Revisiting "Imaging"

[Mr. Widget]

On a recent thread: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...ded-crossovers one of several divergent topics from the original topic dove into the discussion of imaging.

Like everything else in this hobby, there are many opinions on how to get great imaging. That said, I'm not even sure we are all taking about the same thing when we discuss imaging.

I define imaging as the the speaker's soundstage. In my opinion for there to be imaging you typically do need to have a setup where you can sit at an equidistant vertex of a triangle. I realize for many this is simply not possible. While it is still possible to have a very satisfying musical experience I don't think outstanding imaging will be possible.

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.

I recently moved and am currently using my 1400 Array speakers as my primary speakers and am simply blown away by their imaging. Of the JBL speakers I've heard a lot over the years these are hands down the best at creating this holographic illusion. The M2s are supposed to also do this and likely do, but I have not spent that much time with them and didn't hear them with music that was recorded to create such an immersive soundstage. Also I believe associated electronics and sources also have a pronounced affect on the soundstage/imaging of a system. Perhaps when I've heard the M2s the electronics didn't allow the speakers to perform at their best.

As I write this I'm listening to Deep Forest - Boheme. There are sounds from nature, birds etc. that are far off to the left, right, and even behind me. It sounds like a Dolby Atmos system... but it is only a two channel system. The music is spinning off a hard drive in a Mac Mini, through a Bryston BDA 2, controlled by my Mark Levinson 326S and powered by an old GAS Son of Ampzilla biased to stay in class A until loud peaks. Is this the end all of all time? No. I still prefer the Everests with unlimited dynamics and a bit punchier sound all around, but like most speakers even those amazing Everests can not compete with some of the best mini monitors or these 1400 Arrays when it comes to imaging.


Widget

[sguttag]

Without a doubt, the M2s had the best imaging I've ever heard from any pair of speakers, anywhere at any time. It was spooky how good they are. Close your eyes and if it was recorded to provide a sound stage, it will be laid right out before you. We built five of them and they ALL did it (pick any two). Furthermore, you don't have to sit equidistant with them. There is a lot of latitude with where you are sitting/standing.

Prior to the M2s, the L250s were my favorites for imaging but I think they have been bested.

I don't think it is the fancy electronics that allows the M2s to do this either. I think it is that waveguide combined with clearly hand selected D2 drivers (there are two grades of the D2...the ones for the M2 and the ones for commercial PA systems). I think that because they get such a good match between systems, they get them to image very well. FWIW, my electronics are not even Harmon but QSC (QSYS) and I've listened to them with both Class-D and Class-H amplification (I preferred Class-H). Other than the speakers themselves, there was nothing I would consider esoteric involved. The listening space wasn't special either (where they will end up will be well treated but where they were auditioned wasn't). A recording that really showed it off, for me, was Pink Floyd's "Money" from the Dark Side of the Moon CD.

[SEAWOLF97]

I find imaging an interesting subject.

When I got my 250Ti's and to a lesser extent the Walsh's , the imaging was
somewhat of a disappointment. I like an immersive , 3D experience. ie:live.

Did some reading on the subject and many sites point to SRS as a solution.

So I bought a Hughes SRS unit and installed. You can widen or narrow the sound field,
move the center closer or further away, even move sounds behind you ...
ie: tune the image to your desires.

The technology (as I understand it) was designed for military flight simulators.

Now before you respond "I don't want no fuggin addons in MY system", understand
that SRS (now morphed into DTS) has been installed in most TV sets produced since 2009
and seems to everywhere.

https://dts.com/history

I can, of course, turn it off .. but that renders things "lifeless" and most people that I've seen
do not like it that way.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Absolute symmetry of the location of the L & R loudspeakers is important for imaging. This includes toe in, front and side wall distance. Balance of the individual drivers levels and source of L & R levels is also important.

A little known fact is that the L & R level of a vinyl cartridge can vary +- 1.5 dB. Careful adjustment of a tone arm and test equipment can minimise this.

Tracking of the volume control L & R can also impact significantly on the imaging.

[marco_gea]

Absolute symmetry of the location of the L & R loudspeakers is important for imaging.

Yes, this is always true.

This includes toe in, front and side wall distance.

