My monitor/subwoofer system

[Al M.]

Simply put, most recordings made in studios should not sound particularly spacious and normally quite upfront. B&W used to tailor (maybe they still do) their speaker’s response to have a dip in the presence region of the FR to push some of the forwardness in many recordings back in the soundstage.
Even a lot of classical recordings are pretty close mic’d and therefore will sound more like front row (or onstage!) than mid hall.

For most recordings, I like the “They are here” presence (as long as tonal balance is correct) because they are made that way. On a recording with real (or artificial) depth, it should then sound more like “I am there”.

To have Playback all one way or the other indicates something not right in a system (unless that is the specific goal of course). A system should be a chameleon from recording to recording...if you don’t like a particular perspective then one would need to select recordings that have encoded the desired perspective.

Not all live sounds spacious and fuzzy. Sit close to the stage and it is quite immediate and well defined. Good amplified concerts (like Nik Baertsch Jazz shows I frequent in Zürich) are very direct and punch you in the gut (percussion especially).

I tried my horns straight ahead when I first got them and they lost significant life and energy...Toe-in was essential to having the right balance and I still get plenty of depth when it is on the recording.

Yes, the perspective should change from recording to recording. I have optimized my set up and room acoustics for that as well. A lot of recordings sound upfront and in your face -- I guess it would be too much so for some listeners' tastes, but I like it. On the other hand, large choral or orchestral music can sound as coming from a large acoustic, and with a great amount of depth layering front to back, or with a generally more distant portrayal. But also here perspective varies, with a number of large scale recordings sounding rather upfront. Full toe out of the speakers flattens the differences in perspective somewhat, but not to a large degree.

For quite a long time I had artificial depth in my soundstage, with most recordings sounding 'deep' and a bit distant. Some liked that, but it drove me crazy and diminished my enjoyment. It took quite a bit of effort working on my room acoustics to get it right, but in the end I succeeded. My acoustics are rather difficult, but now I am happy with the result. The last building block was a large absorbing panel in the middle of the front wall (see picture in post #251) which protrudes into the room, leaning against a column of tube traps behind it. It pushed images further forward and helps portray more energy, after other acoustic devices, including window plugs, had done their part as well.

I could have made life easier for myself by putting the speakers closer to the front wall, instead of the 7 feet distance from speaker drivers to it. Yet then the soundstage depth would be diminished. Not only that, the sound would be more 'boxed in' and less free -- I tried it (including at a time when I had less acoustic devices in my room). As I said, my room acoustics are quite difficult.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The employment of resistors to adjust treble output is a good idea as I heard in your system; fortunately I can also do that since the speakers have a bi-wiring option. (...)

Probably not so easily in your speakers. As far as I remember the Ensemble crossovers do not follow the usual classical topology and speaker units are left unfiltered, adding a resistor can also affect the balance in the middle zone.

 

[morricab]

Yes, the perspective should change from recording to recording. I have optimized my set up and room acoustics for that as well. A lot of recordings sound upfront and in your face -- I guess it would be too much so for some listeners' tastes, but I like it. On the other hand, large choral or orchestral music can sound as coming from a large acoustic, and with a great amount of depth layering front to back, or with a generally more distant portrayal. But also here perspective varies, with a number of large scale recordings sounding rather upfront. Full toe out of the speakers flattens the differences in perspective somewhat, but not to a large degree.

For quite a long time I had artificial depth in my soundstage, with most recordings sounding 'deep' and a bit distant. Some liked that, but it drove me crazy and diminished my enjoyment. It took quite a bit of effort working on my room acoustics to get it right, but in the end I succeeded. My acoustics are rather difficult, but now I am happy with the result. The last building block was a large absorbing panel in the middle of the front wall (see picture in post #251) which protrudes into the room, leaning against a column of tube traps behind it. It pushed images further forward and helps portray more energy, after other acoustic devices, including window plugs, had done their part as well.

I could have made life easier for myself by putting the speakers closer to the front wall, instead of the 7 feet distance from speaker drivers to it. Yet then the soundstage depth would be diminished. Not only that, the sound would be more 'boxed in' and less free -- I tried it (including at a time when I had less acoustic devices in my room). As I said, my room acoustics are quite difficult.

Ok, but didn't putting the speakers firing straight ahead create a situation where the recordings all sounded somewhat more diffuse and spacious? I found in my own setup that it just kind of muted the dynamics somewhat and focus lock.

 

[PeterA]

This is an interesting series of posts about how the sound of Al's system changes with speaker toe. I suspect much of it has to do with listener preference. Al also suggested that we all hear differently. I liked the sound with no toe in a lot, but I did suggest that Al work some more on speaker placement in the room and experiment with the removal or replacement of some of his acoustic treatments.

The balance between direct sound and reflected sound is an interesting one and quite susceptible to personal taste, IMO. Valin's recent review about the MBL Extreme is all about reflected sound. Are we adding reflected sound to the reflected sound on the recording? How much is too much?

I have been trying to remove the last two acoustic panels from my room, located at the two first reflection points on the side walls. In that process, I found that I had a bit too much reflection and the sound was too diffuse. So I played with speaker width/spacing. My tweeters are now 4'-1" in from each side wall. Al's seem closer. My wall material is very heavy horse-hair plaster over lath and large frame timbers. I can't remember what Al's wall material is, but his room has a much different acoustic than mine does. I suspect all of this makes a difference.

Moving his speakers closer together would also put the listener in a more direct angle to the front baffle, much like mild toe-in does while at the same time moving the speakers away from the side walls for less reflections. I don't think we can simply generalize about toe-in versus straight ahead without taking into account the speakers location in the room, angle to the listener, the speaker's dispersion pattern, the room acoustics and furniture layout. There are simply too many variables to make blanket statements.

And then there is the fact that we all hear differently and have different preferences. If we wanted just what is on the recording, we might want to reduce all room effect, but that might just suck the life out of the music. I think it is a balancing act, and it seems to me that Al is still moving around his speakers to find the balance he most prefers for the music on his recordings.

One of the nice things about our Boston Audio Group is that we are so candid with each other because our goal is to learn what we can from the others in the group. Tasos is one of our more outspoken members.

EDIT: I should add that in my own system, I could not simply rotate the speakers to aim straight ahead for a good sound. It is not that simple. I had to completely start over with distance to the listener and distance between speakers. I found setting up the speakers with no toe-in was indeed more difficult than setting them up with toe-in, because of the balance with reflections. I think Al simply rotated the speakers on their stands. Perhaps this is the reason for the unsatisfactory results. Of course, after a more extensive effort, he may end up preferring them with toe-in for any number of reasons. My point is that one should not simply rotate the speakers in place and expect the best results.

 

[Al M.]

Ok, but didn't putting the speakers firing straight ahead create a situation where the recordings all sounded somewhat more diffuse and spacious? I found in my own setup that it just kind of muted the dynamics somewhat and focus lock.

The focus is a bit less, but the overall spaciousness of the recordings did not change substantially, at least as I hear it. If anything, there is a slight loss of spatial depth with full toe out. As for dynamics, they did not change.

However, when I once did the toe out experiment while the speakers were still 4 inches further apart from each other, the sound suffered a significant loss of dynamics and liveliness. So the effect of toe in/out all depends on the basic speaker setup as Peter says.

 

[Al M.]

This is an interesting series of posts about how the sound of Al's system changes with speaker toe. I suspect much of it has to do with listener preference. Al also suggested that we all hear differently. I liked the sound with no toe in a lot, but I did suggest that Al work some more on speaker placement in the room and experiment with the removal or replacement of some of his acoustic treatments.

The balance between direct sound and reflected sound is an interesting one and quite susceptible to personal taste, IMO. Valin's recent review about the MBL Extreme is all about reflected sound. Are we adding reflected sound to the reflected sound on the recording? How much is too much?

I have been trying to remove the last two acoustic panels from my room, located at the two first reflection points on the side walls. In that process, I found that I had a bit too much reflection and the sound was too diffuse. So I played with speaker width/spacing. My tweeters are now 4'-1" in from each side wall. Al's seem closer. My wall material is very heavy horse-hair plaster over lath and large frame timbers. I can't remember what Al's wall material is, but his room has a much different acoustic than mine does. I suspect all of this makes a difference.

Moving his speakers closer together would also put the listener in a more direct angle to the front baffle, much like mild toe-in does while at the same time moving the speakers away from the side walls for less reflections. I don't think we can simply generalize about toe-in versus straight ahead without taking into account the speakers location in the room, angle to the listener, the speaker's dispersion pattern, the room acoustics and furniture layout. There are simply too many variables to make blanket statements.

And then there is the fact that we all hear differently and have different preferences. If we wanted just what is on the recording, we might want to reduce all room effect, but that might just suck the life out of the music. I think it is a balancing act, and it seems to me that Al is still moving around his speakers to find the balance he most prefers for the music on his recordings.

One of the nice things about our Boston Audio Group is that we are so candid with each other because our goal is to learn what we can from the others in the group. Tasos is one of our more outspoken members.

EDIT: I should add that in my own system, I could not simply rotate the speakers to aim straight ahead for a good sound. It is not that simple. I had to completely start over with distance to the listener and distance between speakers. I found setting up the speakers with no toe-in was indeed more difficult than setting them up with toe-in, because of the balance with reflections. I think Al simply rotated the speakers on their stands. Perhaps this is the reason for the unsatisfactory results. Of course, after a more extensive effort, he may end up preferring them with toe-in for any number of reasons. My point is that one should not simply rotate the speakers in place and expect the best results.

Peter, your speaker distance from the side wall is much greater because your room is wider. Previous experiments in my room have suggested that soundstage width suffers substantially when I move the speakers just a bit closer together than the 4 inches that I already moved them recently. I'll have to see what happens in full toe out mode.

By the way, rotating the TubeTraps did not appear to bring substantial benefits in the current configuration.

 

[morricab]

This is an interesting series of posts about how the sound of Al's system changes with speaker toe. I suspect much of it has to do with listener preference. Al also suggested that we all hear differently. I liked the sound with no toe in a lot, but I did suggest that Al work some more on speaker placement in the room and experiment with the removal or replacement of some of his acoustic treatments.

The balance between direct sound and reflected sound is an interesting one and quite susceptible to personal taste, IMO. Valin's recent review about the MBL Extreme is all about reflected sound. Are we adding reflected sound to the reflected sound on the recording? How much is too much?

I have been trying to remove the last two acoustic panels from my room, located at the two first reflection points on the side walls. In that process, I found that I had a bit too much reflection and the sound was too diffuse. So I played with speaker width/spacing. My tweeters are now 4'-1" in from each side wall. Al's seem closer. My wall material is very heavy horse-hair plaster over lath and large frame timbers. I can't remember what Al's wall material is, but his room has a much different acoustic than mine does. I suspect all of this makes a difference.

Moving his speakers closer together would also put the listener in a more direct angle to the front baffle, much like mild toe-in does while at the same time moving the speakers away from the side walls for less reflections. I don't think we can simply generalize about toe-in versus straight ahead without taking into account the speakers location in the room, angle to the listener, the speaker's dispersion pattern, the room acoustics and furniture layout. There are simply too many variables to make blanket statements.

And then there is the fact that we all hear differently and have different preferences. If we wanted just what is on the recording, we might want to reduce all room effect, but that might just suck the life out of the music. I think it is a balancing act, and it seems to me that Al is still moving around his speakers to find the balance he most prefers for the music on his recordings.

