imaging of speakers

[acalex]

Hello everybody,

Yesterday I realised how imaging change when speakers are matched with a nice amplifier. I tried my speakers with a Jadis D50S and focus was much more evident. I could easily place each instrument in the sonic stage without any problem...while this is more difficult with the RX6 using my actual amplifier.

So I was wondering...when choosing speakers, which technical specification is responsible for imaging? Dimension of the drivers? crossover frequency?

Thanks a lot

 

[kevinJ]

Good question, but I don't know the answer.
I think it's more about the amp than about the speakers?

 

[Electro]

I have always wondered what technical specs correspond with good imaging too . Obviously a lot of it is determined by the recording itself but I would guess it is a lack of some type of distortion .

Imaging seems to be better with systems that have class A or heavily biased class AB amplifiers so it may be something to do with a lack of crossover distortion .

I take good imaging for granted with my system it can if the recording allows create an image that seems almost limitless in depth and width , some sounds or instruments can seem to be up to 50 feet back or more and as wide too it is like a picture in sound with a good recording .

I would say also that room acoustics play a large part in this too and I do experiment with wall placed absorbing and diffusing panels which improves things considerably IMO .

I can't really give you an answer but I hope someone comes along who can because I would be interested too .

Good thread I think this is going to be interesting

 

[paradiziac]

I think source/amp/speakers and room all make a difference.

Considering just the speakers, no doubt crossover distortion is a factor, and it also helps if the sound comes from a single source.

Full range drivers (i.e. no tweeter) generally image very well. Some designers solve this by placing the tweeter inside the woofer (e.g. Tannoy and Kef)...

No doubt there are many other factors as well, it would be interesting to hear from an expert...

 

[acalex]

Any expert here?

 

[Inter_Voice]

Apart from good CDs, amplifier and Speakers, good room acoustics treatment to remove primary and secondary reflections are extremely important to ensure good soundstaging and imaging.

If your room has high level of primary and secondary reflections, it means the notes you hear will be blurred by the reflected sound (from various directions in mS from the ceiling, the floor and the walls) that mixed up with the up coming notes. This will greatly affect the imaging and the soundstaging and you will not "see" the position of the singer, the orchestra or the band in front of you.

According to room acoustics treatment principle it is recommended to have the sound being reflected back to your listening position be reduced by at least 25-30db(A), i.e. reduced by 8-10 times the original level to ensure good imaging.

 

[Anonymous]

All of those things you mentioned plus importantly QC, its not down to one single factor. As Intervoice said how well they will image in a given room is largely down to getting rid of first and second reflections etc, its something thats oft neglected.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Probably the most important thing is the original recording. If the imaging isn't there to begin with, you can't do heaps to improve it down the line

 

[plastic penguin]

http://audio.tutsplus.com/tutorials/mixing-mastering/how-to-boost-your-audios-stereo-image/

 

[acalex]

Probably the most important thing is the original recording. If the imaging isn't there to begin with, you can't do heaps to improve it down the line

I agree with all the above...but my original question was...limiting the subject to speakers...which technical specification is strongly correlated with the image?

 

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid it seems to be not just one single factor or component you can isolate, more how each part contibutes to the sum of the whole. You can look at frequency response charts and off axis response measurements but it won't tell you as much as listening, I think speaker designers reach their goal using experience and trial/ error rather than just pure mathemematics.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Given that the imaging is done at the recording end of things, and a speaker consists on average of a tweeter, a woofer and a crossover, what technical spec could there be that reflects imaging? Basically you're talking about crossover and cabinet design.

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree with all the above...but my original question was...limiting the subject to speakers...which technical specification is strongly correlated with the image?

I know this wasn't aimed at me, so apologies to AL...but I don't think there is a spec, as its down to a mixture of size, quality of parts and the "tech" that went into design and construction.

As said above, this ability will be obscured, if the room, upstream components and original recording aren't up to scratch.

 

[acalex]

Given that the imaging is done at the recording end of things, and a speaker consists on average of a tweeter, a woofer and a crossover, what technical spec could there be that reflects imaging? Basically you're talking about crossover and cabinet design.

Thanks for the reply!

Something like diameter of the drives could influence the imaging for example?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Not really. There's no simple tech spec as such.

 

[acalex]

Not really. There's no simple tech spec as such.

Ok. Thanks a lot for your patience

 

[CnoEvil]

IMO. At the less expensive end of the market, standmounts generally image better than floorstanders.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Not really. There's no simple tech spec as such.

Ok. Thanks a lot for your patience

Hey mate, I'm no expert! Could be wrong, just happens I've been reading up about speakers lately.

 

[Inter_Voice]

IMO. At the less expensive end of the market, standmounts generally image better than floorstanders.

Agreed. IMHO standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations.

 

[acalex]

IMO. At the less expensive end of the market, standmounts generally image better than floorstanders.

Agreed. IMHO standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations.

Very interesting. Always thought floorstanders were bigger so better...I have this impression things need to be big in order to be good :rofl:

 

[Inter_Voice]

IMO. At the less expensive end of the market, standmounts generally image better than floorstanders.

Agreed. IMHO standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations.

IMHO it is because standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by low frequency vibrations. From my experience even at high amplifier output I do not feel speaker case vibrations in my Spendor SA-1. I imagine closed box design also reduces vibrations and thus improves imaging.

Very interesting. Always thought floorstanders were bigger so better...I have this impression things need to be big in order to be good :rofl:

 

[Inter_Voice]

IMO. At the less expensive end of the market, standmounts generally image better than floorstanders.

Agreed. IMHO standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations.

IMHO it is because standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by low frequency vibrations. From my experience even at high amplifier output I do not feel speaker case vibrations in my Spendor SA-1. I imagine closed box design also reduces vibrations and thus improves imaging.

Very interesting. Always thought floorstanders were bigger so better...I have this impression things need to be big in order to be good :rofl:

IMHO it is because standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations. From my experience at high amplifier output I do not feel speaker case vibrations in my Spendor SA-1. I imagine closed box design also reduces vibrations and thus improves imaging.

(Remark: Sorry of having inserted my text inside the previous thread :doh: )

 

[acalex]

IMHO it is because standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations. From my experience at high amplifier output I do not feel speaker case vibrations in my Spendor SA-1. I imagine closed box design also reduces vibrations and thus improves imaging.

(Remark: Sorry of having inserted my text inside the previous thread :doh: )

Once I saw in an hi-fi salon, some kind of support "squeezing" the speakers to eliminate vibrations. It was from a spanish company I think. This might help to improve soundstage then...right?

 

[Inter_Voice]

IMHO it is because standmounts are normally of smaller size and thus the case is more rigid and less affected by the low frequency vibrations. From my experience at high amplifier output I do not feel speaker case vibrations in my Spendor SA-1. I imagine closed box design also reduces vibrations and thus improves imaging.

(Remark: Sorry of having inserted my text inside the previous thread :doh: )

Once I saw in an hi-fi salon, some kind of support "squeezing" the speakers to eliminate vibrations. It was from a spanish company I think. This might help to improve soundstage then...right?

Sorry to say that I have not seen the product you mentioned, but for me I put a heavy granite slab on top of my SA-1 with a 2mm thick sorbothane vibration absorption sheet in between the slab and the top of the speaker. Furthermore in between the speaker stand and the bottom of the speaker is another sorbothane sheet to prevent vibrations to the speakers stands, in case there is any.

But you need to judge the SQ and sound staging by your ears as every speaker has its own characteristics and case vibration mode.

 

[SteveR750]

Interesting thread, and a thought in my mind for some which is linked to the original OP, and that is this; what is more important to our appreciation, our involvement in the experience of listeining to recorded music: tonal balance or spacial accuracy. I have come to a conclusion that the latter makes it more "real" than any tonal balance. I actually think my SG / Marshall sounds incredibly lo fi - all grain and mush when I am playing, yet sounds fantastic tonally when recorded, even on my phone.

I have spent quite a bit of time messing about with the EQ in J River to try to compensate for the Spennies supposed lack of upper mid presence, and while it's quite easy to hear variations of >0.5dB within half a track my ears are accustomed to it, and they sound to all intents and purposes exactly the same as they did before I made the change.