One speaker observation from the New York Hifi show.

Sit in your listening position and move the speakers around until it sounds good.  If moving them around is not an option, just put them where they have to go and deal with it.

Think about your room before you buy speakers.  If you are really into imaging, buy smaller speakers.  The main problems will be with the longer frequencies (bass) coupling with the walls (and anything else in the room).  I don't think it matters much whether the speaker is ported or not, those low frequencies are going to couple with the walls in all directions.  The further way from the walls, the less energy will be presented to the reflective surfaces, thus the bass will be better tamed.  If you must have your speakers near a wall, DSP may well be a good option.  Room treatments work well, but they can get expensive (and if you are forced to put the speakers next to the wall, there is a high likelihood that bass traps and acoustic panels will also be forbidden).

 I attended the NY hifi show and felt it was a shame the size of the rooms would not allow most of the systems to do justice to their potential. So much time and effort from the exhibitors with costly equipment and other than the Martin Logan monoliths in the cavernous conference room, all the other rooms made me feel clostraphobic.  I chose to sit or stand in the very back of most rooms just not to be in the face of  the speakers. 
Gotta give credit to the exhibitors , probably spent several hours positioning trying to make the most with what they were dealt.
i just wonder if the show was held say..in the Javitz Center or someplace in seacaucus with room to spare ...... nah,never mind.  I just appreciate the opportunity to see a wide range of equipment in one place.

Newbee and AudioKenisis between them have it right, in my opinion.  I've been married twice and a bachelor twice as a result, so I've had many, many chances to experiment with different rooms and setups.

If you have a dedicated listening room, understand the physical properties of sound reproduction, and have access to sound conditioning materials, it is almost always possible to gain "three dimensional" imaging.  And it is spectacular when so achieved.  But it is also "false" since we do not hear that type of imaging when listening to a concert ... whether pop, jazz, chamber, or orchestral.

Just recently I tested that again by attending a concert by the Emerson String Quartet at the smaller auditorium at Tanglewood.  We had seats in the seventh row, front an center, an ideal spot for such music but hardly an equilateral triangle from the violinist to the cellist (I'd guess the spread was about 45 degrees).  I particularly wanted to focus on separation ..... so in addition to immensely enjoying the concert, with my eyes closed I focused on whether I could isolate the instruments.  I could not .... at this distance these four folks mesh so well that all you could hear was a broadly dispersed string sound, top to bottom.

I also attend jazz sessions every other week in the area, often at a club with excellent acoustics.  I usually try to get there early and sit with friends at a table second from the front.  This is still not an equilateral triangle, but is closer (about a 75 degree spread).  Again, I listen usually with my eyes closed, as I do at home.  Here I clearly could hear some separation between the pianist on the left, the bass and horn player in the center, and the drums on the right.  Separation, a bit, but certainly NOT holographic imaging. 

In neither of these cases do I hear anything much different at home.

So while I agree that the technical aspects of being a hobbyist audiophile are often challenging and fun, it is useful to remember that if the goal is wanting superior sound reproduction of the music we hear live, a perfect listening setup is not neccesary.  The reproduction quality of the equipment, however, is.  For those of us having to do double duty with a living quarter and spouse, a "perfect space' is usually not possible.

Harrylavo,

Really excellent post. You’re entirely right.
But it’s fun trying to achieve that “holographic” imaging, even though it’s tortuous.

If you have a dedicated listening room, understand the physical properties of sound reproduction, and have access to sound conditioning materials, it is almost always possible to gain "three dimensional" imaging. And it is spectacular when so achieved. But it is also "false" since we do not hear that type of imaging when listening to a concert ... whether pop, jazz, chamber, or orchestral.

I’m always amazed by people who say live music doesn’t image. I have completely the opposite experience.
Like any good audiophile, I’ve been obsessed with live vs reproduced sound forever. I’m AWAYS comparing. Whether it was jazz in a nightclub, at the symphony, happening upon a street musician, playing my own music, or listening to friends and family play instruments, etc, I very often close my eyes and take note of the experience - tone, dynamics, imaging etc.

And I find live acoustic sources certainly image and "soundstage!"Now, of course, that depends on a variety of details. We aren’t talking about amplified rock or pop, and if the jazz musicians are amplified, then that’s not what we’d be talking about I presume.


But unamplified? Hell yes I get good imaging and localization!

At the symphony I’ve sat in many different seats, distant, mid, close.In all seats I get imaging commensurate with what one would expect from the distance. Even the more distant seats, while imaging is not as acute as close up, I can easily point to whatever instrument or section is playing "on the soundstage" with eyes closed. And distantly mic’d symphonic recordings can soundstage in a very similar fashion on my system.
I have always preferred close seats to the symphony because I love hearing the really distinct details of voices and instruments, and I get very strong localized imaging for the instruments.

A few days ago stopped in front of some street performers - sax, drums, bass. Closed eyes - wickedly dense imaging.

Even just now I had my son speak from about 8 - 10 feet away from me, my eyes closed - and the "image" of his voice was pretty much precisely what I get from my system with a good vocal recording.
This aspect of live sound is actually one reason why I gravitated to my current speakers (Thiel) which are particularly good and "lining up" the sound for really specific imaging. It re-creates the type of image density I enjoy from real life sounds, vs the more ghostly or diffuse swaths of sound from a system that doesn’t image that way.

Also, in many cases real acoustic sounds have a 3-dimensionality that surpasses most audio systems. In many audio systems the sound often seems to start at the plane of the voice or instrument, and move towards you from there. So you get all the conditionality "from the front of the sound source onward." But in live sounds, there is often (due to room acoustics) a more 3 dimensional character, like I can hear "all around" the object, a sense of "behind" the object as well, which gives that 3D aspect. In this case, my MBL omnis do much better at re-creating this aspect of live imaging than any other speaker I’ve owned. (They also image in a more precise way than many give credit to omnis).

Now, can the imaging in many recordings depart from reality? Sure. Of course. In many artificial recordings you can hear placement with precision that wouldn’t mimic if everyone were playing in a room in front of you. Often the soundstage can be squeezed smaller too.

But in general terms, from my own experience, I utterly reject this trope that "live music doesn’t image with precision" and that imaging/soundstaging from a good high end system is a departure from live sound. For me, good, precise, tonally dense imaging...even if not always a precise recreation of the event....nonetheless mimics an aspect of live sound.

That is, after all, why imaging/soundstaging tends to make things sound "more real" to us, than just a flat sound blasted from dorm-room speakers up against a wall, or whatever.