Imaging is the ability of a playback to exactly reproduce the size and location of instruments. Naturally, this means a small band playing acoustic instruments will provide better imaging than a big multi-track studio production with numerous instruments.
For most studio productions, “imaging” isn’t given any importance. In a big multi-track recording it is common to record each instrument monaurally, so they take up only one channel of the multi-track recorder. Not only electrical but also acoustic sound sources like percussion or the human voice are treated this way. The mixing engineer then places these monaural elements across the stereo field, sometimes (but not always) adding reverb to give them more air or a sense of space in the final mix. Many recording engineers actually go to great lengths to eliminate any “room effects” like the natural reverberation of the studio, by having the singer sing, or the drummer drum, in an iso-booth (with sound deadening on the wall). This gives them a neutral (flat) signal to work with later. If you have 15 or 20 instruments on tape it can sound very weird if they each have their own acoustic space. Better to record them flat and add the space later (so the conventional wisdom goes).
Phase coherency. Frankly for most speakers, imaging is an afterthought anyway. Phase coherency－where the speaker cones move in unison from the same starting point－has been a design goal for only a few speaker systems over the years (Dahlquist DQ-10s, Vandersteen 7s, Green Mountain Audio Calypsos, Quad ESL-63s, etc.) Without phase-coherent speakers, phase-coherent recordings lose most of their pinpoint accuracy and 3-dimensional imaging. Headphones－on the other hand－are almost always phase coherent because they use a single element.
Binaural Recording. Recordings made specifically for headphones sometimes utilize binaural recording, which in its purest state means utilizing a dummy head (Kunstkopf), which is a mannequin head with microphones where the ears should be. These provide a convincing representation of the original recording environment. Only a few true binaural recordings are on the market (most are simulated－poorly). Fun fact: binaural recordings are marketed as “for headphones only” but a good phase-coherent speaker system will reproduce the same effect. But this is a discussion for another time.
Digital recordings tend to be a lot more phase-coherent than analog recordings, simply because analog recordings have to go through various transformers (and amplifiers) which electrically shift the phase angle of the wave (different angles for different frequencies). The process of recording to tape itself introduces phase shift(!). But we needn’t get too deep into that either; it gets geeky pretty fast.
There are albums that are designed for maximal imaging: “Jazz at the Pawnshop,” Patricia Barber “Nightclub,” Toshiko Akiyoshi “Porgy and Bess.” These are minimalist productions recorded live with careful microphone placement.
Without exception they all suffer from the same limitations of album mastering (as mentioned in the section on Frequency shaping): a hump in the bass at 64Hz, a roll-off below 50Hz… and another common mixing practice, intentionally-introduced crosstalk.
Crosstalk. Crosstalk is where engineers mix a little bit of the left channel into the right channel, and vice versa. This “fills out” the stereo field, so all the instruments seem to be coming from everywhere. As mentioned above, most speaker systems don’t care that this practice is counter-productive to good imaging.
But if you find yourself remastering an LP you might want to explore Audacity’s Channel Mixer effect.
This setting removes 20% of the crosstalk. As a general rule that’s enough to restore instruments to their proper size and location. No more 16-foot wide pianos! The removal won’t be audible on large multi-track recordings, or recordings which have not had crosstalk added, but on a good acoustic recording that has, the result is little short of astonishing.
P.S.: As a side note, sometimes 50+year old “minimalist” recordings inadvertently captured excellent imaging, just by virtue of their simple process: Dave Brubeck “Time Out,” Ruby Braff “Live at The New School,” Arthur Lyman “Taboo” are good examples. In fact, just about any Rudy Van Gelder recording for Blue Note beats the pants off modern audiophile recordings.
ROBERT
25.01.26
I asked Google AI why so many albums are mixed with intentional crosstalk.
“Crosstalk is mixed into albums, especially modern digital ones, not as a flaw, but intentionally to recreate the pleasing depth, space, and “glue” of old analog gear (tape, consoles) that inherently leaked signals, adding richness digital lacks; engineers use plugins to emulate this natural bleed for warmer, more realistic, and focused sound, moving stereo images from flat to dimensional.
Why it’s added (The Aesthetic)
Analog Character: Vintage analog equipment naturally had signal leakage (crosstalk) between channels and buses, creating a cohesive, three-dimensional sound and “glue”.
Depth & Focus: This subtle bleeding smears spatial cues slightly, making instruments sound like they occupy real space, rather than being isolated; it adds perceived depth and focus to the center image.
Warmth & Fullness: Emulated crosstalk can add body to low frequencies and sparkle to highs, making mixes sound more “finished” and pleasant.
How it happens (The Technology)
Analog Crosstalk (Original): In tape machines and consoles, signals from one channel physically bled into others due to magnetic fields or circuit coupling, especially noticeable on stereo buses.
Digital Emulation (Modern): Since digital is perfectly isolated, plugins (like those from Sonimus, Softube) mimic these analog imperfections, offering “vintage” or “modern” modes to add artificial crosstalk for authenticity.
Plugin Features: Many console or tape emulation plugins have dedicated crosstalk controls to add this effect to individual tracks or stereo buses within a DAW.
The Goal
Engineers use it to bridge the gap between sterile digital sound and the beloved, rich sound of classic analog recordings, making digital mixes feel more “alive” and grounded in space.”
I disagree that “analog sound” had better imaging—just the opposite—but I thought this “alternative facts” explanation was pretty interesting.
That really is interesting Robert! Thank you.
I’ve used it for years. It’s great.
Good to hear!