Senior NEET Engineer
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I often see the advice to pull speakers far away from the wall to improve imaging and soundstage. However I could never come to an understanding for why.
Last edited:
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
How does speaker distance to wall impact imaging and soundstage?
- Thread starter Senior NEET Engineer
- Start date
tuga
Major Contributor
Walls affect sound differently above and below Schroeder.
Phantom image sharpness is inversely proportional to soundstage width / spaciousness.
A couple of snippets from "Acoustics Of Small Rooms" by Kleiner & Tichy:
Spaciousness and diffusivity
Localization of externalized single sound field components was shown to be fairly straightforward but dependent on many factors. Localization of sound field components that have identical sound levels at the ears will depend on further factors such as phase difference.
When sounds are correlated, such as a monophonic signal that is presented binaurally, the auditory event occurs inside the head, inside head localization (IHL). If the sounds at the ears are fully uncorrelated, such as two separate noise signals that are presented binaurally, there will be two auditory events, one at each ear.
An interesting effect can be heard when presenting a monophonic wide bandwidth noise signal in stereo (over loudspeakers or headphones) if the stereo signals are out of phase. The noise frequency components below 2 kHz are then perceived as spatially diffuse—having spaciousness— whereas those for higher frequencies are perceived as located between the loudspeakers (or for headphones, IHL occurs). The time difference in the low-frequency components provides phase cues that are ambiguous thus providing apparent sound field diffuseness, whereas the high-frequency sounds are analyzed by their envelopes and those will be identical at the two ears causing a located auditory event.
Similarly, when a wideband noise signal is provided over headphones to a listener and one of the headphones is fed with the signal delayed by a millisecond or more, the sound is perceived as diffuse.
What constitutes a diffuse sound field is thus different in the physical and psychoacoustic domains. In the latter, a diffuse sound field is that that provides non-locatedness of sounds or, alternatively phrased, that provides a sound that is located over all spatial angles (or rather upper hemisphere in a concert hall that has sound-absorptive seating).
In physics on the other hand, a diffuse sound field is defined as a sound field where all angles of sound incidence have equal probability, where the sound from each spatial angle is out of phase, and where the energy density is the same everywhere.
Obviously, the two ideas of what constitutes diffuseness are different in the two sciences. A physically diffuse sound field will also be psychologically diffuse but not necessarily the reverse. From the viewpoint of listening, it is of course the psychoacoustic properties that are of importance, not the sound field properties.
Auditory source width and image precision
As we listen to sounds, the apparent width of the auditory event, often called the auditory source width (ASW), will depend on many issues. To those listening to stereo or multichannel recordings of sound, it is quite clear that the width of the array of phantom sources treated by the recording or playback is determined by not only the layout of the loudspeaker setup in the listening room and the directional properties of the loudspeakers but also on the listening room itself. The more reflections arriving from the sides of the listening room, the wider will the ASW be. However, the ASW will be frequency dependent above 0.5 kHz and a 2 kHz sound arriving at ±45° relative the frontal direction will produce maximum ASW [38,39]. This is to be expected since the masking by direct sound is the smallest for this angle of incidence of early arriving reflections [16]. The ASW also depends on the low-frequency content of the signal, more low-frequency energy increases ASW [38,40,41]. Psychoacoustic testing shows that the spatial aspects of the early reflections are primarily determined by the reflection spectrum above 2 kHz [33].
Reliable data for sound reproduction in small rooms are difficult to find. A single omnidirectional loudspeaker judiciously placed close to the corner of a room may well create as large an auditory image as a conventional stereo loudspeaker setup placed out in the room as discussed in Chapters 9 and 11.
Using digital signal processing, the ASW can be made to extend far outside the bounds set by the stereo baseline. Sound field cancelation techniques
Symmetry
Early reflected sound will confuse hearing and make the stereo stage and its phantom sources appear incorrectly located or even blurred. As explained in Chapter 8 the listener’s placement of the phantom sources is dependent particularly on the transient nature of the sound that comes from the loudspeakers so it will be affected by the early reflected sound from the room surfaces. The early reflected sound will also affect the global auditory source width for an orchestra for example and may make it extend considerably beyond the baseline between the loudspeakers.
In asymmetric rooms where the walls on the left and right of the listener have different acoustic properties, the stereo stage may become biased towards the wall that reflects the most. The curve in Figure 8.23 shows the dependency more clearly for different levels of unbalance as applied to the center phantom source in a stereo loudspeaker system. The intensity will then be higher at that ear and the sound stage distorted. This distortion is usually compensated by changing the balance in amplification between the stereo channels.
At low frequencies in the modal region, symmetry may not be desirable since someone sitting in the middle of the room may be on or close to modal node lines. One way of avoiding such node lines is to make the room asymmetric in the low-frequency region.
This can be achieved by having an asymmetric rigid shell surrounding the inner room which is symmetric for mid- and high frequencies by suitably reflective side walls, ceiling, and floor. The inner room must be open acoustically to the outer shell at low frequencies, for example through ventilation vents, and similar large openings, for example at corners. In this way, one can have the desired listening position sound field symmetry for mid- and high frequencies while at the same time have asymmetric conditions in the modal frequency range. Bass traps to control the damping—and thus the reverberation times—of these modes can be placed between the outer and inner shell. It is important to remember though that noise transmission to the surrounding spaces will then be dependent on the sound isolation of the outer shell that must be physically substantial.
Phantom image sharpness is inversely proportional to soundstage width / spaciousness.
A couple of snippets from "Acoustics Of Small Rooms" by Kleiner & Tichy:
Spaciousness and diffusivity
Localization of externalized single sound field components was shown to be fairly straightforward but dependent on many factors. Localization of sound field components that have identical sound levels at the ears will depend on further factors such as phase difference.
When sounds are correlated, such as a monophonic signal that is presented binaurally, the auditory event occurs inside the head, inside head localization (IHL). If the sounds at the ears are fully uncorrelated, such as two separate noise signals that are presented binaurally, there will be two auditory events, one at each ear.
An interesting effect can be heard when presenting a monophonic wide bandwidth noise signal in stereo (over loudspeakers or headphones) if the stereo signals are out of phase. The noise frequency components below 2 kHz are then perceived as spatially diffuse—having spaciousness— whereas those for higher frequencies are perceived as located between the loudspeakers (or for headphones, IHL occurs). The time difference in the low-frequency components provides phase cues that are ambiguous thus providing apparent sound field diffuseness, whereas the high-frequency sounds are analyzed by their envelopes and those will be identical at the two ears causing a located auditory event.
Similarly, when a wideband noise signal is provided over headphones to a listener and one of the headphones is fed with the signal delayed by a millisecond or more, the sound is perceived as diffuse.
What constitutes a diffuse sound field is thus different in the physical and psychoacoustic domains. In the latter, a diffuse sound field is that that provides non-locatedness of sounds or, alternatively phrased, that provides a sound that is located over all spatial angles (or rather upper hemisphere in a concert hall that has sound-absorptive seating).
In physics on the other hand, a diffuse sound field is defined as a sound field where all angles of sound incidence have equal probability, where the sound from each spatial angle is out of phase, and where the energy density is the same everywhere.
Obviously, the two ideas of what constitutes diffuseness are different in the two sciences. A physically diffuse sound field will also be psychologically diffuse but not necessarily the reverse. From the viewpoint of listening, it is of course the psychoacoustic properties that are of importance, not the sound field properties.
Auditory source width and image precision
As we listen to sounds, the apparent width of the auditory event, often called the auditory source width (ASW), will depend on many issues. To those listening to stereo or multichannel recordings of sound, it is quite clear that the width of the array of phantom sources treated by the recording or playback is determined by not only the layout of the loudspeaker setup in the listening room and the directional properties of the loudspeakers but also on the listening room itself. The more reflections arriving from the sides of the listening room, the wider will the ASW be. However, the ASW will be frequency dependent above 0.5 kHz and a 2 kHz sound arriving at ±45° relative the frontal direction will produce maximum ASW [38,39]. This is to be expected since the masking by direct sound is the smallest for this angle of incidence of early arriving reflections [16]. The ASW also depends on the low-frequency content of the signal, more low-frequency energy increases ASW [38,40,41]. Psychoacoustic testing shows that the spatial aspects of the early reflections are primarily determined by the reflection spectrum above 2 kHz [33].
Reliable data for sound reproduction in small rooms are difficult to find. A single omnidirectional loudspeaker judiciously placed close to the corner of a room may well create as large an auditory image as a conventional stereo loudspeaker setup placed out in the room as discussed in Chapters 9 and 11.
Using digital signal processing, the ASW can be made to extend far outside the bounds set by the stereo baseline. Sound field cancelation techniques
Symmetry
Early reflected sound will confuse hearing and make the stereo stage and its phantom sources appear incorrectly located or even blurred. As explained in Chapter 8 the listener’s placement of the phantom sources is dependent particularly on the transient nature of the sound that comes from the loudspeakers so it will be affected by the early reflected sound from the room surfaces. The early reflected sound will also affect the global auditory source width for an orchestra for example and may make it extend considerably beyond the baseline between the loudspeakers.
In asymmetric rooms where the walls on the left and right of the listener have different acoustic properties, the stereo stage may become biased towards the wall that reflects the most. The curve in Figure 8.23 shows the dependency more clearly for different levels of unbalance as applied to the center phantom source in a stereo loudspeaker system. The intensity will then be higher at that ear and the sound stage distorted. This distortion is usually compensated by changing the balance in amplification between the stereo channels.
At low frequencies in the modal region, symmetry may not be desirable since someone sitting in the middle of the room may be on or close to modal node lines. One way of avoiding such node lines is to make the room asymmetric in the low-frequency region.
This can be achieved by having an asymmetric rigid shell surrounding the inner room which is symmetric for mid- and high frequencies by suitably reflective side walls, ceiling, and floor. The inner room must be open acoustically to the outer shell at low frequencies, for example through ventilation vents, and similar large openings, for example at corners. In this way, one can have the desired listening position sound field symmetry for mid- and high frequencies while at the same time have asymmetric conditions in the modal frequency range. Bass traps to control the damping—and thus the reverberation times—of these modes can be placed between the outer and inner shell. It is important to remember though that noise transmission to the surrounding spaces will then be dependent on the sound isolation of the outer shell that must be physically substantial.
I would like to hear some thoughts on this topic as well! Some say it's because of the Haas effect aka the precedence effect that it would be beneficial to move the speakers away from the front wall so that the reflection is more than 5ms (so further than 2.5ms=86cm). That way the brain recognizes it as separate reflections and not as a 'smear' of the main sound.
Seems like speaker placement is a compromise regarding phantom image vs soundstage width and SBIR vs soundstage depth? Is this correct?
Seems like speaker placement is a compromise regarding phantom image vs soundstage width and SBIR vs soundstage depth? Is this correct?
Last edited:
OP
Senior NEET Engineer
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Thread Starter
- #4
Seems pretty clear for the side walls, but how does pulling speaker away from front wall improve imaging and soundstage? I don't think normal speakers radiate much high frequency energy in that direction.
ta240
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,421
- Likes
- 2,848
I don’t know about improve, but as far as impact it shouldn’t be that difficult to grasp. Speakers radiate in all directions, usually not equally but they all put out energy behind them. The further away from the front wall, the longer the distance the back waves have to travel to reach your ears, thus reducing SPL (while also increasing the SPL of the forward radiating sound), thus also means the severity of their interacrions with the forward radiating sound.
Also, another reason to play with front wall distance is to mess with SBIR. Based on the distance of the woofer cone to the front wall, you can calculate where you will get a null (this is why bass traps behind the speakers are helpful).
Also, another reason to play with front wall distance is to mess with SBIR. Based on the distance of the woofer cone to the front wall, you can calculate where you will get a null (this is why bass traps behind the speakers are helpful).
I think part of it is avoiding too much bass reinforcement from the front wall (w/ rear ported speakers). This is obviously not an issue with EQ.
Also there is the visual cue: it's easier to imagine the phantom image extending beyond the speakers if the wall is farther away.
There seems to be two 'schools' here:
the as close to the front wall as possible and the as far into the room as possible
View attachment 64811
In the manual for my Monitor Audio speakers it says:
For use in a 2 channel system, the listening position and the loudspeakers should form an equilateral triangle. The speakers should be positioned approximately 6 - 10 feet (1.8 - 3m) apart. They ideally need to be between 8 - 18 inches (20 - 45cm) away from the rear and 3 feet (1m) from the side walls.
Experimentation is strongly advised when initially setting up your speakers, as environments and personal preference differ with each installation. If there is not enough bass, for example, then try moving your speakers closer to a wall. The opposite, if there is too much bass. Also see the information on page 11 referring to Port Bungs. If you are losing stereo imaging, try ‘toeing’ them in slightly. The sound should appear to originate from the centre point between the speakers, not the actual speakers themselves.
I have Rear Ports and have tried different setup/positions to manage the bass/sound. From my experience, if it’s too close to the wall and not toed in I get very boomy sound. I then have to use the foam/port bungs but loose some of the deepest bass. But if I toe them slightly at the same distance from the wall I can remove the port bungs and the bass is good. From what I can hear when the bass is boomy I loose details and clarity because it’s “interfering” in some frequencies. Just my observation but it depends on the room, walls and speakers etc.
For use in a 2 channel system, the listening position and the loudspeakers should form an equilateral triangle. The speakers should be positioned approximately 6 - 10 feet (1.8 - 3m) apart. They ideally need to be between 8 - 18 inches (20 - 45cm) away from the rear and 3 feet (1m) from the side walls.
Experimentation is strongly advised when initially setting up your speakers, as environments and personal preference differ with each installation. If there is not enough bass, for example, then try moving your speakers closer to a wall. The opposite, if there is too much bass. Also see the information on page 11 referring to Port Bungs. If you are losing stereo imaging, try ‘toeing’ them in slightly. The sound should appear to originate from the centre point between the speakers, not the actual speakers themselves.
I have Rear Ports and have tried different setup/positions to manage the bass/sound. From my experience, if it’s too close to the wall and not toed in I get very boomy sound. I then have to use the foam/port bungs but loose some of the deepest bass. But if I toe them slightly at the same distance from the wall I can remove the port bungs and the bass is good. From what I can hear when the bass is boomy I loose details and clarity because it’s “interfering” in some frequencies. Just my observation but it depends on the room, walls and speakers etc.
Bumping hoping there will be more responses to this good question.
I wrote about it in another thread :
Bringing the loudspeakers away from the wall behind them creates a dip and a peak in the frequency response thats gonna change your perceived sound quality. With the right distance, an illusion of depth can be had, though its just an illusion, it can sometimes help compensating for the very crude and primitive coding of the 2- channel system.
So theres nothing that says that damping the front wall always will be considered as a better sound.
The best thing to do, is to do your own recording ( purist 2-channel ) and compare with the real acoustic event. 2-channel recordings are just an illusion and nothing more , of the real acoustic event.
Knowing this, after making more than 20 recordings with good microphones, one has to understand that there is no easy fix with perfect sound with two channels. You have to work with the illusion and the perceived sound quality.
That said, different loudspeaker positions regarding distance from the front wall can really make big differences in perceived quality.
But, there is no quick fix and no solutions thats gonna be the same everywhere.
Regarding the precedence-effect : after 5 ms soundtravel and more, the microphone and ear/brain are starting to function very differently. The mic takes up all the sound, the brain selects sounds.
As Eetu already wrote - keeping the loudspeaker away from the front-wall more than 2,5 ms makes the sound more clear.
If you have thick damping material ( 5-10 cm ) about 100*150 cm on the wall behind each loudspeaker you can move the loudspeaker closer to the wall .
Last edited:
When you say "on the wall behind each loudspeaker" Do you mean "the wall behind the loudspeaker" or "behind the speaker on that wall"?
If it's "the wall", do you mean the whole wall, top to bottom, side to side? If it's just behind each speaker, will a normal 1200mm high 150mm deep bass panel work ok?
Would it help, if you were to use most of the wall, to try and inset the speakers within the panel a little bit? Not enough to affect the heat dissipation, but just to keep it a little closer to the wall? The speaker cabinets are 32cm deep, and adding 5cm for cabling brings the face quite far out for a (sadly) small room. Adding another 15cm for the panel and it all adds up. The SBIR here is a nightmare.
If it's "the wall", do you mean the whole wall, top to bottom, side to side? If it's just behind each speaker, will a normal 1200mm high 150mm deep bass panel work ok?
Would it help, if you were to use most of the wall, to try and inset the speakers within the panel a little bit? Not enough to affect the heat dissipation, but just to keep it a little closer to the wall? The speaker cabinets are 32cm deep, and adding 5cm for cabling brings the face quite far out for a (sadly) small room. Adding another 15cm for the panel and it all adds up. The SBIR here is a nightmare.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The main reason to pull your speakers out from the walls, and your listening chair, is bass. Play some bassy music then walk round the room. The bass will sound different in different parts of the room. It will also sound different as you move your head up or down. This experiment shows that you can change the sound of the bass frequencies - 0-300Hz or so - by moving your speakers and chair.
The next question is 'where is the best location for speakers and chair?' This of course will depend on your room, it's shape and construction, and its contents. Assuming a symmetrical room you could try this method known as 'The Thirds':
http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/monitoring.htm
It's not perfect but a good compromise (you can use bass traps, subwoofers or DSP/EQ to improve matters).
The frequencies above 300Hz or thereabouts (the Schroeder or transition frequency as some call it which is room dependent and not an exact figure) behave more like light rays, reflecting off walls, ceilings and other flat reflective surfaces (your Hi-Fi equipment for example) like light off a mirror. In my view reflections interfere with getting an accurate rendition of the music so I try to remove them using absorbent panels. Other people like some reflections as they can give a sense of spaciousness but at the expense of accuracy, as Tuga points out above.
A soundstage seems to me to be a combination of the recording, reflections and your brain's interpretation of things.
The next question is 'where is the best location for speakers and chair?' This of course will depend on your room, it's shape and construction, and its contents. Assuming a symmetrical room you could try this method known as 'The Thirds':
http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/monitoring.htm
It's not perfect but a good compromise (you can use bass traps, subwoofers or DSP/EQ to improve matters).
The frequencies above 300Hz or thereabouts (the Schroeder or transition frequency as some call it which is room dependent and not an exact figure) behave more like light rays, reflecting off walls, ceilings and other flat reflective surfaces (your Hi-Fi equipment for example) like light off a mirror. In my view reflections interfere with getting an accurate rendition of the music so I try to remove them using absorbent panels. Other people like some reflections as they can give a sense of spaciousness but at the expense of accuracy, as Tuga points out above.
A soundstage seems to me to be a combination of the recording, reflections and your brain's interpretation of things.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
When I had my Hi-Fi equipment between and behind my speakers on the front wall, I could hear what I thought were reflections coming off the gear. Putting absorbent panels in front of the gear stopped that. I therefore moved the gear to the side and put absorbent panels on the front wall, as well as next to the outside of my speakers to prevent side wall reflections.
It seems then that some sound could bend round the speaker edges and towards the front wall.
Hipper
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I don't think the Haas/precedence effect is supposed to 'smear' the sound. As long as the reflection is broadly the same sound as the direct sound, your brain will merely add dBs to the direct sound and think all the sound comes directly from the speaker. It will only sound louder. Only if the reflection arrives later will it be interpreted by your brain as a separate sound from another direction - an echo. How much later is the big question and that seems to be highly variable, perhaps on both frequencies and individuals.
In my listening room of 3.86m x 4.2m (13' x 14') the direct sound travels about 1.5m whilst the reflections off the gear when I had it on the front wall was 3.5m, a difference of 2m. Sound at sea level takes about 6ms to travel this distance and I thought I could detect that as from a different location as the direct sound.
What has to be born in mind is that a stereo image is a phantom image created by your brain. It does not exist in reality. What I get, having tried to remove all reflections and reduced decay times considerably with lots of room treatment, is a stereo image locked between the speakers with usually a strong central image along with instruments and harmony vocals placed somewhere between the speakers. I don't get sounds from outside the speakers, not much height information and sometimes some but not much depth. When I listened with side wall reflections I did not consider I got a wider soundstage, just a slightly more muddled sound. The only time I get sounds beyond my speakers is from odd phase issues apparently, notably one on 'Waterloo Sunset':
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thre...-improve-your-stereo-playback-with-it.320990/
The following is just my opinion.
The depth of the soundstage is often constrained by the time gap between the first arrival sound and the reflection off the wall behind the speakers, and ime it is not uncommon for the perceived soundstage depth to extend behind the speakers roughly twice their distance from the wall. So if the speakers are one foot in front of the wall, the soundstage will often be perceived to extend one foot behind the wall. If the speakers are three feet out from the wall, the soundstage will often be perceived to extend three feet behind the wall. This is for setups wherein the "small room signature" of the playback room is perceptually dominant, which is the most common situation.
However it is possible for the venue information on the recording to dominate the "small room signature" of the playback room such that we experience the auditory illusion of being enveloped in the acoustic space of the recording. One of the factors in achieving this "you are there" presentation is minimizing the "small room signature" of the playback room, including the reflection off the wall behind the speakers, perhaps by increasing their distance from that wall.
So to recap, increased distance from the wall can result in a deeper soundstage in setups where the playback room's inherent "small room signature" is perceptually dominant, AND in some cases can make it a little bit easier for the "venue signature" which is on the recording to be dominant.
In my opinion.
I asked Floyd Toole about this: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/ho...-science-shows.3038828/page-132#post-57878964
I can't remember which diyaudio.com discussion I was referencing, possibly this one: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...age-controlled-directivity-or-in-wall.324309/
Some thoughts from Siegfried Linkwitz:
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/accurate stereo performance.htm: "The depth of the AS depends strongly upon the recording technique used. On pan-potted and closely miked studio recordings - as is common for pop music - it tends to be very shallow. The ear/brain does not receive adequate cues for perceiving depth of a natural space within which the instruments were played. On classical music recordings - and again depending on the microphone technique used - there can be a strong sense of depth developing as different instruments of the orchestra illuminate the venue in which the performance took place. The perceived depth is not bounded by the distance of the loudspeakers to the wall behind them if that distance is at least 1 m."
He repeats that 1m distance from large reflecting surfaces in multiples places, including https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Sound_field/Field_control.htm, https://www.linkwitzlab.com/stereo reproduction.htm, https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm
More thoughts: https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress...-depth-in-stereo-recordings-one-mans-opinion/ (referenced also at https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/03/20/bo-tech-a-day-in-the-life/). My interpretation is that he feels that these early reflections call attention to the placement of the loudspeakers themselves, as Toole mentioned in a different context with respect to resonances, but detracting from perception of depth cues within the recording.
I personally tend to think that diffraction near and around the speakers may also call attention to loudspeaker placement in a similar manner but have no references to support this assertion.
I can't remember which diyaudio.com discussion I was referencing, possibly this one: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...age-controlled-directivity-or-in-wall.324309/
Some thoughts from Siegfried Linkwitz:
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/accurate stereo performance.htm: "The depth of the AS depends strongly upon the recording technique used. On pan-potted and closely miked studio recordings - as is common for pop music - it tends to be very shallow. The ear/brain does not receive adequate cues for perceiving depth of a natural space within which the instruments were played. On classical music recordings - and again depending on the microphone technique used - there can be a strong sense of depth developing as different instruments of the orchestra illuminate the venue in which the performance took place. The perceived depth is not bounded by the distance of the loudspeakers to the wall behind them if that distance is at least 1 m."
He repeats that 1m distance from large reflecting surfaces in multiples places, including https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Sound_field/Field_control.htm, https://www.linkwitzlab.com/stereo reproduction.htm, https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/AS_creation.htm
More thoughts: https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress...-depth-in-stereo-recordings-one-mans-opinion/ (referenced also at https://www.tonmeister.ca/wordpress/2014/03/20/bo-tech-a-day-in-the-life/). My interpretation is that he feels that these early reflections call attention to the placement of the loudspeakers themselves, as Toole mentioned in a different context with respect to resonances, but detracting from perception of depth cues within the recording.
I personally tend to think that diffraction near and around the speakers may also call attention to loudspeaker placement in a similar manner but have no references to support this assertion.
I found more relevant quotes from from Siegfried Linkwitz: "Some audiophiles have claimed that the perceived sound stage depth corresponds to the distance from the loudspeaker to the wall behind it. That claim is mistaken. The wall behind the loudspeakers as well as the loudspeakers themselves completely disappear on many recordings of live events where apparently the venue acoustics are sufficiently embedded in the sound to recreate the sense of space. A dipole illuminates that wall more strongly than a conventional box type loudspeaker and this might contribute to a stronger sense of depth and openness" and "The perception of distance of a source within a space, however, depends largely upon the degree to which reverberation has changed the source signals onset, decay and envelope at the receiving location [17]. The two ear signals do not need to be different from each other to hear distance and space. With an appropriate microphone technique and in a suitable recording venue, space information is automatically embedded in the two channels. Even a single channel contains sufficient cues to create the impression of space, as observed when listening to old monaural recordings over a single loudspeaker."
(https://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES123-final2.pdf)
Reference 17 is here: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/pitch3.doc
(https://www.linkwitzlab.com/AES123-final2.pdf)
Reference 17 is here: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/pitch3.doc
Linkwitz is wrong in this .
2- channel recordings and listening with two loudspeakers brings only an illusion of the real event . The stereo system is to flawed. With conventional loudspeakers, you can take advantage of this illusion by using the reflective walls in your listening room . Because the stereosystem is flawed, optimal loudspeaker distances from walls are reflections that are about 20 ms delayed ( 3,4 metres distance for the loudspeakers from the walls and behind listening position) when listening to acoustical recorded music . This brings a very nice reverbant illusion, but it demands unfortunately a rather big listening room . Try it .
When I do classical music recordings in a concert hall using 2 mics, I often place the musicians and the instruments 3,4 - 4 metres from a big , hard reflective wall . It gives you that nice reverbant sound of a big hall in the recording .
PS audio has a very good point here :
2-channel playback at home is only an illusion of the recorded event, or ?
Paul McGowan from PS audio explain in a very good way how a 2-channel hifi system and recording works. What do YOU think ?
www.audiosciencereview.com
Last edited:
Sometimes when considering ideas, I like to look at things from different perspectives. There are occasions when I can find viewpoints from others who have had significant experience in the relevant fields, unlike me. Floyd Toole, Sigfried Linkwitz, and Geoff Martin are three such examples in terms of loudspeaker testing and development. David Greisinger and Jens Blauert (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...can-this-be-settled.29550/page-5#post-1057682) are others in terms of psychoacoustics. As is often the case, there are areas of relative consensus and others of substantial disagreement in terms of this topic.
The original question was "I often see the advice to pull speakers far away from the wall to improve imaging and soundstage. However I could never come to an understanding for why," not how to create "an illusion of the real event."Since this is Audio Science Review, I thought it might be helpful to provide some references for others to investigate further, as I tried to do.
My speakers are against the front wall and far from the side wall (2 meters).
My LP is a 3 meters from the backwall.
My room is strongly treated above 100 Hz.
If the illusion is coded in the recording, the illusion is.
If I want to increase this illusion, I listen in the dark.
Similar threads
