Pin point imaging isn't for everyone

A subject my posts touch on often is whether pin point imaging is desirable, or natural. While thinking about wide-baffle speakers in another thread I came across this quote, courtesy of Troels Graveson’s DIY speaker site. He quotes famous speaker designer Roy Allison:

I had emphasized dispersion in order to re-create as best as I could the performance-hall ambiance. I don’t want to put up with a sweet spot, and I’d rather have a less dramatically precise imaging with a close simulation of what you hear in a concert hall in terms of envelopment. For that, you need reverberant energy broadcast at very wide angles from the loudspeaker, so the bulk of energy has to do multiple reflections before reaching your ear. I think pin-point imaging has to do with synthetically generated music, not acoustic music - except perhaps for a solo instrument or a solo voice, where you might want fairly sharp localization. For envelopment, you need widespread energy generation.

You can read Troel’s entire post here:

This goes, kind of, with my points before, that you can tweak the frequency response of a speaker, and sometimes cables, to get better imaging, but you are going significantly far from neutral to do so. Older Wilson’s were famous, and had a convenient dip around 2.4 kHz.
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. The Chesky CD contains a number of tests, in addition to the LEDR. ( ) An online resource: ( ) BTW; The shape of your ears’ pinnae is also a variable, regarding your ability to perceive images/locate sounds. An old article, from Stereophile, regarding the LEDR test: ( ) That article also mentions some other possible impediments, to a system’s imaging abilities. Of course; all that’s only for those interested in finding out, if their systems(and/or ears/brains) are up to the task.
I prefer a system "editorialize" as little as possible. The recording contains the imaging (and the instrumental and vocal timbres, etc.); the hi-fi system's (including and especially the loudspeaker’s) job is to reproduce the recording as is, not to create imaging that isn’t contained in the recording. That’s anarchy!
I am afraid Mr Allison is OTL or as Eric Dolphy would say, "out to lunch."
The information that provides the ambient characteristic of the room/hall the recording was made in is in the recording not in the room you are playing it back in. All your Hi Fi room can do is add distortion. Most experts like Earl Geddes believe the best way to deal with this is to limit the dispersion of the speakers to limit room reflections instead of burying yourself in room treatments. Omni directional speakers are passe. 
I also think Mr. Allison is a bit off base.

I have had several speakers with ’pinpoint’ (precise) imaging, without a strict sweet spot. I have a pretty broad listening area, with precise imaging.

When it comes to accuracy, in almost every way (timbre, dynamics, detail, attack and decay, etc), I am all on board.

But if pinpoint or precise imaging, is considered inaccurate, I have no problems with that sort of inaccuracy. I am not willing to give up accuracy in those other aspects, for more precise imaging, but that does not seem necessary with many speakers. 

After all, I’m sitting a smallish sound room, that is almost impossible to recreate an orchestra, or jazz quartet, rock band, etc, with completely accurate scale or power, so a little extra exaggerated imaging helps fill in the gaps for me. It servers to help suck me into the performance just a bit deeper.