My monitor/subwoofer system

[Al M.]

Al, good to read about all this. I must say I'm seriously suprised that taking your dac off the isolation transformer has helped. I know people plug their power amps and subs into the grid, but keep sources isolated. What do you attribute that to?

I wouldn't know, Marc. I am puzzled myself, especially about the changes with the CD transport which essentially only outputs 0 s and 1s.

I'm also intrigued by you ceiling treatment. This is an area hardly covered on this forum or in the literature. It's something I'm considering, but not easy to do a simple A/B on.

Yes, it made a huge difference, at least in my room which upon hand clapping had a problematic metallic 'zing' echo from the ceiling . Agree on the difficulty of a simple A/B.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I really don't have that issue Al, and I'm reluctant to go down the rabbit hole of over treatment.

One prominent dealer in UK selling a product v similar to ASC Tube Traps was recommending £10k worth of ceiling absorber/diffusers on my eaves over the 24' distance btwn just behind my listening position to the front wall.

 

[Al M.]

I really don't have that issue Al, and I'm reluctant to go down the rabbit hole of over treatment.

I understand, Marc. A friend who doesn't have that issue either nonetheless experienced a great improvement with movers' blankets over his ceiling beams until he finds a more permanent solution.

One prominent dealer in UK selling a product v similar to ASC Tube Traps was recommending £10k worth of ceiling absorber/diffusers on my eaves over the 24' distance btwn just behind my listening position to the front wall.

That seems excessive. I only treated my ceiling around the first reflection points of the speakers, at a total cost of $ 2,100 (w/ shipping).

 

[spiritofmusic]

The go-to solution in UK is likely GIK Acoustics, although there are some cheaper options like Thomann De.

Polystyrene diffusers to cover ceiling first reflection points would cost no money at all, and would be light enough to be no problem re ceiling fixing. I'm thinking minimal coverage certainly couldn't do any harm.

Fwiw, I've been at show demos where before and after videos are played re zero/moderately treated spaces versus the same spaces fully treated, and I invariably prefer the moderately treated option. I am no fan of overly dry acoustics. I like a little warmth even at the potential expense of the last degree of detail resolution.

ASC and SMT rooms always look hugely overtreated.

 

[Al M.]

The go-to solution in UK is likely GIK Acoustics, although there are some cheaper options like Thomann De.

Polystyrene diffusers to cover ceiling first reflection points would cost no money at all, and would be light enough to be no problem re ceiling fixing. I'm thinking minimal coverage certainly couldn't do any harm.

Fwiw, I've been at show demos where before and after videos are played re zero/moderately treated spaces versus the same spaces fully treated, and I invariably prefer the moderately treated option. I am no fan of overly dry acoustics. I like a little warmth even at the potential expense of the last degree of detail resolution.

ASC and SMT rooms always look hugely overtreated.

Then go with polystyrene diffusers to cover ceiling first reflection points.

I have constantly tried to balance acoustic treatment needs against excessive room damping. The hand clapping test in my room still reveals some good liveliness. I made sure that I custom ordered ceiling diffusers from ASC with a good amount of 'reflector strips' built in, i.e., without too much absorption over diffusion.

Polystyrene diffusers should not do much in terms of absorption. I would definitely always prefer diffusion over naked reflection. People ask themselves why they can't get a sound closer to a concert hall in their home. My answer would include that in the concert hall you don't have much short-distance reflection. So get rid of it as much as you can.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Good advice Al. Just how one decides on the balance of diffusion and absorption, I've yet to see an answer on.

I could easily go to a 9' x 6' area of continuous diffusion on my front wall, w GIK Gotham Quadratic diffusers, side wall reflection points diffusers, and these polystyrene diffusers on the ceiling. Those would be all diffusion, no absorption. And a definite change from my current treatments which are 100% absorbers, no diffusion.

 

[Al M.]

Good advice Al. Just how one decides on the balance of diffusion and absorption, I've yet to see an answer on.

My room is a special case where the space from speakers to front wall (i.e. actually behind the speakers) needs lots of absorption so that images are not artificially recessed in space. Aside from the peculiars of my acoustics, this also can become more of a problem when the speakers are quite a distance away from the front wall; in my case the drivers are 7 feet away from it (see also images on first page of this thread, even though much has changed). Yet the extra -- believable, if you do it right -- spatial depth that you can achieve that way is worth it.

Therefore, I rather err on the side of absorption, yet not until the point where being in the listening room feels oppressive on the ears after some time. That happened to me once, and I made sure to remove as much treatment and dampening furniture as necessary -- mainly in the back part of the room -- to arrive at a state again where I can spend hours in the listening room feeling fine, and the hand clapping test around the listening seat reveals some good liveliness.

I could easily go to a 9' x 6' area of continuous diffusion on my front wall, w GIK Gotham Quadratic diffusers, side wall reflection points diffusers, and these polystyrene diffusers on the ceiling. Those would be all diffusion, no absorption. And a definite change from my current treatments which are 100% absorbers, no diffusion.

Sounds good. But you could do it bit by bit, replacing your absorption with diffusion, until you end up with a ratio diffusion/absorption that you feel comfortable with.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, I have my Zus 8' from the front wall, and a careful evolution of component enhancements, clean power, vibration management and judicious room treatments, have led to the situation where my Zus have blossomed.

They were ugly ducklings back in my old harsh, reflective, lost cause, space, and now elegant swans Lol (I know I'm crossing species).

Slap echo here is not excessive, and critically speech is fully intelligible. If I do have any reservation, the acoustic is on the warm side of neutral, but I'm picking nits.

Blue58 who has visited me a couple of times, and was instrumental in me reinstalling GIK absorbers on side wall reflection pts and 3 on front wall, plus corner bass traps, is convinced I don't need to go further, and he hated my old space.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I have my Zus 8' from the front wall, and a careful evolution of component enhancements, clean power, vibration management and judicious room treatments, have led to the situation where my Zus have blossomed.

They were ugly ducklings back in my old harsh, reflective, lost cause, space, and now elegant swans Lol (I know I'm crossing species).

Slap echo here is not excessive, and critically speech is fully intelligible. If I do have any reservation, the acoustic is on the warm side of neutral, but I'm picking nits.

Blue58 who has visited me a couple of times, and was instrumental in me reinstalling GIK absorbers on side wall reflection pts and 3 on front wall, plus corner bass traps, is convinced I don't need to go further, and he hated my old space.

Sounds good. If it seems you don't need to go further, then just polystyrene diffusers around the first reflection points on the ceiling might be the icing on the cake.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Sure Al. Last Q for a while. You say your ceiling panels cover first reflection points. But you seem to have a large area covered. Seemingly way more than the area you'd see the speaker's reflection in a mirror.

In other words, it looks way more substantial than just the 4x2 panel one uses at side wall reflection points.

 

[Al M.]

Sure Al. Last Q for a while. You say your ceiling panels cover first reflection points. But you seem to have a large area covered. Seemingly way more than the area you'd see the speaker's reflection in a mirror.

In other words, it looks way more substantial than just the 4x2 panel one uses at side wall reflection points.

The recommendation by ASC (and another acoustics firm, if I remember correctly) was to cover a 4 x 4 foot area around the first reflection point. Each panel is 4 x 1 feet, so it would take four panels each side (total 8 panels). I opted for 10 panels because I wanted flexibility to choose between two listening seat positions.

I did notice a difference between just 3, and 5, panels on each side, with both configurations centered around the first reflection point.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Excellent Al, it's so good to speak to someone w experience in this area.

Your friend who has issues w his ceiling beams, can you elaborate?
If this is deemed OT, feel free to PM me. Thanks.

 

[Al M.]

Excellent Al, it's so good to speak to someone w experience in this area.

Your friend who has issues w his ceiling beams, can you elaborate?
If this is deemed OT, feel free to PM me. Thanks.

Thanks Marc, PM sent.

BTW, after refreshing my memory I have found two lines of evidence that assure me that indeed the other acoustics company, Acoustics First, also recommended a 4 x 4 foot coverage of the first reflection point.

 

[PeterA]

I had the pleasure of hearing Al's system again last night. The big change since I last heard it was that Al decided to aim the speakers straight ahead, parallel to the side walls of his room. His explanation was that he wanted to adjust the tone for the "Winter conditions" of his room. He said that the lower humidity at this time of year changes the sound, and aiming the speakers straight ahead added more body to the sound.

I listened, and did notice a slight change in tonal quality, but that change was much less significant than the overall impression I had after three hours of listening. THE SOUND WAS MORE ALIVE!

