Imaging

[StateDJ85]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.

[paul_pci]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.

Yeah, imaging is way cool when you get quality speakers. Yes, an equilateral triangle (distance between speakers=distance to listening position) is generally ideal. You will probably want to experiment between facing the speakers straight ahead and toe-ing them into the listening position and see which position you like best. Generally, people advise that each speaker be the same distance from walls, but that's not always possible it and may effect the acoustics, like bass or increase reflections. But you have to work with what you got.

[kexodusc]

Welcome to the wonderful world of audio-insanity...here you'll spend countless hours with measuring tape, a laser pointer, and masking tape trying to guarantee your speakers are exactly equidistant from your listening position and each other.

Toe-in is a brutal excercise in trial and error. Hope you have a friend with nothing better to do, preferrably one that won't make fun of you.

As Paul said, distances to walls will affect response at some frequencies...the sound from a speaker travels in all around the speaker, and bounces off corners, walls, etc, back to the listener. Depending on proximity and geometry, the reflections can amplify the original signal or interfere with it. If possible try to keep the speakers the same distance from the rear wall, and at least 1 foot away from all walls.

While the equilateral triangle with perfect toe-in is a recommended starting point, many speakers perform better with no toe-in at all. Likewise, some speakers prefer you listen closer than distance between them (nearfield) and others prefer you move away from them (farfield). Guess what, your room will play a big role in how your speakers behave. So will your listening preferences.

I toe in my speakers about 20 degrees or so and I sit about 1 foot farfield by necessity. My speakers and room are forgiving of this arrangement, my previous speakers were not.

[hermanv]

It gets better; many recordings have artificial center fill or other mixing tricks to falsely image a band where each instrument was recorded seperately on it's own master tape track. This tends to be more true on POP recordings.

Try to set up your system with smaller groups; Jazz or other acoustic groups with little or no processing. Or at the other extreme, stick to large orchestral works, many of them have not been helped along by a recording engineer spotlighting his company's personal brand of "correctness".

In other words; besides moving yourself and the speakers around sort of endlessly, use multiple disks before making any final decisions. But wait, there's more - next comes the room treatments; carpets, drapes, wall hangings, bass traps, corner traps - whee. Then, try to remember how much fun you're having!

[udomchok]

Stereo imaging is presented in diagram called 'Sound Map', please click here and go to Sound Map Picture Gallery

[JoeE SP9]

I recently listened to a song by Springsteen called "This Heartland" on my Paradigm monitor 9's with a new yamaha amp. I honestly had to check and make sure the center channel wasn't on by some screw up in the amp. The imaging is unlike anything I've heard, especially since it makes the vocals only sound like they're coming from the center channel which is like 3 feet back from where the fronts are. This kind of imaging makes me think that I might not be taking full advantage of the speakers. I'm wondering:

Is it true that the distance between you and the front of the speakers should be equal to the distance they are apart?

should they be pointed at the listening area, or just straight ahead?

if one is in a corner and the other is 2 feet out of the corner, is that going to cause inconsistencies in sound (sp?)

any input is appreciated.

Although speaker positioning is the major factor in getting good imaging, the recording is the key. Only a live recording or recordings done with minimal miking and without overdubbing can exhibit true imaging. All else is nothing more than an engineer manipulating sliders on a mixing board. This is true for most live rock and popular recordings because the signal is taken from the PA mixing boards. For good (true) imaging try the following recording. Jacintha, Here's To Ben. This was recorded directly to 2 track. You get a sense of an actual room with performers in a real space behind and between your speakers.

[toenail]

I think most people's exposure (including mine) to "imaging" is limited mostly to the type created by the man at the board creating left, center, right etc during the mixing process. The "true imaging" referenced by joeE SP9 is something pretty rare for the average listener (though maybe not for folks on this site) to encounter. As such, the mix/recording quality can dictate a TON about what you get during final playback on your system regarding perceived imaging. All other things being equal with my system optimized for environment etc, I will generally gravitate toward recordings with better perceived imaging/accuracy over musical material that I like.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It gets better; many recordings have artificial center fill or other mixing tricks to falsely image a band where each instrument was recorded seperately on it's own master tape track. This tends to be more true on POP recordings.

There is no such thing as "artificial fill". Panning a vocal center, and eq'ing it is a legitimate way to mix and can yield a VERY convincing center image. It is also possible to multi mike and still get full imaging.

I think it is a huge mistake to always blame the lack of imaging on the mixing or recording itself. 95% of the time its the duplication process the introduces data errors or drop outs. I know I have sent mixes after mastering to the duplicator, and when it returned the sound was noticeably degraded.

[JoeE SP9]

No amount of manipultion with a mixing board or any type of electronic device can be called imaging.I mentioned a specific recording (Jacintha: Here's To Ben) because this recording done direct to two track easily demonstrates true imaging. In this recording even a modest rig will easily show imaging. There is the sense of a room full of musicians in around and behind the speakers. Using a DSP to turn this recording into multi channel only ruins the imaging. Spreading the instruments from left to right or beyond is only a small part of true imaging. One of the reasons this recording has such good imaging is that no one was allowed to get near the recording with a mixing board and do any post recording tweaking. Direct to two tracks assures this. Recordings of this caliber should be required listening for all those folks who love mixing boards, overdubbing and multi tracking. I'm not necessarily against any of those things. It's just that most of the time the alive-ness that should be there in the music gets mixed right out of it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No amount of manipultion with a mixing board or any type of electronic device can be called imaging.I mentioned a specific recording (Jacintha: Here's To Ben) because this recording done direct to two track easily demonstrates true imaging. In this recording even a modest rig will easily show imaging. There is the sense of a room full of musicians in around and behind the speakers. Using a DSP to turn this recording into multi channel only ruins the imaging. Spreading the instruments from left to right or beyond is only a small part of true imaging. One of the reasons this recording has such good imaging is that no one was allowed to get near the recording with a mixing board and do any post recording tweaking. Direct to two tracks assures this. Recordings of this caliber should be required listening for all those folks who love mixing boards, overdubbing and multi tracking. I'm not necessarily against any of those things. It's just that most of the time the alive-ness that should be there in the music gets mixed right out of it.

Joe, imaging is imaging. If the instruments occupy a certain place within the mix that can easily be discerned, it is imaging. Whether it is panned in place or recorded acoustically with a phased or time arrival offset to the microphone it is called imaging.

Since this recording that you mention has not been repurposed for multichannel, you don't really know that imaging would be ruined by the process. No one would really know until it is done. I have done many recordings where I have panned voices into position, and you would never know I did it. It is about the quality and attention to detail, not about the technology per say. Any engineer worth his salt can pan a voice or instrument into place without sounding artifical.

[E-Stat]

There is no such thing as "artificial fill". Panning a vocal center, and eq'ing it is a legitimate way to mix and can yield a VERY convincing center image.

I would have to agree that the very nature of panning is artificial, convincing or not. The centered image is only there because you put it there. Similarly fore-aft artist placement requires careful level settings and uniformly applied reverb. "Apparent" stage position is determined by such post performance knob twiddling otherwise you'd get flat mono with all the instruments equally stretched across front stage.

I'm not criticizing the craft, nor suggesting that one should limit themselves only to natural recordings that are recorded with no need for chair moving afterwards. It is a master engineer whose expertise results in a natural sounding artifice. The difference is that guys like Jack Fenner at Telarc do most of the work up front, not afterwards. The bassoonist starts off right rear behind the celli. The most holographic recordings in my experience are exclusively minimally miked, be they from Sheffied, Windham Hill, Telarc, Mercury, Reference Recordings, Everest, and others. GAF viewers get the incredible depth via two shots of the same image with the lenses separated laterally. Sound familiar?

It is also possible to multi mike and still get full imaging.

I'm not what you mean by "full imaging"

I think it is a huge mistake to always blame the lack of imaging on the mixing or recording itself. 95% of the time its the duplication process the introduces data errors or drop outs.

Point well taken with all digital transfer processes, including playback.

rw

[sam9]

My view point has departed from the idea of "realistic reproduction" being an ultimate goal. The idea is based on the notion that the performance can and should be a life-like reproduction of the live performance. After 40 years of serious music listening I've moved away from that. In that older concept the live performance was the artistic work and the recording was a technologically record of the event.

I have come to the belief that a live performance is one kind of artistic creation while a recording (I would prefer a different word) is another in it's own right. The decisions of the recording engineers are not just "technical" -- they are esthetic and artistic. These folks are as much a part of the artistic team as the musicians. The final artistic work is not just what happens at the recoding site. It is the end product -- the CD (or LP, or tape, or SACD etc.) or rather it's contents.

Where does that leave imaging? I say it should not be evaluated by the impact on the listener. Does it distract negetively from the intended artistic result (intended by the artistic team)? Or is it consistent with that intent? Etc. Keep in mind that it may be the intent that the imaging reflect the experience of sitting in a concert hall. Or it may not. Either is potentially vald. Whether intented impact is sucessful or pleasing is another mater.