Stevemitchell
100+ Head-Fier
Over the years, I've heard erudite and passionate descriptions of "imaging" on this forum as attributed to speakers, headphones, and earbuds.
Imaging......
Imaging?
Just what the hell is "imaging" anyway? As compared to what?
As an Audio Engineer I've been working with recording (in this case - Orchestra) music for years.
When I go see the DSO or the Fort Worth Symphony in concert, I always hear everything that is "right" with the world - 23% direct, 67% reflected sound, or thereabouts .
For years, I've tried to "link" what I hear in the Myerson, or Bass Hall to the recordings that I produce. I'm not always successful.
As to why - let's go way back to my "Genisis" in starting with audio.
As with most kids in the 60's and 70's, my exposure to recorded orchestral music was mostly (regardless of recording label) recordings of multi-channel MONO spread across what we've now come to know as the "Stereo Field" - that aural phenomenon playing to our ears, posing as a multitude of sounds, starting from left-to-right, to simulate what we'd hear in a concert hall of sorts.
Not always aurally accurate, but dang it sure did sound purty.
I used the term "multi-channel mono" above - All that means is that some well-educated recording engineer, using 32 or so Telefunken-Neumann microphones, captured every detail of a performance available, and ground those sounds into the vinyl record that I purchased at the local record store in Tulsa as a youth. The engineer dutifully used his best experience to "pan left to right" the sounds of all these microphones to their appropriate place in the sacrosanct "left-to-right" sound field.
What we as consumers had at this point was the basic 2-channel stereo mix, interspersed with multi-tudenous channels of instrument-solo highlights spread throughout from left to right.
However listening with headphones as I was very early into my music hobby, I was always aware that the solo instruments I listened to had absolutely no "air" around then - the sound for them was DIRECT, with no ambience 'around' their sound whatsoever - those sounds that naturally started at the instrument "center" and decayed out, left and right to infinity.
As a kid who simply loved the music, I didn't really care or realize that what I was listening to was SOOO unlike real life.
Fast-forward 15 years.
Now, post-education that included the study of acoustics and psycho-acoustics, sound propegation, and a recording engineering degree obtained in Dallas, I realized that what I heard on my beloved music recordings didn't nearly match what I was hearing later on in life - that is many, many attendances to symphony concerts as described above.
I realized that I now truly knew what was meant when someone described "imaging" - how well the sound of the recording, as relayed by whatever sound device was transferring that sound to my ears -
Could I close my eyes and effectively visualize what I might see if the performance in my mind, based on sound queues from the strictly audio-based recording?
=============
I've read MANY reviews here on Head-Fi of hardware, reproducing recordings here in which writers describe in detail what their opinion of a sound-devices "imaging" capabilities are - but (as far as I can tell) without the knowledge of how the recording they're using in their review was actually recorded.
I don't want to disrespect or discredit ANYONE - I just want to know how evaluations on "imaging" are made in detail, and whether MY interpretation of what 'imaging' may be is accurate.
Thanks for reading,
Stevemitchell
Imaging......
Imaging?
Just what the hell is "imaging" anyway? As compared to what?
As an Audio Engineer I've been working with recording (in this case - Orchestra) music for years.
When I go see the DSO or the Fort Worth Symphony in concert, I always hear everything that is "right" with the world - 23% direct, 67% reflected sound, or thereabouts .
For years, I've tried to "link" what I hear in the Myerson, or Bass Hall to the recordings that I produce. I'm not always successful.
As to why - let's go way back to my "Genisis" in starting with audio.
As with most kids in the 60's and 70's, my exposure to recorded orchestral music was mostly (regardless of recording label) recordings of multi-channel MONO spread across what we've now come to know as the "Stereo Field" - that aural phenomenon playing to our ears, posing as a multitude of sounds, starting from left-to-right, to simulate what we'd hear in a concert hall of sorts.
Not always aurally accurate, but dang it sure did sound purty.
I used the term "multi-channel mono" above - All that means is that some well-educated recording engineer, using 32 or so Telefunken-Neumann microphones, captured every detail of a performance available, and ground those sounds into the vinyl record that I purchased at the local record store in Tulsa as a youth. The engineer dutifully used his best experience to "pan left to right" the sounds of all these microphones to their appropriate place in the sacrosanct "left-to-right" sound field.
What we as consumers had at this point was the basic 2-channel stereo mix, interspersed with multi-tudenous channels of instrument-solo highlights spread throughout from left to right.
However listening with headphones as I was very early into my music hobby, I was always aware that the solo instruments I listened to had absolutely no "air" around then - the sound for them was DIRECT, with no ambience 'around' their sound whatsoever - those sounds that naturally started at the instrument "center" and decayed out, left and right to infinity.
As a kid who simply loved the music, I didn't really care or realize that what I was listening to was SOOO unlike real life.
Fast-forward 15 years.
Now, post-education that included the study of acoustics and psycho-acoustics, sound propegation, and a recording engineering degree obtained in Dallas, I realized that what I heard on my beloved music recordings didn't nearly match what I was hearing later on in life - that is many, many attendances to symphony concerts as described above.
I realized that I now truly knew what was meant when someone described "imaging" - how well the sound of the recording, as relayed by whatever sound device was transferring that sound to my ears -
Could I close my eyes and effectively visualize what I might see if the performance in my mind, based on sound queues from the strictly audio-based recording?
=============
I've read MANY reviews here on Head-Fi of hardware, reproducing recordings here in which writers describe in detail what their opinion of a sound-devices "imaging" capabilities are - but (as far as I can tell) without the knowledge of how the recording they're using in their review was actually recorded.
I don't want to disrespect or discredit ANYONE - I just want to know how evaluations on "imaging" are made in detail, and whether MY interpretation of what 'imaging' may be is accurate.
Thanks for reading,
Stevemitchell