Don't worry Paul, as I said, I blame nobody and I enjoyed the discussion. But perhaps a continuation elsewhere would be appropriate and frankly, I would like to see the discussion carried on. Perhaps you want to start a thread?
Al
My monitor/subwoofer system
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Don't worry Paul, as I said, I blame nobody and I enjoyed the discussion. But perhaps a continuation elsewhere would be appropriate and frankly, I would like to see the discussion carried on. Perhaps you want to start a thread?
Al
Hi Al,
Very nice setup.
Are you using Zenwave D4 interconnects for your subs?
If so, do you think there is much to gain with this compared to generic RAC/XLR interconnects given that the crossover is so low; 30-40Hz?
Can you also share your experience with the Zenwave SMSG speaker cable and other cables you may have tired.
Many thanks.
Geoff
Very nice setup.
Are you using Zenwave D4 interconnects for your subs?
If so, do you think there is much to gain with this compared to generic RAC/XLR interconnects given that the crossover is so low; 30-40Hz?
Can you also share your experience with the Zenwave SMSG speaker cable and other cables you may have tired.
Many thanks.
Geoff
Thanks, Geoff. Yes, I am using ZenWave D4 interconnects also for my subs. The roll-off point of the subs is 80 Hz (at the steep 24db/octave slope), so there is also mid-bass coming from them. I attribute the incredible speed, and thus blending with the mains, also to the quality of the cables. I thought when I was switching to the D4s from generic cables there was a difference, also in 'air' of bass more like I hear from unamplified live music, but that was when the system set-up was not yet optimized (for my latest optimization, see a future post) and components were not yet broken in. Perhaps I should do a formal test at some point to look for cable differences. In general, for a high-resolution system people advise to use also high-quality cables for the subs.
The ZenWave SMSG cable is a clear-cut improvement over my Monster Sigma 2000 speaker cable. Unlike with the D4 interconnect vs. my Monster Sigma 2000 interconnect (see link for my review), there is no significant change in tonal balance. Yet tone on orchestral massed violins is much better, as is in general purity of tone. Strangely enough, the ZenWave SMSG also revealed that the Monster Sigma 2000 speaker cable was distorting the sound, like the Monster Sigma 2000 interconnect did, and thus the sound has become much more effortless and less strained with the ZenWave speaker cable in place, especially audible on orchestral music. I guess when your resolution is high enough, all the distortions that previously were buried under a general 'haze' come to the fore.
The manual of my Reflector speakers reads:
"Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows."
(This is almost on-axis; drivers almost, but not quite, directly facing the listener.)
I had tried this before, and liked it a lot, but it also had problems. For example, in my particular room orchestral massed violins sounded too direct for my taste, not with the somewhat indirect sound as I usually hear it in the concert hall also relatively close to the stage, and which was given with the lesser toe-in that I had routinely used so far. I had been sitting 9.0 feet away from speakers that were 8.1 feet apart.
Yet I hadn't read carefully. The manual also states that best is a listening position that makes an equilateral triangle wit the speakers. The entire text on this reads:
"An equilateral triangular positioning is recommended setting up Reflectors. Distance between the speakers, measured from the main driver's center, should be equal to the distance where the listening area is. Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows. If the room is narrow and long the speakers may be positioned closer together with slightly more toe-in angle (on axis). Reflectors' high frequency wave guide allows higher velocity wave propagation and the performance will still be very good on longer distance listening positions."
I took the above instructions on equilateral triangular positioning to mean equal distances between the centers of the main drivers (or between the centers of the tweeters, which is the same in this case), and ear to tweeter. The latter is a common way of measuring speaker distances; also, the tweeter is at ear height and measuring distance from the ear to the center of the main driver would mean measuring at a downward angle, thus a slightly longer distance. All the distances in the equilateral triangle are now 8.4 feet in my room.
I made a drawing to reflect the speaker set-up as seen from above. The speakers are shown with tweeter embedded in its wave guide (c.f. image of speaker on first page of the thread):
From the listener's view, front and rear edges of the speakers line up. Until I had made the drawing I had not realized that, while the centers of the speakers are slightly off-axis when judged by the listener's eyes, they are more on-axis with the ears. The triangle in the drawing is measured to actually be equilateral on all sides according to the criteria described. When you sit in front of the system, however, the speakers seem much closer to you than they are apart from one another, which of course is an optical illusion.
Distances in my room were measured with a laser measure (Bosch), an essential tool for any audiophile (I got it from Jim Smith's playbook, transmitted to me by Peter A.). The expense for the device is a no-brainer, ca. 80 bucks, only about one hundredth of your average interconnect.
The result of the new set-up is a very substantial improvement over what I had before.
Others had observed a certain hardness of sound as they were last visiting, and it had started to bother me as well. Also, the sound lacked a certain effortlessness. Now a lot of the hardness is gone -- while fortunately, natural hardness of instruments is still portrayed well -- and the sound is much cleaner, less distorted and more effortless. The greater effortlessness is of particular importance for the rendition of orchestral music. So far I had thought reproduction of orchestra was a weak spot (even though considerably better than on my previous systems), but for example my favorite Bruckner 9th Symphony (Vienna Phil./Guilini/DGG 1989) now sounds quite excellent even at loud volume (measured peak 97 dBa, > 100 dB). As for lack of distortion, it also helps that due to the closer position of the listener the speakers produce the same loudness at lower amp volume and thus lower stress of the mid-woofer. There is also even less grain on strings. I had thought perhaps the class A/B configuration of my amps was coming back to bite me with some slight grain, but no, it had been the speaker set-up. Andreas Hofmann, the designer of my Octave amp, definitely knows what he is doing.
