|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.103.210.162
I mean totaly disapear and throw a huge soundstage. A speaker that threw the soundscape above and beyond the pysical boundaries of the speaker, when you listened you just sat there amazed at what you were hearing in front of you, with 3D immages abound.
I own maggies 3.6's and they do it pretty well, and I own a pair of Rogers LS2 that put on a pretty good show, but the dynamics are restricted.
I heard Pro Ac tabletts that immaged like crazy, what else?
Follow Ups:
Tannoy brother, Tannoy.Prestige series or studio monitors DMT 15.
What speaker images the best is personal taste and, more importantly, the room/speaker interface. What images well in one room will image like crap in another. Imaging really is a function of dispersion, combined with cabinet reflections/diffractions combined with the complex and almost unpredictable (on a psycho-acoustic level) interaction with the room.
image like crazy with instruments to the right and left and behind the main soundstage but that's about all they did right (IMHO). The best overall speaker presentations I ever heard were the Audio Artistry Beethoven's playing Hugh Masekela's Stimela, just f'ing incredible.
The Linkwitz Orions are even better in this respect.
.
In any event, the Orions image far better than my Xd killers TM ever did.
.
Too bad you aren't a dealer for the Orions because I think you'd like them.
don't have your room. And that's the only room they'd have an advantage over something like Xd. Most people don't have a 12' wide room, then try to put ultra-high-end into it. It is an interesting design, however, and I have no doubts that it sounds good.
> And that's the only room they'd have an advantage over something like Xd.My room isn't even even considered ideal for the Orions, yet they sound amazing. (Just ask anyone who's heard them.)
But... I'm not going to argue with you about it (again). If you should care to enlighten yourself I encourage you to read the reference material on the Linkwitzlab web site.
.
Vandersteen's and Carver Amazings Silvers and Platinum's, with the Carver sounding the best.
The Overall better image for me, are the Apogee's Stage, but, the best and strong central image are the Spendor's SP1/2.
Absolutely phenominal!! I still kick myself for selling these!
I have been chasing and have damn near captured their most natural way of imaging and the way they handled macro and micro dynamics. Even the newer models in the Alon line with the "improved" drivers did not capture what the Alon 1's did.I remember hearing images to my extreme left/right around to the sides and in back of me and with images firmly planted in front as well that was spooky as hell. They also protrayed a soundstage that way the most layered I have heard.
NIN - "Downward spiral" was downright scary in parts!
Anyway....that's my vote.
I'm wondering what you used to achieve this result, as well as wondering what recent models of the Alons you've heard? I've owned a few of them myself, and wonder if the Alons simply allow the associated equipment to display the imaging, as part of the total musical picture, at its best.
A heavily modified AMC3030a integrated amp, a modified Marantz CD63mk ll, HSU Research HRSV12W Powered sub in augment mode. MIT2 Biwire speaker cables and Audioquest and/or Wireworld IC's.Modified Adcom ACE 515 PC and dedicated AC line. All components on air isolation platforms. Of course, ASC tube traps and Michael Green Room Tune pack. It was also a dedicated listening room.
I currently own Alon Lotus SE mk lll's which I bought to replace the Alon l's. Have had these for about 3 years now and have yet to equal or surpass what the Alon l's could do.
I have tried to buy them back from my buddy but as you can guess, he's not interested at all!!
Live and learn.
Best Regards,
a lovely soundstage while not sacrificing tonality. What can I say - I love 'em.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
.
The little Role Audio Kayaks image fantastically and have many other attibutes such as tonal accuracy and good dynamics for a very small speaker.
I enjoy hearing the seperation of instruments. When I go to a live concert the sound is like a wall where I cannot pick out the position of each instrument(not accoustic concerts).The live sound is not what I am trying to duplicate. To me, just about every speaker sounds better away from a wall and sitting near the speakers in a triagle configuration.Yet some of my friends like to be father away.
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Definately Kharma 3.2Fe's. They completely disappear and have a large soundstage. Havent heard anything recently that is at there level. Just my 2 cents.
The bass sounds like fart noises.But the imaging is simply amazing.
Cheers,
avoid what really matters tonal balance. The reverse question is how many considered to be quality loudspeakers have I heard and said wow what terrible imaging and soundstaging?The avoidance of talking to timbral accuracy decay transients and dynamics have been changed to looking at imaging which makes sense because many speakers tell me where the intrument is on the stage and how big the stage is -- it's a shame most don;t make the instrument sound right as well -- but boy I shure know WHERE that Violin that sounds screachy and lacks the woody tone of the instrument is coming from.
The fascination over this pyrotechnic non relevant musical term after a while becomes tiresome. I don't want to pick on speakers so I shall not mention any by name -- but have what is sai to be an excellent imaging speaker - it measures well off axis and pretty well on axis too (so do many) but this one is rated well in Stereophile is a standmount and certainly let's me know where the instrument is - of course the metal tweeter has a knack of letting me know where the tweeter is as well reminding me that yes this is a speaker and the illusion falls apart - but boy does the stage extend beyond the speakers.
If you sit between your two speakers not directly in front of the left speaker then you are not going to have to worry about imaging or soundstaging anyway. That great reviewed speaker as good as the measurment indicates it's off axis response to be still didn;t allow me to sit directly in front of the left speaker and create the IDENTICAL sound as when I was listening in the center...