The importance of equal side wall distance depends on the horizontal directivity of the speakers, especially in the mid range. The higher the directivity, the less sensitive the speakers' imaging potential is on the proximity of the side walls.

Balance of the individual drivers levels and source of L & R levels is also important.

A little known fact is that the L & R level of a vinyl cartridge can vary +- 1.5 dB. Careful adjustment of a tone arm and test equipment can minimise this.

Tracking of the volume control L & R can also impact significantly on the imaging.

Yep!

[rusty jefferson]

...Like everything else in this hobby, there are many opinions on how to get great imaging. That said, I'm not even sure we are all taking about the same thing when we discuss imaging.

I define imaging as the the speaker's soundstage....

...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....

Widget

Thanks for initiating a new thread.

I agree with the above outline of imaging as being the accurate representation of the live recorded umamplified event, from the perspective of the microphones used to record it. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the same experience an audience has, of course. But good imaging is more than the common center image between stereo speakers. As you state, it can be quite compelling. Multi tracked studio recordings don't create this imaging, but may still have an immersive quality. Also, imaging specificity, or the ability to accurately put the various instruments or voices in the proper location in the soundstage is key. Singers in an Opera for example, if singing from the rear of the stage on the right, should be shown there and not heard coming from the right speaker itself.

I'm curious how far from the front wall you've got the 1400 Arrays to help create this image in your new set up. I remember pictures of your previous house where as I recall the Everests and Arrays were positioned quite close to the wall. Few speakers can create a quality image if located near the wall.

[Mr. Widget]

Without a doubt, the M2s had the best imaging I've ever heard from any pair of speakers, anywhere at any time.

I have heard that from others as well. I'm not sure why my take away was different. To me the best feature of the speakers was the bottom end. Between the design of the driver and the electronic tuning I found the bass to be quite compelling.

Furthermore, you don't have to sit equidistant with them. There is a lot of latitude with where you are sitting/standing.

I did notice this aspect to the M2s. I thought they imaged quite well through a fairly wide space. That said, the speakers were set up in an equidistant triangle and they worked well over a wider range than many speakers. The best speakers that I have heard from the perspective of wide sweet spot have been some crazy expensive 7' tall line source speakers.

I agree with the above outline of imaging as being the accurate representation of the live recorded umamplified event, from the perspective of the microphones used to record it. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the same experience an audience has, of course. But good imaging is more than the common center image between stereo speakers. As you state, it can be quite compelling. Multi tracked studio recordings don't create this imaging, but may still have an immersive quality. Also, imaging specificity, or the ability to accurately put the various instruments or voices in the proper location in the soundstage is key. Singers in an Opera for example, if singing from the rear of the stage on the right, should be shown there and not heard coming from the right speaker itself.

Yep, I have heard a few examples of stereo magic that was pure fiction – created in a studio, but typically the best examples of great imaging are well captured live events.

I'm curious how far from the front wall you've got the 1400 Arrays to help create this image in your new set up. I remember pictures of your previous house where as I recall the Everests and Arrays were positioned quite close to the wall. Few speakers can create a quality image if located near the wall.

They are currently about 3' from the front of the speakers to the wall behind them and perhaps ten feet from each speaker to the side walls. Also, the listening position is about 6' from the wall behind me with a vaulted ceiling so all reflections are significantly delayed from the first arrival.

Absolute symmetry of the location of the L & R loudspeakers is important for imaging. This includes toe in, front and side wall distance. Balance of the individual drivers levels and source of L & R levels is also important.

Yep, and as a continuation of my above description, my new listing room and the layout is quite symmetrical and filled with items that are elements of decor but function as diffusers.

A little known fact is that the L & R level of a vinyl cartridge can vary +- 1.5 dB. Careful adjustment of a tone arm and test equipment can minimise this.

Good point and one reason that back in the day getting a solid central image was so elusive.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

In my listening history, one pair of small single driver speakers imaged so well they blew away all that came before. They are Omega TS2Rs, a model with 6.5 inch Fostex drivers that came out around 2002. At 94dB/watt/meter efficiency they are not difficult to drive. I first heard them powered by a small tube amp and later by a First Watt F2J. (The imaging was similar but the bass response was extended much lower with the latter, being a transconductance design. Everyone who has heard the TS2R/F2J combination asked about what subwoofer was being used. None was, of course.)

