Posted by Earl Geddes [ 69.209.161.177 ] on May 06, 2005 at 19:57:51:

In Reply to: Re: I know what I've read.... posted by Bob Brines on April 16, 2005 at 14:44:59:

I have some comments.

Not all sound recordings are individually miked, but thats beside the point. On playback the image should be where the producer placed it, no matter what kind of music you listen to. he's the artistic director and he has the control - thats his job.

Yes there is a huge amount of disconnect in imaging discussions because people don't all see things the same way and they certainly don't use a consitent set of terminology. In the psychoacoustics world the terminology is well defined so I suggest using that. In pschoacoustics localization is imaging - same thing.

And the concept of "presnce" came up, which I call by the acoustician term of spatiousness (also well defined both subjectively and mathematically). People definately like spatiousness which is why we don't like anechoic chambers for listening even though they always have good imaging, and its one of the biggest factors in concert hall evaluation.

I totally disagree that all speakers can image well. Thats because the speaker itself has diffraction and diffraction smears the image. A diffraction-less speaker will always image well in an anechoic chamber - this I agree to.

So now comes the $60,000.00 question: How does one get good spatiousness and good imaging at the same time. Well rather than rewrite a long disertation I will direct you to the white paper on my web site which explains how this can be done.

My rooms have spationness because they are live, and they image well if you use my speakers - best of both worlds.

Replies: