Is it possible to have Good Imaging close to wall

Early reflections off a wall is what compromises imaging
usually.

Some distance from the walls is needed to avoid. Its more
the location of the front of the speaker where sound is
emitted and other characteristics like the dispersion
pattern of teh drivers and baffle shape that
matter. Proximity to rear wall will affect imaging depth
more than width, proximity to side walls more width.

The key is to get the right delay and levels between direct
and reflected sound. Imaging is minimal without this.
Details of the recording are the biggest factor regarding
good imaging and large soundstage. Information must be in
the recording or else no dice. Some recordings have little
imaging, some a lot. The best ones often also have
potential for large well defined soundstage.

PRoximity to walls always works against imaging potential,
but results can still be quite good depending. It's all
relative.

The best imaging I have heard was with mbl speakers in a
large show room designed to maximize soundstage and imaging
for the omni design with a good 12 feet of tapered down
room behind the speakers and a good 8-10 feet to side walls.
Listening location was just slightly front and and center,
with similar volume of more rectangular room space behind
me. The players in the orchestral
recordings all had distinct locations within the space
behind the speakers.
Very holographic, very impressive!

"Early reflections off a wall is what compromises imaging usually."

Agreed.

The ear/brain system uses the time delay between the first arrival sound and the onset of reflections in judging the distance of a sound source ("image depth"). This isn't the only thing used, but it plays a large role in most home audio setups.

The ear/brain system can detect the time delay for the reflections that bounce off the wall behind the speakers, and tends to use those fairly subtle cues to interpret a maximum image depth of about twice that distance. Aggressive radiation pattern control and/or room treatment can help here, but ime it's easier to trick the ear/brain system into giving us a deeper soundstage if we can generate significant later-arriving reflections that dominate the ear/brain's depth cue intake.

Recently I've worked with systems that generate fairly strong reflections which arrive later than you'd normally expect, and the result has been an increase in apparent image depth to considerably greater than twice the distance to the wall. Credit to inventor James Romeyn for this technique (a highly directional secondary array that fires from the floor up at the ceiling, and yes it's patent pending), which I use with his permission.

Jim is showing a pair of speakers with this configuration at T.H.E. Show Newport Beach right now. I plan to spend more time listening with them up against the wall after the show, but my own limited testing before they left indicated enjoyable image depth even when positioned within a couple of inches of the wall.

I did not expect the increase in image depth that we observed when we first tried Jim's configuration with purpose-built speakers. I expected improved timbre, and maybe improved sense of envelopment, but the image depth was a surprise. The "feel" is sort of reminiscent of a good dipole or bipole (Jim's system could be thought of a type of bipole), but without the distance-from-the-wall requirements.

Please take my comments here with a grain of salt, as this is a designer saying nice things about his product.

Duke

If the rear wall reflection is so problematic, then why not eliminate it entirely. Speakers placed flush with the wall would have minimal reflections, or am I missing something? If you're interested in hearing the soundstage depth that's actually on the recording, as opposed to that produced by your room's reflections, I would think in-wall positioning would be a solution. Obviously, people who favor omni-directional or dipole loudspeakers would probably disagree.

Also wouldn't loudspeakers that have control directivity help? I have a pair of Gradient Revolution speakers which are designed to suppress rear soundwave above bass frequencies.

If you place a pair of speakers outside say with no walls behind or otherwise, you will likely only hear 1-D stereo effect between the speakers. No reflected sound, no imaging beyond that. Its the early reflections that blur detail and imaging. Otherwise, when the timing between direct and reflected sound is more naturally in synch, that's when more "holographic" type imaging and soundstage that extends beyond and behind the speakers is possible.

"05-31-14: Mapman
If you place a pair of speakers outside say with no walls behind or otherwise, you will likely only hear 1-D stereo effect between the speakers. No reflected sound, no imaging beyond that. Its the early reflections that blur detail and imaging. Otherwise, when the timing between direct and reflected sound is more naturally in synch, that's when more "holographic" type imaging and soundstage that extends beyond and behind the speakers is possible."

It seems to me that there may be more to it. What about phase? I'm sure that most of us here has heard this at one point, but if not, wire your speakers out of phase with each other. If you play some music that normally has a strong vocal image floating directly between the speakers, it now comes from the side wall. I fully understand that doing this is "wrong" from an audiophile standpoint, but you have to admit that its a pretty amazing demo as to how to make images that come from someplace other than the speakers. Especially, how far beyond the speaker the images go.

Aside from that, equipment choice has a huge effect on all aspects of imaging. So if you have a pair of speakers close to the wall, its likely that the electronics will play a big part in how the system images. I can easily see a situation in having good and bad imaging results with the same speakers close to the wall just because of the associated components.