"The Imaging and Sound Staging ..........

[valhallax]

imaging, is when i listen and the music appears to come from everywhere , including the space occupied by my 210's. and sound staging is ..during a live recording of the mc5, the audience is right there with me, and when the girl screams, its as if shes behind me? truely, the best sound staging has allways happened for me in live recordings. and while listing to my overly large speakers, its like theyre not even there

[mah]

Bfish

If this information gets out 'Audiophiles'? will need crosstalk dividers/barriers. This could be your chance to make a killing.

The reference to the 'oddball non-standard head' in a serious paper is interesting.

The list of recordings that image well is useful. I have a few of them so when the A7s are finished I'll have a critical listen.

[bfish]

I prefer to do my killing in a more direct manner. Kind of eliminates repeat business though...

Yeah, several instances in Don's papers indicate he has a sense of hoomer.

From a brief scan of the list, I know that PF's "alarm clock" sequence definitely qualifies.

One item of interest is the experiments were conducted with a pair of Radio Shack Minimus Sevens, which should burst a few audiopile bubbles by invalidating the theory that only "good" speakers can image well.

<font color="#FFFFFF" size="1">[ July 19, 2008 12:39 PM: Message edited by: bfish ]</font>

[GM]

Originally posted by mah:
......is excellent". Whenever I see this comment applied to audio devices I think, "compared to what"?

Can anyone enlighten me?

Marshall.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whatever you want to. These two are strictly journalistic constructs, so if the reviewer (whoever it may be) doesn't give a frame of reference they are meaningless beyond the source/audio system giving you a sense of 'you are there', i.e. ~ 'live' sounding. I mean as late as 1989 neither of these words were included in any audio/HIFI 'dictionary' I've seen. Indeed, I didn't see either of these until I began browsing the early audio BBs in '96, but then I didn't/don't read 'stereopile' or others of their ilk either, so probably a part of their lexicon before then.

That said, folks like us that prefer speakers with reasonably high directivity get most of whatever imaging/sound-staging is embedded on the recording by design, so it's more about the recording and room acoustics than the reproduction system and why I prefer live recordings to studio engineered constructs and LEDE rooms Vs the 'dead' ones required for cone/dome speakers.

As always though, YMMV.

GM

[GM]

Originally posted by mah:

If this information gets out 'Audiophiles'? will need crosstalk dividers/barriers. This could be your chance to make a killing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They're aware of it, or at least they were long before Keele as it was part of Bell Labs' human hearing research and there was at least one article in one of the audio 'rags' mentioning it in the '60s? (memories are beginning to run altogether ) as a simple stereo tuner, TT system channel separation test.

GM

[LICORNE]

Early recordings by London Decca Phase 4 had more depth of field than most recordings even in stereo playback.

The classics should be released in both CD and
Cd RW 4 channels.

.............

[GM]

Originally posted by selmerdave:

I'd also disagree about the monoblock/crosstalk thing, an image needs a signal to be in both channels or else it will just seem to come directly from one speaker, so whether there is a small amount of crosstalk or not shouldn't affect that terribly. FWIW my stereo amp images better than my monoblocks. It was also a trick years ago to add crosstalk to heighten imaging, although that's not so fashionable now (but I've heard it works).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm, a 'stereo' signal is two mono signals out of phase varying with frequency whereas cross-talk is leakage between the two signals that returns them back towards a summed mono, so while mono-blocks have the potential to isolate it compared to a stereo amp/receiver, it depends on where in the signal chain the leakage occurs, ergo your experience implies a signal chain problem with the mono-blocks.

Yeah, Polk's ??? system apparently was an attempt to 'flesh out' the problem of 'dry' studio recordings and standard CDs combined with the typically ultra 'dry' audiophile SS system. Worked pretty good too.

Nowadays they inject what amounts to white noise (my interpretation) in the better recordings to 'enrich' it since we like our audio 'fat' just as we do our ice cream, pastries, bread, etc.: http://www.aphex.com/204.htm

GM

[GM]

Originally posted by CONVERGENCE:
Early recordings by London Decca Phase 4 had more depth of field than most recordings even in stereo playback.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, one of my better 'imaging/sound-staging' recordings is a 1960 Chet Atkins mono RCA album and far more 'live' sounding than its stereo release which grossly exaggerates the separation between instruments to the point of complete isolation (no audible harmonics in the other channel at the listening position) in some cases.

GM

[bfish]

Turns out Keele's paper is in 2 parts. Here's an easier way in;

http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/papers.htm

Scroll to number 18, parts 1 and 2.

[GM]

The Polk link? No, I Googled it once I found the schematic listing the model he sent me, whoever 'he' is. Since I don't know the link to the original thread (which should be in my correspondence) I have no way to search the archives AFAIK.

GM