Is Imaging Worth Chasing?

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%.

yes, perhaps "as things get better" I can agree with, but not if "better" means more money necessarily... 

My Epi100s were $140 in 1979, though I have since updated the capacitor crossover, and were driven by inexpensive and even low-power (20wpc) receivers for years, and have always had an admirable "imaging" capability even when not sitting in the sweet spot... on the other hand, the Epi100s are "timeless classic" bookshelf speakers, so they qualify as "better" but not more expensive.

I've gotten to the point in my audiophile madness where I'm satisfied with what I've got. To be sure, I've had better imaging from systems I once had than what I get now, but I've never had the level of tone quality I now enjoy. The imaging that my current system throws is more than definitely OK, too.

Yes it is worth pursuing to have it all and if you are not getting it something is wrong that probably would not be a big deal to fix.   These days it’s mostly about having just good quality gear including speakers that fit the room and are set up well for good.  imaging. 

mijostyn—"Ignorance is bliss." 

I couldn't agree more. For instance, to me, all vodka tastes the same. Once you climb out of the well, it's all the same. I have no favorites.

If I put some time and effort into it, I'm sure that I'd notice the differences. A little more effort and I'd have a favorite. But it's so much easier—and cheaper—not to care.

If only I could say the same about wine, maybe I could afford those better speakers.

It sounds like you have a problem hearing in 3D, as you are saying that it's been rare you have heard it. Maybe you have a condition called "image deafness". I think there are treatment facilities in Mexico....

Back when I lived in L.A., I'd grab my fiddle and go to two or three jam sessions a week at various bars and pizza joints. We'd sit in a circle, or at least a semblance of a circle. Sometimes there'd only be three or four of us. Sometimes there'd be twenty of us, some of the more reticent players sitting further back at the venue or in a corner.

Anyway, along with the sounds of beer drinking and of families eating their pizzas while chattering away, my ears were treated to  a sense of space & imaging that was both chaotic and a heck of a lot of fun. Violin, banjo, mandolin and guitar tone varied between glorious and ugly, thanks to the various skill & ineptness of me and my fellow jammers.

What I'm trying to say here is that when your audio can image well it can can do much more than give you the notes. It can generate an enveloping, intoxicating sense of real life.

"Imaging".....never thought of it, but having omnis’ makes me wonder if I take it for granted. And they’re not ’set up’ in a fashion here to really take advantage of it... 🤷‍♂️

@mapman .... Am I off-base with this absurdvation?

Are we unknowingly spoilt’ ? ;)

@thespeakerdude , What most people think is imaging is easy. Your saying this means you have never heard a system that images at the state of the art. I was an audiophile for 20 years before I heard such a system and I have heard 3 systems perform at that level in 65 years. I have not been in the business for a long time and I do suspect performance at this level is more common, but unless you know what you are trying to achieve getting there would be sheer luck. 

The parameters you specify are very important and I will add one more. The frequency response of the two channels has to be identical. It does not have to be flat. Two speakers of the same model are never identical and each one sees a different environment making the discrepancies worse. Even a symmetrical environment can cause issues. Each channel has to be measured and the discrepancies corrected. Doing this with any system on a reliable basis requires digital signal processing. Trying to get there with room treatment and positioning is a trial and error process and you will get there only by luck. The most important add-on any audiophile can get is a calibrated USB microphone with a measurement program. 

If the room and setup is bad, you will never get good imaging and soundstage.

If the room is really good you don't need expensive gear to hear good imaging and a nice soundstage.

As the quality of the gear increases you can get more detail, separation, deeper lows, etc., withing the soundstage.

Once you "hear it", you can't be without it.

https://www.binaural-recordings.com/

But... they are not as common and all recordings are not available in binaural format... and... can be much more expensive.... though... they do provide the sensation of "live performance."

Speaker placement is huge.

Are your speakers on stands and is the center of the tweeter approximately ear level when you’re sitting? This is important. 
 

Also isolating from vibration - clarity is key to getting imaging and vibration causes distortion. Any time I up the clarity I get more clear imagining. 
 

And finally, what is between your speakers?  This is something I recently discovered by accident. I formerly had cabinet (sideboard) btw the speakers that was approx 30” high - had decent imaging. But we got a new lower cabinet (18” high) AND ITS BEEN GAME CHANGING. It sounds like the speakers have been unblocked. Imaging is bigger higher, wider and more clear. 
 

if you can clear the space btw the speakers or lower any furnature that’s there it will help. 

@mijostyn ,

I cannot agree that simply using a microphone/DSP to make your speakers perfect match as you described will give you perfect imaging and/or that it can compensate for acoustic treatments and asymmetry.

