Tricky to satirise some of our top leaders and ex-leaders when their very essence is pure satire already.
Last edited:
Visit to Marc C.'s (SpiritOfMusic's) House in England
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
So, some 2.5 weeks into running my new PETs suite of diffuser/partial absorber panels plus bespoke sheeps wool corner bass traps, things have really turned out positively.
At this point it's all about noise/hash/smear reduction, effectively allowing the system to sing.
I'm just listening for the umpteenth time to Miles Davis/Bitches Brew.
You think you know the album.
All you can hope for is you get to know it better over the years.
Getting this hugely improved acoustic is a crash course in re-learning the album.
As reflections and non linear bass interactions had in the past successfully obscured low level info and air in this album, so my addressing of these w my PETs fit-out has opened up whole musical lines and motifs/flourishes in the music that were buried or confused-sounding before.
Critically at no risk to overall deadness in sound, or blunting/over smoothing of dynamics and energy.
The major misgivings I had about my Zus for the first few years, that they just couldn't excel at transparency and a clean midrange/treble, or be seamless from the mids to the upper bass, is now shown to be wholly misplaced, as it seems its always been my acoustics that have been the limiting factor here.
Remaining bass traps in rear corners, and then my acoustics fit-out is complete.
At this point it's all about noise/hash/smear reduction, effectively allowing the system to sing.
I'm just listening for the umpteenth time to Miles Davis/Bitches Brew.
You think you know the album.
All you can hope for is you get to know it better over the years.
Getting this hugely improved acoustic is a crash course in re-learning the album.
As reflections and non linear bass interactions had in the past successfully obscured low level info and air in this album, so my addressing of these w my PETs fit-out has opened up whole musical lines and motifs/flourishes in the music that were buried or confused-sounding before.
Critically at no risk to overall deadness in sound, or blunting/over smoothing of dynamics and energy.
The major misgivings I had about my Zus for the first few years, that they just couldn't excel at transparency and a clean midrange/treble, or be seamless from the mids to the upper bass, is now shown to be wholly misplaced, as it seems its always been my acoustics that have been the limiting factor here.
Remaining bass traps in rear corners, and then my acoustics fit-out is complete.
Interesting system optimisation findings as a result of the new acoustics fit out.
I'm getting way more flexibility in acceptable toe in/out, and seating distance.
And further scope in being able to turn down output level on my subs.
So, I'm very much enjoying sitting another 3' further back, now 13' from the Zus, a few more inches of toe out.
And I've dropped subs output to 1.5/10...a far cry from the 5-6/10 that I was obliged to endure in my old room.
--
The accumulated result of this is looking more into the music with a more encompassing, gently immersive soundfield, rather than the more mixed results I had before. Toe out is making imaging and stereo spread more natural, slightly softening the more pinpoint feel I had before. And dropping subs more has led to better, more accurate bass.
The consequence is way more relaxed and musical sound, a stage much closer to the kind of presentation I hear at live concerts, and much greater presentation of low level detail and microdynamics as excess bass smear is minimised.
Zero fatigue, non highlighted sound, the acoustic fit out in allowing my setup to be much more amenable to fine tuning, is a really invaluable benefit at this point, as I look to squeeze every last drop of goodness from my Zus.
I'm getting way more flexibility in acceptable toe in/out, and seating distance.
And further scope in being able to turn down output level on my subs.
So, I'm very much enjoying sitting another 3' further back, now 13' from the Zus, a few more inches of toe out.
And I've dropped subs output to 1.5/10...a far cry from the 5-6/10 that I was obliged to endure in my old room.
--
The accumulated result of this is looking more into the music with a more encompassing, gently immersive soundfield, rather than the more mixed results I had before. Toe out is making imaging and stereo spread more natural, slightly softening the more pinpoint feel I had before. And dropping subs more has led to better, more accurate bass.
The consequence is way more relaxed and musical sound, a stage much closer to the kind of presentation I hear at live concerts, and much greater presentation of low level detail and microdynamics as excess bass smear is minimised.
Zero fatigue, non highlighted sound, the acoustic fit out in allowing my setup to be much more amenable to fine tuning, is a really invaluable benefit at this point, as I look to squeeze every last drop of goodness from my Zus.
Had a welcome visit from Barry/Blue58 today. I know it's a chore for him to listen to my Zu-based system since he's immersed in horns for a decade now, but his frank opinions and practical suggestions always welcome. I'm as sensitive as the next audiophile to criticism but as long as those comments are heartfelt and predicated on logical arguments, they invariably should help.
Barry is coming from a situation where he has fine tuned a feisty Extreme install, and we've both heard Audiophile Bill's superlative horns/Mayers tubes setup, so opinions now are based on fantastic data points.
My setup is still not massively to Barry's bias...how could it be since horns will always have the advantage of dynamics, liveliness and immediacy. He's in two minds about my PETs acoustics fit-out, but I held my ground and disputed his take my room may be over damped. On multiple occasions I compared my room minus all treatments, then w GIKs, then PETs, then out again...wash/rinse/repeat, for several cycles...and strongly concluded my sound was overly damped w the GIKs and a tad too harsh w no treatments.
Where we also initially disagreed but I then came around to his way of thinking was on moving my listening chair back significantly. He felt my sound at listening distance of 11-12' was a little phasey, sound locked to spkrs and centre image a little hazy. Upon moving the seat back another 6' he felt the stereo image shored up, effectively a more hefty homogenous soundstage less prone to locating to either/both spkrs.
I initially didn't take to this, but one track nailed it better at the greater distance, and from then on, every subsequent song sounded better.
This then struck me as one of the things I noted strongly at Bill's horns demo, and what I've heard recently at classical concerts we've attended. That facet of a slightly mid-hall like perspective, music drawing you in, a much smoother curved wavefront of music presentation, less "panning" to R or L...and then within that greater space for music to breathe and present depth cues.
It's a little bit of an un-learning experience, and only possible in my extra deep audio space, but Zus 8' from front wall, my seat now 17-18' from the Zus, another 15' to rear wall, is making for a new, more holistic listening experience.
Barry is coming from a situation where he has fine tuned a feisty Extreme install, and we've both heard Audiophile Bill's superlative horns/Mayers tubes setup, so opinions now are based on fantastic data points.
My setup is still not massively to Barry's bias...how could it be since horns will always have the advantage of dynamics, liveliness and immediacy. He's in two minds about my PETs acoustics fit-out, but I held my ground and disputed his take my room may be over damped. On multiple occasions I compared my room minus all treatments, then w GIKs, then PETs, then out again...wash/rinse/repeat, for several cycles...and strongly concluded my sound was overly damped w the GIKs and a tad too harsh w no treatments.
Where we also initially disagreed but I then came around to his way of thinking was on moving my listening chair back significantly. He felt my sound at listening distance of 11-12' was a little phasey, sound locked to spkrs and centre image a little hazy. Upon moving the seat back another 6' he felt the stereo image shored up, effectively a more hefty homogenous soundstage less prone to locating to either/both spkrs.
I initially didn't take to this, but one track nailed it better at the greater distance, and from then on, every subsequent song sounded better.
This then struck me as one of the things I noted strongly at Bill's horns demo, and what I've heard recently at classical concerts we've attended. That facet of a slightly mid-hall like perspective, music drawing you in, a much smoother curved wavefront of music presentation, less "panning" to R or L...and then within that greater space for music to breathe and present depth cues.
It's a little bit of an un-learning experience, and only possible in my extra deep audio space, but Zus 8' from front wall, my seat now 17-18' from the Zus, another 15' to rear wall, is making for a new, more holistic listening experience.
Where you sitting near field before Marc ? What are the dimensions of the triangle now ?
Well, I was closer to 11-12' from my Zus 8' apart. Now up at 17-18'. I know the trend is to be closer to even v tall tower multi driver spkrs, a la Mike Lavigne 9' from his 7' high 4-pc MM7s. I guess I'm stretching the envelope Lol.
Whatever sounds best is the way to go Marc, find the place where the frequency's come best together. You might have to revisit your sub crossover settings too !
Always good to catch up with Marc and Ra and enjoy a lovely meal and a beer, thank you Marc.
His sound imo has taken a step back. I said the room was LESS damped than before and I believe the change to PET absorber/diffuser is a step in the wrong direction. I proposed a combination of GIK absorbers and PET absorber/diffuser to trial next.
As for the listening position. At greater distance the Zu cross over in front of the listener, the recommended Zu placement. At close distance the Zu cross over behind the listener with the tweeter almost firing into your ears. The distant listening position brings the 3 images L/R/C away from the speakers and connects them together allowing a larger image and more focus musically. The Zu also appear to be further apart than 8feet perhaps 9feet and may be too much.
Marc, you really need to buy a couple of laser pointers and a laser measure to at least centre your chair and align the speakers symmetrically.
And please get rid of or move that BPT before my next visit.
Cheers
Blue58
Addendum. I added two extra GIK panels in my room and for three days thought the sound over-damped but with added clarity and larger soundstage. On the fourth day I didn’t notice the over-damping which tells me that you can’t just swap in acoustic treatments for a quick comparison but have to listen for a few days before making any judgements. I’m also learning REW software which is another rabbit hole of madness.
His sound imo has taken a step back. I said the room was LESS damped than before and I believe the change to PET absorber/diffuser is a step in the wrong direction. I proposed a combination of GIK absorbers and PET absorber/diffuser to trial next.
As for the listening position. At greater distance the Zu cross over in front of the listener, the recommended Zu placement. At close distance the Zu cross over behind the listener with the tweeter almost firing into your ears. The distant listening position brings the 3 images L/R/C away from the speakers and connects them together allowing a larger image and more focus musically. The Zu also appear to be further apart than 8feet perhaps 9feet and may be too much.
Marc, you really need to buy a couple of laser pointers and a laser measure to at least centre your chair and align the speakers symmetrically.
And please get rid of or move that BPT before my next visit.
Cheers
Blue58
Addendum. I added two extra GIK panels in my room and for three days thought the sound over-damped but with added clarity and larger soundstage. On the fourth day I didn’t notice the over-damping which tells me that you can’t just swap in acoustic treatments for a quick comparison but have to listen for a few days before making any judgements. I’m also learning REW software which is another rabbit hole of madness.
Last edited:
Don’t get him started on sub settings again, please!Whatever sounds best is the way to go Marc, find the place where the frequency's come best together. You might have to revisit your sub crossover settings too !
Barry, I value your opinions as ever. Who else could get me to consider moving my seat each time you visit, and at first grudgingly accept you had a point, and then see the light on change. I also agree on BPT, I'm getting an electrician to help me move it outside the room.
However on the PETs, we really are not on the same page. I've listened to a couple of CDs today that have always been borderline harsh or congested, and they're singing way better.
I've taken to moving the side wall PETs closer to me since at 18' seating distance from my Zus, first and second reflection points have significantly shifted.
So, I'm sold on the new seating position but not negative on the PETs install at all.
My GIKs are still about, I can easily go back to putting them in again for a few days, and see how things go.
But tbh I feel the 2" thick GIKs covering the same are as 0.5" thick PETs are surely absorbing more.
I can't see how the PETs can be making things deader.
For me, the deal is this. There is greater variety, and variability, in each disc I play. This suggests greater tonal discrimination and resolution in my sound. I've gone from 95% of discs having imposed homogeneity to me literally being surprised how good some discs sound compared to before...and also how bad.
Imaging has improved a lot, indeed those discs that sound good have way greater depth cues, tone and timbre already boosted by other changes in my system.
And subs bass is way less a frustration than it once was, I have a much more subtle setting for my powered bass, and this has freed the sound to not be smeared or clogged as I'd endured for many years.
Just be clear Marc, I said the PETs are less absorbing than the GIKs. Your reverberation time has increased. Bring the GIKs back.
Ked, there’s not much difference between the discs Marc played yesterday imo though I was unfamiliar with most of the music selection. I accept Marc’s opinion that there is greater variety across his collection as he’s obviously heard it.
Ked, there’s not much difference between the discs Marc played yesterday imo though I was unfamiliar with most of the music selection. I accept Marc’s opinion that there is greater variety across his collection as he’s obviously heard it.
Ked, it's a commercial product, recycled polyethylene.
Barry, I thought some of your criticism was that my sound was deader? Maybe I misinterpreted that.
