• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

How important is the stereo image to you.

  • It is everything - I won't listen without it.

    Votes: 43 12.5%
  • Important - music lacks enjoyment without it

    Votes: 132 38.5%
  • Nice to have - Still enjoy the music if not there.

    Votes: 144 42.0%
  • Meh!

    Votes: 24 7.0%

  • Total voters
    343

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,497
I voted important. I was tempted to vote "it's everything" but I went with the next option because like @tonycollinet , I wouldn't enjoy music nearly as much if my system did not also have good frequency linearity (and low distortion, and minimal noise).

But imaging remains very important to me, not because I care about a realistic illusion, but rather because I like a soundstage presentation that is precise enough that I can pick out instruments and vocals clearly and distinctly. Conversely, I don't generally like mono, but not because it isn't stereo per se - I just don't care for it because the image most mono recordings put out there (at least on my system) seems narrower and with less space (actual or illusory) between the instruments and vocals in the mix.

I do find it a bit confusing, but also interesting, that folks are talking about stereo imaging in terms of immersion. To me, precision of imaging is almost an opposite to immersion - I'm talking about the discussion we often have here at ASR about speaker dispersion characteristics and how in a typical listening space there tends to be a tradeoff between pinpoint imaging but a narrower soundstage from narrow-dispersion speakers, and wider, more enveloping soundstage but less precise imaging from wider-dispersion speakers. I've had a room setup in the past that was more enveloping (relative to the size of the room, anyway - that room was 60% smaller than my current one) while less precise with imaging, and while there is a tradeoff, I greatly prefer the more precise imaging of my current room and would not want to go back.
 
Last edited:

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,026
Likes
3,329
Location
bay area, ca
... To me, precision of imaging is almost an opposite to immersion - I'm talking about the discussion we often have here at ASR about speaker dispersion characteristics and how in a typical listening space there tends to be a tradeoff between pinpoint imaging but a narrower soundstage from narrow-dispersion speakers, and wider, more enveloping soundstage but less precise imaging from wider-dispersion speakers....
I like your post, but kinda would like to be devil's advocate on this. No speaker ever will let you hear the accuracy they are capable of unless you sit in the middle of the good ole fashioned magic triangle. Step out of it, and you'll enjoy the music, but don't judge any equipment by it. Might as well set up a dozen ceiling speakers ... :) You'll hear good music, but anything resembling "staging" is way out of the door. Not saying you can't enjoy the music, again - I know I can. But dispersion characteristics of a speaker IMO do not overcome the limitations (or I'd say magnificence) of good stereo presentation. I'd even venture they'd cost you accuracy when you happen to sit in that magic middle of the stereo triangle, but that's just my opinion, and can't back it up with data. But I can with just one example: Tekton speakers with a zillion little tweeters... having a firiend who owns them, the sound great from all over, but if you sit in the middle they sound a bit spatially muddy imo. Never want to offend anyone when I bring up a brand, it's always based on personal preference for delivery as well as the kind of music one listens to.

I think you have a very valid point when it comes to precision (sound accuracy) and immersion (simply enjoying the music). But I switch between the two. Ask me to tell the difference between a FLAC and a 192-256k MP3 of a great recording I use as a reference and thus am very familiar with, and I'll (a) hate the exercise and (b) will focus more on irrelevant artifacts rather than the music itself. As a rule, I just kind like to enjoy the music while knowing that I *could* focus on little details if I chose to do so. Which basically is what we sometimes do when we listen to music in a good concert venue, where you can close your eyes at times... or you can suddenly decide to focus on a musician.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,820
I voted important. I was tempted to vote "it's everything" but I went with the next option because like @tonycollinet , I wouldn't enjoy music nearly as much if my system did not also have good frequency linearity (and low distortion, and minimal noise).

But imaging remains very important to me, not because I care about a realistic illusion, but rather because I like a soundstage presentation that is precise enough that I can pick out instruments and vocals clearly and distinctly. Conversely, I don't generally like mono, but not because it isn't stereo per se - I just don't care for it because the image most mono recordings put out there (at least on my system) seems narrower and with less space (actual or illusory) between the instruments and vocals in the mix.

I do find it a bit confusing, but also interesting, that folks are talking about stereo imaging in terms of immersion. To me, precision of imaging is almost an opposite to immersion - I'm talking about the discussion we often have here at ASR about speaker dispersion characteristics and how in a typical listening space there tends to be a tradeoff between pinpoint imaging but a narrower soundstage from narrow-dispersion speakers, and wider, more enveloping soundstage but less precise imaging from wider-dispersion speakers. I've had a room setup in the past that was more enveloping (relative to the size of the room, anyway - that room was 60% smaller than my current one) while less precise with imaging, and while there is a tradeoff, I greatly prefer the more precise imaging of my current room and would not want to go back.

