Distance between speakers - are the physics what they are?


In now spending so much time in my kitchen it dawned on me that it would be a great space to set up some older components I had in storage.  It's great now having music in the kitchen but wish the speaker soundstage could be better.  The set up is using a pair of stand-mounted B&W 600 S3, which are "fine" but no doubt there are other similarly sized speakers that could perform better.  However. with the wall space I have to work with, distance between the any speakers would be, from tweeter to tweeter, about 3.5 feet.

Is not being able to put more distance between the speakers mean any upgrade would be a waste since the physics would prevent them from ever sounding as good as they should?
kba_8040
Two questions- physics, and upgrades being worth it. Upgrades are always better. That's why they're called upgrades. Otherwise they're called flipping, rolling, trading, etc.

Physics, that one's more complicated.

The distance between, its not that it doesn't matter its that it matters in a way that's a lot more complex than simple. 

If you are sitting dead center between them and at the right distance away then the 3.5 feet will be fine. The main thing by far is perfect symmetry, which is why I can hear sound staging even from my MacBook Pro.

But large flat surfaces reflect sound, and there's a lot of those in a kitchen. Large flat surfaces also provide bass reinforcement. The physics of it is the frequency coming out of the speaker reflects off the surface and depending on the frequency gets reinforced or cancels as it propagates outward towards you. 

You can hold a speaker in your hand, raise and lower it near a counter top, cabinet or wall, and hear the tone change with distance. Its pretty obvious. Some places will generate a boxy or closed in sound. Others more open. Some good bass reinforcement. Others none.

This tonal difference can be heard everywhere, while imaging can only be heard from one spot. Since you'll likely be moving around the kitchen then it'll probably be a waste of time to set them up for imaging but setting them up for tone and response will matter.

Moving them farther apart will only create a situation where you mostly hear the one you're closest to. The other one will be echo, reverb, which you already have too much of in a kitchen.

So the physics of the matter is very close together in a location that offers good response and directed towards the area you spend the most time is the way to go.

You can learn a lot playing around with simple little systems like this. Everything you learn is directly applicable to every other system. So good to know.
If you could post a pic, it would make things easier.
Either post a link or put something on the Audiogon Virtual Systems or PM me.
Bob
Thanks for the comments so far, picture added. The good news is I usually stand directly in front of the system while preparing food, about 10 feet away. So the question is, would investing in "better" speakers be largely a waste because the restrictions on placement would not allow me to really take advantage of the improvements the better speakers could otherwise deliver - like buying a sports car but never being able to drive more than 30 MPH?

https://systems.audiogon.com/systems?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=kba_8040+kitchen 
With that limitation on setup, you would probably get better results with speakers that have very wide dispersion pattern.

A pair of small Ohm Microwalsh which are largely omnidirectional would fit and might be worth a try.


http://www.audioreview.com/product/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/ohm/microwalsh-talls.html

like buying a sports car but never being able to drive more than 30 MPH?
I think you may have answered your own question.  A distance of only 3.5 feet is too much of a bottleneck for any system.