How important is imaging to you?

[wunderkind]

Yes when I'm critically listening. It is a fun experience.
Don't care if it's ambient.

 

[Duke]

From @Floyd Toole 's book:

“A serious examination of listener reactions to complex sound fields in stereo reproduction was undertaken by [Wolfgang] Klippel [yes, THAT Wolfgang Klippel]...

“Of special interest was his finding that what he called a “feeling of space” figured prominently... responses were solicited for two broad categories, “naturalness” and “pleasantness”, one relating to realism and accuracy, and the other to general satisfaction or preference, without regard to realism."

Klippel found that “naturalness” (realism and accuracy) was 30% related to sound quality (coloration, or the lack thereof); 20% related to tonal balance; and 50% related to the “feeling of space”.

“Pleasantness” (general satisfaction or preference) was 30% related to sound quality and 70% related to the “feeling of space”.

I would not have expected the “feeling of space” to make a 50% contribution to "naturalness” (realism and accuracy), and a 70%(!) contribution to "pleasantness" (general satisfaction or preference). But as I type this 66.7% (46 out of 68) have voted "[Imaging] is very important for me so I don't want to compromise on it", which at a glance seems to be consistent with Wolfgang Klippels findings (though this poll and Klippel's research are actually asking different questions).

Toole continues: “Therefore, whether one is a picky purist or a relaxed recreational listener, the impression of space is a significant factor.” I agree. Hence my argument that spatial quality matters a lot, evidently moreso for those who prioritize “pleasantness” than for those who prioritize “realism”. Apparently spatial quality matters a lot to Floyd Toole himself because he currently uses an upmixer to derive surround channel signals from stereo recordings.

Note that Klippel's term "a feeling of space" is very open-ended, and does not presume to define what that "feeling of space" is. "A feeling of space" can mean pinpoint imaging or an extra-wide or extra-deep soundstage or a sense of immersion/envelopment or whatever.

 

[Chrispy]

First I think what you mean by imaging needs some definition before a vote. Can be used so differently by so many.....but generally I don't have an imaging "problem" with my various setups.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Note that Klippel's term "a feeling of space" is very open-ended, and does not presume to define what that "feeling of space" is. "A feeling of space" can mean pinpoint imaging or an extra-wide or extra-deep soundstage or a sense of immersion/envelopment or whatever.

Yes, that’s the problem with this term.

Like I said earlier, an Apple HomePod can give a great feeling of space (spatial envelopment), but has no imaging ability. For me, imaging is more about the structure or texture of the space.

 

[Duke]

Yes, that’s the problem with this term.

Like I said earlier, an Apple HomePod can give a great feeling of space (spatial envelopment), but has no imaging ability. For me, imaging is more about the structure or texture of the space.

The way @thewas uses the term "imaging" in his opening post, I think he means "spatial quality" or "a feeling of space", but I could be wrong.

 

[Sieniek]

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)

Hi "Ppataki"

Do you still listen to your Fane Sovereign 15-300tc as your main speakers ?

All the best !

 

[restorer-john]

From @Floyd Toole 's book:

“A serious examination of listener reactions to complex sound fields in stereo reproduction was undertaken by [Wolfgang] Klippel [yes, THAT Wolfgang Klippel]...

“Of special interest was his finding that what he called a “feeling of space” figured prominently... responses were solicited for two broad categories, “naturalness” and “pleasantness”, one relating to realism and accuracy, and the other to general satisfaction or preference, without regard to realism."

Klippel found that “naturalness” (realism and accuracy) was 30% related to sound quality (coloration, or the lack thereof); 20% related to tonal balance; and 50% related to the “feeling of space”.

“Pleasantness” (general satisfaction or preference) was 30% related to sound quality and 70% related to the “feeling of space”.

I would not have expected the “feeling of space” to make a 50% contribution to "naturalness” (realism and accuracy), and a 70%(!) contribution to "pleasantness" (general satisfaction or preference). But as I type this 66.7% (46out of 68) have voted "[Imaging] is very important for me so I don't want to compromise on it", which at a glance seems to be consistent with Wolfgang Klippels findings (though this poll and Klippel's research are actually asking different questions).

Toole continues: “Therefore, whether one is a picky purist or a relaxed recreational listener, the impression of space is a significant factor.” I agree. Hence my argument that spatial quality matters a lot, evidently moreso for those who prioritize “pleasantness” than for those who prioritize “realism”. Apparently spatial quality matters a lot to Floyd Toole himself because he currently uses an upmixer to derive surround channel signals from stereo recordings.

Note that Klippel's term "a feeling of space" is very open-ended, and does not presume to define what that "feeling of space" is. "A feeling of space" can mean pinpoint imaging or an extra-wide or extra-deep soundstage or a sense of immersion/envelopment or whatever.

Unfortunately Toole seems to side step around the entire imaging discussion IMO, and whatever he does say is somewhat non-committal and deliberately vague.

The "feeling of space" and "naturalness" are really the only things we are born with and don't need any form of "training" to become proficient at. "naturalness" also encompasses a frequency response, free of colourations.

 

[Chrispy]

Unfortunately Toole seems to side step around the entire imaging discussion IMO, and whatever he does say is somewhat non-commital and deliberately vague.

A "feeling of space" and "naturalness" are really the only things we are born with and don't need any form of "training" to become proficient at. "naturalness" also encompasses a frequency response, free of colourations.

Think it more just reinforces the poor language subjective experiences might yield....

 

[Jeremiah Sheets]

As a professional Sound Engineer I will go to both extremes. I have a frequency limited mono speaker (Equator D5) that I spend probably 25% of my time mixing on. If I can’t make the music engaging through that mono speaker with limited bass, either the song or the mix is wrong.

However when I do switch to stereo, it is an important and delicate process. I want spread and space but it MUST squeeze into mono without collapsing.

I need my stereo image to be precise with as little phase discrepancies as possible so I don’t waste my time checking in mono constantly. A center signal like vocal should sound like it is coming from a phantom speaker. A hard panned signal should come from outside the physical speaker, while still summing to mono.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Without good imaging a speaker is worthless

 

[ppataki]

Hi "Ppataki"

Do you still listen to your Fane Sovereign 15-300tc as your main speakers ?

All the best !

Yes, I love them
Very recently I have added a subwoofer too:

Lavoce SSF153.00 15" based dual opposed subwoofer project

I am excited to share my next project here! :) After converting my MCLAs to a sub I have decided to look for a more traditional approach to subs - hence the below project came to my mind I have designed and built several dual opposed subwoofers (DOS) already - I can say I really love this design...

www.audiosciencereview.com

My next project will be to use sphere shaped cabinets with Markaudio CHN110 drivers
Probably will kick off the project in a few months (I have already got the drivers)

 

[dualazmak]

I need my stereo image to be precise with as little phase discrepancies as possible so I don’t waste my time checking in mono constantly. A center signal like vocal should sound like it is coming from a phantom speaker. A hard panned signal should come from outside the physical speaker, while still summing to mono.

Without good imaging a speaker is worthless

I fully agree with you two, and I always would like to and try to reproduce "the imaging intentions" which recording engineers would like to embed in the recorded stereo music track; in this context, "imaging" (or "3D sound perspectives" I personally like this expression) is critically important at least for me together with preferable/best-tuned Fq response in my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier audio setup.

After I could successfully establish the 0.1 msec precision time alignment all over my L&R subwoofers, woofers, midrange-squawkers, tweeters and super-tweeters, I believe that I can now enjoy optimal (best?) "3D sound perspectives" (with amazing "disappearance" of L&R SP systems) in my home listening environments; this can be realized even using rather "vintage" (but still amazingly excellent) family of SP drivers/system like in my setup, if the system and gears are HiFi enough...

Spoiler

- my latest system setup/configuration: #774 on my project thread

- Perfect (0.1 msec precision) time alignment of all the SP drivers greatly contributes to amazing disappearance of SPs, tightness and cleanliness of the sound, and superior 3D sound stage: #520

- Not only the precision (0.1 msec level) time alignment over all the SP drivers but also SP facing directions and sound-deadening space behind the SPs plus behind our listening position would be critically important for effective (perfect?) disappearance of speakers: #687

- My audio setup do always "Wow" and "Amaze" me: #68 on the remote thread

- My another thread entitled "An Attempt Sharing Reference Quality Music Playlist: at least a portion and/or whole track being analyzed by 3D color spectrum of Adobe Audition"

 

[Vuki]

I voted "nice to have" - my choice is elaborated in a text I wrote many years ago - here is the link to english translated page "3D and music"

 

[Puddingbuks]

It is very important to me, it delivers a lot of ambiance and depth to a song imo.

What I’ve discovered in the last years is that a heavily treated room with lots of absorption helps to create even more precision in the image and helps to emphasize if a recording has a small or wide image. My home theater room has lots of absorption (about 3 m3) and the imaging is phenomenal with my Dutch & Dutch speakers. Really fantastic. It magnifies the spatial information between recordings. In a more “live” “lively” room, the differences are less clear, everything sounds more the same.

For example some songs:

1. Little room by Norah Jones really sounds small between the speakers
2. Johnny and Mary by Robert Palmer, sounds very tight and small between the speakers
3. Love’s a stranger by Warhaus sounds very wide with lots of thing happening on the outside, outside of the speakers left and right
4. Perfect sense part 1 by Roger Waters (original version, not the “dave / 2001” version), the voice is 90 degrees to the left of me, the piano 90 degrees right of me, baffling.
5. My compensation by Laurie Anderson, the SFX in the beginning go round through the room and behind me.
6. Lullaby by Deep Forest, some sounds and singing come creeping left and right along the wall and even behind me.

