Imaging

[shadyJ]

There aren't any gaps in bit depth. Bit depth determines only dynamic range.

Here's an article. Audio bit depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And sampling rates need only be slightly more than 200% the highest frequency you are concerned with.

Lol, think about all the money that would be lost of that came to be a widely accepted fact in high end audio. Things like the RMAF would be a very different place, if it could still exist at all.

 

[PENG]

Lol, think about all the money that would be lost of that came to be a widely accepted fact in high end audio. Things like the RMAF would be a very different place, if it could still exist at all.

For a little more clarity, he thought I was talking about bit depth but in my post I was simply stating that using phantom effect vs using a center channel is a little like analog vs digital, and cited 8,16,24....bit...., that there is no end to it in terms of having even more channels in the front that may also create other issues. I could have simply use 1,2,3..... (instead mentioning 8,16,24 or the word 'bit' implying binary at all) and you will still be missing 1.00001, 1.0000099 (no end to the decimal points right), ...1.5 etc., so in that sense the phantom generator is like (oops..hope this another poor analogy won't get another reaction..) the DAC, filling in all the discontiuities/gaps inherent in digital. Either way there are obviously better analogies that I could have used if I knew of them and thought of them but I didn't. At the moment, for me it is best to stick to just thinking or asssuming that at least in theory using phantom effect to create a sound stage is better, perhaps not in every way but overall, if you can sit at the sweet spot, than using a center channel but I should defer that to some recording/mastering 'engineers' to offer expert opinion on this.

 

[JerryLove]

I am suddenly reminded about Pi and why any resolution beyond 39 digits is entirely a "for fun" exercise.

.... because if you used Pi to 39 digits to calculate the volume of the universe: your level of precision would be smaller than a single atom.

And no: Analog resolution is not infinite either. See: Plank's constant.

 

[Irvrobinson]

For a little more clarity, he thought I was talking about bit depth but in my post I was simply stating that using phantom effect vs using a center channel is a little like analog vs digital, and cited 8,16,24....bit...., that there is no end to it in terms of having even more channels in the front that may also create other issues. I could have simply use 1,2,3..... (instead mentioning 8,16,24 or the word 'bit' implying binary at all) and you will still be missing 1.00001, 1.0000099 (no end to the decimal points right), ...1.5 etc., so in that sense the phantom generator is like (oops..hope this another poor analogy won't get another reaction..) the DAC, filling in all the discontiuities/gaps inherent in digital. Either way there are obviously better analogies that I could have used if I knew of them and thought of them but I didn't. At the moment, for me it is best to stick to just thinking or asssuming that at least in theory using phantom effect to create a sound stage is better, perhaps not in every way but overall, if you can sit at the sweet spot, than using a center channel but I should defer that to some recording/mastering 'engineers' to offer expert opinion on this.

Well, you've really stepped in it here! Since even lowly 16 bit audio has amplitude resolution of about .001db, arguing that analog is somehow more accurate than digital is foolhardy, and we all know you didn't really mean to imply that.

 

[JerryLove]

I *think* he chose poor wording / an unfortunate analogy.

I *think* his assertion is "no plausible number of speakers can completely recreate a sound-field in an environment."; that when you reduce a contiguous space to a number of source points (speakers), that there will always be some level of deficiency compared to the original environment.

 

[Steve81]

Lol, think about all the money that would be lost of that came to be a widely accepted fact in high end audio.

Indeed. The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is a seriously misunderstood creature. It's got nothing in common with say, a low res digital photo vs a high res digital photo vs film, although that seems to be the popular notion of it.

 

[shadyJ]

I am suddenly reminded about Pi and why any resolution beyond 39 digits is entirely a "for fun" exercise.

.... because if you used Pi to 39 digits to calculate the volume of the universe: your level of precision would be smaller than a single atom.

And no: Analog resolution is not infinite either. See: Plank's constant.

From what little I understood of Brian Greene's books, the standard model would seem to suggest a finite amount of physical resolution ie the Plank Length, but it is not confirmed by any experiment, so it seems like speculation at this point, albeit grounded by some reasonable assumptions.

 

[ahblaza]

Man, I better consult with my old set of Britannica's before I make another post.

 

[JerryLove]

From what little I understood of Brian Greene's books, the standard model would seem to suggest a finite amount of physical resolution ie the Plank Length, but it is not confirmed by any experiment, so it seems like speculation at this point, albeit grounded by some reasonable assumptions.

I don't believe that there is any present viable model of the universe that does not resolve into discrete things (usually strings); making the universe, effectively, digital

 

[josko]

Phew - this went up over my head somewhere...
Are you guys saying that a 24 bit source would image better than a 16 bit source, but the difference is infinitesimal???

 

[Irvrobinson]

Phew - this went up over my head somewhere...
Are you guys saying that a 24 bit source would image better than a 16 bit source, but the difference is infinitesimal???

We're just saying the difference is infinitesimal.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think it is possible for 5ch music to have great imaging. It's just in my experience, most 5ch music do not have better imaging than my favorite 2ch music.

It depends on the original recordings.

Again, expect imaging from speakers to be very good, but not exactly as real as a live non-amplified music.