Sorry to digress, but I needed to establish that when properly driven this small speaker has none of the weaknesses normally associated with single driver speakers. The imaging is far beyond anything else I have experienced, excepting my own Hammer Dynamics Super 12s, which are in the same class but cannot replicate the ultra pinpoint nature of the Omega's imaging. Close though. Both share the ability to make one swear there are instruments four feet outboard of either speaker; soundstage is excellent. I have since gone to a bunch of big audio shows and have yet to hear anything remotely close to those little Omegas in imaging and rarely in the soundstage department. (This year in Chicago I did experience a million dollar class system that soundstaged brilliantly in a huge room, but that is what it took.)

For the well-heeled I can recommend an equally rewarding but different experience, the MBL Radialstrahler 101 E MK II speakers set up in a good room. Their omnidirectional presentation is perfectly executed and the sound field is so thrillingly immersive you forget all about the usual imaging impressions and considerations. I think they are about forty grand US a pair. The Europeans who report to my friend Dave (the TS2R owner btw) say the big shows over there have never had the MBLs set up well and it makes a huge difference, negatively. I have found through repeated listenings that the larger MBL system at $277K a pair has no advantage in a room of typical living room dimensions. In fact, I liked the smaller system better. Unlike the single drivers, where the sweet spot is rewarded, the MBLs don't care where you sit, or even if you sit. The experience is not like listening to a pair of speakers; it is a you-are-there feeling.

A boring TS2R audiophile review but it has pictures of the mighty mites. What might look like a tweeter is a port.

https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/omegats2r_e.html

[SEAWOLF97]

A big contributor to the imaging of a system is the beamyness
of the HF drivers. My 250Ti's do not seem to have much width
of coverage despite the SRS.

IE: The "sweet spot" is not terribly wide. easy to loose.

There are 3 systems in my living room. The 250's , Walsh's and
ESS AMT bookshelves. I overwhelmingly spend more time with
the smaller boxes. The image is wide and precise.

The Heil driver covers the mids & highs (they are a 2 way system with
a 10 in. LF and 10 in. passive radiator). Just a sweet pair of speakers.

I judge a speaker by how long it stays in the house. Have had many fine
ones rotate through, but didn't turn out to be keepers.

Although the big 4 ways are a good example of complex engineering, I
usually seem to gravitate to 2 way speakers.

I did have a KEF Q series pair that were fantastic imagers (tho lacking much bass),
but not the total package that I was looking for ...

[Ian Mackenzie]

A big contributor to the imaging of a system is the beamyness
of the HF drivers. My 250Ti's do not seem to have much width
of coverage despite the SRS.

IE: The "sweet spot" is not terribly wide. easy to loose.

There are 3 systems in my living room. The 250's , Walsh's and
ESS AMT bookshelves. I overwhelmingly spend more time with
the smaller boxes. The image is wide and precise.

The Heil driver covers the mids & highs (they are a 2 way system with
a 10 in. LF and 10 in. passive radiator). Just a sweet pair of speakers.

I judge a speaker by how long it stays in the house. Have had many fine
ones rotate through, but didn't turn out to be keepers.

Although the big 4 ways are a good example of complex engineering, I
usually seem to gravitate to 2 way speakers.

I did have a KEF Q series pair that were fantastic imagers (tho lacking much bass),
but not the total package that I was looking for ...

It must be fun having 3 systems in one room.

But l wonder if you are actually happy with any of them unless you like hoarding vintage loudspeakers?

Can you advise if you change out each system for exact same location?

[marco_gea]

In my listening history, one pair of small single driver speakers imaged so well they blew away all that came before. They are Omega TS2Rs, a model with 6.5 inch Fostex drivers that came out around 2002. At 94dB/watt/meter efficiency they are not difficult to drive. I first heard them powered by a small tube amp and later by a First Watt F2J. (The imaging was similar but the bass response was extended much lower with the latter, being a transconductance design. Everyone who has heard the TS2R/F2J combination asked about what subwoofer was being used. None was, of course.)

...

For the well-heeled I can recommend an equally rewarding but different experience, the MBL Radialstrahler 101 E MK II speakers set up in a good room. Their omnidirectional presentation is perfectly executed and the sound field is so thrillingly immersive you forget all about the usual imaging impressions and considerations. ...

