what's depth, transparency, imaging?

[Ropie]

Re: Re: what's depth, transparency, imaging?

From "Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary" by J. Gordon Holt, July, 1993

depth: The illusion of acoustical distance receding behind the loudspeaker plane, giving the impression of listening through the loudspeakers into the original performing space, rather than to them.

imaging The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage. See "stereo imaging."

transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

http://stereophile.com/reference/50/

Dan

Hang on a minute...don't all the above words and definitions each mean exactly the same thing? Surely they are all describing the feeling of listening to real instruments and not electronics.



It seems to me that those three descriptive words could all be replaced by the term 'realism'.

 

[kevinkuang]

I agree, it helps me to understand more about the words by Holt's paper, but he's just using another adj to describ adj, although same thing happen in every dictionary, but still it's very subjective. then there is nonsense to say this speaker has better imaging than that speaker, because it's not objective.

 

[audiobomber]

Re: Re: Re: what's depth, transparency, imaging?

Hang on a minute...don't all the above words and definitions each mean exactly the same thing?

Absolutely not.

Depth is a feeling of space behind the plane of the speakers. When it's at its best, it's almost as if another room has been added on to your listening room and the band is playing in there.

Imaging is a sense of solidity to the sound, sometimes called a "palpable image". The illusion that a real guitarist is in the room, playing between (or behind) the speakers.

Transparency means you can hear through the mix; the quiet sounds in the background remain audible, even with a loud sound playing in the foreground.

There's a second part of transparency mentioned in the definition, the lack of (veiling, texturizing) editorializing. The system doesn't leave its stamp on the music.

It's possible to have lots of depth, but poor imaging. The sounds are way back there, but they lack solidity (palpability).

 

[audiobomber]

there is nonsense to say this speaker has better imaging than that speaker, because it's not objective.

Not everything in this world can be quantified. Subjectivity is an integral part of life.

A good reviewer can get the message across. Even if someone doesn't quite understand the terminology at first, he should be able to eventually. If the reviewer refers to equipment you're familiar with, or uses a reference you're familiar with, it helps one to understand.

Describing the sound seems fairly easy with the vocabulary that's been developed by reviewers. What's more subjective and less satisfying is that reviewers value things differently.

 

[Dave Jones]

And yet English contains dozens of words describing as many different shades of red and these words are used on a regular basis to sucessfully convey information. It may not be accurate, but how else are you going to do it? As long as both parties have some idea of what the word means then it is useful.

From scarlet to crimson to magenta, artists frequently don't describe colors very well at all. Most artists speak of "warm" and "cool" colors, but very few define what they mean by those terms. The lack of a definition does not stop them from discussing (or even arguing about) which colors are warmer than others. It's very much like the discussion, ridiculous IMHO, that's raging over in Loudspeakers/Subwoofers about "fast" and "slow" bass. The thread originator posted some advertizing blurb to subject it to ridicule. It was indeed ridiculous. What followed in the thread was quite disappointing, I think.

When artists really get down to pragmatics, they will discuss colors in terms of mixing specific pigments. Even that is dodgy, because, for example, two different brands of paints labeled "Naples Yellow" can have very different colors. When chemical names are used, the colors are more consistent, but there is still variation. Then the artist mixes them, and where are you?

But there are those who do have color "down to a science". For starters, they give codes to various pigments; PB15 is a particular variety of phthalocyanine, for example. That is roughly equivalent to us naming a particular loudspeaker by model number. They also define color, quite rigorously, with three numbers, typically called "hue", "saturation", and "value" (or "brightness"). Thus a color is named with a specific triple of numbers. That's somewhat like us quantifying a kind of distortion as the RMS power of some sideband. In other words, it is a description of the concrete result of a real observation. Why three numbers? Because there are three kinds of color receptors in a normal human eye. To us, (yes, I grudgingly admit I am a human), color is a three dimensional space, no more no less. Sound is infinite dimensional, but we can still deal with it pretty well.

There is a wonderful web site by a practicing artist who actually "gets it." Highly recommended.

http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/wcolor.html

 

[Ropie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: what's depth, transparency, imaging?

Depth is a feeling of space behind the plane of the speakers. When it's at its best, it's almost as if another room has been added on to your listening room and the band is playing in there.

Imaging is a sense of solidity to the sound, sometimes called a "palpable image". The illusion that a real guitarist is in the room, playing between (or behind) the speakers.

Transparency means you can hear through the mix; the quiet sounds in the background remain audible, even with a loud sound playing in the foreground.

There's a second part of transparency mentioned in the definition, the lack of (veiling, texturizing) editorializing. The system doesn't leave its stamp on the music.

