How important is imaging to you?

[thewas]

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.

Great post, thank you!

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.

Yes, thank you for the more appropriate terminology.

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;

Time alignment is just one aspect though, there are more important ones though like the lack of early/close diffraction and reflections, smooth directivity, high percentage of direct sound, smooth directivity in all directions which most hifi systems lack (including mine and yours, sorry) to get the "optimal/best 3D sound perspectives".

 

[changer]

I thought imaging and spaciousness were two different things.

 

[dualazmak]

Time alignment is just one aspect though, there are more important ones though like the lack of early/close diffraction and reflections, smooth directivity, high percentage of direct sound, smooth directivity in all directions which most hifi systems lack (including mine and yours, sorry) to get the "optimal/best 3D sound perspectives".

Essentially agree with you. We are never perfect, yes I know, including our home listening room acoustics.
What I feel "optimal or best total sound quality" would be an illusion of total compromise...

You may agree with me, however, we sometimes encounter a "moment" where all the factors/tuning/climate (for example, temperature, humidity)/ear-brain and psychological conditions etc. all miraculously converge to provide the best audio music sound in our home listening environment (although not so often).

I assume we audio enthusiasts continue our audio "efforts" day in and day out, always expecting those moments to continue/last, and most importantly, we enjoy listening to our beloved "music", not only the "sound quality" thereof, even though my posts in ASR would have tendency of inclination to sound quality. In this context, you would please be aware of that I also have been hosting a thread on my beloved music genre...

 

[Morpheus]

Voted very important. I enjoyed not so perfect frequency response and dispersion loudspeakers for years, as long as they could fool me into 3D space here and there, record permitting. For me, its resonances that are especially off-putting. I can live with a bit bright or dark, or slighly recessed loudspeaker and some distortion, if it can make me believe in some kind of holography and sound detached from the speakers themselves, it is my preferred speaker/mind trick...

 

[changer]

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.

This indifference apparently leads to a lot of confusion. A very tight pattern speaker usually has great imaging, but a very small stereo stage. It is precisely because of this tight pattern that early reflections are reduced and the consistency of the image becomes very nice. Imaging in my understanding is not experienced as the discrete placement of instruments within the stereo illusion. This is enabled by the ability of the speaker to project a consistent radiation pattern without strong directivity errors. Discrete placement of individual elements within a recording is the craft of the mixing engineer. There is various ways to achieve such separation, and we can experience it on speakers that are very spacious but do not excel at imaging due to many early reflections, as well as on speakers that showcase a very consistent image.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Hmm. Since some of the best sound I've ever heard comes from my airpod pro 2 I voted "nice to have" since it obviously isn't something I think too much about..

Also I think imaging is most important IR to something that was recorded on a stage or people playing together in a studio. Otherwise it's just an artificial mix. I listen to a lot of electronic music as well.

 

[Mart68]

I still love that illusion where sounds seem to come from between and around the speakers and at different depths and distances, but not from them; as if the speakers themselves were inert objects that aren't actually doing anything.

That's the important thing for me, I don't know if that classes as 'Imaging' but o/p doesn't want to discuss meaning of the word so I won't elaborate.

Usually listen off axis but it still matters to me that the sound seems to exist independent of the speakers.

I'd speculate - from running a lot of very different speakers in the same room - that this is mostly a product of the room and speaker location rather than the design of the speaker itself - excluding the total rubbish ones ofc.

 

[dweeeeb2]

Whilst I like and appreciate imaging, my stereo is for rocking the house. Even FR at volume and I’m happy. I hate room nodes cause I enjoy music most when I’m moving around my space.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I thought imaging and spaciousness were two different things.

True. Just another example illustrating the ineffectiveness of subjectivity (words) to convey auditory impressions.

Jim

 

[dualazmak]

“Video is not available” what song is this?

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

View attachment 343261

Strange, the YouTube video clip is alive here in Japan. OK, I will look for another video or audio link if available.
Edit again: @RobL kindly gave us another Apple Music link in his below post #71

How about this?? The track is "I Fall In Love Too Easily";

 

[RobL]

Strange, the YouTube video clip is alive here in Japan. OK, I will look for another video or audio link if available.

How about this?? The track is "I Fall In Love Too Easily";

Link still doesn’t work but I found it here:

Very nice!

 

[Mr. Widget]

True. Just another example illustrating the ineffectiveness of subjectivity (words) to convey auditory impressions.

Jim

Yes, dancing about architecture once again...

However in discussing imaging I think subjective words are still better than other options we have short of firsthand experience.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Yes, dancing about architecture once again...

However in discussing imaging I think subjective words are still better than other options we have short of firsthand experience.

You and I don't agree about that.

Jim

 

[Pearljam5000]

Which nearfield /midfield studio monitors regardless of price
have the best imaging / soundstage ?

 

[Count Arthur]

Which studio monitors regardless of price
have the best imaging / soundstage ?

I'm guessing, that some monitors will be inherently better than others, however, placement and room acoustics will surely have a huge influence. Such that, a good set of monitors in a bad room, might sound no better than a mediocre set in a good room and vice versa - and all permutations of those variables.

 

[Timcognito]

Which nearfield /midfield studio monitors regardless of price
have the best imaging / soundstage ?

The ones where the recording was recorded to produce it which would almost any with good room correction. Soundstage comes from the recording process.

 

[Pearljam5000]

The ones where the recording was recorded to produce it which would almost any with good room correction. Soundstage comes from the recording process.

True
But I'm sure some monitors image better than others
Maybe coaxials are better?
Not sure

 

[Eckerslad]

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!

May I recommend the Pink Floyd “Animals” REMIX, in particular “Sheep”? Just like you describe in song 4

 

[eboleyn]

So I've spent nearly the whole of my climb into my audiophile hobby (20+ years) to reach "ideal sound reproduction", which I finally think was achieved about 3 years ago. Until that time, there was decent stereo imaging, but it was "lacking something" so to speak, then my setup got a jump in quality which led me to the current place where it honestly sounds as good as hearing the sound right in front of me.

In the process, I've found there is a distinct bump of quality in the whole chain of reproduction (DAC -> amp -> speaker drivers) required between "ideal tonality" and "ideal imaging", even assuming you have the same stereo and room setup in both cases.

Unfortunately, confusing this whole thing is the "sweet" or "pleasantly distorted" tonality thing that is popular in the audiophile community. This induces purposeful distortion which to some extent inevitably blurs "ideal imaging" effects. The amount of blur seems to be different for each one of those kinds of equipment I've tried, though I imagine there might be some kind of version of it which only minimally impacts the imaging results.

Having said the above, I now have both an "ideal sound reproduction" sound chain when I want to listen with extreme clarity and imaging, and a few different ways of adding in "audiophile distortion", which do indeed add a bit to the "get lost in the music" effect. Honestly, I'm really tempted to try to quantify at least what level of IMD and/or THD distortion causes the blur effects.

 

[Axo1989]

True. Just another example illustrating the ineffectiveness of subjectivity (words) to convey auditory impressions.

Jim

Words aren't responsible for people using them without precision (and people will do that for many reasons). To clarify meaning we have dialog, using words. Some (but not all) people with high numerical aptitude/skills have inadequate (relatively speaking) verbal/textual skills, of course. That is a shortcoming when communicating with them for sure, but a preference for numbers is just that.

If we had concise, useful metrics for imaging and spaciousness then we'd no doubt use them as well. But we don't, so words are more useful than the metrics we don't have. The loudspeaker listening and preference research from Harmon often cited here—which is undoubtedly valuable—was basically applying controls and statistics to collection of subjective listening impressions.

Edit: Harman, of course, nor Harmon ...