How important is imaging to you?

[Axo1989]

The above being somewhat tangential, I'd best address the OPs question: I voted 3 because stereo image is what stereo is designed for. And I find it very enjoyable, especially listening to material that makes good use of it.

Of course I can listen to music in circumstances where imaging isn't created/delivered, including live performance. That isn't a reason to compromise my stereo system however.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

The summary graphs presented upthread are from Ch.3 of Toole's book, relating to the question of whether blind testing is necessary for certain research purposes (it is, of course). We don't have details of the data collection method there, but we do have this at Ch.7 for similar blind listening speaker comparison tests. The research subjects assigned scores to spatial characteristics including imaging, continuity and width of soundstage, depth, spaciousness and so on, and to SQ characteristics of tonality, balance, fidelity, distortion etc in some detail.

View attachment 343774

The preference scores and rankings (for sound quality and spatial quality) that we've seen posted here frequently were derived from the individual metric scores, which are subjective impressions of sonics. Your deflection to preference here appears to be a misunderstand of the listening and data collection process used. It wasn't a "which speaker do you prefer" poll. And the subjects weren't communicating with each other, they were communicating with the researchers, of course.

Interesting! I had not read this. I now see your point, and acknowledge the validity of what you have been saying. (A doff of the hat to you. )


Jim

 

[Axo1989]

Interesting! I had not read this. I now see your point, and acknowledge the validity of what you have been saying. (A doff of the hat to you. )

Crikey. And thanks. I'll have to circumscribe my "black-and-white thinking" observation now.

 

[ernestcarl]

Assuming "imaging" is similar to this:

I voted "Good imaging is nice to have but I can live without it if the rest is fine" -- although, to be really honest, I do use DSP presets for the far left and right seats of my couch:



To be clear, this is not in any way a full blown EQ correction, but rather only a simple "correction" that primarily adjusts for the inter-aural time and level difference when only a single person (usually me) listens for extended periods in those far off-center couch seats:



There is no point "suffering" through imperfect or bad stereo/MCH imaging for extending periods when it can be fixed within the span of two mouse clicks.

 

[MattHooper]

I voted "very important."

It's definitely one of the main things that keeps my butt in the listening seat. Otherwise I could listen to music from some other place, in the background.

The very first thing a speaker has to satisfy is tonal/timbral satisfaction. Once it's passed that I look for other traits, and good soundstaging and imaging is a must. I love the "holodeck" sensation of good soundstaging, where the room shape shifts to different venues or artificially created "spaces" in which the music occurs.

 

[dweeeeb2]

I have to admit liking soundstage could be very dependent on whether someone has actually heard soundstage done well

 

[Sokel]

Classical music here,it's all about a scene.
That,high dynamic range and clarity is THE most important for me.

 

[thewas]

I have to admit liking soundstage could be very dependent on whether someone has actually heard soundstage done well

True, but that isn't really different to other disciplines like tonality or lack of distortions.

 

[MattHooper]

Great post!

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.

It's that feeling of "naturalness" in the imaging and spatial qualities that I've sought. And this has been by keeping an ear to real life sounds. It's not simply "I want to perfectly recreate real life sounds with my system" but rather real life sounds have certain characteristics that I find pleasing - because they are 'natural?' - and I notice that I find any system that recreates those aspects is also more pleasing to me.

When microphones record, their pick up pattern, positioning etc, tends to color - in my perception "deform" - the sound of whatever goes through them. A violin a voice or a sax will be sort of "squeezed" through the mic's coloration to come out slightly misshapen, both spatially and timbrally. Usually I find the effect is like the instrument has started to enter a black hole, it's spatial and timbral qualities are sort of being crushed down tighter and harder than the real thing. Likewise, any natural reverb or ambience picked up by microphones is also "deformed" - like I can hear the "shape" of the reverb around the object also taking on a more hardened, distinct "shape" vs the open, airy, unbounded sense of real life acoustics and ambiences. And even artificially added reverb to an instrument often has, once pushed through stereo speakers, a sort of unnaturally composed spatial quality. The end result in stereo is often instruments squeezed down to a hardened, diminished version of themselves, the same with the ambience/reverb in the recording, so it sounds mechanical, "too tight" and unnatural.

If you aren't keeping an ear to reality as your benchmark for spatial qualities and imagine, or you are only concerned with comparing speakers to other speakers, then I think this isn't something that would bug you so much - you just accept that artificiality as "well, that's how recordings through loudspeakers sound."

But I can't help notice how much more relaxed and open real life sound sources sound in real life acoustic spaces. And that guides what I try to achieve with speaker positioning, listener position, playing with acoustics, and other elements.

I think anyone can get some of what I mean who has just played with toe-in. On many speakers in most rooms, toeing a speaker in to directly face the listener produces the tighter sharper images, and often a more tighter constrained feeling soundstage. Toeing out somewhat de-focuses the images, sounding less artificially squeezed, a bit larger, image 'outlines' more relaxed, and the reverb in the recording similary diffuses a bit more with less obvious hard boundaries. That gets at a lot of what I'm talking about. (Would people agree, as a generality?)

So in the end I don't want a speaker to just image with precision, or just throw a large soundstage, or just "disappear" as an apparent sound source. Tons of different speakers do that. It's the very particular nature of the spatial quality and imaging I'm looking for, where there is that relaxed sense of open boundaries, similar to "real sound sources in real open acoustic space."

When I play my system I'm often suprised at how close I've come to getting that effect. And it helps with the "Holodeck" effect, where it's not just like watching through a picture frame to different modulations of aoustic spaces per recording, but more like the actual acoustics in the room are transforming from recording to recording. IMO...

 

[ivayvr]

My vote goes to the "nice to have" option. Most of the time it is the luxury I can't afford. My system is in our living room and my seating position is far from ideal. I may have 5-6 hours per month when I am properly seated and focused on the music alone. Consequently, proper tonality takes a precedence to all other features. Still, I enjoy listening to my system immensely .

 

[Mr. Widget]

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.

I missed your post when you first made it. Very interesting info there.

I tend to look for "reality" what ever the heck that is... but that is why I have been so disappointed with most multi-channel music mixes... yet at the same time, I get a real kick out of surround mixes when they are part of a film I am watching in my home theater... "good" mixes, (again, what ever the heck that is) are really compelling and engaging.

Regarding the topic of this thread, while I checked the "nice to have" box, I would like to say, it is very, very, nice to have.

 

[JoeSchmoe84]

Good SS&I is a nice to have...a pleasant thing... even for those who don't value it. It in no way detracts from the experience even if it is low on your list.

BUT, if you value it, not having solid SS&I ruins the experience...and the music... for that listener.

Seems better to have it. I value it highly.

 

[JeffS7444]

I voted "Nice to have" in the sense that it's really up to the artist and recording engineers to decide what the sound will ultimately be. For instance, I love this recording, but no way that I would say that it replicates what I might hear listening to an unamplified concert performance. Rather, it's a mix of many microphones at close range.

 

[radix]

I just had a strong stereophonic experience, so I thought I'd hijack this thread a little. I was sitting at my work desk with KH80s and "Behind Blue Eyes" came on. I had forgotten how strongly stereophonic that recording is. Guitar starts in left, voice in right, different drums in different channels. It was quite an experience. I think the near-field listening really highlighted it for me... and that I had forgotten about the song over the years.

 

[Tangband]

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.

Agree. I have no idea why my chn110 DIY speaker has much better stereo image illusion than Genelec 8340 SAM and 8030C. But this is a very important advantage for the full range driver, making listening to music more fun and exiting.

One clue could be that the Genelecs I mentioned is compromises regarding the quality of the dsp crossover and the inbuilt amplifiers used. Meaning my Hypex ncore poweramp is the reason my chn110 sounds better ?

Many people on this forum dont agree that amplifiers can sound any different though, so maybe its the one point source advantage for the fullrange driver that makes the image illusion better and more believable ?

 

[MAB]

Agree. I have no idea why my chn110 DIY speaker has much better stereo image illusion than Genelec 8340 SAM and 8030C. But this is a very important advantage for the full range driver, making listening to music more fun and exiting.

One clue could be that the Genelecs I mentioned is compromises regarding the quality of the dsp crossover and the inbuilt amplifiers used. Meaning my Hypex ncore poweramp is the reason my chn110 sounds better ?

Many people on this forum dont agree that amplifiers can sound any different though, so maybe its the one point source advantage for the fullrange driver that makes the image illusion better and more believable ?

Always trying to turn every thread to a gear-head discussion, and simultaneously convert into a proclamation that your fullrangers are the best.

For a complete discussion and science of amp differences, please see and post in one of the usual gear-head centric discussions (for example):

Actual Double Blind Studies

I have always been curious about 'training' for these tests. I saw a visual test that used an aerial pic of a full Rose Bowl, and instantaneous ABX testing was used to compare two pics and seeing if people could notice the difference between them. The subjects couldn't do it. Then, the tester...

www.audiosciencereview.com

For a discussion of your specific clue regarding DSP crossover quality, start a separate thread and show us what you are talking about, with some science to back it up this time. If you can demonstrate that Genelec (for instance) skimps on crossovers in some what that corrupts the bits and pieces of the signal, very interesting. Your CHN have DSP applied too, so not sure how you cast a broad DSP FUD, but get an exempt-card.

Rather than randomly respond to an old post with confusion and bragging about your DIY guru status...

 

[Count Arthur]

To all those people for whom imaging is not important, you could save 50% on your next system.

 

[Tangband]

I voted "very important."

It's definitely one of the main things that keeps my butt in the listening seat. Otherwise I could listen to music from some other place, in the background.

The very first thing a speaker has to satisfy is tonal/timbral satisfaction. Once it's passed that I look for other traits, and good soundstaging and imaging is a must. I love the "holodeck" sensation of good soundstaging, where the room shape shifts to different venues or artificially created "spaces" in which the music occurs.

Agree.
This is also where loudspeakerlistening and earphone listening differs. The sence of soundstage depth is very different.
I always find loudspeaker listening more captivating regarding the soundstage illusion. But only if sitting at the sweet spot between the speakers.

 

[thewas]

Agree.
This is also where loudspeakerlistening and earphone listening differs. The sence of soundstage depth is very different.
I always find loudspeaker listening more captivating regarding the soundstage illusion. But only if sitting at the sweet spot between the speakers.

True, to achieve similar with headphones quite some effort is unfortunately necessary like for example

Realiser A16 the world's most advanced 3d audio processor

The Realiser A16 is the world’s most advanced personalised head-tracked 3D headphone processor, rendering 15.1.8ch Dolby Atmos with breath-taking realism.

smyth-research.com

 

[Crosstalk]

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.

Speakers do not image by themselves or not image by themselves, but not having reflections reaching up your ear and messing up the image is what we need. If I place my Kef R11 placing outwards, the imaging I perceive is very blurry, same if I place them to cross infront of me. With every speaker its a game of angling it right so that we hear the speaker more precisely. Coaxials are better due to their narrow beams, but with a proper room treatment you can acheive the same effect with any speaker. Only difference is coaxials disperse evenly vertically too, so I can stand up and listen to the music unlike normal speakers.