Bigger midranges/speakers have better imaging?

This sentence is not nescessary, it give a sour taste to your message, as always with politics and denial of facts happening everywhere over our small stone, being Cali, Britanny,... list is too long. Can be interpreted as really arrogant by victims of this things too.
Too bad as the link is very interesting.

And mind you, the advances which make this kind of research to be able to take place are the same which gives climate and weather models the accuracy they have now.

Another one

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2677334/pdf/JASMAN-000124-000450_1.pdf

If I were to state a preference for direct sound to reflected I would start at 60% direct to 40% reflected.

Thanks DT

Another one.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4744263/pdf/13414_2015_Article_1015.pdf

My point is that there is still much to learn.

All the arm waving does not help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krivium
Did you guys see these posts by Floyd Toole over at ASR? https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2196263

Directivity - i.e. early reflections - are significant in mono and stereo listening, but much less relevant in multichannel systems because the desirable recorded reflections dominate the listening room reflections.

And https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2195950

Stereo does poorly. It is not the loudspeaker, or the listening room, or any mysterious unmeasured or unmeasurable factor that is the limitation to reproducing something that sounds "real' - it is stereo itself.

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2185195

I’m sure you are aware of the mono vs. stereo listening controversy – from the beginning of my research 50+ years ago it was evident that listeners were more sensitive to resonances, the major flaw in loudspeakers, when listening in mono. It now seems clear that what was added by stereo that made us less sensitive to resonances was the recorded space information.

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2184162

However, good immersive multichannel recordings can be remarkably impressive, allowing one to walk around the room and not lose the illusion.

Obviously, most recordings don't have the proper multichannel format. But I think it's fair to say that as long as you have a good loudspeaker you should get decent imaging or spatial characteristics within the limits of stereo playback because as you add channels the recording becomes increasingly dominant.

Alternatively, in one of the threads over at ASR Kimmosto said when you have two channel stereo imaging that is too strong (high DI) it sounds unrealistic because nothing in real life audio is that pin-point. Although, that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just less realistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stv and mayhem13
i was a bit too short and general. for example SIegfried Linkwitz and Earl Geddes were both obsessed with polar response, but the first guy understood the full picture a great deal more. their speakers did not even remotely compare in imaging and neutrality. Nathan was flat sounding and no different to a typical econowave. locked in by somewhat high crossovers, large cones and large baffles. the summa even used 15" subwoofer drivers for a large portion of the midrange. id rather have an old school 500hz horn like in the 3-way cornscala than that..

here is the polar map of two types i owned, first looks nicer, that doesnt automatically mean it will image better, but atleast its better than a comparable sized box that beams and widens thruought the range and doesnt match dispersion around the crossover.
so polar response, baffles and drivers that are respectable in the range you want to use them.

diyaudio.png

Linkwitz LXMini Horizontal Contour Plot (Normalized).png
 
A. First……you need a source of reference for a particular recording to determine what the intended sound stage was…..good luck with that!

B. If you’re a logical individual and understand point A, then you can accept that what we perceive and enjoy are a matter of preference….individual or not……who cares unless you’re someone selling the illusion.

C. Fundamentally?….for starters….eliminate as much cross talk as possible from the source. What are the sources of crosstalk?

The signal path…..most important the amplifiers as they operate in the analog realm. Mono block amplifiers are a great place to start.

Room reflections and speaker positioning…..all variable to exponential levels. Folks like to replace reflections and limitiations ood placement options with directivity…..from here….it’s simply an opinionated, subjective free for all.

A crazy notion that’s been repeated countless times?…..some of the most popular speakers ever touted for fantastic imaging relied HEAVILY on room reflections…..the 901, Maggie’s and Polk SDA. These technologies have the bottleneck of symmetry……if your environment isn’t….well……expect poor results. Those that do?…..rejoice! DIYers?…..take notice….here again lies the most critical parameter of the DIY culture…..design for YOUR SPACE!!!!!

I would STRONGLY encourage anyone interested in this topic to find reviews and experience testimonials of folks and the Polk L800 and accept the common theme repeated.

As for the OP’s assertion?…..I could agree with his observations as there’s likely a strong mid range directivity component there……and it’s likely out of balance with the overall power response. He likes it…..great…….and maybe the high midrange directivity index happens to get balanced out by his specific room conditions. Doesn’t make his experience any less true…..300hz to 3k is everything…….we’ve been trained by this our entire lives by electronic communication devices.
 
