Bigger midranges/speakers have better imaging?

Do you know what frequencies Greisinger identified as important for localization? I haven't seen his statements on that. I've only seen his discussions on what he called proximity.

Here's a talk of his on the audibility of low frequency spatialization.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ass-and-subwoofers.51589/page-10#post-2212227

It would seem to me logically , that 'spatialization' audibility which he states exists in playback systems, implies 'localization' audibility in some form (if there is a difference in such terms)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CinnamonRolls
fuscia...is it pink or purple? "sound stage" or "image"...aren't they the same thing?
They are.
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)
The interaction happens between to channels crossing at the listening position to create the psychological illusion called stereo. Wall reflections are not needed for this to happen. If you don't like head in vice systems, thats a choice of preference.


In the IR you will have Direct and Indirect Sound. A measurement at one single spot is pretty limited but taken into account, the signature, the impulse response, from all directions, and you'll have your complete image, measured and quantified. In regards to directivity vs imaging... narrow directivity helps imaging by removing reflective energy that distorts the image, aka distorts the IR. An anechoic chamber represents the epitome of a room that would not distort the IR. Being technically accurate does not exactly equate to being highly desirable. I don't mind headphones though I'll say that. One of the most vulnerable listening experiences I've had has been in headphones (apple max pros) with the noise cancelling on, in an already quiet room/house. Its easier to appreciate the reduction of the noise floor (excess decay/room reflections can be considered of the same effect as noise) when you've listened in an environment with a super low noise floor.

Many times, there's a difference between what a person likes to hear versus what's the most technically correct thing to hear. Accuracy vs Preference
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Horneydude
How do you measure imaging?

"How do you measure imaging?"

Short answer is: you don't.

Linkwitz called imaging an illusion. I call it a Hypothetical Construct.

The researchers studying Artificial Reality are sorting this stuff out.

You can measure azimuth. You can measure relative distance. With these two thing you have a good start to constructing the perception of space in your head. The inside of your head varies a bit from mine. Something that most of us do not think of of is that we are all more similar than we are different.

A head transfer function is required for the perception of space. The mixing engineer in the control room uses their own head and ears, as in head transfer function, to mix in the "space" they want in the recording. Using headphones does not work out so well for the perception of space. There is no head transfer function in headphones.

Most of the ques to space that we hear during playback come first by microphone placement for the original recording and second at the mixing computer / consul. Most of the spatial ques are programed into the recording.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2597187/pdf/JASMAN-000124-003132_1.pdf

Thanks DT
 
Thanks DJ.
I completely agree with you. We can't measure imaging. Inspite of all the bs camplo wrote.
Well lets half *** it then. We can't measure image? No reason to ever talk about it, its completely subjective. Except for thats false. People are purposely and repetitively recreating this unmeasurable thing... thats laughable. The only bottleneck is human perception to which we can obviously figure out somethings, I mean we do have the equal loudness curve.

The "image" in my opinion is the 3d sound field, because, there is literally nothing else, to talk about except for the human side of things. The radiation pattern of the loudspeaker its self and all Indirect sound, measured in 3d.
 
Last edited:
The disconnect is, we can measure all things... We must not have all the data on how we perceive "all the things"...

I can live with that statement... @adason maybe...

AI is saying "The "image" in audio is the perceptual experience of the spatial attributes of the sound field, including source localization, width, depth, and envelopment. It's how our brains interpret the physical sound waves in three-dimensional space."

To me that is short sided... The sound field is the image. How we interpret the image is another conversation. I can potentially play a musical signal that never reaches your ears and analyze all the aspect of Phase and amplitude, on my computer.... Thats because that Image is static, and encoded into the source material. Once the signal reaches and is ran through the loudspeaker, the loudspeaker will leave its signature, on it, changing the original image. The room and positions of source and listener will have signature left on the Image.

Sound field, Signature, Image, are all so closely intertwined because they very virtually identical or so closely related that cannot be separated easily.

To say we cannot measure imaging due to the human aspect of perception and our lack of objective knowledge on the topic is a cop out... Its literally no different than saying we cannot measure tone because no one took a literal measurement of my perception.... Thats silly isn't it?

I can measure FR and see how SPL vs frequency works out... But I cannot guarantee how you perceive it, thus Tone is immeasurable... Thats the logic you guys are choosing. Tone is obviously measurable, and so is imaging. How we perceive what the sound field is doing is a whole other topic

AI's response "You're saying the "image" encompasses all the perceptible spatial information within the sound field. How we individually interpret that information (psychoacoustics) is a separate layer. I agree. The image is the potential for spatial perception encoded in the sound field, while perception is the actualized experience, which can vary."

The subjectivity of whats expected or desired is what really makes for a grey area because we are not admitting that; Room reflections are technically a distortion to the signal and there is no vertical data in plain stereo signal...
 
Last edited:
Maybe we cannot measure imaging directly, but we can try to set up our systems such, that they recreate the artistic illusion that the sound engineer had in mind while producing, as good as possible, according to some set up standards. I hear you think... I did not attend the studio where it is produced and did not listen to the mix in the mixing chair, so how do we know it is faithful? We don't. So only subjectively, by comparison, we are able to differentiate between systems that recreate a constructed image in a believable way versus systems that don't. The domain of audio reviewers (grin) and not the least, us audio fanatics. Even then, we will continue to debate as I feel there is no golden standard for imaging, only preference. And an accurate system -what can be measured- offers better chances to achieve that. For me, my emotional response to the image is more important than technical specs, however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camplo
That I agree with. I was waiting for someone to speak on ,basically, the circle of confusion... The audio engineer heard an Image. Matter of fact he crafted it to some degree. We cannot recreate that exact image... We can recreate the part of the image that the Direct Sound is responsible for to probably a high degree.

We cannot include the Engineers ear/head/body transfer function nor the Indirect Sound portion of the Image, that he experienced. Not without a lot of work that is not normally done, and then we cannot clone and transfer his psychology, that interprets the signals.
 
Here's a talk of his on the audibility of low frequency spatialization.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ass-and-subwoofers.51589/page-10#post-2212227

It would seem to me logically , that 'spatialization' audibility which he states exists in playback systems, implies 'localization' audibility in some form (if there is a difference in such terms)

I switched from using the term imaging to using the term localization and the truth is I don't know what I'm talking about. I've interpreted imaging to mean localization and spatialization and spaciousness to mean envelopment. But I don't know if that's true or not. In relation to Greisinger, Toole used the term envelopment as well as "stereo bass". In my mind, stereo means imaging or localization. However, when I read Toole's comment stereo bass doesn't seem to mean imaging, it means envelopment. He also goes on to say you don't lose any spatial qualities by placing subwoofers around the room (disrupting a 2 channel stereo source of bass).

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...s-rainmaker-speaker-review.40906/post-2217331
David was most interested in concert halls, and in such large spaces even long bass wavelengths have space to propagate and be reflected from large surfaces. The delays generally responsible for impressions of envelopment are of the order of 80 ms and more.
 
1738698576597.png

1738698616766.png

I switched from using the term imaging to using the term localization
I think we are just using words to describe the same thing or aspects of the same thing. In truth localization is only relative to the original signal. If a put a bunch of reverb on a track, your localization of that instrument on that track will be very blurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CinnamonRolls
Haha 🤣 well, try to explain that to your significant other 🙂

That one is easy.

I have the Psychology degree.

She has the Psychology degree and Professional License.

We cannot include the Engineers ear/head/body transfer function.

Sorry that is not correct. Like it or not the Engineers ear/head/body transfer function is an integral part of the engineer's perception as they perform the mix.

At the time of playback your own "ear/head/body transfer function" is an integral part of the your perception as you listen to the recording.

The difficult part to grasp is that the "ear/head/body transfer function" is used at the time of mix and at the time of playback but no Transfer Function data is included in the recording. That is a human factor.

Thanks DT

Artificial Reality audio uses "Fake" transfer function tools added to the recording to lie to your ears.
 
Sorry that is not correct. Like it or not the Engineers ear/head/body transfer function is an integral part of the engineer's perception as they perform the mix.
Why would you cut my comment short... In its complete and original context you disagree?

We cannot include the Engineers ear/head/body transfer function nor the Indirect Sound portion of the Image, that he experienced. Not without a lot of work that is not normally done, and then we cannot clone and transfer his psychology, that interprets the signals.
This is the whole statement I made... you go on to make a whole post that agrees with everything that I've said already.
I was waiting for someone to speak on ,basically, the circle of confusion...
You described the circle of confusion
Artificial Reality audio uses "Fake" transfer function tools added to the recording to lie to your ears.
Wait till they figure out that The music they are hearing from their stereo is coming from musicians who aren't really standing in their living room....
 
We are not aware of this transfer function, as we have lived with it all our lives, that is wat you mean?

I am sitting here on my Steelcase drafting stool in Sparky's Lab listening to old LP's. Sparky is my 20 pound main coon cat. It is snowing out today.

With my drafting stool in the center of the room I can rotate 360. As I turn my head and body around on the drafting stool the sound reaching my ears is shadowed by body parts. The sound changes quality as my drafting stool turns about. That is the transfer function that we are speaking of.

Why would you cut my comment short...

The reader can click back to your post if they want the complete text.

You described the circle of confusion

No, if I was speaking about the circle of confusion I would be speaking about f / stops.