What determines imaging?

[fmw]

Seated between the speakers in an anechoic chamber, would you not hear imaging because of the stereo effect, much like when listening to headphones? (I thought that the goal of room treatment was to approximate conditions in an anechoic chamber, atleast to some extent.)

Yes, of course. But you wouldn't hear any reflected sound. The placement of recorded instruments and voices in the recording would be the same for all speakers. The imaging and the differences between presentations to which you referred depends on reflected sounds. Imaging isn't a characteristic of speakers. It is a characteristic of speakers performing in an acoustic environment and placed in a given way relative to the listener. If you remove the acoustic environment you remove the differences in imaging.

Don't spend any time worrying about imaging by gathing the opinions of others. And certainly ignore any comments about it in subjective equipment reviews. You won't likely have the same acoustic environment the others do.

 

[fmw]

So you won't hear stereo in an anoechic chamber?

Yes you would hear stereo. But you wouldn't hear "imaging" differences from one speaker to another. That's what the OP is talking about.

 

[WmAx]

Yes you would hear stereo. But you wouldn't hear "imaging" differences from one speaker to another. That's what the OP is talking about.

I wonder. I have not specifically researched this, but I would theorize that if you compare a speaker with very low resonance vs. one with average(which is objectively high) resonance, if that resonance is due to insufficient acoustic damping material, that this could perhaps in some small way mask subtle cues in parts of recordings that lend to soundstage/image perception. I could be dead wrong. Just a speculation.

FR, if it is substantially different, will effect perceived soundstage/image, even in an anechoic chamber listening condition.

-Chris

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I wonder. I have not specifically researched this, but I would theorize that if you compare a speaker with very low resonance vs. one with average(which is objectively high) resonance, if that resonance is due to insufficient acoustic damping material, that this could perhaps in some small way mask subtle cues in parts of recordings that lend to soundstage/image perception. I could be dead wrong. Just a speculation.

FR, if it is substantially different, will effect perceived soundstage/image, even in an anechoic chamber listening condition.

-Chris

Reviews will sometimes describe an electronic component as offering excellent imaging. If there is any truth to this (I remain skeptical at best), it must be related to what you are saying.
(I wonder what effect "stereo wide" circuitry would have? I have never seen this on a home audio component, only boomboxes.)

 

[fmw]

I wonder. I have not specifically researched this, but I would theorize that if you compare a speaker with very low resonance vs. one with average(which is objectively high) resonance, if that resonance is due to insufficient acoustic damping material, that this could perhaps in some small way mask subtle cues in parts of recordings that lend to soundstage/image perception. I could be dead wrong. Just a speculation.

FR, if it is substantially different, will effect perceived soundstage/image, even in an anechoic chamber listening condition.

-Chris

I don't know Chris. I don't have an anechoic chamber so I haven't run any tests of this type. My main point was that what audiophiles call imaging is perhaps better described as room acoustics. I was trying to get Joe away from the concept that the speakers alone have some sort of characteristic called imaging. Yes, I consider room acoustics to be the most important factor by far in the sound of a hifi system. I'm not making light of it at all.

I also consider that the enclosure is equal in importance to the drivers in a speaker system. I don't mean the brand of the drivers. I mean the correct number of each type of driver to acheive a reasonably flat frequency response. The best sounding speakers I've ever owned or heard are those with the least resonant enclosures. Enclosure resonance can cause all kinds of unpleasantness.

 

[fmw]

Reviews will sometimes describe an electronic component as offering excellent imaging. If there is any truth to this (I remain skeptical at best), it must be related to what you are saying.
(I wonder what effect "stereo wide" circuitry would have? I have never seen this on a home audio component, only boomboxes.)

Yes indeed. Some reviews will give electronics characteristics like "pace" and "rhythm." Try to figure out what that means. Without meaning to dampen your enthusiasm, these kinds of reviews aren't worth much. They are completely subjective. Think of them as flights of fancy. If they are entertaining to read, that's great. But don't put your money into an electronic component that someone says has good imaging - at least not for that reason.

The width of the perceived soundstage would depend primarily on the distance to and reflectivity of the walls on either side of the system. Notice, however, that you can perceive a wide sound stage with headphones if you concentrate on the music and if it was recorded in a large venue. So some of this is inside the head and not necessarily some measurable characteristic inherent in the equipment.

Also note that for digitally processed multi channel sound it is possible to affect the sound stage by changing the delay in some of the channels.

 

[3db]

I don't know Chris. I don't have an anechoice chamber. My main point was that what audiophiles call imaging is perhaps better described as room acoustics. I was trying to get Joe away from the concept that the speakers alone have some sort of characteristic called imaging. Yes, I consider room acoustics to be the most important factor by far in the sound of a hifi system. I'm not making light of it at all.

I also consider that the enclosure is equal in importance to the drivers in a speaker system. I don't mean the brand of the drivers. I mean the correct number of each type of driver to acheive a reasonably flat frequency response. The best sounding speakers I've ever owned or heard are those with the least resonant enclosures. Enclosure resonance can cause all kinds of unpleasantness.

To me imaging infers how one can hear the locations of the different instruments within a soundstage produced in stereo by the speakers. To me, a single speaker cannot image. It takes a pair of speakers with sound arriving at different times, different amplitudes and different phases to give you that image. I do believe acoustics play a big part in this as well as the physical make up of the speaker. Now if you place the speakers in an anoechic chamber, you eliminate room acoustics from the equation. So now the image that is imparted to the listener is now striclty a function of the speaker, both physically and electrically. If the components used for the crossovers or the wires making up the vpice coils have poor tolerances, ie resitance nad inductance values vary alot from left to right speaker, wouldnt the result of that skew the image to one speaker more than the other, or widen the the image so much that perceived location of the instruments are lost?

I think imaging is not only affected by room acoustics but how close the tolerances are of the electrical components relative to the left and right speaker

 

[fmw]

Ok, let me know when you have some measurements and the results of some objective listening tests.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The width of the perceived soundstage would depend primarily on the distance to and reflectivity of the walls on either side of the system. Notice, however, that you can perceive a wide sound stage with headphones if you concentrate on the music and if it was recorded in a large venue. So some of this is inside the head and not necessarily some measurable characteristic inherent in the equipment.

So is it best to use the reflections, or to minimize them (by keeping the speakers far from walls with a lot of toe-in, or by using a lot of absortion)? I tend to take the second approach with monopoles, and the first approach only with multipoles.

 

[3db]

Ok, let me know when you have some measurements and the results of some objective listening tests.

So you disagree with the notion that changes in amplitude, time, or phase affect imaging?

 

[tbewick]

I have noticed that, even among monopoles, some speakers have significantly better imaging/soundstage than others. Since virtually all modern speakers have a 1" dome tweeter, and most have a narrow baffle with rounded edges, this seems counerintuitive. What are the design factors that contribute to imaging? Do bookshelves always image better than towers, and if so why? Also, what are some makes/models that are particularly outstanding in this regard?

Harman have some papers which you might find useful:

http://www.harman.com/about_harman/technology_leadership.aspx

KEF's recent horn-loaded speakers have received decent reviews, but they're probably not as good as B&W's flagship speakers.

 

[fmw]

So you disagree with the notion that changes in amplitude, time, or phase affect imaging?

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I disagree that you would get any meaningful differences in imaging from two different speaker systems in an anechoic chamber - whatever the reasons might be for the differences.

 

[3db]

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I disagree that you would get any meaningful differences in imaging from two different speaker systems in an anechoic chamber - whatever the reasons might be for the differences.

Well that clarifies it. Thanks