Detailed Speaker Setup and Optimization

[Lee]

Lee,

Great writing, but this is the type of post that can be highly destructive to the high-end and to its future. Accepting that the supreme and indispensable knowledge of something is centered in half a dozen people who fail to transmit it is accepting the close last dawn of it.

IMO the hobby does not aim at supreme perfection, it aims at entertainment and enjoyment of music with high quality. And IMO although "a good rule of thumb is that everything matters" at some time you have to pick what matters to you and forget about all else.

Please understand I am not commenting on the expertise and value of the people you addressed, just a general comment on the set up of systems.

My posts on the subject are surely influenced by my admiration for Jim Smith lifetime work.

One of the things I tried to do at TAS was a series of setup videos so we could capture what experts had learned and what they wanted to say. I did the speaker placement video with Jim but we planned a whole series of discussions. I have also encouraged Jim to finish his new books because they are excellent.

One regret I had was seeing Tim De Paravicini pass away before I felt we captured his knowledge. He was a true genius and had so much to share.

 

[Elliot G.]

Great writing, but this is the type of post that can be highly destructive to the high-end and to its future. Accepting that the supreme and indispensable knowledge of something is centered in half a dozen people who fail to transmit it is accepting the close last dawn of it.

I also respectfully disagree. Education is essential in improving everyone's result and satisfaction.
One should be able to realize and identify when things are better and I a m sure you do .
To me its the Frozen Pizza syndrome.
Is Frozen Pizza what pizza is? Should I accept that as reality? Should it be my definition as to what Pizza should an can be? Should i believe someone who rates frozen pizzas? Or perhaps I should dismiss frozen Pizza as a cheap copy of what Pizza is only made for convenience and price? I do not feel that all opinions are equal and all methods lead to Nirvana. We seem to have lost part of the ability to want to learn and get better and hopefully to share that knowledge. We will never share it if we dismiss it as just a personal choice that must be defended even when it is nothing but one mans opinion.

 

[JiminGa]

I bet if you measured all of Todd’s setups, the vast majority would be on Jim Smith’s 0.82 to 0.84 formula.

The genius of Jim’s formula is that it was derived from setting up thousands of systems. It’s a summation of a life’s experience.

I have no idea but it’s possible. My point is to worry about the sound first and not the formulae because every room is so different. A block wall on one side and a stud wall on the other is not actually a symmetrical room. True it usually ends up within the typical parameters but the absolute precision requires listening skills and flexibility about any predetermined formulae. For 90% of set up people the formulae is way easier and get them close but perfect is perfect and close is close.

 

[Amir]

Jim Smith’s 0.82 0.84 formula is good idea but it is not the whole story.

When speakers are in DPOLS (perfect position) the sound is perfect in all areas in the room (even it is perfect when you are out of room) and you get coherent 3D image in all area not just listener position. It is magnificent experience.
I remember a cheap system ($2k dynaudio speaker, $2k krell amplifier, $500 sony es cdplayer) in DPOLS outperformed all million dollar expensive systems in Tehran.

There are also some positions (for speaker) that are close to DPOLS (for example 90%) , in some positions you may get more dynamic and in some positions you may get better soundstage but in DPOLS everything is perfect. I am sure Stirling can find those positions (close to dpols) in 2 days and if he put more time he may find DPOLS in your room.

 

[PeterA]

This may be a bit controversial.

What do people think about aiming speakers straight ahead in the room, not toed in toward the listener? I think it is hard to generalize, and it depends on dispersion patterns and the distance between the speakers versus the walls and many other factors. I found in my old system with freestanding speakers pulled out into the room that I got the most natural presentation with the speakers, aiming straight ahead. It was extremely difficult to find the right position on the floor without toe in, but the increased effort was worth it for the final result.

Most systems I see utilize some degree of toe in towards the listener. I wonder if this is a kind of shortcut and compromise because it takes less time to achieve a satisfying result.

 

[microstrip]

I politely differ here. The best thing that can happen to the hobby is for more people to get a great setup. Most people would then enjoy a higher level of musical engagement and that would pull them into the hobby more.

Well, I do not see you differing from me. My main criticism is that we can't foresee having more people getting a great set up if we do not have much more people making correct set up and the few who know to do it are not being able to teach a new generation in a systematic way - please note, systematic. Knowledge needs proper transfer and communication in adequate channels. Sure it needs resources, time and will. As you referred Jim Smith was a pioneer in such approach, we had great hope in his new book and materials.

BTW, the audiophile center of gravity is changing and what we see are always the same few US experts, that trained for decades. We need more. Although our TOS forbids politics IMO we need a democratization of the audiophile set up.

 

[sbnx]

Actually that’s a little off the mark. The Sumiko method originally began with John Hunter ( now of REL) and Stirling Trayle who is still in the setup business a long time ago. Todd Snyder of The Sound Environment and Stirling now carry on the tradition but it has evolved and it is no longer the same “method”. Originally it was a way to maximize linear bass from small speakers. Now after decades Todd and Stirling have each modified their approaches and they do things a bit differently. Their approaches have diverged a bit. They have come a LONG way. At the heart of it it involves minimizing the speakers interaction with the room. They start with only one speaker and “lock” it in place. Then the other speaker is brought in. The position of the first speaker has an optimal place (based on the room) of +/- one centimeter. It’s never a formula of 80% or 110% of anything. They inevitably end up somewhere in this range but it’s based on the room interaction not trying to shoehorn the speakers into some 38% rule or equilateral triangle or anything else. You can’t put this method in an email and send it to someone. It’s done by listening centimeter by centimeter by voice before turning on the system. You can sit in your listening position and have someone at tweeter level stand in the front corner and talk to you. Have them slowly move out/in and you will hear their voice change. Getting it exactly right is a 10 plus hour project. Complicated setups might take 2 days. Having watched this several times this is way beyond just telling someone how to do it. From what I’ve seen they struggle to teach this to prospective partners because it is so listening dependent and very few people are actually good at it.

Hello Jim,

I am curious if you have personally tried any variants of the "Sumiko Method".

Everyone posting here is using some method of positioning their speakers.

 

[Elliot G.]

Hello Jim,

I am curious if you have personally tried any variants of the "Sumiko Method".

Everyone posting here is using some method of positioning their speakers.

It doesn't matter how you get there just that you do. This is audiophile mumble jumbo that mine is bigger and better than yours. Who cares its the path one follows to get to the destination nothing more or less.
There was life before Sumiko , just sayin'
I have seen many do it up and get it great and only one or two used that method and they both modified it as well.
Like Golf it doesn't truly matter as long as you get the ball in the whole in the fewest strokes >>>>>

 

[JiminGa]

Hello Jim,

I am curious if you have personally tried any variants of the "Sumiko Method".

Everyone posting here is using some method of positioning their speakers.

Yes. Of course I have.

 

[JiminGa]

It doesn't matter how you get there just that you do. This is audiophile mumble jumbo that mine is bigger and better than yours. Who cares its the path one follows to get to the destination nothing more or less.
There was life before Sumiko , just sayin'
I have seen many do it up and get it great and only one or two used that method and they both modified it as well.
Like Golf it doesn't truly matter as long as you get the ball in the whole in the fewest strokes >>>>>

Yes Elliot there are many ways to get to optimum. My point is that formulas are really just averaging final placement over all set ups which do not necessarily apply to any given set up. Stirling and Todd are no longer doing what constitutes the “Sumiko” method as they have both gone many levels above that as they continue to learn and to get better. I was responding to Micros post. The method is a philosophy/foundation based on careful listening and a disciplined way of incrementally evaluating the speaker/room interaction as you adjust the placement.

 

[wil]

Jim Smith’s 0.82 0.84 formula is good idea but it is not the whole story.

When speakers are in DPOLS (perfect position) the sound is perfect in all areas in the room (even it is perfect when you are out of room) and you get coherent 3D image in all area not just listener position. It is magnificent experience.
I remember a cheap system ($2k dynaudio speaker, $2k krell amplifier, $500 sony es cdplayer) in DPOLS outperformed all million dollar expensive systems in Tehran.

There are also some positions (for speaker) that are close to DPOLS (for example 90%) , in some positions you may get more dynamic and in some positions you may get better soundstage but in DPOLS everything is perfect. I am sure Stirling can find those positions (close to dpols) in 2 days and if he put more time he may find DPOLS in your room.

While locating the listening seat in a further back position ( like .82) may sound good in my room, sitting closer, inside the triangle is better, and more immersive. I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone starting with the idea that it is some kind of golden rule.

 

[Lee]

I think you need three things for a high performance setup:

1. The Formula. I think the Jim Smith formula is valuable because it gets you to the right proportions quickly and then you refine further to account for the specific room shape. I know Jim would say it is not meant to be a definitive ending point. Don’t forget the first step is finding the listener location using pink noise and RTA.

2. Critical Listening Skills. The best tool we have is our ears. Critical listening, for example, tells us when the space between the speakers is correct. It tells us what toe-in is correct. It tells us what adjustments from the back and side walls are needed. It tells us if the acoustic panels are working well.

3. Evaluation Music. Finally, you need a set of tracks to play that are helpful for dialing in certain aspects of the sound. Jim’s list in Get Better Sound is a robust starting point.

 

[Lee]

While locating the listening seat in a further back position ( like .82) may sound good in my room, sitting closer, inside the triangle is better, and more immersive. I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone starting with the idea that it is some kind of golden rule.

With respect, I don’t believe you.

 

[Another Johnson]

With respect, I don’t believe you.

He may be listening more to the reverberant field than the direct field. This may be his personal preference.

 

[sbnx]

It doesn't matter how you get there just that you do. This is audiophile mumble jumbo that mine is bigger and better than yours. Who cares its the path one follows to get to the destination nothing more or less.
There was life before Sumiko , just sayin'
I have seen many do it up and get it great and only one or two used that method and they both modified it as well.
Like Golf it doesn't truly matter as long as you get the ball in the whole in the fewest strokes >>>>>

That is true. Get "there" however you want/can. The real question is: where is "there"? Can someone actually recognize when a system is "there" (has reached its limit)? Golf is pretty straight forward -- white ball here; little hole over there. You know when you get "there" and generally which direction to go. Not so simple in audio.

But you did miss the point of the question. Jim was commenting on a specific method of speaker placement. I was curious if he had personally tried it. Meaning he was the one pushing the speakers around trying to get "there". Lots of people comment on things they have not tried. For example, a DAC or a specific cable.

There are lots of suggestions on how to approach the problem. For example, Wilson offers us the "Zone of Neutrality" and even has some information that illustrates how to find it. They suggest placing the speakers in this "box" will yield far better results than placing them somewhere outside this "box". But then you have to find the best position inside the box. (What they don't mention is that there exists more than one "box" in a typical room.)

Going back to the beginning this thread, my assertion is that once someone has found a good candidate position they need to shift their thinking from a scale in cm (or inches) to a scale that is much less than 1mm if they are going to get "there".

Regardless of how someone approaches the problem, they will have to listen and make a judgement -- better or worse. After this move the speaker(s) and assess again. There is no substitute for work. (Which you have stated)

 

[Another Johnson]

What they don't mention is that there exists more than one "box" in a typical room.

Maybe I got this idea from my reading of WASP, or maybe I got it from direct conversation with Bill P or Daryl. But I’ve been aware of this since my earliest encounter with WASP.

I think they think you will want to use the zones of neutrality closest to the front wall. But zones further back are great for setting up other vibration sensitive gear. I’ve got my TTs set up behind the listener using this strategy.

 

[Elliot G.]

Yes Elliot there are many ways to get to optimum. My point is that formulas are really just averaging final placement over all set ups which do not necessarily apply to any given set up. Stirling and Todd are no longer doing what constitutes the “Sumiko” method as they have both gone many levels above that as they continue to learn and to get better. I was responding to Micros post. The method is a philosophy/foundation based on careful listening and a disciplined way of incrementally evaluating the speaker/room interaction as you adjust the placement.

agree. My point is as always if you don't know where you are going how do you get there?

That is true. Get "there" however you want/can. The real question is: where is "there"? Can someone actually recognize when a system is "there" (has reached its limit)? Golf is pretty straight forward -- white ball here; little hole over there. You know when you get "there" and generally which direction to go. Not so simple in audio.

But you did miss the point of the question. Jim was commenting on a specific method of speaker placement. I was curious if he had personally tried it. Meaning he was the one pushing the speakers around trying to get "there". Lots of people comment on things they have not tried. For example, a DAC or a specific cable.

There are lots of suggestions on how to approach the problem. For example, Wilson offers us the "Zone of Neutrality" and even has some information that illustrates how to find it. They suggest placing the speakers in this "box" will yield far better results than placing them somewhere outside this "box". But then you have to find the best position inside the box. (What they don't mention is that there exists more than one "box" in a typical room.)

Going back to the beginning this thread, my assertion is that once someone has found a good candidate position they need to shift their thinking from a scale in cm (or inches) to a scale that is much less than 1mm if they are going to get "there".

Regardless of how someone approaches the problem, they will have to listen and make a judgement -- better or worse. After this move the speaker(s) and assess again. There is no substitute for work. (Which you have stated)

I have said that many times as well. All of the possible methods that have been mentioned are ways to go on the trip but without knowing where you are going is going to make it much more difficult So as to not be unclear I am an HP disciple and his definition is what I was taught, what I grew up on and what all those in my day were shooting for. Maybe you want something else....

 

[wil]

With respect, I don’t believe you.

You don’t believe me? What is that supposed to mean? To me, with my speakers in my room it sounds far better inside the triangle rather than outside of it. Mike L.with the same speakers, has a similar proportion to my set up as well.

He may be listening more to the reverberant field than the direct field. This may be his personal preference.

that would be the complete opposite. Listening more near field is more direct. The further back position is more reverberant.

 

[Another Johnson]

You don’t believe me? What is that supposed to mean? To me, with my speakers in my room it sounds far better inside the triangle rather than outside of it. Mike L.with the same speakers, has a similar proportion to my set up as well.

that would be the complete opposite. Listening more near field is more direct. The further back position is more reverberant.

Sounds like an issue peculiar to your room. This is not a criticism or instruction. Your ears … your system.

 

[JiminGa]

While locating the listening seat in a further back position ( like .82) may sound good in my room, sitting closer, inside the triangle is better, and more immersive. I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone starting with the idea that it is some kind

agree. My point is as always if you don't know where you are going how do you get there?

I have said that many times as well. All of the possible methods that have been mentioned are ways to go on the trip but without knowing where you are going is going to make it much more difficult So as to not be unclear I am an HP disciple and his definition is what I was taught, what I grew up on and what all those in my day were shooting for. Maybe you want something else....

1000%