You raised some excellent points but then get it so very wrong here. That can happen when you apply theory in absence of listening, and it’s why things in this hobby are not always as black-and-white as they may appear.
It is my exact tought...
You cannot reduce acoustic to recording practice or electronic engineering...."Imaging" for example is an acoustical perceptive phenomena first in a ROOM with no microphone but human ears... It is not a recording here...It is a human perceptive experience.... No trade off, only direct perception in a room....
Then you cannot reduce acoustic theory to recording needs and theory, it is the opposite, recording theory borrow from acoustical concrete experience in a ROOM...Ears are what is first and last, measuring dials are always in between hearing experience... It is common place fact and a scientific one in acoustic...
Then the borrowing of recording theory and practice from acoustical experience when applied concretely always implies a trade-off when the engineer try to record anything, he must make many irreversible CHOICES....
To compensate for these choices in MY room i create my mechanical equalizer inspired by Helmholtz method...The founder of modern acoustical concepts...
In my room my Helmholtz equalizer(a grid of precisely located tubes and pipes finely tuned) and other acoustical settings COMPENSATE, if the controls were rightly done, for the INEVITABLE lost of some "cues" in the recording process by the choices made in mic engineering, and these controls are made by myself to adjust to my specific structure of ears, because my mechanical Helmholtz equalizer dont use microphone to rune it, nor any very narrow test response frequencies from the speakers for ONLY a very narrow location in the room...NO. My mechanical equalizer need my ears for timing the many wavefronts of reflected and direct waves from the room precise geometry and topology, timing them mechanically for all the room when i select for example the different possible neck lenght on my 21 tubes and pipes modifying the different pressure zones of my room...I also use many small pipes near the tweeter and the bass drivers but asymmetrically located for a more refine timing tuning of the main or first frontwave...
Cost: nothing
S.Q. : no comparison at all on all counts between before and after..
Natural timbre perception and imaging OUT OF THE SPEAKERS, and soundstage out of the speakers with pin point imaging...
Is it perfect ? no
Is electronic equalization perfect in comparison? Hell, No.....
comparison cost/ S.Q. : my method results are superior completely at no cost...
it takes only time but it is fun to adjust each tubes and pipes to fine tune the results...If you are half deaf take electronical equalization....😊
In one sentense, imaging is first a room/ears response to the speakers, not first a drivers characteristic in itsef.....And the location of the speakers are only one factor, the main factor is how the room will response for my ears....TIMING of direct and reflected waves by first front wave law is key to imaging....No electronic or recording tech can replace that ....
Then the question is not and never has been what are the speakers that best image, ANY speaker can imagine well if the acoustical settings of the room are appropriately set for them by some specific ears; the question is how do we set a room for the best imaging possible? The answer is Helmholtz method....I chose the mechanical equalization because it is " no cost", and very fun, and very efficient corresponding to MY EARS....