The sound is also more coherent in a manner that adds quite a bit of greater realism. Odd that you sometimes don't hear a lack of coherence until you experience the improvement.
Soundstage is different. Intimate music sounds really intimate, with some instruments now being really close (which I personally like). Some jazz also sounds really upfront. On the other hand, scale on Bruckner symphonies is large, and all the sound is behind the speakers. So the differences in scale are more pronounced than before. Orchestral violins now sound again a bit indirect, as they should for realistic sound in my opinion. Overall, instrument size has gained substantially in realism.
A lot of music now sounds more mellow, less 'uptight', yet the vigorous playing with rough transients on the Bach violin partitas played by Gidon Kremer is still all there in its raw energy, and energetic transients in the playing of Beethoven's middle period string quartets by the Emerson string quartet are riveting -- among many other examples that I could list. The portrayal of musical energy is thus more differentiated, even less homogenized, than before.
Resolution on my new system had already been great, but it has taken another large step forward, especially in separation of instruments, but also in some timbral resolution and differentiation.
Overall, the tweak with speaker set-up is a substantial upgrade in sound, one that cost me zero dollars but might be judged to equal one otherwise achieved only with significant expense. Of course, I should have read the speaker manual more carefully from the beginning, realizing that set-up may be very specific to some speakers, as it is for this one. That way, I could have had this sound weeks ago, after the burn-in of components was completed. I just went with what I had been used to before, which was insufficient.
Obviously, the importance of proper system set-up cannot be overstated. If you don't take care of this, even the most advanced and expensive system will deliver suboptimal, and in some cases, plain mediocre sound.
***
I am more than ever greatly impressed with Tash Goka's design of these Reference3A Reflector speakers. That they deliver the sound quality that I hear for, in today's high end terms, comparatively little money is remarkable. My musical enjoyment is greatly enhanced by these speakers. Just to name an example: For more than two decades I have loved the drama of the opening movement of Beethoven's middle period string quartet op. 59/2 in E minor. Yet now the agitated drama of the music has me on the edge of the seat like never before. It has become a true breath-taking adventure to listen to this music.
"Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows."
(This is almost on-axis; drivers almost, but not quite, directly facing the listener.)
I had tried this before, and liked it a lot, but it also had problems. For example, in my particular room orchestral massed violins sounded too direct for my taste, not with the somewhat indirect sound as I usually hear it in the concert hall also relatively close to the stage, and which was given with the lesser toe-in that I had routinely used so far. I had been sitting 9.0 feet away from speakers that were 8.1 feet apart.
Yet I hadn't read carefully. The manual also states that best is a listening position that makes an equilateral triangle wit the speakers. The entire text on this reads:
"An equilateral triangular positioning is recommended setting up Reflectors. Distance between the speakers, measured from the main driver's center, should be equal to the distance where the listening area is. Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows. If the room is narrow and long the speakers may be positioned closer together with slightly more toe-in angle (on axis). Reflectors' high frequency wave guide allows higher velocity wave propagation and the performance will still be very good on longer distance listening positions."
I took the above instructions on equilateral triangular positioning to mean equal distances between the centers of the main drivers (or between the centers of the tweeters, which is the same in this case), and ear to tweeter. The latter is a common way of measuring speaker distances; also, the tweeter is at ear height and measuring distance from the ear to the center of the main driver would mean measuring at a downward angle, thus a slightly longer distance. All the distances in the equilateral triangle are now 8.4 feet in my room.
I made a drawing to reflect the speaker set-up as seen from above. The speakers are shown with tweeter embedded in its wave guide (c.f. image of speaker on first page of the thread):
From the listener's view, front and rear edges of the speakers line up. Until I had made the drawing I had not realized that, while the centers of the speakers are slightly off-axis when judged by the listener's eyes, they are more on-axis with the ears. The triangle in the drawing is measured to actually be equilateral on all sides according to the criteria described. When you sit in front of the system, however, the speakers seem much closer to you than they are apart from one another, which of course is an optical illusion.
Distances in my room were measured with a laser measure (Bosch), an essential tool for any audiophile (I got it from Jim Smith's playbook, transmitted to me by Peter A.). The expense for the device is a no-brainer, ca. 80 bucks, only about one hundredth of your average interconnect.
The result of the new set-up is a very substantial improvement over what I had before.
Others had observed a certain hardness of sound as they were last visiting, and it had started to bother me as well. Also, the sound lacked a certain effortlessness. Now a lot of the hardness is gone -- while fortunately, natural hardness of instruments is still portrayed well -- and the sound is much cleaner, less distorted and more effortless. The greater effortlessness is of particular importance for the rendition of orchestral music. So far I had thought reproduction of orchestra was a weak spot (even though considerably better than on my previous systems), but for example my favorite Bruckner 9th Symphony (Vienna Phil./Guilini/DGG 1989) now sounds quite excellent even at loud volume (measured peak 97 dBa, > 100 dB). As for lack of distortion, it also helps that due to the closer position of the listener the speakers produce the same loudness at lower amp volume and thus lower stress of the mid-woofer. There is also even less grain on strings. I had thought perhaps the class A/B configuration of my amps was coming back to bite me with some slight grain, but no, it had been the speaker set-up. Andreas Hofmann, the designer of my Octave amp, definitely knows what he is doing.