I agree on the single driver experience. Good imaging can be one of the strong points of well-implemented so-called "full range" drivers, especially those without "whizzer" cones, which create all sorts of phase issues of their own.

I strongly disagree about the MBL's, though. I have heard them many times, and they invariably superimpose the same overly spacious and "reverberant" (for lack of a better way to descibe it) rendition on pretty much any music that is fed to them. To me, that is not good imaging, but fake imaging. From a technical standpoint, I think it results from excessive early reflections from the listening room's walls swamping the low-level spatial cues that are present in the recording.

[rusty jefferson]

Bless the Google, I know what a doco is now.

[rusty jefferson]

.....They are currently about 3' from the front of the speakers to the wall behind them and perhaps ten feet from each speaker to the side walls. Also, the listening position is about 6' from the wall behind me with a vaulted ceiling so all reflections are significantly delayed from the first arrival....
Widget

I like that you can have them so far from the side walls, but I'm surprised that only 3 feet from the front wall you're experiencing such good depth, and in particular good depth behind the speakers themselves. That's unusual in general, and especially with horns.

In my listening history, one pair of small single driver speakers imaged so well they blew away all that came before. They are Omega TS2Rs, a model with 6.5 inch Fostex drivers that came out around 2002....

...The imaging is far beyond anything else I have experienced, excepting my own Hammer Dynamics Super 12s, which are in the same class but cannot replicate the ultra pinpoint nature of the Omega's imaging. Close though. Both share the ability to make one swear there are instruments four feet outboard of either speaker; soundstage is excellent...

Yes, as mentioned in the other thread, the idea of a small point source. Mounted in a non-resonant sphere, it would be even more spectacular. Excellent dispersion through the critical mid frequencies. That ability to locate instruments/voices many feet wider than and many feet behind the speakers is just amazing.

A big contributor to the imaging of a system is the beamyness
of the HF drivers. My 250Ti's do not seem to have much width
of coverage despite the SRS.

IE: The "sweet spot" is not terribly wide. easy to loose.

And this is where we picked up with the L-112 crossover thread. The 250s have about the same 5k crossover point at the mid/tweeter as the L-112. Perhaps the mid is beaming? Troels Gravesen tried initially to lower the crossover point to 3k but was unsuccessful. He didn't say why. The narrower and radiused baffle of the 250 should help reduce diffraction compared to the L-112.

...There are 3 systems in my living room. The 250's , Walsh's and
ESS AMT bookshelves. I overwhelmingly spend more time with
the smaller boxes. The image is wide and precise.

The Heil driver covers the mids & highs (they are a 2 way system with
a 10 in. LF and 10 in. passive radiator). Just a sweet pair of speakers....

That Heil tweeter is doing all the work above 1k and probably has excellent dispersion of both drivers at crossover. That's another very interesting philosophy. In the 250, the mid woofer/mid crossover is 1.4k.

[Mr. Widget]

I like that you can have them so far from the side walls, but I'm surprised that only 3 feet from the front wall you're experiencing such good depth, and in particular good depth behind the speakers themselves. That's unusual in general, and especially with horns.

I would assume it is due to these particular speakers having really well controlled directivity, but that is just a guess.

Yes, as mentioned in the other thread, the idea of a small point source. Mounted in a non-resonant sphere, it would be even more spectacular. Excellent dispersion through the critical mid frequencies. That ability to locate instruments/voices many feet wider than and many feet behind the speakers is just amazing.

It has been my experience that as a group, mini monitors or other small point source speakers like the T2SRs that Clark mentioned are typically the best at "imaging"... though numerous other designs can also be surprisingly good. Large 4-ways are typically not the best performers of this type of spooky imaging.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

It has been my experience that as a group, mini monitors or other small point source speakers like the T2SRs that Clark mentioned are typically the best at "imaging"... though numerous other designs can also be surprisingly good. Large 4-ways are typically not the best performers of this type of spooky imaging.


Widget

My low tech guess about why my 4345s suck pond water at imaging is that their baffles are too damn big to pull it off. ...but from what you say about the M2s, perhaps not. I have noticed that when sitting on the floor in front of them, the stereo image kicks in incredibly close to the baffles. Not much over a foot.