Soundstage - Too much?

soundstage *depth* is a whole 'nother issue - but basically similar tings are happening: ya wanna optimize the speaker placement w/the wall behind 'em, usually it's a compromise w/floor-standers & monitors on stands: further from the back-wall gives better image-depth (& worse saf), closer placement increases bass-response at the expense of image-depth (& saf improves!). ya also wanna sit far-away from the rear wall. of course, small rooms are aided w/strategic sound absorbtion & diffusionn when you or the speakers get closer to the walls than ya'd like. if ya got the space for it, subs can help in speaker placement for optimum sound, imho, cuz ewe can place the monitors for optimum-depth while placing the subs for optimum low-end response. i believe this can improve the *monitors*, even if they're full-range floorstanders - i had my thiel 3.5's set-up this way, before i got my present small merets, & they never sounded better - that 10" woofer was better higher up the frequency range when it dint have to go down to 20hz, and the marchand x-over is more transparent than the thiels' equalizer, that i was able to ditch. it's amazing how big speakers like thiels can disappear when out in the middle of a room! :>)

for optimum image height, go for a carpeted floor between ewe & the speakers, nothing else between yew & the speakers, & as high a ceiling as possible, or sound treatment on the ceiling between ewe & the speakers. kinda extreme... :>)

These debates have me rethinking and rereading.

"Reflection from flat surfaces"

"Like the light/mirror analogy, the reflected wavefronts act as though they originated from a sound image. This image source is located the same distance behind the wall as the real source is in front of the wall. This is the simple case - a single reflecting surface. In a rectagular room, there are six surfaces and the source has an image in all six sending energy back to the receiver. In addition to this, images of the images exist, and so on, resuting in more complex situation. However in computing the total sound intensity at a given receiving point, the contributions of all of these images must be taken into consideration."

Taken from the Master Handbook of Ccoustics. by Alton Everst Pg 193

I hope this is clearer then my explanation

Can't argue with the quotation from the acoustics book, but it's a giant step to say that those reflections are what create coherent sonic images outside the speakers. Another way to look at or experiment with the issue is to consider if you diminished the importance of reflections by setting your system up for listening in the nearfield (assuming your speakers work well in the nearfield). Would your lateral soundstaging degrade? Or perhaps improve?

I admit, yours and Sedonds, arguments are impressive. Sedonds obseravtions and your argument about imaging off the floor is what got me rereading again. I found myself quating from what I remember reading and couldnt answer all of your questions. Its been a couple of years since I read the book and I am a little rusty. Acoustics are very complex and I think it breaks down to an overall understanding then individual properties. I will try to find the passage that covers that specific question. But Just because its in a book doesnt mean we cant question its intergrity.

If side wall created the image outside the speakers, I should hear that more when a insturment is at the far right. That just isn't the case, I can have an insterment loudly playing far right and here nothing outside the speaker. I believe it's the enviroment within the studio and the sidewall locations in relationship to the mikes. If I had a recording with information telling the speaker theres sound 10' right, even in a dead room I think I'd hear it. Just my guess?