Importance of Soundstage/Imaging

" 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."

imaging/transparency/detail are all advanced things that have become more achievable over time as technology has improved.

Yes, early on, timbre and dynamics were the key attributes that most gear was judged on solely almost perhaps.

Coherency started to be realized more somewhere in the middle, I believe, perhaps in the late 60s, early seventies with the advent of the OHM A and F, one if not the first very wide range, highly dynamic, single driver, cross-overless designs, based on Lincoln Walsh's work up to that time.

I would agree with what Onhwy61 says about the old horn speakers he mentions in particular. Timbre and dynamics are of extreme importance to musicians when they evaluate what a speaker sounds like, with our reference being what live acoustically produced music sounds like, or what HP like to term "the absolute sound." This is why a great many of us still prefer those horns to this day. And by the way, dynamics does NOT merely mean the ability to play music loudly!! The opposite end of the spectrum is equally important - and horns also excel at the extreme soft end of the dynamic spectrum, as well as having all the other essential qualities on these lists. Many of the more modern speaker types do indeed greatly sacrifice timbre in particular for what they call more "detail." IMO, and the opinions of many fellow musicians, this is losing the forest for the trees, and the wrong trees at that! As one of my teachers said in a master class once - "if you don't have a good sound, nobody cares how well you play otherwise." Likewise, I don't care how "detailed" a speaker is if it doesn't get my timbre (and that of every other instrument in the orchestra or opera or what have you) very well in the first place.

This is really interesting – mostly to unpack how I’ve been subconsciously thinking about this sort of stuff. Which is to say, I don’t really agree with the categories or the order (I think).

I think I’m with the original author that I think imaging (writ large) is the most important thing. But, as I see it, that encompasses a lot of, virtually all of, the other stuff. To explain: a good “image” requires “coherence.” If, as the author defines it, fricative pluck of a finger on a bass string, the initial attack of it vibrating, and the decay as it winds down arrive at different times, from audibly different drivers, from different places within the soundscape – you’ve blown your imaging. Can’t have imaging without coherence. “Imaging” requires “air.” In fact, would say they’re almost synonymous. The point of good imaging is to recreate a sense of place, to hear the space between a horn and a clink of a glass in the audience, a murmur from the other side of the room. As for “bass,” I would say that the key(s) is/are coherence and speed. Back to the bass string, bass is of course an important element – but if it’s not coherent enough to get to your ears at the same time and perceived place as the other sound elements of a finger plucking a string, then you’ve (again) blown your image. As for “detail” and “dynamics,” I’ve thought of them as sides of the same coin, macro- and micro- dynamics, if you will. Hearing crickets through a window behind two folks playing guitar, while listening to their breathing, I’ve always considered a feat of imaging, but certainly not possible without a great deal of “detail.” Similarly, if there’s isn’t a monumental difference in size, volume, placement and sheer energy between a single flute off to the side and when the rest of the orchestra kicks in, your dynamics aren’t up to the task of creating a realistic image of, well, either. So, with the caveat that I consider “imaging” to require all of these things, I would argue that imaging is more important to me.

This, of course, leaves out “timbre”—which I don’t mean to leave out. But I do consider it a different animal than “imaging” (and all of its component bits). I’ve always thought of “timbre” (or tonality, or warmth or similar stuff) as less quantifiable than imaging. Also, as less something than you can fuss with. Put differently, little changes in positioning, room treatment, isolation, cabling can make huge differences in imaging. But the timbre and tonality of a given set of speakers seems, to me, to be more signature and consistent. “Rearrange” the image by moving stuff (including yourself), and the timbre seems to remain more or less the same. Another take, “imaging” seems more fragile, more context-dependent, while timbre is, in my experience, more resilient. I’ve never met a pair of speakers where I could not hear the difference between a synthesizer and a piano, that’s just info that gets through to me. Same time, I’ve never heard – or at least never been able to process – the distinction between one make of violin and another (which is certainly a wetware issue with the stuff between my ears, not gear-dependent, but anyway). This I guess reinforces my belief that timbre is likely more subjective. I’ve spent years at a time acquiring software and hardware during which timbre was the ONLY thing that mattered to me. While “imaging” may make you say “gee wiz” and light up all the audiophilia markers, timbre either soothes and makes you smile or it doesn’t. It’s better to smile. So, anyway, I seem to own the stuff I do due to timbre, and then spend much time fussing over it, monkeying with the soundstaging. Which is more important? Neither…? But I would say those are the two things (not eight…).

Make any sense? Or am I just nuts?

I agree with mezmo that many of these attributes are interdependant on each other. ALl speaker setups have a timbre for example, good or bad, liked or not. ALl the rest are a bit more elusive and happen perhaps more in perceivable degrees, whereas differences between timbres are inherently much more complex. Plus factor in the complex effects of room acoustics and on/off axis listening for example.

Phew!! Its a wonder any of us know a good speaker when we see one although we'll know whether we like it or not more quickly once heard.

1. Coherence
2. Timbre
3. Detail
3. Openness
3. Bass
3. Dynamics
4. Imaging
5. Air

At first I had considered timbre most important, but I've heard incoherent speakers before and they bothered me so much I didn't even notice if they had proper timbre. The coherence anomaly was far too distracting to notice any of the other attributes. So for me, coherence tops the list. Big tie up for third place.