In fact my Horn speakers which typically are noted for sucking at off axis response was not enough worse in this regard to this more expensive well rated metal tweetered good off axis measuring canadian speaker(I'm Canadian so I want to buy here when I can) for me to trade Bass, Dynamics, Attack, Decay, volume capanbility, transients, air in just so I can listen in a slightly larger listening window and certainly not enough to trade all of these things in for hearing the violin 2 feet more to the right (since I don't know how it was recorded on the disc in the first place it's not like this spatial cue would even matter if it was being done incorrectly).
The Bose 901 can create a 50 foot state which huge depth as well -- too bad it imprints that sound on every disc -- that doesn;t make it a good speaker and these inept puny gutless speakers that are going for 2k may in fact image and soundstage well -- now if they would only do SOMETHING else remotely well and better than my 15 year old (not high end) not the flattest measuring floorstanders then they;d have gotten me to buy em over the ridiculous FOUR YEARS of auditioning to all those Stereophile approved stuff.
This audiophile clued in eventually -- sooner or later some others here will as well.
One of the strengths of science is that it is logical, and part of that logicality is that the conclusion reached is guaranteed by the data. That means, among other things, that the data does not allow any other conclusion to be reached.And there are rules for how conclusions are logically drawn from premises.
This article simply fails the test. Let's look at it logically. Borden basically states that imaging can be ignored because:
1- many live concerts have minimal soundstaging and "Based on these observations, it appears that the enjoyment of music is not dependent on soundstaging and imaging."
2- one rarely focuses on soundstaging when listening to live music therefore "One need not focus on soundstaging and imaging, or even be particularly aware of their existence, to enjoy music."
3- the soundstaging on many recordings is artificial
4- Focusing on soundstaging is an analytical endeavor which distracts from the true essence of music.
Admittedly he indicates in his conclusions that he enjoys a deep soundstage and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with soundstaging/imaging but it doesn't rate anywhere near as highly for him as tonal and dynamic fidelity.
I have no problem with Borden's conclusion apart from the fact that I think it doesn't give quite enough importance to the issue of imaging, but I do agree that there are other things which definitely need to be right and that good imaging on it's own won't make a good speaker.It's the arguments he uses to reach his conclusion that simply don't work. Taking them in order:
1 - many live concerts have minimal soundstaging. Actually, many have none. If the concert has sound reinforcement everyone hears a mono signal through the speakers - no soundstaging at all. And if it isn't reinforced and you're in a concert hall, you're probably far enough back so that the reflected sound reaching your ears is so close in level to the level of the direct sound that you won't be able to determine the source location of anything by sound. Locating things by sound requires a strong direct sound unconfused by reflected sound. You only get that in the near field or close to the near field. If you had the musicians in your living room (makes it a small group exercise) you would be able to do it, but not in a concert hall.
So, is that a reason not to worry about it? No. The fact that you don't get soundstaging in many live performances doesn't mean that you don't get it in all, and why would you want to miss out on it in those situations where you can get it naturally. The fact that you don't get it in many cases doesn't show that it doesn't add something to those occasions when you do get it.
2- one rarely focuses on soundstaging when listening to live music therefore "One need not focus on soundstaging and imaging, or even be particularly aware of their existence, to enjoy music."
I wonder whether this is really a different point than the first one since you can't focus on something that isn't there, but it's worth noting that the fact that we don't focus on it in many cases with live music doesn't prove that we don't focus on it in some cases. It also doesn't prove that we have to 'focus on it' to enjoy it when it is naturally present in live music or that enjoying it when it is there with a live performance detracts from our enjoyment of the music in any way. Why shouldn't we just notice it quite naturally at times, just like we notice other aspects of the live sound, and enjoy it and everything else we hear as part of the live music experience? This point is definitely not a reason for tossing anything away.
3- the soundstaging on many recordings is artificial.
Agreed, but what about those recordings, and there are more than a few, where it isn't artificial? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why give up the appreciation of the good examples just because many/most recordings aren't good on this point?
4- Focusing on soundstaging is an analytical endeavor which distracts from the true essence of music.
Who says you have to focus on it when it's done well? Sure, you may focus on it as one thing that a speaker does when you're choosing a speaker, just like you focus on tonal fidelity and dynamic response and everything else we're interested in, but how many people really do continue to focus on those things rather than enjoying the music once they have things set up properly in their systems? We play around with speaker placement to get tonal fidelity right because of the effect of proximity to walls/corners on bass response, and reflections on response even up into the high frequency domain but no one calls that 'focussing' or suggests that it's pointless to get that right, or argues that we shouldn't appreciate tonal fidelity when we're listening to music, so why should things be any different with any other aspect of playback performance including soundstaging and imaging?
Once again, there's no reason here to ignore it or downplay it.
As for the counterargument, I think it simply comes down to the idea that the speaker should reproduce what's on the actual recording. If that includes a soundstage and imaging, they should be reproduced and reproduced well. I always wonder whether speakers that don't are also failing to reproduce other things wall also.
And, whether we like it or not, a soundstage and imaging are an integral part of any multicahannel recording. Once you get 2 or more channels, it's unavoidable. If they're irrelevant to you, and I have no problem with anyone who claims that's the case since that is, after all, a valid personal preference, the solution is really mono playback rather than speakers which don't do something that they should do in a multi-channel setup. If you're going to go for 2 or more channels, why would you want to go for it in such a way that you don't get everything that you should get from that approach?
And besides, a single speaker playing a mono signal probably actually sounds a little bit better than a pair of stereo speakers playing a mono signal.
Horses for courses. If you don't want soundstaging and imaging, and there's nothing wrong with not wanting them, then go for what you want in the best and most sensible way possible by assembling a high quality mono system. Don't settle for a bad stereo or multi-channel system by getting speakers that don't do everything that they really should do.
Actually I think his point and mine is that we agree with you that it is nto that we don't want it or think it matters but that it is getting most ALL of the buzzword talk for the last 7-8 years and the other aspects are being completely ignored -- like his friend who said he only cares about the soundstage or the amp maker saying you'll get a stage from this to this like their talking penis enhancements.Soundstaging and imaging are important in the sense that if the disc has a violin center left and a cello center right andtrumpet in the center then these should be where they're supposed to be. When I listen to me set-up I enjoy listening to say Miles Davis and being able to palpably fee and hear where each musician is. But if the sax is harder to the left by a foot than another speaker presents it how the hell am i going to be sure which is absolutely difinively the correct imaging - a big stage is not necessarily the RIGHT stage.
For instance one of my favorite speakers and one I touted for a long time in the reference 3a MM De Capo has a huge stage front to back -- but at the same time it created that front to back stage on every recording. It's still very good and everything but with another speaker I ended up buying back then I noticed on 3-4 recordings the speaker presented a very up-front stage one more balance and on the Loreena McKennit track which has a procession beyond the wall - this speaker sounded much like the De Capo. The difference is that this speaker adjusted to all the recording in a readably noticeable way while the De Capo did not - it had the distanced sound on everything. It's no knock on the De Capo because it is highly involving and has scale etc. But I like the De Capo for a bunch of these other things and so when people say they love it for the huge soundstage I think well ok but for me it's not reproducing what's on the disc but giving you the De Capo Soundstage whether it's on the disc or not. Lucky for the De Capo that it creates an inviting one most of the time.
I guess I would rather hear speakers that do all of those other things better than they're doing them. Not to pick on individual speakers because I like some from this company but the Totem Arro may image and soundstage great but it sounds boom and sizzly, lacks a cohesive sound and midrange richness. I'm hearing something highly off-putting tonally - imaging and soundstage champs they may very well be. It just boggles my mind that there are so many rave reviewed speakers that can;t even do sarah mcLachlan's voice plausibly while sitting at a piano. One voice, one piano and probably 90% of the speakers I have heard are hopelessly out to lunch trying to either let alone both. That would be fine if they could at least POUND for rock music like Motely Crue but most sure as heck don't have the pulse for that sort of thing.
But hey nothing is going to "perfect." Buy the illusion that fools you the most.
I'm not certain that Borden and I agree on a major point, and I'm not certain that you and I agree on that point.We may agree that other things are more important than the soundstaging/imaging, but I suspect I give it a higher importance than you do, and definitely higher than Borden ranks it.
I simply would not accept a stereo or multichannel speaker system that did not do well on this parameter. It's not the first thing I would listen for, but if the first speakers I came across that did tonal fidelity and dynamics well enough to satisfy me did not present soundstaging and imaging well enough to satisfy me, I would simply keep looking. If I was choosing between 2 speaker systems that I regarded as equal on the other things I regarded as important, I would pick the one that did soundstaging and imaging best. I might even trade of a little performance elsewhere for a bit extra performance here, though not to the point of accepting less than a high standard elsewhere. If you're going to have a system with 2 or more channels there is no reason in my mind to accept a system that doesn't do this well. It's an inescapable part of multichannel sound so why would you want speakers that can't deliver it?
I'm quite happy to accept that some people don't want or appreciate that particular aspect, or don't think it is essential - we can find people who feel that way about any aspect of the sound at all and that's OK because it is a legitimate personal preference. We don't all listen in the same way or for the same things. BUT, and it's a big but, if you don't want to have soundstaging and imaging, there is a simpler and better way to avoid it than assembling what is essentially a crippled system with two or more channels, and that is to assemble a top notch mono system. That should give you better results.
I also have difficulties with the implicit assumption that many seem to make in this discussion which recurs regularly here, that if soundstaging and imaging are important to you, you're listening to and for that rather than the music. Some people may but that doesn't mean that all do, nor does it mean that there is no advantage offered to musical enjoyment by soundstaging and imaging. I listen mostly to jazz and small group music and I derive a lot of my enjoyment on much of this music from my appreciation of what each individual performer is bringing to the music as a whole. I find the spatial separation that a soundstage and imaging provides helps me to hear those individual contributions more clearly, and to focus on the particular one which interests me most at a particular moment. In other words, it facilitates my enjoyment of the sort of music I listen to, and I think it does the same thing for many other listeners. We don't concentrate on the soundstage or imaging. We're listening to a particular part within the music and the spatial separation of different performers makes that a little less difficult to do, so we hear a little bit more and enjoy the music more as a result.
Not everyone listens to music that way, and not all music encourages listening in that way, so it definitely isn't going to be important to everyone, but it is important to some people and it is important to many of those people for quite sound and valid musical reasons.
I could get by with a top notch mono system, and I could get a lot of musical enjoyment from such a system. In fact, the first few times I heard records played on a system that convinced me that owning a decent sound system could actually be a good thing, the system was mono and I still have extremely strong and fond memories of that system some 40 years later. But I don't have to get by on that and my musical tastes have also changed over that 40 year period - back then I was struggling to learn classical guitar and was interested more in listening to solo performances than to ensemble work. I think stereo does a better job with ensemble music and I currently prefer a system that does stereo well. More channels may do an even better job but the recordings aren't available and I don't have a room that would allow a good surround system setup so I stick with stereo, but that means that I want stereo done as well as I can get it done and soundstaging/imaging is critical to that.
