Ron’s New System

[bonzo75]

Another example, I prefer to sit 'outside' the equilateral triangle space of our system at home.

So you are breaking the soundstage forced by the equipment as well as the one on the recording. I think even Wilson fans will say that it requires you to sit in a specific mid spot on axis for it to work well.

 

[hopkins]

This is true but it can sound better than 90 - 95% of systems which have issues, i.e. where due to room speaker mismatch, electronics mismatch, etc the system needs fixes. EQ allows you to easily fix it and make the whole thing relaxing like the problem has gone away. It also takes away tonal purity and some emotion but on amplified female vocals this will be less/possibly not make a difference, you might just notice change in balance that you have lost the hardness. But it is just a fix, and useful for all digital systems. But for an all out analog system, passive is required to excel.

Here are some videos of a well done horn system using Accuphase filter.

This sounds a little lifeless. No punch, no dynamics. The resolution could also be questioned, probably some coloring as well. Hard to tell on a phone video. Is it the result of the EQ, or simply the system's inherent limitations? Regardless, the end results fails to impress (once again, based on the video).

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

it´s impossible to make correct curves/overlap/phase/time alignment etc with an Accupiss filter

 

[Amir]

FIR filters can do every thing in audio.
digital processing of FIR filters can solve all problems of amplitude and phase of frequency in listener position.
The problem is digital processing could be ok for upgrading the sound of mid to low level systems but in high performance systems the effects of digital processing is not good.
A perfect solution should not have any negative side effect. Finding a good sounding room and putting over 200 hours for finding speaker position is the right way. I do not recommend digital processing for high performance systems

 

[LL21]

So you are breaking the soundstage forced by the equipment as well as the one on the recording. I think even Wilson fans will say that it requires you to sit in a specific mid spot on axis for it to work well.

Yes, that is true if one of the priorities is soundstaging. I know it and appreciate it when I experience, but it is not a particularly big priority for me. Plus, the way the sound travels through the room obviously and 'breathes' as you sit back vs forward is more important to me. Unless, I am really listening for balance, tonal, tweaking, 90% of the time, I treat the system almost more as music itself than sound/recording reproduction/playback if that makes sense.

 

[Ron Resnick]

But for an all out analog system, passive is required to excel.

This is my traditional operating philosophy as well. With built-in active EQ -- which several of the state-of-the-art systems employ (for example, I believe Avantgarde, Cessaro, and Genesis have their own active EQ systems which manipulate treble frequencies and maybe even midrange frequencies, as well as active EQ of the bass system) -- the speaker designer can avoid generating time and phase anomalies, which one cannot do if one employs an aftermarket active EQ box.

My point is that I believe such built-in active frequency curve-shaping systems also violate our purest, passive-only EQ ethos.

In addition, active cross-over connection boxes between amplifier outputs and loudspeaker inputs also violate our purest, passive-only ethos, but they are considered to be a higher-end solution than passive cross-over connection boxes. Again, if made by the loudspeaker designer, the active device can avoid generating time and phase anomalies.

My other option simply is to have Peter Noerbaek build a purely passive, ultra high quality discrete component RCL notch filter that I can insert between the cross-over and the ribbon panel to eliminate what I perceive subjectively as a bit of edginess between 4kHz and 6kHz, and keep my active EQ "cherry" totally intact. But then I lose the tone shaping in the upper bass to lower midrange which I am using at this moment to the achieve the subjectively slightly warmer upper bass to lower midrange foundation which I hear from the Clarisys Auditorium and Magnepan 20.7 -- and I like a lot.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The problem is digital processing could be ok for upgrading the sound of mid to low level systems but in high performance systems the effects of digital processing is not good.
A perfect solution should not have any negative side effect. Finding a good sounding room and putting over 200 hours for finding speaker position is the right way. I do not recommend digital processing for high performance systems

I would never use digital EQ processing. Please note that I am talking only about analog EQ devices.

 

[Amir]

Ron
Why EQ?

 

[Amir]

Ron

our ears is less sensitive to amplitude in frequency domain so what we need is finding a perfect position for our speakers to get maximum dynamics. No need to any type of EQ .

Loudspeaker Placement

The Most Critical part of Audio is Room Acoustics, Room/Loudspeaker Matching and Speaker Placement. It is not Simple but Sumiko Master Speaker Set up can help. It was Stirling Trayle Who Created the Sumiko Master Speaker Set up System. Since Then He Has Refined it Considerably. You can Call...

amiraudio.com

 

[Amir]

I had two wonderful experience in past .
Speaker position can change your sound 100 times more better than spending million dollars for upgrading components.
When you find the perfect position then you will shock

call Jim Smith or Trayle or Bob , they can help for speaker position.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Why not EQ, Digital processors can rewrite the laws of physics in a nano second ...

 

[Amir]

In past I find a perfect position for wilson watt puppy 7 and that experience was wonderful.

Romy has a topic about this wonderful experience :

http://goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=994#994

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, that is true if one of the priorities is soundstaging. I know it and appreciate it when I experience, but it is not a particularly big priority for me. Plus, the way the sound travels through the room obviously and 'breathes' as you sit back vs forward is more important to me. Unless, I am really listening for balance, tonal, tweaking, 90% of the time, I treat the system almost more as music itself than sound/recording reproduction/playback if that makes sense.

but then why have Wilson’s for that. Why not get speakers which deliver on the axis/lack of you want

 

[Audiohertz2]

i want to sit where each recording is the most distinctive. where differences are most clear. where the most coherent musical presentation, maximum dynamic life, and maximum natural information is heard. you hear music, and not the speakers, and not the room. but that's just what i like. no absolutes.

my system is optimized for slightly near field listening. and superb top to bottom true full range balance. maximum holodeck effect. 115" tweeter to tweeter, 109" tweeter to ear. speakers 9.5' off the front wall, listening position almost dead center front to back in a 29' long room.

far field listening positions neuter differences to some degree. they are 'all' a bit relatively 'over there'. which makes recordings less distinctive in some ways, and brings in more of the speaker and room.

nothing wrong with any particular preference. it's a comfort zone thing. but some systems make it difficult to even try near field, too much reflective energy. so the reasons why far field is preferred can vary. another factor is your mind seeing large speakers too close up. it can take time to adjust to that and allow your ears to hear 'free' from your vision interfering. i observe it takes new visitors 45 minutes to 2 hours to get use to sitting close to my twin 7 foot tall towers. and some never get use to it.

but it is important to understand the cause and effect at work and be aware of choices. don't judge gear, systems, or recordings without listening position context.

I do favor a similar setup , They are here as oppose to you are there ..!


Regards

 

[Audiohertz2]

but then why have Wilson’s for that. Why not get speakers which deliver on the axis/lack of you want

Maybe he likes them , a hard concept , I know ..!!!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron

our ears is less sensitive to amplitude in frequency domain so what we need is finding a perfect position for our speakers to get maximum dynamics. No need to any type of EQ .

Please read what I wrote. I am not talking about your ears or about ears in general.

I am talking about the sensitivity my ears have in a particular frequency range.

 

[bonzo75]

Please read what I wrote. I am not talking about your ears or about ears in general.

I am talking about the sensitivity my ears have in a particular frequency range.

so why did you not get a speaker that did not have this issue for your range? Surely you did not find this issue in every speaker you liked

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I do favor a similar setup , They are here as oppose to you are there ..!


Regards

not sure i'm saying what you are saying, but maybe.

when i say that far field listening position tends more to have an 'over there' perspective relatively, it's that the music can't quite be as immersive (by degrees) as it can be near field. not exactly the same thing as the "you are there" or "they are here" idea. but far field<->near field will influence degrees of presentation differences.

and there are matters of taste....not everyone likes a super holographic immersive presentation. or has not been able to get comfortable with it....yet.

to me ideally....in a perfect reproduction world......in my system it's the recording that tends to determine whether the players are in my room with me, or we are at the venue......or "third choice" neither is going on. just a 'meh' recording where presence clues are lacking (might still be great music) and hard to pin down things. my system can do the intimate, and the mid scale, and large and really large scale. and all at a high level. i'll admit it took a decade to achieve high performance levels with intimate recordings in my new room, equal of better than my old smaller room. doing both is the trick.

i agree that certain systems......say the 'classic' SET/Efficient Speaker with limited bandwidth is gong to tend toward the 'they are here' sort of intimate presentation. and the big box speaker solid state amp low noise high dynamics system will tend toward taking you to the venue by lighting up the corners and adding to the sense of space. so two alternate system characters. and so not every recording is completely served to be all it can be. not saying that this means that there is anything wrong, only different strengths of presentation with many/most systems. plenty of systems are effective doing both, but it's a big challenge to get it done. most cannot.

so my view is that my nearfield listening position, system and room tune situation, does allow for each recording to reach it's ideal presentation potential.....whatever that might be. far field is less capable all other things being equal.

 

[Amir]

Ron
What we need is a-bit richer sound between 200-400hz to feel the music is better.
If you read the jim smith book he desribe it and in a right speaker position you will get max musicality.
Please read those links you may find it useful and convince to put your time for speaker placement.

the difference between your EQ approach and my method is you want to speaker be fix and use EQ but I say no need to EQ and change the speaker position

 

[PeterA]

No one is more dogmatically and philosophically opposed to using an external EQ device than I am:

-- loss of transparency

-- additional components, connectors, wires

-- additional active amplification circuit

-- a governor on dynamics

-- totally cheating in the world of ultra high-end audio.

Ron, how do you define "the world of ultra high-end audio"? What does this mean?