Measuring in-room frequency response is of no value to imaging. This only tells you how much sound from each speaker gets to your head, not how much sound from each speaker gets to each ear. If you take it one step further and use a blocking method to attempt to determine what each ear is hearing, that will get you closer. A full measurement test would require both steady state that incorporates reflections in the response as well as an impulse frequency response measurement that looks at first arrival frequency response, but accuracy of this will tie back to speaker placement and room acoustics and the timing and levels of the reflections.

This all ties back to comments others have made that imaging is just one of many qualities that people assess for good sound. Two channel is a compromise. Making one thing better, imaging, can make something else worse, ambience and space. Specific to your assertion, making imaging better, by fixing early arrival frequency response may hurt overall tonality. You can't fix that with DSP. You can only fix that with acoustics which would include placement, and starting with a speaker better suited to the room or in general.

@thespeakerdude , Sorry, you are mistaken. Our hearing sense uses volume and phase relationships to locate sounds. Just twist your balance control and see what happens to a singer imaged to the center. If at any frequency one speaker is louder than the other the image is smeared to the louder side. It only takes a decibel to cause trouble. The only way you are ever going to know what your system is doing is to measure it. Then correct it and listen to what happens to image specificity and the background "blackness." 

Getting a system to perform at this level requires an acoustically sound room, proper room treatment depending on the type of speaker, correction of group delays and frequency response variations and finally, the right equipment. Some speakers will never image correctly usually because of crossover design and quality. Point source speakers are always going to produce a diminutive sound stage. I prefer line source speakers which produce a larger, to me more lifelike sound stage. The fewer analog crossovers the better. Lastly, price is no indication. Last weekend we set up a pair of Harbeth P3ESR XD on stands with 12" Martin logan subwoofers controlled with an Anthem STR preamp. Total system price about $12K. You would swear you were listening to a large set of Wilsons and the image while not state of the art was very close, better than 95% of the systems out there.

@thespeakerdude , Sorry, you are mistaken. Our hearing sense uses volume and phase relationships to locate sounds. Just twist your balance control and see what happens to a singer imaged to the center. If at any frequency one speaker is louder than the other the image is smeared to the louder side. It only takes a decibel to cause trouble. The only way you are ever going to know what your system is doing is to measure it. Then correct it and listen to what happens to image specificity and the background "blackness." 

Nothing I said negates this, however, simply placing a microphone at the listening position and measuring will not accomplish your stated goals for all the reasons I stated. That you have floor to ceiling panel speakers, a line array acoustically, will increase the accuracy of your measurement as it pertains to early arrival and single ear measurement. Unfortunately, the process you use is not transportable to most dynamic speakers in most rooms, but that does not make your panels superior for overall sound quality, just this aspect. Dynamic speaker line arrays can achieve the same result and even open baffle speakers can.

An analog crossover can be a detriment in a poor design that is overly sensitive to component variation due to mismatched frequency response. However that is also a factor of where the crossover frequencies are. Many two way horn speakers have crossover points below 1500Hz and will not suffer from crossover anomalies in frequency response at critical frequencies. With the low cost of high quality amplification now, active, preferably digital crossover makes far more sense though.

My Cornwall 4’s fronted by a good system were imaging well, but lately I have taken the leap into brass spike coupling with brass retaining cups and have been very impressed with the "tweak." These additions can make everything very articulate but a tad bright or "plinky" a times, so I found that placing a padded puck(s) atop equipment to counter this makes for perfect overall balance with great articulation overall and is infinitely adjustable for warmth vs articulation. First component to get the supports was the DAC and then the CD transport both sitting in a typical wood and threaded rod rack.

Of course, this is an age-old subject with audiophiles; but I thought it appropriate to run it through the wringer again.

Not shilling for this vendor, but their site has a good explanation for why coupling can sometime better isolation. Now I get it.

Live-Vibe

I totally love the exaggerated, totally fabricated, trickster imaging of more than a few pop releases. I love the out-of-phase stuff. I love listening to an instrument zoom around the room. It’s just plain entertaining.

By the same token, if I’m largely in the middle of a venue and anywhere closer than maybe a third of the way from the stage at a classical concert that features an orchestra, I’ll both hear and appreciate the positions of the various instrumental sections. For me, it’s part of the concert experience.

Finally, I’m sure I’ve mentioned this several times, but you truly hear the positioning of the instruments at small club, a restaurant, or the living room where you’re getting together for a session with your musician friends.

Back to your original query...Yes, imaging is definitely worth chasing.  When you have it, you will never want it to go away!

And finally, what is between your speakers?  This is something I recently discovered by accident. I formerly had cabinet (sideboard) btw the speakers that was approx 30” high - had decent imaging. But we got a new lower cabinet (18” high) AND ITS BEEN GAME CHANGING.

I see a lot of systems with the area between the speakers loaded with gear, furniture, and sometimes a TV.  Get that area cleared out, I guarantee an improvement.

      Whenever imaging or soundstage are mentioned, I like to remind people about these resources: The following provide tests, with which one may determine whether their system actually images, or reproduces a soundstage, as recorded. ie: On the Chesky sampler/test CD; David explains in detail, his position on the stage and distance from the mics, as he strikes a tambourine(Depth Test). The LEDR test tells what to expect, if your system performs well, before each segment.

         Online test: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php

         Chesky CD: https://www.ebay.com/p/4046056409

      The shape of your ears’ pinnae is also a variable, regarding your ability to perceive images/locate sounds. A Stereophile article, that explains the LEDR test: http://www.stereophile.com/features/772/

There is another page on the audiocheck site @rodman99999 that shows you left / right using level, time, and time, level and frequency response.  @paul6001 you asked "how it works", this is how:  https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_stereophonicsound.php

Really important point hidden at the bottom of the page:

This now explains why the audio engineer only needs a pan pot on his console: from all the effects described here, only panning offers the highest compatibility with all existing sound reproduction systems, from monaural speakers to complex multi-channel installations, and through headphones.

I think the only thing missing here is that our brains place more importance on the first sounds that arrive. That is why it is important to get those reflections under control, and the level, like @mijostyn said, get the left / right matched, but don't confuse equal left and right speaker room responses for matched. What reaches the left and right ear from the left and right speakers must be matched.

Tone, clarity, and room ambience come first for me. Imaging is in last place, but not by too far. I'll sacrifice a little of the others if necessary to get better imaging but there's a threshold for all these perceptual metrics before I start to become dissatisfied. 

@thespeakerdude , all I can say is wait till you hear a system that really images. I can only hope you do as they are not very common. 

@secretguy , there is only one line where proper imaging is attainable and it travels perpendicular to the inter speaker axis exactly mid way between the speakers unless you use tricky digital signal processing, then you can put that position anywhere. If you think your system images otherwise then you have not heard a system that really images. Most expert listeners can locate that position by ear within an inch.  

@mijostyn systems that image are very common. Almost any near field system with good quality monitors will image very good if setup right, and with most of the market moving towards active monitors, left/right matching is near perfect. If near field systems did not image well, almost none of the music you have would as that is what was used to mix and master it.

My 16yo KPop obsessed daughter asked me if I had the Fleetwood Mac Rumours album and for the first time asked to listen to my system.  I was in a state of shock when she told me it was one of her favorite albums.  Upon reaching the end of side B where Stevie Nicks sings “Gold Dust Woman”, the soundstage became 3D and wow.  My daughter fell asleep on my shoulder, so she didn’t make it, but she introduced me to an album that has gone unnoticed by me and made me realize that some bits of music here and there have a wonderful presence.  

@paul6002 

When I heard the LS50 I thought the imaging was their strong point.  IMO imaging is mostly about the room and setup.  When I treated the first reflection points in my room it really helped imaging no matter what speakers I use.  Also, the recording makes a big difference.  

To answer your original question, for me, imaging is worth chasing.  Along with dynamics, tone, and sizable soundstage.  You know, the best of all worlds in one package!   LOL, still searching!

Good luck!  

@thespeakerdude , Funny you should mention that. I am in the process of helping my son in law set up his first system. He has limited space so we are working on small studio monitors with subwoofers. We traveled around Denver and listened to a bunch of them. All of them near field. Only two made me believe they could perform at what I think is a reasonable level for a point source system, The Dynaudio Heritage Specials and the Harbeth P3ESR XDs. The 10 or more others ranged from garbage to terrible.  He went with the Harbeths as they are a much better value and the bass deficit will be made up by the subwoofers. What I find interesting is that my son in law, who has extensive exposure to my system went right for these two speakers without me uttering a word. We only talked after the auditions as I wanted him to understand the thinking of an audio sales person. My son in law is a robotics engineer so his understanding of technical issues is immediate. Other than my system and live concerts he is an inexperienced listener. In order to know what to listen for you have to have experienced it. The majority of audiophiles have not. Many of the might have fallen for one of those other speaker which could not image properly if their designers lives depended on it. Imaging is far more complicated than this instrument is on the right and this instrument is on the left. Proper imaging floats instruments and voices in space with nothing but blackness in between, giving each it's proper size and timbre. 

