What is "imaging" in headphones?

Audio Science
1

This is another topic, along with a number of other audiophile-friendly terms, which came up in the 5-31-25 Noise Floor livestream. So thought I’d put the question out for others to comment on.

I think of this as just “stereo imaging”. How clear of a picture is formed in my head by the soundscape? Do sounds seem to be coming from the right directions? Are they well separated?

The main characteristic I look for, for this effect, is good symmetry. Are the drivers well matched in volume and in timbre (frequency response)? I’ve owned at least a couple headphones where the drivers were not that well-matched for various reasons. And without good matching/symmetry, vocalists and dialogue often seem off center. The direction of sounds is less precise. The stereo soundscape isn’t as clear.

I think things like distortion, frequency response, dynamic range (high SNR), and the openness of a headphone can also effect the imaging. And how clear and nuanced the stereo image or soundscape is. They also effect how broad, spacious, or narrow the soundscape is, though I suspect this is what many audiophiles refer to as “soundstage”.

1 Like
2

A couple takes from some other folks.

3

Yeah this is one of those that really should have a well-understood meaning, but when people talk to me about it I regularly don’t know what they’re referring to. One person’s imaging could be another person’s detail, could be another person’s sound stage… It all feels like it’s being led by various reviewer language, mine included, and then churning out mostly semantic confusion. It’s why I prefer to evaluate just on FR characteristics, but people always seem to want me to translate that into my private language for some reason.

1 Like
4

In simple terms, I hear imaging quality as following from precise control and low noise in the high frequencies. A louder high range increases perceived detail, but it may not be precise enough to hold locations. Consider the KEF LS 50 and Utopia.

Sound stage is the mushy term, and often unintelligible from others.

5

Soundstage is actually a very precise term, although it can be confusing (@generic) as it is measured in several ways. Like temperatures, which reference the freezing point of water. However there are several systems of measurement.

The Imperial Soundstage is defined as:
Sennheiser HD-600 - generic IEM = 1 ISU :phone:

The American Soundstage is defined as:
Sennheiser HD-6xx - generic IEM = 1 ASU :phone: :phone:

The Metric Soundstage is defined as L
Sennheiser (HD-800 - HD-600) = 1 MSU :phone: :phone: :phone:

In recent months, due to the closure of the American Standards Department and subsequent removal of the headphones by a member of the DOGE team working on waste, fraud and abuse, it has been proposed to redefine the ASU using American made wireless components, if they can be found. This has caused controversy in the press.

:phone: Imperial Soundstage Unit . Note that in some parts of the world (the EU) the ISU is referred to as the ESU or English Soundstage Unit

:phone: :phone: The American Soundstage Unit

:phone: :phone: :phone: The Metric Soundstage Unit. Note that in the EU, this is often called the ISU or International Soundstage Unit.

4 Likes
6

OMG. Thanks for the clarification! :rofl:

7

It is hard for me to separate imaging and soundstage as well. In part because I don’t really use the latter term much. There are alot of different ways you can think about this stuff though. And I don’t say that mine is necessarily more correct than some others.

When it comes to the quality of the stereo imaging though, I think everything can potentially get into the act (to use an apt Floyd-ism). So yes, the clarity of the image is important. The precision of the image is important. The spaciousness, width, depth, height (in some cases), and general immersiveness are all important. And imo, these can all potentially encompass more than just your basic FR.

But even if it is mostly related to FR, I think it does a bit of a disservice to think of it just in those somewhat narrow terms, because the quality of the stereo image can potentially be affected or imapacted by so many different things in a headphone’s and transducer’s design and usage.

The openness of a headphone, for example, isn’t really related to FR. I think most would agree though that open headphones tend to image better than closed headphones.

Symmetry is certainly related to FR. But you can’t look at a single FR curve for a headphone, and really get much of an idea of its symmetry or imaging just from that. To really get an idea of a headphone’s symmetry, you have to look at both the left and the right channels, and compare the differences in their FR and relative amplitude, which is not a trivial thing.

The symmetry you hear in a headphone can also be affected by other components in your audio setup. Especially the amp, which may tend to drift a bit to the left or right at different volumes. So if you want good symmetry (and imaging), then you also have to pay some attention to what’s going on in your other components, particularly in terms of their left-right stereo balance. But also in terms of noise, distortion and impedance, for the best results.

If your headphones don’t image well to begin with though, then they probably aren’t very good headphones! And the most you can probably do to try to fix it is maybe add some EQ, which has potential upsides and downsides of its own. That is how important good imaging is though, imho.

It really is sort of the whole ball of wax, when it comes to sound quality in headphones. And it’s what separates an average or mediocre headphone from a really good one, imho.

8

I kknow what I mean by imaging, but it’s based on about half a century of listening to audio gear of all sorts of quality levels, and much of it during times when it was next to impossible to dicuss it, like on here,'cos the internet didn’t exist let alone forums.

So, it’s just wha I took it to mean, and I’m too old a dog to even try to adjust my perspective on such terms now.

To me, imaging pretty much means … if I close my eyes, can I kinda picture where, in front of me, are the various things I can hear? Can I pick out one instrument’s location from another, and any vocals from instruments? The more I can do that, the better the imaging.

It’s not the same (to me) as soundscape, but they’re related.

It’s sort-of like, as a metaphor, if I’m looking through a glass windscreen, is the glass clean and clear,or is it duffused by raindrops. Or have I just been sprayed by muddy water from a passing lorry.

And yes, private language problem. I get your point. But it’s what it means to me, with the benefit I don’t need a ‘translation’ engine between myself and someone(s) else, because I’m not trying to relate what I hear to others. I’m not, thank goodness, reviewing headphones. I do not envy you that task. :smiley: