Importance of Soundstage/Imaging


Here's an article from the on-line site Audiophilia about designing an audiophile loudspeaker. The author lists eight properties that an audiophile loudspeaker should possess.

In order of importance the properties are:

1 - imaging
2 - openness
3 - coherence
4 - air
5 - detail
6 - timber
7 - bass
8 - dynamics

My question is what is your preference for the order of these properties?

My preference is timber, dynamics, detail, bass, coherence, imaging, openness, air.

My second question is does your system accurately reflect your stated preferences?

One thing I really like about the article is how Michael Levy, the author, gives specific examples of the sound properties. Also, by coincidence, I just watched "Romeo Is Bleeding" this morning.
128x128onhwy61
Jmcgrogan is absolutely correct re: timber. After that I'd rank them
2. Coherence
MID-RANGE- how can you leave out the mids???
3. Openness
4. Dynamics
5. Air
6. Detail
7. Bass
8. Imaging

In terms of practicing what I preach, I will be getting a pair of speakers this weekend known for timber, great mid-range, coherence, and dynamics. Trade off is that I will lose the great imaging I currently have. If this thread is still "alive" next week, I'll let you know what I think.
My preference: coherence, dynamics, detail, timber, openness, imaging, air, bass.

My opinion: The last 2 or 3 can sometimes be remedied by selecting components, adding supertweeter/subwoofer, and room treatment. The middle 2 or 3 are really important for realistic rendering of voice or acoustic instruments. But in the end, coherence and dynamics -- of all the transcients of a note and all of its overtones together -- are critical to conveying the musician's action and phrasing, and the music's rhythm and pulse. They are also the hardest to achieve in concert, whether using multiple drivers or single wide-range drivers. I think this combination of coherence and dynamics is often simply called "speed", "fast bass", "electrostatic transcient response" etc.

My speakers: Monitor Audio Studio series, Quad ESL63, Fostex F120A + electrostatic supertweeters, Lowther PM2A, Goodmans Axiom 80 and many other "projects".

-- William
I think you may be right JM. It seems too much attention has been given in the past decade to imaging at the cost of some of the othe aspects which to me make up music. When I'm listening to real music I cannot "hear" where a specific instrument is. I can make out many of these other aspects and they are important. If I am deaf, so be it. I think I have much good company.
I strongly agree with those saying that timbre should be no. 1.

Concerning openness, the author defines it differently than I've always thought of it. He refers to removal of veils, for which I think that "transparency" might be a better term. I've always thought of "openness" as akin to "air."

Using the author's definitions, my rankings would be:

1)Timbre
2)Coherence
3)Dynamics
4)Openness
5)Bass
6)Detail
7)Air
8)Imaging

As Mapman indicated, though, all are important.
Does your system accurately reflect your stated preferences?
I would say yes, especially with respect to timbre. With respect to the others, it provides a good overall balance without particularly emphasizing any one to the detriment of others.

Best regards,
-- Al
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