Importance of Soundstage/Imaging

This is really interesting – mostly to unpack how I’ve been subconsciously thinking about this sort of stuff. Which is to say, I don’t really agree with the categories or the order (I think).

I think I’m with the original author that I think imaging (writ large) is the most important thing. But, as I see it, that encompasses a lot of, virtually all of, the other stuff. To explain: a good “image” requires “coherence.” If, as the author defines it, fricative pluck of a finger on a bass string, the initial attack of it vibrating, and the decay as it winds down arrive at different times, from audibly different drivers, from different places within the soundscape – you’ve blown your imaging. Can’t have imaging without coherence. “Imaging” requires “air.” In fact, would say they’re almost synonymous. The point of good imaging is to recreate a sense of place, to hear the space between a horn and a clink of a glass in the audience, a murmur from the other side of the room. As for “bass,” I would say that the key(s) is/are coherence and speed. Back to the bass string, bass is of course an important element – but if it’s not coherent enough to get to your ears at the same time and perceived place as the other sound elements of a finger plucking a string, then you’ve (again) blown your image. As for “detail” and “dynamics,” I’ve thought of them as sides of the same coin, macro- and micro- dynamics, if you will. Hearing crickets through a window behind two folks playing guitar, while listening to their breathing, I’ve always considered a feat of imaging, but certainly not possible without a great deal of “detail.” Similarly, if there’s isn’t a monumental difference in size, volume, placement and sheer energy between a single flute off to the side and when the rest of the orchestra kicks in, your dynamics aren’t up to the task of creating a realistic image of, well, either. So, with the caveat that I consider “imaging” to require all of these things, I would argue that imaging is more important to me.

This, of course, leaves out “timbre”—which I don’t mean to leave out. But I do consider it a different animal than “imaging” (and all of its component bits). I’ve always thought of “timbre” (or tonality, or warmth or similar stuff) as less quantifiable than imaging. Also, as less something than you can fuss with. Put differently, little changes in positioning, room treatment, isolation, cabling can make huge differences in imaging. But the timbre and tonality of a given set of speakers seems, to me, to be more signature and consistent. “Rearrange” the image by moving stuff (including yourself), and the timbre seems to remain more or less the same. Another take, “imaging” seems more fragile, more context-dependent, while timbre is, in my experience, more resilient. I’ve never met a pair of speakers where I could not hear the difference between a synthesizer and a piano, that’s just info that gets through to me. Same time, I’ve never heard – or at least never been able to process – the distinction between one make of violin and another (which is certainly a wetware issue with the stuff between my ears, not gear-dependent, but anyway). This I guess reinforces my belief that timbre is likely more subjective. I’ve spent years at a time acquiring software and hardware during which timbre was the ONLY thing that mattered to me. While “imaging” may make you say “gee wiz” and light up all the audiophilia markers, timbre either soothes and makes you smile or it doesn’t. It’s better to smile. So, anyway, I seem to own the stuff I do due to timbre, and then spend much time fussing over it, monkeying with the soundstaging. Which is more important? Neither…? But I would say those are the two things (not eight…).

Make any sense? Or am I just nuts?