Does the first reflection point actually matter??

We exist in a universe of waves...beginning with the subatomic, density and type variants all....

It just 'thins out' the further off we rise from what we percieve as solid ground.

And we're just another version of it, making waves of our own.

"What state do you live in?"  Quantum....

"Zip code?"  (Hand over a thumb drive...)

J'accuse:  The number of things agreed upon = the number not.
The universe is subject to the Bell Curve as much as we 'average out' in our HO about what we hear, how we hear it, and how we feel (or don't) about it ....

Flies in the fluxes of universal ambers...in the midst of all the other waves...the daily surf...

Not terribly sci about it, but it makes for my day. *S*

I were thinking about..
If we ONLY look at the side walls reflections.
Then the first reflection points that the sound bouncing off.

My thoughts goes like this:
First reflection point is weaker (lower dB) than the direct. And what reflects of that surface is probably more higher frequencies than lower ones (Hz). 

That side point will act as a muted bass shy speaker that is delayed as it were placed further away..

Can this side walls reflection points contribute to a wider sound stage?
Or some other benefits that can be a argument to not treat side walls reflections?

(And of course the our experiences will vary greatly when we have all different distances from the speaker to the side wall in our unique rooms. So I would like to know what distance is used when we tell about our experience.)

A experience I have (sidewalls 80 cm away) it is like that helps or make it possible to hear sounds/instruments somewhere between the speaker and the first reflection point.. so extreme right or left will be beyond the speaker. Yes now when I think about it the sound stage is then wider.. 

But it is unintended wider and nothing the artist/producer were aiming for. And when first reflection point reflect a uncontrolled frequency response/range depending on what type of surface the effect will be more or less pronounced depending on the different frequency range different instruments has..

So I think I have answered my own question somewhat.. but how are your thoughts on this?

optimize, some of your points have been addressed in previous responses.

That side point will act as a muted bass shy speaker that is delayed as it were placed further away..

Can this side walls reflection points contribute to a wider sound stage? 
Or some other benefits that can be a argument to not treat side walls reflections?

Because of how our brain processes reflections, how we perceive reflected sound depends on how long those reflections are delayed compared to the direct path from source to ear.  If the path of the reflected sound is longer than about 6 meters longer than the direct path from the source to the ear, the reflection will add to the spaciousness of the room.  Any reflection that is shorter than that will generally not be distinguished as a separate sound and will result in a spacial smear.  Another consideration is that the dB level of sound decreases as the distance increases, and the dB level further decreases every time it bounces off of another surface.  It has been my experience that reflections that have a path about 2-4 meters longer than the direct path are especially detrimental to precise localization of instruments and voices if those reflected signals are not at least -20 dB compared to the direct sound.  

So the answer is that some reflections off of side walls are beneficial, and some are detrimental.  I have left the sidewalls of my room untreated from about 0.5 meters forward from the first reflection point to the front corners.  Doing so gives me better sound stage width at the expense of increased slap echo.  I've devised a way to deflect the first reflection point away from the ear, which results in superb imaging in my rather narrow (~4.5 meter wide) room.  My approach is different than traditional absorption or diffusion.  It is more consistent with the approach described by Duke LeJuene above. 

The first sidewall reflection point matters in the design of a recording studio control room. Those I have been involved in used angles which direct the reflections away from the normal listening position.

If I read your post right, your room is less than 2 M wide.   I don't know how your room is laid out otherwise, but it seems likely to me that your side wall first reflection points have a delay of less than 5 milliseconds compared to the direct signal.  Some say that those very short delays don't compromise imaging as much as those having a delay of 5-20 milliseconds.  So you may not get much benefit from trying to treat your sidewall first reflections as others.  

We can clearly say it is more than "some".
More exactly half of all reflections is good and the other half is harmful for stereo image.

Experiment: 
Put a wall of panels from your face in sweet spot that extends right in the middle to your front wall between the speakers.

The sound stage is incredibly and will never be better than this.. ..yes it looks stupid and is impractical but just as a experiment.

In short we have one room for left and another for right and the reflections from each speaker is there BUT they are totally separated.

That shows us how "harmful" to the sound stage perception, the first reflection point from the right speaker in the left wall that reach the left ear.. that were intended for the other ear.. and vice versa.

So half of all reflections (when we can see the experiment as we have two separate rooms left and right) is not good or is just destroying the sound quality. And if you have done the experiment then you will most likely agree.

I just had my free phone consultation with Mr. Foley and after reviewing my room through photos (see link), he recommended the following:

1. No diffusion anywhere to begin with. That will worsen the problem he perceives given all the windows.

2. Treat the walls closest to the speakers first so that’s the front wall behind the speakers first and the side walls with as much absorption as possible.

3. No need to buy software to measure the room since the problems are obvious and better spent on product.

4. The treatment of corners with bass traps etc is a common fallacy and not a priority.

5. Tame from "40 cycles - 7000 cycles" as he calls it with eight (8) carbon panel CPs at $750 per panel. And since each panel weighs 150lbs, its about $1,000 for shipping. So all in $7,000.

6. He did some calculation where he said I would see 65 percent improvement. I pressed him on what that is measured against but forgot his reply.

7. Then we can talk about diffusion after a period of time of listening to the results.

THOUGHTS?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BFAQLGEo4UmknMZm6