The sound is also more coherent in a manner that adds quite a bit of greater realism. Odd that you sometimes don't hear a lack of coherence until you experience the improvement.
Soundstage is different. Intimate music sounds really intimate, with some instruments now being really close (which I personally like). Some jazz also sounds really upfront. On the other hand, scale on Bruckner symphonies is large, and all the sound is behind the speakers. So the differences in scale are more pronounced than before. Orchestral violins now sound again a bit indirect, as they should for realistic sound in my opinion. Overall, instrument size has gained substantially in realism.
A lot of music now sounds more mellow, less 'uptight', yet the vigorous playing with rough transients on the Bach violin partitas played by Gidon Kremer is still all there in its raw energy, and energetic transients in the playing of Beethoven's middle period string quartets by the Emerson string quartet are riveting -- among many other examples that I could list. The portrayal of musical energy is thus more differentiated, even less homogenized, than before.
Resolution on my new system had already been great, but it has taken another large step forward, especially in separation of instruments, but also in some timbral resolution and differentiation.
Overall, the tweak with speaker set-up is a substantial upgrade in sound, one that cost me zero dollars but might be judged to equal one otherwise achieved only with significant expense. Of course, I should have read the speaker manual more carefully from the beginning, realizing that set-up may be very specific to some speakers, as it is for this one. That way, I could have had this sound weeks ago, after the burn-in of components was completed. I just went with what I had been used to before, which was insufficient.
Obviously, the importance of proper system set-up cannot be overstated. If you don't take care of this, even the most advanced and expensive system will deliver suboptimal, and in some cases, plain mediocre sound.
***
I am more than ever greatly impressed with Tash Goka's design of these Reference3A Reflector speakers. That they deliver the sound quality that I hear for, in today's high end terms, comparatively little money is remarkable. My musical enjoyment is greatly enhanced by these speakers. Just to name an example: For more than two decades I have loved the drama of the opening movement of Beethoven's middle period string quartet op. 59/2 in E minor. Yet now the agitated drama of the music has me on the edge of the seat like never before. It has become a true breath-taking adventure to listen to this music.
From the listener's view, front and rear edges of the speakers line up. Until I had made the drawing I had not realized that, while the centers of the speakers are slightly off-axis when judged by the listener's eyes, they are more on-axis with the ears. The triangle in the drawing is measured to actually be equilateral on all sides according to the criteria described. When you sit in front of the system, however, the speakers seem much closer to you than they are apart from one another, which of course is an optical illusion.
Hi Al,
I recently changed my setup as well to form more of an equilateral triangle with much improvement in sound field immersion.
Previously I felt I was listening to a hifi system from afar and now feel more part of the sound field.
Strangely the speakers do appear "too far apart" and I agree this must be an optical illusion because I re-measured and can confirm that the triangle is equilateral!
The toe-in does seem extreme though. I have mine at 15? but I guess it's speaker dependent.
G
Hi Al,
I recently changed my setup as well to form more of an equilateral triangle with much improvement in sound field immersion.
Previously I felt I was listening to a hifi system from afar and now feel more part of the sound field.
Strangely the speakers do appear "too far apart" and I agree this must be an optical illusion because I re-measured and can confirm that the triangle is equilateral!
The toe-in does seem extreme though. I have mine at 15? but I guess it's speaker dependent.
G
Al, that is a great diagram. Thank you for posting it as it clearly shows the relationship between the listener and the two speakers.
I have heard Al's system now three or four times since he got his new amp and speakers. The sound has changed quite a bit over the past month or so as the new gear has broken in, and as Al has experimented with speaker positioning, listening distance and room treatment. With these changes, Al has been able to retain the system's main strengths, namely great dynamics, a clearly defined soundstage and imaging, and a very holographic sense of presence. The recent changes have improved the system further in the areas of increased resolution, lowered overall distortion, and improved timbral realism.
There had recently been what I described as a "hardness" to the sound which has been made less prominent by Al's recent changes in speaker position, mostly toe-in, but also by moving the listening seat closer to the speakers. Having just heard his system again the other night, I think what I mistook as an overall hardness to the sound, was really more of a glare to the treble and upper midrange frequencies. At moments it sounded overly bright, and there was a "beaming" of some sounds which made it a bit fatiguing to listen to. That is now almost entirely gone, however, I think there is still a slight hardness to the sound, on some recordings at certain frequencies. Al thinks this is how some instruments sound at times and describes it as recording dependent. This may be the case. It may also be a result of the more direct and immediate sound he now has because the speakers are aimed at the listener's ears and the listening seat is now closer to the speakers.
This more direct, immediate sound gives the impression that the listener is very close to the instruments. Al prefers this perspective. I prefer a slightly more recessed or distant listening perspective. This difference reflects well our seating preferences at live music events where Al prefers to sit very close to the stage and I prefer to sit ten or so rows back. With Al's more up front perspective, the sound is very direct now. There is a lively edge to most recordings. The sound is vivid and bold and it reflects the way Al hears it live sitting up close to the musicians.
I am now reminded of a recent discussion about the differences between two SOTA amplifiers. One was described as more "wet" or "liquid", the other as more "dry". I am now not so sure of my earlier opinion that "less wet" means more or less the same as "more dry". The reason for this is that I told Al I prefer a slightly less "hard" sound. He then suggested that I prefer a more "soft" sound. That is not the case. I do not now think that less wet means more dry, just as I do not think less hard means more soft. These descriptions all imply a preference for a particular attribute to the sound. One may want such a character, but a lessening of that attribute does not imply one wants some of the opposite attribute overlaying the music. I do not prefer a "softer" sound. I simply don't want a "hard" sound, if that makes sense. I want it "just right", and as natural sounding as possible.