It's possible to have lots of depth, but poor imaging. The sounds are way back there, but they lack solidity (palpability).

Well, those definitions are different to Holt's and you've also added sub-definitions to pad things out.

What's more subjective and less satisfying is that reviewers value things differently.

That's true!

There is a wonderful web site by a practicing artist who actually "gets it." Highly recommended.

Psychologists and theorists have a tendency to over analyze and destroy subjects. Just like reviewers and salesmen do.

 

[audiobomber]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what's depth, transparency, imaging?

Well, those definitions are different to Holt's and you've also added sub-definitions to pad things out.

I just tried to elaborate. I don't believe I varied from Holt's definitions in any way?

The point is, the terms used by reviewers do have meaning, and I'm comfortable with the descriptors. I can read an audio magazine or e-zine, and come away with an understanding of the author's description of the sound.

 

[Rudolf]

I find those definitions depth, imaging and transparency quite useable.

I remember talking about my impressions with my first open baffles on another forum. I wrote: "The wall behind the baffles has been blown away", since the depth of the virtual soundstage had extended beyond the room walls.

Regarding imaging the word "pinpoint" comes to mind. I can´t always hear the distance, but most definitely the precise direction of distinct instruments or voices in any good recording.

My sensation of transparency is less "seeing through" but more "singling something out". Individual singers in a choir for instance or the reverberation added to a guitar.

While everybody will have a slighly different understanding of these terms, I believe they are at least appropriate to qualify differences between loudspeakers, electronics, rooms or recordings.

Rudolf

 

[audiobomber]

It's very much like the discussion, ridiculous IMHO, that's raging over in Loudspeakers/Subwoofers about "fast" and "slow" bass. The thread originator posted some advertizing blurb to subject it to ridicule. It was indeed ridiculous. What followed in the thread was quite disappointing, I think

Disapointing in what way? I think the discussion is interesting.
BTW, what about Holt's definitions?

fast: Giving an impression of extremely rapid reaction time, which allows a reproducing system to "keep up with" the signal fed to it. (A "fast woofer" would seem to be an oxymoron, but this usage refers to a woofer tuning that does not boom, make the music sound "slow," obscure musical phrasing, or lead to "one-note bass.") Similar to "taut," but referring to the entire audio-frequency range instead of just the bass.

slow: Sound reproduction which gives the impression that the system is lagging behind the electrical signals being fed to it. See "fast," "speed," "tracking."

 

[Ropie]

In my experience music through a hi-fi sounds either good or bad and all this jargon that describes the nuances of the music are a set of different words for describing the same thing. I do not believe that good stereo imaging is any different from fast bass (for example) - it either sounds right or it doesn't; there is no sliding scale of 'fastness of bass' with one speaker sounding faster than another.

With the differences in system components, recording quality, room layout, etc, etc, one could never accurately compare these things anyway. Literal comparisons (which are the root of these descriptive words) are entirely subjective, meaningless and what can be referred to as mental masturbation for audiophiles.

I work in an industry that has a huge problem along the same lines, thinking that detailed and time consuming comparisons of quality - and qualities - will lead to better output. It is not true and has been proven not to work in the past. All that is achieved is un-necessary complication.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

In my experience music through a hi-fi sounds either good or bad and all this jargon that describes the nuances of the music are a set of different words for describing the same thing. I do not believe that good stereo imaging is any different from fast bass (for example) - it either sounds right or it doesn't; there is no sliding scale of 'fastness of bass' with one speaker sounding faster than another.

With the differences in system components, recording quality, room layout, etc, etc, one could never accurately compare these things anyway. Literal comparisons (which are the root of these descriptive words) are entirely subjective, meaningless and what can be referred to as mental masturbation for audiophiles.

I work in an industry that has a huge problem along the same lines, thinking that detailed and time consuming comparisons of quality - and qualities - will lead to better output. It is not true and has been proven not to work in the past. All that is achieved is un-necessary complication.

Just my thoughts on the topic.

I may have been somewhat ultimately dismissive in my earlier posts but what you have said here is exactly the way that I tend to quantify sound.

I'll listen to something and I'll immediately know if its good or not-so-good or just plain bad and like you said if one part of the sound isn't upto speed then generally the out come is always less favourable. A prime example would be that a design could have excellent mid and treble but if the bass is uneven, lifted and boomy then the speaker as a whole sound, well.... **** to be honest.

It means more to me if someone actually just says a speaker sounds great when verbally or literally describing the sound. Then if they go on to provide examples of music and describe the rendition of the music, if I've got that particular piece I can then go in and take a 'look' at the points they've raised as an incredibly rough comparison but still a million miles better than soundstage rubbish that's peddled.