SIegfried Linkwitz and Earl Geddes
1738618728638.png
vs
1738618819962.png

Definitely apples vs oranges but if you are contrasting what type of approach is the most desirable then its a matter of preference, and to suggest one of these men "got it" more than the other, is of bad taste. Two difference approaches with different outcomes. You will find this type of bias and discussion surrounding "imaging" because like FR, its a matter of preference for some people. In this case we have many differences but in particular the off axis character of these two loudspeakers are unique from each other in that one seeks to create lots of indirect sound and one seeks to create a tailored, significantly less in comparison, amount of indirect sound, in particular through the critical spectrum. One is not exactly more Right or Wrong but if being technically correct, the one with the most directivity will image better unless you idea of "imaging" is a distorted image, which includes high amounts of indirect sound. This doesn't have to mean wrong... its obviously pleasurable to some. Distortion in the form of room reflections. RT60 is obviously an underestimated topic. The Mini lacks the ability to play realistic level type playback... so "super great" imaging, in the form of a baffle-less, omnidirectional, design that due to limiting dynamics forces you to limit content and volume. Choose wisely.


A neutral FR vs a colored FR is a debate that is no different than A neutral Image vs a colored Image.... One is accurate one is not, either may be found desirable by one person to the next.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CPTX and krivium
Comparing the Linkwitz vs the Geddes reminded me of this comment by Floyd.

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2185195

So, evaluate your loudspeakers by listening in mono, and, if they are good, show them off in stereo or multichannel. If you think that one loudspeaker is more “revealing” than another, there are many factors at play, and it might just be a passing coincidence in the combination of loudspeaker, room and recording being auditioned. The powerful influence of recordings and rooms as variables would make this a challenging research project. There are NO standards in the music recording industry – another theme of the 4th edition.

Something else I'd add is listening distance. LX Mini is a cardioid "point source". The drivers are spaced close together. The Nathan is a two way with a large separation. So even if you had the same room and source but used a listening distance that favored the LX Mini it would be more revealing than the Nathan. Furthermore, if one speaker was truly better at imaging it might require a lot of work to actually prove it because you'd have to control all the variables including the listener (e.g. sample a large number of listeners in the same exact conditions).
 
LX Mini is "point source".
As Greisinger pointed out with evidence, the way we locate the source is frequency dependent, meaning the position of the woofers is less relevant.

Thank you for putting point source in quotes. While I know what you're saying, it isn't the term to describe it and it has picked up superfluous meaning.

Closer to coaxial systems make it easier to get a smooth cross, however in the hands of someone with the knowledge of Geddes that advantage is not needed.. So there's more talk to be found than description of the problem.

Even a coax is not a point source, and a coax has greater acoustical anomalies than Geddes speaker. He has been called to defend that position regularly.
 
The shift in significance is usually quoted as 700Hz and also affects our sensitivity to delayed sources.

Interestingly I find it just as necessary to mind diffraction below 700Hz, but the challenge isn't related to localisation or timing effects, but smoothness of directivity index.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CinnamonRolls
Below 400Hz the interaural time delay is the principle cue for localizing the horizontaldirection (azimuth) of low frequency sounds. In the absence of reflections, the ITD determines azimuth with high accuracy – within a few degrees at frequencies of 500Hzand above. Below 500Hz the accuracy is proportional to the frequency, so that localization to +-20 degrees is still possible in the 63Hz octave band.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=c5b3487df859c9265b2201758845390e018855e8
 
Has that test been done with the harmonics coming through a tweeter at the same time? It makes a difference.. and further, when they are so far apart that you can localise them separately it is less detrimental than you may think.
 
Bigger midranges/speakers have better imaging?

Yes. This is Extremely obvious. 🙂

Really large speakers gives a full size sound image of the accoustic guitar and singer between the speakers.

Really small speakers gives a doll house sized sound image of the accoustic guitar and singer between the speakers.


…And remember, i did not yet mention other extremely important aspects such as: Lifelike dynamic capability and lifelike full range bass capability. With extremely low distorsion. As a function of small or big speakers.

🎺🙂🎸
 
  • Like
Reactions: camplo
fuscia...is it pink or purple? "sound stage" or "image"...aren't they the same thing?

toe in...the old school way of making your stereo sound better why? methinks it because A: it's the poor mans way of creating directivity(taking the sound off the walls) and B:it increases the interaction between the speakers (which to me is a prerequisite to a "wide imaging sound stage")

i will take Camplo to task for his comment
[QUOTE the one with the most directivity will image better[/QUOTE]
if the directivity is very narrow where's the interaction? a tiny spot where they intersect? i don't like head in a vise style sound systems ( i had to say it that way because it applies to home stereo's PA's even studio monitors)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: camplo and krivium
no i think it goes right back to the beginning of thread that started with how to quantify imaging and is now expanded into all the factors that affect it.

beamy speakers? is that the opposite of controlled directivity speakers?

what angle of directivity is best? (hope camplo weighs in on that...)
 
Last edited: