The thing is, music occurs naturally in 3 dimensions, not one, to some extent always. The resulting spatial/timing cues are in teh recording, to various degrees always.
To play something that contains 3-D information in one dimension only can be viewed as a form of distortion, much like how the shape of features on the earths surface is distorted to some degree in any 2-dimensional paper map or view.
SO my goal is to reproduce the music accurately, including the information that our ears hear that tells us where the sound is coming from.
That requires what we call imaging and soundstage.
This was a big selling point for stereo recordings back when they were first introduced. The equipment most people played these recordings on back then were not suited to reproduce this though, so most people never cared as much about this as some other things with their music.
But play those same old stereo recordings form teh late 50's and early 60's on a modern SOTA system and see what you might hear. That's what is is all about!
Low distortion levels and accurate reproduction of details is needed for good imaging. If you are getting it out of any decent quality recording even, that is a good omen for the overall quality of the rigs playback potential overall.
PRiximity to walls works against this in general due to early reflections smearing the details to some degree as noted, but decent results might still be had, just not the best most likely. I have never hear any speaker placement close to the walls come anywhere near what that spacious mbl setup I heard did. 10-20% maybe if all was working well, which generally means the speaker cabinet had some depth, and dispersion was properly managed for such a placement.
I have old OHM Ls that I like a lot close to walls. Most older box designs, like these are not designed for 3-D imaging, but can still sound great with certain music in particular very close to walls. SPoundstage and imaging is in fact highly compromised though. SO good sound can still occur....it all depends, as much on expectations as anything.
To play something that contains 3-D information in one dimension only can be viewed as a form of distortion, much like how the shape of features on the earths surface is distorted to some degree in any 2-dimensional paper map or view.
SO my goal is to reproduce the music accurately, including the information that our ears hear that tells us where the sound is coming from.
That requires what we call imaging and soundstage.
This was a big selling point for stereo recordings back when they were first introduced. The equipment most people played these recordings on back then were not suited to reproduce this though, so most people never cared as much about this as some other things with their music.
But play those same old stereo recordings form teh late 50's and early 60's on a modern SOTA system and see what you might hear. That's what is is all about!
Low distortion levels and accurate reproduction of details is needed for good imaging. If you are getting it out of any decent quality recording even, that is a good omen for the overall quality of the rigs playback potential overall.
PRiximity to walls works against this in general due to early reflections smearing the details to some degree as noted, but decent results might still be had, just not the best most likely. I have never hear any speaker placement close to the walls come anywhere near what that spacious mbl setup I heard did. 10-20% maybe if all was working well, which generally means the speaker cabinet had some depth, and dispersion was properly managed for such a placement.
I have old OHM Ls that I like a lot close to walls. Most older box designs, like these are not designed for 3-D imaging, but can still sound great with certain music in particular very close to walls. SPoundstage and imaging is in fact highly compromised though. SO good sound can still occur....it all depends, as much on expectations as anything.