I can't disagree but from my experience it has been far far easier to find speakers that image and soundstage well (in that I have yet to hear speakers (ones that are considered to be "good") do this incredibaly badly or even less than good - than it is to find speakers that don't have remotely credible dynamics timbre and tonal accuracy etc.I would say less than 5% of all the speakers(that are deemed in the press and on forums) I have heard in my life provide good dynamics, timbral accuracy, tonal credibility (not sounding etchy or having the tweeter give itself aways, sounding AS ONE not hearing the drivers independant of each other etc.
And conversely probably 95% of all those speakers Image and soundstage well - at least within a flea's(can't spell nat??:-) eyelash of each other and most all do it more than credibly if you spend some time positioning the speakers that suit them.
I suppose the difference is that I just EXPECT that a speaker will image and soundstage well because I rarely if ever come across speakers that are hideous in this regard. Though I have heard some speakers seem to artificially create a center image where the singer is actually or should be off center.
I suppose if you have come across speakers that do it very badly then it would be important but my experience has not found a whole lot that do it badly - if I did then i may put a premium on having it done more right.
You may be right on most speakers imaging better than they do tonal fidelity and some other things, but then I tend not to hear particulary good imaging in speakers in showrooms. At least here in Australia, good speaker setup in showrooms seems to be rare. I don't think I've ever heard a showroom setup do a brilliant job on soundstage or on imaging - they tend to do better than most people do in their homes but then what most people do in their homes seems to fail to deliver any sort of soundstage or imaging at all.What I have always done seems to have been to select on the other things that are important to me and then rely on good setup and a bit of patient work at home to get them imaging well, and always considerably better than I ever heard the speakers do in a showroom.
Agreed -- speaker positioning is the key and you will get most speaker soundstaging and imaging well pretty much no matter what speaker you purchase so long as it is considered a half ways decent loudspeaker. Sure maybe the Cerwin Vega D9 you are not going to get to pinpoint image but then again who knows until someone bothers to try.This is why it puzzles me that press goes on endlessly about these two issues which is really one issue when your room is going to be different anyway and so will your positioning (and this always will shift the speaker's sound in this regard). I have heard the AN E about 5 feet apart firing directly straight ahead they have a wonky sound when it comes to imaging - you have to sit in a vice to not have everythiong shift with your seating position. At home in the proper corner placement 12 or so feet apart with the required toe in and boom everything is presented in their locations and you can sit pretty much anywhere in the room and get it.
Since most people are auditioning at showrooms with the "hopes" the dealer has both a good room and bothered to position them carefully then chances are when people say speaker X has poor imaging I always think BS - because if you spent the time with the speaker to set it up chances are staggerringly high that they will present the stage you're wanting.
Interestingly and to those disbelievers as there are many - amplifiers do in fact havce a say in this as well. With the Paradigm Studio 100V2 I bought a Sugden A48b amplifier based on the audition. I compared it directly against a MF A300. The latter amp created a bigger stage right to left and more AIR while the Sugden was a little softer smaller and even veiled (describes as a valve-like presentation - it also sounded deeper in bass with more weight and smoother in the midrange. But the point is that soundstage (and the speakers were not moved) different substantially.
This also occurred with a listening shootout at another audiophiles house nearby - He had AN K/Spe and Gershman Acoustics X1-Sub1 running and we switched out several amps. His Big Oddysey mono blocks versus a Sim Audio Celeste was startling in this regard with the Oddysey sounding big and wide the Celeste small and heavey (not to my liking at all) and the MF power amp was punded by the Sonic Impact $20.00 Class T digital amp (at least driving the K's).
I have heard many speakers that claim great imaging in press and I have heard them at showrooms which "seem" to have been set-up well and I listen and am often unimpressed. The speaker manual will say 3-4 feet from a back wall and away from side walls and X distance apart and the dealer has done all that. I listen and hear well yes the voice is in the middle but I hear sound from the speaker's tweeter (ie I hear the tweeter) or the space from the singer in the center to the actual left and right speaker forms a gap where there is nothing and then sound from the speaker again - this from major Stereophile beloved slim line speakers with mmetal tweeters.
One reason I tend to not talk about imaging is because most of the so called good ones to me tend not to do it very well and why I try and listen in at least two different dealers or two different rooms. I figure that most likely this will be able to be fixed at home largely or the magazines are deliberately touting lousy imaging speakers as being great so that the buyer in 2 years will look to upgrade and of course by some more Stereophile magazines to get more bad advice -- but nah a magazine would not deliberately do that to get people to buy more magazines now would they?
And also how come this thread started out with the subject "Yet again the buzzword to help poor speakers ..." and now we've got the comment "…or the magazines are deliberately touting lousy imaging speakers as being great so that the buyer in 2 years will look to upgrade and of course by some more Stereophile magazines to get more bad advice -- but nah a magazine would not deliberately do that to get people to buy more magazines now would they?"It's a big jump from imaging being the buzzword to help poor speakers to magazines pushing speakers that image badly.
And I, for one, don't think that Stereophile, or any magazine for that matter, goes out of it's way to give bad advice, and I definitely don't think it behaves unscrupulously to get people to buy more copies.
Pick a component, any component, and not everyone agrees on how good or bad it is. Put it in a pile of different systems and you will expect to hear different things. Let a pile of different people listen and expect to hear them say they heard different things, even when they're listening to exactly the same system in the same room. Maybe not big differences in every case but definitely differences.
Is there any reason to believe that any of Stereophile's reviewers, or any particular one of most reviewers, fails to accurately report their opinion of what they heard and thought when they review a component? What makes them liars out to deceive and give bad advice, or at the very least incompetent and unskilled listeners, when they report something that you don't agree with? Why is it more likely that it has to be something other than an honest difference in opinion and listening experience rather than just that? Why are the reviewers always wrong and their critics always right?
And even if the reviewer is wrong on occasion, why should that be automatically put down to something other than an honest mistake when we all make honest mistakes? Why should reviewers be any less fallible than the rest of us?
As far as the accuracy of Stereophile's reviews go, the only products I own that they've reviewed are my speakers - a favourable but wishy washy Sam Tellig review which I think didn't do them credit but I often have differences with Sam's views, and my Arcam FMJ CD33 CDP which was reviewed by both JA - the main review - and Art Dudley who compared it to a Naim that he preferred. I find myself in close agreement with JA and, for what it's worth, the dealer I bought it from believes that about 50% of people prefer the Arcam to the Naim and the other 50% prefer the Naim to the Arcam. Why should I assume that Art Dudley did anything other than honestly report what he heard and felt simply because he and I have different opinions and prefer different products?
Frankly, there's often a discrepancy in the opinion of different Stereophile reviewers on the same product and the magazine makes no effort to hide that fact. In fact they often go out of their way to make it quite obvious. There's no reason I can see to jump to nasty suspicions just because your opinions don't agree with theirs on some products or because they choose to review gear that you don't like and don't review a lot of the stuff that you do like.
Frankly I got into this thread because I disagreed with the view expressed in your original subject matter and the logic in the article you quoted. There seemed to be a bit of reasonable discussion in the middle and all of a sudden we're back to irrational diatribes against reviewers and Stereophile in particular, and a 180 degree turnaround about what reviewers are doing when they talk about imaging in reviews. Hardly a productive exchange so I'll bail out.
Hi David, man you took the words out of my mouth again! Damn, we have a lot in common when it comes to how we both enjoy listening to music on our systems. I dont look to, or concentrate on sound staging/immaging, BUT if it's on there and its presented through really fine speakers that convey all that spatial information well....that just makes the listening experience that much more enjoyable, it can actually make an so so song more listenable/enjoyable, and make a great song well....:)
Take care.
...David comes up with an incisive, comprehensive post.By the way, I agree. While soundstaging certainly isn't the most important aspect of listening to recorded music, you're right - it SHOULD be there.
Corner placement will obviously blur soundstaging abilities (while helping out other aspects). If the new A.N.s are anything like my 'ole Snells and Bostons, they dEfInItElY need the corners. I would easily sacrifice aural tricks for tonality, though.
In the end, once again, you're correct... you should get both.
.
I would not be interested in ANY speaker that can't convey the accuracy of timber or if it sounds screachy. However the ability of a speaker to create a huge soundstage with spacial cues (regardless of wheather or not they are artificailly created by the producer on a recording) is of the utmost importance to me (diferent strokes).
I am trully amazed and delighted when a speaker can do this "disapeering act" and it only creates a more enjoyable listening experience for me. I find that I enjoy a speaker much less regardless of it getting everything else right but cannot throw a huge soundstage. But of course I would want it to do both! :)
Cheers
Most speakers including the big N801 can dissapear. Soundstage should not be bog or small -- it should be the size created by the CD or LP. And that changes from disc to disc -- or SHOULD change from disc to disc. As well as dynamic range, and everything else.I agree a speaker should not sound like a funnel -- when there is a big stage I want a big stage.
RGA:You made it sound like one can get good imaging/soundstage only at the expense of other important factors such as good tonal balance, attack, transient, etc. That, however, is not necessarily the case. I put great importance on tonal balance and dynamics, and I'll not want to listen to speakers that do not sound "right", regardless of how well they can image. On the other hand, speakers can be made to image very well without sacrificing tonal balance or dynamics, and getting good imaging or soundstaging often is the natural product of certain speaker designs and sensible speaker placement. I routinely get good soundstaging or imaging in my basement with almost any pair of speakers. Even my JBL horn speakers and Tannoy 15" dual-concentrics can give a wide and deep soundstage if I give them enough space.
Having a believable soundstage does enhance the listening pleasure. In my basement I currently have two systems: my big main system using B&G RD75 drivers and dipolar bass and the JBL CS3115 speakers with horn-loaded mid and high. The B&G system is placed well away from the walls, while the JBL speakers are pushed against the back wall. Even though the two systems are similar in tonal balance (since I tuned them both), I generally prefer to listen to music through the B&G system, mainly because the B&G system gives a much deeper soundstage. When I listen to the singing of the Anonymous 4 on the B&G system, I can easily imagine four female voices floating in the space of a small reverberant church, but it is much harder to do so with the JBL speakers, since their soundstage depth is not that convincing due to their placement.
My point is, if you can get the soundstage without sacrificing any other important aspects, why not just enjoy it? On the other hand, if due to space limitations or other reasons you cannot get a good soundstage, perhaps it won't really bother you, but that does mean that it is wrong or silly for other people to ask their speakers to produce a good soundstage.
Cheers,
You're quite correct I'm not saying this is an either or issue. What i am saying is that if it is drawing attention to itself then chances are it's doing something incorrectly. (and this presumes it was a good recording to start with).I find most speakers do not sound right and that is why I see an avoidance of the issue and instead lengthy discussions on imaging and soundstaging. These two things you cannot know are being done correctly - but generally you know what a piano sounds like. Many speakers and systems hint at these instruments. Which was a reason I never really got into classical and jazz becase most Stereohile recmmends speakers were and are utterly abysmal at doing just one instrument believabley -- the fact that I know where the trumpet is doesn't make any difference if it sounds like screachy dying cat.
I know imaging and soundstaging don't HAVE to come at the expense of those other things - Good speakers do it all well and allow you not to notice anything above anything else. That is the art part of the science in speaker design of which I know little. But my money goes to the best illusion of reality reproduction.
RGA:The question was "What are the best imaging speakers you've ever heard" so I am assuming that flat frequency response and good transient response were not part of the equation.
But you are absolutely right. I have made crappy sounding speakers almost vanish for friends simply by putting them on some stands and pulling them four feet away from the wall. Now, being crappy, they are not going to give the illusion of "separation of instruments" or anything like that...
But I find that any reasonably GOOD sounding speaker can be MADE to image well. All it takes is a sufficiently large room, proper placement of speakers w.r.t. listener, and as much room beside and behind the speakers as one can afford. Failing that, a few room treatments and away you go.
What the original post was about (IMO) was the difference between a speaker that images well - and one that completely vanishes and delivers an abundance of spatial information - with discernable "space" about the different instruments and vocalists.
I agree with you. Nobody in their right mind would want a speakers that can image very well but make a claronet sound like a sick goose. But if speakers with wonderful "tonal balance" can't image worth a damn - I would be asking myself why that is...
Cheers,
Presto
I just have not heard too many speakers that do imaging poorly because it can be positioned differently and it depends where you sit.My speakers are designed for near corner placement and have no problems in either department but you need to sit furether back to get it. Pulling them way out into the room for a "normal" free-standing position you can sit closer but the trade-offs are far too vast for me. In the corners the stage is as big as the wall and with treatments sound like ti extends beyond the walls (certainly in depth as Loreena McKennitt has a track where it a procession is coming ftoward me from a distance that must be 50 feet past the wall.
All of these things are soundstage and imaging issues but I don;t care enough about them because few speakers have had me say wow what crappy imaging (many speakers I don;t like but this was not one of the problems). Usually for me now is that I feel I need to turn the amp knob up to make things out as if I'm missing mopst of what is in the midrange. Basically if a speaker can't play well at low volum then it has no hope of playing at high level. Microdynamics? does the piano have the full weight and body of the structure of the instrument or do I just get the hint of that but a big PINGY sound.
The B&W N801 the monster that it is physically is one of the only speakers that managed to dissapear in front of me entirely and this was off an 11 watt SET. In another room it was a total dull disaster.
Interestingly, I think my speakers need to be in corners for them to dissapear - and then lest not us all forget that the recording has a say in this as well.
RGA:You said "certainly in depth as Loreena McKennitt has a track where it a procession is coming ftoward me from a distance that must be 50 feet past the wall."
Oh do tell... which track? (I am a big Loreena McKennitt fan) but I don't think I have that particular disc yet...
Have you "watched" where all the different "voices" come from in "Prospero's Speach" from The Mask and the Mirror? I say "voices" since all the voices are Loreena, but they are panned all over the place - her voice morphs from a single voice in the center of the image to a small choir spread across the room. Add candles and incense to intensify the experience. lol
Cheers,
I never rememebr tracks but it's the one where a little boy is talking -- Dickens something and there is a horse and carriage coming toward you from a distance. It's kind of a proof that corner speakers can in fact do depth of image. But I stress that this is simply not something that truly matters because other speakers do this to a level that would not sound poor.In reading a review (I know) af the AN E (my speaker's big brother) in enjoythemusic.com soundstaging cues are always rated highly. I'm not saying it's unimportant but I feel it is least important because we as listeners simply have no way to know if what is being projected or WHERE the instrument is located is correct. Tone and voice we're far better at detecting. To me it's like judging a speaker based on listening to a special effects car crash sequence - We're better at judging a piano than a car crash.
Incidentally, why not run a movie in 2 channel through the hi-fi and you can SEE where the action is and where the sound is or should be coming from. Even in spite of the mix down to 2 channel it's an effective way to hear and see where action is coming from and speakers indicate those positions correctly. Or live music DVDs might be better here as well if done right.
There is also a track i think using bagpipes which also comes from a great distance toward the listener - I think it's one of Loreena McKennit but it could be Mike Oldfield.
Gives me a reason to listen to Loreena McKennit.
Interestingly, Loreena McKennit and mom went to Soundhounds - my dealer in Victoria and gave the store a bunch of her cds so they could use to audition for people. Good call because her album Prologue I put on the AN E and Meishu set-up. The person wondering if the 8 inch woofer p[owered by an 8 watt amp could do bass was no longer left wondering. Though the albums I have from her are not actually all that well recorded - someone told me they are bringing out remastered versions so I've been holding off. I would like that double live album but it's really pricey up here for some reason.
