If you don't have a wide sweet spot, are you really an audiophile?

I'm positioned in the sweet spot when listening and usually keep being seated there for the duration of the session, and yet I went for a pair of speakers that have a wider sweet spot compared to my previous speakers, because of what it does to the sound in that more or less fixated position.

If one were to visually outline it, it relates to how the overall presentation is "shaped" in front of you, and with a wider and higher dispersive nature compared to the earlier scenario (that now also involves physically taller speakers) - yet controlled by 90 x 40° Constant Directivity horns - it makes for a more enveloping sphere or bubble of sound, and one in this case more coherent and smooth at that. While sitting centered in front of the speakers is still preferable the presentation doesn't fundamentally change even when moving to the left or right seat in the sofa, and it has a relieving and relaxing effect on the listener. To me at least this type of presentation is more reminiscent of a live music event, if that's your thing. 

Certainly the dispersive nature of dual 15" woofers and a Constant Directivity horn per channel is narrower than smaller, direct radiating speakers, and yet makes for a full, enveloping and rather dense (akin to live music, to my ears) presentation. Maintaining a uniform dispersion pattern over the cross-over region is also very important in creating a homogenous bubble/sphere of presentation.

I suppose with a wider/higher sonic field of presentation as something that relates to a live presentation, it may link more innately to being an audiophile as someone who cares about mimicking such an event, and yet I feel omnidirectional speakers like MBL and others are too "wishy washy" to instill that sense of realism and presence akin to live music. YMMV. 

@audiokinesis /Duke --

What I’m going to suggest is sometimes called "time-intensity trading", as the off-centerline listening locations which have a later arrival from one speaker compensate by having greater intensity (loudness) from that speaker.

Briefly, start with speakers which have a very uniform radiation pattern of perhaps 90 degrees wide (-6 dB at 45 degrees off-axis to either side) over most of the spectrum. Then toe them in severely, such that their axes actually criss-cross in front of the centeral "sweet spot".

For an off-centerline listener, the NEAR speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, BUT because of the aggressive toe-in and relatively narrow radiation pattern width, the FAR speaker "wins" INTENSITY!

JBL aimed similarly with their DD55000 Everest's (DD for "Defined Directivity"):

The design went through a fairly extensive evolution before arriving at the final configuration. Originally, the concept was to develop a "super L300" with a similar sonic character. It was given the working designation of the L400. However, that designation had a notorious past and was soon dropped (see sidebar below). The system would be designed around a new acoustic concept referred to as "Defined Directivity" (the DD in DD55000). This concept had been pioneered by Don Keele in the professional 4660 ceiling speaker. That speaker was intended to provide rectangular coverage with constant volume from front to back. Bruce Scrogin realized that mounting this horn sideways in a home system could provide constant horizontal coverage. The asymmetric design would force more sound to the distant axis compared to the near axis so that someone walking a horizontal line between the speakers would be exposed to a constant sound level.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/everest.htm

The rationale behind this acoustic concept, to my mind, would seem less realized if it didn't entail an appreciation of a sonic correlation as perceived in the seated sweet spot, apart from offering a wider listening area to move within. Image specificity in the extreme doesn't exist in a live acoustic performance, and yet it's a devoured trait in audiophilia. To me at least the predominant takeaway in the debate about a narrow vs. wider spot is honing in on the "sweet spot" between these two dispersive extremes that most closely emulates the perceived impression of a live acoustic presentation, and this also involves for the listener to be able to move from side to side, as one would at a live performance, without seeing the sonic "image" tilt severely.

@ieales --

I doubt I’ve ever moved my head 8-10 inches either side at a live performance. Or stood up.

But I gather you’re not handed the same, specific seat that says "Reserved to Mr./Ms. [insert name]" as the one and only place to have a proper concert experience, in fact there’s a range seats centered to the stage that will be quite excellent sound-wise. Once seated, if that’s what you do, you could easily move your head about a foot shifting occasionally from one side in the chair to the other, and even so it’s hardly relevant with regard to any changes in sound. If you believe there is something tells me the you’re projecting the head-in-vise experience from your home set-up.

Properly set up and integrated, HiFi can do an amazing job at recreating a performance bet it Joe Pass playing acoustic alone, The Who or The London Phil. The trade off, due to physics, is the sweet spot is somewhat constricted.

No domestic set-up I’ve heard has come even fairly close to resembling a live acoustic concert, not to say some set-ups aren’t more successful in their approximation here than others, which is also to say: the effort isn’t futile. Let’s not fool ourselves though - the trade off is the recreation itself; you’re not there at the live event, you’re not going to fully experience it as such. A surplus in mage specificity, to a certain point, takes away from the holistic experience of music and in turn makes it more about something that’s supposed to impress sonically rather than musically, but that’s also about frequency response and the target curve at play.

In a live performance, if one has the ability to wander about, one will find there are gross variations in the sonic field, sometimes in as little as a foot.

Isn’t this the audiophile tendency to miss the forest for the trees? Just sit down and enjoy the damn music. A few changes in seating position shouldn’t make it a hit or miss; you still get to experience the totality of the event, something your home set-up can’t recreate - even perfectly positioned right smack in the middle.

It’s my experience that a wide sweet spot never elicits comments like "Joe Pass is sitting RIGHT THERE!"

Wide, narrow - to me it’s finding the proper balance somewhere in between here.

Very important observation....Thanks....

Which observation make me able to say that imaging is important soundwise but LESS difficult to obtain than natural timbre perception in an acoustic settings which perception and experience are the benchmark test of not only sound perception in audio but also of musical perception....

Audio is important but music surpass it, including it .... Electronic is important but acoustic surpass it making it shine or not....

It is MY experience for sure....But the experience of any musician i suppose....

Then the main central concept is no much mainly the "sweet spot" but more the dynamical "envelope " of the sound... One concept is more deep and englobe the other in a SMALL room and this subordination is understood well by any small room acoustic experiments which demonstrate that it is more difficult and ask for more fine tuning of the parameters controls to recreate the timbre dynamical envelope over some imaging ....

Well put, mahgister - I certainly agree. 

Tom Danley on the Synergy horn (emulating a perfect point source per channel/speaker), which will see a domesticized version in the shape of the Signature Series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBl5lhmzRKA