Hello Todd,
So nice of you to help this person!
So there was a .027" difference in backward tilt between the two loudspeakers?
Detailed Speaker Setup and Optimization
- Thread starter sbnx
- Start date
So nice of you to help this person!
So there was a .027" difference in backward tilt between the two loudspeakers?
It should be of no surprise to you that I share the same exact observations as you do. Even though we have differing systems, we have the same observations.
Tom
Yes, but the main problem was that they were both raked back. Anyone who knows anything about panels knows that if they are going to rake any direction it is forward.
Using the Shims and standing them both perfectly vertical had a profound impact on the sound. As I said, before they were thin, thin, thin sounding. After the rake adjustment, poof, the sound has body. He also commented how much more focused everything sounded. He loved it.
An extra comment for those Maggie owners out there. He is using a big Vitus amp to drive the 3.7i. (sorry, I don't know the model number of the amp) It does a fantastic job. It doesn't take any back talk from those panels. It tells them where to go and how fast to get there.
Further to floors.
Mine are on concrete which is nice as far as stability. I would note however that a concrete slab is unlikely to be level. When setting up to the nth degree it becomes a factor like on every floor.
I would also note that concrete transmits vibrations too. So despite its rigidity footers are obviously a factor. For many years I spiked directly or use spike cups where necessary. Recently I have been experimenting with " isolating " type feet. No doubt there is some debate on which is best. As I am really liking the sound I am getting out of my speakers now I am not in a hurry to change things. It probably is system dependent like many things.
I’m sure leveling the speakers improved the sound, but the first thing you should have done was to remove the carpet under the speakers. That’s more important and provides a greater improvement. Having speakers sit on carpet is unacceptable. This isn’t a matter of preference or personal choice—it’s fundamentally wrong. It’s like driving your car in reverse and saying, “I like it this way.”
Regarding the floor, the ideal and best-sounding solution is a rigid, stable concrete foundation overlaid with fixed, non-resilient wood.
Why be so hard on speakers dont they deserve a rest lol.
I agree that carpet is not the best solution. (See my earlier post on flooring). But this was not my house and I don't make a habit of going into someone elses house and start tearing out carpet.
He has ordered a pair of the "Mye Sound" stands for his speakers. These will allow him to spike the speakers throught the carpet into the concrete foundation. They will also add a lot of rigiity to the panel frame. But they are still several weeks away. In the mean time he has better sound with the shims.
As I think optimization of the speaker positioning is a very interesting subject, I will transfer the follow up of a subject that started in a thread about the dCS Varese to this more appropriate thread.
We were addressing DPoLS - Dead Points of Live Sound theory, as first presented by Romy the Cat in his blog http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=994#994
As stated in the article, DPoLS is just a free interpretation of the original work of a A. Polakov theory of the Points of Live Sound theory. I find much more interesting reading the original article in full than the interpretation - it is much more complete. We can find it, translated by Google,
https://www-audioworld-ru.translate...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I post it as I think the original concept is being manipulated and is being abusively used in audio debates. Please note it is a google translation, not verified by a knowledgeable human.
" About live sound points
It is well known that the overall quality of a sound reproduction system is determined by the quality of each of its components. There are several perspectives on which component has the greatest influence on the overall sound quality. The most common view is that the amplifier-speaker tandem is the most critical. However, there is another perspective: many have found that once a certain quality level is reached, the primary limiting factor for further improvement is the listening room itself. There are various recommendations for optimizing room acoustics, including different treatment methods and specialized materials. Sometimes, the cost of acoustic treatment is comparable to that of the audio system itself.
Publications [L] suggest that among all the factors influencing room-system synergy, the most crucial is the correct placement of the speakers (АС). Everyone understands that speaker placement and listener position affect the sound, but few realize how significant this effect can be. The source emphasizes that any attempt to improve the system’s quality is meaningless until the optimal placement of the speakers is found. This applies not only to changing cables, stands, and cones but also to component upgrades and even room treatment efforts.
The criterion for determining the optimal speaker placement is the subjective perception of the soundstage, surrounding spatial cues, and sound image localization. There are no formulas to calculate exact speaker positions for a specific room. Positions suggested by manufacturers or derived from standing wave minimization calculations serve only as starting points for further adjustments. Ultimately, optimal placement is found "by ear" through iterative experimentation. The result is that speakers end up at specific distances from the nearest walls and angled precisely, with the listener’s position determined simultaneously.
Rather than an "optimal placement point," it is more accurate to speak of an "optimal zone," where even slight deviations result in noticeable degradation of spatial and localization characteristics. This zone is typically within 1-2 cm in position and 2-3° in angle. Many users manage to determine this optimal placement for their speakers over time, while others have yet to do so, failing to unlock their system’s full potential. However, almost no one knows that within this optimal zone, there exists a "point of live sound." When speakers are precisely positioned at this point, all subjective sound characteristics suddenly elevate to a much higher level.
To be more precise, within the optimal zone exists a much smaller zone—approximately 0.1 mm in size—making it more accurate to refer to it as a "point" rather than a zone. This phenomenon was initially discovered accidentally in one system, then confirmed in several others, suggesting its general nature. In all cases, the improvement in sound quality occurred in an abrupt leap and disappeared just as suddenly when the speakers were moved out of these points. This crucial fact explains why these points can only be found through intentional search; their accidental discovery is highly unlikely. No prior publications have been found on this topic. Below is a summary of some effects observed when speakers are placed at "live sound points."
The article challenges traditional approaches to audio system setup, suggesting that micro-adjustments in speaker placement—down to fractions of a millimeter—can yield dramatic improvements. This concept aligns with extreme audiophile practices but remains largely unexplored in mainstream acoustics research.
We were addressing DPoLS - Dead Points of Live Sound theory, as first presented by Romy the Cat in his blog http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=994#994
As stated in the article, DPoLS is just a free interpretation of the original work of a A. Polakov theory of the Points of Live Sound theory. I find much more interesting reading the original article in full than the interpretation - it is much more complete. We can find it, translated by Google,
https://www-audioworld-ru.translate...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
I post it as I think the original concept is being manipulated and is being abusively used in audio debates. Please note it is a google translation, not verified by a knowledgeable human.
" About live sound points
It is well known that the overall quality of a sound reproduction system is determined by the quality of each of its components. There are several perspectives on which component has the greatest influence on the overall sound quality. The most common view is that the amplifier-speaker tandem is the most critical. However, there is another perspective: many have found that once a certain quality level is reached, the primary limiting factor for further improvement is the listening room itself. There are various recommendations for optimizing room acoustics, including different treatment methods and specialized materials. Sometimes, the cost of acoustic treatment is comparable to that of the audio system itself.
Publications [L] suggest that among all the factors influencing room-system synergy, the most crucial is the correct placement of the speakers (АС). Everyone understands that speaker placement and listener position affect the sound, but few realize how significant this effect can be. The source emphasizes that any attempt to improve the system’s quality is meaningless until the optimal placement of the speakers is found. This applies not only to changing cables, stands, and cones but also to component upgrades and even room treatment efforts.
The criterion for determining the optimal speaker placement is the subjective perception of the soundstage, surrounding spatial cues, and sound image localization. There are no formulas to calculate exact speaker positions for a specific room. Positions suggested by manufacturers or derived from standing wave minimization calculations serve only as starting points for further adjustments. Ultimately, optimal placement is found "by ear" through iterative experimentation. The result is that speakers end up at specific distances from the nearest walls and angled precisely, with the listener’s position determined simultaneously.
Rather than an "optimal placement point," it is more accurate to speak of an "optimal zone," where even slight deviations result in noticeable degradation of spatial and localization characteristics. This zone is typically within 1-2 cm in position and 2-3° in angle. Many users manage to determine this optimal placement for their speakers over time, while others have yet to do so, failing to unlock their system’s full potential. However, almost no one knows that within this optimal zone, there exists a "point of live sound." When speakers are precisely positioned at this point, all subjective sound characteristics suddenly elevate to a much higher level.
To be more precise, within the optimal zone exists a much smaller zone—approximately 0.1 mm in size—making it more accurate to refer to it as a "point" rather than a zone. This phenomenon was initially discovered accidentally in one system, then confirmed in several others, suggesting its general nature. In all cases, the improvement in sound quality occurred in an abrupt leap and disappeared just as suddenly when the speakers were moved out of these points. This crucial fact explains why these points can only be found through intentional search; their accidental discovery is highly unlikely. No prior publications have been found on this topic. Below is a summary of some effects observed when speakers are placed at "live sound points."
Observed Effects:
- All subjective sound characteristics improve sharply: soundstage, spatial perception, localization, and dynamic range (except tonal balance).
- The most noticeable improvements occur in qualities related to the emotional content of recordings: performance energy, musical coherence, tonal and timbral relationships. Beyond a certain system quality level, one can speak of "restoring the energy of live performance."
- The transition from ordinary to live sound is abrupt, particularly in systems with a full and even bass register. In less balanced systems, the transition is less dramatic, and overall sound quality is lower.
- A live sound point exists even for a single speaker in mono playback. In a stereo system, it is a pair of points.
- Small speaker displacements within this point produce audible changes in sound. Even touching a 60 kg speaker with a 4A-32 driver could cause detectable changes.
- Two types of sound changes occur when speakers move within the live sound point: those from shifting speakers forward/backward and those from rotation adjustments. These changes are orders of magnitude more pronounced than usual speaker movements within the room.
- In stereo systems, shifting one speaker within the live sound point affects the entire soundstage. For example, moving the left speaker forward alters the sound in a way that can be counteracted by moving the right speaker backward.
- To achieve the best playback quality for a specific recording, fine adjustments within the live sound point are necessary. However, these adjustments may degrade the sound of other recordings, requiring repositioning for each one.
- When speakers are at live sound points, the listening sweet spot expands significantly—almost the entire room. Even obstructing one speaker has minimal effect.
- Subtle audio anomalies become much more apparent. Examples include audible differences when reversing cable direction (including power cables), power phase changes, and component coupling to spikes. Changes in amplifier chassis resonance, such as the tightness of transformer mounting screws, affect perceived soundstage depth and image size.
- A fundamental qualitative difference between live sound setups and ordinary systems is that no mental effort is required to "fill in" missing musical information. In standard systems, listeners unconsciously reconstruct missing musical nuances, limiting them to music they can mentally process. With live sound, the listening experience becomes effortless, allowing access to a much wider range of musical material.
Key Conclusions:
- "Anomalous" phenomena remain so only until they find explanation within accepted theories. Studying live sound points can lead to a new understanding of auditory perception limits.
- Achieving "live" sound reproduction via electroacoustic systems is possible.
- The primary obstacle to improving audio quality is failing to place speakers at their live sound points. Further component upgrades will not yield real improvements without addressing this phenomenon.
The article challenges traditional approaches to audio system setup, suggesting that micro-adjustments in speaker placement—down to fractions of a millimeter—can yield dramatic improvements. This concept aligns with extreme audiophile practices but remains largely unexplored in mainstream acoustics research.
Hello microstrip,
Thanks for posting this. I had never even heard of this "cat" until a few months ago when someone metioned his DPoLs idea in another thread. I guess the internet is a big place.
Could you expand on this comment -- "I post it as I think the original concept is being manipulated and is being abusively used in audio debates." I don't understand abusively used idea. Maybe you can point me to a few posts so I can see what you mean.
You posted -- "his concept aligns with extreme audiophile practices but remains largely unexplored in mainstream acoustics research."
I agree with this. I have read many, many papers and texts on audiology and spatial hearing. Much of what the researchers report I observe in speaker setup. However, they are off by at least an order of magnitude in hearing perception. I reached out ot one audiologist to see if he was willing to engage in a conversation or allow me to demonstrate this for him. No resonse -- sigh. I may try a few others to see if anyone is interested.
The immediate thing we notice is that the original article addresses "zones" and "points" as separate entities. The "miraculous" concept of live point is only attributed to a minimal point of .1 mm dimension. See original :
"To be more precise, within the optimal zone exists a much smaller zone—approximately 0.1 mm in size—making it more accurate to refer to it as a "point" rather than a zone. (...)
(...) Below is a summary of some effects observed when speakers are placed at "live sound points."
What I noticed is that people on the blog attribute the "miraculous" characteristics to zones, not to points. It makes a difference, IMO.
The new version: " To describe what the “dead points of live sound” I would say that inside of the “optimum zone” there is one smaller zone. The dimensions of this smaller zone are within the scale of 1/16” –1/32” and therefore this zone might be called - a single point in space, or the “dead point of live sound” (or the DPoLS further on)"
BTW, I refer to "miraculous" influenced by debates in russian audio blogs about the subject - they have a good sense of humor on the subject!
I hope that some one with direct knowledge of russian language and optimization experience can help in these matters - we can't exclude we are victims of auto translation.
"To be more precise, within the optimal zone exists a much smaller zone—approximately 0.1 mm in size—making it more accurate to refer to it as a "point" rather than a zone. (...)
(...) Below is a summary of some effects observed when speakers are placed at "live sound points."
What I noticed is that people on the blog attribute the "miraculous" characteristics to zones, not to points. It makes a difference, IMO.
The new version: " To describe what the “dead points of live sound” I would say that inside of the “optimum zone” there is one smaller zone. The dimensions of this smaller zone are within the scale of 1/16” –1/32” and therefore this zone might be called - a single point in space, or the “dead point of live sound” (or the DPoLS further on)"
BTW, I refer to "miraculous" influenced by debates in russian audio blogs about the subject - they have a good sense of humor on the subject!
I hope that some one with direct knowledge of russian language and optimization experience can help in these matters - we can't exclude we are victims of auto translation.
The most accurate and consistently reliable distance measuring tools are those which use lasers. The specifications for these are at best 1/32 of an inch. Since there are 25.4 millimeters to an inch, this is more or less plus or minus 1/2 millimeter. It is thus impossible for people, using the best commonly available tools, to measure distances reliably with 0.1 millimeter accuracy.
Leveling devices are even worse, in my experience, in terms of accuracy when dealing with measurements inside rooms. The best manually read bubble levels cannot reliably level objects so that the measured distance from the leveled object to a reference position is more accurate than a millimeter or so within a listening room. The level in an iPhone is worse yet since the iPhone level reads out in 0.5 degree increments; it's accuracy is at best plus or minus 0.25 degrees.
Rotational/toe-in angle can best be measured by judging the apparent reflection of a small mirror taped to the speaker baffle when looked at with one eye from the listening position. Such judgments are limited in accuracy by parallax effects between the position of one's ear canal and one's eye pupil. Certainly very small toe-in angle differences cannot be reliably set.
As a practical matter, the angles between listening room walls and floor are not exactly "square," having been set by commercial construction bubble levels. Floors aren't exactly flat for the same reason. One's two ears are not exactly symmetrically placed on one's head. Accuracy to a 0.1 mm tolerance thus cannot be achieved in any practical way.
The only way to "bump" a speaker into a different position is to have the speaker not firmly anchored to a spot with spikes, and thus able to slide bit by bit across the rug or floor. Most audiophiles seeking exact positioning will want to use spikes. (Not me, because spikes cause terrible ringing of perceived response in the high frequencies.) But once spikes are attached, there is no practical physical way to move a heavy speaker a tiny repeatable distance on the floor. If the spikes can be temporarily "disengaged" by moving them up or down, then moving them down again to re-anchor the speaker to the floor will certainly change the distance of the speaker from a given reference point by much more than 0.1 mm.
Because of the asymmetry of ears on the head, it is impossible to use ear canals as a reference point for measuring speaker distance, even if one could hold one's head precisely motionless during the measurement process. The best that can be done is to establish a reference measuring point roughly equidistant between your two ears and measure from both speakers to that reference point. But establishing that reference point to an accuracy of 0.1 mm is impractical.
And then there is the statement that the live sound point will be different for different recordings. So is one supposed to move the speakers by miniscule amounts from recording to recording? The mind boggles.
Leveling devices are even worse, in my experience, in terms of accuracy when dealing with measurements inside rooms. The best manually read bubble levels cannot reliably level objects so that the measured distance from the leveled object to a reference position is more accurate than a millimeter or so within a listening room. The level in an iPhone is worse yet since the iPhone level reads out in 0.5 degree increments; it's accuracy is at best plus or minus 0.25 degrees.
Rotational/toe-in angle can best be measured by judging the apparent reflection of a small mirror taped to the speaker baffle when looked at with one eye from the listening position. Such judgments are limited in accuracy by parallax effects between the position of one's ear canal and one's eye pupil. Certainly very small toe-in angle differences cannot be reliably set.
As a practical matter, the angles between listening room walls and floor are not exactly "square," having been set by commercial construction bubble levels. Floors aren't exactly flat for the same reason. One's two ears are not exactly symmetrically placed on one's head. Accuracy to a 0.1 mm tolerance thus cannot be achieved in any practical way.
The only way to "bump" a speaker into a different position is to have the speaker not firmly anchored to a spot with spikes, and thus able to slide bit by bit across the rug or floor. Most audiophiles seeking exact positioning will want to use spikes. (Not me, because spikes cause terrible ringing of perceived response in the high frequencies.) But once spikes are attached, there is no practical physical way to move a heavy speaker a tiny repeatable distance on the floor. If the spikes can be temporarily "disengaged" by moving them up or down, then moving them down again to re-anchor the speaker to the floor will certainly change the distance of the speaker from a given reference point by much more than 0.1 mm.
Because of the asymmetry of ears on the head, it is impossible to use ear canals as a reference point for measuring speaker distance, even if one could hold one's head precisely motionless during the measurement process. The best that can be done is to establish a reference measuring point roughly equidistant between your two ears and measure from both speakers to that reference point. But establishing that reference point to an accuracy of 0.1 mm is impractical.
And then there is the statement that the live sound point will be different for different recordings. So is one supposed to move the speakers by miniscule amounts from recording to recording? The mind boggles.
While I do believe it is important to place one's speakers in the best possible position in one's room I have to agree with your assessment. Speaker placement is not for the faint of heart at the best of times, trying to achieve absolute accuracy, the mind boggles indeed!
Measuring out the matching speaker's position wihtin a room is daunting and fraught with potential error. Once some thought is given to the idea we quickly realize there are problems at every turn. Reference sticks and lasers are much better than tape measures. But even laser lines have a width and from what reference point are we using to guide the laser? Gauging the inclination of a speaker is the most accurate thing. I have a level that is accurate to the arcsecond. (yes, this is audible)
But in the end it is all done by ear. This is what is meant by the statement of 0.1mm. The speaker is bumped or tapped and the distance the speaker moves is in this range. Each move is audible.
As far as spikes -- yes, the speaker moves even if it is on spikes. I know it moves because I can hear the change in sound.
I realize most audiophiles are in the "show me" camp and simply don't believe this. I assure you it is reproducible and demonstrable. It has been demonstrated to many people who stand there with their mouths open in stunned disbelief.
My world view is to explore possibilities. I know I don't know everything and many people know things that I don't know. When lots of people are saying something counter to my experience about a subject I am interested in, I tend to seek out that knowledge.
But in the end it is all done by ear. This is what is meant by the statement of 0.1mm. The speaker is bumped or tapped and the distance the speaker moves is in this range. Each move is audible.
As far as spikes -- yes, the speaker moves even if it is on spikes. I know it moves because I can hear the change in sound.
I realize most audiophiles are in the "show me" camp and simply don't believe this. I assure you it is reproducible and demonstrable. It has been demonstrated to many people who stand there with their mouths open in stunned disbelief.
My world view is to explore possibilities. I know I don't know everything and many people know things that I don't know. When lots of people are saying something counter to my experience about a subject I am interested in, I tend to seek out that knowledge.
I believe you. I have vintage corner horns that were originally made as mono speakers. It took my dealer twenty years to track down the second one as a match to the first. They have wood cabinets and a laser on the top is just not accurate enough to line up the drivers. And there is some play in each corner of my room, and the room is 225 years old, so not symmetrical. Lots of issues with placement, even in the corners. I have noticed that just changing the tilt and the rotation slightly affects the sound. The closer they are to being absolutely symmetrically oriented to the listening seat, the better they sound. It is not an easy task, and I have been fiddling with it for a while making incremental improvements.
I know I am close when focus and clarity improve. Presence too and solid images remain more stable as one moves around the room. It was much easier to set up my former Magico speakers in terms of identical orientation with their modern construction, flat sides, and adjustable footers.
Tom, a lot of this makes sense but I am definitely confused on your claim loudspeaker spikes harming HF playback. I have an open mind however…do you have evidence to back this claim?
I agree that spikes make tweaking positions very difficult, I would add though they are a necessary evil when confronted with a floor that has a sympathetic resonance. IsoAcoustic Gaia’s and their spikes helped remove upper bass bloat. So much that I can live with the difficulty in finding the last millimeter.
Yes in the end it is done by ear, so yes I believe you.
My wonder is how repeatable or easily repeatable. Somehow a measurement even when almost impossible to duplicate has a connotation of something I know I can back to. It sounds like you can demonstrate your procedure to friends so it must possible.
I tend to start by establishing a measured position I have reason to believe should work. If it is a new speakers I usually put down some tape and establish a grid. From there I shift, bump, tap and listen until it sounds right. Then I remeasure to establish a reference point. Often I fuss with this position and even after measuring I find it difficult to get back to that position that sounded so right. So I don't necessarily dispute the infinitesimal accuracy necessary I just find it mind boggling and as you say daunting!
Yes, we can hope to measure distances with accuracy up to 1mm at best using good laser systems when positioning speakers.
Are you sure? One arc second is a deviation of 5 micron at a distance of 1meter. Are you saying it is audible and affects sound quality?
How we get absolute localization by ear? We count taps?
Ok, let us admit we accept it. How can it used to make systematic meaningful adjustments? We need two hundred 5 micron displacements to displace 1mm.
As pointed bellow , adjustments must be repeatable and easy to check. We can't rely on audible memory to last forever.
I think DPOLS is not related to listener position and asymmetry of ears has no affect on sound. When speakers are in DPOLS the sound is good in all area of room not only in listener position.
DPOLS is also not related to records.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |