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

[LouB]

Well I bought a stereo for that said experience & when I hear it I enjoy it. But more importantly fpr me is how well the system sounds. I would trade stereo for a great sounding system any day. But when 99% of what I listen to is mixed down to 2 tracks why give that up ? And it's interesting/fun to hear how different artist's mix there recorded music and the overall effect it has on them & choices they make.

 

[mhardy6647]

I voted because this poll had exactly my response!

What I care about, still... even in 2023 ... first and foremost, is what I would call tone. Maybe that's just frequency response, but there's a qualitative piece to it as well. In the 1970s, it was often referred to as definition.

I also like what is often referred to in the larger 'audiophile' world as transparency -- the sense that the sound cannot be pinpointed as coming from one box (or, more typically, two boxes).

... and I hate the word soundstage -- at least when applied to a simulated three-dimensional "soundfield".
OK, I hate the gerund soundstaging even more.
... and I'm not gonna even mention the verb form!!!

Spent a chunk of time this morning listening to these, as it turns out -- and boy howdy, do they sound nice.




(sorry about the schmutzig tweeter dome -- and the upside down badge!)

PS I should mention that, classically in hifi-dom (at least as I understand it) imaging is a stereo thing and relates to two dimensions only -- good imaging will put a mono signal right in the middle between two stereo loudspeakers. That three-dimensional stuff was historically invoked with that "S" word that I grudgingly invoked above It may be that the rise of quad, errm, ahh... googlephonics, umm, I mean, home theater has redefined the terms operationally. I don't know.

 

[-Matt-]

^ A bit more toe-in might help you to actually experience a "soundstage"!

 

[fpitas]

I voted because this poll had exactly my response!

What I care about, still... even in 2023 ... first and foremost, is what I would call tone. Maybe that's just frequency response, but there's a qualitative piece to it as well. In the 1970s, it was often referred to as definition.

I also like what is often referred to in the larger 'audiophile' world as transparency -- the sense that the sound cannot be pinpointed as coming from one box (or, more typically, two boxes).

... and I hate the word soundstage -- at least when applied to a simulated three-dimensional "soundfield".
OK, I hate the gerund soundstaging even more.
... and I'm not gonna even mention the verb form!!!

Spent a chunk of time this morning listening to these, as it turns out -- and boy howdy, do they sound nice.




(sorry about the schmutzig tweeter dome -- and the upside down badge!)

PS I should mention that, classically in hifi-dom (at least as I understand it) imaging is a stereo thing and relates to two dimensions only -- good imaging will put a mono signal right in the middle between two stereo loudspeakers. That three-dimensional stuff was historically invoked with that "S" word that I grudgingly invoked above It may be that the rise of quad, errm, ahh... googlephonics, umm, I mean, home theater has redefined the terms operationally. I don't know.

I'm glad you saw the light and ditched those horns. We both know they'll just honk

 

[Capitol C]

I enjoy listening to a properly-recorded symphony orchestra. It isn't pinpoint, just as it isn't pinpoint in a concert hall, but the basses should be where they belong, over there on the right , the violins to the left of center, etc. It adds to the reality of the experience. There are remarkable performances (Toscanini and Walter come to mind) that were only recorded in mono, but the lack of spatial information takes them down a notch to me.

 

[mhardy6647]

(a big ol' flock of snow geese -- honk, honk, honk...)

 

[fpitas]

(a big ol' flock of snow geese -- honk, honk, honk...)

When geese fly by my house, I have to mute the speakers to see if the 511s are honking again

 

[Marc v E]

I've stated that one of the aspects of music I enjoy is the feeling of being "in" the music, or enveloped by it.

If you happen to have an avr, I can heartily recommend using that: playing stereo from the front and back speakers, mirroring each other, was a real eye opener to me.

(Btw I don't have this myself, but experienced it at a friend's home)

Edit: I just realised the same can be achieved with a minidsp flex.

 

[Mean & Green]

I made a similar remark to this on another thread here, which was titled “The ingredients of good sound”.

I basically said I found imaging to be overrated and immediately a can of condescending worms was opened.

For me imaging is at the bottom of the list on the important aspects of audio to me. Yes my system is capable of it, but I’m more of the opinion that clarity and a balanced even frequency response are way more important to me for really enjoying the music.

If I had to compromise on speaker positioning in a given room and I had to choose between excellent imaging but be light on bass, or have more bass weight with a little sacrifice in 3D imaging I’d sacrifice the imaging without a second though, just as an example.

