Sometimes it pays to experiment.

[PeterA]

I'm not sure why a laser works any better than sighting along a yardstick or similar, but I know how some people like high tech

Over the past 6 mos I've had my speakers in several different positions with variable amounts of toe-in; I must admit I have a pretty hard time determining an absolute preference for any one combination of toe-in and positioning. All sound somewhat different, several are very pleasing.

A laser is a good idea, especially if you have a scale posted behind the listener on a tripod or wall. With the precision of a laser, you can get the speakers to be within 1/16" or so of exact toe in and surprisingly, I have found tiny increments can make the difference between very good and excellent. Doing it by sight along the edge of the speaker will never get you this precision. I do the same for tweeter distance to listener and for tilt and height. At a certain level, it all matters, IME.

 

[microstrip]

A laser is a good idea, especially if you have a scale posted behind the listener on a tripod or wall. With the precision of a laser, you can get the speakers to be within 1/16" or so of exact toe in and surprisingly, I have found tiny increments can make the difference between very good and excellent. Doing it by sight along the edge of the speaker will never get you this precision. I do the same for tweeter distance to listener and for tilt and height. At a certain level, it all matters, IME.

I agree on the laser - it allows us to carry a much faster and repeatable alignment. Using it I very often found that other approximate alignment techniques were giving me incorrect data. I mainly use two laser tools for speaker alingnement - a Bosch distance meter and a Black and Decker laser that draws lines along the floor.

 

[rbbert]

How do you aim the laser?

 

[microstrip]

How do you aim the laser?

Thanks, just corrected - my ceiling is not magnetic!

 

[rbbert]

My point is still that I think you are mistaking precision for accuracy; if there is a way other than using straight edges and clamps to aim the laser accurately I stand corrected and would like to know so I can use it myself.

 

[PeterA]

My point is still that I think you are mistaking precision for accuracy; if there is a way other than using straight edges and clamps to aim the laser accurately I stand corrected and would like to know so I can use it myself.

No clamps needed. The straight edge is either the top of the speaker cabinet or the inside face of the speaker stand, in my case.

For toe-in, I place the laser on the inside face of the speaker stand. It does not matter where exactly I place the device because the stand face is vertical. I line the laser dot on a specific mark that is on a scale on the back wall directly behind the listener. Each channel mark is precisely 6" out from the center spot on the back wall. It is not important to know the laser/tweeter relationship in this case, because each tweeter has the same relationship to each inside face of each stand.

For speaker height and tilt, the laser sits on top of the speaker and flush with the front baffle. It is aimed at a center dot on the back wall. It doesn't matter what the height is, just that it is the same for both channels.

For distance, the laser sits on top of the speaker, flush with the front baffle, directly above the tweeter. It is aimed at a center dot on the back wall. It doesn't matter what the distance is, just that the distance is within 1/16" between channels.

Height, tilt, toe-in angle and distance are all easily and quickly verified to be equal relative to a set of reference marks on the back wall. This method is both accurate and precise and does effect sound quality in my system.

In my room, the speakers are actually slightly different distances from each side wall, and the front walls on either side of my fireplace are not quite the same distance to the listener. So the speakers are close but not precisely symmetrically placed in the room, because the furniture and walls are not perfectly symmetrical. But the distances and angles from the speakers to the listening seat are symmetrical and equal, so the direct sound from the forward firing drivers reach the listener at or very close to the same time.

 

[DaveyF]

I pretty much do the same thing as Peter. One does have to keep in mind the room and its interaction. Plus, as I recently re-discovered, a major change to the upstream gear may warrant a change in speaker positioning.

 

[rbbert]

Well, you prove my point. BTW, there is almost always more than 1/16" (usually more like 1/4") deviation from straight or square in your walls, floor and ceiling; i.e. they are "wavy".

I have and occasionally use my laser; for me it works no better than sighting along a yardstick (which is easier and quicker) and/or using a tape measure (which BTW is more accurate and precise than a laser rangefinder, although the difference is really insignificant for the reasons already noted).

It make me chuckle that in such a subjective field as high-end audio some people like to use high tech tools for things that aren't high tech but are rather almost exclusively subjective listening. You guys are kidding yourselves... And PeterA, how comfortable is that vise you use for your head to make sure it doesn't move more than 1/16"?

 

[microstrip]

(...) a major change to the upstream gear may warrant a change in speaker positioning.

+1!

 

[PeterA]

Well, you prove my point. BTW, there is almost always more than 1/16" (usually more like 1/4") deviation from straight or square in your walls, floor and ceiling; i.e. they are "wavy".

I have and occasionally use my laser; for me it works no better than sighting along a yardstick (which is easier and quicker) and/or using a tape measure (which BTW is more accurate and precise than a laser rangefinder, although the difference is really insignificant for the reasons already noted).

It make me chuckle that in such a subjective field as high-end audio some people like to use high tech tools for things that aren't high tech but are rather almost exclusively subjective listening. You guys are kidding yourselves... And PeterA, how comfortable is that vise you use for your head to make sure it doesn't move more than 1/16"?

Rbbert, you can joke all you want. You asked the question, and I tried to answer it. Of course I don't sit with my head in a vise, but I have found that my system sounds better when the speakers are positioned equally from a reference point. Two of my friends heard the same thing, but I suppose they were kidding themselves also.

Regarding the room being out of square: It certainly is in my 1790s house. That effects reflected sound. I'm trying to assure that the direct sound leaving the speakers arrives at the listening seat at precisely the same time. I find that it effects dynamics, clarity and presence. Your experiences seems to be different.

 

[rbbert]

...Plus, as I recently re-discovered, a major change to the upstream gear may warrant a change in speaker positioning.

I also definitely agree with this, although possibly for different reasons. It seems to me that (especially) if you're placing speakers to within 1/16" there should be only one "correct" placement, and as I posted earlier my experience is that there are several (maybe many) placements that can be satisfying. Some will sound very similar, others more noticeably different. I don't think upstream gear will change the radiation pattern of a speaker, for instance; it may change the frequency response and transient response slightly. But the overall subjective "sound" of a speaker is certainly dependent on upstream gear, and depending on just what sonic signature you prefer the system sound might be better with one of the other satisfying placements.

 

[rbbert]

...I'm trying to assure that the direct sound leaving the speakers arrives at the listening seat at precisely the same time. I find that it effects dynamics, clarity and presence. Your experiences seems to be different.

I'm only kind of joking. I've spent decades, with different kinds of speakers, with and without subs, experimenting with speaker positioning. When Cardas first circulated his theories, I thought the answer was there. When Wilson did his, I thought (hoped for?) the same again. When "Get Better Sound" was published, I thought this once again, and in many ways Jim's methods came closest to "the answer", for awhile at least. I don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone, though, and each time I think I've found that one ideal placement further experimentation shows that "it just ain't so".

I do agree that attempts to have direct sound from each speaker arrive at the listening position at the same time are worthwhile, but surely you realize that even a small movement of your head will change that, and at least in my current setup there's about an 18" square within which I can move my head without anything changing very much, so exactly equalizing the arrival times can't matter that much.

 

[DaveyF]

I'm only kind of joking. I've spent decades, with different kinds of speakers, with and without subs, experimenting with speaker positioning. When Cardas first circulated his theories, I thought the answer was there. When Wilson did his, I thought (hoped for?) the same again. When "Get Better Sound" was published, I thought this once again, and in many ways Jim's methods came closest to "the answer", for awhile at least. I don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone, though, and each time I think I've found that one ideal placement further experimentation shows that "it just ain't so".

I do agree that attempts to have direct sound from each speaker arrive at the listening position at the same time are worthwhile, but surely you realize that even a small movement of your head will change that, and at least in my current setup there's about an 18" square within which I can move my head without anything changing very much, so exactly equalizing the arrival times can't matter that much.

I think you are assuming that the speakers in question are highly directional and therefore beam. That isn't what I am talking about here. I believe all speakers have a 'sweet spot' that will enable the listener(s) to get the best from the speakers in a particular room.
That 'sweet spot' is probably a few different slightly different locations, BUT depending on one's expectation and taste, will be localized enough that getting an exact location will be beneficial.( Move to taste, IOW)
Therefore, I believe what Peter and I are talking about, is getting that exact location dialed in so that the best can be gotten from our speakers-- in our particular room. Not talking about moving one's head, wherein a slight shift of 1'4" will drastically change the sound...as it would IF the speakers were to beam at one sitting spot only.

 

[rbbert]

No, I'm actually using (and discussing)!speakers with a wide, relatively even radiation pattern (i.e. Toole's and Harmon's "preferred" type). And maybe I'm making too much of this, in as much as your middle paragraph is pretty much what I'm talking about. But on a number of occasions over the years I have pretty carefully positioned speakers in one of the speaker "sweet spots", and then changed toe-in by increments (corresponding to 1" marks on my back wall, which is generally ~7'-9' behind my listening position). The image and the sound changes, and I always like some better than others, and there is usually one I "prefer" (at least at that particular time), but I've never had the feeling sometimes reported by others that at one particular position the sound "locks in". Then some time later (weeks, months...) I'll decide to revisit the process, nothing else having changed, and I end up with the speakers in a different position with a slightly different toe-in, and I'll be quite pleased until the next time I decide to experiment.

Regardless of the speakers' radiation pattern, moving one's head a small amount will change the relative arrival time from each speaker.

 

[DaveyF]

I think we are basically on the same page. I suspect that those who hear a 'locking in' of the sound are using a speaker that actually is designed to beam or be more directional. This would make sense. When I owned Maggies and Acoustat's, I do remember that they locked in in a particular location...easily discernible and the right placement for them.

 

[rbbert]

Yes, when I had Acoustats they always ended up back in the same places whence they started

 

[garylkoh]

It's the same with Genesis speakers - it is more important to lock to a location in the room than it is to lock to the ear-position of the listener.

Reason I use a laser is that the laser makes it much easier for repeatable results. You don't have to keep your head in a vice, but the relationship between one speaker and the other is important for the illusion created by stereo sound.

 

[PeterA]

It's the same with Genesis speakers - it is more important to lock to a location in the room than it is to lock to the ear-position of the listener.

Reason I use a laser is that the laser makes it much easier for repeatable results. You don't have to keep your head in a vice, but the relationship between one speaker and the other is important for the illusion created by stereo sound.

This describes perfectly what I was unable to convey in my posts. I agree completely. Very clearly written, Gary. Thanks.

 

[rbbert]

And for better or worse, it's what I am not agreeing with, at least not completely, because at least in my room there are a number of acceptable locations. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at all the different methods for determining speaker placement; is one right and the others wrong, or (more likely, IMHO) are all of them "right"? Yes, when you hone in with the final tweaks by any of the methods it's likely you will find one orientation/location better than others an inch or two off, but the general locations before the final tweaks are often pretty far apart.

 

[DaveyF]

And for better or worse, it's what I am not agreeing with, at least not completely, because at least in my room there are a number of acceptable locations. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at all the different methods for determining speaker placement; is one right and the others wrong, or (more likely, IMHO) are all of them "right"? Yes, when you hone in with the final tweaks by any of the methods it's likely you will find one orientation/location better than others an inch or two off, but the general locations before the final tweaks are often pretty far apart.

Are you not agreeing with Gary's last sentence? Surely the relationship between each speaker to the other is of paramount importance in order to create the illusion of stereo.