Set-up is important, I agree.

I once had the luxury to have a room setup where there were no objects between the two speakers, and electronics placed to the right side wall. It sounded good, and imaging was good too. Wall treatments behind the speakers and on the wall between them definitely helped. Moving the speakers in large steps help get to the imaging ballpark. Then moving them in inches gets them very close top the goal. Finally moving them fractions of an inch zeros the imaging in, between the gross hole-in-the-middle, too-wide-apart locations and the collapsed soundstage of too-close-together locations.

I've recently moved my equipment off to the side and moved my speakers well out in to the room in accordance with the Golden Ratio placement theory as suggested on the Cardas website.  It works very well.  It's a good idea to mark your floor with some tape and only move your speaks out for listening, especially if you have a spouse.

While it really does improve imaging, it really ensures better tonal balance and timbre.

Don't be afraid to experiment.

We are not talking about light on a screen. Imaging is purely happening in your mind via your ears. Stuff between speakers, assuming they have some breathing room is really not a real issue.

But the obvious reason is to set up a stereo system not between your speakers requires roughly twice as long speaker wire (assuming it's of setup is off to the side). Since most high-end systems already pay pretty penny toward wire, I for one would think hard about doubling that cost.

It also ends up taking up twice the space: speakers taking up most of one wall (if you are trying to keep the space between open), stereo gear taking up a side wall. It's hard enough with WAF, or just having the open space itself, to get a decent triangle setup and a dedicated listening room. Now you are claiming it's far better to be even less efficient with floor space? That's not the real world, even in the already fuzzy world of audiophiles.

Plus- your theory is just that: a musing only, with no proof or evidence to back it up. The variable effecting room acoustics are a subject in itself for sure. But equipment in between speakers is no more or less a problem than any other factor in a given room.

 The stuff between the speakers interfers with sound radiation by creating a hindrance or obstacle; thus reducing overall imaging.

Just my opinion. 

Again- having just blank space won't be better either. You'd need to have something there to absorb reflections too. My take is some randomness in the room is a good thing to break up larger refractions etc.

If the speakers are very close to the equipment and you have a big boxy cabinet you may run into trouble- just like having speakers near side walls.. But often racks are quite open so that's not going to be a big deal. Remember again most of the imaging takes place where you are sitting: it's the left and right sound waves mixing and hitting your ears. The "imaging" as you perceive it isn't actually happening up the speaker/gear end of the room. That's just an illusion your brain is tricked into thinking.

Real imaging at a live concert is of course happening at the point of each instrument. Stereos are merely trying to make you think that's happening in your room. 

I resently did this, everything but the poweramp is now hanging on a solid wall, sitting on welldamped shelwes. This includes ofcourse turntable, riaa, preamp and powersupply. Then driwing my poweramp balanced. the amp on damping podium sitting on the floor. The effect is rather dramatic. First i had to alter the oading of my cartridge to get more natural timbre, but then the magic happend, the soundstage is now truly 3-dimensional and som kind of "fidly-fudly-grumpy" "gray/brown" noise has left the builiding and now i have a much more transparent image, better dynamics and a better allower midrange.

The problem i think is not what the treadstarter is trying to explain projection, but reflection from the items standing betwen loudspeakers and the sound itself producing vibration in the items, vibrations that manufacturers try to avoid.

best regards Asger from Copenhagen.

"Thank you for the comments.  ALL of them.  I can see some folks have actually experimented along these lines already, but not everybody is a believer in---the room comes first...  And get that JUNK out of here, it is in the way, haha."

I think it's not that we don't "believe"that the room comes first, but very few people have the space, first and foremost, nor the means, or the desire to set up what would basically be a listening studio. But who wants to hang out in a studio? Not me!

I want to live in my house, and live comfortably. When I listen, as often as not I'm reading, having a drink, or have some friends over. The last thing I want is to have to have this perfectly "open", acoustically treated lab space to hear my "perfect" sound. And I tend to like a kind of Zen look too!

If a stereo can't sound pretty damn great after you spent $10-15k (or even a lot less) on it in any average room, then you have wasted your money. Sure, you can have an especially bad setup, and I've seen plenty. But if you know you have a certain space to deal with: build your system to work with it. If you can pull a few things out and re-arrange, by all means do so.

But I don't buy that one has to go to extraordinary means to have a well thought out audio system sound great. Anything that takes that much effort and I think you may be in danger of having lost the point: to enjoy the music, not just marvel at the sound.

You're assumption, probably true in some cases, is that if the setup looks bad to you, it must sound bad to everyone else. Not always so my friend. Often not so actually!

In any case, my setup sounds great, and the few issues I have with it are almost entirely due to the room being a few feet two small in each direction for full-range speakers. This is not even evident in most of what I listen too, just certain albums really. So for all intents and purposes: no problem, despite the fact I have verything set up between the speakers, etc.

In the end, if the owner isn't complaining, there is no problem; not really. If the setup looks just plain bad, or boring, or ugly on an easthetic plane, then personally I'd say that is as bad or worse than a slightly less than optimal acoustic configuration. To me, why spend all that money to get great sound and have the room look pathetic? And there are plenty in the Galleries, sad to say. But if it looks nice, is comfortable and sounds good to the owner (and circle of friends and family) then I can't see the isssue here.

You go in and help clean up and organize the room and slowly but surely the sound improves. It can be very satisfying, the effort involved notwithstanding.  But sure as the sun sets in the West, come back a couple weeks later and the room is a mess again and the sound is back to the same old generic, unlistenable state.  I learned my lesson, I don't do that anymore.  :-)

What is okay for one person in terms of listening enjoyment and ergonomics, may not be okay for another. 

Yes, I have always agreed that equipment between the speaker planes is not a good idea, but with treatments and/or some distance, some rooms there is not much of a detriment (with equipment between).  A great way (for ME) to check is to assemble equipment on a short, wide low-boy to experiment.  I've had friends drape cloth wall hangings over their tv when strictly listening to music, etc. 

It all depends on the room and the need of the owner.  There are no hard, fast rules.  Every environment is utterly different.  Tools are there to tweak results in your favor (unless you believe its all bullshit- then NOTHING works best).