Soundstaging is, as you say, recreating the stage, ie the ambience, the size and shape of the venue. Imaging is the placement of the performers on that stage. The 'realistic image of the sound' is more about fidelity, transparency, accurate timbral information.
That's 2D. You need height as well for 3D.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.
Linn/Naim systems of yore famously didn’t image well. That shocked me after the eerie magic of ESL63’s!
Hence the PRaT nonsense?
Oh no. Soundstaging is included in imaging, a part of it.
If imaging is right, sounstaging is right, not the other way round.
Ah, words!
Cue to create the pfm dictionary of audio expressions. Maybe, contrarily, imaging is part of soundstaging but the adjective I like best when describing a sound which totally absorbs is holographic. Next step is hallucinogenic but that can require assistance.
ESL63s just sound wrong to me. The top half of the room seems to have way too little treble energy. Maybe (more) tilt or raising them up can fix this?
Is it just me, the older I get the less I like hallucinogenic assistance? Not the case when I was younger - I could listen to TV connected to Amstrad speakers smashed off my face and think it was wonderful
No, sorry, I disagree. Soundstaging is, as you say, recreating the stage, ie the ambience, the size and shape of the venue. Imaging is the placement of the performers on that stage. The 'realistic image of the sound' is more about fidelity, transparency, accurate timbral information.
Height and to some extent depth have to be speaker with the room effects and the same equipment in another house and listener position will behave differentlyVoices and instruments were absolutely pinpointed in the two dimensions described above