Regardless, Al's system no longer has the slight glare or brightness it first had with the new gear. With his recent changes, the system now has a very direct sound where the instruments and voices sound extremely vivid, even bold. This is how Al hears live music in his preferred seats, and he has now achieved this same sound and listening perspective from the way he has set up his seat and speakers. I commend him for knowing what he wants, having the listening experience with live music to inform his decisions, and for his efforts and willingness to experiment. And I congratulate him on the results. Al is one of the most satisfied audiophiles I have ever met.
I have heard Al's system now three or four times since he got his new amp and speakers. The sound has changed quite a bit over the past month or so as the new gear has broken in, and as Al has experimented with speaker positioning, listening distance and room treatment. With these changes, Al has been able to retain the system's main strengths, namely great dynamics, a clearly defined soundstage and imaging, and a very holographic sense of presence. The recent changes have improved the system further in the areas of increased resolution, lowered overall distortion, and improved timbral realism.
There had recently been what I described as a "hardness" to the sound which has been made less prominent by Al's recent changes in speaker position, mostly toe-in, but also by moving the listening seat closer to the speakers. Having just heard his system again the other night, I think what I mistook as an overall hardness to the sound, was really more of a glare to the treble and upper midrange frequencies. At moments it sounded overly bright, and there was a "beaming" of some sounds which made it a bit fatiguing to listen to. That is now almost entirely gone, however, I think there is still a slight hardness to the sound, on some recordings at certain frequencies. Al thinks this is how some instruments sound at times and describes it as recording dependent. This may be the case. It may also be a result of the more direct and immediate sound he now has because the speakers are aimed at the listener's ears and the listening seat is now closer to the speakers.
This more direct, immediate sound gives the impression that the listener is very close to the instruments. Al prefers this perspective. I prefer a slightly more recessed or distant listening perspective. This difference reflects well our seating preferences at live music events where Al prefers to sit very close to the stage and I prefer to sit ten or so rows back. With Al's more up front perspective, the sound is very direct now. There is a lively edge to most recordings. The sound is vivid and bold and it reflects the way Al hears it live sitting up close to the musicians.
I am now reminded of a recent discussion about the differences between two SOTA amplifiers. One was described as more "wet" or "liquid", the other as more "dry". I am now not so sure of my earlier opinion that "less wet" means more or less the same as "more dry". The reason for this is that I told Al I prefer a slightly less "hard" sound. He then suggested that I prefer a more "soft" sound. That is not the case. I do not now think that less wet means more dry, just as I do not think less hard means more soft. These descriptions all imply a preference for a particular attribute to the sound. One may want such a character, but a lessening of that attribute does not imply one wants some of the opposite attribute overlaying the music. I do not prefer a "softer" sound. I simply don't want a "hard" sound, if that makes sense. I want it "just right", and as natural sounding as possible.
Regardless, Al's system no longer has the slight glare or brightness it first had with the new gear. With his recent changes, the system now has a very direct sound where the instruments and voices sound extremely vivid, even bold. This is how Al hears live music in his preferred seats, and he has now achieved this same sound and listening perspective from the way he has set up his seat and speakers. I commend him for knowing what he wants, having the listening experience with live music to inform his decisions, and for his efforts and willingness to experiment. And I congratulate him on the results. Al is one of the most satisfied audiophiles I have ever met.
Thank you, Peter, for your thoughtful characterization of my system, which I generally agree with, and for your congratulations. I enjoyed the evening of listening the other day. Yes, I do mostly prefer a more immediate sound.
If the excessive hardness prior to the new set-up was mostly just glare or not, I am not so sure. I agree that there was excessive "beaming" before on some occasions, which is now very much reduced while not completely gone (I hear it relatively rarely now in comparison). If the residual beaming comes from the system itself or its interaction with the room is debatable. I suspect it is mostly, if not entirely, the latter. Taming my room has proven very problematic over the years, even though it is acoustically 'tricked out' (I assume it may help to do something with ceiling diffusers). It is possible that the greater toe-in has reduced unfavorable room interactions as much as it may have provided more correct sound from the speakers themselves.
I also agree that less hard does not necessarily mean soft, we probably misunderstood each other on this point. I have heard brass sound live with different degrees of hardness, but only rarely with a 'soft' timbre, unless played at a very soft volume (saxophone is a case of its own). On the other hand, strings often sound with a certain softness, and mostly not 'hard' -- even though on some music and manner of playing they can sound 'scratchy' too, and fortissimo playing of both orchestral massed violins and solo strings can acquire a certain degree of hardness on occasion. Accordingly, a system should in general not make strings sound hard. My systems prior to this one did to some extent, less and less so over the years, and the current system is free from this artifact to a degree that I had not expected, even though it is still not perfect in this regard. Yet well recorded string quartet sound can be reproduced with an appropriate softness, also facilitated by resolution and nuance of tone, that astonishes me. The drama from that particular Beethoven string quartet movement that I mentioned in my above post comes not just from the well portrayed incisiveness of the music, but also from the now much wider contrast between sharply energetic and delicate, nuanced passages.
And then you have things like woodwinds and percussion, for instance, which can be in the middle of the spectrum or sound either soft or hard. For example wood blocks can sound softly, but also can be excruciatingly hard of timbre when played a certain way (as I told you, I was shocked when I heard that hardness live).
Yet I would say that overall my system tends to have a somewhat harder sound than yours, with both kinds of sound well within the spectrum that live unamplified music offers, even though I will concede that my system may not be entirely free of artifacts in this regard. We both very much like what we hear from our respective systems, which is what is the most important.
If the excessive hardness prior to the new set-up was mostly just glare or not, I am not so sure. I agree that there was excessive "beaming" before on some occasions, which is now very much reduced while not completely gone (I hear it relatively rarely now in comparison). If the residual beaming comes from the system itself or its interaction with the room is debatable. I suspect it is mostly, if not entirely, the latter. Taming my room has proven very problematic over the years, even though it is acoustically 'tricked out' (I assume it may help to do something with ceiling diffusers). It is possible that the greater toe-in has reduced unfavorable room interactions as much as it may have provided more correct sound from the speakers themselves.
I also agree that less hard does not necessarily mean soft, we probably misunderstood each other on this point. I have heard brass sound live with different degrees of hardness, but only rarely with a 'soft' timbre, unless played at a very soft volume (saxophone is a case of its own). On the other hand, strings often sound with a certain softness, and mostly not 'hard' -- even though on some music and manner of playing they can sound 'scratchy' too, and fortissimo playing of both orchestral massed violins and solo strings can acquire a certain degree of hardness on occasion. Accordingly, a system should in general not make strings sound hard. My systems prior to this one did to some extent, less and less so over the years, and the current system is free from this artifact to a degree that I had not expected, even though it is still not perfect in this regard. Yet well recorded string quartet sound can be reproduced with an appropriate softness, also facilitated by resolution and nuance of tone, that astonishes me. The drama from that particular Beethoven string quartet movement that I mentioned in my above post comes not just from the well portrayed incisiveness of the music, but also from the now much wider contrast between sharply energetic and delicate, nuanced passages.
And then you have things like woodwinds and percussion, for instance, which can be in the middle of the spectrum or sound either soft or hard. For example wood blocks can sound softly, but also can be excruciatingly hard of timbre when played a certain way (as I told you, I was shocked when I heard that hardness live).
Yet I would say that overall my system tends to have a somewhat harder sound than yours, with both kinds of sound well within the spectrum that live unamplified music offers, even though I will concede that my system may not be entirely free of artifacts in this regard. We both very much like what we hear from our respective systems, which is what is the most important.
I am glad that it works for you as well, Geoff.
Yes, it is speaker dependent. My previous Reference 3A MM De Capo BE speakers (same manufacturer) were recommended to face straight forward into the room (no toe-in), or have a slight toe-in.
Jeff,
I am glad that you like the set-up. No, I haven't heard the Duette, which is much more expensive (as revised Duette II). I went with the Reflector speakers because I already liked how my previous monitors from Reference 3A sounded, and because the Reflector, despite its comparatively low price, is nonetheless an all-out approach to cabinet rigidity. After my experiences with Magico in friends' systems, I consider this essential to correctness and detailed resolution of timbre. The sonic result from the Reflector confirm this, as compared to my previous Reference 3A MM De Capo BE monitors -- even though these were already quite rigid.
I am glad that you like the set-up. No, I haven't heard the Duette, which is much more expensive (as revised Duette II). I went with the Reflector speakers because I already liked how my previous monitors from Reference 3A sounded, and because the Reflector, despite its comparatively low price, is nonetheless an all-out approach to cabinet rigidity. After my experiences with Magico in friends' systems, I consider this essential to correctness and detailed resolution of timbre. The sonic result from the Reflector confirm this, as compared to my previous Reference 3A MM De Capo BE monitors -- even though these were already quite rigid.
Jeff, no thanks, I am amazed how well the JL Audio subs integrate in my system, also due to their speed. From what I gather around the web, it seems harder to integrate subs with full-range speakers than with monitors. Then, of course, there are those opinions who claim just the opposite. Oh well. I'll go by the results in my system.
Yes, I saw it in your signature, very good.
Al, how did you determine what size subs to try with your monitors? Why 12" rather than 10" or 13"?
Peter, the 10" JL Audio subs were discontinued (even though I later discovered on the website that some units may still be available?). I did have doubts about 12" subs paired with monitors, but in general the consensus seemed to be that these days 12" subs are faster than 10" subs from even just a few years ago. So that took away a lot of worry, and the optional LF (low frequency) trim at 24 Hz of the JL Audio subs was the final argument that made me decide on the viability of the 12" subs for my system and room. In fact, the 24 Hz LF trim is a life saver for me: I use an attenuation at that frequency of -8 dB (-12 dB is the possible maximum) and this takes away any problems. In most cases the sound without LF trim was fine, but sometimes not. For example, the initial drum roll on Art Blakey's seven minute drum solo "Freedom Rider" had a low frequency artificially time-lagged 'shadow' without the LF trim that destroyed the music, and it was removed with the LF trim. JL Audio specifically says that the LF trim can be useful for small to medium-sized rooms. Smart folks to include that.
The 13" subs from JL audio, as I understand it, are for larger speakers in large rooms. The 12" sub is specifically advertised for medium-sized rooms.
System with new rug in listening area (partially seen in front part of picture), absorbing panel on the side wall next to the right speaker, and greater toe-in of the speakers as discussed on the previous thread page.