One of the nice things about our Boston Audio Group is that we are so candid with each other because our goal is to learn what we can from the others in the group. Tasos is one of our more outspoken members.

EDIT: I should add that in my own system, I could not simply rotate the speakers to aim straight ahead for a good sound. It is not that simple. I had to completely start over with distance to the listener and distance between speakers. I found setting up the speakers with no toe-in was indeed more difficult than setting them up with toe-in, because of the balance with reflections. I think Al simply rotated the speakers on their stands. Perhaps this is the reason for the unsatisfactory results. Of course, after a more extensive effort, he may end up preferring them with toe-in for any number of reasons. My point is that one should not simply rotate the speakers in place and expect the best results.

I thought you found Al's straight ahead experiment totally satisfactory?

 

[DaveC]

... when we try to make a recording something that it isn't, I feel the result cannot be good. Forcing close-mic'd recordings to sound diffuse in Al's recent set-up, in order to kinda get a diffuse sound as in some live events, does not work well, IMO. These kinds of recordings were never meant to sound what they are not.

Exactly!

If you want to hear a live recording as heard from the perspective of an audience member then get a recording made that way and enjoy! Recordings are NOT live events and most are not meant to recreate one exactly, close-mic'ed content is added and images are meant to be more precise than real life.

This has nothing to do with Al's system in particular, but I really don't understand how getting a recording to sound more live by adding excess decay and noise (by handicapping your AC power and vibration controls) can be a good thing outside of personal preference... which as i said is also fine, people should do exactly as they wish, but at that point it's not the pursuit of high fidelity anymore so the setup diverges from the entire goal of high end audio, imo.

 

[PeterA]

I thought you found Al's straight ahead experiment totally satisfactory?

I liked it more than before and I chose to focus on the positive attributes of a more open natural and enveloping sound. I told him when I left that he might want to experiment with speaker positioning and his room treatments to make it even better sounding, especially in terms of timber and scale. I have mentioned this in other posts. To me his system sounded more like a hi- fi system and less like real music before the change to straight ahead. So I consider this change very positive. Obviously Tasos disagrees. I don’t know where Al will end up. Perhaps it is too early to know. We all have our different opinions.

 

[ack]

One of the nice things about our Boston Audio Group is that we are so candid with each other because our goal is to learn what we can from the others in the group. Tasos is one of our more outspoken members.

Indeed, true. I can't get sentimental about material things.

Al also gave me his Yggy2 for evaluation, and I am briefly now comparing it to my heavily modified Alpha DAC. I will post here details in a few days, but let it be known, both are MAJOR FEATS in digital reproduction, leaving the likes of ----------------- behind in a number of areas [will fill in the blanks later]

 

[Al M.]

Exactly!

If you want to hear a live recording as heard from the perspective of an audience member then get a recording made that way and enjoy! Recordings are NOT live events and most are not meant to recreate one exactly, close-mic'ed content is added and images are meant to be more precise than real life.

That is debatable. I have never heard a recording engineer say that images are meant to be more precise than in real life. That precision may also simply be an artifact of stereo reproduction, albeit an enjoyable one, and perhaps may even be perceived as being informative.

This has nothing to do with Al's system in particular, but I really don't understand how getting a recording to sound more live by adding excess decay and noise (by handicapping your AC power and vibration controls) can be a good thing outside of personal preference... which as i said is also fine, people should do exactly as they wish, but at that point it's not the pursuit of high fidelity anymore so the setup diverges from the entire goal of high end audio, imo.

Depends on what is meant by "handicapping your AC power". But that is a contentious debate that has been had many times already. No need to go there again. What I confidently can say is that I find it not a good idea to compromise quality or even intentionally voice a system with signal cables. I am glad that I have your ZenWave Audio signal cables (interconnects, speaker cables) in my system which are of high quality and arguably neutral.

 

[Al M.]

Indeed, true. I can't get sentimental about material things.

Al also gave me his Yggy2 for evaluation, and I am briefly now comparing it to my heavily modified Alpha DAC. I will post here details in a few days, but let it be known, both are MAJOR FEATS in digital reproduction, leaving the likes of ----------------- behind in a number of areas [will fill in the blanks later]

Glad to hear your reaction to the Yggy2 in your system. I would have been surprised if it had been different .

Possibly a second day of warm-up may improve things further.

 

[DaveC]

That is debatable. I have never heard a recording engineer say that images are meant to be more precise than in real life. That precision may also simply be an artifact of stereo reproduction, albeit an enjoyable one, and perhaps may even be perceived as being informative.



Depends on what is meant by "handicapping your AC power". But that is a contentious debate that has been had many times already. No need to go there again. What I confidently can say is that I find it not a good idea to compromise quality or even intentionally voice a system with signal cables. I am glad that I have your ZenWave Audio signal cables (interconnects, speaker cables) in my system which are of high quality and arguably neutral.

So you've talked to a lot of recording engineers about how they intend their recordings to sound?

And "more precise than real life" means what exactly? Real life can encompass many different experiences. Audio recordings are NOT always intended to sound exactly like live music in real life, otherwise every recording in existence would be 2 mics placed somewhere in the audience. But it isn't! ...we have mics all over the place and the end result is the interpretation of the folks doing the recording.

I'm simply saying, if you want the "live sound" then you can get there by choosing what recordings you listen to rather than change your system to better approximate this at the expense of fidelity.

As far as AC power, I don't think this is debatable on an objective level, but if you subjectively feel that not reducing noise and using cables with much poorer objective specifications is an overall improvement who am I to say you're wrong? I can say, that's not really the pursuit of high fidelity anymore, which means at this point our goals for what an audio system should be simply diverges. Again, no problem with that at all, I believe people should do whatever they like. I also think we should do it with open eyes and understanding exactly why we are doing what we're doing to the extent allowed by our current understanding of audio, which of course isn't complete either.

 

[Al M.]

So you've talked to a lot of recording engineers about how they intend their recordings to sound?

And "more precise than real life" means what exactly? Real life can encompass many different experiences. Audio recordings are NOT always intended to sound exactly like live music in real life, otherwise every recording in existence would be 2 mics placed somewhere in the audience. But it isn't! ...we have mics all over the place and the end result is the interpretation of the folks doing the recording.

I'm simply saying, if you want the "live sound" then you can get there by choosing what recordings you listen to rather than change your system to better approximate this at the expense of fidelity.

The problem with your argument is that you can get pinpoint or otherwise precision imaging also from purist recordings with 2 or 3 mikes (for the latter, see Mercury Living Presence). This suggests that precision imaging indeed is a stereo artifact. And if it is an artifact, then the concept of "fidelity" becomes ambiguous in this respect.

As far as AC power, I don't think this is debatable on an objective level, but if you subjectively feel that not reducing noise and using cables with much poorer objective specifications is an overall improvement who am I to say you're wrong? I can say, that's not really the pursuit of high fidelity anymore, which means at this point our goals for what an audio system should be simply diverges. Again, no problem with that at all, I believe people should do whatever they like. I also think we should do it with open eyes and understanding exactly why we are doing what we're doing to the extent allowed by our current understanding of audio, which of course isn't complete either.

It is debatable on an objective level, as you will find engineers on either side of the opinion divide. Also, reduction of noise is not the whole story, but as I said, I don't want to go there. So please let's leave it at that. I really do not want to have another discussion of the topic here. If you really want to make another argument to the broader community, perhaps you can open a dedicated thread. I am sure there will be interest.

 

[DaveC]

The problem with your argument is that you can get pinpoint or otherwise precision imaging also from purist recordings with 2 or 3 mikes (for the latter, see Mercury Living Presence). This suggests that precision imaging indeed is a stereo artifact. And if it is an artifact, then the concept of "fidelity" becomes ambiguous in this respect.



It is objectively debatable and reduction of noise is not the whole story, but as I said, I don't want to go there. So please let's leave it at that. I am really not interested in another discussion of the topic.

It's NOT a problem with my argument. It's simply that live music varies in real life and sometimes it DOES have defined images. It depends on the performance, the venue, where you sit, etc... I'm sorry but you can't pin down live music and say "This is What it Sounds Like".

As far as AC power, decay, vibration control, you say it's objectively debatable but nobody is willing to have that debate at all, so I'd say you're totally wrong and neither you nor Peter not ddk have been able to come up with ANY logical argument it's not the case and not just another "tweak". I'm not trying to reopen this subject, but you can't say it's a topic that can never be mentioned, that's not fair.

 

[ack]

Glad to hear your reaction to the Yggy2 in your system. I would have been surprised if it had been different .

Possibly a second day of warm-up may improve things further.

Yeah, a Schiit Show, not a shiit show; yet, there are details to go over, in a few days

 

[Al M.]

It's NOT a problem with my argument. It's simply that live music varies in real life and sometimes it DOES have defined images. It depends on the performance, the venue, where you sit, etc... I'm sorry but you can't pin down live music and say "This is What it Sounds Like".

I have always been at the forefront of defending precise location. Some have falsely argued that live is always one big mono, but this is only true further back in a hall. As long as you sit in the acoustic field where direct sound makes a greater contribution than reflected sound, you CAN in fact locate performers with quite good precision.

However, precision location and precision outline of images are two very different things. I have never heard precision outline of images in live events, and I have attended quite a number of them. Yes, when you keep your eyes open, your overall sensory input may fool you into believing precise outlines. Yet when you close your eyes, and just go by your ears, you will not find precision outlines.

As far as AC power, decay, vibration control, you say it's objectively debatable but nobody is willing to have that debate at all, so I'd say you're totally wrong and neither you nor Peter not ddk have been able to come up with ANY logical argument it's not the case and not just another "tweak". I'm not trying to reopen this subject, but you can't say it's a topic that can never be mentioned, that's not fair.

Which is why I suggested in my (edited) post that you open a dedicated thread on the subject. I think that would be fair, and open up the debate to the larger community, not all of which will read my system thread.

 

[Al M.]

Yeah, a Schiit Show, not a shiit show

Hehe . You gotta love this Schiit.

 

[DaveC]

I have always been at the forefront of defending precise location. Some have falsely argued that live is always one big mono, but this is only true further back in a hall. As long as you sit in the acoustic field where direct sound makes a greater contribution than reflected sound, you CAN in fact locate performers with quite good precision.

However, precision location and precision outline of images are two very different things. I have never heard precision outline of images in live events, and I have attended quite a number of them. Yes, when you keep your eyes open, your overall sensory input may fool you into believing precise outlines. Yet when you close your eyes, and just go by your ears, you will not find precision outlines.

I'm sure there will be some differences live vs recorded even if the recording is intended to capture the sound from the perspective of an audience member, but live sound does vary, that's the main point, along with the fact recordings are not often intended to mimic a live experience.

I guess I've given up on making my system sound a certain way and would rather allow the recordings to show what they do with the minimal amount of editing and alterations done by the system.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The balance between direct sound and reflected sound is an interesting one and quite susceptible to personal taste, IMO. Valin's recent review about the MBL Extreme is all about reflected sound. Are we adding reflected sound to the reflected sound on the recording? How much is too much? (...)

Yes, stereo needs reflected sound to create a soundstage. And many people consider that quality of the reflected sound can be more important than quantity. The reflected sound existing on the recording should not be confused with the wall reflections in our room - they are different subjects.

The MBL's are a good example of it - I listened to the MBL101bs sounding excellent in a room with wood panels, in my room of plaster on cement of similar size I never managed the same effect. IMHO it is one of the reasons of the love or hate versus MBL of most audiophiles.