Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
I've heard too many speakers defy toe-in or setup patterns... I think it's specific to each speaker, the electronics, and user preference.
Unless the speakers are designed for it, off-axis means you hear lower volumes relative to other frequencies. You won't hear a flat frequency response. Whether that matters is another thing. I personally haven't found speakers that cut out early from 20khz, sometimes much earlier, to really be any less of a speaker than ones that don't. And yes as far as I know I can hear pretty high (I'm not as old as many of you).
When you're trying to reduce the unnatural outline type sound you're fighting what's on the recording sadly. Think about it, the microphones in so many recordings are basically as close as you can get to whatever they're recording. If you could take the volume and were that close who knows what you'd hear... But also there may be some normal compression that occurs from how mics work, which emphasizes some of the sound that shouldn't be as loud. The point I'm getting at is that it isn't necessarily related to your stereo at all for why it exists, but rather you have to deal with it by changing your stereo.
Unless the speakers are designed for it, off-axis means you hear lower volumes relative to other frequencies. You won't hear a flat frequency response. Whether that matters is another thing. I personally haven't found speakers that cut out early from 20khz, sometimes much earlier, to really be any less of a speaker than ones that don't. And yes as far as I know I can hear pretty high (I'm not as old as many of you).
When you're trying to reduce the unnatural outline type sound you're fighting what's on the recording sadly. Think about it, the microphones in so many recordings are basically as close as you can get to whatever they're recording. If you could take the volume and were that close who knows what you'd hear... But also there may be some normal compression that occurs from how mics work, which emphasizes some of the sound that shouldn't be as loud. The point I'm getting at is that it isn't necessarily related to your stereo at all for why it exists, but rather you have to deal with it by changing your stereo.
Some basic facts that may be of interest to this discussion:
http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/speaker-off-axis-understanding-the-effect-of-speaker-toe-in/
At least I think we have one thing in common Peter. The kind of transparency you have is one that gives the sense the air of recording fuses well to the air in your room making seamless sound scene. Many good sounding systems I hear have great crystal ball transparency portraying unbelievable scene of recording venue but the air seems detached and not seamless with the air of the listening room. This always reminds me that it is very much a simulation or like looking at a magic crystal ball. Yes we are listening to a reproduced sound, a simulation, but for me a good system with the right transparency should not and does not keep reminding me I am listening to a reproduced sound scene, also no pitch black back ground. Let me just say I have heard many videos of mega dollar speakers and also heard the real ones too. Your video here gives me a sense of seamless air of your room and the air of the recording. I think I will appreciate your system very much listening in real.
Last edited:
Sure, I also don't have complete toe out, but a few degrees of slight toe in. That is also a practical issue of tonal balance. In the winter toe out will be a bit more, even though probably still not complete, in order to compensate for tonal balance changes due to low humidity.
It is also a matter of speaker distance to the listener: I sit about one foot closer to my speakers than Peter does, with my speakers being at least as far apart from each other, I think. That makes a substantial difference as to how much toe out is even practical and desirable, as it changes the angle from speaker to listener.
Yet my toe out is severe enough that to my ears I largely get the benefits that I hear in Peter's system as well. That's what ultimately counts, so I'm not sweating it.
Maybe if you use the word air again another 50 times in your next post whatever you're saying will make sense...
"air" is typically used to describe HiFi attribute in english.
I am sorry my writing caused you to have a menstrual cramp
. I suggest you take a few Advil or applying heat to your abdomen and lower back.
Hi Peter,
I wholly agree with David that so many of we audiophiles (and dare I say some manufacturers) have been 'taught' a set of attributes and a vocabulary to describe what a high-end stereo and its speaker setup should sound like. Pin-point imaging, focused dimensional outlines of performers or instruments, super-fine details, blackness, etc. are characteristics used to gauge not only 'proper' setup but the effects of different components. And yet, as we've both described, these are not exemplars of a live concert hall experience.
Of course these, dare I say, synthetic effects do have strong appeal to many. It's almost impossible to read a review or people's comments that do not praise their achievement and lead others to seek to attain them. Thus, it should come as no surprise that years of "training" are conflicted when presented with a different approach. That's okay - we each are allowed our preferences. However I will argue there is considerable merit in exposing oneself, educating oneself, to, what for me, are two basic types of presentation, particularly if one enjoys live music. It may take time to adopt a different basis of preference, as you've experienced, or it may never happen, but regardless of initial visceral reaction, again I would argue we owe it to ourselves to find out.
Yes. I do understand and appreciate what you're saying.
But ...
The words, concepts, and characaterizations of modern day audiophilery are well ingrained. And we've seen the results here on WBF of grappling with a seemingly simply term such as "natural". I consider that a summation word, an easy way to roll up all that goes into a certain type of experience (a very broad experience).
But I don't think it's unnatural to unpack that word into a positive (versus reactionary) vocabulary. What that is, I don't know at this time, but if we can describe the live music experience or its representation in stereo, I believe we can say more than "natural" - despite it being so apt - to convey natural or natural-like sound. Part of being built in a certain way to hear the way we do and having a true reference should allow us to convey that experience with precise words and agreed upon meanings at least to the extent existing vocabulary does. After all we're all human, which should make it easy. heh. Both music and experience are hard to describe. As audiophiles I believe we distinguish music and sound. The naturalist is faced with a challenge.
Please accept my thanks for your taking the time and effort to write such a thorough account of your journey, and for the time and persistance you put in experimenting to get your setup to where it is now. Quite a learning experience both for you in doing that and for us in reading about it. I appreciate your words and your effort. Whether one prefers a toed-in or level setup (if I may call it that), it is the understanding gained that helps advance our hobby. Good job - your work paid off for you with convincing sound and I enjoyed reading about it.
I'm fully aware why toe out works for Peter and his Magicos, but not me and my Zus.
Magico are a more microscope-type spkr than my more diffuse Zus. Too much toe in with Peter may produce too much forensic imaging, as we've established unlike live unamplified presentation. Whereas I need more emphasis on toe in to maximise imaging here, since the Zus are generally reticent on this point.
Magico are a more microscope-type spkr than my more diffuse Zus. Too much toe in with Peter may produce too much forensic imaging, as we've established unlike live unamplified presentation. Whereas I need more emphasis on toe in to maximise imaging here, since the Zus are generally reticent on this point.
Marc, this may well be the case based on what you prefer and what you think I might prefer. I would be curious though, if we both agreed with your statement above if we both heard your Zus in your room and my Magicos in my room while listening together. There is no telling if you and I like the same kind of presentation when it comes to "forensic imaging" unless we are both able to experience the two systems when listening together. Then we could discuss what we hear, if we like it, if we think it represents something we think we hear live, and whether or not we agree. It is easy to make general statements from afar. The actual conditions may lead to more specific impressions than what we imagine something we have not actually heard might sound like.
Toe-in is a very interesting topic. I think when we toe-out we are editorializing the sound (presumably to taste) and there are tradeoffs. Assuming a speaker that wasn't designed to be toed out, with toe-out you're not hearing the speakers deliver all the high frequencies that were intended by the designer - the higher frequencies have very little dispersion and therefore are missing your ears and at best you're hearing only the reflected sound of these frequencies. This may be desirable but it is editorializing, whether to make up for an issue somewhere else or purposely change the character of the speaker.
It makes total sense to me that a speaker designer would want the speakers toed-in as it minimizes the unknown effect of side wall reflections.
I've noticed that with my Magico M-Pros, being off axis can result in some unpleasant high frequencies compared; if I have them toed-in as recommended the highs are much more natural and extended. The highs are not subtle or rolled off in any way of course, but one can only assume that's the intent of the designer. Having the speakers completely toed-out reduces the unpleasantness (practically eliminates it) and has some non-treble related effects that I enjoy but it certainly is a darker, less airy and less extended presentation.
I think this is truly a matter of taste and I imagine it would work better in rooms that don't have close sidewalls.
It makes total sense to me that a speaker designer would want the speakers toed-in as it minimizes the unknown effect of side wall reflections.
I've noticed that with my Magico M-Pros, being off axis can result in some unpleasant high frequencies compared; if I have them toed-in as recommended the highs are much more natural and extended. The highs are not subtle or rolled off in any way of course, but one can only assume that's the intent of the designer. Having the speakers completely toed-out reduces the unpleasantness (practically eliminates it) and has some non-treble related effects that I enjoy but it certainly is a darker, less airy and less extended presentation.
I think this is truly a matter of taste and I imagine it would work better in rooms that don't have close sidewalls.
Peter, I'm just surmising. I spent a good couple of days with my Zus turned further and further out until zero toe in. And backwards and forwards. I could not find one position, even a compromise where anything other than toe in to cross just behind me was possible. They are unlistenable toed out.
If I was to come up with a reason, what I wrote is it. I'm not saying the Magicos are forensic. But I am saying imaging/staging on my Zus is low down on the checklist. And thus to do anything to make things more diffuse here is a hindrance.
If I was to come up with a reason, what I wrote is it. I'm not saying the Magicos are forensic. But I am saying imaging/staging on my Zus is low down on the checklist. And thus to do anything to make things more diffuse here is a hindrance.
Even though my Zus are ostensibly 48" from side walls, because I have angled eaves, my tweeters are more like 18" from those eaves. And that may be a reason why toe out deffo fails here.
Peter, despite having a different presentation in a different room (rim drive/triodes/single driver/no xovers/large dedicated space), I think we'd agree on a lot re aims for SQ, and what we will have achieved. For me, the radical shock of improved acoustics (and to some additional extent, cleaner power), brought two things immediately to the fore. One was, my core DNA in SQ w my choices was being scuppered in my old space, and now system optimisation was the key. The other was that system optimisation brought out more naturalness in my sound.
And this is where we've diverged. You've scrapped your Vibraplane, boutique powercords and fancy footers. I've doubled down on these.
But ironically we've ended up converging, because what you're describing about your improvements, is close to identical to what I'm hearing right now. No "ping pong" imaging, no delineated treble energy and bass power, no menu/checklist a la audio advert from magazine promotions of years gone by.
However, room acoustics are a physical fact of life, and closing the distance of my tweeters and upper full range drivers from 18" to 12" from descending eaves on full toe out is no go here.
Could be. I don't remember what Zu's sound like but I assume they aren't forensic. I like that term, btw.
They aren't. I'm one of the few lone pro Zu voices on forums like this. But they lack the treble energy a spkr like the Magico w dedicated tweeter possesses, and so toe in more needed. Throw in my specific eaves/room boundary issue, and there's no debate...for me. I'm even finding distance to front wall critical too, 8' just making them come alive as they manage to disappear from the room. My acoustics truly are the $1m upgrade.
Ian, I recently read a statement by Magico in one of their monthly newsletters which states that they design to have a smooth off axis response. This should cover all frequencies. This presumably also helps with a more even spectral response at the reflections. Depending on where the speakers are placed, one can produce the same or similar listening axis to the seat with or without toe-in. The further back the speakers and the closer together they are, the more the listener is on axis, even if the speakers are pointed straight ahead. It is all geometry. Your generalized comments seem to be based on keeping the speakers located in the same positions and simply rotating them for toe. If you change the locations of the speakers, the conditions change, the angles change, and the sound changes.
One could even argue that the speakers aiming straight ahead with no toe in, if close enough together and far enough from the walls, will have the same degree of direct sound versus reflected sound as speakers that are further apart and toed in. My point is that it all depends and it is not as simple as no toe in v. toe in. More important are the speakers off axis response and the respective angles of the front baffle to the listener and to the side walls.
There is also different intensity between direct and reflected sound. If the direct and reflected sound arrive at similar times, like in a smaller room, the effect can be to increase the HF response beyond what the designer had in mind. This can lead to too much HF energy and a poor spectral balance. I found the article linked in a post above about the effect of toe in to be quite interesting. I think this is a complex topic and results greatly depend on where the speakers are position within the room and what the listener hears and prefers. I found it more difficult to find a satisfying speaker location with zero toe in. With toe in, my speakers seemed a bit more forgiving about placement.
I would also suggest that your tweeter is a big advancement over the tweeter in my discontinued speaker. That probably also contributes to why you seem to prefer a more direct sound. With your lack of side wall first reflections, toeing your speakers out probably results in not enough HF energy for your liking. If you had side walls to provide those early first reflections, it might be a different story.
Dear Tim,
If WBF had a Hall of Fame sub-forum to archive posts of exceptional brilliance, insight or eloquence I would nominate this post for that honor.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |