Although I agree that directivity and room acoustics play a significant role I don't agree that any speaker does it the same as also factors like driver spacing and secondary sound sources due to diffraction at the edges are influential there.
While listening through headphones, when no ITD and ILD is present in the signal, the object gets stuck in between ears unlike infront of you in the case of speakers. So the singer is inside the head with headphones and infront of you in case of speakers. Psychoacoustics on what set of parameters makes us identify an object in space is mostly a complete topic but its not complete without this knowledge.True, to achieve similar with headphones quite some effort is unfortunately necessary like for example
Realiser A16 the world's most advanced 3d audio processor
The Realiser A16 is the world’s most advanced personalised head-tracked 3D headphone processor, rendering 15.1.8ch Dolby Atmos with breath-taking realism.smyth-research.com
As I wrote above its not just about directivity, even in an anechoic chamber a loudspeaker with wide driver spacing and/or edge diffraction issues won't image as one which is closer to an ideal point source.
Please read what such systems as the Realiser do, that's the reason why they have a big effort to individually set them up (namely by measuring your individual HRTFs and manipulating the signals you get from each cup when moving the head like from real external sound sources).
Proof?
Its how our hearing works like for example the simple fact you mentioned above about the ITD and ILD, each point source has a specific set which makes us being able to localise and separate them. Or do you want to claim that in an anechoic chamber we wouldn't be able to hear if there is one or two loudspeakers playing?
Wouldn't that depend entirely on the listener and speaker positions, and the sound being played?
I visited an audiophile who had lined the walls and ceiling of his quite large listening room with 4" fiberglass. The room was nearly anechoic and absolutely was anechoic down to the lower mid and upper bass frequencies. The effect on imaging was pronounced. His system was the most extreme case of head in the vice listening I ever experienced. When you centered your ears between the two speakers the image was absolutely holographic, but the sound stage only went from speaker to speaker. Since there were essentially no side wall reflections there was no illusion of a widening of the sound stage.
Are you suggesting that all reflections mess up imaging?
Are you suggesting that coax speakers are intrinsically more directive?
Are you suggesting that room treatment is all that is needed, and all speakers image equivalently if only for the treatment?
Are you suggesting that the big difference with coax is the ability move MLP vertically? How does this square with the narrow beam comment? How about interactions with reflections? One thing, coaxials disperse evenly is correct
.In an anechoic chamber, if you are sitting on the middle of the speakers, and if the exact same signal (mono) is played on both speakers, you will hear only one sound infront of you. No two speakers. Unless you move from that perfect spot you won’t be able to tell if there is one speaker infront of you or there are two speakers on either side, if you are blindfolded
Hold on. If you hear a sound directly above you or directly behind you the arrival time and amplitude are also matched. So there is more going on with spatial cues than just amplitude and arrival time.
Wouldn't that be only if your head was a point?
Are you suggesting that all reflections mess up imaging?
Are you suggesting that coax speakers are intrinsically more directive?
Are you suggesting that room treatment is all that is needed, and all speakers image equivalently if only for the treatment?
Are you suggesting that the big difference with coax is the ability move MLP vertically? How does this square with the narrow beam comment? How about interactions with reflections? One thing, coaxials disperse evenly is correct
Reflections are the ones that messes up imaging. You add more acoustic panels to your room to cancel the reflections, you notice the imaging to get better on wider directive speakers. On narrow beaming speakers like Kef, it’s the wall reflections are less and the imaging is better therefore. There is no fake „ambiance“ created by these speakers. Even though it’s narrow, it’s even so if I stand up, I can feel like there is a person there infront of me, the decay on highs is very natural like from a real instrument or persons sound as I move to sides or up or down.Are you suggesting that all reflections mess up imaging?
Are you suggesting that coax speakers are intrinsically more directive?
Are you suggesting that room treatment is all that is needed, and all speakers image equivalently if only for the treatment?
Are you suggesting that the big difference with coax is the ability move MLP vertically? How does this square with the narrow beam comment? How about interactions with reflections? One thing, coaxials disperse evenly is correct
That is not going to be anywhere near anechoic. It also won’t affect the width of the sweet spot nearly as much as the radiation pattern of the speakers
Yes. That’s what I said, and that spatial cues or extra parameters other than ILD and ITD Is an incomplete science. That’s what we still don’t have headphones which can make us feel sound infront of us. There are certain exceptions like smiths realizer.
Not needed
your ears are seperated by a distance- agreed and that’s the reason why we hear everything binaural. And that’s the reason why we can have ITD and ILD, which helps us locate a sound object in space. Otherwise without that distance, every sound at every angle would reach both ears simultaneously
That's my point. Your ears have a finite separation.Not needed