Wow!

 

[fredoamigo]

I fully agree with you two, and I always would like to and try to reproduce "the imaging intentions" which recording engineers would like to embed in the recorded stereo music track; in this context, "imaging" (or "3D sound perspectives" I personally like this expression) is critically important at least for me together with preferable/best-tuned Fq response in my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier audio setup.

After I could successfully establish the 0.1 msec precision time alignment all over my L&R subwoofers, woofers, midrange-squawkers, tweeters and super-tweeters, I believe that I can now enjoy optimal (best?) "3D sound perspectives" (with amazing "disappearance" of L&R SP systems) in my home listening environments; this can be realized even using rather "vintage" (but still amazingly excellent) family of SP drivers/system like in my setup, if the system and gears are HiFi enough...

Spoiler

- my latest system setup/configuration: #774 on my project thread

- Perfect (0.1 msec precision) time alignment of all the SP drivers greatly contributes to amazing disappearance of SPs, tightness and cleanliness of the sound, and superior 3D sound stage: #520

- Not only the precision (0.1 msec level) time alignment over all the SP drivers but also SP facing directions and sound-deadening space behind the SPs plus behind our listening position would be critically important for effective (perfect?) disappearance of speakers: #687

- My audio setup do always "Wow" and "Amaze" me: #68 on the remote thread

- My another thread entitled "An Attempt Sharing Reference Quality Music Playlist: at least a portion and/or whole track being analyzed by 3D color spectrum of Adobe Audition"

I don't know to what extent time alignment at 0.1 msec is responsible for good imaging (soundstage), as it seems to me that our auditory system (ear/brain) would begin to perceive these differences from 0.5 msec?
on the other hand, aren't internal resonances (cabinet, port) the main culprit behind poor imaging?

 

[dualazmak]

It is very importsnt to me, it delivers a lot of ambiance and depth to a song imo.

What I’ve discovered the last years is that a heavily treated room with lots of absorption helps to create even more precision in the image and helps to emphasize if a recording has a small or wide image. My home theater room jas lots of absorption (about 3 m3) and the imaging is phenomenal with my Dutch & Dutch speakers. Really fantastic. It magnifies the spatial information between recodrings. In a more “live” “lively” room, the differences are less clear, everything sounds more the same.

For example some songs:
Little room by Norah Jones really sounds small between the speakers
Johnny and Mary by Robert Palmer, sounds very tight and small between the speakers
Love’s a stranger by Warhaus sounds very wide with lots of thing happening on the outside, outside off the soeakers left and right
Prefect sense part 1 by Roger Waters (original version, not the “dave / 2001” version), the voice is 90 degrees to the left of me, the piano 90 degrees right of me, baffling.
My compensation by Laurie Anderson, the SFX in the beginning go round through the room and behind me.
Lullaby by Deep Forest, some sounds and singing come creeping left and right along the wall and even behind me.

Wow!

Yes! Let me join you with only one example picked-up from my "Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist";
Edit again: @RobL kindly gave us another Apple Music link in his post #71
Edit: new link here:

 

[dualazmak]

I don't know to what extent time alignment at 0.1 msec is responsible for good imaging (soundstage), as it seems to me that our auditory system (ear/brain) would begin to perceive these differences from 0.5 msec?
on the other hand, aren't internal resonances (cabinet, port) the main culprit behind poor imaging?

I assume you are right in terms of "scientifically proved/validated facts and evidences" which I myself yet to have, since I have no strict methods/instruments for that.

At least I (we, with my wife) always clearly "hear" the difference of "3D sound perspectives" in case if I deliberately "distort 0.4 msec" time alignment (e.g. only between woofer and midrange-squawker of L-channel, keeping R-channel fully time aligned) on-the-fly (while listening to music) using DSP EKIO's flexible group-delay settings on the output panels in my multichannel audio rig in my listening environments (ref. here).

 

[fredoamigo]

I assume you are right in terms of "scientifically proved/validated facts" which I myself yet to have, since I have no strict methods/instruments for that.

At least I (we, with my wife) always clearly "hear" the difference of "3D sound perspectives" in case if I deliberately "distort 0.4 msec" time alignment (e.g. only between woofer and midrange-squawker of L-channel, keeping R-channel fully time aligned) on-the-fly (while listening to music) using DSP EKIO's flexible group-delay settings on the output panels in my multichannel audio rig in my listening environments (ref. here).

I'm not saying that time alignment isn't important, but to what extent does it affect the sound image when it's in the 0.1 to 0.5 ms range and ... thank you for your reply... Since "the best is the enemy of the good", we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of perfectionism.

 

[Puddingbuks]

Yes! Let me join you with only one example picked-up from my "Audio Reference/Sampler Music Playlist";

“Video is not available” what song is this?

 

[restorer-john]

“Video is not available” what song is this?

I got this flashed on the screen before the "video is not available" message