How important is imaging to you?

[thewas]

I have quite a collection of loudspeakers which I like to swap and experiment with. I have noticed though that in the long term I keep returning to loudspeakers which have very good imaging in my setups although for example in other fields they are more limited like for example high SPL. It seems that loudspeakers/setups which don't image good enough for my taste tend to get me quicker bored..

Would like to how important it is for other members here and also their thoughts on it. I don't won't to go into details or discussions about how someone defines "good imaging" as there seems quite a variation and already some threads about it, just want to the see relative importance of the parameter imaging compared to others like tonality and lack of distortion.

 

[sergeauckland]

To me, it's vital for the enjoyment of recorded music. When at a live venue, if I close my eyes, the sharp image of the orchestra collapses, and the sound is diffuse.

At home, I don't have the visual stimulus to reinforce the sound image, so a sharp image is essential.

Image sharpness is pretty much a function of close pair-matching of the loudspeakers, which is why I have equalised mine flat to +-1dB, and pair-matched to +-0.5dB.

S.

 

[ppataki]

It is extremely important to me - actually that was one of the main reasons why I switched from multiway systems to full range one-way systems
In my opinion those are the best when it comes to 'projecting' the soundstage in the room. You can very clearly 'see people on stage' (I can't explain it better)

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I have quite a collection of loudspeakers which I like to swap and experiment with. I have noticed though that in the long term I keep returning to loudspeakers which have very good imaging in my setups although for example in other fields they are more limited like for example high SPL. It seems that loudspeakers/setups which don't image good enough for my taste tend to get me quicker bored..

Would like to how important it is for other members here and also their thoughts on it. I don't won't to go into details or discussions about how someone defines "good imaging" as there seems quite a variation and already some threads about it, just want to the see relative importance of the parameter imaging compared to others like tonality and lack of distortion.

Could you clarify a bit please just to avoid confusion with „soundstage“

By imagining do you mean the precise placement of instruments on the soundstage?

(Currently I am often thinking along the lines of „wide dispersion speaker“ -> wide soundstage, but less precise imaging and vice versa. Yes/No?)

My preferences: 1) Tonality 2) precise image 3) Distortion (sure within limits, but modern speakers at reasonable levels are not too bad here).

 

[theREALdotnet]

Could you clarify a bit please just to avoid confusion with „soundstage“

By imagining do you mean the precise placement of instruments on the soundstage?

(Currently I am often thinking along the lines of „wide dispersion speaker“ -> wide soundstage, but less precise imaging and vice versa. Yes/No?)

My preferences: 1) Tonality 2) precise image 3) Distortion (sure within limits, but modern speakers at reasonable levels are not too bad here).

You can get a wide soundstage from a single Apple HomePod. Imaging is something different, it places performers at clearly recognisable positions, both left to right and back to front. It seems to depend on the speakers (models), their placement in the room and to a degree the room itself. Unlike frequency response, deficiencies in imaging cannot be fixed by EQ. I also have not found DACs or amps to influence it much.

 

[thewas]

Could you clarify a bit please just to avoid confusion with „soundstage“

By imagining do you mean the precise placement of instruments on the soundstage?

As I had written in the initial post I don't want to define which aspects (for example wide vs. precise) but just the parameter imaging/soundstage.

My preferences: 1) Tonality 2) precise image 3) Distortion (sure within limits, but modern speakers at reasonable levels are not too bad here).

Same for me and since I can EQ tonality 2) and 3) are very important for me with 2) more than 3) as poor imagining annoys me more and quicker than distortions (in acceptable frame of course).

 

[fredoamigo]

Improving spatial quality is arguably the only remaining obstacle to overcome in the quest for high-quality sound reproduction. If it is admitted that stereo is an illusion, the spatial quality is largely responsible for it in my opinion, moreover, Francis Rumsey says what is responsible for the preference criteria for 30%, if it is also admitted that in the the preference criteria for low frequencies have an importance of 30%, only 40% will remain for everything else! I don't know if I could sacrifice dynamics and precision for the soundstage, but in any case I can't do without it, it's also of capital importance, especially for domestic listening.

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

Voted 'don't care'. Seriously, I never try to imagine the musicians in the room (that would creep me out) or 'place the instruments' somewhere. I sometimes imagine myself onstage, but mostly I imagine stuff of non-musical nature, esp when stoned. Music feels like a tissue in my head, the surrounding space becomes irrelevant.

 

[RobL]

How much of good imaging is speaker dependant vs. room and source material?
I keep recalling Paul Barton’s reply about imaging that’s it entirely a property of the recording, lol. Genelec includes a couple of measurements in their GRADE report that assess the symmetry of each monitors response. They feel a symmetrical placement (and room) is very important for precise imaging.



Edit: Forgot to answer OP’s question. Imaging is very important to me for full enjoyment.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I voted "nice to have". I have many mono recordings from the '30s to the '60s, and I enjoy them immensely. Not only that, but I have many orchestral recordings not known for the greatest imaging, but which are highly engaging.

It's not that I don't appreciate good imaging - I do - but the imaging characteristics of the recording are, for me, secondary to the qualities of the music and performance.

Jim

 

[tmtomh]

I voted very important - along with smooth/linear frequency response and decent bass slam/impact, it's right at the top for me. Like you, @thewas , I quickly get bored and/or frustrated if I'm listening and the imaging is not sharp. In fact, when I can achieve very precise imaging in my system, which I have now, it's almost kind of addictive!

 

[312elements]

I think it’s more important than frequency response. It’s certainly more important than directivity and within reason I think it’s more important than distortion.

 

[terryforsythe]

Good imaging is fun. But a large sound stage also is fun. Ideally my system would have a huge sound stage and pinpoint imaging. That is a little tough, though, unless you have a properly treated room (mine is not). My experience is that speakers that provide a consistent wide dispersion pattern provide a bigger sound stage than speakers with a narrow dispersion, but speakers with narrow dispersion, but also are consistent in dispersion, and are properly towed in can be better at providing pin point imaging. So, there is a bit of a balance between the two. That probably is one of the many reasons why different people like different speakers.

 

[Soniclife]

Where's the don't know option?

I honestly don't know how much it matters to me, I want to be able to hear the individual instruments clearly, I'm not convinced I care where they come from, but don't they have to come from separate locations to be convincing?

 

[Robin L]

As I listen to a lot of monaural recordings, imaging is not a primary consideration. A monaural or diffuse presentation of a piano is as good as a clearly stereophonic presentation, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DVDdoug]

When at a live venue, if I close my eyes, the sharp image of the orchestra collapses, and the sound is diffuse.

Thanks! I've suspected that... I think I've only been in a real concert hall with an orchestra once and although I was paying attention to the sound & acoustics I wasn't really focused on the "image" or "soundstage". I've thought about it, and if I'm ever in a concert hall again I'll do the "experiment". (There is also "sound reinforcement" with most live music and it's usually mono.)

Apparently there is some "controversy" with piano recordings because they are usually stereo, and of course at a live performance you can't hear the difference between the left & right side of the piano, and there is plenty of reverberation (assuming a good-sounding performance hall).

I mostly listen to rock so the "image" is totally artificial, and live rock is mono. (Although with in a small venue, you can hear instruments directly from the stage.)

So I appreciate stereo but I don't care about the accuracy of the soundstage. And I like to use a "soundfield" setting with my home theater system to get the "feel" of a larger room, and that pretty-much throws the whole "accuracy thing" out the window! I've also had my speakers in a "dance hall" for a couple of DJ gigs (without the surround set-up) and they sound way better (to me) in an actual large space with natural reverb.


...It's funny how we over-estimate our ability to locate the source of a sound until we're trying to find a squeak or rattle in a car, or cricket, or so dome other unknown noise. ...Or maybe it's the sound bouncing off of (or in the direction of) "the grassy knoll".

 

[Robin L]

Thanks! I've suspected that... I think I've only been in a real concert hall with an orchestra once and although I was paying attention to the sound & acoustics I wasn't really focused on the "image" or "soundstage". I've thought about it, and if I'm ever in a concert hall again I'll do the "experiment". (There is also "sound reinforcement" with most live music and it's usually mono.)

As regards stereo "imaging, it really depends on where one is sitting in a concert hall. Up in the balcony, or any further back than the first ten rows or so, the sound of an orchestra merges into something vague and amorphous. But closer seats give a full stereo effect. I've noticed that rock in big venues has the same effect - the bigger the space, the blurrier the image. "Imaging" is more of a recording artifact than anything else.

 

[OldTimer]

I don’t really care about it. As long as fits my budget and my ears are happy, good to go.

 

[mj30250]

In my experience, a speaker's ability to properly separate discrete sounds rather than reproducing them in a more compressed and congested manner is the first step to good imaging. I think if a speaker can achieve that quality of separation of sounds, their ability to place instruments, vocals, and SFX at various positions within the soundstage (imaging) is then just a matter of the room and speaker positioning relative to the LP.

With that said, yes, I find it very important. It's one of the key components that divides good speakers from great ones.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I have quite a collection of loudspeakers which I like to swap and experiment with. I have noticed though that in the long term I keep returning to loudspeakers which have very good imaging in my setups although for example in other fields they are more limited like for example high SPL. It seems that loudspeakers/setups which don't image good enough for my taste tend to get me quicker bored..

Would like to how important it is for other members here and also their thoughts on it. I don't won't to go into details or discussions about how someone defines "good imaging" as there seems quite a variation and already some threads about it, just want to the see relative importance of the parameter imaging compared to others like tonality and lack of distortion.

I have been pondering this question for decades and have been amused by the various "audiophile" approaches on how to achieve good imaging and watching them evolve like fashion.

For loudspeakers people have stated that to have better imaging you need to control driver timing and created physically stepped cabinets (think original KEF 105, B&W 801s, Dahlquist DQ-10 etc.) people have stated that to improve imaging you needed to radius all cabinet corners to reduce baffle diffraction, others have suggested adding a rear firing tweeter, or mirror imaging the driver layout, or...

Then there are those that claim this CD player or that preamp images better than another... right.

Today I think we finally understand that imaging is mostly a function of speaker's directivity and pattern control in combination with the room they are in and the physical placement within that room. True, subtle shifts in frequency response can pull an image forward or send it back... I'm not sure about the effects of phase response if any, but imaging is primarily how the direct and reflected sound reaches our ears.

A simple mini-monitor or a larger well behaved speaker properly placed in a good room can create an almost holographic stereo image. If that is important to a listener or not is a personal choice. I find it fun and intriguing, but it is also quite unnatural and doesn't occur in live music. I have one system that is stunningly holographic and another that is fairly diffuse. I enjoy both equally.