Importance of Soundstage/Imaging

An interesting question, Onhwy61. I asked a similar one in a thread from a couple years ago. My improvised list of attributes was a little different. It included resolution, soundstaging, PRaT, dynamics, tonal balance, harmonic content, accuracy, coherence, frequency extension, and scale.

From the list you provided, my priorities are...

1. timbre
2. coherence
3. dynamics
4. bass
5. detail
6. openness
7. imaging
8. air

Bryon

OK, I'm convinced by the timbre arguments, so I think I was wrong. Almarg's ranking looks right to me now.

"Does your system accurately reflect your stated preferences?"

I would say yes.

I have no problem listing timbre as # 1. I tend to prefer "neutral" whatever that means but I am also able to enjoy certain variations from that. I like having multiple speakers running in multiple rooms to enable some variation in timbre mainly. It helps keep my ears trained and tuned to hear differences, even tose that matter less to me.

My large OHM 5s come closest to doing all very well. Others trail somewhat in various areas as I described above.

The article is nice theory but of marginal value in helping to establish fine audio systems.

The author of the article put together an arbitrary list of properties he values. An obvious omission is any mention of rhythmic quality. Ultimately all of these properties are important and there's no real right prioritization of them. What I found interesting is how imaging/transparency/detail where at the top and timber and dynamics where at the bottom. This is a complete reversal of what high fidelity playback originally meant. In the 1950s through 60s the big Altec/AR/Tannoy/Klipsch/EV loudspeakers were all about timber and dynamics. I guess it can be argued that imaging/transparency/detail school is an accurate depiction of what audiophile, as opposed to high fidelity, playback has evolved into. I don't see that as a bad thing, but only if the loudspeaker doesn't noticeably sacrifice timber/dynamics.