Is it possible to have Good Imaging close to wall

"beautiful and well defined soundstage and stereo image that have been produced with no (or minimal) secondary reflections."

Minimal, perhaps if done right. None, well, take things outside with no walls and no room acoustics and reflections and see what you get.

Again, in most any room, as long as early reflections are managed properly, and things are set up well in general, you will get some decent imaging and soundstage most likely, enough to suit some tastes perhaps. But I doubt it will come anywhere close to a pair of excellent omnis like MBL set up with room to breathe properly.

I do agree also that cues in the recording and the effects of teh room acoustics are two different yet related things that work together or not to various degrees.

So I Do not think either of us is "wrong" necessarily, its more again a matter of perspective and expectations in regards to soundstage and imaging. SOme might not think more is better, even if done well, or vice versa.

My own personal reference is live music when I hear it. I want my recordings to sound like that whenever possible. Its a simulation, granted, but thats why they call it a recording. Its not the real thing.

Here in the Nethelands people in audio Always find the demos with MBL Omnis one of the worst of the whole show.

Often it sounds harsh. It does not come even close to the 3 Dimensional stage I can create. People from the business and many audio lovers overhere even don't take it serious.

I create a 3 dimensional stage created for a big part by the crossovers. I also prefer a ribbon tweeter for over any dometweeter. Because it gives me more decay and a larger and wider stage.

There is another difference; When I compare a Monitor Audio Platinum loudspeaker with the C series from Dynaudio for example; the Platinum can image the stage a lot sharper and touchable.

A ribbontweeter also makes the stage infront of the speaker bigger.

In 16 years of time I tested many amps. depth is a very important part I test. That is why my interests are only in amps which can build a wide and deep stage.

When clients want to buy a 2 dimensional brand. I will tell hi or she that he or she limits him or her self in sound quality. But when he or she still wants to buy, it is fine with me.

IME the mbls often sound harsh because of the electronics. I have had the opportunity to play the speakers with electronics I knew and they performed quite well- not harsh at all. But its been a different matter when I hear them at shows!

They are not harsh at all when set up right.

THey are hard to set up right. SOund great in dealer showroom. Same setup by same dealer below par at shows.

TO hear them set up well, go to United Home Audio in Annapolis Junction, MD.

CAll first to make sure they are still there, I heard them there a couple years back. Nothing else I have heard comes close in terms of soundstage depth and location of players in that large space.

It is not only the harsh sound. The mid freq. are not that natural and realistic. With classical music a violin sounded a lot different than in real.

Mannnnn it is ugly as hell. I think some people will like the looks. Most I know as me find it very ugly.

3 dimensional sound is something you can teach people very easilly. After that you can make them understand why it is more involving and more fun to listen at.

I cannot imagine stereo and Multi channel without 3 dimensional sound. Without it, I would stop working. And look for something else. That is why I don't understand people who still sell 2 dimensional standard audio.