Has Jim Smith Found the Magic Formula for Speaker Placement?

[Lee]

Probably the most valuable formula for reaching a setup that optimizes engagement with the music.

 

[marty]

Nice interview. Jim Smith is a legacy name in audio and I didn't know much about him. I learned a great deal about his background and his set-up approach. Thanks, Lee!

Of interest, Jim's "magic" starting ratio of 0.83 (for ear to tweeter/tweeter to tweeter distance) is the exact inverse of Wilson't recommended starting ratio of 1.2 (tweeter to tweeter/ear to speaker). I guess great minds think alike.

 

[ptman]

I've used Jim's setup method, garnered via his book, videos and a Straight Talk session, to great satisfaction.

 

[sworksone]

Nice interview. Jim Smith is a legacy name in audio and I didn't know much about him. I learned a great deal about his background and his set-up approach. Thanks, Lee!

Of interest, Jim's "magic" starting ratio of 0.83 (for ear to tweeter/tweeter to tweeter distance) is the exact inverse of Wilson't recommended starting ratio of 1.2 (tweeter to tweeter/ear to speaker). I guess great minds think alike.

I believe he's saying the opposite - tweeter to tweeter / ear to tweeter, should equal 0.83? He mentions 1:1 with an equilateral triangle puts the speakers too far apart.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

tweeter to tweeter / ear to tweeter, should equal 0.83

 

[tima]

Another nice production Lee, thanks for posting it. A little feedback: I found Jim's somewhat dusky voice harder to hear than yours which is clear and obvious. I don't know if that was mic placement or Jim talking softer.

 

[ecwl]

Hmmm…. I don’t think Jim Smith thinks 83% is the golden rule…

Quarter Notes #8 (Volume 2, Issue 4)

Dear Get Better Sound readers,Welcome to the eighth issue of Quarter Notes!Guess I never thought about how many of these I’d do, but as long as new ideas keep surfacing, new insights into old ideas keep popping up, reviewers and/or manufacturers have something relevant to say to us, and your...

www.getbettersound.com

Scroll down to Degrees of Separation to see what he really thinks.

 

[metaphacts]

I believe he's saying the opposite - tweeter to tweeter / ear to tweeter, should equal 0.83? He mentions 1:1 with an equilateral triangle puts the speakers too far apart.

Tweeter to Tweeter * 1.2 = Listening Distance Example: 100 inch tweeter to tweeter = 120 inch listening distance (DAW range)

.83 * Listening Distance = Tweeter to Tweeter. Example: 120 inch listening distance = 99.6 inch tweeter to tweeter (Jim Smith)

These are good starting points, assuming room and individual speaker characteristics will support them.

 

[Lee]

Another nice production Lee, thanks for posting it. A little feedback: I found Jim's somewhat dusky voice harder to hear than yours which is clear and obvious. I don't know if that was mic placement or Jim talking softer.

Thanks for the feedback. Jim is a low talker but we have since moved on to Rode Wireless Go II lapel mics.

 

[Blake]

Sorry, perhaps I need some more coffee, but, in the video Jim says X is the distance between the tweeters, and Y is the distance ear to tweeter.

However, in another post here on WBF, Jim wrote:


Jim Smith:

I always listen and adjust the set-up based on what I hear, but more often than not, when I'm done, it'll be about 83%.

X is the distance from ear to tweeter. Y is tweeter-center to tweeter-center. FWIW - when Wilson's X is 1.2 and their Y is 1, it happens to equal 83.33%.

When I visited Lee, the sound was congested somewhat (for my taste), as the speakers were a bit too close together. As a point of reference, I measured them after listening briefly, and they were at 79% when I initially tested them, before readjusting them by ear.

It's all a matter of taste - for me, wider separation than - say, 84% - definitely yields more accurate imaging, but at the cost of a reduced ME factor - Musical Engagement.

 

[Blake]

Room Play: Part 1

Yes and no. You have to listen to adjust the width but Jim's done thousands of rooms and Wilsons usually sound their best at 82-84% according to him. (...) Sorry, 82%-84% of what?

whatsbestforum.com

 

[Lee]

Sorry, perhaps I need some more coffee, but, in the video Jim says X is the distance between the tweeters, and Y is the distance ear to tweeter.

However, in another post here on WBF, Jim wrote:


Jim Smith:

I always listen and adjust the set-up based on what I hear, but more often than not, when I'm done, it'll be about 83%.

X is the distance from ear to tweeter. Y is tweeter-center to tweeter-center. FWIW - when Wilson's X is 1.2 and their Y is 1, it happens to equal 83.33%.

When I visited Lee, the sound was congested somewhat (for my taste), as the speakers were a bit too close together. As a point of reference, I measured them after listening briefly, and they were at 79% when I initially tested them, before readjusting them by ear.

It's all a matter of taste - for me, wider separation than - say, 84% - definitely yields more accurate imaging, but at the cost of a reduced ME factor - Musical Engagement.

When you visited Jim’s place?

 

[Lee]

Sorry, perhaps I need some more coffee, but, in the video Jim says X is the distance between the tweeters, and Y is the distance ear to tweeter.

However, in another post here on WBF, Jim wrote:


Jim Smith:

I always listen and adjust the set-up based on what I hear, but more often than not, when I'm done, it'll be about 83%.

X is the distance from ear to tweeter. Y is tweeter-center to tweeter-center. FWIW - when Wilson's X is 1.2 and their Y is 1, it happens to equal 83.33%.

When I visited Lee, the sound was congested somewhat (for my taste), as the speakers were a bit too close together. As a point of reference, I measured them after listening briefly, and they were at 79% when I initially tested them, before readjusting them by ear.

It's all a matter of taste - for me, wider separation than - say, 84% - definitely yields more accurate imaging, but at the cost of a reduced ME factor - Musical Engagement.

It winds up being the same ratio. It’s better imho to use X as the tweeter to tweeter distance as it makes very clear it’s not an equilateral triangle at all. And it feels more logical to start at the speakers then move to the ear distance.

 

[sbo6]

I've always found the further you can get your speakers apart (boundaries notwithstanding) yields the best biggest image. Of course, appropriate toe - in, treatment, speaker type and listening preference also come into account. .83 IMO and IME is too close together.

 

[PeterA]

I've always found the further you can get your speakers apart (boundaries notwithstanding) yields the best biggest image. Of course, appropriate toe - in, treatment, speaker type and listening preference also come into account. .83 IMO and IME is too close together.

As I understand it, the 83% is simply a ratio, not a fixed distance. Jim noticed this only after comparing the ratios of various set ups he completed. In other words, it is not the target, but a coincidence after the fact based on listening results of many, many systems that sounded right to him.

I would view it as a rough starting point based on Jim's observations and his extensive set up experience. Because it is a ratio, the distance between speakers will vary depending on room dimensions and seating distance from the speakers. The further away one sits, the further apart the speakers are from each other, based on this ratio.

 

[Lee]

I've always found the further you can get your speakers apart (boundaries notwithstanding) yields the best biggest image. Of course, appropriate toe - in, treatment, speaker type and listening preference also come into account. .83 IMO and IME is too close together.

Not really. If you place them too wide the center fill collapses. It’s a balancing act. Jim’s formula gets you close enough to do refinements.

 

[Al M.]

Not really. If you place them too wide the center fill collapses. It’s a balancing act. Jim’s formula gets you close enough to do refinements.

Presence may also suffer with placing speakers too wide, and you may get a problem with too recessed images.

But that will depend on the room. In different rooms with different widths and other dimensions the same pair of speaker will be able to be put further apart or will require positioning closer together. It all depends.

 

[sbo6]

As I understand it, the 83% is simply a ratio, not a fixed distance. Jim noticed this only after comparing the ratios of various set ups he completed. In other words, it is not the target, but a coincidence after the fact based on listening results of many, many systems that sounded right to him.

I would view it as a rough starting point based on Jim's observations and his extensive set up experience. Because it is a ratio, the distance between speakers will vary depending on room dimensions and seating distance from the speakers. The further away one sits, the further apart the speakers are from each other, based on this ratio.

Thanks Peter, agreed, 83% is a ratio, not a fixed distance. Also, I would call Jim's 83% a good starting point, along with the rule of thirds. You get a solid, dense, center image with a strong specificity of off - axis instruments, singers, etc. You may also get a bit more "meat on the bones". The tradeoff is that you end up with a bit narrower sound stage, and if you don't need / want extra "meat on the bones", you may also lose some clarity IME.

It also depends on your speaker choice. For example, when I went from the Vivid G3 S2s to the Spirits, I found with the richer mid - bass and overall larger sound of the Giyas, they sounded better further apart. Where I was in the low 90%, I'm now at high 90%.

Ultimately, it's all about finding your flavor.

 

[sbo6]

Not really. If you place them too wide the center fill collapses. It’s a balancing act. Jim’s formula gets you close enough to do refinements.

Lee, I see you have Wilsons, notorious for setting speakers up close to side wall boundaries, so I find this particularly amusing

I think folks seem to be getting away from this a bit more now.

Also, yes Jim's is a good starting point, but - it depends on your room size and dimensions.