 

[Emlin]

If it's in the recording (and it always is) I want to hear it. If I can't, I know that the system or room is deficient.

 

[Timcognito]

Good tread Tony. Would have liked a couple of categories in the middle or in addition. That would have captured my feeling something like; Given the choice I would pick original mono over stereo and Given the choice I would pick original stereo over mono. I like original in either case but maybe a little off the OT.

 

[MattHooper]

To echo what some others have said:

I can enjoy listening to music on all sorts of meager audio systems - my desktop, our smart speaker in the kitchen, my car stereo, even on my little iphone speakers. (There are actually some songs I actually prefer on my iphone's speakers the most!)

What draws me to a hi-fi system is the promise of something more added to the music listening experience. More timbral richness is job one. More palpability, dynamics and presence is another. And the spatial and imaging characteristics one can draw from a recording also being a big draw for me. It's one of the main reasons I bother sitting down to listen to a system - otherwise I may as well listen to it from another room or on the background.

Now, if a system JUST seems to do a big spacious soundstaging act, but doesn't please in terms of dynamics, presence or tone, then I'm going to get bored really fast and walk away. But so long as those other requirements are first met, I find the soundstaging and imaging aspects very entertaining. I love the sort of virtual reality or "holodeck-like" experience of the room beyond my speakers sort of shape shifting in to various venues and acoustic spaces, whether "natural" or artificial. It's a bit like a transportation device in that respect. And even on some recordings, like plenty of orchestral recordings, the sense of scope and space and imaging can, with my eyes closed and a bit of help with my imagination, give the sensation of peering in to a 'real' event, hearing the orchestra play in front of me. That adds a similar type of thrill in the way attending a live orchestra adds a thrill to the music experience.

Getting good focus and density to the imagining really helps this aspect, for me. And I enjoy it just as much for listening to artificial instruments, like electronica.
When I have set up my speakers and listening position for an immersive soundstage with precise, dense imaging, listening to electronica can be somewhat like being visited, corporeally, by electronic beings or aliens. I mean, the sounds are often wild and bizzare, and often put in very bold types of reverbs, and it's like each blip, bloop, swish of a synth pad or choppy sequencer line "appears" like solid objects darting in and out of this portal between the speakers. It never fails to blow me away and I find it more engaging than must listening "in mono" in the background.

(BTW, an audiophile friend recently listened to my system and was shocked by the experience - the enveloping size and depth of the soundstage combined with the density of the imaging "how'd you do this?" Which makes me wonder if, also, people not inclined to care so much about soundstaging/imaging put less effort in to achieving what can be achieved...and hence...sure...their imaging may be not make much impression. I dunno...).

 

[sejarzo]

Again it is something inherent at least as much to the recording as to the equipment we listen on IME.

I have heard a demo of DSP speaker correction of amplitude and phase step by step where the improvement in stereo image at each stage was quite marked in a simply miked oldish classical recording but barely noticeable on a rock album mixed from multiple microphones.

Many years ago a member of another forum posted brief excerpts from a recording he was involved with. They had an old fashioned stereo mike setup in addition to spot mikes all over the orchestra and chorus (Handel’s Messiah iirc) and the excerpts from the simply miked recording had a much more natural stereo image than the mix they did from the large number of microphones but, obviously, was a bit noisier.

Sadly they only issued the multi track recording which is still enjoyable but I preferred the simply miked one myself.

Check with your local library for the CDs that are distributed by the US Marine Band. They are almost always simply miked with a stereo pair, rarely with a spot on a soloist.

I know wind band music isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's not just marches, and this ensemble is regarded as one of the top in the world. The transcriptions of many familiar pieces originally written for orchestra are quite approachable.

 

[antcollinet]

Good tread Tony. Would have liked a couple of categories in the middle or in addition. That would have captured my feeling something like; Given the choice I would pick original mono over stereo and Given the choice I would pick original stereo over mono. I like original in either case but maybe a little off the OT.

I sort of added the poll as an afterthought after a suggestion from @KSTR . I went back a bit later to add some more options, but it wasn't possible to insert them, only append them to the end of the list - so I didn't bother.

 

[August West]

Here is my story: I am a deadhead and taper/collector. Recorded the first GD show I saw. From the mid 70's there was a lot of high quality audience tapes being made. If the taper is in the 15th row center (even in Madison Square Garden) he brings home a tape that sounds like it did where he was located. The Dead's soundman mixed the house feed in stereo. Our tapes benefited from that. So I hear the ambiance and soundstage all the time. In fact it's all I'm listening to these days. So the soundstage and imaging are why I believe our audience tapes sound better than the soundboards. So hell yeah, the imaging is way important.

 

[Saturn94]

I voted because this poll had exactly my response!

What I care about, still... even in 2023 ... first and foremost, is what I would call tone. Maybe that's just frequency response, but there's a qualitative piece to it as well. In the 1970s, it was often referred to as definition.

I also like what is often referred to in the larger 'audiophile' world as transparency -- the sense that the sound cannot be pinpointed as coming from one box (or, more typically, two boxes).

... and I hate the word soundstage -- at least when applied to a simulated three-dimensional "soundfield".
OK, I hate the gerund soundstaging even more.
... and I'm not gonna even mention the verb form!!!

Spent a chunk of time this morning listening to these, as it turns out -- and boy howdy, do they sound nice.




(sorry about the schmutzig tweeter dome -- and the upside down badge!)

PS I should mention that, classically in hifi-dom (at least as I understand it) imaging is a stereo thing and relates to two dimensions only -- good imaging will put a mono signal right in the middle between two stereo loudspeakers. That three-dimensional stuff was historically invoked with that "S" word that I grudgingly invoked above It may be that the rise of quad, errm, ahh... googlephonics, umm, I mean, home theater has redefined the terms operationally. I don't know.

Love ADS speakers! I greatly enjoyed the L1290 I had for over 25 years.

 

[Scrappy]

Had a good room for stereo/ surround at my previous abode. Still workin on the new place…

However I’ve enjoyed tons of music on my deck via one speaker (Dayton outdoor 8”+1” and giant rear PR) and mono-sum.

I was hanging at the doorway of my first floor/ basement to relax and smoke when it was cold/ windy/ rainy. Rig down there is absurd, as it’s an old Yamaha 15” and horn carpeted PA cab. Only use the top of the two I have stacked in a convenient spot. Well, summed mono once again into an old Sony receiver nearly full-out. Cabinet is ~10’ away diagonally, and faces toward the wall 90deg to the right of my head. Well, sound from that big yammy loads and bounces around, and is quite impactful. Doorway has a very good summation of low end, and the right amount of diffuse high end (I moved some boxes and messed it up a little). But- I thoroughly enjoyed listening in that bizarre scenario. Serious air moving, hits but is not loud.

 

[Marc v E]

Hm, on second thought, how many systems have I heard with correct imaging? Most systems are heavily compromised ime. Some do it extremely well by design, like the Genelec 8351.

But from what I've read on ASR forums, regardless of speaker design, setup is often compromised. One prime example of this is my own living room. The speakers face a low salon table and have a side reflection on one side from a chair. I do sit at least 1 meter from the back wall and have the speakers 0,5 meter from the front wall. That helps. But given that the wife and kids' priorities are way different, something has to give and that affects imaging the most.

On speaker design and room interaction that affects depth perception I found an interesting blog post: https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/09/20/bo-tech-near-far/

 

[Frank Dernie]

Check with your local library for the CDs that are distributed by the US Marine Band. They are almost always simply miked with a stereo pair, rarely with a spot on a soloist.

I know wind band music isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's not just marches, and this ensemble is regarded as one of the top in the world. The transcriptions of many familiar pieces originally written for orchestra are quite approachable.

I love brass bands but am not sure whether these will be available here, I'll look.
I haven't been to my local library for some years and am not sure they still have CDs at all

 

[Burning Sounds]

I voted important - music lacks enjoyment without it. I have 2 pairs of Linkwitz LX Minis - one pair in a room where their position is dictated by other furniture arrangements and the other in a dedicated music room. The ones in the dedicated music room have a walk-through soundstage and solid imaging, whereas the other pair still image well but nowhere near to the same degree (they are primarily used for TV). The immersion in the music is not at athe same level and the difference is quite substantial, so I don't get the same musical enjoyment out of them. But then again in terms of critical listening I don't think imaging is the be all and end all - I would have to put tonality at the top of my list.

Having said all that I can still enjoy music even when it is lo-fi, heck, I have a jukebox and you're more likely to find me playing air guitar in front of that than when I'm in my listening chair.

I'm hoping to go to an audio show later this month to primarly hear some MBL Radialstrahlers which should be really interesting.