Imaging isn't the end all to be all but it should be included as a measure of the speaker's ability to faithfully reproduce music. To get imaging right relies on phase charactersitics of the drivers, and their interaction with the speaker cabinets and room boundaries. And phase is important in getting the tonality right. Its all related and one can't talk about good tonality without affecting other characteristics such as imaging. I can't imagine hearing a speaker that is tonally accurate and has no imaging capability. I'm also of the opinion that speaker manufacturer's try cover off the broadest spectrum of speaker attributes such as dynamics, tonal accuracy, etc as I suspect some of these charatersitics have inverse properties. I don't think they just zero in on one attribute.I know you have a bias against Canadian speakers. You've mentioned this on other sites but you are of the minority on this. To call makes like Paradigm, PSB, Totem, and yes even Axiom poor is just not correct. They may not be to your liking but they are certainly not poor. You also have a hangup with metal tweeters stating that they are inferior to silk domes etc. Its just not the case. A recent review of PSB Image Speakers referred to them as layed back, warm sounding, similar to B&Ws and they incorporate aluminum tweeters. Just my 2 cents
On a side note. Have you heard the pro-ject2 turntables. Wonder how they compare to the NAD533.
Just listen to ONE speaker play -- that wuill give you an idea of how it does timbre and tone.I'm not saying image and soundstage have no importance - quite the contrary -- and the writer of the article notes it too -- it just isn't the most important thing and more to the point when music is being reproduced PRPOPERLY one should not even notice soundstaging cues (except for the obvious Saxophone comes in from the left but it's not wow cool there is the sax it's just wow that sounds like a Sax).
I may be in the minority when it comes to those you list but Rolls Bently and Ferrari in the minority compared to the Ford Focus and CD and SACD and Vinyl will soon if not already will be in the minority to MP3. I used to get into big endless threads about one of the brands on your list being better than another -- yet a few years later I never touch the arguemnt because now I realise both pretty much sound exactly the same save a little frequency tilt here and there which to me now is like who cares flip a coin.
When you do notice these imaging and soundstaging cues diominating the experience like many of those speakers (it is because your brain wants to listen to that instead - IMO). I have heard many of thsoe speakers over more than a decade and I know why so very many people end up endlessly upgrading one for the other or something designed from the same cookie cutting method.
As for laid back - like I said before a speaker can be both laid-back and etchy sounding. Laid back is a dip in the treble frequency giving the treble and or vocal band a slightly distant perspective -- bright is the sonic character of the tweeter - it can be bright and still down 3db. Though I have been accused of mixing up the words etchy grainy and bright as I pretty much use all three to mean the same thing which is irritating and fatiguing.
And of course, to be fair, there are way better metal tweeters than others. The only one I have really liked was in the JM labs Mezza Utopia -- but it took a $25k Cad speaker to do it - but it didn't make me have the metal sounding sensation. Plenty of soft domes can sound bright as well to be fair and sometimes they sound even harsher when they get nasty.
I also like the Energy Veritas 2.8 which is metal but as much as I liked the speaker's sense of scale and power and air it's biggest shortcoming was the treble -- they sacrifice timbre and tone for Air - and presumably the reason they choose metal drivers. Of course Air is another one of those - I never say it at a live event - "Check out that Air between the trombone and the bass player." Gee Whiz bang effects traded for true musical cues.
I brought home a Bryston for my Wharfedales and it created a ton of air and transformed the speakers from the slugs they were with the receiver I had been using. So I'm not entirely against all these pyrotechnics either so long as it brings other improvements not a trade in.
Again it makes no difference to me if someone wants to sit in their chair trying to figure out where the violin is in relation to the cello and in relation to the oboe -- I'm too busy being captivated by the music to give a damn. It helps that my speakers are in the corners too because the soundstage is able to let me know where the instruments are if I really bother to analytically listen then yes the persussion is center left the bass is farther right vocal in the center trio of female singers left double bass center right trumpet further right. Big deal -- do people really sit around and care about any of this?
And I liked the basic Project player more than my NAD in stock form - this based on short listening to be fair to NAD but the Pro-ject was more alive sounding -- while the NAD seems a little polite. I posted on the Vinyl forum for suggestions for a new cart as well. The budget is too limited for a new TT. Ahh well we make do.
Almost every pair of fullrange (single) drivers I tried on open baffles could give a wide deep soundstage that many audiophiles dream of getting. Some drivers are better than others in this aspect. A few good drivers include the Fostex FF85K, FX200, and FX120. If you really want to hear how good a soundstage could be depicted by two speakers, you owe it to yourself to try at least the FF85K or some other good small fullrange drivers on open baffles.One caveat, though. The soundstage created by a pair of speakers is strongly influenced by the location of the speakers in relation to the walls of the room. Generally, based on my experience, a soundstage pretty much goes only as far back as the back wall, although some imagination could be used to stretch the depth. In my basement, I place the speakers at least 12ft away from the back wall and 8ft from the side walls. To me, it is a joke to get excited about soundstage depth when the speakers are only a few feet away from the back wall.
Cheers,
Kurt
At the dealer's showroom (I can't even afford the cost of a speaker binding post from Wilson, much less their then top of the line speaker). Wow, never thought imaging like that was possible. I swear I could practically see the swooping curving side of the grand piano... and that was on a big band swing piece where the piano was located outside of the edge of the speakers.A lot of this has to do with setup and this dealer always has exellent imaging systems, I think they put a priority on imaging when they set up their showrooms. I heard a set of B&W Matrix 801s that were also imaging champs at that place. Quite incredible.
My Snell D's, with lots of setup tweaking, do an admirable job but nothing quite like those Wilsons.
Having large rooms where the sidewalls are far from the sides of the speakers does improve imaging big time.
Interesting that superior imaging tends to be associated with speakers that were Bass deficient designs. Not all however, I’m thinking of the Infinity I.R.S. and Nearfield’s Pipedreams. A line array design generally images well.
Very nice musically, probably nicer than the spheres, but a panel isn't as good on imaging - especially on simply miked (real stereo) acoustic material.Why?
Poor diffraction behaviour.
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger'Still not saluting.'
Read about and view system at:
nt
Rauna Leira
Don’t quite create the “I hear dead people in the room” illusion as effortlessly as the maggies, or the same dispersion pattern of planars in general, but 3d well.
I haven't heard any really high end stuff but these speakers easily out image the entire Monitor line from Paradigm and most of the Studio series as well. One hell of a speaker .
The Gallo Referance 3's
Heard them at a friends house. An amazingly transparent,detailed, life like speaker. So good, that I went home and couldnt listen to the stereo for a few days. Absolutely outclassed my Cabasse Catalane.Another great speaker I heard was the Sierra Brooks horns. Once again totally transparent and life like. Would love to own a pair of them also.
.
.
Have Studio Monitor 300s now they are better all round especially in the bottom end, but the 100s on some tricked out target stands imaged like there was no speakers in the room.
Third Rethm by Rethm Audio
Virgo III by Audio Physic
Hey Phil, how ya doing we met a couple of times (last time in NY audio show), I really like the Focus room, you had the anniversary 78 speakers playing? The year before we had a couple of drinks down the block. I used to own the Virgo 3's, I could never get rid of the immage drop when things got panned to the far sides of either speaker, so I sold them and got the Maggie 3.6's. I'm looking for a great immaging speaker (bookshelf?)for about $1500 used, so i figured i get some ideas over here.
Take care,
Mike
Mike,I had no idea that "Mike in NJ" was the same guy I grabbed a beer with two years ago around the corner from the Hilton after the Stereophile show! :-)
I knew a guy who owned the AP Virgo III. They were decent at imaging but nothing special until one day, we moved them a couple of inches...and WHAM! The imaging was like nothing I'd heard before (until I heard the Rethm stuff). FWIW, I used to own the Virgo II myself until I got hooked on the Focus stuff...
Btw - if you liked the Focus anniversary speakers we had at the show, shoot me an email...I might be able to help you out...
Then the Spica-TC50 /Dahlquist DQ-10's and I concur with the ORIGINAL Proac Tablettes.
`
I personally use a custom 3 way speaker with D'Appolito mid/tweeter. But the best imaging speakers I ever heard are the Nearfield Pipedreams. They are a line source and do incredible things includding imaging. There is a sweet spot at the equalateral triangle seat, But they image solidly in a broad path in front of them They even image outside of the main modules. You can walk from outside the right one to outside the left one and they maintain an image that stays solid as you move. Yes, there are some smal changes in the balance and depth as you move but the image doesn't.
These speakers not only disappear but they can energize the whole listening environment
In my opinion, one of the all-time great loudspeakers.
Not familiar with the original VR-4s, but when I was using my VR-4 HSEs in my main system, they imaged like demons. Come to think of it, they did EVERYTHING like demons. They were replaced by VR-9s, but still reside in my HT setup. Love those things!
If one day I go back to boxes, it will definitely be a VSR VR-4..old or new..AP
# The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men # Samuel L. Jackson (Ezekiel 25:17)> Pulp Fiction <
If not, hands down - Linkwitz Orion.
Several years ago I heard a well set-up pair of Supravox 215-2000 EXC field coil drivers in folded tapered quarter-wave tubes, and the imaging was probably the best I've heard.Among multiway systems, Green Mountain Audio speakers are among the best-imaging out there. I think it's okay for me to mention them, as I'm no longer officially a GMA dealer since it's been so long since I've placed an order.
...in a largish ca. 18x26x10 room. The soundscape was VERY layered, from the speakers to the (8ish-foot-away) front (back?) wall.I have have heard some big rigs, but this demo would fool many blindfolded listeners. Also, they didn't portray oversized singers or instruments the way some tall speakers do... simply life-like and very "there".
I must say the large digs absorbed the bass and some of the dynamics... a bit flat. BUT - overall, fun and easy to listen to.
The S4s didn't fare so well nearfield, IMO.
...also very good, but the presentation was truncated in comparison. Probably due to the lower ceiling and smaller overall listening area for the Ref demo.This was also a more nearfield demo, but images were VERY palpable.
I think Paradigm Speakers offer some ot the best imaging out there. Especially in their price range.
The Paradigm S2 and S8 throw a wonderful image, no doubt related to their very even off axis dispersion. Both are very neutral and smooth as well.The Paradigm Studio 40, v. 3, also images well for the same reason. However, it has some mild colorations especially in the upper mids, and that can affect the front to back image somewhat.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I don't know the best because there are many that do this very well but I will say without any question that the Merlin VSM are very best at imaging when listening off axis not to mention the other things they do equally well like tonal balance which is a much more difficult thing to achieve.So far as huge soundstage, the Kharma's 3.2's are as big as anything I have heard outside of Infinity IRS's which actually created the environment without any practical considerations. ;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: