Is it possible to have Good Imaging close to wall

Bo,

I've seen you mention that you were the best "absolute" sound at a show many times. Here in the U.S. when someone is best in show they will be written about and shown on many websites. Are there any websites in your country that discuss and show your setup from that show and if so, could you share some links?

If you have no links, could you tell us the name and date of that show?

Not this week.

Duke,

All of what you say rings true to me, as usual.

A large 3-D soundstage created by properly managed reflected sound is like a large format well done 3-D movie. Our eyes can resolve things more completely and accurately in 3-D compared to a projection of 3-D into 2-D. Aslo, in the case of sound, there is always a time component as well that must be addressed properly during playback. Reflected sound and the timing delays associated enable that.

Bose helped give reflected sound a bad name with audiophiles, not so much because the concept was wrong,but that the implementation apparently did not float many audiophile boats.

OHM with their omni designs is the company that has been around a long time like Bose that has traversed those seas most aggressively for the longest period of time, I suspect. Magnepan as well with their planar dipole approach. TWo different designs, two different dispersion patterns, two speakers that will likely seldom ever both sound best in teh same location, due to differences in how direct and reflected sound occurs. Toss mbl, a true omni design, in the same boat, I've owned both for many years and found each satisfying in their own way when set up right. Each has different requirements for best performance in a room and details of placement relative to walls is a key difference. Standard box designs have some inherent limitations, but designers, like Duke, have found many unique ways to address those effectively as well.

I have extensive technical background and experience in digital map imaging for military applications (hence my moniker). I draw largely on that to help me understand what I hear as well.

First - Nvp and Mapman - sorry for using the critique word, possibly leading to a misunderstanding. We share the basic ideals and I agree with most of what you write. Indeed I want to hear the recording venue, not my room. My point is just, we can't avoid the room (at least not, with more volume, bigger speakers etc), so we must make it play along. The Audiokinesis Dream Maker speakers I got last year do it better than others I've owned (Dynaudio Consequence, Abrahamsen Fs401, Aurum Cantus, Proac clones, even Bose 901 in the 1970s) in my fairly large 20 x 27 feet room. But it is not exactly up against the wall. The best close-to-the wall imaging I have achieved, is with smaller bookshelf or desktop speakers, sounding best if "clamped" (from above + below) but I have given up on that in my main rig. Speakers have to stand 4-5 feet from the wall, or more, to sound their best. For a while, I used the Aurum Cantus L2SE - great nearfield listening (esp for the money), although not a serious contender in the main rig, but even these small speakers sounded best 5 feet or so from the wall (now, a good fit for my Ming Da integrated amp at the cottage). The Dream Makers perform the trick of creating, both, the room energy and the "big" music making - *and* intimate images, but they are best almost six feet from the wall, so this is somewhat OT.

Mapman and Audiokinesis, thank you for the stimulating discussion.

I’ll start by citing Audiokinesis:

Reflections done right are beneficial from the
standpoint of envelopment and spaciousness and a sense of immersion,
timbre, clarity, and liveliness. They can preserve the three-dimensionality of
the recording, something that reflections done wrong will degrade.

Obviously, there are two extreme possibility: “Reflections done right” and
“reflections done wrong”.

Mapman talks about the benefits associated with the first one, i.e. “Reflections
done right”, while I warn people to be cautious as “reflections done wrong”
can be very detrimental. There is a reason why MBL speakers only on
occasions sound breathtaking while very often they are unable to image
properly or sound good. If MBL representatives (who are supposed to be
experts in setting up MBL speakers) often can’t do it, then one can not expect
the average audiophile or sell person to do it.

Consequently, my take is that if one wants to have a good sound-stage with
realistic sizes for the instrument and voices, than his/her best bet is to
minimise the first order reflections and create a symmetric listening
environment. I did not argue that one needs to completely suppress all
reflections (which is a task impossible to achieve in one’s room anyway). What
I argue is that beside altering the spectral balance, too many reflections are
also likely to give an unrealistic sound-stage, e.g. singer/voices having
unnatural sizes (30 inch or more). As such I feel it is better to minimise
reflections rather than to maximise them. There is a reason why recordings
are mixed in near-filed.

In the end it is a matter of preference (also because the “ideal"
reverberation time depends on the type of music one listens) and in this
regard me and Mapman have very different preferences. I own Avantgarde
horns (i.e. speakers that control the directivity of sound and thus minimise
reflections) whereas Mapman owns Ohm speakers (i.e. speakers which try to
maximise the reflections).

For what it is worth Mapman, I have a PhD in theoretical/computational
physics and I am doing research in university in the field of vibrational
spectroscopy for almost 15 years now.