It is a tricky balance between the size and "immersion" of a soundstage and the precision of imaging. But I'm always angling to get a combination of both - biggest soundstage/immersion I can get, with the most dense imaging I can get. I do this mostly with playing with speaker positioning/listening position/room acoustics.

I've more recently hit on a combo that seems to get it all. Absolutely massive soundstage, like the whole area of the room beyond the speakers can melt away but WITH very precise, dense sonic images. I've found a combo of wide speaker set up, curtains controlling sidewall upper frequencies, and careful placement of a diffusor behind my speakers does this. As I mentioned before, this set up startled a very experienced audiophile friend. Because someone asked me for pictures of the set up, I've taken pictures and plan to do a thread about my room in one of the other ASR subforums.
 

JRS

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,158
Likes
1,003
Location
Albuquerque, NM USA
It is a tricky balance between the size and "immersion" of a soundstage and the precision of imaging. But I'm always angling to get a combination of both - biggest soundstage/immersion I can get, with the most dense imaging I can get. I do this mostly with playing with speaker positioning/listening position/room acoustics.

I've more recently hit on a combo that seems to get it all. Absolutely massive soundstage, like the whole area of the room beyond the speakers can melt away but WITH very precise, dense sonic images. I've found a combo of wide speaker set up, curtains controlling sidewall upper frequencies, and careful placement of a diffusor behind my speakers does this. As I mentioned before, this set up startled a very experienced audiophile friend. Because someone asked me for pictures of the set up, I've taken pictures and plan to do a thread about my room in one of the other ASR subforums.
Congratulations. In my 40+ years I haven't heard that many systems as in hundreds vs thousands, and can only recall two occasions that are exactly as you describe. In the one case, the speakers were nowhere near wall--the back and front wall being like a hundred yards away--this was at the RMAF and were in a convention hall. There was no wall on the right and the one on the left maybe 5' away. The soundstage was jaw dropping--it's as if I could have walked up and shook the hands of the singer, along with a number of the big band musicians--not just left and right but distance away as in 8' vs 12'. Set up was by Dali. A revelation. Sort of thing that the BACCH immersion technology (developed by a plasma physicist/audiophile from Princeton--no snake oil here) does routinely in the right setup. Second time much more intimate and provided by some DSPed Lowther drivers in a small room. The emotion expressed by the singer literally caused me to cry (Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah).

If this were the rendition that was being asked about in the poll, I would have answered I'd give my eye teeth and left nut to have that in my system. Got kids and will need dentures eventually.
 

Bjorn

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,286
Likes
2,562
Location
Norway
Imaging and clarity are very much tied. Both require a low level of especially early reflections.

I prefer a combination of sharp image and spaciousness/envelopment. Best of two worlds.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,390
I think a system's ability to image and a speaker's ability to "disappear" in the room is central to my enjoyment of it. Speakers being unlocalizable in the room and the sound conveying an image in 3d space is the goal is it not? It's not always on the recording, but if it's there and your system can't execute it, something is surely deficient. This post struck me like the "do you have an internal dialogue in your head" question- I thought it was a thing for everyone.

And that's were the correct placement of the two loadspeakers comes in, if you have them placed so that you perceive a distinct-sounding phantom center, all the smaller stereo cues like depth, three-dimensionality, and all the rest will fall in place. The two speaker must be placed correctly for them to, in best possible way, reproduce a unified stereo image. An “anchored” phantom image.

If the phantom center is “washed-out”, all the smaller stereo cues will also be “washed out”. Finding the correct placement of the two speakers are everything. :)
 
Last edited:

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,390
Is "presence" the same as stereo imaging? I'm talking about a vocal presence that's front/center, standing out from the background music which is spread out (stereo width?) and surrounds the musician but serves more like a background canvas for the singer. I'm just hypnotized by this effect - It feels like the wider the soundstage the more presence and separation the singer has whereas if the soundstage isn't wide enough and everything collapses into the same spot, I don't know where this dramatic effect is preserved. This is why I do enjoy speaker/room systems that create a wide/vast soundstage for individual "presence" to be recreated.

This is an effect that's nice to have but not a dealbreaker, HOWEVER, if given a choice between 2 systems all else being the same I would prefer having it over not. But after having it for a while, you don't know it's there, so I do listen to music on my nearfield mixing system where there's very little soundstage but still pleasant. Going from this professional setup to my "stereo" system definitely is great because it gives me something new to enjoy.

That “effect” will be the same with any set of stereo speakers you use because it's a choice made in the mixing process. It’s just a close-up recording of the vocals, either completely dry or with a pre-delay on the vocal reverb preserving the intimacy. Some compression is probably used to keep the voice stable and up-front.

As said, this should be the same no matter what speakers are used, or if it's a near-field or mid-field setup. If it can’t be heard, there must be something really wrong with the setup.
 

