In a home audio setting, there is in effect a "competition" between the "small room signature" cues inherent to the playback room, and the "venue cues" which are on the recording, whether the latter be real or engineered or both. The ear/brain system will construct a perception of acoustic space based on the cues which are most plausibly presented to it.
Obviously, we’d like for the recording venue cues to emerge as dominant in this competition.
"Small room signature cues" are strongly conveyed by the earliest reflections, and in particular soundstage depth tends to be limited when there is not much distance between the front wall and the speakers assuming there is a strong reflection off that wall. Three feet was mentioned, and imo that’s a good idea, and ime more is better (though not always practical). The less distance between speakers and the wall behind them, in general the more room for improvement there is in absorbing or diffusing or re-directing that early reflection, even if it’s not very strong because the drivers are front-facing.
The ear/brain system looks at the time delay between the first-arrival sound and the "center of gravity" of reflections in making a judgment about the room size. If we can manipulate this "center of gravity", we can improve the spatial quality of the playback.
By taking steps to reduce the magnitude of the earliest reflections, including the one off the wall behind the speakers, we can push that "center of gravity" back in time somewhat, and thereby reduce the degree to which our small room’s signature is superimposed atop the spatial cues on the recording.
In doing so we are "unmasking" the spatial cues on the recording, such that they are not so strongly dominated by the playback room’s acoustic signature. This is imo a worthwhile step towards the suspension of disbelief, and towards that elusive "you are there" presentation.
In practice "you are there" is rare because AT BEST the ear is getting a poverty of venue cues, but if "small room signature cues" have been minimized AND the spatial cues on the recording have been effectively presented (something I haven’t described here), with a good recording it CAN happen.
Duke
Obviously, we’d like for the recording venue cues to emerge as dominant in this competition.
"Small room signature cues" are strongly conveyed by the earliest reflections, and in particular soundstage depth tends to be limited when there is not much distance between the front wall and the speakers assuming there is a strong reflection off that wall. Three feet was mentioned, and imo that’s a good idea, and ime more is better (though not always practical). The less distance between speakers and the wall behind them, in general the more room for improvement there is in absorbing or diffusing or re-directing that early reflection, even if it’s not very strong because the drivers are front-facing.
The ear/brain system looks at the time delay between the first-arrival sound and the "center of gravity" of reflections in making a judgment about the room size. If we can manipulate this "center of gravity", we can improve the spatial quality of the playback.
By taking steps to reduce the magnitude of the earliest reflections, including the one off the wall behind the speakers, we can push that "center of gravity" back in time somewhat, and thereby reduce the degree to which our small room’s signature is superimposed atop the spatial cues on the recording.
In doing so we are "unmasking" the spatial cues on the recording, such that they are not so strongly dominated by the playback room’s acoustic signature. This is imo a worthwhile step towards the suspension of disbelief, and towards that elusive "you are there" presentation.
In practice "you are there" is rare because AT BEST the ear is getting a poverty of venue cues, but if "small room signature cues" have been minimized AND the spatial cues on the recording have been effectively presented (something I haven’t described here), with a good recording it CAN happen.
Duke