How Important is Imaging to You?

warren

Between fighting kids the dishwasher (which I hate) and the laundry room I'm lucky if I can hear the music (open floor plan). Unless I retreat to our bedroom and lock the door but that doesn't always work either. Maybe one day (after the kids are in college) I will have a dedicated listening room.
Your a great DAD!

treitz3

Not THAT kind of love.

DarqueKnight

Nightfall wrote: »

Are incohesive blobs floating around a small stage okay with you or do you settle for nothing less than pin point 3D images in a large stage? Somewhere in between? Maybe this is something you don't even care about or listen for, perhaps you don't even do eyes closed in the sweet spot listening?

In my two channel rig I settle for nothing less than life size, pin point 3D images with lifelike sonic weight and excellent clarity and detail.

I want to feel the sound as well as hear it.

I also want the sound stage to be stable enough so that it won't collapse if turn my head to either side or if move my head laterally a few inches to either side.

kharp1

Joey_V wrote: »

Yes

Uhhh, well said.

[Deleted User]

How important it is imaging to me in a pair of loudspeakers? Very important. My introduction to the world of high end audio was a chance audition back in 1991 of a pair of Infinity IRS-V's which had incredible dynamics and imaging. What they lacked was the overall resolution, refinement and coherency of contemporary high end speakers. Today you can achieve much of the IRS-V's output, dynamics and sound staging/imaging with much smaller speakers. My current Magico S5 Mk2 speakers are a good example.

In terms of where imaging ranks for me...I would say coherency, smoothness (non-fatiguing), speed/accuracy, dynamics & sound staging are equally important, with tone/timbre not far behind.

Though my audio journey has also taught me that simply having speakers capable of all those desired qualities is not enough; every link in the chain matters from room acoustics/setup, amplification, front end, isolation, cables, ac power & proper grounding. In fact, less expensive speakers can punch well above their weight if proper attention is paid to every detail.

mantis

When I evaluate a speaker , Imaging is one of the main things I look for.
Clarity and even response is also very important to me.
When you have good imaging it makes the experience seem more real. It really puts nice space around everything going on and if you want to listen to one thing you can.
When I speaker has poor imagining, I'm totally out.

Jetmaker737

Imaging with good depth and detail is number one for me.

When doing critical listening I put my glasses on to clearly see the image locations in 3 dimensional space.

Thorton

Bodhi wrote: »

In terms of where imaging ranks for me...I would say coherency, smoothness (non-fatiguing), speed/accuracy, dynamics & sound staging are equally important, with tone/timbre not far behind.

Though my audio journey has also taught me that simply having speakers capable of all those desired qualities is not enough; every link in the chain matters from room acoustics/setup, amplification, front end, isolation, cables, ac power & proper grounding. In fact, less expensive speakers can punch well above their weight if proper attention is paid to every detail.

+1. I agree and this community started me on this path.

lordcloud

Imaging and soundstage are incredibly important to me. The more it feels as though there is a living breathing space that I'm listening into, the more engrossed I can get into the music.

motorhead43026

If I were ever unfortunate enough to have a system without good imagining and soundstage, I would destroy it with an axe.

treitz3

...or you could just mane the system BOSE.

Sorry about the vulgar 4-letter word there boss.

Tom

pkquat

DSkip wrote: »

pkquat wrote: »

Generally though if it is behind the speakers there can be less room interactions.

Can you elaborate on your thoughts here?

In my limited experience I have found forward sounding speakers, where the sound stage is more in front and not far behind, seam to have more room interactions or reflections. In a larger room I notice it less. Maybe it has to do with speaker placement, and they were not set up correctly. Possibly as a related note most of the forward sounding speakers had a horn driver(s) in them. The only others were a set of Cantons that really seamed to project the sound.

stuwee

Only electrostats and planars can achieve a true image/soundstage with the right gear/room and some would say wires...from the recording fed them.

TOTL Maggies with monster tubes far back from the wall, Apogee's dipping into .5 ohms with rows of Accuphase monoblocs, and of course, my beloved Martin Logans well away from any walls. The big old KLH 'stats with gobs of uber expensive Niam gear...or just have fun dialing in what ya got.

You can get apps and, gear to help but, just using your ears is always better and cheaper, a few folks with good ears, this always includes females, trust me...

3 is a good number, use the shuffle, 1 in the chair/couch, the other 2 to move and adjust, then all switch. Sure fire way to get it right. Be a good host and provide hospitality as we say in the south...

dromunds

Dahlquists image like a mother with a huge soundstage. I'm using DQ-30i' floor standers currently but also have some monitors including the DQM-9C's and they image like a mother also.

treitz3

Hi stuwee. It may be wise to avoid generalized statements such as this;

Only electrostats and planars can achieve a true image/soundstage with the right gear/room <snip>

My experience could not be further from the truth. One reason I do not own these types of speakers is that they usually present a plethora of air at the expense of pinpoint imaging. Even with my favorite of them all, the Apogees. I can not say with good conscience that a guitarist that images 5 to 8 feet in width is "a true image". A great and outstanding one that has many attributes with certain types of these speakers but not what some would describe as a "true image".

Here are some observations I have had over the years. QoL can make a box speaker sound like a electrostat or planar and it can also make the sound stage/imaging even more enhanced by far depending on the recording. Maggies can be a very special special treat with some music. I heard an MBL system once that you could not pay me to listen too but it did disburse the sound and provide more "ambience" than any other speaker I have heard. Some folks swear by this sound (including Peter Breuninger, a professional audio reviewer, who uses these as his reference speakers) and is what they prefer in their reproductive effort.

Others, not so much. Myself included. We will just have to agree to disagree. In no way am I saying that ribbons, electrostats and planars aren't a wildly fun speaker type nor do they not image at all, I'm just saying that your statement is highly controversial and that you may want to sway away from using absolutist generalized statements like that if you want to avoid confrontation from others that do not agree with your stance.

Respectfully,

Tom

mhardy6647

DSkip wrote: »

Good response Tom. Planars and Stats have some great attributes, but a convincing soundstage with complex music is not one of their strengths IMO. Realistic imaging tends to fall to the wayside.

I'd concur, fwiw. Tonal accuracy is the strong suit for electrostatics, IME/IMO.

heiney9

Love Maggies for vocals and acoustic music as they have that "ethereal" sense and can really reproduce that "air" and dimensionality in a good recording of that type. The more complex the music gets, the less those attributes are apparent and in my experience the sweet spot is extremely limited and the only place you can take advantage of those above named qualities.

Complex and heavier rock and pop music don't sound as good on Maggie type speakers, IMO. I've always wanted to own a pair, but I listen to a variety of music and most doesn't sound it's best on Maggies. Because of this I have a love/hate relationship with Maggies. In the end my SDA's come close to that "air and ethereal sense" of the Maggies, but have less drawbacks when it comes to an all around speaker compared to Maggies.

All my friends that own Maggies (used to own Maggies (Ricardo)) I always enjoy listening to them (it's a treat), but in the end, I like my SDA's because they are the better all around performer.

H9

K_M

Limited by the recording usually.
And besides, even when there is a great recording, how are we sure of what rendition of "imaging" is correct, let alone precise or what was intended.

Not saying there is not a hierarchy to good sound, but I have heard rooms drastically change the imaging, more than speakers, so not sure how much the speaker, the room or the recording contribute.

I like our SDA speakers a lot at times, but other times, they feel gimmicky and like they are exaggerating a realistic sound,

Like our Lsi a lot also but they tend towards a very great image if sitting centered, but not a lot of huge wall of sound.
Each has a benefit, but depending on the recording.

The SDA's are impressive at times, not so realistic a lot of the time.
The Lsi can do magic when in the sweet spot, but are a bit lacking outside that area.

I cringe saying this, but the little Rti6, is often my favorite to just "listen" to. When set up right, it has a sound that draws me in more, than even our Lsi and SDA speakers....(getting ready to be bashed)....lol

heiney9

SDA's are more realistic than stereo speakers. Stereo is the imitation, we don't hear in stereo, ever, in real life. Not saying SDA's are be all or end all, they have limitations as well. Stereo is a contrived way of trying to add depth and realistic cues to a recording so it's not a cardboard cut out. SDA's do a much more convincing job than many stereo speakers.

All speakers suffer from the recording and room environment

gp4jesus

To the OP anyone else who cares: 8 or 9 on a 10 scale.

To those responding w/anything other than the above - you've miss the point

Nightfall

If it wasn't for imaging my interest in the hobby would be about zero.

[Deleted User]

K-M:
"And besides, even when there is a great recording, how are we sure of what rendition of "imaging" is correct, let alone precise or what was intended."
Correct.

When I've seen a band in concert, I catch myself looking for the positioning
of voice and instruments on all recordings that matches that.

Heiney:
"Stereo is the imitation, we don't hear in stereo, ever, in real life."

Nugents are more evolved. We have one ear higher and more forward than
the other.

txcoastal1

Some quick definitions:
Mono=one channel of audio signal

Stereo= two different channels of audio signal, recorded with two microphones spaced apart (or with a single microphone with two elements)

Dual mono=two channels of the same audio signal coming from the same microphone

Binaural=two different channels of audio, recorded on either side of a human or artificial head, preferable in the ears

"Stereo" recordings are essentially any recording made with two channels of audio, where the signal on each channel is different. In contrast, "dual mono" is also two channels of audio, but where the signal on each channel is the same. Either of these recordings can be made with Omnidirectional (sometimes called binaural) or Unidirectional (sometimes called Cardioid) microphones.

In a stereo recording, when you record something with two microphones spaced some reasonable distance apart, you get slightly different sound waves hitting each mic, resulting in different sounds recorded in each channel. When you play the recording back, you hear a sense of space between the speakers (or headphones) which creates the stereo image.

"Binaural" recordings are two channel recordings created by placing two omnidirectional microphones inside, or as close to the ears as is practical. Using this technique, the head and ear structure affect the way sound waves are picked up by the microphones so that the location information contained in the frequency, amplitude and phase responses of the left and right channels closely match the cues required by the human auditory system to localize sound sources. Positioned in this way, the microphones accurately capture sonic information coming from all directions and will produce extremely realistic recordings when listened to through headphones.

heiney9

DSkip wrote: »

A better question would be: do you chase realism or a preferred sound? For instance, some don't like SDA for piano because of the massive, unrealistic width it can create. Others may enjoy this because it is a sensory treat to hear things happening all over the place.

The piano issue people seem to talk about is how it's recorded. Properly recorded, closed mic solo piano sounds very realistic on SDA's.

We are at the mercy of recordings no matter what........but you can seek out better recordings, both from a technical stand point and realistic stand point and use those as the constant when swapping, trying, listening to new gear

mhardy6647

I remember listening to Magnepan's Magneplanar big Tympani 1D loudspeakers (many times!) at The Discerning Ear in Baltimore in the 1970s. Great sounding loudspeakers, but utterly surreal with smaller-scale music. They very much exhibited that "10 foot wide piano" phenomenon. Piano on the Tympanis sounded very good, with nice body & weight, but cartoonishly big.

Irrelevant aside:
The Altec Duplexes "do" the most convincing piano reproduction I've heard. The vintage Quad ESLs reproduce really good sounding piano, but don't get the scale (size) quite right (IMO, IME, YMMV, YADDA,YADDA...)

txcoastal1

I remember back in LSAF 2011/2012, a guy would fly these DIY Planars over from the UK

kharp1

stuwee wrote: »

Only electrostats and planars can achieve a true image/soundstage with the right gear/room and some would say wires...from the recording fed them.

I've owned Maggies, before that Acoustat's, and currently own Vandersteen's, and I can say without reservation that, though this is imaging, I certainly don't feel like it's accurate imaging. The little LSA-1's I have present a far more accurate image than any of the above mentioned speakers. I've played live music and ran the soundboard for a couple of bands as well as having been in a studio in my younger years so I'm no stranger to the "live" sound.

[Deleted User]

^^^ this is what I was trying to say. If you have heard the music live it may
bug you if the imaging is not correct. If the mix is bad or the LIVE recording
mix is bad, great imaging calls it out. Otherwise imagine

K_M

heiney9 wrote: »

SDA's are more realistic than stereo speakers. Stereo is the imitation, we don't hear in stereo, ever, in real life. Not saying SDA's are be all or end all, they have limitations as well. Stereo is a contrived way of trying to add depth and realistic cues to a recording so it's not a cardboard cut out. SDA's do a much more convincing job than many stereo speakers.

All speakers suffer from the recording and room environment

The SDA effect is fun at times, but hardly more realistic.
There is one flaw, that is never addressed.
When music is recorded, normal stereo monitors are used, and they mix and master the music with normal stereo speakers in mind. The tonality, the imaging and the width of the sound stage.

The SDA effect takes what they heard in the studio and creates a different reality, that is not even close to what they originally intended.

The recorded sound, was made and intended for normal stereo speakers, faults and all.
I think the SDA effect is fun, can sound great, but it is an exaggeration of most normal recordings, UNLESS the recording was mixed and mastered on SDA speakers to begin with.
Not bashing them, its a great idea, and fun, but usually less realistic IMHO.

[Deleted User]

^^^ I wouldn't disagree but you make it sound as if all music is recorded
live in the studio. To your point though, Quad mixes do sound different
than stereo mixes of the same LP thru non SDA type speakers.