The only way to assess, review and enlighten ones self is to actually listen to a speaker, you can try to describe it or read someone else's description, it frequently passes the time and if the reviewer and the reader are both enlightened then a blur can form as to what they will sound like, but ultimately its just as easy to describe what spinnach ricotta canelloni tastes like to someone who's never tried it - you can try but in the end there's so many naunces in the experience that just cannot be caught with words, you'd have to personally try that canelloni and see if you liked it.

 

[Ropie]

The only way to assess, review and enlighten ones self is to actually listen to a speaker

Good point. One man's 'outstanding pace' is another man's 'fast bass'. You just cannot rely on words to describe sound.

 

[pinkmouse]

One man's 'outstanding pace' is another man's 'fast bass'.

Or "lack of low end extension".

 

[audiobomber]

You just cannot rely on words to describe sound.

I assume you mean that words are unreliable for describing sound. Surely you don't mean we should stop trying. It's vitally important to link subjective terminology with measurements, so that designers and consumers know what works. This is what the NRC has excelled at.

 

[soongsc]

as for the words are using everywhere, especially now days they are useful since most of the research we can do before we decide which speaker is worthy to spending money is through the website, reading tons of the review, it's would be good if we can transfer the "words" into certain number. I know some might simply say that it's impossible to use figure to judge the quality of the speaker, but I do believe we can not do that is because we didn't have a good enough model(figure) to represent the sound quality, it has to be some relationship between the feeling and the figure. although it's impossible to represent all the information by any modeling, but it's still useful to represent some information.

Every one is using these subjective words to describ subjective feeling, which is really nonsense and useless.

maybe in the future, some one will build a model to describ the sonic.

However, the reason I like music is that it's so costum and subjective that you can really have your own space to build something YOU like it.

how about the bass, we know the frequency response can represent how deep the speaker can respond, but is there any technical meaning by saying the bass is "loose" or is "solid"?

Manufacturers will not show data that will truly present the quality of speakers, because none will show the quality that would make speakers seem worth buying.

Loose base, I think can be quite well represented by the waterfall plots, you just won't be able to relate them to what you hear.

Phase and impedance plots show good information if you can interpretate them, still it is not possible to directly relate those with what you hear.

Time history plots for real music would tell you the whole story, but you would think the speakers are generating lots of distortion. You would probably think "How could this junk be good?"

 

[Ropie]

I assume you mean that words are unreliable for describing sound. Surely you don't mean we should stop trying. It's vitally important to link subjective terminology with measurements, so that designers and consumers know what works. This is what the NRC has excelled at.

No, if I'd have meant we should stop trying I would have said so. However, it is not a bad idea and would make hi-fi magazines more useful and readable.

I don't know what NRC is but I usually find that combinations of measurements and terminology tend to muddy the waters further as measurements are also greatly dependent on extraneous factors like room size, recording quality, measurement equipment used...

 

[audiobomber]

I don't know what NRC is

Canada's National Research Council. It's a research facitlity that does many things, but it's famous in audio for its research and support of loudspeaker manufacturers. The NRC has state of the art listening rooms and an anechoic chamber. They use listening panels of consumers and professionals to evaluate speaker designs and correlate what works (sounds good to the panel) with design criteria.

http://ims-ism.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/asp/speaker_e.html

 

[kevinkuang]

Manufacturers will not show data that will truly present the quality of speakers, because none will show the quality that would make speakers seem worth buying.

Loose base, I think can be quite well represented by the waterfall plots, you just won't be able to relate them to what you hear.

Phase and impedance plots show good information if you can interpretate them, still it is not possible to directly relate those with what you hear.

Time history plots for real music would tell you the whole story, but you would think the speakers are generating lots of distortion. You would probably think "How could this junk be good?"

So there is a way to technically understand the sound by the reading the plots, as you say it may or may not fully related, but I guess all the information do in the plot, but maybe it's hard to find.

What are the plots of waterfall, Phase, impedance and Time history?
is there any other paper reference to these information?

 

[soongsc]

So there is a way to technically understand the sound by the reading the plots, as you say it may or may not fully related, but I guess all the information do in the plot, but maybe it's hard to find.

What are the plots of waterfall, Phase, impedance and Time history?
is there any other paper reference to these information?

Frequency response plots show how the responses vary over the audio range.

Waterfall plots show the frequency response over time after the signal has been stopped.

Phase plots show the phase response over the audio range.

Time history plots, well if you have edited sound files on a PC, those are time history plots.

Impedance plots show the impedance over the audio range.

Do a search through the internet and see what you find. This site provides some info.
http://www.libinst.com/technical.htm