KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Phil,

Even though my natural inclination is to have the speakers start on the short wall, I am very sympathetic to the angst Keith has experienced for the last two years dealing with asymmetrical front “corners.”

I think it will put his mind at rest to start the new room with a symmetrical front wall configuration.

However, respectfully, I just cannot agree with your view on depth. I hear depth in the concert hall, and unlike some sonic attributes, depth is something I can hear pretty easily in a home listening room. I think depth is a lot more than artificial ear candy.

I would pull dynamic driver box speakers as much as 1/3 of the way into the room away from the front wall.

I would pull planar speakers approximately 6 to 8 feet into the room away from the front wall, and achieve the desired depth/spaciousness based on rear wave reflection time.

On the other hand, symmetry creates it's own issues like room modes.

Agree with you on depth...I hear it clearly in live, unamplified settings. For sure studio produced recordings will not have natural depth but often the engineer will synthesize some "depth" into the mix with reverb.
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
I hear depth too, in live music. Just not the way stereo misrepresents it. I made this observation 50 years ago, listening to hif compared to hearing the Philadelphia Orchestra live, or acoustic music in a coffee house, for that matter. I easily hear depth phenomena in hifi systems. It's just not very closely related to the way depth is cued naturally in live music. It tickles; it's kind of pleasant. More to the point, stereo synthesizes fake depth in situations, like multi-tracked rock music, where the band members weren't even in the same room. It's fundamentally bogus but endearing. You think it's better to have it than not, but I don't think that's correct when choices for depth undermine the more fundamental and realistic representations of relative horizontal soundstaging and vertical axis placements. Screw those up to get depth? No way. Hifi listeners get focused on the minor things over the major things. Like stepping over dollars to pick up dimes because they're shiny.

Yeah, planars 8 feet from the wall -- been there; done that. KLH Nines, Quad ESLs, Magnepans and Magneplanars. Dynamic drivers 1/3rd the way into the room? Nah. Look, I've written over and over, I am opposed to the dedicated listening room. It's killed the mass constituency for hifi. It's effete and the former mass constituency for hifi can't relate to it. Keith is going to have his hifi in the living space of the house. He has practical realities for using that space. Doesn't everyone? I'm just not going to make a room dysfunctional by placing speakers 1/3rd of the way into the room. My speakers are 18" from the wall behind them, in both systems, because that's what works functionally. Could I pull them further into the room? Sure. Not a chance I will though. The rest sorts itself. In the '90s, the very good Audio Physic line was designed to be placed in the middle of a room. Sounded fab in my friend's hifi shop; disaster in a domicile. They hosed the utility of any room you put them in. The sale wasn't made.

I'm as tickled by the synthetic depth of stereo hifi as anyone; I just don't indulge it to the point of chasing it unnaturally. Focus on the fundamentals and take the ear candy you get as consequence. It would be silly to put synthetic depth first, only to undermine everything more vital to creating the illusion of fidelity.

Phil
 
  • Like
Reactions: Folsom

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
>>On the other hand, symmetry creates it's own issues like room modes.<<

Yes, but symmetry effects are easily managed. The asymmetries of Keith's narrow/broad dilemma argue for better sound on the broad wall. -Phil
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
Phil, you've just saved Keith a fortune in:
1- alchohol and meds to drown his sorrows
2- acoustician charges
3- psychotherapy fees to sort his inner turmoil/non binary angst (am I a short wall or long wall kinda person).

In my own house I have both sides of #3 covered. One system is on the broad wall of its resident room; the other is on the short wall where it resides. Because that's how the rooms work best, respectively. I don't have to choose.

Phil
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
I hear depth too, in live music. Just not the way stereo misrepresents it. I made this observation 50 years ago, listening to hif compared to hearing the Philadelphia Orchestra live, or acoustic music in a coffee house, for that matter. I easily hear depth phenomena in hifi systems. It's just not very closely related to the way depth is cued naturally in live music. It tickles; it's kind of pleasant. More to the point, stereo synthesizes fake depth in situations, like multi-tracked rock music, where the band members weren't even in the same room. It's fundamentally bogus but endearing. You think it's better to have it than not, but I don't think that's correct when choices for depth undermine the more fundamental and realistic representations of relative horizontal soundstaging and vertical axis placements. Screw those up to get depth? No way. Hifi listeners get focused on the minor things over the major things. Like stepping over dollars to pick up dimes because they're shiny.

Yeah, planars 8 feet from the wall -- been there; done that. KLH Nines, Quad ESLs, Magnepans and Magneplanars. Dynamic drivers 1/3rd the way into the room? Nah. Look, I've written over and over, I am opposed to the dedicated listening room. It's killed the mass constituency for hifi. It's effete and the former mass constituency for hifi can't relate to it. Keith is going to have his hifi in the living space of the house. He has practical realities for using that space. Doesn't everyone? I'm just not going to make a room dysfunctional by placing speakers 1/3rd of the way into the room. My speakers are 18" from the wall behind them, in both systems, because that's what works functionally. Could I pull them further into the room? Sure. Not a chance I will though. The rest sorts itself. In the '90s, the very good Audio Physic line was designed to be placed in the middle of a room. Sounded fab in my friend's hifi shop; disaster in a domicile. They hosed the utility of any room you put them in. The sale wasn't made.

I'm as tickled by the synthetic depth of stereo hifi as anyone; I just don't indulge it to the point of chasing it unnaturally. Focus on the fundamentals and take the ear candy you get as consequence. It would be silly to put synthetic depth first, only to undermine everything more vital to creating the illusion of fidelity.

Phil
Who's Talking about undermining horizontal and vertical soundstaging? A system that can do those two things SHOULD be able to do proper depth and vice versa. There are good recordings with natural depth and there are good recordings with artificially created depth but that depth was put there for a reason...if you lose it you are losing part of the intention of the recording.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
I hear depth too, in live music. Just not the way stereo misrepresents it. I made this observation 50 years ago, listening to hif compared to hearing the Philadelphia Orchestra live, or acoustic music in a coffee house, for that matter. I easily hear depth phenomena in hifi systems. It's just not very closely related to the way depth is cued naturally in live music. It tickles; it's kind of pleasant. More to the point, stereo synthesizes fake depth in situations, like multi-tracked rock music, where the band members weren't even in the same room. It's fundamentally bogus but endearing. You think it's better to have it than not, but I don't think that's correct when choices for depth undermine the more fundamental and realistic representations of relative horizontal soundstaging and vertical axis placements. Screw those up to get depth? No way. Hifi listeners get focused on the minor things over the major things. Like stepping over dollars to pick up dimes because they're shiny.

Yeah, planars 8 feet from the wall -- been there; done that. KLH Nines, Quad ESLs, Magnepans and Magneplanars. Dynamic drivers 1/3rd the way into the room? Nah. Look, I've written over and over, I am opposed to the dedicated listening room. It's killed the mass constituency for hifi. It's effete and the former mass constituency for hifi can't relate to it. Keith is going to have his hifi in the living space of the house. He has practical realities for using that space. Doesn't everyone? I'm just not going to make a room dysfunctional by placing speakers 1/3rd of the way into the room. My speakers are 18" from the wall behind them, in both systems, because that's what works functionally. Could I pull them further into the room? Sure. Not a chance I will though. The rest sorts itself. In the '90s, the very good Audio Physic line was designed to be placed in the middle of a room. Sounded fab in my friend's hifi shop; disaster in a domicile. They hosed the utility of any room you put them in. The sale wasn't made.

I'm as tickled by the synthetic depth of stereo hifi as anyone; I just don't indulge it to the point of chasing it unnaturally. Focus on the fundamentals and take the ear candy you get as consequence. It would be silly to put synthetic depth first, only to undermine everything more vital to creating the illusion of fidelity.

Phil

I really agree about the dedicated room phenomenon. While they're really nice, they kill the sport for most people when they think they're completely required. And I also think depth (soundstage) is mostly a gimmick meant to entertain people when everything else is lacking. I'm not saying I expect zero, but making it really big just isn't that important compared to everything else (although I don't follow well on how it's competing with width).
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
I really agree about the dedicated room phenomenon. While they're really nice, they kill the sport for most people when they think they're completely required. And I also think depth (soundstage) is mostly a gimmick meant to entertain people when everything else is lacking. I'm not saying I expect zero, but making it really big just isn't that important compared to everything else (although I don't follow well on how it's competing with width).

The issue is a practical one. To get more of the synthetic depth in stereo, many audiophiles are short wall-biased so they can place the speakers well into the room if the room is sufficiently oblong. Thus the short wall placement sacrifices soundstage width to get synthetic depth, the former being more natural but irrationally subordinated.

Phil
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
I think of it more in terms of the electronics design, more frequently. But I have been working on speakers that have minimal intrusion and sound nothing like known up close to the wall speakers you've heard before.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,443
13,473
2,710
London
I compared trenner friedl RA to devore orangutan with mastersound 845. The RA set up was really disappointing. With that amp complete lack of dynamic range, compressed and congested sound. When the devore came on it was like a relief. Much more range, air, speed, flow, tone, horizontal and vertical stage with depth. The RA need much more power. I would like to see someone run this with Berning quadratures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KeithR

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,443
13,473
2,710
London

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
I compared trenner friedl RA to devore orangutan with mastersound 845. The RA set up was really disappointing. With that amp complete lack of dynamic range, compressed and congested sound. When the devore came on it was like a relief. Much more range, air, speed, flow, tone, horizontal and vertical stage with depth. The RA need much more power. I would like to see someone run this with Berning quadratures.

Na. This is a difference of damping and FR. The RA is 95db sensitive, 35w is plenty. But if the RA is designed to be more compatible with SS gear they probably undamped the hell out of it so with a no feedback amp it sounds blah.
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
You can't separate soundstage from resolution, it's the fine detail that makes up spatial cues, and if these are mangled by the electronics, speakers or the room it will result in less than optimal performance in many ways.

Hearing fine detail in vocals and string instruments as well as achieving an immersive 3-D soundstage is a good part of what makes a HiFi system truly high fidelity.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,443
13,473
2,710
London
Na. This is a difference of damping and FR. The RA is 95db sensitive, 35w is plenty. But if the RA is designed to be more compatible with SS gear they probably undamped the hell out of it so with a no feedback amp it sounds blah.

It is tougher to drive. Devore is 10 ohm impedance. Also RA is fourth order crossover. Either way, the RA did not do very well. I have heard it before with Kondo overture el34 and there drive was not an issue. There the issue was it only forward staged and I had felt had less decay
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
Well the Kondo is AN so it's intensely subjectively tuned. The amount of power may have no relation to the sound. They both put out the same wattage, and I don't expect a 4rth order to devour 30w. If it did the speaker would be hot as hell and start melting veneer off it probably. (and or maybe AN actually does have some feedback)

Dave, I disagree about stage depth. But that isn't whether an instrument sounds like a flat piece of paper or, well, an instrument. The cues are real but without elaboration from delayed sound or grounding boxes... they're limited. You have to record in a live setting with something far behind something else, and have the bandwidth set to pick up those cues. All of that is mostly avoided because having mics picking up a lot of bandwidth outside of the voice/instrument they must pickup just dilutes the overall mix and causes problems with bleeding, feedback loops, etc. You can artificially add some back in but... You're faced with the fact that your stereo isn't in a concert hall reflecting sounds from different locations, including needing speakers placed at different depths.

If soundstage depth tickles your fancy you should be looking at dynamic/dipole/OB type speakers and a room that allows you to pull them out a sufficient amount. MikeL's is a great example. No one else's stereo I've heard creates that illusion for something like a chamber classical piece like his. His speakers allow the passing of the audio backward over smooth shapes, and they're no where near his back wall. With rock the mix doesn't always give you that sort of projection of illusion that's perfectly layed out because it wasn't recorded in a literal room of similar stature with mic's picking up a lot of it - it really depends on the engineer/s working on it, too.
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
Who's Talking about undermining horizontal and vertical soundstaging? A system that can do those two things SHOULD be able to do proper depth and vice versa. There are good recordings with natural depth and there are good recordings with artificially created depth but that depth was put there for a reason...if you lose it you are losing part of the intention of the recording.

If you accept the perceived depth you get when horizontal and vertical soundstaging are optimized, then I agree. But I more often hear systems that are optimized for synthetic or exaggerated depth at the expense of more fundamental and natural horizontal and vertical soundstaging. Ostensibly some combination of placements can result in a 3D optimization but including depth almost in consideration for most real-world domestic rooms compromises the two essential dimensions. Dedicated spaces can present more accommodation, but they suck the life out of the hifi as a shared interest, truncating it to the shriveled economy it is today.

Phil
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
I really agree about the dedicated room phenomenon. While they're really nice, they kill the sport for most people when they think they're completely required. And I also think depth (soundstage) is mostly a gimmick meant to entertain people when everything else is lacking. I'm not saying I expect zero, but making it really big just isn't that important compared to everything else (although I don't follow well on how it's competing with width).

Yes, I have reversed course in recent years on dedicated rooms. I prefer a living space with tasteful-looking treatment as the best alternative for music (with my girlfriend too). At the same time, I don't fault others for doing it as they are solving room-related issues and are amenable to treatment. With a dedicated room you will get more symmetry and less open gaps, doorways, etc. Its good money spent than cables and tweaks.
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,391
4,988
978
Switzerland
Well the Kondo is AN so it's intensely subjectively tuned. The amount of power may have no relation to the sound. They both put out the same wattage, and I don't expect a 4rth order to devour 30w. If it did the speaker would be hot as hell and start melting veneer off it probably. (and or maybe AN actually does have some feedback)

Dave, I disagree about stage depth. But that isn't whether an instrument sounds like a flat piece of paper or, well, an instrument. The cues are real but without elaboration from delayed sound or grounding boxes... they're limited. You have to record in a live setting with something far behind something else, and have the bandwidth set to pick up those cues. All of that is mostly avoided because having mics picking up a lot of bandwidth outside of the voice/instrument they must pickup just dilutes the overall mix and causes problems with bleeding, feedback loops, etc. You can artificially add some back in but... You're faced with the fact that your stereo isn't in a concert hall reflecting sounds from different locations, including needing speakers placed at different depths.

If soundstage depth tickles your fancy you should be looking at dynamic/dipole/OB type speakers and a room that allows you to pull them out a sufficient amount. MikeL's is a great example. No one else's stereo I've heard creates that illusion for something like a chamber classical piece like his. His speakers allow the passing of the audio backward over smooth shapes, and they're no where near his back wall. With rock the mix doesn't always give you that sort of projection of illusion that's perfectly layed out because it wasn't recorded in a literal room of similar stature with mic's picking up a lot of it - it really depends on the engineer/s working on it, too.
It’s not just soundstage depth but also palpability and 3D of instruments in the sound field....both of which are more readily damaged, IME, by the electronics and power. Speakers of course play their part but the real damage is electronic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: christoph

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,683
4,473
963
Greater Boston
You can't separate soundstage from resolution, it's the fine detail that makes up spatial cues, and if these are mangled by the electronics, speakers or the room it will result in less than optimal performance in many ways.

Hearing fine detail in vocals and string instruments as well as achieving an immersive 3-D soundstage is a good part of what makes a HiFi system truly high fidelity.

I just listened to two recordings of Stravinsky's Petrouchka. One is conducted by the composer himself (Columbia/Sony; 1961). Tremendous clarity of presentation, but limited soundstage depth and very direct sound. As a result, while it sounds exciting, with great unfolding of the complexity of the score, it also sounds rather small, even though my soundstage width is very good.

The other recording is with Boulez conducting the Cleveland Orchestra (DGG, 1992). Also a transparent recording, but considerably more soundstage depth; the orchestra is projected in layers on a real stage at some distance from the listener, in a real hall with large acoustics. The result is that this presentation sounds much larger, grander. Yet objective width has not changed, and no extra soundstage width would be able to substitute for the added sense of grand scale that the soundstage depth and hall information provides.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
It’s not just soundstage depth but also palpability and 3D of instruments in the sound field....both of which are more readily damaged, IME, by the electronics and power. Speakers of course play their part but the real damage is electronic.

Sure, I'm saying the same thing. Instruments don't need 3d soundstages to image well.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Yes, I have reversed course in recent years on dedicated rooms. I prefer a living space with tasteful-looking treatment as the best alternative for music (with my girlfriend too). At the same time, I don't fault others for doing it as they are solving room-related issues and are amenable to treatment. With a dedicated room you will get more symmetry and less open gaps, doorways, etc. Its good money spent than cables and tweaks.

And there is also the middle way: a dedicated space but not a dedicated room.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing