What is the key to good imaging? I can find threads where people make claims regarding specific speakers, but inductive reasoning is failing me today.
Is it just using directivity and large distances from sidewalls to reduce the amplitude of reflected energy relative to direct energy? Does that mean that in-wall speakers can never image well, or only if they are placed far from a side-wall?
Will flat on-axis and even power responses guarantee good imaging regardless of the method chosen? i.e. dipole vs waveguide
Does a wide baffle render all other efforts useless because the baffle step occurs at a frequency critical to imaging?
Is it just using directivity and large distances from sidewalls to reduce the amplitude of reflected energy relative to direct energy? Does that mean that in-wall speakers can never image well, or only if they are placed far from a side-wall?
Will flat on-axis and even power responses guarantee good imaging regardless of the method chosen? i.e. dipole vs waveguide
Does a wide baffle render all other efforts useless because the baffle step occurs at a frequency critical to imaging?
First of all, an adequately-sized room. Meaning a room which speakers are away from walls.
Then speakers with uniform response and this arguably are dipoles and omnis. I've playes with waveguides and they have the "direct to your face" type of sound. Good for textures and details, not good for soundstage/image/illusion.
my 2 hz worth
Then speakers with uniform response and this arguably are dipoles and omnis. I've playes with waveguides and they have the "direct to your face" type of sound. Good for textures and details, not good for soundstage/image/illusion.
my 2 hz worth
gainphile said:
Hi gainphile,
i tend to agree. Uniform angle of radiation vs. frequency
( i guess this is what you meant ?) is
very important to get good imaging.
Some people say that omni sources can tolerate near walls
(distance <=1m ) better than dipoles. From my experience i
agree to that too.
To me good imaging is the result of a speaker with good
habits in "all" disciplines you can imagine.
A speaker with nasty peaks in the presence or brilliance region
will tend to produce an "out of the box" sound. A speaker which
suffers from cabinet resonances will produce a different
"out of the box" sound.
In short: A good speaker will produce believable imaging with
good recordings. It is really that simple ...
Of cause room resonances and reflections have to be tamed.
Cheers
I believe it is symmetry (in a wider sense) in the first place. Let me explain:
First: Room conditions left and right outside the speaker base should be equivalent. If first reflections off the sidewalls are very different in timing, imaging will suffer. And if one sidewall is all thick rug and the opposite one is all glass, it will not help either.
Second: Speakers should have controlled directivity. It may not be constant directivity a la Geddes, but off-axis radiation should fall off smoothly at all frequencies compared to on-axis.
Third: Your listening position has to be in the stereo triangle. You can not have good imaging outside the sweet spot.
I don´t see baffle step and power response as critical factors for imaging. They are only important for an even and natural frequency response IMHO.
First: Room conditions left and right outside the speaker base should be equivalent. If first reflections off the sidewalls are very different in timing, imaging will suffer. And if one sidewall is all thick rug and the opposite one is all glass, it will not help either.
Second: Speakers should have controlled directivity. It may not be constant directivity a la Geddes, but off-axis radiation should fall off smoothly at all frequencies compared to on-axis.
Third: Your listening position has to be in the stereo triangle. You can not have good imaging outside the sweet spot.
I don´t see baffle step and power response as critical factors for imaging. They are only important for an even and natural frequency response IMHO.
I've built both Linkwitz Orions and Linkwitz Plutos.
The Orions are _MUCH_ more tolerant of objects between them along with side-wall proximity. I had one room with the left speaker 2' from the side wall and the right speaker over 10' off with a center image that stayed parked with frequency.
You can add extra toe-in to the dipoles so they minimally illuminate the side walls. Even with my Orions aimed straight at the listener in my original room, I calculated a first side wall reflection about 10dB down from a less directional speaker.
Re: Re: How do you get good imaging?
This is my finding too. The pluto simply cannot live in small room, 3x4m in my case. They just don't sound right. Bass gone, FR not smooth etc. all the things you can think of bad speakers. I know SL say otherwise. The dipoles are somewhat OK but much better than pluto in small room.
Both require large room to sound great.
I like these too, so I also have a set of fullrange speakers for my small room
Drew Eckhardt said:
This is my finding too. The pluto simply cannot live in small room, 3x4m in my case. They just don't sound right. Bass gone, FR not smooth etc. all the things you can think of bad speakers. I know SL say otherwise. The dipoles are somewhat OK but much better than pluto in small room.
Both require large room to sound great.
tinitus said:
I prefer to focus on ambience, tonality, coherency and ... "focus"
I bet this new one from Troels will be good at it!
I like these too, so I also have a set of fullrange speakers for my small room
Drew Eckhardt said:
Maybe my former post was too sloppy ...
The dipol 08 speakers (own dipole design) i use in my room,
have very asymetric distance to the side walls.
I have to compromise the speakers position, because there
is a support (column) in the middle of my listening rooom.
Dipoles can tolerate that, because there is less energy radiated
towards the sides. Concerning a wall behind the speaker, a dipole
will not work well, when distance drops below say 1,2m.
If you cannot avoid a wall near behind the speaker, an omni is
more tolerant IMO. This is often the case for small rooms.
I would not use a dipole in a 3x4m room, because the listening
area gets too small, when the dipoles are placed far enough from
the wall behind.
But i am not a "sweet spot listener". I designed my speakers
for a listening area as large as possible.
I often sit slightly shifted from the middle when listening. I vary
the distance too. With some music (chamber music, some kinds of
electronic music) i sit 2,5 to 3m away from the speakers.
With orchestral music i choose up to 6m sometimes, depending
on my mood and the spatial quality of the recording.
But my speakers have more directivity than most designs,
so i can afford listening at larger distances.
Most speakers "live up" in a larger room. I think one reason
for that is, that balanced bass response and deep bass is difficult
in small rooms. Mode density in small roooms is too small at
LF. Balanced and deep bass is very important for imaging too
IMO.
Cheers
I think many confuse imaging and soundstage. To me they are very differnt. Soundstage is about how well the speakers fill the room and the space between them. Imaging is how well they suspend a sound in an exact point of space.
In my experience small speakers have a good soundstage but not such good imaging. I put this down to the high baffle step frequency. The wider dispersion produces more reflections and diffuse sound so it gives a bigger sound with more ambiance. I think wide baffle speakers tend to have good imaging for exactly the opposite reasons. They are more directive and so you get fewer reflections to muddle the minds localisation abilities, but by the same token you have less ambiance.
I think soundstage and imaging are partly exclusive of each other, although of course you can have some of both.
Even off axis response is important in call cases. Good integration of drivers acting as a point source for good phase alignment is also important.
In my experience small speakers have a good soundstage but not such good imaging. I put this down to the high baffle step frequency. The wider dispersion produces more reflections and diffuse sound so it gives a bigger sound with more ambiance. I think wide baffle speakers tend to have good imaging for exactly the opposite reasons. They are more directive and so you get fewer reflections to muddle the minds localisation abilities, but by the same token you have less ambiance.
I think soundstage and imaging are partly exclusive of each other, although of course you can have some of both.
Even off axis response is important in call cases. Good integration of drivers acting as a point source for good phase alignment is also important.
Depends if the soundstageing and ambiance is on the recording. If it is, then the system that has fewer reflections and good imaging can do it. But if it is not, it won't. A system that uses the room to add soundstage and ambiance can have it for all recordings, but not such good imaging.
IMO!
IMO!
Hi,
i also think both should go hand in hand.
With some music, there will be no so sound stage at all,
and one should not expect from a speaker to add this.
Sometimes i listen to (historical) electronic music ...
with some early Kraftwerk songs like "Metropolis" the sounds
are very present, there is nearly no virtual "space". Although
some sounds - especially transients - come from a defined
position between the speakers ( you should have the feeling,
that you can grab and feel them right in front of you, if your
speaker is any good at reproducing transients.).
Good recordings of chamber music may have realistic sound stage
and "precise" imaging too. Sometimes singers and instruments
can be located at an absolute position as well as relative to
each other.
With orchestral material, "imaging" is often not that precise.
How precise is "imaging" when listening live in a concert
hall ?
Sometimes i shake my head, when i read in hifi mags:
"Speaker A puts the singer exactly 1m in front of the piano,
bla bla ... while with speaker B the singer seems to stand exactly
in front of it ... bla .. This is why speaker A is unbeatable in
imaging bla bla ... ! "
Such things are hogwash IMO. Just artifacts. Most recording
techniqes are not able to reproduce, what the authors of
such articles like to hear or what they want us make believe
we should hear.
There may be such subjective differences with different speakers,
and certain recordings, yes.
But we should listen to some dozen or hundred recordings,
before estimating what the speaker does to them.
Soundstage and imaging should go together. But again:
When entering a concert hall with a blindfold, dependent on
the style of hall, please point to the solo instrument playing,
then take of the blindfold.
