Future progress in reproduced sound

[Mike Lavigne]

It’s more than your field, listening position. Don’t you think by sitting in the near field, that the direct sound overwhelms most of the reflections of the room or certainly arrive significantly earlier than the reflections so that the room itself has less of an impact? Yours is just the first case I’ve seen where there is a nice dedicated room designed by a professional, and the listener actually sits close to his speakers to diminish the sound of the room. Having not actually been in your room, I’m guessing on the effect of listening in the near field.

i'm at 112 inches tweeter to tweeter, and 108 inches tweeter to ear. so not much near-field. until 3-4 years ago i was more like 105 inches tweeter to ear. so moved back slightly.

but you have to consider a few things.

---my speakers are way out into the room. in my 29 foot long room my tweeters are 9.5 feet from my back wall. so there is a huge space behind my speaker driver plane, and the room is very wide and fairly tall. and it's not only all hardwood walls, but also a hardwood floor. tons of energy. so my soundstage is perceived more like halfway back toward that wall and there is a huge amount of spatiality and layering. no sense that the sound stage is in your lap. or you are looking up at everything. each recording is distinct. and i have simply adjusted my listening position to optimize realism, music focus and presence. where things optimally lock in. many listeners prefer the sofa behind my sweet spot for listening as the visuals of the proximity of the huge twin tower speakers take getting use to.

---with the 29 foot long room the listening position is 15.5 feet back from the front wall, but still 13.5 feet from the rear wall. so nearly in the middle front to back of the room and it's wide. i call my speaker positioning 'global', meaning it's less wall constrained with the width, where as most more normal rooms are narrower and i call them 'local' where the tweeters and mid range are nearer the side walls and ceiling. in a 'local' room the reflection times are different and more relevant to the result. so sitting near field is not hugely different than slightly far field as far as reflections.

---the room is seriously treated for neutral balance and there is zero glare. music with an edge certainly tells you, but the presentation does not have any of that overlayed. so nothing to push you back.

----the size of the room fits the speaker energy well, so wherever you sit or stand back front or side the music is comfortable. no feeling of being assaulted or under the gun. or other trade-offs for being in the holodeck spot. the term i use for this is that these large speakers have room to breathe naturally.

---for years i've done extended sessions and never 'have to get away'. i can decide to play stuff loud intentionally and need a break, but seldom do that except for visitors. and almost 100% of visitors prefer the near field spot and comment how much more immersive it is.....although sometimes it takes cycling through the listening spots a few rounds before they 'get it'. then have to pry them away from it.

 

[Gregm]

Hi Greg, the formula is a bit confusing here give the four numbers. Can you tell me what each one represents and maybe walk through an example?

For example, which is length, width, and height…and what does the fourth term represent?

Hi Lee -- the numbers are ratios so, if the Height is, say 3 metres, then the other dimensions would be the given multiples of that number: if height is 3, then ideally another room dimension would be 3x 1.9= 5.7 and the third would be 3x1.4= 4.2 .. I used H for height and X and Y to denote the other room dimensions. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Gregm]

building a dedicated room is not the end game, where you are done once you move in and set up. it's the beginning of a journey with a high ceiling.

Indeed!
By the way, the high ceiling can be very helpful as it allows one to hang sound controlling material: I once tried a ceiling absorber ("cloud") placed around midway between listening position & speakers -- basically, where I could see the tweets reflected on a mirror that a friend was moving (dangerously!) along the ceiling. It hung about 15cm from the ceiling. It seemed to me to clear the mid & upper midrange.

 

[Lee]

i'm at 112 inches tweeter to tweeter, and 108 inches tweeter to ear. so not much near-field. until 3-4 years ago i was more like 105 inches tweeter to ear. so moved back slightly.

but you have to consider a few things.

---my speakers are way out into the room. in my 29 foot long room my tweeters are 9.5 feet from my back wall. so there is a huge space behind my speaker driver plane, and the room is very wide and fairly tall. and it's not only all hardwood walls, but also a hardwood floor. tons of energy. so my soundstage is perceived more like halfway back toward that wall and there is a huge amount of spatiality and layering. no sense that the sound stage is in your lap. or you are looking up at everything. each recording is distinct. and i have simply adjusted my listening position to optimize realism, music focus and presence. where things optimally lock in. many listeners prefer the sofa behind my sweet spot for listening as the visuals of the proximity of the huge twin tower speakers take getting use to.

---with the 29 foot long room the listening position is 15.5 feet back from the front wall, but still 13.5 feet from the rear wall. so nearly in the middle front to back of the room and it's wide. i call my speaker positioning 'global', meaning it's less wall constrained with the width, where as most more normal rooms are narrower and i call them 'local' where the tweeters and mid range are nearer the side walls and ceiling. in a 'local' room the reflection times are different and more relevant to the result. so sitting near field is not hugely different than slightly far field as far as reflections.

---the room is seriously treated for neutral balance and there is zero glare. music with an edge certainly tells you, but the presentation does not have any of that overlayed. so nothing to push you back.

----the size of the room fits the speaker energy well, so wherever you sit or stand back front or side the music is comfortable. no feeling of being assaulted or under the gun. or other trade-offs for being in the holodeck spot. the term i use for this is that these large speakers have room to breathe naturally.

---for years i've done extended sessions and never 'have to get away'. i can decide to play stuff loud intentionally and need a break, but seldom do that except for visitors. and almost 100% of visitors prefer the near field spot and comment how much more immersive it is.....although sometimes it takes cycling through the listening spots a few rounds before they 'get it'. then have to pry them away from it.

This is disturbing to read to be honest. You are almost at an equilateral triangle. That can’t be optimal placement no matter what is going on in your room.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

This is disturbing to read to be honest. You are almost at an equilateral triangle. That can’t be optimal placement no matter what is going on in your room.

besides in general completely disagreeing with you. on specifics, my speaker designer Kevin Malmgren sets up to an equilateral triangle almost without exception. OTOH in the case of my room with all the space behind my speakers it's different. mostly for dynamic speakers in a good room i like the equilateral position. at shows sometimes that is too intense for the SPL's they are using and untreated rooms.

listening position is room, speaker and taste specific as i see it. especially with a separate active adjustable bass tower. certainly tweeter to tweeter varies, toe-in also has to be dialed in too for the general spot. do you do the rule of fifths or rule of thirds? i use thirds in my room for my speakers. they are laser aligned and laser leveled.

Lee, as always you have a open invitation to visit and spend time moving my chair back and forth and show me what works better. i have spent many hours on that myself but i'm open to learning. i've had many visitors over the years who recognize the magic of my listening spot, but sometimes like to sit on the sofa behind too. it's all good and i cannot tell anyone what they like.

 

[PeterA]

This is disturbing to read to be honest. You are almost at an equilateral triangle. That can’t be optimal placement no matter what is going on in your room.

Lee, your comment seems to infer that an equilateral triangle is generally never optimal placement. I have never read this before. In fact, some of the speaker placement manuals I have read suggest starting roughly with an equilateral triangle placement. Can you expand a bit on your comment? Thanks.

 

[Ron Resnick]

i've had many visitors over the years who recognize the magic of my listening spot, but sometimes like to sit on the sofa behind too. it's all good and i cannot tell anyone what they like.

I recall that on my rock/pop stuff I liked sitting one row behind the main chair. At pk_LA's house, I also like best one row behind the main listening location.

A little bit further back I think sometimes solidifies for me the center image of a solo vocalist.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I recall that on my rock/pop stuff I liked sitting one row behind the main chair. At pk_LA's house, I also like best one row behind the main listening location.

A little bit further back I think sometimes solidifies for me the center image of a solo vocalist.

i wonder if now, 7 years later, your tastes might have evolved a little about that. as you have expanded your musical menu some. not saying that it has evolved, or that it's valuable to have done so, but it could have.

 

[wil]

This is disturbing to read to be honest. You are almost at an equilateral triangle. That can’t be optimal placement no matter what is going on in your room.

Lee, you have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry!

I have the same speakers as Mike (with 4subs, not 8) and independently came up with a very similar arrangement in a large room. 112” from front wall; 120” tweeter to tweeter and 108” tweeter to ear.

I also move in closer sometimes for a different experience. I’ve found listening distance preferences can be varied and personal and hard rules don’t apply.

 

[Al M.]

This is disturbing to read to be honest. You are almost at an equilateral triangle. That can’t be optimal placement no matter what is going on in your room.

Jim Smith's rule, which you enthusiastically embrace, is a very useful average and guiding point, but it is not always the last word in every situation. I am now at a ratio of 0.91 (tweeter to tweeter/ear to tweeter), his optimal ratio is 0.83 IIRC.

There is nothing "disturbing" about "breaking the rules" if it is proven beneficial. The last thing we should do in audio is fall into rigid dogma.

Your use of the term "disturbing" in this case is, well, disturbing.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have the same speakers as Mike (with 4subs, not 8) and independently came up with a very similar arrangement in a large room. 13’ from front wall; 120” tweeter to tweeter and 108” tweeter to ear. (...)

Can we know the exact dimensions of the room? The distance from the front wall does not look usual - I researched on such practice (placement far from the front wall) and don't remember seeing such a large distance.

 

[Lee]

Lee, your comment seems to infer that an equilateral triangle is generally never optimal placement. I have never read this before. In fact, some of the speaker placement manuals I have read suggest starting roughly with an equilateral triangle placement. Can you expand a bit on your comment? Thanks.

That is correct. It is my belief based on both my personal experience and training from Jim Smith that equilateral is never optimum placement of speakers for musical engagement.

I strongly stand by that statement.

 

[Lee]

besides in general completely disagreeing with you. on specifics, my speaker designer Kevin Malmgren sets up to an equilateral triangle almost without exception. OTOH in the case of my room with all the space behind my speakers it's different. mostly for dynamic speakers in a good room i like the equilateral position. at shows sometimes that is too intense for the SPL's they are using and untreated rooms.

listening position is room, speaker and taste specific as i see it. especially with a separate active adjustable bass tower. certainly tweeter to tweeter varies, toe-in also has to be dialed in too for the general spot. do you do the rule of fifths or rule of thirds? i use thirds in my room for my speakers. they are laser aligned and laser leveled.

Lee, as always you have a open invitation to visit and spend time moving my chair back and forth and show me what works better. i have spent many hours on that myself but i'm open to learning. i've had many visitors over the years who recognize the magic of my listening spot, but sometimes like to sit on the sofa behind too. it's all good and i cannot tell anyone what they like.

I have wanted to visit your listening room for a while as you know and you have always been gracious about extending an invitation and I appreciate that. I would be happy to bring my setup tools and see how we can make it better.

 

[Lee]

Lee, you have no idea what you’re talking about, sorry!

I have the same speakers as Mike (with 4subs, not 8) and independently came up with a very similar arrangement in a large room. 13’ from front wall; 120” tweeter to tweeter and 108” tweeter to ear.

I also move in closer sometimes for a different experience. I’ve found listening distance preferences can be varied and personal and hard rules don’t apply.

I respect your opinion but it is my own experience that equilateral is never optimum placement.

 

[Lee]

Jim Smith's rule, which you enthusiastically embrace, is a very useful average and guiding point, but it is not always the last word in every situation. I am now at a ratio of 0.91 (tweeter to tweeter/ear to tweeter), his optimal ratio is 0.83 IIRC.

There is nothing "disturbing" about "breaking the rules" if it is proven beneficial. The last thing we should do in audio is fall into rigid dogma.

Your use of the term "disturbing" in this case is, well, disturbing.

The reason that Jim’s formula is so proven is that it is a distillation of fifty years experience doing setups. And it’s not completely firm as Jim will tell you it can be 0.82 to 0.84. However, I have listened to thousands of stereos and equilateral placement has never been a good result.

I don’t say this out of dogma but a genuine desire to provide the best possible advice to audiophiles as someone who feels strongly that lack of proper setup remains a significant problem in the hobby.

 

[Al M.]

The reason that Jim’s formula is so proven is that it is a distillation of fifty years experience doing setups. And it’s not completely firm as Jim will tell you it can be 0.82 to 0.84. However, I have listened to thousands of stereos and equilateral placement has never been a good result.

I don’t say this out of dogma but a genuine desire to provide the best possible advice to audiophiles as someone who feels strongly that lack of proper setup remains a significant problem in the hobby.

Ok, a recent setup of mine did fall within the 0.82 - 0.84 range. Yet my current one, with speakers in a different position in the room, doesn't at an 0.91 ratio. It clearly sounds better too. Does that make it "wrong" nonetheless?

 

[PeterA]

That is correct. It is my belief based on both my personal experience and training from Jim Smith that equilateral is never optimum placement of speakers for musical engagement.

I strongly stand by that statement.

OK, thank you Lee. I understand that you don’t like it. If you can generalize, what specific sonic characteristic do you attribute to an equilateral triangle presentation?

Jim Smith voiced my old Magico Mini 2 system to my room and it sounded great with his roughly 83% ratio and a fair amount of toe in. Then my later Magico Q3 system had a similar ratio tweeter to tweeter vs listening seat with speakers aimed straight ahead. In both of these cases, if I moved the speakers further apart to get that equilateral triangle, the sound became thinner with less body and rich tone and the center image suffered. So that is what I actually heard from such a positioning.

Now admittedly, my corner horns are completely different and I am more or less at an equilateral triangle of 15 feet in my squarish room. And occasionally, I actually sit 7 feet away from each upper horn throat because it is the smoothest room response. This is basically directly on access with the center of the horn. This is where the tone is the purest, and the sound most immediate.

 

[PeterA]

I don’t say this out of dogma but a genuine desire to provide the best possible advice to audiophiles as someone who feels strongly that lack of proper setup remains a significant problem in the hobby.

I agree with this. Optimal set up can be a real challenge.

 

[wil]

Can we know the exact dimensions of the room? The distance from the front wall does not look usual - I researched on such practice (placement far from the front wall) and don't remember seeing such a large distance.

My mistake. Distance from the front wall is actually 112”.
I have a pretty unusual room. 15 feet wide, 9’ high, 45’ long.

It sounds good, but naturally different, all over the room.

 

[wil]

The reason that Jim’s formula is so proven is that it is a distillation of fifty years experience doing setups. And it’s not completely firm as Jim will tell you it can be 0.82 to 0.84. However, I have listened to thousands of stereos and equilateral placement has never been a good result.

I don’t say this out of dogma but a genuine desire to provide the best possible advice to audiophiles as someone who feels strongly that lack of proper setup remains a significant problem in the hobby.

Jim helped with my set up of AG speakers a few years ago. I was happy with the results. Stirling Trayle assisted me with the Evolution Acoustics speakers.

They have different methods and perhaps values/preferences. For one thing, Stirling, I would say, tends to focus on finding the optimal set up for the room somewhat independent of strict listening distances. Jim starts with the listening position.

I prefer a more near field presentation similar to way someone might prefer row 5 rather than 35. It really comes down to preference.

How do you define equilateral? Neither my or Mike's set up are strictly equilateral. Mine is inside the triangle quite a bit-- by about 15".