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
That “effect” will be the same with any set of stereo speakers you use because it's a choice made in the mixing process. It’s just a close-up recording of the vocals, either completely dry or with a pre-delay on the vocal reverb preserving the intimacy. Some compression is probably used to keep the voice stable and up-front.

As said, this should be the same no matter what speakers are used, or if it's a near-field or mid-field setup. If it can’t be heard, there must be something really wrong with the setup.
I much prefer to hear the vocalist "on stage with the band" as in a live show, than stood half way between them and me in the room...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Els

Marc v E

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
1,106
Likes
1,606
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
If I understand the blog posts by B&O's Geoff Martin correctly then the directivity of the loudspeaker plays a big part in where the instruments are placed, near or far.
Screenshot_20230310-153931_Opera.jpg


 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,026
Likes
3,329
Location
bay area, ca
If I understand the blog posts by B&O's Geoff Martin correctly then the directivity of the loudspeaker plays a big part in where the instruments are placed, near or far....

The takeaway seems to be: just sit in the middle at that 0° angle... :-D
 

prerich

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2016
Messages
312
Likes
228
It would be if I had a choice but practically I don't since nearly everything is delivered in stereo.
You can downmix to mono easily.
 

goat76

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2021
Messages
1,270
Likes
1,390
If I understand the blog posts by B&O's Geoff Martin correctly then the directivity of the loudspeaker plays a big part in where the instruments are placed, near or far.View attachment 270666


I don't think that got too much to do with what was previously discussed.

The speaker's directivity will not in a significant way make the vocal, in particular, stand out over the other sound objects in the mix, which was what @Spocko asked about.
 

gnarly

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 15, 2021
Messages
992
Likes
1,390
If I understand the blog posts by B&O's Geoff Martin correctly then the directivity of the loudspeaker plays a big part in where the instruments are placed, near or far.View attachment 270666


Thanks for that.

The idea/understanding that perceived distance location is greatly influenced by the direct-to-reflected sound ratio isn't as often discussed as 2-ear timing..

And it helps me understand why narrower pattern horns I've been building, make it harder to identify the distance of the speaker. They kinda disappear, relatively speaking.
I've noticed a 50x50 degree, is harder to pin the exact distance to, than a wider 90x60. Just less reflected energy from the narrower horn, i guess......

One thought that makes me laugh about the near/far graph above.....
Does that mean a key to getting greater 3D depth perception....might be having crappy directivity plots...that vary the perceived distance all over the place ??? :D:p
 

Marc v E

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2021
Messages
1,106
Likes
1,606
Location
The Netherlands (Holland)
Thanks for that.

The idea/understanding that perceived distance location is greatly influenced by the direct-to-reflected sound ratio isn't as often discussed as 2-ear timing..

And it helps me understand why narrower pattern horns I've been building, make it harder to identify the distance of the speaker. They kinda disappear, relatively speaking.
I've noticed a 50x50 degree, is harder to pin the exact distance to, than a wider 90x60. Just less reflected energy from the narrower horn, i guess......

One thought that makes me laugh about the near/far graph above.....
Does that mean a key to getting greater 3D depth perception....might be having crappy directivity plots...that vary the perceived distance all over the place ??? :D:p
If I understand correctly an even directivety over all frequencies gives a stereo image that exactly resembles what is on the recording.

An uneven frequency directivety makes certain frequency bands (ie instruments) seem closer or farther than is on the recording in a room with reflective surfaces. @pablolie Rereading that B&O article made me realise that this even the case if you sit dead center at 0 degrees.
 
Last edited:

KSTR

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
2,690
Likes
6,013
Location
Berlin, Germany
Highly directive speakers have better abilities to project sound in front of them whereas frequency response which plays only a minor part.
The reason is obvious, the less reflective sound the more a fully dry signal comes close to a headphone like distance impression. Low diffraction and point-source properties are important as well.
 

Mr. Widget

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2022
Messages
1,147
Likes
1,697
Location
SF Bay Area
If I understand the blog posts by B&O's Geoff Martin correctly then the directivity of the loudspeaker plays a big part in where the instruments are placed, near or far.
I'll take their research as solid and consider this true, however here is another data point.

A friend has a pair of JBL 4345 monitors. These speakers have pretty awful directivity by any standards of measurement. In his speakers we swapped out the JBL 2421B midrange compression drivers with a pair of TAD TD-2002 drivers. The horns and acoustic lenses were not changed so presumably the directivity did not change however no test was done to confirm this. The overall image went from the classic JBL in front of the speakers to a deeper image and the apparent separation between front and rear of the image grew.

I can understand that a more relaxed FR curve will cause the image to recede, but he was using equalization and made the two drivers measure very similarly. I really am not certain what the entire mechanism was in this situation, but the results were interesting.
 

puppet

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
446
Likes
284
For me it's the difference between looking at a landscape on canvass and the experience of standing in a landscape .. you can almost smell the pine's and racoon turds.
 
Top Bottom