Is your "imaging" exact enough to shoot the violinist with eyes
shaded ?
Sorry for that, we should honour musicians, just a typification.
Cheers
i also think both should go hand in hand.
With some music, there will be no so sound stage at all,
and one should not expect from a speaker to add this.
Sometimes i listen to (historical) electronic music ...
with some early Kraftwerk songs like "Metropolis" the sounds
are very present, there is nearly no virtual "space". Although
some sounds - especially transients - come from a defined
position between the speakers ( you should have the feeling,
that you can grab and feel them right in front of you, if your
speaker is any good at reproducing transients.).
Good recordings of chamber music may have realistic sound stage
and "precise" imaging too. Sometimes singers and instruments
can be located at an absolute position as well as relative to
each other.
With orchestral material, "imaging" is often not that precise.
How precise is "imaging" when listening live in a concert
hall ?
Sometimes i shake my head, when i read in hifi mags:
"Speaker A puts the singer exactly 1m in front of the piano,
bla bla ... while with speaker B the singer seems to stand exactly
in front of it ... bla .. This is why speaker A is unbeatable in
imaging bla bla ... ! "
Such things are hogwash IMO. Just artifacts. Most recording
techniqes are not able to reproduce, what the authors of
such articles like to hear or what they want us make believe
we should hear.
There may be such subjective differences with different speakers,
and certain recordings, yes.
But we should listen to some dozen or hundred recordings,
before estimating what the speaker does to them.
Soundstage and imaging should go together. But again:
When entering a concert hall with a blindfold, dependent on
the style of hall, please point to the solo instrument playing,
then take of the blindfold.
Is your "imaging" exact enough to shoot the violinist with eyes
shaded ?
Sorry for that, we should honour musicians, just a typification.
Cheers
!st, soundstaging & imaging in my book are synonyms... how the speaker creates an illusion of a 3D space & the speakers dissappear.
Away from sidewalls is not absoulutely needed... in my buddy Chris' tiny mancave with the speakers (Fonkens) off the wall by 20 cm, with a good recording the entire end of the room explodes outwards.
Getting a speaker to image requires removal of anything the speaker soes to attract attention to itself, cone noise, box resonances, time smear back thru the cone edge diffration all have to be minimized.
The speaker needs to be able to keep the harmonic envelope in tact, and it needs to have good downward dynamic range -- most of the clues that produce the illusion of space are small and buried way down,
dave
Away from sidewalls is not absoulutely needed... in my buddy Chris' tiny mancave with the speakers (Fonkens) off the wall by 20 cm, with a good recording the entire end of the room explodes outwards.
Getting a speaker to image requires removal of anything the speaker soes to attract attention to itself, cone noise, box resonances, time smear back thru the cone edge diffration all have to be minimized.
The speaker needs to be able to keep the harmonic envelope in tact, and it needs to have good downward dynamic range -- most of the clues that produce the illusion of space are small and buried way down,
dave
blue934 said:
It is almost something you have to hear to really Grok*. It is the ability of a device to reproduce information way down in level from where the main stuff is... for the sake of a number, lets say 30-50 dB down. It is here that many of the subtle clues that make a device image live.
In a speaker for instance it is one of the reasons i don't like MDF. It stores energy and slowly oozes it out at low levels burying all this subtle but very important information.
*(that this is so was driven home by 2 people with my EnABLed drivers, who withing 24 hours, and completely independently exclaimed "I now know what you all mean by "downward dynamics"." Here is one of them http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1719265#post1719265)
dave
From my experience I can say, that all Full-Range Speakers, that are not of the cheapest crappy kind, have a very good imaging. Small ones with narrow or no baffle being the best.
The CSS FR125S in a spherical enclosure (see Avatar) creates the best imaging I ever experienced.
I had 2 kinds of Omnis (FR with cone) that fared very well, but where more sensitive to placement than the direct radiating FRs I owned.
Have not tried Dipole yet.
For all other concepts I have not seen any relation of imaging to a feature of design. Some have it, a lot of them don't.
The CSS FR125S in a spherical enclosure (see Avatar) creates the best imaging I ever experienced.
I had 2 kinds of Omnis (FR with cone) that fared very well, but where more sensitive to placement than the direct radiating FRs I owned.
Have not tried Dipole yet.
For all other concepts I have not seen any relation of imaging to a feature of design. Some have it, a lot of them don't.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.