What exactly is "imaging" ?

[wulbert]

The word "imaging" crops us again and again in discussions and reviews of audio gear but I'm not really sure what it means. More importantly, I don't know how to achieve it, increase it and what factors contribute to good imaging? Is it even worth pursuing?

My recent experiment with placing speakers out of doors resulted in a lovely, solid, very "present" and clear sound. However I did not experience a feeling that the position of each instrument was fixed in space (which is what I imagine "imaging" means).
On one track, if I moved my head left, the vocals shifted left, if I moved right the vocals appeared more central. If "imaging" was a thing, then surely good imaging would mean that micro movements of head and ears would result in the sound appearing to still come from the same, fixed location? This is what happens in real life. Even if I move my head, any real-world sound is still coming from the same point.

It's all an illusion of course, but how do I increase the effectiveness of this illusion? Is it even desirable? Two dimensional films and pictures are great, but 3D ones look very cheesy and tiring to me.

The KEF Carlton 2s sounded great out of doors but it was more like listening to a beautiful, 2-D sound painting than a 3D stage performance. ( maybe imaging is just not a strong point of my speakers and gear).

IMG_1289 by Bill White, on Flickr

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Yes, imaging means that you get - at least - a clear sense of where - left to right - various sound sources are placed in front of you. In better cases you also sense the relative distances and the surrounding acoustic being from 'behind' the main sources.

However the recording is critical, not just the speakers, their locations, and the acoustics of your listening room. So a lot of things have to be 'right' for this to happen.

A problem is that speakers are generally designed to work in a room. So 'outdoors' (aka anechoic chamber ) they may not work so well as in the 'right kind of room'. That said, I've personally tended to associate good '3D' imaging with ESLs. And your ears and speakers being in just the right places.

The effect is probably irrelevant to a lot of studio rock/pop/etc. But make a *big* difference to something like listening to a BBC Prom concert! Enhances the 'being there' feeling.

 

[davidsrsb]

On one track, if I moved my head left, the vocals shifted left, if I moved right the vocals appeared more central. If "imaging" was a thing, then surely good imaging would mean that micro movements of head and ears would result in the sound appearing to still come from the same, fixed location? This is what happens in real life. Even if I move my head, any real-world sound is still coming from the same point.

Following your head movement is exactly what you expect as you are getting closer to one speaker, so your brain will interpret the louder and earlier sound as being closer to the source. Two speaker stereo is NOT creating a holographic source.
Any stable image indoors has to be an accident of the changing reflected paths compensating for the movement

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think one aspect of good imaging is phase relationships. Good imaging for me means a clear, obvious and stable rendition of the performers coming from a specific point in space, usually between the loudspeakers, often between and behind. I understand our brains process things like time of arrival to each ear, but also any phase shifts in the sounds, which may in the real world represent reflected sound rather than sound emanating from the source. So speakers which present strong images usually have other stuff going on, like time alignment of drivers and more phase-coherent crossovers, and stuff like that.

I'm not that familiar with the Kef Carltons but I think they may be old-school Kef, which are wonderful in their own way, but I think a lot of speakers from that generation relied on fairly complex crossovers to get reasonably even FR plots, and these may often have been achieved at the expense of buggering up the phase elements in the signal.

 

[Ali T]

I'd call imaging a clear impression of the sound- like the band is in the room. A clear sense of where the band members are in the image is soundstaging to my ears.

 

[Ali T]

I think one aspect of good imaging is phase relationships. Good imaging for me means a clear, obvious and stable rendition of the performers coming from a specific point in space, usually between the loudspeakers, often between and behind. I understand our brains process things like time of arrival to each ear, but also any phase shifts in the sounds, which may in the real world represent reflected sound rather than sound emanating from the source. So speakers which present strong images usually have other stuff going on, like time alignment of drivers and more phase-coherent crossovers, and stuff like that.

I'm not that familiar with the Kef Carltons but I think they may be old-school Kef, which are wonderful in their own way, but I think a lot of speakers from that generation relied on fairly complex crossovers to get reasonably even FR plots, and these may often have been achieved at the expense of buggering up the phase elements in the signal.

Yes we all differ in our sensitivity to phase. My partner (not an audiophile) cannot pinpoint sound direction at all, such that AV systems do not work for her.Her hearing is acute enough otherwise though.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I'd call imaging a clear impression of the sound- like the band is in the room. A clear sense of where the band members are in the image is soundstaging to my ears.

I have it the other way round. Soundstaging is about creating an impression of the acoustic space occupied by the performers - its size and, sometimes, shape - and imaging is the location of the performers within that space.

 

[Mike Reed]

Two speaker stereo is NOT creating a holographic source.

Really? the whole idea is to create a holographic image, surely; at least that's the soundstage I enjoy. 'Imaging' is probably a derivation of 'imagining', or vice versa, although this could just be in my imagination.

It is an illusion, and some speakers are better at this than others. I agree with Jim, and from my own experience, that good ESLs can really spread that soundstage and create little pockets of simultaneous musical information. This does depend upon the environment, though. I've no idea if the original premise to replicate the original performance (which is a misnomer anyway) comes anywhere near being met, but I have a sneaky feeling that the indoor experience with good, synergistic kit can offer an equal or more satisfying experience.

Put simply, when my head's in the right place and the right software in on and it's a good wine, the room fills with a musical firework show; very satisfying.

 

[S-Man]

I'd call imaging a clear impression of the sound- like the band is in the room. A clear sense of where the band members are in the image is soundstaging to my ears.

I always thought it was the other way round

 

[Dowser]

For me soundstage is width and height of what you hear, imaging is where the sound is coming from front to back - so 2D vs 3D, both important and both reliant on the room (or lack of in OPs case )

 

[Dowser]

Oh, and to my mind, a lot of the heated discussions on here are related to the importance we place on both - I value imaging as much as sound stage, some others seem not to. Equally for me that is a big difference in streaming audio - sound stage remains same, imaging is decreased. It‘s only recently for me that it has dropped to an acceptable level with an Rpi4 with digi hat feeding a vintage Micromega Duo.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

There are also matters relating to solidity, too. Images can be stable within their soundstage, but the individual elements may be two-dimensional, albeit laid out in a 3-dimensional soundstage. Like the cut-out figures in a kids' toy theatre, say. But more realistic imaging can tend to the more holographic, where you get a real sense of the physical bulk and shape of the performer/instrument.

 

[chartz]

Imaging: the illusion of 3D perspective.
The back wall that disappears.
Simple, really.
Only ESL’s and planars in a big room can do that well.
LS3/5a style mini monitors can do it but the scale is smaller.

 

[Chris]

I reckon it´s like trying to describe a flavour to another person - impossible. My hearing is seriously suspect, having been diagnosed a schwannoma (benign tumour) rubbing up against the right hand audio nerve as it passes through my skull en route to the brain and buggering up the conductivity of the nerve itself and its ability to transport the info. Even so I do perceive a virtual directional effect with just one ear facing towards the two speakers, with central image ´n all. Just make the best of what you´ve got - after all, some of us have got enormous ones ...... pinnas I mean.

 

[chartz]

I don’t agree: imaging is the recreation of 3D, there’s nothing subjective about it!
Some people say they can hear that with mono recordings, but that’s their imagination at work: it’s impossible.
Sorry about your impairment.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Really? the whole idea is to create a holographic image, surely; at least that's the soundstage I enjoy. 'Imaging' is probably a derivation of 'imagining', or vice versa, although this could just be in my imagination.

My pedant/ex-academic sense flickered at that. Holography methods vary. But in the instances similar to this you get a '3D view' only if you're in the right place wrt the system that then shows it to you. Thus with 2-speaker stereo you tend to need to be on the bisector line of a symmetric pair of speakers in a room with a suitably bilateral acoustic.

The ESLs tend to do well as they 'beam' towards you in a controlled manner. So the right kind of situation are like a supercharged form of headphones, but feeding both ears from each speaker. The challenge in some rooms is that the 'sweet spot' is smaller than the distance between your ears.

I find it works best in a room and head location where playing antiphased material sounds 'behind you' and curiously quiet. But a slight movement of the head can lose it. Difficult to setup, but worth it when you do with the right source material.

In comparison a lot of pop/rock tends to just have the sound sources hanging from a washing line from speaker to speaker, with some reverb behind it somewhere.

 

[Tony L]

The word "imaging" crops us again and again in discussions and reviews of audio gear but I'm not really sure what it means. More importantly, I don't know how to achieve it, increase it and what factors contribute to good imaging? Is it even worth pursuing?

Definitely worth pursuing IMO. It is all part of a recording, whether the result of careful mic placing in a natural live acoustic recording, or very deliberately created in a studio using pan pots and stereo FX units it is very much part of the music and any decent system should reproduce it. The better the system and installation the less seems to come from the speakers, the more you are transported to the acoustic and space of the recording (be it real or created). Some speakers truly excel at it, e.g. no sound seems to be coming directly from Quad ESLs, LS3/5as, JR149s or similar, everything is happening around them to the point they seem superfluous to the sound psychologically. They become random furniture in the room, the music is occurring in its own space and depth away from them.

I think one aspect of good imaging is phase relationships. Good imaging for me means a clear, obvious and stable rendition of the performers coming from a specific point in space, usually between the loudspeakers, often between and behind. I understand our brains process things like time of arrival to each ear, but also any phase shifts in the sounds, which may in the real world represent reflected sound rather than sound emanating from the source. So speakers which present strong images usually have other stuff going on, like time alignment of drivers and more phase-coherent crossovers, and stuff like that.

I’d agree with that and I think it is the reason I’m always drawn to either point-source or mini-monitors and actively avoid speakers with large arrays of drivers spread across a tall baffle. I’m of the mindset that time-aligning isn’t enough, e.g, huge Wilsons, JM Labs etc, as drivers that far apart likely screws up reflected sound (of which there is always some) resulting in comb effects, blurring etc, plus it forces an entirely artificial ‘height’ on things with the bass a foot or so below the middle or treble. I know I can’t personally relax with this kind of speaker, and I suspect that is a reason why. If I can’t have a true point source like a ESL63, Tannoy, LS50 or whatever then getting the drivers as close together and as few in number as possible is the way forward to my mind. I prefer nearfield listening too, which I’m sure is a factor in my taste. The more hi-fi, less room the better for me!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The ESLs act like a 'point source' when you're on or near their beam axis. But they also give a high direct beam / reflected off sidewalls ratio for the first sounds. In my case I found that this means that ensuring damping on the far and behind-you walls helps a lot. but the side-walls matter less. I hang a carpet or curtains from curtain rods that hang them a few inchs away from the front/rear walls.

 

[Folkman]

Imaging / soundstage are highly dependant on room treatment. Just think of all those reflections flying about messing with the true signal from the speakers. Even a few panels correctly placed can help but to get a really good result is often , understandably , difficult to achieve in a domestic multi purpose living room due to domestic constraints.

 

[Dowser]

Imaging: the illusion of 3D perspective.
The back wall that disappears.
Simple, really.
Only ESL’s and planars in a big room can do that well.
LS3/5a style mini monitors can do it but the scale is smaller.

4 months ago I’d have agreed with you - best sound I ever had was from ESL63s (or 57s) in a big dedicated room I had in Dublin. But since doubling the height of my 63s off the ground in my now small listening room in Swissieland they perform better than I remember them doing in Dublin…I’d love to hear them again in a big room of course!