No problem reintroducing the GIKs.
Barry, I thought some of your criticism was that my sound was deader? Maybe I misinterpreted that.
No problem reintroducing the GIKs.
Last edited:
Barry - you clearly need to visit Marc for 4 days next time
Seriously though what did you think changed about the presentation that made the room seem underdamped - were the high frequencies too smeared - the PET panels only have a nominal absorption and their role is really only redirection the first reflection away from the listener and theoretically improving clarity, imaging etc. - its the location and angle that's important and the material could be anything - PET is easy to use and has the advantage of calming down the reflections a bit
The theory is if the room seems too lively you can add broadband absorbers out of the first reflection areas
Not sure of the type of GIK type panel used but if it is a broadband absorber they would typically start to work from 200Hz or so upwards and should not have an impact on reverb time
On listening position, further back you go the more of the room you hear and I would expect it would suit some music ( orchestral ?) more then others such as closely miked jazz, chamber music etc.
Very interested to hear your thoughts
Phil
Phil, I'm not sure what would kill Barry first out here if he spent 4 days.
The boredom of nothing to do, or one extra minute of my music collection.
I guess if Barry preferred my sound w the greater absorption of the GIKs, then he was never gonna like my move away from those to my current mild diffuser/absorber PETs.
Tbh, the sound has changed again moving the side wall PETs back, since we effectively "heard them" in the wrong side walls position w the listening seat 6' further back.
I'm just about to finalise the new position for them (mirror at hand), and will hopefully hear a difference. Then in will go the GIKs for the rest of the week, and then back to the PETs at the weekend.
The boredom of nothing to do, or one extra minute of my music collection.
I guess if Barry preferred my sound w the greater absorption of the GIKs, then he was never gonna like my move away from those to my current mild diffuser/absorber PETs.
Tbh, the sound has changed again moving the side wall PETs back, since we effectively "heard them" in the wrong side walls position w the listening seat 6' further back.
I'm just about to finalise the new position for them (mirror at hand), and will hopefully hear a difference. Then in will go the GIKs for the rest of the week, and then back to the PETs at the weekend.
Hi Phil,Barry - you clearly need to visit Marc for 4 days next time
Seriously though what did you think changed about the presentation that made the room seem underdamped - were the high frequencies too smeared - the PET panels only have a nominal absorption and their role is really only redirection the first reflection away from the listener and theoretically improving clarity, imaging etc. - its the location and angle that's important and the material could be anything - PET is easy to use and has the advantage of calming down the reflections a bit
The theory is if the room seems too lively you can add broadband absorbers out of the first reflection areas
Not sure of the type of GIK type panel used but if it is a broadband absorber they would typically start to work from 200Hz or so upwards and should not have an impact on reverb time
On listening position, further back you go the more of the room you hear and I would expect it would suit some music ( orchestral ?) more then others such as closely miked jazz, chamber music etc.
Very interested to hear your thoughts
Phil
What I think is happening, especially at closer distance, is two fold. The speakers are not crossing over in front of the listener and for some reason Marc is reluctant to follow Zu recommendations. Secondly, the PETs are not absorbing enough of the 1st reflection which is why I think the GIKs should come back in. I would leave the PETs on the eaves and possibly extend them further along to the listening position. The front wall could use a combo of GIKs/PETs.
The farther back listening position enables the Zu to cross over in front of the listener without too much toe in and this gives a larger soundstage, increases presence and clarity.
Marc has the tendency to go all in on an idea, witness the 19 SR fuses, and he would be better off adding or removing tweaks, after informed listening, in a controlled manner.
My starting point would be GIKs at 1st, PETs at 2nd RP with GIKs centre front then add PETs either side behind speaker between GIKs and corner trap. And extend PETs on eaves towards LP. If each step doesn’t work then remove it.
Further, I tried to explain what I was hearing to Marc. Close up I heard L/R/C image and as the music panned the spl dropped off between those three points plus a flat soundstage, a W shape. At distance the music panned equally loud plus the music had an arc of soundstage, increased density and clarity. This was still worse than my last visit.
Nb. GIKs are 242, I think they tame higher frequencies and reduce decay time too.
Cheers