While near field monitors have definitive advantages they are all point source monitors and at the very best capable of a 90% image. Only true full range line sources can produce a 98% image (with the right recording). Even with digital correction and crossovers this is the best point source speakers can do. You can also never get closer than mid hall. With line sources you can get right up front without having to stick your head in the speaker. 

@mijostyn I can't agree with you on line source provide better imaging in a well set up room. In a poorly setup room, I definitely see your point as it is much easier to control the direct/reflected energy ratio. That is even more true when looking at direct/early reflections, however, for a panel speaker, you do have the rear wave can be a problem.

Can you comment on the rooms where those particular speakers that you like were placed? The speaker placement, room, room treatments can be far more impactful on imaging than the speaker itself. An inexpensive speaker properly implemented will image better than a very good speaker poorly implemented.

I'm not really sure how the THD discussion has much to do with getting suggestions for improving imaging?  The OP neglected to tell us what electronics and source in being used so let's assume they are in the same class as the LS50s.  First, with your stated listening distance your speakers need to be more like 7' apart.  This should give them more room to work as long as you have the space for it.  Second, getting decent imaging can be very dependent on room acoustics.  Many times reflected sound signals will crush the imaging possibilities.  I would suggest trying a diffuser panel behind the speakers.  This is a low cost way to unlock the potential of the speakers.  It's also a good investment b/c if you ever decide to upgrade equipment it will make the new stuff sound even better.  Cheers

paul6002

Simply put, chasing ANYTHING in audio is a personal choice/preference. What I believe/enjoy is ultimately relevant to me, and I only care what others think if I am buying something, but as I don't actually know the predilections of those commenting on a piece of equipment, those opinions are only marginally useful. What one likes is what one likes, and as long as it harms no one, generally speaking, what others think is completely irrelevant, IMO/E.

To me, imaging is everything.  Otherwise you might as well use one speaker and listen to everything in mono.

It's what gives the recording life -- makes it sound real.  Next is the ability of the speakers to completely disappear.

Just taking a whack at your setup, the first thing I'd do it put a bit more space between the speakers given that you're listening 9' away and they are 5' apart.

When you hear it, I bet you'll enjoy it.

All of these sonic qualities in my system can be jerked around with if the supply power is janky. I have reasonably clean mains power to my house, but it's those late night sessions in moderate weather when my local residents are not running air-conditioning systems (heating or cooling) that the sound become ethereal good. I have tried Shunyata power conditioners but they can be muting, Been looking at various power conditioners such as the Puritan Audio line which have been getting good reviews, but it's another chunk of change.

I have to say, though, that a recent foray into vibration management using mostly DIY brass anchors has been doing wonders for my system.

@thespeakerdude 

@mijostyn I can't agree with you on line source provide better imaging in a well set up room.

You argue too much. If you have a "well set up room" please post a pic and your system.

Imaging did not mean much to the late Art Dudley. There is a video where he speaks with Herb Reichert about imaging.

yes - certainly - absolutely - without qualification

essential aspect of creating a reasonable, credible facsimile of a real performance

not all recordings have good soundstaging info... but when you have heard a proper setup playing material that throws a proper image, in size, width, depth, specificity, you get what the essence of this pursuit is all about, the utter joy it brings

@kota1 , I will repeat what I said in another topic where you trolled my post. Was not having your whole topic removed a good enough lesson on behavior?  It is rude to use a discussion for what now appears to be a vendetta.

@kota1  you posted, in a single topic, no less than 6 links to videos and articles that were either very questionable in content, or outright grossly wrong.  I would appreciate if you stopped your incessant inane attempts to discredit me and worry more about your own credibility.

@thespeakerdude , I think both a poor speaker set up well and a good one set up poorly will not image correctly.

There is no such thing as a perfect room. Rooms always create problems although some are better than others. I use 8 foot Sound Labs speakers. Each one disperses exactly 45 degrees. In my room they cover all but a sliver at both side walls, perfect. The cut off is very sharp both horizontal and vertical. I always use heavy acoustic tile behind panel speakers to attenuate the rear waves. In my case that is the only room treatment required. They are crossed to 4 subwoofers at 100 Hz digitally and the whole system is digitally corrected and EQed to my preference. Each channel has exactly the same frequency response.  

Point source speakers require much more room treatment, horns are not as difficult. The best point source systems can image beautifully but they always produce a small image even sitting near field. I have never heard a point source system convince me that I am at a live performance, line arrays can. They also project power better which is why they are used at outdoor and stadium concerts. 

Another advantage of ESLs is that they are "one way" and can be used without a crossover discounting subwoofers. Crossovers are the most serious design issue dynamic speakers have. I think the most reliable way around this problem is digital bi or tri amping. I still prefer passive speakers as I would want more control over amplifier choice and crossover specification. 

Point source speakers require much more room treatment, horns are not as difficult. The best point source systems can image beautifully but they always produce a small image even sitting near field. I have never heard a point source system convince me that I am at a live performance, line arrays can.

The size of the image is limited by what is on the recording not by the speakers.

@thespeakerdude

The size of the image is limited by what is on the recording not by the speakers.

This statement proves you don’t have a system, don’t have any speakers, and don’t have a clue. More arguing, more nonsense, more trolling. Speakers don't impact imaging? Like these two speakers will image the same? No.

vs

the physical configuration of the speaker indeed does influence how the soundstage is portrayed in a room (of course the source material matters too) -- most experienced folks who have been involved in this pursuit don't question this reality

The funny thing about imaging is if you chase it it keeps moving on you.   

@kota1 

Those are speakers?  They look like transporter inhibitors.  What century are you from?

And that top picture- are those cooling fins on the back of those speakers?

I played the violin back in school (1960s). Never thought to nail it to the wall.

That’s all for now.  Ba dump ba.

@kota1 ,

The size of the image is limited by what is on the recording not by the speakers.

This statement proves you don’t have a system, don’t have any speakers, and don’t have a clue. More arguing, more nonsense, more trolling. Speakers don't impact imaging? Like these two speakers will image the same? No.

Does your incessant attempts to discredit me make you feel better? Perhaps if you actually responded to anything I said and listened maybe you could reach an effective retort?

How these two speakers image will be dominated by room / speaker interaction which can be controlled.  If I DSP correct for flat response on axis on both and listen to them on axis near field imaging will be surprisingly similar, though perception is complex hence bass response differences, distortion, will influence overall perception.  

Since you keep putting yourself up as an expert @kota1 why not tell us all about imaging. School is. We are all ears.

@mijostyn for the record, I do have line arrays but with dynamic speakers with waveguides for the tweeters. Planars and E-stats have trouble hitting the volume peaks I like at times. I also have as you would call them point sources. The line arrays don't image any better than a good point source in a proper space especially near field and I am exposed to those almost many times a week.   I do think for many that line arrays would be easier to integrate into their rooms but I doubt the spousal factor is any better than acoustic panels. This market is not set up for the straightest path to the best sound. 

@tonywinga 

Those are speakers?  They look like transporter inhibitors. 

I know, but according to the speaker dude all speakers image the same, LOL.🤪

@thespeakerdude 

Since you keep putting yourself up as an expert @kota1 why not tell us all about imaging. School is. We are all ears.

All you have are ears, when you get some speakers I will tell you where to place them for great imaging, just post a pic and your system NP. 

Until you get a system you can wear some ear buds I guess. 😢

@kota1 for reasons only known to you you have issues with me. Feel free to direct message me and rant all you want. Be respectful and don’t make your issue everyone else’s issue as you are doing. It is disrespectful to everyone else here. Only you can make the actions of not making your beef everyone else's problem.

@thespeakerdude , Granted the WAF factor is an issue with large ESL. When I first met my wife I had Tympany 3's, the biggest, ugliest speakers ever made. She views the ESLs as large improvement. Most people think they have something to do with the theater and are surprised to learn they are speakers.

I am an old rocker. I dislike wimpy systems. If you know what you are doing and can afford very large Class A amps ESLs will go beyond the pain threshold. The secret is to cross them over to a subwoofer array around 100 Hz. Below 100 Hz the diaphragm has to take large excursions increasing distortion and sucking up headroom. ESLs will make bass but they hate it. ESLs have advantages dynamic speakers can't match. ESL distortion levels are a magnitude lower. They are way more dynamic. Things like snare drum snaps have as much punch as large horns. I am talking about full range line source ESLs (8 feet tall with 8 foot ceilings) not smaller ones. 

Some people prefer the miniature image they get with point source speakers. I have never had a point source system make me feel as if I am at a live performance and I use to be in the business. My system does it all the time usually when my wife is not home. The funny thing is if I play a Blue Ray video concert the volume does not bother her at all. Go figure.

What all of us think is purely a matter of our individual experiences. Systems like mine are a rarity and few people have experienced them. When you say ESL people think of Quads, an extremely limited and fragile speaker. Speakers like the old Acoustats and Sound Labs are a totally different story. Roger West has installed large ESL PA systems in theaters. They are extremely hard to damage. You have to run them through with a spear, not kidding. You will fry everything else before you fry these speakers. I can push 400 watt amps into gross distortion and the speakers could care less.  

The people who have heard them usually come away with the thought that they are one of the best speakers they have ever heard.