I think "imaging" is quite complex, and there is also the question of how it is defined. I suspect most would agree that it is about more than just left, center, right and points in between. Most systems of any quality can deliver that with ease, like my car stereo. Also, most audio system performance measurements are done in mono or one channel at a time, whereas imaging is about our binaural hearing and the processing performed in our hearing neurological system.
But, what about apparent stage depth, front to back "layering", the apparent relative size of instruments plus their apparent 3D-ness in the soundstage? Those may be crazy and mythical audiophile nuances, perhaps. But, I believe I hear them frequently on better recordings, though not always to a satisfying degree on some. Being a classical music guy primarily, there are quite a few recordings that deliver this compared to others. I do not hear those nuances for the most part in studio recordings in pop or jazz genres with their one or more mike per performer mix downs from the relatively dead studio reverberant environment. That and other miking, mixing and mastering differences between genres I think explain this fairly well.
I think the recording itself has one hell of a lot to do with it. Yes, playback system, room and setup differences can also play a major role. I think everybody knows how speaker toe-in, for example, can affect imaging, though not much in the left, center, right sense - a wider or narrower, more intimate soundstage, etc., perhaps.
From my experience over many decades to now, the very best imagining by far is delivered by discretely recorded hi rez multichannel. The discretely recorded center channel anchors, defines and provides depth and body to the center of the soundstage in a way that two front speakers alone cannot.
Couple that with the surround channels, and you have something that has superior imaging, depth, dimensionality, etc. to any stereo I have ever heard at any price. The surrounds bring the reflected energy in the hall to you in a way stereo cannot, i.e., from 360 degrees via phantom imaging between the speakers. The sound from surround channels also interacts with front and center channels to "pull" the image forward part way out into the room, creating a better sense of soundstage depth and dimensionality.
At best, Mch creates an immersive "you are there" rather than a "they are here" kind of image, the latter of which stereo seems oriented to. But, for classical music, at least, "they are here" is an implausible image - a symphony orchestra in my listening room? In addition, stereo just cannot adequately capture the tonal warmth or the sense of space and the perception of performers with it that complex, omnidirectional hall reflections and reverberations provide live.
It is, I am sure, even more complex than that. But, in a nutshell, the imaging superiority of Mch was a huge revelation for me. It is much closer to what I hear at a live concert by quite a bit. That has totally captivated me for nearly a decade now. I listen to little in stereo and I do not find much worthwhile advantage in simulated, artificial Mch.