I have the Orion, Salon2, and 802D2 side-by-side in the same room. I don't think the 802D2 image any less than the Orion and Salon2 using the same recording.

 

[shadyJ]

Indeed. The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem is a seriously misunderstood creature. It's got nothing in common with say, a low res digital photo vs a high res digital photo vs film, although that seems to be the popular notion of it.

I think it is more willful ignorance than mere misunderstanding- the Nyquist theorem is not that hard to grasp.

 

[PENG]

Well, you've really stepped in it here! Since even lowly 16 bit audio has amplitude resolution of about .001db, arguing that analog is somehow more accurate than digital is foolhardy, and we all know you didn't really mean to imply that.

You're so right this time.

 

[PENG]

Phew - this went up over my head somewhere...
Are you guys saying that a 24 bit source would image better than a 16 bit source, but the difference is infinitesimal???

I doubt anyone is saying that unless I missed some posts.

 

[jostenmeat]

I attended a live performance (Shostakovich 5th) and noticed how very well I coud image (estimate direction to) various players in the orchestra. When I played the piece on my 2.0 system, yes, I could still distinguish some directionality, but it was nowere near as definitive as in the live performance.
What can I do to improve imaging on my home stereo system? I tried playing with equalization curves, and it seems they don't help, and some distinctly made things worse. Should I be trying to deaden reflections in the room? Do I want a 'dead' room for optimal imaging or a 'live' room?
My speakers are B&W 802D's, and they are carefully positioned equidistant from the wall and from the the listening point. I also have a center speaker (B&W HTM1D), and one of my recordings is in Dolby TrueHD 5.1, but it seems the center speaker detracts from imaging, rather than helps. It almost seerms like my CD 2-channel recording has better imaging than the 5.1 recording - seems totally counterintuitive.
Anyway, I would welcome any help in setting up my 2.0 system for better imaging. I do a lot of listening to orchestral music.

My usual advice, just for the session/day, completely disregard any sense of the ergonomics of the room, aesthetics, it's ok to get rid of the coffee table, it's ok to pull the speakers out where you can't even walk around efficiently anymore, etc, to see if you can get there as if it was a dedicated listening room. Then you start compromising or figuring out from there. It may just be the room too. It may be the listener position.

FWIW, I have heard the lesser 804S image like cuckoo before. I put my ear up the center speaker to make sure it wasn't on. Afterward I was out of the room chatting up the dealer, and I saw the next guy walk in, and noticed him do the exact same thing, inspecting the center to see if it was on. If those can do it, I imagine the 802Ds should at least match, if not exceed the pair I heard. OTOH, I have heard in 802Ds in a terrible, tiny room, and it sounded just awful. No joke, I inquired if there were blown drivers on them, because I was at a loss for why they sounded so terribly.

Lastly, you might put up some diagrams of the situation, and ask some acoustics experts about how to treat the room, if willing to do so.

 

[jostenmeat]

josko, only anecdotal still of course, but the setup of the 804s were somewhat unique to me, I'll explain. Sure, it was setup lengthwise, and IIRC the seating was on the same half of the room as the speakers. The unique part was just how widely separated the speakers were (significantly wider than an equilateral triangle, if you will), with some pretty severe toe-in.

I've tried that sort of thing with lesser speakers before, and usually I get that unwanted "hole". Not the case with the above setup. That said, I still think I use a wider spread of speakers than most everyone I know, and probably more than the majority of AHers too. I sometimes wonder how differently it would sound with other setups, if they were willing just for one experiment, to spread them out further, with greater toe-in. Also, just simply pulling the speakers away from the wall will do that anyway, as this incidentally increases the angles from the listener's perspective.

Almost without exception, the most immediate improvement I can make to imaging, in my limited and personal experiences, is to pull the speakers further away from the front wall.

When imaging is about as good as it's going to get for me, it's coming from behind the speakers, so to speak.

 

[josko]

Thanks guys, your help is much appreciated. I AM making progress, but whether I'll get to keep the room in the 'optimal imaging' configuration is up for family debate. Getting the speakers away from the walls and putting a very heavy curtain behind them seems to help.
One thing I could really use is a reference recording with which to calibrate the saystem. I've ende dup goint to vinyl Deutche Grammophon recordings of chamber music. I don't quite understand why this images better than the more recent CD's (of same pieces), but it sure seems to.

 

[jostenmeat]

So if it's the front wall interaction that is the greatest culprit (similar to my personal experiences), you may try some treatments there. Properly chosen material will do WAY more than a curtain, as far as frequency range, including "midrange".

Maybe you can figure out some custom printed (even custom sized if lucky?) that may pass muster for the sake of family debates.

Proponents of using acoustic panels say that by using them, your are given greater freedom in finding good imaging. Rather than firstly avoiding placements that have poor frequency response, and then finding what images well as a second priority, you may have new candidates for speaker positioning open up to you that you wouldn't have considered before. "Less of a balancing act", if you will.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/room-acoustics-system-layout-setup/52332-glenns-custom-panels.html

 

[josko]

I guess that brings back the original question: do I want a dead room or a live room for optimal imaging?