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.
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.
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.
- ...
- 27 posts total
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 |
"Does your system accurately reflect your stated preferences?" I would say yes. I have no problem listing timbre as # 1. I tend to prefer "neutral" whatever that means but I am also able to enjoy certain variations from that. I like having multiple speakers running in multiple rooms to enable some variation in timbre mainly. It helps keep my ears trained and tuned to hear differences, even tose that matter less to me. My large OHM 5s come closest to doing all very well. Others trail somewhat in various areas as I described above. |
- 27 posts total