Al's system has always impressed me with its ability to sound big and effortless. The sound is lively. The soundstage is wide and deep, dynamics are incredible, rhythm is always foot-tapping, and there is a nice sense of presence. These qualities have remained throughout his many recent changes. I had really enjoyed the last visit with the addition of his new preamp. Timbre improved, and it was a good, clean sound, but it was a sound that I tended to identify as individual attributes and not as an organic whole.

I learned a lot from last night's session. It confirmed for me what I have been hearing in my own system with various recent changes, one being to also set up my speakers to aim straight ahead. It is this: there is a difference between a system sounding lively, and one in which the music comes ALIVE. Lively can be good, effortless dynamics and a sense of rhythm. Al had that. But as last night made clear, it is not enough.

The most recent iteration of the sound of Al's system was a very good, clean representation of the digital recording. Impressive, in fact. But last night, that sound was much more like what I hear from a live performance. The music breathed. The room was much more energized, the system disappeared even more than usual. I heard the gestalt of the performance in his listening room. It simply sounded more like the real thing. It had been easy to describe Al's sound as a series of sonic attributes. Last night, the sound was more wholistic, a more complete experience. The musicians were nicely spaced and separated, with good scale, but the sound from their instruments now overlapped, filled the spaces, and consumed the front half of his room completely. I thought less about the sound per se and more about the music and the performance.

Art Pepper + Eleven, Holst's Planets, and a solo soprano and choir on Cantata Domino were particularly life-like. It is impressive that the music sounded so convincing in these different genres. The recordings are all good, but I was left with the impression that simply pointing the two mini monitors straight ahead has really transformed the sound of his system in a very exciting way. The experience was much less about the system this time, and more about the music.

Congratulations, Al.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Guys, I've always struggled on the times I've tried toeing my spkrs straight out. I'm perplexed this works for both of you.

 

[PeterA]

Guys, I've always struggled on the times I've tried toeing my spkrs straight out. I'm perplexed this works for both of you.

Marc, I struggled too for a long time, always moving them back in. However, this last effort was different. I stuck with it, and had to be rather patient about also adjusting distance front and back, and speaker to speaker. I gave it a more serious effort because I wanted to hear what ddk was talking about.

The sound can change pretty dramatically and some certainly prefer it the other way. In my own room, one sound is more focused, a bit more analytical, and what I find more like what I hear at dealership demos. It is a precise, articulate sound. I used to prefer that sound. I now prefer the one that more energizes the room. It sounds more natural to me, more convincing, and more life-like. It is still very resolving, but perhaps emphasises details a bit less. The music breaths more and the sound is more alive. I think it is a personal preference thing. My tastes are changing. I don't know how else to describe it.

 

[microstrip]

I had the pleasure of hearing Al's system again last night. The big change since I last heard it was that Al decided to aim the speakers straight ahead, parallel to the side walls of his room. His explanation was that he wanted to adjust the tone for the "Winter conditions" of his room. He said that the lower humidity at this time of year changes the sound, and aiming the speakers straight ahead added more body to the sound.
(...)

I have owned the Ensemble Reference with the outstanding Landmark dedicated stands in the 90's and later the B&W Silver Signature SS25 -all are still playing in a radius closer than 5 km from me! Both played straight ahead and it was not just for aesthetic reasons, but for sound quality reasons. I am somewhat astonished that we are now referring to it as a revolutionary move ...

IMHO, it all depends on speaker dispersion , positioning and the boundaries - there is no magic recipe for it.

In my room the XLF and Quad ESL63 need a bit of toe-in .

 

[spiritofmusic]

I can't get past the visuals to start. It just looks wrong.

Hey, no argument if it sounds better. That's what it's all about. I guess in my room that is v wide and deep with angles eaves that start lower than most, toe out just fails.

Another indicator its so hard to draw hard and fast rules on any system.

 

[microstrip]

I can't get past the visuals to start. It just looks wrong. (...)

 

[Lagonda]

Guys, I've always struggled on the times I've tried toeing my spkrs straight out. I'm perplexed this works for both of you.

You are talking 3 different speaker types and rooms. Al has dedicated
subwoofers placed in the best place for his room, and can change the angling
of the monitors without changing deep bass parameters. Your downfiring
subs can not be placed separately and by changing toe-in you might
change bass integration substantially. My MBL’s sound best in my room
without toe-in, and they do not have directional treble or midrange driver, like
yours. Your roof structure can also be dictating best angling from sidewalls.