My monitor/subwoofer system
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Nice write up, Al. I look forward to hearing the changes. I gather the new 8' X 10' carpet does not have a pad underneath. This may account for the less absorption. Also, have you considered removing the carpet under the system in the front of the room? There has been some discussion about where the lively end of the room should be, if at all. A concert hall setting may not be analogous to our listening rooms, but the orchestra or quartet is usually at the live end while the audience is at the absorptive end.
There is a new concert hall in Rockport, MA which has a large glass wall behind the stage to capture the view of the ocean and sunset as backdrop for the audience. Some musicians request that the curtain be drawn for the performance. The sound changes considerably. At this point, it looks as if you have a near wall-to-wall carpet scenario. You may want to experiment with the existing wooden floor and an area rug between the speakers and listener to see how that changes the sound. I can imagine the hassle of removing that front rug, so you may not want to try it.
There is a new concert hall in Rockport, MA which has a large glass wall behind the stage to capture the view of the ocean and sunset as backdrop for the audience. Some musicians request that the curtain be drawn for the performance. The sound changes considerably. At this point, it looks as if you have a near wall-to-wall carpet scenario. You may want to experiment with the existing wooden floor and an area rug between the speakers and listener to see how that changes the sound. I can imagine the hassle of removing that front rug, so you may not want to try it.
Peter, the new 8 x 10 ft polypropylene rug does not have a pad underneath, the old 5 x 7 ft natural fiber rug only had a thin protective layer of cloth attached to it, no real pad either. The different degree of absorption appears to be entirely, or at least mostly, due to the different material, synthetic vs. natural fiber.
As for the large front rug, stretching from underneath the speakers up to the front wall where the tube traps are: I have extensively tried to play with different front rugs and none at all. In fact, a few years ago I have spent a large part of a vacation experimenting, with dis-assembling/re-assembling the system each time (a pursuit of only limited fun factor, as you can imagine, even at a time when the speakers and sub were not as heavy as they are now). I need the large front rug made from wool for proper imaging. Without rug or with a less absorbing rug images are far too recessed in an artificial manner, regardless if you prefer more upfront imaging as I do or less so as you do.
Recessed imaging has been a very major problem in my room, hence not just the large front rug, but also the window plugs with their absorbing acoustics (while they also provide sound proofing). The large absorbing panel at the front wall is there to model the room more to my personal preference of rather upfront imaging, while at the same time great front-to-back depth, if it is encoded in recordings, is still preserved, e.g., on orchestra. Overall, deadening of the front half of the room was essential.
The dead front half/ live rear half model is also the one advocated by ASC, and the other way around, live front half/ dead rear half model, would simply not work in my room for the reasons cited.
I guess the live front half/ dead rear half model would be more feasible in a scenario where the speakers are closer to the front wall, not in my situation where the drivers are 7 feet away from it.
Last edited:
Al, have your various pairs of speakers always been so far out from the front wall? I had assumed this was for some sense of depth, image layering and 3-D holography. I did not know it created an overly recessed listening perspective to have them closer to the front wall. Being so far away from the front wall should mean that they have less boundary reinforcement for the mid/low frequencies and more direct sound from the drivers. That is interesting information about need for all of that absorption in the front of the room. I happen to have two very thick pads under my carpet for absorption because me room is on the smaller side. Perhaps it is time to experiment with those pads.
Yes, the speakers have always been so far out from the front wall, for depth of imaging, holography and energizing of the room. I did try my previous speakers closer to the front wall, up to just 3 feet from it, but image depth suffered considerably, and the sound became less free, more boxed in (the acoustic of my room is really problematic; I am glad that I got it to work as beautifully as it now does).
There is indeed less boundary reinforcement for the low frequencies; some reviews of my current and old speakers have stated that the bass from the monitor speakers themselves is plenty sufficient even without subs (even though these always help), which I can easily believe to be true in those review set-ups, but that is often not the case in my room. I have mentioned this discrepancy in my WBF review of my old speakers, and will do so in my review of the new ones.
When Peter A. last visited, he preferred a listening position further away from the speakers, by 10 inches out from the equilateral triangle (see thread page 7).
I had not been sitting in the sweet spot, and now wanted to test if all my criteria would still be satisfied at that new, less upfront listening position.
In fact, I compared three seating positions, the current more upfront standard position, the position 10 inches further back, and also a position in between, 6 inches further back. In each case, the toe-in of the speakers was adjusted to account for the recommendation in the manual: "Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows."
Below diagram shows that in order to achieve this for the listening positions further back the speakers need to be slightly toed out (compare with the diagram on p. 7 for the complete set-up):
Music for comparisons:
Beethoven, early string quartets op. 18/1 and 18/2 (Emerson Quartet, DGG)
Shostakovich, 9th Symphony (Janssons, Olso Philharmonic, EMI)
Bruckner, 9th Symphony (Giulini, Vienna Philharmonic, DGG)
A main thing for me to listen for was perceived distortions. The set-up on thread page 7 had yielded a much cleaner sound, and back then there seemed less freedom to deviate from it without again hearing more distortions. Yet that was at a time when I had to deal with more sidewall and wood floor reflections of the sound waves from the speakers. Now with the new, more diffusive than absorptive, large rug and with the absorbing panel on the right wall (where the speaker is close to the wall), the situation perhaps would be different.
With the new acoustics, I did find no added distortions at the listening seat positions further away from the speakers, neither at 6 nor at 10 inches further away. In fact, the vast, dissonant climax of the slow movement in Bruckner's 9th Symphony, a torture test for a system, sounds with even less distortion than at the more upfront seating position. The distortion level seems now quite low, even though I play that at high volume (97 dBa peak, > 100 dB; routinely peaks are between 93 and 95 dBa). Impressive. I now really love these monitors also on orchestral music.
Before the acoustic changes, there was an artifact from pronounced toe-in at a listening position other than the one that forms an equilateral triangle tweeter-to-tweeter/tweeter-to-ear. In the string dominated sections of the Bruckner movement, the orchestral violins had sounded too direct and not diffuse enough as they do in the concert hall. Now they sounded great in all positions, equilateral triangle or with chair further back.
In addition, I found that there is no hardness introduced in the Beethoven string quartets when sitting further back, compared to the upfront seating position. This is important to me, since the new acoustics have revealed how well the system now is able to portray the inherent realistic softness and tenderness of string sound in these recordings.
As for the characteristics of the sound further back:
While it is less immediate, it yields more of a concert hall ambience. The sound is also grander, with a subjectively larger image on the orchestral music, but not on the string quartets. I preferred 6 inches further back from standard to 10 inches further back. Dynamics sounded more or less as explosive as at the upfront position, and detail seemed just as clear, or almost so. At 10 inches further back, dynamics seemed less explosive. For example, the onset of the development section in the first mvmt. of Beethoven's string quartet op. 18/1, which consists of a fortissimo repeat of the elaborate descending figure with which the twice played thematic exposition closes (at a bit more than 4 minutes into the music), sounded somewhat less startling. Also, the rich timbral detail from the bowing of the strings and the wood resonances of the string instruments' body is still there, but it presents itself to the listener in a less obvious manner. All this is in line with experiences in the concert hall when sitting closer or further away from the musicians (I did not adjust the volume between seating positions). Yet the position at 10 inches further back has its own attractions. The music is presented in the most relaxed manner, and the concert hall ambience is the most pronounced. Yet also at 6 inches further back the presentation is already notably more relaxed than at the upfront seating position.
Personally, I still prefer the excitement of the upfront seating position for string quartets or jazz rock, for example, but I may switch to the position 6 inches back for orchestral music (toe-in is easily adjusted since the monitors rest on their stands on felt pads). Fortunately, in my room the character of the bass does not change significantly between these two positions, thus allowing for easy movement of the chair rather than the speakers to create varying distances. Also at 10 inches back the difference in bass output and character is still relatively minor, and can be compensated for by less subwoofer volume.
In summary, more favorable room acoustics, as I now have, allow for more flexibility in set-up of these Reference 3A Reflector speakers, tailored to individual tastes.
I had not been sitting in the sweet spot, and now wanted to test if all my criteria would still be satisfied at that new, less upfront listening position.
