!
I've found the 250 versions to be very off-putting in their weird asymmetry since they first came out. Looking at them while listening to them reminds me of when I was in college laying on a water-bed, drunk, trying to steady myself with one foot on the ground. The 250s always look like they're about to tip over. Like the leaning tower of Pisa to me. Even worse when I see them swapped left to right!

[rusty jefferson]

Here is a question?

Who thinks Dipole loudspeakers image better than a conventional box loudspeaker?

Well, now that depends on what the definition of 'image' is. Based on what I spelled out that we use, no. The best imaging speakers are point source and/or controlled directivity. Dipoles will create a big soundstage, but diffuse and inaccurate, and the imaging tends to suffer with inaccuracies also, like a vocalist image that fills the whole area between the speakers rather than being pinpoint.

[Mr. Widget]

Well, now that depends on what the definition of 'image' is...

Exactly...

Dr. Amar Bose thought he found the holy grail when he came up with the 901. I don't think he was entirely wrong, but he didn't produce a system that will create the type of "image" that I am looking for. That said, if I stumbled upon a pair of 901s, I'd love to bring them home and play with them.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Here is a question?

Who thinks Dipole loudspeakers image better than a conventional box loudspeaker?

Maggies and many electrostatic panel based systems are dipoles. They image... but not like a holographic mini monitor.

There is a reason why so many designs exist and why so many DIYers are certain they have invented the wheel. All of these approaches and designs are far from perfect and they all offer something to enjoy.


Widget

[rusty jefferson]

It was humor!
I've found the 250 versions to be very off-putting in their weird asymmetry since they first came out...

I think it's really an ahead of its time design with the low diffraction cabinet and asymmetrical shape. I never had a place with enough space to set up a pair. They really should be set up with a rule of thirds arrangement. Also, I hate those Titanium dome tweeters. I know it was the best available at the time, but it would be worth modding a pair with a more modern midrange and BE tweeter. :-)

[Ian Mackenzie]

Thanks Widget.

I recall some box loudspeakers had a tweeter in the rear to create a limited dipole effect.

Of course the Bose 901 had a cult following too.

[BMWCCA]

Thanks Widget.

I recall some box loudspeakers had a tweeter in the rear to create a limited dipole effect.

Of course the Bose 901 had a cult following too.

Which reminds me of my fondness for the lowly DCM TimeFrame 600 with two-rear-firing tweeters and one coaxially mounted over one front woofer. It is really quite a surprising presentation for such a humble package.

[jpw retired]

Hi Rusty,

Thanks for re visiting this thread. Looking back l do recall the Dunlavy loudspeakers which were well know for their imaging. An LHS member over here has a pair of the large Sovereigns. I must have another listen

Attached is a similar model.

My store, Audio Video Logic, was the largest US dealer of Dunlavy speakers from 1992 until the early 2000's when they closed. I knew John (and his wife Joan) personally having made many trips to Colorado Springs to his manufacturing facility where he was always proud to show off his large anechoic chamber as well as explain his design philosophy.

Hie would place his speakers far apart, almost in your peripheral vision, to prove how well his speakers could focus a center image. This provided a very wide presentation, definitely row one.

Dunlavy and JBL have gone down in time as my two favorite speaker brands. General speaking they were two different design philosophies but each the best at what they were aiming for.