Yes indeed... there is also the best place for them to be set up for that illusion, all other things equal...think zone of neutrality.
Sometimes it pays to experiment.
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Yes indeed... there is also the best place for them to be set up for that illusion, all other things equal...think zone of neutrality.
I do agree with that, but implementing that simple statement is the difficulty. For example, PeterA's description of laser measuring the distance from each speaker to the "listening position" appears to me to be unrelated. Also, as I mentioned, there seem to be any number of ways to approach speaker placement which end up with different results; what they (except one) do have in common is that the speakers' relationship to each other is paramount. The exception to that is the asymmetric placement (of both speakers and listener) method, which is considered unconventional and not widely accepted but still used by some (presumably serious listeners http://www.iar-80.com/ ).
The Wilson method? As opposed to the Cardas method, or the Roomplay method, or the Vandersteen method...
I think a fair amount depends on the specific room; I suspect some rooms have more "good" setup positions than others.
The zone of neutrality is a very large zone compared to the fine tuning movements we are addressing. As far as I understand the zone of neutrality is only a first step to speaker positioning.
Positioning speakers needs a very systematic approach. Several times I went trough really top sounding positions when doing the preliminary listening tests, did not take notes, and later was not able to find them again. Perhaps it was only suggestion, but once you have no records and have to rely on your memory, entropy wins and the setup becomes chaotic.
yes, that is what I am implying followed by careful tuning movements of the speakers relative to each other as you say.
Last edited:
rbbert, I don't think I've been clear enough in my posts. Jim Smith came to my place to do his RoomPlay service. I posted a review of this experience in this forum. Once we both agreed on the best sound for my system in my room, we recorded the speaker location and the listener location very precisely. Jim's method involved a very systematic approach and included the use of a laser for positioning. Once we were very close to what we thought was optimal sound, we further refined it with a laser to get the two speakers in a precisely symmetrical relationship to the listener. At this point, tiny movements of mattered to the sound. I wanted a record of where things were, for future reference.
I mentioned the use of my inexpensive laser device to record the exact locations of the speakers. You asked how I did this, and I answered that question. The discussion then drifted about heads in vises and got kind of silly. The laser is very accurate and easy to use. Sure it is high tech, but it is far superior to using a string or conventional tape measure, or simply sighting along the edge of the speaker. It is amazing how tiny movements at the speaker result in rather large movements at the listener location. I have found that precision matters (just like in cartridge alignment). And this is easily heard in my system.
I don't argue that there is one and only one exact and best location for speakers and listener in each room and situation. However, in my room, there is one location that works best for me and I want a record of exactly where that is in case I move the speakers to experiment or change equipment etc. I really think it is just that simple.
IIRC, the Vandersteen method is one of those.
My point is it ends up being a matter of preference rather than anything approaching an absolute, as some would like it (and claim it is). It's relatively easy to get a speaker's best on-axis frequency response above 300-400 Hz; after that is achieved, though, it becomes a matter of trade-offs and it's fairly obvious that we all have our individual priorities from then on. For me, the changes in sound with 1/16" (or even 1/2", which appears to be nearer my individual threshold) movements of the speakers don't matter that much because none of them are more "accurate" (IMHO), just different.
PeterA, I don't want to quote your long post so let me just point out a couple of things. First, the laser is easy, but not more accurate than a rigid tape measure and is somewhat less precise as well; more, its ease of use also makes it easier to misuse. Second, IIRC your room is a little unusual for a dedicated listening room and may well have fewer "good" speaker placement options. The bigger a room is, and the more closely its measurements approach the Golden Rectangle ideal (in the area of fewer room nodes) the more good options it has for speaker placement.
First, a big IMO...
I emphatically do NOT agree - but that goes for some of the other posts here as well.
Not to mention the notion that the Golden Ratio is some sort of great room ideal - having worked with them since the '70s at Magnepan. Still takes lots of work, and where things are placed (including furniture and people) can adversely affect the great math and the great expectations. I know this is not a popular viewpoint, but it is based on hundreds and hundreds of successful voicing sessions, including a number of Best at Show CES set-ups.
IME, the only time a room designed to a spreadsheet can work as hoped/expected is when the only thing in that room is the spreadsheet.
