Is it possible to have Good Imaging close to wall


I keep looking for the best speakers to stand flush against the front wall and end up looking at the usual suspects: North Creek Kitty Kat Revelators, Allisons (now old), Von Schweikert VR-35, NHT Classic 4s, Audio Note AN/K, and other sealed or front ported speakers. But I have never understood how, even though the bass is controlled, they can defy the law of physics and image as well as, say, my great actually owned other speakers, Joseph Audio Pulsars, far out in the room? Is it physically possible for these flush mounted speakers to image as well?
springbok10

Showing 24 responses by mapman

Early reflections off a wall is what compromises imaging
usually.

Some distance from the walls is needed to avoid. Its more
the location of the front of the speaker where sound is
emitted and other characteristics like the dispersion
pattern of teh drivers and baffle shape that
matter. Proximity to rear wall will affect imaging depth
more than width, proximity to side walls more width.

The key is to get the right delay and levels between direct
and reflected sound. Imaging is minimal without this.
Details of the recording are the biggest factor regarding
good imaging and large soundstage. Information must be in
the recording or else no dice. Some recordings have little
imaging, some a lot. The best ones often also have
potential for large well defined soundstage.

PRoximity to walls always works against imaging potential,
but results can still be quite good depending. It's all
relative.

The best imaging I have heard was with mbl speakers in a
large show room designed to maximize soundstage and imaging
for the omni design with a good 12 feet of tapered down
room behind the speakers and a good 8-10 feet to side walls.
Listening location was just slightly front and and center,
with similar volume of more rectangular room space behind
me. The players in the orchestral
recordings all had distinct locations within the space
behind the speakers.
Very holographic, very impressive!
If you place a pair of speakers outside say with no walls behind or otherwise, you will likely only hear 1-D stereo effect between the speakers. No reflected sound, no imaging beyond that. Its the early reflections that blur detail and imaging. Otherwise, when the timing between direct and reflected sound is more naturally in synch, that's when more "holographic" type imaging and soundstage that extends beyond and behind the speakers is possible.
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.
Onh,

I suppose it depends on ones goals and corrsponding perspective.

If you just want to hear the recording, headphones are probably the best way to do that.

Any stereo speakers take it to different level by nature of the resulting sound heard being totally dependent on room acoustics in all cases, with the exception perhaps of an ideal nearfield setup.

If you consider the recording to be more than just a recording being played back in stereo on two speakers though, in other words a technical abstraction of live music, the sound of that too is always affected by room acoustics and those spatial cues from direct and reflected recorded sound is in the recording to various degrees. For teh best recordings, they tend to be there A LOT!!!

So the reflected sound of teh room during playback is needed in order to attempt to best reproduce what might have been heard live rather than just what is in a 2 channel stereo recording.

Of course playback room acoustics will be different than what existed during recording, so the two may never be exactly the same, but can come pretty close when both are similar.

You might get a pretty good idea what the jazz quartet sounded like when recorded live in a small jazz club in a decent sized room at home, but that symphonic recording is less likely to have the room to breathe that the original players did.
Agree that Duke is the man on this site when it comes to principles of soundstage and imaging in speker design.
A good analogy for listening to a good stereo recording without proper soundstage and imaging enabled is to watching a 3-D movie without the glasses. The 3-D visual information is in the film. WIth the glasses, it is processed by our eyes properly to deliver the best resulting image possible. Without the glasses, not only is there no 3-D but the 2-D image seen is not quite right for viewing and certainly not as clear as the alternate 2-D version of the film.

I can't think of any recording I have ever heard on a system with good imaging and soundstage ability that sounded totally 1 dimensional. WIth my pseudo-omni OHMS, set up well, even monophonic recordings have some natural ambiance that makes it sound live, as if the performers were all clearly front and center on stage in some live venue.
"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.
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.
NVP,

I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that and chalk it up to different goals and expectations, mine being to simulate a live performance as best as possible in order to be fully satisfied. That does not infer a soundstage that is too big, too much bass, or any other defect. These are all just right for me to meet my goals. It took a long time for me to achieve this. Obviously, not everyone has the same goals as me or else the audio landscape out there might look much different than in fact it does.

"However, in most cases this much larger sound-stage is achieved at the
expense of pin-point localisation of the voices and instruments within the
sound-stage. "

Not when done really well. The mbl demo was the best by far I ever heard in regards to pinpoint locations in 3 dimensions, not less. The room had as much to do with this as the speakers. Other designs might do similarly well, maybe even better, but I have not heard it anywhere yet. That includes other 6 figure dealer showroom systems and demos with similar goals done on a smaller scale that I have heard that were quite excellent otherwise.

"Also, since you have mentioned live music, I should say that when it comes to
live music I associate the concept of three dimensional sound stage mostly to
large orchestra, large big bands and choir ensembles."

IT is largely a matter of how the musicians are set up, the room acoustics, and the perspective of the listener from their listening position. In many cases, this all adds up to a less 3-D soundstage at most events for most people, but not necessarily. Things can be set up both live and at home to do way better, if one cares enough to do so.

I will say that though that this degree of 3-D imaging is impressive when it occurs, but its absence does not bother even me that much. In a perfect world, I would want it probably if I had the means to achieve it, but in practice, I settle for a very good imaging system that in my room will probably never match the absolute top notch I have heard to be possible.

Choral music might be the thing that suffers the most when imaging and soundstage is not top notch possible. WHen things click, it can truly be heavenly.
"speakers should get a grip on the room."

That's a very good way to put it! Its fundamental to best sound. Room acoustics always determine the end result in all ways.

No early reflections always. Then tune in from there as needed. Many ways to get tuned in accordingly. Distance from walls, treatments, whatever works best.
Coherency among drivers matters for soundstage and imaging as well. Crossover can be a big factor there.
"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."

With the good mbl demo I heard, these were exceptional with no qualifications, especially when the source was modern reference standard RTR. Vinyl and CD in order were less perfect. That was clearly mostly do to limitations with the source material and format. The differences were never more striking to me than this mbl demo, where the RTR source truly sounded like a real orchestra spread out immediately in front of me with enough size and space to be able to pinpoint ever detail, much like in a high res 3-D image versus low.

It could be that only with a large 3-D soundstage and highly accurate imaging within that resolution differences from format to format can truly be heard. The RTR blew anything else away. Most people have never had a chance to hear the differences in a setup such as the one I heard at United Home Audio.

Same setup at Capital audiofest two different years...meh. THe magic was not there at all. Things were not even close to being properly dialed in, though many sat there and were mesmerized still. I heard many systems better on both occasions, some quite world class, but still not teh reference standard overall including imaging and soundstage in comparison.
"How do we reconcile these two contradictory
statements?"

Personal preference and perspective.

THere are many favorite flavors of ice cream. Even more
beautiful women, no two of which look the same.
I would love to have a pair of large, good horns. Avantegarde would do nicely. Not sure I would have the right room for those though, but I would love to have the chance.

THe best horn speaker demo I have ever heard was a pair of large full range custom horns GoTo drivers and large bass modules, similar to Avantegarde perhaps, at Capital audiofest a few years back. THat was one occasion where the mbl demo was not fully up to snuff. The GoTo's got my personal best sound of show award that day, FWIW. Soundstage and imaging was not to the scale of the benchmark mbl demo, but still excellent and all the rest was exhilarating as well, with excllent trademark horn transients and dynamics. I only got to listen for 20 minutes or so though.
Here is a photo of those Goto horns at Capital Audiofest a few years back that I heard.

This was a top 5 all time most impressive system demo for me I would say. Not to mention the speakers, setup room and venue were all simply gorgeous.
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.
I have never owned any speakers designed to go up against wall + maximize soundstage depth, which is what suffers the most usually when speakers are close to the wall.

OHM Walshes are designed to be able to go closer to walls than pure omnis, in order to make placement more viable for most. When set up right, soundstage depth is very good. The kinds of rooms most people are stuck with (unlike United Home Audio where I heard the benchmark mbl demo) and have to also live in are often a practical limitation and OHM is unique in its ability to create a large and reasonably deep detailed soundstage with placement closer to walls than possible with true omni, but not against.

Blue Circle had a model a few years back based on the OHM Walsh design that was designed to go flush against walls.

There are other speaker designers that tackle thepractical issues most have to deal with when locating speakers from teh perspective of soundstage and imaging. Larsen is one that was mentioned above that appears to have a good approach but I am not very familiar with. At a glance, they remind me a bit of Vandersteen which is quite well known.

BEfore teh current Walsh line, OHM offered several models using unconventional driver orientations to help reduce effects of early reflections that remind me of what Larsen appears to do. OHM often has refurbed versions of their older models with latest and greatest components installed for reasonable cost if of interest. Check out the catalog of older models on teh OHM site for more info on some of the FRS, CAM (very well received at the time with rotatable "egg" shaped tweeter mounted on top), or the OHM I, which John Strohbeen has cited as perhaps the best OHM ever in terms of pure output capabilities.
Duke's speakers always catch my attention, though I have yet to hear.

Like I said, Duke is the man here when it comes to talking about and explaining these things. That goes a long way for me.
"Bo, the reality is that people are misinformed and ill advised everywhere not just
in audio."

So true, unfortunately.

The information is there more than ever, but so much noise to blur the picture....
B_limo,

With my OHM omni's, speaker distance apart has little effect on soundstage width. It is wall to wall, about 20" total even if speakers are just a few feet apart. My room is L shaped with the OHM's sitting at the base of the L firing into the long dimension, which is narrow. Omnis are are a perfect fit there. I had Maggies there prior and could never get them to work as well as I knew they could from prior experience with them in other rooms.

Achieving soundstage depth is the biggest challenge in this room as with most in that having speakers too far out from rear wall is a practical problem in many cases, but the OHMs do a good job even with just enough distance from rear wall to avoid early reflections. I like the distance the reflected sound travels to be about 2X that of the direct, to the extent possible, for best results.

A large room, wide and deep, with lots of space behind, does help not only with enabling a large soundstage, but also helps our ears to be able to triangulate on sound locations within the soundstage better and with more detail, ie perceive imaging within the soudstage accurately. Our 2 ears and two eyes work similarly in this way in terms of being able to see or hear in "stereo" and being able to locate things spatially in three dimensions.

Generally, you will want more room behind the speakers to work well with more space between. WHen speakers move closer to rear wall, less space may be best between speakers as well. It's mostly about getting the right distribution, balance, and magnitude of direct and reflected sound from the two stereo speakers at the listening location or locations.

An excellent tweak otherwise would be to move one's ears further apart somehow. Not likely to happen though, so lots of open 3-D space for the speakers to image in is your friend in general otherwise.

Things work similarly in smaller rooms, but on a smaller scale. Its like having a 15" TV versus a 70" big screen in essence. If set up right including listening position, similar good things can still happen, just on a smaller scale.

I find omni's overall to be easier to setup for good overall results than more directional designs, though fine tuning for absolute best results is still needed as well.

At my reference mbl demo behavior appeared similar ie distance to rear wall was the key as long as early reflections from side wall were not in play.

That room was also heavily treated with curtains and other soft absorbent materials, which were absent at show demos with lesser results. Also the room area behind the mbls was tapered, not rectangu;lar, much like a musical instrument, probably to minimize resonances.

If I had a room like that, I think there is a chance my OHMs could probably challenge the mbls for soundstage depth and maybe even beat them in most every other way, but I may never know for sure.

My big OHMs ended up costing me about $2500 a couple years back, with sale price at the time and maximum trade-in value (40%) applied. They go for about $6500 brand spanking new these days, less if OHM Walsh CLS driver "can" is mounted in older refurbed cabinets, like mine, which are refurbed OHM F cabinets that could be a good 30-40 years old by now.

Dynamics are top notch as well. I do not feel wanting after a good horn speaker demo when I come home.

The big mbl 101s may be the boss in terms of bass output potential and dynamics there though. THe mbls I heard were "only" 111e's. Have never had the pleasure of hearing 101s.

TO challenge bass output from 101s perhaps, OHM now has a 5015 model with powered subs integrated into the cabinets for about $10K. I would love to hear a shootout between those and mbl 101s each set up optimally.
Here is the easy recipe for very good sound for veritually no cost for many to hear recordings sans room acoustics and reflections. Its pretty good! If you don't need room acoustics to get the sound you want, this may be all most people would ever need.

1) RIP a few tracks from CD to .wav using any good quality ripping software. Windows MEdia player set to store lossless .wav does nicely.

2) upload tracks to amazon cloud player website. You can do up to a few hundred tracks for free. Only tracks in Amazons music catalog will upload though, so some will not.

3) Grab a pair of good quality earbuds or earphones, plug it into a good quality newer PC. Nothing fancy needed, just avoid junk. I find Klipsch S4 earbuds at well less than $100 do very well. OR use an Ipad, iphone, android device or any device with decent sound quality and a browser to access Amazon Cloud player website.

4) You should get pretty decent sound quality, sans room acoustics. Makes for a decent reference for constrast and comparison. You'll need a decent home system set up right (not easy in comparison) to get better results most likely. Of course, earbuds and speakers in a room are two totally different beasts, but both can be very satisfying these days.

Does not have to cost much to get in the game with this approach though. I'd be willing to bet that the average intelligent youth these days weans better sound quality out of a setup like this than many audiophiles who have labored for years and spent many $$$Ss trying to just get decent sound that might hold their interest over time.
Optimal setup for OHM and Larsen is bound to be different. Larsen is clearly designed to go right up against the wall for best results, which is a very useful thing for many. OHM Walsh can go close maybe just a couple feet in most cases, but not flush, better in this regard than 100% omnis, like original OHM Walsh model F, or modern mbl for example.

I find in most cases I tend to like my Walsh 5S3 and 100s both out at least two feet, probably more from the wall. What works best will vary by room acoustics and user goals.
Small Larsen's might be perfect for my wife's 12X12, vaulted ceiling, acoustic nightmare sunroom.

It's my wife's room, so my options in there are limited.

I have various speakers I have used in there that I can get to work to various degree but none to-date hit the bulls-eye perfectly.

OHM 100S3s are over kill and bass resonances are hard to get under control. I can't move these out into the room to help tame bass and improve soundstage and imaging in there like I can in other rooms.

Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors have similar issues but to a lesser extent.

I use my small Triangle Titus XS on low stands 1" off the floor currently and find this to be a pretty good fit, but something a bit larger might still be nice if bass levels can be managed with speakers flush against the wall.

Not a big deal for me but I might have to look into that at some point.
PRice on Larsen's are not bad for what they might do I would say, especially for a European import.

MWTs are another option I have considered at present if I do something someday. VEry small footprint and probably the right size. But do I really need 4 pair of OHMs? I also like some variety and new toys. %^]

The Triangles are fitting the bill there for now. I don't get to listen in there very often, but it is nice to in there on a nice, sunny day.