Is Imaging Worth Chasing?


Man, am I going to be torn apart for this. But I says what I says and I mean what I says.

Here’s a long term trend I’ve noticed in the audio press. Specs that used to be front and center in equipment reviews have essentially disappeared. Total harmonic distortion, for instance. Twenty years ago, THD was the start and end of the evaluation of any amplifier. Well, maybe power, first. Then THD. Armed with those two numbers, shopping was safe and easy.

The explanation for the disappearance is not hard to figure. Designers got so good in those categories that the numbers became meaningless. Today, most every amp on the shelf has disappearingly low distortion. Comparing .00001 to .000001 is a fool’s errand and both the writers and the readers know it. Power got cheap, even before Class D came along to make it even cheaper. Anyone who tries bragging about his 100 watts will be laughed out of the audio club.

Stereophile still needed to fill it’s pages and audiophiles still needed things to argue about so, into the void, stepped imaging. Reviewers go on and on about imaging. And within the umbrella of imaging, they write separately about the images height, width, and depth. “I closed my eyes and I could see a rock solid picture of the violas behind the violins.” “The soundstage extended far beyond the width of the speakers.” And on and on.

Now, most everyone who will read this knows more about audio equipment than me. But I know music. I know how to listen. And the number of times that I’ve seen imaging, that I’ve seen an imaginary soundstage before me, can be counted on my fingers. Maybe the fingers of one hand.

My speakers are 5-6 feet apart. I don’t have a listening chair qua listening chair but I’m usually 8-9 feet back. (This configuration is driven by many variables but sound quality is probably third on the list.) Not a terrible set-up, is my guess from reading lots of speaker placement articles. And God knows that, within the limited space available to me, I have spent enough time on getting those speakers just right. Plus, my LS50s are supposed to be imaging demons.

I’ve talked to people about this, including some people who work at high-end audio stores. Most of them commiserate. It’s a problem, they said. “It usually only happens with acoustic music,” most of them said. Strike one. My diet of indie rock and contemporary jazz doesn’t have much of that. “You’ve got to have your chair set up just right. And you’ve got to hold your head in just the right place.” Strike two. Who wants to do that?

(Most of the people reading this forum, probably. But I can’t think of any time or purpose for which I’ve held my head in a vise-like grip like that.)

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.

But, generally speaking, imaging is something I only read about. And if that little bit of imaging is the dividend of dropping more money into my system, I’m not sure that I want to deposit into that account.

I think that I still have a few steps to take that will pay benefits other than imaging. But maybe the high-end is not for me.

paul6002

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.