Image vs involvement and PRaT

The only system I am aware of that does all these things is a live un-amplified performance. Even then there are some shortcomings with imaging and soundstage.

Try it sometime.

Arthur Bye

Arye

quote:

---

one reason for example, was giving by Mike, is that at home the performer is always in his best

---

Not always. It depends on the live venue. If I'm close up and intimate and the music is unamplified (e.g. small acoustic group in a small venue), then it's almost always better live. Depending on the intimacy, amplification, hall size, hall quality, performance quality, etc., the live performance may be bettered by a recording.

Also remember that the recording is supposed to be "perfect", while a live event is fraught with far more possible glitches. Also you have to be in the mood for that particular live event at that time, whereas you can pick a recording to match your mood.

Therefore, it's generally lucky if the live event is better, while good recordings replayed on a good stereo are predictably good.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

good question. i am not really sure to what extent a designer can say "i am going to design this thing so it images well, dont care about involvement", or the reverse. i simply cannot imagine how the two aspects would being independently controllable in the design. however, judging from the fact that there appears to polarization between the two camps -- perhaps this is possible? perhaps some circuit topologies are inherently good imagers, whereas others are good involvers? or is it down to device types -- transistors, tranformers, capacitors, etc... wish i knew.

if its any comfort, my cdsii images very well with sbl's. i am not sure i would want it to image a lot better than that without getting too artificial and "in the way"... when all is said and done, i prefer involvement -- which means my system and i are communicating musically.

very interesting issue arye...

enjoy

ken

Siting loudspeakers hard against the wall a la IBL, Credo, SBL, DBI mitigates against imaging as it is more normally known in the hi-fi world. A different perspective results.

I use CDi/LP12/52/135 with B&W N804's and I get excellent imaging with all the PRaT, rhythym and drive I can safely handle without boogieing out the door.

To me good imaging completes the musical picture on small combo, intimate live recordings. You feel the interaction between the performers.

On studio multi-tracked recordings imaging is an artifice anyway and I can take it or leave it.

Colin Lorenson

colin, many thanks. i think there may be something in this speaker positioning theory. i wonder if anyone has ever pulled naim speakers away from the wall and found the imaging to improve (accepting other aspects will suffer of course).

very interesting thought. arye-gur, are you still around? what do you think of colin's point?

enjoy

ken

With Totem Main-2's imaging is better but still a bit flat earth.

ProAcs are probably the best of the lot at imaging while still giving a lot of good flat earth characteristics.

I've also tried Solilquy 5.0's which can image pretty good too.

In all cases though it is a bit of a compromise between PRaT and imaging and soundstage. Some speakers just do it better than others.

Arthur Bye

Thanks for any info

Derek

The image illusion I want from my system does two things. Firstly I want the sound to feel 'free' in space, not to be obviously pouring out of each speaker but to be filling the room. This depends on a stereo image forming in between the speakers but also it needs an 'unboxy' and natural sound character to achieve the effect.

The second thing I listen for is to be able to integrate each level of instrument and voice together to create the whole picture. I do not want to be able to coolly define each layer of instruments but I want a seamless prsentation of the combined elements.

I have a feeling this latter is a personal preference, perhaps different opinions explain the apparent dichotomy in system design.

Bruce

quote:

---

Martin have you heard the WB ACT2s and if so how did they compare with the Bishops and the Naim range of free standing speakers.

---

Derek in short yes I have. I have owned SBLs, now DBLs and have compared those with Naim's NBL, the WB ACT 1, WB ACT 2.

The ACT 1 I didn't care for at all. To my ears it couldn't keep a tune (mainly due to ill-defined yet light bass). I'll admit that this maybe down to interaction between the speaker and the room I heard them in. The ACT 2 is in a different class altogether. The bass tightens up and acquires tune playing ability, while the mid and treble are far clearer and far better able to convey the complexity of most music .

To my ears the NBL held on to the tune better than the ACT2 but sounded crude (the music sounded as if it were being flung at you) by comparison.

The DBL was far better than the NBL and elevated the tune-playing aspects to new heights while sounding more approachable and likeable in terms of tonality and long-term listeanbility.

The Bishop wiped the floor with the ACT2. Everything the ACT2 did well the Bishop did better. Also the bass became taught and tuneful, far better than ACT 2's which lacked a bit of extention and eliminated an effect where I could here the port of the ACT2's playing along seperately to the music. They played music better in other words.

Also the Bishops imaged like nothing else I've heard (Quad electrstatics, Avantgarde horns & Martin Logans included). When listening to a piano CD, the walls of the dem room 'disappeared' leaving a convincing 'picture' of piano in the room it was recorded. Unlike most 'imaging' speakers the picture was not a miniature, it was full size and the room acoustic was also well resolved. Very convincing. Similarly well recording rock CDs revealed layering of depth. This combined with a natural tonality made me wonder about these speakers.

In the end I bought the DBLs as the Bishops although great were terribly expensive, and when it came down to it, in my opionion the DBLs capture the tune better than the Bishops. I could easily understand how someone would prefer Bishops to DBLs though.

The system used was CDS-2/52 and either 135s or a 500. I hope this helps.

With Mana Soundbases they create an impressive soundstage.

ken,

Pulling the IBL's away from the wall killing them.
The damage to the sound is bigger than any good I can earn out of such an act.

Arye

quote:

---

if you want pictures by a TV!

---

Remember your words when there will be a large 3 dimantions TV screens combined with hi quality stereo systems ...

Loving music - or what makes you happy with the music you are listening to is a very personal issue. It is connected with philosophical and psychological manners. So you can't tell if someone loves his equipment more than music out of the fact that he prefers imaging more than involvement or versa vise.
The only person in the world you can tell this is yourself.
If for example, you think that Krell gives wonderfull imaging and Naim gives wonderfull involvement - you can't say something like "all those who own Krell love the equipment more than music, and all of those who have Naim love music more than the equipment".
Further more, many times when I said in this specific forum things against Naim, I was attacked by members like they all have shares in the Naim factory.
Most of the members here are IN LOVE with Naim and sometimes they are dealing with issues that seems to be very strange to me (like how to be sure that the disc is exactly in the center of the cd player pickup - jumps to my mind now) but this doesn't mean that they love the equipment more that they love music.

Arye

quote:

---

Pulling the IBL's away from the wall killing them.
The damage to the sound is bigger than any good I can earn out of such an act.

---

never mind the music, did they image a lot better -- surely much more important!!!

enjoy

ken

Hint.

It does not rely on Krell amplification and Naim speakers.

That must be high-end hell.

hmmm... i wonder whether i spend more time listening to naim that i do to my wife?? there's a thought??

arye, whats this new tweak you have "to make sure the disc is exactly in the center" -- where else could it be?

i agree with the general gist of your message that we cannt dictate why people buy particular pieces of hifi...

enjoy

ken

quote:

---

Fair comment, but remember you're comparing a £9K speaker (ACT Two) with one costing £20K (Bishop).

---

Yes, I know, fair comment! I think the point I was trying to make was that I thought the Bishop was one of the few really expensive speakers I've heard that could justify the cost. Moreover, it combines both musicality aspects and the stereo aspects that Ayre asked about in a way I haven't heard before (or since). I was unintentionally tough on the ACT2.

One aspect it does bring out is, if someone was lucky enough to have enough money sloshing around they could compare a NAP500/ACT2 with 135s/Bishop. I think I'd take the latter if were a WB user.

I listened to the Bishops with 135s. In fact my discription of the Bishops is that of them driven by 135s. Sounded great,and the 135s ran cool with no shut-downs. So it would appear a viable option at first glance.

So I apreciate your comments on them.
I have briefly heard the Bishops but they were underpowered and the CD was a in car copy not appropriate for real listening, so as far as the Bishops are concerned they have not been demonstrated correctly to me yet.

Again thanks for your comments

Derek

Derek

The listen was a chance walk in and connect up not a formal appointment made visit after a visit to the bank to set up the mortgage <g>

One day I will go back for a full listen with 135s driving them.

Derek

Derek