If you don't have a wide sweet spot, are you really an audiophile?

I was guessing you are right, guessing that changing my room controls will give me a timbre and imaging experience....

My guess was right i have them now without changing the gear nor buying any tweaks... It is my my guess about the way i could install a better noise controls in the mechanical,electrical and acoustical working embeddings dimensions of my system that gives me my imaging and timbre experience...


But for the "latching onto one thing" remember that i only suggest after my guessing experiments and experience that a better perception of timbre or imaging ask for more than optimal recording tecnique.... I own the same files than you....If not the same i can buy them.... But to be able to enjoy natural timbre perception and imaging i needed way more than only a good source.... My guessing was that i need an optimal noise controls especially in the acoustic dimensions...

I dont pretend to anything....But you have never proved me wrong and when some pro musician was approving me about timbre concept you called him a liar...

I just this evening read your post where you called another engineer wrong...About phase and time...

I am not competent you are right to judge and give the final answer... But being arrogant with you like you are with others , i replied and give my guessing experience born from my own experiments in my own room... Phase and time of sound waves in a room matters for imaging perception not only the bits in the source sorry...

I apologize to be arrogant with you .... I will wait for your own apology to others....

By the way it is the sum total of my homemade "toys" that give me my Hi-Fi experience, not any costly upgrade nor anything sold like tweaks...

Then how in the world is it possible?

my answer was controls in mechanical electrical and acoustical embeddings...I listen with my ears open....

I was arrogant with you yes but perhaps not completely nuts...

I agree that if you arrange the speaker and room to obtain a wide area with some stereo imaging, you will compromise the imaging at the ideal spot in that area.  If you utilize the extreme toe-in described above to trade off cues for loudness against early and late timing of arrival, you are presenting the ear/brain with conflicting cues that may may create a hazy picture or maybe fatiguing to resolve.  Also, location is not merely determined by timing and intensity of the signal.  When sound arrives at your head it hits both ears, and with some of the sound hitting one side diffracting around the head to also hit the other side.  This changes timing, phase and the spectral content (frequency response) and these are also cues that the brain detects. 

You can get a Chesky Test CD that has some very interesting computer generated signals that exploit these properties to create a signal that seems to create images that both extend beyond the speaker position and appear to rise up from the speaker and move forward until the image is almost overhead.  The illusion is hurt by nearby reflections, so these signals (scratching sounds) are used to help you locate trouble with room interactions.  They also don't work very well when one is not in the extremely narrow, ideal, sweet spot.

I agree that if you arrange the speaker and room to obtain a wide area with some stereo imaging, you will compromise the imaging at the ideal spot in that area. If you utilize the extreme toe-in described above to trade off cues for loudness against early and late timing of arrival, you are presenting the ear/brain with conflicting cues that may may create a hazy picture or maybe fatiguing to resolve. Also, location is not merely determined by timing and intensity of the signal. When sound arrives at your head it hits both ears, and with some of the sound hitting one side diffracting around the head to also hit the other side. This changes timing, phase and the spectral content (frequency response) and these are also cues that the brain detects.

You can get a Chesky Test CD that has some very interesting computer generated signals that exploit these properties to create a signal that seems to create images that both extend beyond the speaker position and appear to rise up from the speaker and move forward until the image is almost overhead. The illusion is hurt by nearby reflections, so these signals (scratching sounds) are used to help you locate trouble with room interactions. They also don’t work very well when one is not in the extremely narrow, ideal, sweet spot.

Thanks this is very well said and explain my point about the necessary acoustical settings in the imaging perception....This is also my exact experience in setting my room for imaging...


I will only add here what i said before, reaching better timbre perception ask for more precise or complex tuning than just imaging... The timbre"envelope" is a complex experience to recreate...It is the reason why i think audiophile must put their attention on the "timbre" perception...It is also more difficult to assess the presence of naturalness of "timbre" than just passing a test to assess the presence of imaging.... For imaging the test is about spatial experience, not for timbre perception... Then in my experience,one encompass the other in the sets of acousticals precise controls and treatment we must set in place...


By the way i succeeded to create a good imaging for 2 spots in my room.... The better for imaging is near field at 3 feet from speakers... The better for timbre perception is regular listening in my room at 8 feet from speakers...But the 2 locations are very good even if very different from one another, very good on imaging and timbre account...I cannot chose one over the other.... 😊
In nearfield it is so good imaging with a good timbre, i trash my 7 headphones in a drawer....In regular position the timbre is so natural with a good imaging, i decide to use no more any headphones....

Nearfield best any headphone experience i had; regular position of listening is more akin to a lived event and exceed my headphones possibilities....

I begin my audio journey 7 years ago with headphones including 2 Stax,one hybrid, 2 magneplanars, 2 dynamics one, because the speakers gear was not on par at all with them....Even my actual speakers bought before my 2 years acoustical room settings journey weere not at all so refine like they are now......Then it was acoustical controls the key not my choice of speakers..... I was prefering hedphones 2 years ago, it is the complete opposite now....😁😊😎😊


Acoustic controls could often be, or generally, more powerful impact than the upgrade of any piece of gear....Imagine the controls over the 3 embeddings working dimensions together....

My best to you

With my Pioneer S-1ex I can move them further away and wider apart for a wider sweet spot. Out into the room and closer together and sounds like wearing high end head phones but the sweet spot narrows considerably. I prefer the latter. 

I'd like to push back a little bit against the idea of a speaker with a wide sweet spot not being great in the middle.

Let's take 3 common models, the Magico S1 Mk II, Revels and modern Wilsons.

They all have great imaging in the center spot, but the Wilson's dont do as well off axis.
I think this blows out the idea that you can only get a great sweet spot with a narrow one.