advertisement


What exactly is "imaging" ?

I wonder how many have just put this track on? :)

I hear the piano as mostly from the right channel with some of the "left hand" coming from the middle. Kate obviously used a smaller piano for the recording I have :D
 
I know this lovely track really well too… who didn’t instantly fall in love with Kate listening to that track I wonder. :) In 1978 I was 14.
I hear the piano middle notes dead centre and Kate’s voice superimposed to it artificially. Tape hiss is quite obvious too – the addition of four tracks?
A shame because I suspect Miss Bush did play and sing during the same take.
Very nice and hi-fi but unnatural of course, and not really 3D. You can’t hear the studio at all.
 
Pianos dont get mic'd at the keyboard so Vocal Bleed would be minimal anyways.

A pair of AKG414s is usual so I suspect they just got panned left and right.
 
Atmos is interesting in this respect as it promises more precise positioning. I have only really heard it in its headphone version but I'm finding it somewhat impressive.

Tim
 
Soundstaging is, as you say, recreating the stage, ie the ambience, the size and shape of the venue. Imaging is the placement of the performers on that stage. The 'realistic image of the sound' is more about fidelity, transparency, accurate timbral information.

I think that's very well said!

The above is how I've always thought of and understood the terms "imaging" and "soundstaging." I also think they're somewhat 'blurry,' in the sense that they are interactive and it seems people often freely interchange them.
 
I just listened to The Kick Inside myself there and on Feel It, the piano is presented as I described earlier. Although having just listened to it right now, it turns out she doesn't really play extreme low or extreme high notes so most of the piano notes/chords appear within a slightly smaller image than I suggested earlier. That said, the ascending/descending layout of the piano across the soundstage is there to be heard for sure.
 
Imaging: the illusion of 3D perspective.
The back wall that disappears.

Simple, really.
Only ESL’s and planars in a big room can do that well.
LS3/5a style mini monitors can do it but the scale is smaller.
That's 2D. You need height as well for 3D.
Oh, and Tannoys can do it too, so can a 3 way active system. All IME, of course.
 
I've seen soundstaging/imaging dismissed by pundits as unimportant, which I find bizarre - if it is present on a recording, your system should be able to portray it, as it's an important signifier of overall resolution. If your system cannot do it, something is amiss.

Whether it matters to you personally, is quite different - that's a matter of taste.

The one independent limiting factor over which most of us have little control is room size of course - wall/ceiling/floor proximity can and usually will conspire to muddy matters - one reason horns and waveguides can be an unexpectedly good thing in confined spaces (if your relationship can stand it!).
 
Linn/Naim systems of yore famously didn’t image well. That shocked me after the eerie magic of ESL63’s!
Hence the PRaT nonsense? ;)
 
Linn/Naim systems of yore famously didn’t image well. That shocked me after the eerie magic of ESL63’s!
Hence the PRaT nonsense? ;)

I spent years modifying a NAC62 before realizing I was making it try and do something it wasn’t intended to - got close but in the end made it too polite replacing all the tants with films - I bought a valve pre and the 62 has sat in cellar for years now:)

I also think imaging is mastered in - it is an artifact created in the studio, and Long may it be so. Live concerts don’t image, they’re just a cacophony of noise to create emotion successfully (which they do), unless they’re very simply micced recordings such as Trinity Sessions or my ex-ex wife’s Mum singing choir in a church with 2 microphones…both stunning recordings I cherish to this day :)
 
Last year I had a good amp building spell, I build about 6 solid state and valve amps in a few months.
There where slight differences in resolution between them all and related to that, the 3 d image became more or less room filling.

My experence is that height, and that front to back soundscape are one and the same thing, and is more equipment related than the room.
My kit does full 3d regardless of which room it's in, and it's well travelled in that regard
 
Oh no. Soundstaging is included in imaging, a part of it.
If imaging is right, sounstaging is right, not the other way round.
Ah, words!

Cue to create the pfm dictionary of audio expressions. Maybe, contrarily, imaging is part of soundstaging but the adjective I like best when describing a sound which totally absorbs is holographic. Next step is hallucinogenic but that can require assistance.;)
 
Cue to create the pfm dictionary of audio expressions. Maybe, contrarily, imaging is part of soundstaging but the adjective I like best when describing a sound which totally absorbs is holographic. Next step is hallucinogenic but that can require assistance.;)

Is it just me, the older I get the less I like hallucinogenic assistance? Not the case when I was younger - I could listen to TV connected to Amstrad speakers smashed off my face and think it was wonderful :D
 
ESL63s just sound wrong to me. The top half of the room seems to have way too little treble energy. Maybe (more) tilt or raising them up can fix this?

I tended to both tilt and lift them on a stand. Room dependent. Use a torch shining from your head and adjust the speakers so the reflection is at the center of each ESL when you're in your listening chair.
 
Is it just me, the older I get the less I like hallucinogenic assistance? Not the case when I was younger - I could listen to TV connected to Amstrad speakers smashed off my face and think it was wonderful :D

Ah, rose-tinted spectacles. The older you get, the ,more you need 'em. The fewer the days, the more the daze. :)
 
No, sorry, I disagree. Soundstaging is, as you say, recreating the stage, ie the ambience, the size and shape of the venue. Imaging is the placement of the performers on that stage. The 'realistic image of the sound' is more about fidelity, transparency, accurate timbral information.

Call it what you like lol, we're all agreeing about what we hear, it's just the terminology. I still stand by what I said though, to me soundstaging is placing the players in their positions on the stage, such that if you had been at a gig that was being recorded, when you listened at home, the players would appear to be in the same positions they were on the stage. As I said the clue is in the name. :)

You can only really talk about ambience in live recordings or those made outwith the artifice of a recording studio IMO. In which case I'd call that the acoustic space, to me little to do with soundstaging or imaging, they are separate things.
 
Imaging to me is closing your eyes and hearing such a realistic portayal of the singer or instrument recorded that it appears to be reality in between your speakers. Isn't that what we are all chasing- the most realistic portrayal of this?

Is for me anyway.
 
Voices and instruments were absolutely pinpointed in the two dimensions described above
Height and to some extent depth have to be speaker with the room effects and the same equipment in another house and listener position will behave differently
 


advertisement


Back
Top