New rug in the listening area
Upper left: ‘Peak/valley’ basket weave pattern of new rug in listening area; Upper right: another view of the complex weaving pattern
Window shutters in the back of the room with ASC cinema panels
Acoustic changes to my room: great additional improvements
Recently I reported on major sound improvements with changes in speaker positioning. Yet despite all the improvements, some things still did not seem quite right. The sound had become much cleaner, but it still did not have the lack of distortion that I heard in friend's systems. I had been blaming the speakers for this, but at some point I thought perhaps something else was going on, especially since the new speaker set-up had removed some distortions that might also in part have been room-related.
In this context, I also felt that the sound had become slightly more 'stingy' again after I had removed a second 5 x 7 ft rug, which I had temporarily supplemented my primary 5 x 7 ft rug with in the listening area (used apart from the 9 x 12 ft rug between speakers and the front wall). I had positioned the two rugs in such a way that they formed one 7 x 10 ft surface; both rugs were made of the same material of natural fiber. Yet I had removed that second rug because the acoustics felt too dead with it, even though high frequencies from the system were still good. Usually the acoustics did not bother me, but it felt uncomfortable especially when my ears were tired at night. It felt as if my ears were clogging from pressure by the more acoustically dead environment. Thankfully, Peter A. also had made helpful remarks regarding over-deadening of the room.
Yet it bothered me with the single 5 x 7 ft rug that the wood floor was exposed around the first reflection points of the speakers, and I knew I still had the problem of reflections between ceiling and floor which can give a slightly metallic ring upon hand clapping. That made me look into ceiling diffusers, which I am actively pursuing, but I also wanted a larger rug covered area, yet without so much absorption. Since natural fiber absorbs more than synthetic material, I was looking into the latter, and after hours of research I decided on a rug made from polypropylene. It is the 8 x 10 ft version of this one (it was also reviewed by customers for indoor use):
https://www.target.com/p/outdoor-rug-hickory-basketweave-smith-hawken-153/-/A-50755659
Fortunately my local Target store had it, so I picked it up. As you can see in the images above, the rug has a 'peak/valley' pattern which, while not as pronounced, is not unlike some diffuser designs. This should help to some extent with sound diffusion (scattering) especially given the large surface area. The rug is also relatively thin. After installing the rug in the room, first hand clapping tests were promising. Despite its large 8 x 10 ft surface area the rug did not seem to absorb more sound than the 5 x 7 ft rug from natural fiber that it replaced.
In fact, after several days listening with it in the room, I have come to the conclusion that it probably absorbs less sound. There are slightly more highs, which leads to slightly less impression of body overall -- any shift within the frequency range tends to affect perception of frequencies elsewhere. This allowed for reinstallment of my second large absorptive panel on the sidewall next to the right speaker. This takes away some more distortions, while the extra damping does not hurt because the speaker is in a livelier acoustic environment than the left speaker anyway. Overall, the sound evened out in tonal balance again and regained more body. And the acoustic is still quite freely breathing and over a few days has never felt oppressive because of deadening. So far so good.
Another important change was in the back of the room, behind the listening seat. I have window shutters there which had been painted in gloss, because I failed to inform myself about the fact that this makes an acoustically more reflective surface than one painted in matte or satin. Yet once I found out, I had thought that this was not that important since the window shutter is quite far behind the listening seat, at a distance of 9 feet. This was a misjudgment, as an acoustician pointed out with whom I discussed ceiling diffusers. So I decided to cover most of the surface with diffusive ASC cinema panels that I had available and did not really use (two of them even were stored in another room). I hung them on self-adhesive wall hooks that I mounted on the window shutters. The panel-covered shutters are shown in an image above; normally you do not even see that the paint is gloss, but the flash used to take the picture mercilessly exposes the gloss finish.
How does it sound?
The overall tonal balance with large 8 x 10 ft polypropylene rug and extra absorbing panel in place seems now the same as previously with just the 5 x 7 ft natural fiber rug. Yet the timbres are different.
First of all, there is another considerable decrease in distortion of sound, apparently because a lot of adverse reflections have disappeared and have been converted into diffused sound. Before the latest changes, the forceful ostinati of the massed violins in the towering, long-stretched climax of the slow movement of Bruckner's 9th Symphony (the climax is a torture test for a system) had been clearly audible next to all the fortissimo brass, a major improvement to prior iterations of system and set-up. Yet the violin sound seemed distorted. Now, as far as I can tell among all the loud brass, the violin sound is quite clean. Overall distortion is rather low, even though you can nitpick here and there when it comes to the brass, but I play at very loud volume (the climax reaches 96 dBa, 102 dB or more, not something recommended for prolonged routine listening if you want to avoid long-term damage to the ears). The rendition of the scherzo of the symphony, will its brass attacks, appears practically free of distortion. Overall, I now consider the performance of the speakers on orchestra to be on a very high level. Yes, at the same or even higher resolution a very high-quality (thus very expensive) multi-way speaker will sound even more effortless on orchestra, and can play even louder, but certainly in my medium-sized room I do not perceive a vast performance gap anymore (in a large room, larger speakers would be mandatory). The sound on this complex, most challenging material for single mid-woofers, as my speakers have, is now satisfying to my ears in its quality and relative ease of presentation, and on a lot of other material the system performs in a stellar manner. Next to optimizing for my own enjoyment, another main motivator to do some more acoustic experimentation was my intent to write a review of the speakers, and I did not want to blame weaknesses of sound on the speakers when these weaknesses could lie elsewhere. This would just not be fair to the product. I guess I am now ready to start writing the review, even though I expect further improvements from ceiling diffusers. By the way, the dynamic behavior of the system/speakers is excellent on the huge Bruckner climax, details will follow in the review.
The lack of distortion and interference of room reflections now also allows string quartet timbres to develop in an unexpectedly realistic manner. On my DGG recording of Beethoven's early string quartet op. 18/2 with the Emerson Quartet (produced in 1997) all traces of hardness of sound have gone, except perhaps on rare climatic moments where a touch of hardness might be naturally expected; I play at peaks up to 89 dBa. Specific to string quartet sound in some live settings compared to, let's say, just a solo violin which is usually played differently, I perceive a combination of realistic softness of timbre with an often generated slightly 'bouncy', 'light touch' sound of bowing transients that I had not thought possible, and certainly not possible from digital. Not only that, there is not just a more wooden sound which perhaps also could be bought through a certain dullness. No, there is a warm woodenness combined with a certain luminosity of sound, a glow within. I have heard that wooden, luminous sound, combined with the softness of timbre and 'light touch' transients, on a few live occasions, but string quartet playing often also sounds different in various ways. Perhaps my most vivid memory of this specific kind of sound was during a string quartet recital in the large living room of a country house in Austria in the summer of 1990, where I loved the rarely played, highly romantic 2nd string quartet by Franz Schmidt. I never thought that this kind of sound was even possible from a system, but here it is. Certainly, if I heard that live sound again, I would still immediately perceive a large difference with the reproduced sound, but that the sound from my system can trigger in my mind strong memories of the live sound is quite remarkable. I have not heard such a sound on another system to date, but perhaps it is the magic of this particular recording which I have not yet heard elsewhere (the recording of middle period quartets from the same Beethoven set sounds somewhat different). This sound also requires great integration of treble and midrange, and all the components in my system, including the stellar ZenWave Audio cables, now apparently work together beautifully to produce the sound. Again, also highly impressive performance from Redbook digital through my Schiit Yggdrasil DAC, which just keeps surprising me. At the same time the system keeps portraying hard, cutting sounds from other instruments convincingly, but that it now can reproduce such softness of string timbre as well speaks to the greater palette of timbral realism at its disposal.
At first I thought I had been dealing with yet just more incremental improvements of sound. But now that I have heard marked improvements over and over on every CD that I have spun the last few days, with the new string quartet sound as a highlight, I have become convinced that it may not be an overstatement to say that the new acoustic changes, at no great expense, have lead to a massive improvement of sound.
It shows again that you can never take room acoustics too seriously. Why is it so hard to get concert hall type sound from live unamplified music in your living room? Certainly, the whole recording/reproduction chain plays a large role, but concert acoustics also usually do not deal with the pedantic, silly short-distance reflections of home audio rooms. Once you start taming these reflections, your chances of achieving a more convincing experience in your home increase dramatically.
Recently I reported on major sound improvements with changes in speaker positioning. Yet despite all the improvements, some things still did not seem quite right. The sound had become much cleaner, but it still did not have the lack of distortion that I heard in friend's systems. I had been blaming the speakers for this, but at some point I thought perhaps something else was going on, especially since the new speaker set-up had removed some distortions that might also in part have been room-related.
In this context, I also felt that the sound had become slightly more 'stingy' again after I had removed a second 5 x 7 ft rug, which I had temporarily supplemented my primary 5 x 7 ft rug with in the listening area (used apart from the 9 x 12 ft rug between speakers and the front wall). I had positioned the two rugs in such a way that they formed one 7 x 10 ft surface; both rugs were made of the same material of natural fiber. Yet I had removed that second rug because the acoustics felt too dead with it, even though high frequencies from the system were still good. Usually the acoustics did not bother me, but it felt uncomfortable especially when my ears were tired at night. It felt as if my ears were clogging from pressure by the more acoustically dead environment. Thankfully, Peter A. also had made helpful remarks regarding over-deadening of the room.
Yet it bothered me with the single 5 x 7 ft rug that the wood floor was exposed around the first reflection points of the speakers, and I knew I still had the problem of reflections between ceiling and floor which can give a slightly metallic ring upon hand clapping. That made me look into ceiling diffusers, which I am actively pursuing, but I also wanted a larger rug covered area, yet without so much absorption. Since natural fiber absorbs more than synthetic material, I was looking into the latter, and after hours of research I decided on a rug made from polypropylene. It is the 8 x 10 ft version of this one (it was also reviewed by customers for indoor use):
https://www.target.com/p/outdoor-rug-hickory-basketweave-smith-hawken-153/-/A-50755659
Fortunately my local Target store had it, so I picked it up. As you can see in the images above, the rug has a 'peak/valley' pattern which, while not as pronounced, is not unlike some diffuser designs. This should help to some extent with sound diffusion (scattering) especially given the large surface area. The rug is also relatively thin. After installing the rug in the room, first hand clapping tests were promising. Despite its large 8 x 10 ft surface area the rug did not seem to absorb more sound than the 5 x 7 ft rug from natural fiber that it replaced.
In fact, after several days listening with it in the room, I have come to the conclusion that it probably absorbs less sound. There are slightly more highs, which leads to slightly less impression of body overall -- any shift within the frequency range tends to affect perception of frequencies elsewhere. This allowed for reinstallment of my second large absorptive panel on the sidewall next to the right speaker. This takes away some more distortions, while the extra damping does not hurt because the speaker is in a livelier acoustic environment than the left speaker anyway. Overall, the sound evened out in tonal balance again and regained more body. And the acoustic is still quite freely breathing and over a few days has never felt oppressive because of deadening. So far so good.