My example of the golden ratio was merely the easiest way to describe a smallish room with the fewest reinforcing room nodes, which I think makes setup somewhat easier in an unfurnished room. I'm curious about your opinions on the laser; I have not found one under $100 with stated accuracy or precision better than +/- 1/16".
Regardless, my main point stands; it's unlikely to find a location with the smoothest bass response (usually Cardas) and also the best imaging and overall frequency response, so one has to make a choice, and that further implies that one's taste (reflected in that choice) is unchanging. More, as has often been commented on, imaging is also a personal taste, and we are unlikely to know what is actually on a recording (e.g. even 2-channel recordings from the same location, one made with spaced omnis and one with ORTF cardioids, will have significantly different stereo images on playback)
Regardless, my main point stands; it's unlikely to find a location with the smoothest bass response (usually Cardas) and also the best imaging and overall frequency response, so one has to make a choice, and that further implies that one's taste (reflected in that choice) is unchanging. More, as has often been commented on, imaging is also a personal taste, and we are unlikely to know what is actually on a recording (e.g. even 2-channel recordings from the same location, one made with spaced omnis and one with ORTF cardioids, will have significantly different stereo images on playback)
When I tried this, I could not get a tape measure to remain rigid over a distance of 11'-3 1/16", even with the help of a friend at the other end. The 3/4" flat end is also not as precise as a laser dot with a diameter of 3/16" when trying to measure the distance to a spot on a wall that is at a roughly 40 degree angle from a speaker baffle. Finally, getting a highly accurate and precise measurement over that distance is not easily repeatable with a tape measure.
As for your statement about my room: I don't recall ever referring to it as a "dedicated listening room". From where did you ever get that idea? I would love to have a dedicated room, but unfortunately we do no have the space in our house, so my system is in our living room which serves dual functions. Perhaps you are confusing my room with someone else's and that might well explain your various opinions about speaker placement in my room.
No, my comments were meant to reflect that your listening room was not a dedicated listening room and has other potential confounding factors (IIRC a fireplace and some small alcoves?) for ideal speaker placement. More, if you can't place a tape measure on a flat surface a laser is clearly better.
I'll just stick with the opinions expressed in the second paragraph of my post right above yours, which is pretty much where I started.
I'll just stick with the opinions expressed in the second paragraph of my post right above yours, which is pretty much where I started.
(BTW, marking the old placement with some blue tape is always suggested and what i have done....although I doubt I will be going back).
Sometimes it pays to experiment.
Well, I decided to go back and see what my old placement was like. WOW...The move was one of the most amazing things I have done in audio!!! Gone was the feeling that the musicians were a little disconnected and distant, gone was the slight attenuation that i "thought" i heard in the brass sections, gone was the slight lack of resolution on female voices , so much so that I again hear their breathing as they take each breath between words.
The old placement brought me back to what I now know is the FAR superior sound in my room!!
I had recently acquired the Fidelio LP of Anne Bisson.."Blue Mind". I wasn't that impressed with this recording ( although I had been on other systems in the past) when I played it before with my "toed-in" set-up. NOW, everything gelled and Anne was in the room with me! Superb.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread, sometimes it pays to experiment...just so long as you can go back
I'm just confused. I re-read your first post and then your last one.
Here's the thing of it rbbert, at first the change was to my ears beneficial. It seemed like there were gains all around. However, in this hobby, sometimes what seems on the face of it to be better actually isn't. So, I wanted to be absolutely sure that what I heard with the new placement was superior, and therefore went back to check. I don't know about you, but I have had this experience in our hobby before. What seems like an improvement is simply different...BUT on further listening proves to be a step backwards. This was the case in my system with the toe-in adjustment that initially impressed me- as per my first post. Pays to make sure that everything is in fact working as it should, which sometimes requires extensive listening. Kind of like the speaker that impresses upon first listen and then after more time has gone by, begins to irritate....Have you ever had this experience?
Anyone?
Excellent post. This has happened to me in a couple of instances, so I know exactly what you mean.
Davey, that's more than 2 months. Do you think you'll go easier on show exhibitors who have only a day from now on?
I do have the new settings saved...tape works great for this.
The new setting had the speakers toed in.
The current set-up is with no toe-in. This is how I had set the system up originally...and how I am now listening again.
Jack, I thought I was going easy on show exhibitors, LOL
Similar threads
