Is Imaging Worth Chasing?

@paul6002  (what happened to @paul6001 ?)

I completely disagree with @mijostyn. Imaging is very easy. In fact, you already found out exactly how to get it,

It happens, every now and then. For some reason, I was once right up next to my speakers. Lots of direct sound, less reflections. “The Name Of This Band Is Talking Heads” was playing. And I literally gave a start because David Byrne was standing on the coffee table. Cool.

All good imaging takes is two speakers, with somewhat flat response at the listener position, that are somewhat matched, forming a reasonable angle with the listener (~ 60 degrees is standard), and the most important, an environment free of any competing reflections. There is one other very important aspect. The music must have within it, the ability to be imaged.

By virtue of the age of the users here, most of the music listened to will have been mixed on what are comparatively, by today's and audiophile standards, pretty awful speakers. That was all done near field in the conditions I described above.

Where the trouble comes in is balancing imaging with a desire to use reflections to create some nice ambience in the sound, and doing that in a room that for most is not custom built and may be multi-purpose. It is all about controlling reflections. It really is not any more complicated than that, though doing that may be complicated. It is best to start with a speaker with a flat response and good, consistent off axis response. That will make the rest of the work easier.

If moving your hear drastically changes the image, something is wrong. Very wrong.

I assume you mean moving your head?  Wouldn't how sensitive the image is to moving your head be dependent on what information in the music is conveying the image?

I’d love to know something about the engineering aspect of imaging. Some/most of the music I listen to was made by recording each instrument on a separate track. Often, each instrument is playing in a separate room. If nothing else, the singer is almost always recorded separately from the band. But somehow the engineer can put these tracks together in such a way that it forms an image. Fascinating.

The comments above make it clear that this task is performed with differing levels of care and expertise. But how is it supposed to be done? If someone could point me to an "Image Engineering For Dummies" article, that would be great.

Another disclaimer that should be unnecessary: Before anyone gets on me for not doing my own research, I'm trying to draw on the wisdom of the audiophiles on this forum. Some people like sharing their wisdom. If you don’t, then don’t. But, really, I can do without your comments.

I would say that to deem any specific stereo system trait “the most difficult” to get right is, more than anything, a reflection of that particular listener’s ultimate sonic priorities. IOW, what he/she is most sensitive to, or simply wants in a particular way in the sound of the system. It is a reflection of the threshold for that particular trait that when reached the listener feels it is perfect; or, at least, state of the art. It is not an absolute. Accepting the fact that no sound system will ever sound “just like” the real thing we are left only with what is perceived as SOTA for comparison; and we all know how much agreement there is on that front…….

My experience has been that true tonal accuracy (naturalness) is far more difficult to achieve than a level of imaging at which I can say “Wow, that is great imaging, I don’t think that it can get any better”. Far more difficult for me to get to that point re tonal accuracy when listening to even the best sound systems that I have heard.

I wouldn’t call it a chase. It just happens when you get enough things better. Front end electrical and digital/analog signal cleanup , spkr positioning, spkr isolation, room treatments. Subs properly integrated improve imaging and/or soundstage. Imaging comes right along with clarity, better bass definition. I wouldn’t give up imaging. Even tho it is usually not what it would sound like live.  An example is on Neil Young Harvest album.  Probably top 5% in sound quality, but Neil Young sings on left channel and he plays guitar on right channel, pretty sure nobody else played.  I think it was Old Man, not 100%.