Another important change was in the back of the room, behind the listening seat. I have window shutters there which had been painted in gloss, because I failed to inform myself about the fact that this makes an acoustically more reflective surface than one painted in matte or satin. Yet once I found out, I had thought that this was not that important since the window shutter is quite far behind the listening seat, at a distance of 9 feet. This was a misjudgment, as an acoustician pointed out with whom I discussed ceiling diffusers. So I decided to cover most of the surface with diffusive ASC cinema panels that I had available and did not really use (two of them even were stored in another room). I hung them on self-adhesive wall hooks that I mounted on the window shutters. The panel-covered shutters are shown in an image above; normally you do not even see that the paint is gloss, but the flash used to take the picture mercilessly exposes the gloss finish.
How does it sound?
The overall tonal balance with large 8 x 10 ft polypropylene rug and extra absorbing panel in place seems now the same as previously with just the 5 x 7 ft natural fiber rug. Yet the timbres are different.
First of all, there is another considerable decrease in distortion of sound, apparently because a lot of adverse reflections have disappeared and have been converted into diffused sound. Before the latest changes, the forceful ostinati of the massed violins in the towering, long-stretched climax of the slow movement of Bruckner's 9th Symphony (the climax is a torture test for a system) had been clearly audible next to all the fortissimo brass, a major improvement to prior iterations of system and set-up. Yet the violin sound seemed distorted. Now, as far as I can tell among all the loud brass, the violin sound is quite clean. Overall distortion is rather low, even though you can nitpick here and there when it comes to the brass, but I play at very loud volume (the climax reaches 96 dBa, 102 dB or more, not something recommended for prolonged routine listening if you want to avoid long-term damage to the ears). The rendition of the scherzo of the symphony, will its brass attacks, appears practically free of distortion. Overall, I now consider the performance of the speakers on orchestra to be on a very high level. Yes, at the same or even higher resolution a very high-quality (thus very expensive) multi-way speaker will sound even more effortless on orchestra, and can play even louder, but certainly in my medium-sized room I do not perceive a vast performance gap anymore (in a large room, larger speakers would be mandatory). The sound on this complex, most challenging material for single mid-woofers, as my speakers have, is now satisfying to my ears in its quality and relative ease of presentation, and on a lot of other material the system performs in a stellar manner. Next to optimizing for my own enjoyment, another main motivator to do some more acoustic experimentation was my intent to write a review of the speakers, and I did not want to blame weaknesses of sound on the speakers when these weaknesses could lie elsewhere. This would just not be fair to the product. I guess I am now ready to start writing the review, even though I expect further improvements from ceiling diffusers. By the way, the dynamic behavior of the system/speakers is excellent on the huge Bruckner climax, details will follow in the review.
The lack of distortion and interference of room reflections now also allows string quartet timbres to develop in an unexpectedly realistic manner. On my DGG recording of Beethoven's early string quartet op. 18/2 with the Emerson Quartet (produced in 1997) all traces of hardness of sound have gone, except perhaps on rare climatic moments where a touch of hardness might be naturally expected; I play at peaks up to 89 dBa. Specific to string quartet sound in some live settings compared to, let's say, just a solo violin which is usually played differently, I perceive a combination of realistic softness of timbre with an often generated slightly 'bouncy', 'light touch' sound of bowing transients that I had not thought possible, and certainly not possible from digital. Not only that, there is not just a more wooden sound which perhaps also could be bought through a certain dullness. No, there is a warm woodenness combined with a certain luminosity of sound, a glow within. I have heard that wooden, luminous sound, combined with the softness of timbre and 'light touch' transients, on a few live occasions, but string quartet playing often also sounds different in various ways. Perhaps my most vivid memory of this specific kind of sound was during a string quartet recital in the large living room of a country house in Austria in the summer of 1990, where I loved the rarely played, highly romantic 2nd string quartet by Franz Schmidt. I never thought that this kind of sound was even possible from a system, but here it is. Certainly, if I heard that live sound again, I would still immediately perceive a large difference with the reproduced sound, but that the sound from my system can trigger in my mind strong memories of the live sound is quite remarkable. I have not heard such a sound on another system to date, but perhaps it is the magic of this particular recording which I have not yet heard elsewhere (the recording of middle period quartets from the same Beethoven set sounds somewhat different). This sound also requires great integration of treble and midrange, and all the components in my system, including the stellar ZenWave Audio cables, now apparently work together beautifully to produce the sound. Again, also highly impressive performance from Redbook digital through my Schiit Yggdrasil DAC, which just keeps surprising me. At the same time the system keeps portraying hard, cutting sounds from other instruments convincingly, but that it now can reproduce such softness of string timbre as well speaks to the greater palette of timbral realism at its disposal.
At first I thought I had been dealing with yet just more incremental improvements of sound. But now that I have heard marked improvements over and over on every CD that I have spun the last few days, with the new string quartet sound as a highlight, I have become convinced that it may not be an overstatement to say that the new acoustic changes, at no great expense, have lead to a massive improvement of sound.
It shows again that you can never take room acoustics too seriously. Why is it so hard to get concert hall type sound from live unamplified music in your living room? Certainly, the whole recording/reproduction chain plays a large role, but concert acoustics also usually do not deal with the pedantic, silly short-distance reflections of home audio rooms. Once you start taming these reflections, your chances of achieving a more convincing experience in your home increase dramatically.
Similar threads
