Strange Klipsch thing

Yep, distance from rear wall and associated reflected sound is needed to create imaging depth.

mbl omni's set up accordingly do this to the max.

"Reflected sound. So what you guys are saying is that depth is a coloration."

I'm not, but I suppose you could call it that if you are in the camp that says all reflected sound is bad and should be avoided. It's an impossible goal in most any actual room save perhaps an anechoic chamber. WHo has one of those?

Are there speakers out there that can go directly up against the rear wall (or be wall mounted even perhaps in teh extreme case) and also be imaging depth champs? I seldom see any rigs set up with speakers flat against the rear wall or corners that have the option to do otherwise and still sound good. Most all I can think of that are designed to do a deep soundstage are also designed so the drivers (not necessarily the rear of the cabinets) are positioned somewhat away from the rear wall.

BTW imaging depth and quality is all relative. But the best I have heard in terms of depth of soundstage and imaging accuracy within it that I suggest to be the reference standard is the mbl omnis set up with major space(12-15 feet) set up behind them.

I've heard the exact same rig setup at a show way less optimally, and the soundstage and imaging was a shadow of that with the right setup, back with the pack for the most part, so you really have to hear tehse set up properly before you might have a clue what you might be missing.

The thing is, I do not see how there can be any depth of soundstage without reflected sound. Our choices in general regarding how we locate speakers away from rear walls in order to get depth of soundstage would seem to support this. Every system I have ever heard with good depth of soundstage features speaker placement away from rear walls in particular. The extreme case I have seen that set the benchmark were the omni mbls with lots of space behind and to side walls as well.

In lieu of an anechoic chamber to experiment with, imagine placing your speakers outdoors with no wall behind them. Would you get any perception of depth? I do not think so. Try it and see!

Width of soundstage is a different thing. That you would get in the outdoor listening space. Early reflections were side walls only added could only be detrimental only in that scenario I would envision.

The balancing act comes in that distance from the rear wall also tends to reduce bass coupling and levels at the same time as potential imaging depth increases. So speakers that strive to do depth of soundstage and bass well together have to take that into account.

Yes.

For it to work well, the subtle 3 dimensional sound cues are captured in the recording to various degrees (or not).

Then the playback system reproduces them in the 3-D space of your listening room, to the extent that the playback system is accurate and detailed enough to reproduce them. Distance between transducers and the rear wall and adequate proportional levels of first reflection sound off the rear wall is needed generally to accomplish this.

Omnis like mbl do this to the nth degree when set up properly in a large enough room with lots of space behind them and from side walls to minimize early reflections there.

Highly directional, front firing speakers that also rely on coupling to walls or corners for bass like Klipshorn are at the other end of the spectrum.

"No depth is a illusion. It doesn't exist its a trick of the senses like stereo. "

All of audio playback is an illusion and a reproduction but not "real".

Soundstage depth is no different than any other aspect of good sound. It can exist in the real world and in hifi playback under the right conditions. The rig owner has the power to determine which aspects of the illusion to focus on and enjoy or not with his rig. How the recording is made is a limitation just as it is in all the rest.

I can make a valid argument I think that if the 3-D spatial cues are present in teh recording and they are not reproduced in a 3-D manner accordingly then that is a coloration or type of distortion. This particular kind of "distortion" is inherent in headphone listening for example where an accurate 3-D presentation of spatial cues is not typically part of the game.

"Would be a sin of omission not a coloration or distortion."

Matter of perspective I suppose, but if the 3-d cues are there and not presented accurately, how is this different than watching a 3-D tv picture without the glasses needed to see it properly?

With audio, its less obvious and hence less of a distraction I suppose compared to 3-D images.

BTW 3-d TV has no appeal to me mainly because of the special glasses needed to see it properly and the option to not even have it.

With audio, 3-D presentation does have appeal to me because it is part of what was recorded and is always there in the recording to different degrees by default with no real option to remove.

If all tv were encoded for 3-D viewing, then I suspect we would all want to have a 3-D TV.

Yes, horns are more directional and also seem to lend themselves well towards going close to the rear wall, which can be an advantage, right?

They still play by the same rules of room acoustics as any other speakers though I think when it comes to 3-D soundstage and imaging. Good horns that are also highly resolving lend themselves well to the task from what I have heard, but I do not know if they will ever challenge the better omnis like mbl in terms of being the champs at soundstage depth specifically, if that is what turns you on.

"Mapman, headphones introduce their own set of perception peculiarities that compromise your point."

How's that?

Unsound,

OK, but how does that compromise my point?

With headphones, the spatial cues are still in the recordings and location is not reproduced like the original. Call that omission or distortion, take your pick.

Here is the wikipedia general definition of distortion:

"A distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of an object, image, sound, waveform or other form of information or representation. Distortion is usually unwanted, and often many methods are employed to minimize it in practice."

I think this supports my point, not compromise it.

"The actual hearing process differs."

OK.

So please explain what's the point you are trying to make? I'm not getting it?

Are you saying its our ears fault that the presentation they receive via headphones is nothing like that they might hear via a speaker setup where 3D spatial cues are reproduced more accurately?