I don't care about stereo imaging - am I alone. (Poll)

[antcollinet]

Trigger warning for subjective descriptions

I see a lot of people obsessing about stereo image. Width, depth, height - it all seems to be important. Even more so in the more subjective arenas "...like you could pluck the instruments out of the air..."

If I set myself up for listening - dead center between the speakers, equalateral triangle etc, I can easily detect the image with appropriate music. But it does absolutely nothing for my listening enjoyment. It's an "oh yes, there it is - now lets get back to the music"

For me good sound quality is balanced freqency response, and most important - clarity of the music (which I describe as ease of hearing each voice/instrument, and each note distinctly and without blurring into the general sound. I also like to be "in the music" rather than looking in it. Playing from a single speaker is less enjoyable than playing from two - even if the sound is mono. Fake surround doesn't work for me though for music (at least not on my surround system) as it results in a loss of clarity. Movie tracks presumably mixed for multi channel are fine though. I've not listened to any multi channel music.

So am I the only one who doesn't care about imaging? Or is it common?

 

[KSTR]

You may want to set up a poll for this, maybe?

I'm the total opposite, the main reason for recreational HiFi listening is the immersion in virtual space. I'm a sucker for a 3D-like sound illusion... best frequency response and lowest distortion etc are further down the list. The music must be musically interesting to me, otherwise I will get bored.

OTOH, as a practicing musician, I have zero problems to listen to music for music's sake on crappy equipment (cell phone, laptop, kitchen radio etc) but that's a complete different type of listening for a different purpose. Unless the sound is extremely broken, I don't get bored if the sound is bad but the music is good.

 

[antcollinet]

You may want to set up a poll for this, maybe?

I'm the total opposite, the main reason for recreational HiFi listening is the immersion in virtual space. I'm a sucker for a 3D-like sound illusion... best frequency response and lowest distortion etc are further down the list. The music must be musically interesting to me, otherwise I will get bored.

OTOH, as a practicing musician, I have zero problems to listen to music for music's sake on crappy equipment (cell phone, laptop, kitchen radio etc) but that's a complete different type of listening for a different purpose. Unless the sound is extremely broken, I don't get bored if the sound is bad but the music is good.

Poll added.

 

[ThatM1key]

For me, I kind of care about stereo imaging. I try to aim for it because its easy to do and free than calibrating with $100 mics and a bunch of EQs. I can technically without it, but its a free fix you know. I also think clarity is more important than stereo imaging.

With AVRs, you can have the voices come out of the center and instruments from the LR speakers but that loses clarity (I'm certain) because of it being a DSP. Although Calibration is a also a DSP. Then there's that can of worms of "True/Pure Direct" listening vs "Calibration DSP" listening. For me, I would go DSP with modern receivers but receivers from the 2000s, Pure Direct all the way. I have an old ES Sony receiver, with pure direct, dead silent at max volume but with any DSP on (Even just EQ), there is a lot of noise at max volume. My modern Sony, the noise is a little bit worse with DSP but its not even that noticeable. At the end of the day, I consider AVRs to be fun DSP toys rather then ultimate serious listening.

 

[symphara]

So if I understand you correctly, listening in mono (e.g. downmixed) is the same for you as stereo?

I'd dare to say that's an unusual preference.

 

[Sokel]

I'm on the other side,there no point having a rig that doesn't give you that or else I would be ok with everything that would play music.
All my rig has been set with that in mind,as a classical listener it's important for me to have a big image with a (sensible) wide sweet spot,everything else is minor unless it's broken and spoils my enjoyment.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

If it can't create a reliable image with depth and width, it's not stereo. People may not care about it, but it's a fundamental systems failing if it can not reproduce an image from stereo material. Which makes it as significant as a flat frequency response, low noise, wide dynamic range, minimal distortion etc.

If someone decides they don't care about it, that's OK, but they are taking a subjective position, since an objective, scientific position requires an image with width and depth to be recreated from a stereo source.

 

[Frank Dernie]

For me the music is why I listen.
I am intrigued by the engineering but I would always prefer to listen to a mediocre recording of music i love to a stunning recording of something I don’t.
The bulk of my recordings bought over the last almost 60 years are stereo and a while ago I gave up on surround sound, I have a centre, rears and sub for films but probably only use the twice a month and almost never play a multi channel recording since I have so few.
The most important thing for me is the sound to have realistic instrumental and vocal timbre without harshness.

IME the recording itself has a bigger influence on sound quality than any of the reasonable HiFi equipment we may choose to listen on.

 

[Calleberg]

I can ENJOY music from almost anything, but I very much prefer it with the "being there" illusion of stereophonic audio. There is no good option in your poll for me.
I would say I´m smack in the middle of "important" and "Nice"

Now having said that, a proper home audio system in my living room without it is unthinkable.

 

[Geert]

For me a realistic, stable and centered phantom image with the sound from different drivers perfectly integrated comes first. Stereo image is what is is. For a major part it's the result of speaker location versus boundaries and acoustics and like a lot of people there's not much I can do about it (talking about a Hifi setup in a living room). Nevertheless I prefer the sound from my speakers over the bigger than live stereo experience of headphones.

 

[antcollinet]

So if I understand you correctly, listening in mono (e.g. downmixed) is the same for you as stereo?

I'd dare to say that's an unusual preference.

Couldn't really say as I don't downmix to mono. But if the downmix to mono doesn't impact the sound aspects that I require (clarity, feeling of envelopment etc) then it may well be the same. IE the only impact is loss of image.

But the same, not a preference. I don't object to an image being present, but it does nothing for me. Or perhaps if I did try a mono downmix I'd find it not as enjoyable if I actually tested for it.

 

[symphara]

Couldn't really say as I don't downmix to mono. But if the downmix to mono doesn't impact the sound aspects that I required (clarity etc) then it may well be the same. IE the only impact is loss of image.

But the same, not a preference. I don't object to an image being present, but it does nothing for me. Or perhaps if I did try a mono downmix I'd find it not as enjoyable if I actually tested for it.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that you prefer mono. The ”preference” in question is your position, i.e. “I don’t care about stereo”. Nothing wrong with it btw. Ultimately, while I love sound and HiFi, I ultimately find music equally enjoyable on just about anything, past a fairly low threshold of reproduction.

 

[Frank Dernie]

If it can't create a reliable image with depth and width, it's not stereo. People may not care about it, but it's a fundamental systems failing if it can not reproduce an image from stereo material. Which makes it as significant as a flat frequency response, low noise, wide dynamic range, minimal distortion etc.

If someone decides they don't care about it, that's OK, but they are taking a subjective position, since an objective, scientific position requires an image with width and depth to be recreated from a stereo source.

It is a bit more complicated than that IME.

About 20 years ago a friend and I did a few experiments to decide why LPs didn’t always sound bad despite their objectively poor technical capability.

This involve listening to digital music files and adding LP type shortcomings to them to see how audible they were. It was very interesting but one of the unexpected results was adding LP background noise levels whilst not particularly noticeable as noise did give an increase in the depth of the stereo image.

We should never, IMHO, forget that stereo does not necessarily “reproduce” an accurate soundstage, a lot of modern multi tracked recordings have entirely engineered effects.

Having written that something in “Q-sound” on a good system can be uncanny. Roger Waters “Amused to Death” has varied results on different systems and yes, it is much better on systems which respond appropriately to the Q-sound processing for me.

I suppose my point is that stereo imaging is less a question of accurate reproduction than we sometimes think.

 

[antcollinet]

If it can't create a reliable image with depth and width, it's not stereo. People may not care about it, but it's a fundamental systems failing if it can not reproduce an image from stereo material. Which makes it as significant as a flat frequency response, low noise, wide dynamic range, minimal distortion etc.

If someone decides they don't care about it, that's OK, but they are taking a subjective position, since an objective, scientific position requires an image with width and depth to be recreated from a stereo source.

I'm not sure an objective scientific position "requires" that. Is there anything a recording engineer does to create depth - Ie is that something objectively present in the recorded sound? - or is that purely illusion from speaker dispersion and/or room interaction? Even if objectively present in the recorded sound, I see no scientific "requirement" to use it.

Which raises another interesting question for me. I've stated that one of the aspects of music I enjoy is the feeling of being "in" the music, or enveloped by it.

I'm wondering if that feeling comes from the reflections and reverb from two speakers (as opposed to one) or if in part it comes from a subconcious perception of the stereo image. If I can find a way to easily down mix during playback, I might test for that.

 

[abdo123]

I'm trying to migrate to multi-channel just to overcome the 909291450 restrictions that stereo have imaging wise in multi purpose spaces.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

It is a bit more complicated than that IME.

About 20 years ago a friend and I did a few experiments to decide why LPs didn’t always sound bad despite their objectively poor technical capability.

This involve listening to digital music files and adding LP type shortcomings to them to see how audible they were. It was very interesting but one of the unexpected results was adding LP background noise levels whilst not particularly noticeable as noise did give an increase in the depth of the stereo image.

We should never, IMHO, forget that stereo does not necessarily “reproduce” an accurate soundstage, a lot of modern multi tracked recordings have entirely engineered effects.

Having written that something in “Q-sound” on a good system can be uncanny. Roger Waters “Amused to Death” has varied results on different systems and yes, it is much better on systems which respond appropriately to the Q-sound processing for me.

I suppose my point is that stereo imaging is less a question of accurate reproduction than we sometimes think.

Our experience of LPs making images and acoustic environments larger are the same. When CDs came out, much criticism was levelled at the lack of excitement, lack of richness and the smaller acoustic imaging compared to LPs.

I have an advantage over many people having worked in studios where musicians are recorded or transmitted. I could walk from the studio where a small orchestra was rehearsing into the control room and hear the live sound through a mixing desk, without the sound being moderated by tape, digitisation post-production or vinyl impacts. The imaging in the control room via studio monitors was always astounding and I've never experienced it domestically. Even speakers sat on the top of the mixing desk managed to produce an image.

 

[30 Ounce]

I don’t agree with your view at all. Getting the soundstage/imaging right also improves all the areas you claim to appreciate; clarity, frequency balance, etc.. A properly set up stereo can immerse you in sound if that was on the recording. Sounds to me like you would prefer a surround sound setup. I prefer a stereo setup that presents a realistic stage in front of me. It adds to my enjoyment of music. I have a dedicated listening room that I have spent countless hours fine tuning, measuring, retuning to get the soundstage right. I assume that your lack of appreciation of a soundstage/stereo imaging is because you haven’t heard a properly setup system. Then again, everybody has an opinion.

 

[kongwee]

$100k Wilson Audio and a sofa is an enjoyment. Pinpoint band member or group of instrument in an orchestra sitting at the sofa.

 

[abdo123]

I assume that your lack of appreciation of a soundstage/stereo imaging is because you haven’t heard a properly setup system. Then again, everybody has an opinion.

Or it could just be because music is something that 1) makes you wanna move 2) is to be appreciated with other people

Both of these things are handled very poorly in stereo

 

[MCH]

I wish I had the chance more often to sit at my MLP and enjoy quietly all those details, but that doesn't happen often. Maybe when the kids leave and i am retired, but as of today, my vote is a meh!