What is "imaging" in headphones?

[listener]

Can’t help but agree with basically every part of that assessment

[ADU]

I appreciate all the different takes on this. And will try to respond in more detail to some of the above posts when I can.

Just wanted to say though that I agree that source gear can affect imaging. Especially amps. This is not a characteristic which is limited just to headphones imo.

I read the section of Listener’s article on imaging as well. And agree with the general thrust of his article that a more neutral response is generally beneficial to good imaging… In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is a prerequisite for good imaging. And that you can’t have really good imaging without a fairly neutral/transparent response.

I wouldn’t confine it to 1k and above though. Imo, any left-right stereo imbalance or FR coloration that’s within the normal range of audibility can effect the quality of imaging. Usually negatively.

The one exception I might make is for imbalances or colorations designed to compensate for hearing loss.

I am not as convinced about the benefits and importance of personalizing FR as some others though. At least not for over-ears. I’ve discussed this many times before though. And don’t have much new to offer on this particular topic. I can definitely see a good case for some personalization with IEMs though.

[ADU]

I can’t tell you exactly what good stereo imaging is. But I can tell you some of the qualities that I think a headphone generally should have for good imaging. And they are an open, over-the-ear, acoustic design, good driver symmetry, a neutral/transparent frequency response, good low and high frequency extension (aka wide bandwith response), low distortion, low noise, and good dynamic range. They’re the same things I look for for good sound quality.

There are some open on-ear headphones (with foam pads open on the sides) that may also be able to do some decent imaging. Koss and Grado both make headphones of this type.

There are also going to be some differences in the way headphones and speakers image. Headphones, especially closed headphones, do not interact with as much of the environment as speakers.

If you think about what makes stereophonic recordings different than monophonic recordings though, that may give you some ideas about what to look for on imaging. What makes them different to me is the illusion or perception of dimension or space. When a stereo recording is produced (and played back) well, it can sound almost three-dimensional. Like you’re in a space, and things are happening all around you. And sounds are potentially coming from all different directions.

The openness of a headphone helps to complete that illusion by providing other incidental noises and environmental “effects” from different directions.

[generic]

@ADU

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it is a prerequisite for good imaging. And that you can’t have really good imaging without a fairly neutral/transparent response.

When all you have is a hammer, the world is full of nails.
When all you have is a screwdriver, the world is full of screws.

[ADU]

@Resolve

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.

Our vocabulary for this phenomena leaves something to be desired. How can audio create images after all?.. And yet, it seems to make sense in a way.

If you’re looking for a simple concise definition though, the one on Wikipedia isn’t too shabby…

Stereo imaging

This article on spatial hearing loss is also kind of an interesting read. And it describes briefly how sound can be localized in different directions through various auditory cues, including ITD, ILD, and pinna-related effects.

Spatial hearing loss

To focus and shorten things up a bit, I think you could say that in home audio, “imaging” is the spatial representation of sounds in a stereo or multi-channel sound field. This would apply to both headphones and speakers.

“Good imaging” would then be a better or more precise spatial representation of sounds in a sound field. That gets fairly close I think.

[ADU]

@generic

n 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.

I’m with you on the low noise, generic. But not just in the HF. Noise (unless it’s a hum) is generally randomly distributed across all the frequencies. And not good in any of them imo.

And extra emphasis in the higher frequencies creates a distorted impression of more detail imo, which tends to hide or distract from often more important details in other parts of the frequency spectrum.

@generic

Amps can greatly affect imaging.

Shockingly, I also agree.

[ADU]

@hottyson

I find your point of bass heavy or warm headphones relevant to valuing an imprecise inconclusive definition. When listening to warm Sony headphones, (or other characteristic headphone) I find that I am seeking and enjoying a different type of imaging. Therefore, I postulate that imaging and preference of imaging is not static and therefore may benefit from not falling under a universal comprehensive collective definition.

I’ll fall back to my previous comment on this, that any coloration is bad, no matter what part of the frequency response is affected. It is just my opinion though.