|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.5.85.248
In Reply to: RE: 100% posted by 1973shovel on April 26, 2017 at 06:27:00
One way to think of it is that if you can perceive the positioning of the instruments you must be able to distinguish their separate contributions, and that means your system is doing a good job. But it's hard to imagine a composer at the keyboard thinking, Okay, now I've got the harmonies in place, but what will I do about the imaging?
Imaging is FUN and without it stereo would never have been invented, but it's less important musically than getting the timbres and microdynamics right. Or so REG would argue.
It's never too late to turn back the clock.
Follow Ups:
Imaging, to me anyway, is quite another. I don't believe stereo was invented in an attempt to improve imaging. A wider soundstage, perhaps, and I enjoy a wide, deep soundstage.
What I'm referring to is holographic like imaging. It's spectacular to hear on a good system, but again, nothing I've ever experienced with live music.
You reminded me of a reviewer in High Fidelity (those mags were not as resolutely objective as accused of being) said the "separation of instruments of the orchestra" was "even in mono" superior to anything else he had heard. So there you have one of the good things about imaging: it implies a degree of success in separating the instrumental voices but the Quad example shows it is not strictly required for this.
It's never too late to turn back the clock.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: