Doctor's Orders-Part Two-The New Listening Room Of Steve Williams
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
Mike
It is my understanding that the Cardas method is meant for small rooms dealing with reflection issues
It is my understanding that the Cardas method is meant for small rooms dealing with reflection issues
every audiophile listening room is a small room with reflections issues. it's the actual definition of what domestic hifi speakers are designed for.
and your screen captures are for even smaller mixing rooms.
So based in your premises every one would be best served listening nearfield. I’m not following your reasoning. Perhaps you’re correct and everyone has to discover for themselves cuz I’m sure convinced regardless of what it’s called. As stated my ratio is 0.947
your premise does not have a simple answer.
the problem is that most audiophile listening rooms are not listenable in the near-field. the reflective energy drives you back. so even though most dynamic cone audiophile speakers will sound optimally listened to in the near-field, few rooms are tuned sufficiently to allow for it. and then there is the accumulated far-field listening habits for many are hard to break. which can be viewed as preference. some just are not comfortable with the immersive aspects of near-field. or just proximity of speakers.
your room has lots of designed in treatment that controls reflections. and since 5 years ago so does mine. so we two are free to move as close as we want.
for me personally i feel like if i could treat any room appropriately, that i would prefer to listen in the near field.
obviously some driver technology is not near-field friendly, so i'm not talking about those speakers.
Bravo! You will be hearing more of your speaker and less of your room. Other adjustments to your system will become more discernible.
The toe-in will be last. Every time I adjust mine I end up moving it back to the previous favored position.
The toe-in will be last. Every time I adjust mine I end up moving it back to the previous favored position.
like I said I think you are onto something because after I made the upper module changes it lit up my ears and tend to agree with you
And as I mentioned David said "sit here and it takes your room totally out of the system"
Using Wilson algorithms I am 4-6" behind that spot . Ive leaned my head forward where I am in that spot and even with the new upper module adjustments I find I lose center focus when I turn my head left or right.
Steve,
Congrats on the improvement, and I'm glad I had a little contribution to it
Speaker set up can be a pain, but like some folks here can attest, the results can be very, very rewarding!
And like all things audio, the final positioning for the speakers and listener is a very personal. To my ears, I do like the more severe toe-in on ours Wilsons, where you can barely see the side panels of the speaker. It brings a very solid, firm and energetic center image, while keeping the soundstage very wide (due to the speakers being further apart).
Enjoy!
Alex
Congrats on the improvement, and I'm glad I had a little contribution to it
Speaker set up can be a pain, but like some folks here can attest, the results can be very, very rewarding!
And like all things audio, the final positioning for the speakers and listener is a very personal. To my ears, I do like the more severe toe-in on ours Wilsons, where you can barely see the side panels of the speaker. It brings a very solid, firm and energetic center image, while keeping the soundstage very wide (due to the speakers being further apart).
Enjoy!
Alex
This discussion makes me reflect on my own adventures with listening positions.
Because my room is long (40') I have a lot of space to experience music from different depths:
I have the classic audiophile semi-near field sweet spot, arrived at with the help of Jim Smith, which is about 11' tweeter to ear. I also sometimes listen as close as 8' for a more headphone experience. Another spot is about 14' ear to tweeter. And then, (and this is sometimes my favorite), I listen while standing and working, about 30' back. Each position provides a different experience. The closer-in positions provide a more "you are there" experience with a more intense audiophile stereo, pin-point sound stage experience. The further back back positions are more about hearing the music as if it's being played in my room with much more of a live, reverberant quality. I think horn speakers lend themselves well to this more far-field experience, and I do have extensive absorption and diffusion through the room.
My point is, I think the audiophile orthodoxy of a single sweet spot feels a little confining to me, which I acknowledge may be due largely to having a large room. Just as PeterA has shifted away from his audiophile sanctioned positioning to what he feels is a more "natural" reverberant sound field (if I understand), it sounds like Steve has moved to a less reverberant and more focused stereo experience. Both can lend themselves to rewarding listening experiences.
Because my room is long (40') I have a lot of space to experience music from different depths:
I have the classic audiophile semi-near field sweet spot, arrived at with the help of Jim Smith, which is about 11' tweeter to ear. I also sometimes listen as close as 8' for a more headphone experience. Another spot is about 14' ear to tweeter. And then, (and this is sometimes my favorite), I listen while standing and working, about 30' back. Each position provides a different experience. The closer-in positions provide a more "you are there" experience with a more intense audiophile stereo, pin-point sound stage experience. The further back back positions are more about hearing the music as if it's being played in my room with much more of a live, reverberant quality. I think horn speakers lend themselves well to this more far-field experience, and I do have extensive absorption and diffusion through the room.
My point is, I think the audiophile orthodoxy of a single sweet spot feels a little confining to me, which I acknowledge may be due largely to having a large room. Just as PeterA has shifted away from his audiophile sanctioned positioning to what he feels is a more "natural" reverberant sound field (if I understand), it sounds like Steve has moved to a less reverberant and more focused stereo experience. Both can lend themselves to rewarding listening experiences.
actually there is reverb but as stated this is truly more than a focused stereo experience because by Wilson set up data I am seeing too much of the inner panels from my new sitting position. So the focus is not as precise due to the lack of further toe in. I might in the future but I need to live with this for a few weeks before I make any changes
Steve, the slightly funny thing is I never would have guessed that the old listening position placed you 12 feet from the front of the speakers.
Funnily enough my daughter actually likes sitting directly between the speakers. It does sound very different, almost as though one is hallucinating aurally.
Steve’s new listening position isn’t near field as in listening to nearfield studio monitors up close, its part of his in room setup no different from what is needed to get the best out of the system in a much larger room. In this case the the better sitting position happens to be further into the room. Next we have to tweak the speakers position and toe in.
david
david
I don’t see this so called Cardas method different from what Steve posted about studio monitors, the rationale is the same albeit the difference in listener intent. In both Inctances one is trying to minimize the effects of room boundaries.
Your situation is different Mike, you have the option of a different setup in your rather large room but chose near field, Steve’s optimal position is dictated by his room and not his desire to sit up close to the speakers.
david
Technically the far-field / near-field is related to the distance at which the speaker starts obeying the inverse-square law and is correlated with speaker and unit dimensions and crossover design. Strictly speaking we should not listen near-field, as the speaker units do not blend perfectly at such distances.
However the general use of the word relates to the ratio between direct and reflected sound, and as such depends a lot on speaker and room.
Sound engineers listen mostly in near-field conditions at high levels, both for space and work needs. However in order to recreate an enjoyable spacious soundstage we need some room reflections and most people prefer far-field.
I have tried near-field listening with Quad ESL 63 and B&W silver signature SS25, it is a very interesting experience, but extremely recording dependent. People usually consider that strict near field goes with listener distances between 3 and 5 feet (.9 and 1.5m).
IMHO near-field listening is an attitude and surely creates a subjective preference, and should be discussed just as such. Some people love it, I dislike listening with my head in a vice, so near-field is not for me. Also I feel that far-field approaches more what I listen in a concert room, but I never get row A tickets.
Similar threads