In fact, I compared three seating positions, the current more upfront standard position, the position 10 inches further back, and also a position in between, 6 inches further back. In each case, the toe-in of the speakers was adjusted to account for the recommendation in the manual: "Toeing them in until the inside front and rear edges of each speaker appear to be lined up is recommended if the space allows."
Below diagram shows that in order to achieve this for the listening positions further back the speakers need to be slightly toed out (compare with the diagram on p. 7 for the complete set-up):
Music for comparisons:
Beethoven, early string quartets op. 18/1 and 18/2 (Emerson Quartet, DGG)
Shostakovich, 9th Symphony (Janssons, Olso Philharmonic, EMI)
Bruckner, 9th Symphony (Giulini, Vienna Philharmonic, DGG)
A main thing for me to listen for was perceived distortions. The set-up on thread page 7 had yielded a much cleaner sound, and back then there seemed less freedom to deviate from it without again hearing more distortions. Yet that was at a time when I had to deal with more sidewall and wood floor reflections of the sound waves from the speakers. Now with the new, more diffusive than absorptive, large rug and with the absorbing panel on the right wall (where the speaker is close to the wall), the situation perhaps would be different.
With the new acoustics, I did find no added distortions at the listening seat positions further away from the speakers, neither at 6 nor at 10 inches further away. In fact, the vast, dissonant climax of the slow movement in Bruckner's 9th Symphony, a torture test for a system, sounds with even less distortion than at the more upfront seating position. The distortion level seems now quite low, even though I play that at high volume (97 dBa peak, > 100 dB; routinely peaks are between 93 and 95 dBa). Impressive. I now really love these monitors also on orchestral music.
Before the acoustic changes, there was an artifact from pronounced toe-in at a listening position other than the one that forms an equilateral triangle tweeter-to-tweeter/tweeter-to-ear. In the string dominated sections of the Bruckner movement, the orchestral violins had sounded too direct and not diffuse enough as they do in the concert hall. Now they sounded great in all positions, equilateral triangle or with chair further back.
In addition, I found that there is no hardness introduced in the Beethoven string quartets when sitting further back, compared to the upfront seating position. This is important to me, since the new acoustics have revealed how well the system now is able to portray the inherent realistic softness and tenderness of string sound in these recordings.
As for the characteristics of the sound further back:
While it is less immediate, it yields more of a concert hall ambience. The sound is also grander, with a subjectively larger image on the orchestral music, but not on the string quartets. I preferred 6 inches further back from standard to 10 inches further back. Dynamics sounded more or less as explosive as at the upfront position, and detail seemed just as clear, or almost so. At 10 inches further back, dynamics seemed less explosive. For example, the onset of the development section in the first mvmt. of Beethoven's string quartet op. 18/1, which consists of a fortissimo repeat of the elaborate descending figure with which the twice played thematic exposition closes (at a bit more than 4 minutes into the music), sounded somewhat less startling. Also, the rich timbral detail from the bowing of the strings and the wood resonances of the string instruments' body is still there, but it presents itself to the listener in a less obvious manner. All this is in line with experiences in the concert hall when sitting closer or further away from the musicians (I did not adjust the volume between seating positions). Yet the position at 10 inches further back has its own attractions. The music is presented in the most relaxed manner, and the concert hall ambience is the most pronounced. Yet also at 6 inches further back the presentation is already notably more relaxed than at the upfront seating position.
Personally, I still prefer the excitement of the upfront seating position for string quartets or jazz rock, for example, but I may switch to the position 6 inches back for orchestral music (toe-in is easily adjusted since the monitors rest on their stands on felt pads). Fortunately, in my room the character of the bass does not change significantly between these two positions, thus allowing for easy movement of the chair rather than the speakers to create varying distances. Also at 10 inches back the difference in bass output and character is still relatively minor, and can be compensated for by less subwoofer volume.
In summary, more favorable room acoustics, as I now have, allow for more flexibility in set-up of these Reference 3A Reflector speakers, tailored to individual tastes.
.
I haven't posted in this thread previously but I have to ask, is your subwoofer system as good as this one with TWO subwoofers?
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
I haven't posted in this thread previously but I have to ask, is your subwoofer system as good as this one with TWO subwoofers?
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
Well folks, I took Al M.'s advice and found a pair of reflectors for a demo. Brought along my own music and had at least a two hour session. I was most impressed by these big monitors. Coming from Magico S-5 MK 1s I was wondering what I might be giving up. I listen to Jazz from the likes of Houston Person, John Coltrane, David Fathead Newman and Gene Ammons and Chet Baker among others. Female vocals from Jacintha, Krall, Eva Cassidy etc and Chamber music from the likes of the Scottish Chamber Orchestra-Sir Charles Mackaras. Violin from Rachel Podger (Vivaldi) Ana Sofie Muter and others. I also do not listen very loud. And no big orchestral presentations.
Anyway, the Reflectors have a BE tweeter sort of like the Magicos although set in a wave guide (I think that's what you call it). The highs are as open and airy and perhaps a bit more polite than the Magicos. The kids are to die for. I have never heard better sax anywhere and in a session yesterday with a friend the spit on the reed was as real as ever. The piano notes do not have a particular annoying ring that they had with the S-5s. And the bass is strong enough in my room to round out the SQ. They are positioned about 15 inches from the front wall as I needed some bass support from the rear port. I have double bi wired them as I had 4 four foot lengths of speaker wire, with the Reflectors having Hi and Low speaker posts and my amps (Oasis S-200 monos-200 W class A) have two sets of active speaker posts per amp.
These speakers need no where near this kind of power, and I was ready to explore a tube amp such as Octave or PrimaLuna with EL34s, but no need right now.
Anyway, the Reflectors have a BE tweeter sort of like the Magicos although set in a wave guide (I think that's what you call it). The highs are as open and airy and perhaps a bit more polite than the Magicos. The kids are to die for. I have never heard better sax anywhere and in a session yesterday with a friend the spit on the reed was as real as ever. The piano notes do not have a particular annoying ring that they had with the S-5s. And the bass is strong enough in my room to round out the SQ. They are positioned about 15 inches from the front wall as I needed some bass support from the rear port. I have double bi wired them as I had 4 four foot lengths of speaker wire, with the Reflectors having Hi and Low speaker posts and my amps (Oasis S-200 monos-200 W class A) have two sets of active speaker posts per amp.
These speakers need no where near this kind of power, and I was ready to explore a tube amp such as Octave or PrimaLuna with EL34s, but no need right now.
Thanks for sharing. Did you end up buying a pair? It sounds like you went somewhere else for the two hour demo, but then you discuss the set up in your room. It's interesting because Al's speakers are way out into the room, perhaps 7-8 feet from the front wall. How is your depth, soundstage and sense of palpability and presence with the speakers so close to the front wall? Are you using sub woofers?
Yes, bought the pair from dealer in Fl. where I demoed them. I do not have subs and therefore was needing some bass support from the front wall. My room is not a dedicated space, so I am limited to 8 feet tweeter to tweeter. The depth could be better, and the stage is good, but with a flat screen in the middle on the front wall not the best it could be although if I throw a quilt over it, I don't hear much difference.
I quasi used the Sumiko set up procedure with Jennifer Warns ballad to first set the bass and then the toe in. Placement of vocals and instruments is good, but getting her mouth from 2 inches to 5 inches wide is a bit of a chore.
All I can tell you is that many of the players and singers are in the room. When the singer/player should be center stage, they are center stage. When Charlie Haden should be just off to the left, there he is. When Forcione should be just off to the right, he is there.
If I had subs like Al, I would probably move the Reflectors out from the front wall.
I quasi used the Sumiko set up procedure with Jennifer Warns ballad to first set the bass and then the toe in. Placement of vocals and instruments is good, but getting her mouth from 2 inches to 5 inches wide is a bit of a chore.
All I can tell you is that many of the players and singers are in the room. When the singer/player should be center stage, they are center stage. When Charlie Haden should be just off to the left, there he is. When Forcione should be just off to the right, he is there.
If I had subs like Al, I would probably move the Reflectors out from the front wall.
Congratulations, Jeff, on your Reflector speakers! Honestly I am a bit surprised that you went from the multi driver Magico S5 to these monitors, but while I cannot speak for the S5 since I have never heard them (I very much like the Magico M Project, Q3 and Mini II), obviously I think this is a great choice.
I agree that the mids are to die for. I think the tonality is spot on, and with high quality recordings/masterings midrange resolution, when it comes to finely detailed timbral texture of instruments, is as good as I have heard so far from any speaker, at any price (certainly the performance of the Reflector speakers is not as strong in all areas). Exceptional transient dynamics also greatly contribute to the midrange sound quality.
Interesting that you would mention saxophone. Just last week a friend commented when listening to a track featuring saxophones (baritone, tenor) that this was some of the best sax sound he had ever heard from a system.
Hmm really, Ian?
Oh yes, it was you indeed!
And thanks for your helpful comments, which led to yet another improvement...
Oh yes, it was you indeed!
And thanks for your helpful comments, which led to yet another improvement...
Yes you did, thanks Peter. Your system, as well as Ian's and Tasos's systems, has been a great model for me of what is possible and what to strive for.
IME, moving the seat from its preferred position (assuming that it was chosen for the smoothest bass) a foot or so will often affect dynamics, typically yielding a slight difference in bass smoothness.
Also, for the comparo to be fully valid, if you move back from the speakers (or you move the speakers farther from your seat), then the same percentage of separation that you had originally preferred needs to be applied to the new set-up. And of course toe is slightly affected as well.
For example - re separation - if your originally preferred distance from your ear to the tweeter was - say 120", and the tweeters were 96" tweeter-to-tweeter (in this hypothetical case X =120" and Y = 96"), then your separation was 80% of X - an isosceles triangle. If you then increased the distance from your ear to the tweeter 10 inches, you should add 80% of the change in distance to your originally measured separation (in this case - 8 inches - each tweeter 4 inches further away from the center line). This would help maintain the overall presence & tone that occurred with the original set-up. Therefore any differences heard are not as influenced by different presence & tone due to separation % changing.
Also, for the comparo to be fully valid, if you move back from the speakers (or you move the speakers farther from your seat), then the same percentage of separation that you had originally preferred needs to be applied to the new set-up. And of course toe is slightly affected as well.
For example - re separation - if your originally preferred distance from your ear to the tweeter was - say 120", and the tweeters were 96" tweeter-to-tweeter (in this hypothetical case X =120" and Y = 96"), then your separation was 80% of X - an isosceles triangle. If you then increased the distance from your ear to the tweeter 10 inches, you should add 80% of the change in distance to your originally measured separation (in this case - 8 inches - each tweeter 4 inches further away from the center line). This would help maintain the overall presence & tone that occurred with the original set-up. Therefore any differences heard are not as influenced by different presence & tone due to separation % changing.
Yes, at 10 inches further away from rhe center line dynamic impact was slightly less (as I reported earlier), and there is somewhat of a bass node. Six inches (half a foot) further away from the center line dynamic impact and bass is almost the same as the null position (equilateral triangle ear to tweeter, tweeter to tweeter). The sound is a bit less immediate, which can appear as a positive (on orchestral music also for me, while I personally prefer the closeness of the null position on other music), and it is somewhat more open.
I was only testing how listening distance affected sound within the constraints of speaker set-up. Moving the speakers further away from each other than 8.35 feet tweeter to tweeter is a bit problematic in my room. I could only move the left speaker (the right one is already close to the side wall), and previous experience indicates that with speakers further apart the energy, and thus also feeling of presence, is diminished, even though the soundstage becomes even larger. So in this case the same percentage separation would not help with presence.
I was only testing how listening distance affected sound within the constraints of speaker set-up. Moving the speakers further away from each other than 8.35 feet tweeter to tweeter is a bit problematic in my room. I could only move the left speaker (the right one is already close to the side wall), and previous experience indicates that with speakers further apart the energy, and thus also feeling of presence, is diminished, even though the soundstage becomes even larger. So in this case the same percentage separation would not help with presence.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |