Thank you @audiokinesis, all that seems to me to be on the money.
For my own experiences with it, there seems to be (in this sense) 2 sides to getting the First Venue cues to dominate as effectively as possible.
I think of the result that the ear hears, in this case, is made up of 2 parts - the electrical half and the acoustical half. For the first half, the electrical, let’s look at the physical system and wiring. I think of this abstractly as a physical ’doorway’ from the ’room behind the front wall’ as it were, through which the music (and all its cues) must pass through into our listening room and to our ears unscathed. The better the system is, theoretically, the more capable it is in **allowing** the signal to pass through unscathed. But, allowing for it does not always guarantee delivery...not only acoustically, but equally important electrically. IOW, in practice, this does not typically come off so well due to routine electrical losses. And that for me is the second half of it. It’s not Just the hardware (or even the acoustics)...it’s just as much the electrical **environment** in which **the system is trying to operate**. Addressing both sides of the coin, however, gets us in very good shape toward coming up with a system that is First-Venue dominant - not only in Theory, but in practice as well.
In general there are 2 ways to deal with these losses. Traditionally, one can buy better gear that has better constructed and filtered power supplies. The other is (increasingly these days) to use some form of advanced power treatments (the newer quantum-based kinds avoid the kind of frequency or dynamic anomalies, and power limitations, that have given the term "power conditioning" a bad rep [and you could argue deservedly so]). It ends up almost as expensive as buying the good gear alone, but either way, you can end up with a system that is about as good as it gets these days for inherently preserving First-Venue cues in your listening room - IOW, pretty dang good...room acoustics aside, perhaps.
I found a quantum-based noise-floor reduction method (consisting of various, individual filters that I buy separately, evaluate and then move on to the next filter) which I began applying some years ago that works for me. Not too many years ago, my system at the time, which already had a number of filters applied, still had a fairly neutral presentation of its sound stage. But, since then, with the more filters I’ve added, the more the depth increased and the in fact the more laid back the overall presentation has become. Currently, almost 95% of the sound stage is now taking place behind my speakers (they were always 5.5 ft away from the front wall). It may be of some interest here, because in all that time, I never changed any gear, wiring, room treatments, EQ, seating position, speakers or their positioning or toe in. IOW, the delta from a roughly 50% presentation to nearly 95% has all been due to noise-floor reduction alone...an interesting result. In any case, as a result of all the filtering, I’m now also enjoying a system that is very First-Venue efficient, regardless of stage presentation, and the more laid back stage has also allowed for me the inclusion of both "you are there" and "they are here" in the same system and room.
But, naturally, I tend to take the notion that First-Venue efficiency can be pinpointed to certain gear or wiring alone with a grain of salt. You might can get there strictly that way, if you choose, but IME anyway, that is plainly not the only way...nor is it the only factor.
Sorry for the long post, I’m not having any luck at brevity either.
