The Larsen 9 Loudspeakers: Ignoring the Room Around Them

[tmallin]

Another Plus for the Larsen 9:

I've noticed that the imaging/staging/tonal balance seems much more immume to holding my iPad system controller in my lap. That means I don't have to put my iPad down on the floor beside my chair as I've had to before with other speakers if I want to hear my system at anywhere near its best. A small amount of sonic benefit still results from leaning my iPad against my chair on the floor, but it's only the "icing on the cake" type of benefit rather than the major difference it was with various prior speakers, including the AR-303a's.

I presume this is because the drivers atop the cabinet are angled so that they aren't aimed straight at the listening positiion. Instead they the main tweeter and bass-midrange driver are angled/toed-in to "cross" in front of and above my listening position. They are angled inward 45 degrees and upward 45 degrees.

 

[tmallin]

In earlier sonic comments about the Larsen 9, I said:

Other speakers I’ve recently used in this room—such as the AR-303a, Graham LS8/1, and Watkins Generation 4—when set up in the usual firing-down-the-length-of-the-room orientation, toed in, with near-ish field listening and with lots of room padding--have more obvious depth of field than any speaker, including the Larsen 9, set directly against the wall, firing across the room.

However, now that I've been listening to the Larson 9s yet longer--whether it's due to my ear/brain better accommodating or learning how to perceive stage depth with this sort of "up against the wall" speaker positioning, or further break-in/settle-in of my new Blue Jeans Cable Canare 4S11 20-foot speaker cables together with their connections and Caig Deoxit Gold treatment, or both--now I'm definitely hearing considerably more depth and more natural-sounding depth of stage from my system than with any other speakers I've had in this room before.

I mention the possibility of further break-in/settle-in of the speaker cables only because they are the only brand new audio component in my listening chain. My Larsen 9s were purchased used and are four years old, according to the information provided by my seller. But of course, also "new" in my current system is the far more importatant entire acoustic environment of my listening room. I'm using much less acoustic foam now and the entire orientation of the audio system in my listening room has been flipped around.

In any event, that see-through window on the music I and other reviewers have talked about is now more naturally 3-D sounding with the window allowing me to much better hear instruments arrayed in depth through the window, much as I would hear instruments arrayed in depth on the stage at a live classical music concert with either my eyes open or closed. This depth of field is now quite obvious, just as it was with my prior speakers and their firing-down-the-room arrangement. Not only that, but this depth of field sounds more naturally realistic than it was with prior speakers in their usual arrangement.

Restating it yet another way, I think it's most likely that I'm learning to better interpret the recorded ambiance now that my perceptions are less clouded by conflicting information from my listening room's small room acoustics. The Larsens' unique design is, as stated before, suppressing the second-venue effects of my small listening room to an unprecedented degree, leaving my ears/brain better able to interpret the ambient cues actually recorded.

 

[tmallin]

As time goes on, I feel that I "get" the Larsen 9 presentation more and more. Yes, it has basically correct tonal balance enjoyable usually without recording-to-recording equalization, especially when aided by implementing Lyngdorf's Room Perfect. And in even that respect, the Larsen 9 is highly unusual, in my experience equaled only by the AR-303a.

And it has the unique-in-my-experience ability to ignore my listening room's acoustics, allowing me to better hear the unvarnished recorded acoustics. Perhaps it is this quality which has allowed me to appreciate another unique excellence of the Larsen presentation, one not talked about much in the other reviews.

I will call this excellence the ability to "sort out" what is going on musically. The Larsens offer the additional unique-in-my-experience ability to portray what each instrument and voice is doing, where this is happening in the soundstage, when it is happening, and even the why of what is happening.

The Larsen 9's special way with choral music I previously mentioned is, I now realize, just a particular case of this Larsen ability to "sort out" the music. With all music, to a unique-in-my-experience sense, I can tell what each instrument is playing at any given moment, where in the soundstage that instrument is located, when given notes are sounded (attack, sustain, and decay) and even why, musically, the musicians and the sound engineers have crafted the presentation with all its musical nuances of tone, rhythm, timing, dynamics, and space.

And this all happens without at all interrupting or obscuring the sense of ensemble among the musicians. In fact, in most cases, the sense of ensemble skilled groups present is enhanced rather than distracted from. This is amazingly entertaining and enjoyable, sucking me more and more into the music.

Extraordinary!

 

[Yeti]

I’ve run Naim NBLs in three rooms. They’re not semi omnis like the Larsens but these speakers too have bass drivers placed at the bottom rear of their sides and their intended placement is back against a wall. In two of those rooms that wall was solid, rendered brick or concrete with dimention of around 4m by 3.7m and 6m by7m. I could just about get the distance from wall to cabinet down to 5cm but found they sound improved at 5.5cm and fell off a bit by 6cm. The third room has walls of foam insulation backed plasterboard over brick and a fairly irregular shape giving a 36m^2 volume with one wall around 7m long. I was expecting the NBLs not to work here and in their usual positions the bass was largely absent but bringing them out (Herbie’s gliders under the spikes made this easy) to 33.5cm from backs to wall it filled out to its accustomed level. I’ve not worried too much as to the reason but I was quite relieved to not have to audition replacements and accommodate them in free space siting.

 

[tmallin]

I have heard the Naim NBL speakers on several occasions, never for very long at a time since their sound just is not at all to my tastes. The Stereophile review of the NBLs used adjectives such as "thin," "cold," "clinical," "bright," and "forward" to describe their sound and the frequency response measurements show a rising response from lows through the highs.

This is not at all like the sound of the Larsen 9s, and not at all like the sound of live unamplified music in a decent hall. In my opinion, while the Naim NBL speakers may share with the Larsens the instruction to use them against the wall behind them, the overall sonic signature of the Naim is nothing at all like the Larsen 9s.

To each his own, as the saying goes....

 

[tmallin]

The more I listen to the Larsen 9s, the more I've become a convert to "the road not taken" they represent in high-end speaker design. Their sonic characteristics are just that much closer to the sound of live music happening in a concert hall or other recording venue than anything I've previously heard in my small listening room.

My informal market survey does not reveal any other current line of speakers which attempt to do what the the Larsens aim to do: eliminate, to the extent possible, the sonic signature of your small listening room via their acoustic design. The Allison and Sonab models mentioned by REG's review attempted this as well, but they have been out of production for decades. The Steinway-Lyngdorf line is more expensive than the Larsen 9 and, as far as I can tell, use DSP, not acoustics. TacT currently makes only woofers which work their magic only up to 600 Hz or so.

I've thus re-evaluated my price/performance statement. I now acknowledge that if you want the freedom from your listening room sound the Larsens provide with either no or minimal dedicated room treatment, the Larsen 9, and probably the other speakers in the line as well, are well worth their price, purchased new or used.

While I encourage purchasing any speakers used if they are in good cosmetic and functional condition, Larsen speakers right now are as rare as hen's teeth on the used market. Hi-Fi Shark currently shows no Larsen speakers of any model for sale on the used market anywhere in the world. While this is not definitive since it certainly does not account for local sales such as through CraigsList or OfferUp, it is indicative of their rarity on the used market.

I still find my AR-303a speakers to be the second best I've ever heard in my audio room and plan to continue to use them in my other room as part of my A/V system. On the used market, they are a stellar bargain at the usual offering price of just over $1,000 a pair.

With all the other speakers I've tried in my small audio room, I've needed a lot of acoustic foam, plus near-ish field (five feet or less from the drivers), plus toe-in to face my ears, to minimize my small room's sonic signature. Even then, none of my prior speakers have produced the illusion of "you are there live sound" the Larsens produce without any of those steps.

I should mention that even in small rooms like my current one and the one I had in my prior home, if I take the steps mentioned in the last paragraph, most any speakers can be set up in a small room to reach a roughly equivalent degree of ignoring my small room's acoustics. For many listeners, that may well be good enough. It was, for me . . . until I heard the Larsen 9s in my room.

 

[tmallin]

I think it is truly a shame that more manufacturers have not pursued "the road not taken" approach of the Larsens, minimizing listening room reflections in a boundary design loudspeaker. For small listening rooms of the type I've almost always had to deal with, the Larsens are a game changer in terms of their ability to transport the listener to the recorded acoustic. Never before have I been able to achieve this level of suspension of disbelief in home listening. "You are there" is a reality now.

I can't help feeling that we've been cheated by the almost universal direction high-end audio has taken in speaker design. Not only does the required "well out into the room" placement of most other speakers take over your listening room's physical space, it still can't negate your listening room's acoustics to nearly the extent of the simple against-the-wall placement of the Larsens even when with conventional speakers you adopt near-ish field listening, toe the speakers in to face your ears, and use lots of acoustic room treatment.

And the floor/wall boundary placement of the Larsens automatically gets the lower frequences (say, everything below about 400 Hz) "right" in an ear-opening manner difficult if not impossible to achieve with loudspeaker placement well out into the room. The easy elimination of "the usual floor dip" in the 100 to 300 Hz "power range" adds realistic body and heft to the music without detail-masking midbass boom.

Further, the Larsens' elimination of the baffle step and elimination of the reflection off the wall behind the speakers adds low-frequency texture and detail that is part of live music but which I've never heard before in home music reproduction. Details about the music from trombones, cellos, acoustic bass, drums, tympani, piano left hand, male voices--all the instruments with signifant tune-playing in the lower octaves--are revealed in a realistically natural way other speakers in my experience have not approached.

Sure, you can place conventional speakers on the floor against the wall behind them. But since they were not holistically designed for such placement as the Larsens are, you get bass boom and yet-further increased listening room early reflections from such placement. As most listeners have found, conventional speakers just have to be placed well away from walls to be heard at their best. With most speakers, you'd never know the benefits of boundary placement the Larsens so easily reveal.

 

[tmallin]

I just noticed that I have not yet discussed the subjective sensitivity of the Larsen 9 speakers. They are rated by the manufacturer at 88 dB, and are rated at 4 ohm impedance.

Subjectively, I do not notice much, if any, difference in apparent loudness between my 5-ohm-rated AR-303a speakers and the Larsen 9 for any given setting of the Lyngdorf TDAI-3400's volume control. I was listening physically closer to the AR-303a's (about 50 inches from the drivers for the ARs, vs 84 inches from the Larsens) on axis with all the drivers, but the room then had much more acoustic absorption than it does now with the Larsens. More acoustic absorption tends to make the apparent SPL at least a bit lower, at least to my ears.

The 4 ohm Larsen 9 impedance means that my Lyngdorf TDAI-3400 should be able to put out its rated 400 watts per channel into 4 ohms with the Larsen 9s. With the 5 ohm ARs, the available power is a bit less, probably about 350 watts per channel since the Lyngdorf is rated at 200 watts per channel into 8 ohms.

Subjectively, I have PLENTY of power for my room with the Larsen 9s. The 9s play as loud as I like with at least as much comfort and ease as my AR-303a's.

 

[tmallin]

Other online text reviews of Larsen speakers (not the 9) with extensive comments not mentioned in my prior posts include:

the Positive Feedback reviews by Larry Cox of the Larsen 8 and Larsen 4;

the review of the Larsen 6.2 in Novo by Alex Gorouvein;

the review of the Larsen 4.2 for TNT Italy by Lucio Cadeddu; and

the review of the Larsen 6.2 for HiFi Live by Josep Armengol.

None of these reviews contradict what has been said in the reviews I've quoted from, or what I've said in this thread from my own observations. But they reinforce what has been said about the Larsen 9 in a way that suggests that the major virtues of Larsen speakers are present up and down the line, with even the least expensive models capturing to a large extent the unique aspect of the presentation I hear with the Larsen 9.

 

[tmallin]

I subscribe to Paul McGowan's PS Audio "Ask Paul" vlog. Occasionally there is some good discussion of audio issues even though I find many of his answers rather wrong-headed. Today's entry was "How to tame bass boom." This is a head-scratcher for Paul. He dismisses bass traps as a solution, even while acknowledging that an active "bass squelcher" device Nelson Pass marketed years ago to feed out-of-phase bass into the room worked, but Paul calls it a bit overkill.

He doesn't mention using electronic equalization even though his subscriber mentioned that as a possibility.

Basically, Paul says that you can try moving the speakers and listening position around and that if that is done in a certain very organized way, this is the best you can do. He recommends relying on competent instructions and a competent set-up man, but then ends with "good luck with that."

He talks about a new subwoofer PS is marketing which will be flat to 10 Hz in room, but will have a switch on it to ameliorate low-bass excess which he calls boom, but distinguishes this from midbass boom. He apparently thinks that while moving speakers and listening position around can fix midbass boom, that method can't handle boom from low-bass excess.

This is a perfect example of how the almost universal adoption of a speaker design paradigm that requires speakers to be placed well out into the room in order to smooth the bass fails us in the lower frequencies. Even "experts" call taming bass boom a very tough problem, or, like Paul, end up recommending the use of other "experts" following detailed instructions as the best solution.

A suggestion: Buy a pair of Larsen speakers and set them up as the manufacturer recommends. Set-up is super easy: as close to the long wall as possible, at least 50 cm from the room corners, no toe-in, with the listening position forming an equilateral triangle with the speakers. That's it. If your room is anything like my small room, there probably will be no bass boom audible anywhere within the room, much less at the listening position. You can add more low- and mid-bass by simply moving your chair back a bit toward the wall behind the listening position, but the bass still won't become boomy. Alternatively, for more bass in the bottom octave or two, just add electronic equalization, such as via Lyngdorf Room Perfect as I do.

You will then hear the best quality bass you've ever heard in your room, and that best quality extends at least all the way up past Middle C to at least 400 Hz. With the Larsen 9, the bass has superb power and definition in-room right on down to the low-20 Hz region, along with superb note and texture differentiation throughout the lower regions. You will not have heard cellos, bass viol, drums, tympani, tubas, trombones, bass voices--anything with significant note-playing power in the lower regions--sound so life-like.

Larsen bass sounds remarkably like it sounds in a large concert hall rather than the way all other speakers I've experienced sound in my small listening room. By comparison, in the lower ranges other speakers sound at least a bit thick, over-resonant, cloudy, murky, indistinct, with the differences among bass instruments at least a bit clouded and uncertain.

Some listeners hear this problem and run the other way, deciding to live without the full authority of having the 100 - 300 Hz "power range" at the proper level just to get rid of this murkiness. Instead, they accustom their ears to thinness, smallness, lack of weight, and the "toy-like" quality that sound deficient in the power range produces. Anything to get rid of the murk and the boom.

With the Larsens, no such horrible choice is necessary and it's just SO easy to get realistic sound throughout the lower ranges.

 

[tmallin]

As an antidote to the rubbish we are almost constantly fed by most audio authorities, you would do well to read the technical information posted in the FAQ section of the Carlson Cult website. That website is dedicated to discussion of the designs of Stig Carlsson, the Swedish designer who developed the predecessors of the Larsen speakers (Carlsson, Sonab) and with whom John Larsen worked for many years. This is a no-holds-barred discussion of what REALLY matters in sound reproduction. If you haven't guessed already, what matters most--overwhelmingly most--is loudspeakers and their interaction with listening rooms. Smooth frequency response and low distortion are also important.

Start here.

Then read this.

Finally, take a look at the articles linked from the following quoted paragraph:

"If you want to learn something about loudspeaker measurement, you must first read the book D'Appolito - Measuring Loudspeakers , even though it does not cover modern techniques, as well as Atkinson's articles referred to above. You can also watch a couple of lectures on youtube: Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts and Loudspeaker Measurements Explained, John Atkinson, Stereophile Editor . Very concise and good is also a pdf from Neumann, Monitors-Glossary-measurement-descriptions_EN . Note that most of the stuff about HiFi on Youtube and on forums is nonsense."

 

[Hi Notes]

As an antidote to the rubbish we are almost constantly fed by most audio authorities, you would do well to read the technical information posted in the FAQ section of the Carlson Cult website. That website is dedicated to discussion of the designs of Stig Carlsson, the Swedish designer who developed the predecessors of the Larsen speakers (Carlsson, Sonab) and with whom John Larsen worked for many years. This is a no-holds-barred discussion of what REALLY matters in sound reproduction. If you haven't guessed already, what matters most--overwhelmingly most--is loudspeakers and their interaction with listening rooms. Smooth frequency response and low distortion are also important.

Start here.

Then read this.

Finally, take a look at the articles linked from the following quoted paragraph:

"If you want to learn something about loudspeaker measurement, you must first read the book D'Appolito - Measuring Loudspeakers , even though it does not cover modern techniques, as well as Atkinson's articles referred to above. You can also watch a couple of lectures on youtube: Floyd Toole - Sound reproduction – art and science/opinions and facts and Loudspeaker Measurements Explained, John Atkinson, Stereophile Editor . Very concise and good is also a pdf from Neumann, Monitors-Glossary-measurement-descriptions_EN . Note that most of the stuff about HiFi on Youtube and on forums is nonsense."

Sadly, I understand that John Larsen died last year and the company is no longer in business. I agree he made some excellent and worthy speakers.

 

[tmallin]

Jonn Larsen did indeed pass on, but production continues. Check with your home country distributor. In the USA, that is Audio Skies. Also see my discussion of pricing and availability in post #7 above.

 

[tmallin]

I am more and more convinced that high-end audio is off the rails and that we've been sold a bill of goods for decades. Putting the speakers well out into the room guarantees lower-frequency echo which may not sound like slap echo but which ruins the clarity which making the back wave of a piece with the front wave creates, especially in the lower frequencies. Since with the Larsens the placement of the speakers is so close to the wall behind them, you hear the back wave an an entity with the front wave. The same goes for the floor reflection since the woofer is so close to the junction of floor and back wall.

One can use acoustic absorption, toe-in of the speakers, and near-ish field listening as I have for decades with my speakers in small rooms to help prevent the second venue sound of the listening room from overwhelming the recorded acoustics.

However, these measures are less effective at lower frequencies. Even thick absorbing foam like the 4-inch version I use is relatively ineffective in absorbing sound below 500 Hz and expecially below 250 Hz. And most speakers are more or less omnidirectional in the lower frequencies, bouncing sound off all room surfaces indiscriminately, regardless of how you aim the speakers. Yes, listening from the near-ish field helps, but when the speakers are intentionally placed far from the room boundaries, there is a lot more delayed second venue listening room sound in the lower frequencies to deal with than when the speakers are postioned at the juncture of the floor and wall behind the speakers. The Larsen 9s thus are effectively quarter-space radiators all the way down through the lowest bass, rather than omnidirectional.

Let's say that your room is large enough that you can get your speakers out into the room five feet or more from the wall behind them. That means that whatever low frequency back wave the speakers have (and all speakers have some of this; box speakers are omni in lower frequencies and dipoles project as much as half their low frequency energy toward the wall behind them) is delayed about 10 milliseconds as heard from the listening position compared to the direct sound from the speakers with such positioning. Sound travels about one foot per millisecond, so the backwave takes 5 milliseconds to get from the speaker to the wall behind the speakers and 5 milliseconds back to the speaker position.

Now if your room is large enough, this delayed energy will be late enough not to be heard as part of the direct sound, but as a separate reflection or ambiance. It is generally agreed that AT LEAST 10 milliseconds of delay is required for the reflected sound to be late enough not to be heard as mere smearing of the direct sound, but as some sort of separate ambiance. Some folks like the sonic effect of such delayed sound, especially if you can get the speakers even further from the room boundaries, such as at least eight feet. But even such a delay is nowhere near the length of time it takes concert hall sound to reflect off concert hall boundaries. Thus, what you hear is still small-room ambiance, not something similar to what you hear in a concert hall. And, this second venue listening room ambiance is constantly imposed by your listening room on what you hear, regardless of the ambiance recorded in the program material. It is not, in that sense, high fidelity to the program source.

So why can't you just put any speaker right at the floor/wall junction and get the same helpful low frequency clarity the Larsens evince? The answer lies in the fact that most other speakers do not guard against room surface reflections from higher up in frequency the way the Larsens do and just are not designed for best low frequency performance with such positioning.

With most speakers the advantages of reduced low frequency echo from near-wall placement are outweighed by the much stronger early reflections at mid and high frequencies most speakers produce with this positioning. Yes, you can successfully damp these mid and high frequency reflections if you use a lot of acoustic foam. But then you will still have to apply low frequency electronic equalization to remove midbass boom and otherwise smooth the lower frequencies. Most speakers these days are designed to require out-in-the-room placement for best bass without electronic equalization. And most speakers, unlike the Larsens, just are not designed to perform at their best mounted close to the wall behind them without the need for a lot of dedicated room treatment in the form of acoustic absorption of mid and high frequency reflections from room surfaces.

As other reviews have commented, the Larsens are uniquely designed to work WITH your room acoustics. Other speaker designs also can be made to sound excellent in small rooms, but you have to remember that with most other speakers you have to work AGAINST the room's coloring effects to get excellent results. You work against the room's coloring effects by using acoustic absorption, moving the speakers away from room surfaces, toeing the speakers in to face your ears, and listening from the near-ish field. All these tactics are intended to emphasize the direct sound you hear from the speaker drivers compared to the reflections you hear from your small room's surfaces.

These tactics can work excellently for a small sweet spot. But with the Larsens the sound is quite uniformly excellent throughout the room without the need for any of these tactics. You notice the "liveness" of the Larsen sound immediately upon entering the room and that "liveness" does not change much as you walk around the room. Sure, the sweet spot is still sweeter with the Larsens than elsewhere in the room, but the sweetness is mostly a matter of increased image and staging focus rather than the gross irregularities in frequency response other speakers tend to produce away from the sweet spot.

 

[tmallin]

As I alluded to in post #19 of this thread, there is a school of thought which believes that recording/mastering engineers and producers rely on their recordings being heard in listening rooms which contribute a substantial amount of their own second-venue acoustics in order to sound "correct" in the sense of being "wet" enough to not sound overly "dry" in terms of ambient envelopment of the music.

If this school of thought is correct, one would expect that if you treat your listening room with lots of absorption, toe in your speakers, and listen from the near-ish field, most recordings would sound too "dry" in this sense. But in fact my experience has always been that in such set ups most recordings sound quite ambient enough, and in a much more realistic way.

And we would expect that, if this school of thought is true, speakers like the Larsen 9, which ignore your listening room's small-room acoustics to an unprecedented degree, which is then aided by a modicum of absorptive room treatment, would produce results which REALLY sound too "dry."

But, in fact, my experience has been just the opposite. Recordings sound yet richer and "wetter" in terms of ambiance. Sure, as I've said, the size and shape of the revealed space varies from recording to recording to an unprecedented degree. But with the Larsens I almost never have the experience of feeling that I need to add additional reverb or ambiance to a reproduced recording. The Larsen presentation is uniquely satisfying in that it reveals the recorded ambient acoustics, real or simulated, in an incredibly satisfying and realistic-sounding manner.

I suspect that part of this impression is a result of the way the Larsens create a very even dispersion of sound throughout the room from lowest bass right up until the top octave. In this way the "room sound" of my listening room is more closely imitating that of a concert hall. Like a Larsen speaker set-up, a concert hall has no baffle step down in the 500 to 1000 Hz range where the dispersion suddenly narrows down. Most speakers transition from omnidirectional to quite directional in that frequency range, whereas a concert hall is very uniform in sound dispersion up to the 2 kHz to 4 kHz frequencies.

But, regardless of the cause of my impression, the fact remains that the Larsen 9 sounds uniquely "wet" in terms of ambiance reproduction, and "wet" in a uniquely realistic way on concert hall classical music recordings. No added small-room second venue reverb is necessary or helpful. So much for the school of thought which says you need to engage your small room's acoustics to get the intended ambiant results from commercial recordings.

 

[Hi Notes]

Jonn Larsen did indeed pass on, but production continues. Check with your home country distributor. In the USA, that is Audio Skies. Also see my discussion of pricing and availability in post #7 above.

That's excellent news. Thank you.

 

[tmallin]

In post #5 I commented on the interesting and uniquely varying soundstage of the Larsen 9s from one recording to another, linking this effect to intentional and/or accidental phase differences between the two channels on many recordings:

Yes, on both classical music and other types of music, the soundstage can often extend significantly beyond the wall behind the speakers. This is particularly noticeable in eyes-closed listening. This characteristic varies greatly from one recording to another, just as I think it should for a speaker which is honestly portraying what is actually recorded. Some recordings sound “small,” flat as a pancake with a stage basically a straight line between the speakers. Other recordings reveal a truly vast soundspace in depth, width, and envelopment around the listener. Recordings vary between these two extremes of soundstage characteristics to a degree unprecedented in my prior listening experience.

At least some of the depth, lateral, and envelopment expansion of the soundstage seems to be caused by phasing effects intentionally or accidentally captured during recording or intentionally injected by studio engineering or processing applied by the streaming service. I notice that on recordings where the lateral space seems confined to the distance between the two speakers, intentionally reversing the polarity of one channel via my Lyngdorf TDAI-3400’s controls produces a tremendous lateral and 3-D expansion of the sound field, together with the proverbial “diffuse and directionless” quality of the sound.

However, on recordings where, with both channels of the Lyngdorf connected in phase, the soundstage shows remarkably expanded qualities, reversing the phase of one channel via the Lyngdorf’s controls produces relatively minor changes to the sound field; sometimes barely any change at all is noted. This strongly suggests to me that the remarkably expanded soundstage audible on some recordings via the Larsens is a product of accidental or intentional phase manipulation in the recordings themselves or in the processing applied by the streaming service. The recording channels are at least partially out of phase with each other, producing an expansive quality to the sound even when the channels are nominally connected in phase.

If you own Larsen speakers and have a way to conveniently change the absolute phase of both channels from normal to inverted polarity, I encourage you to experiment with both normal and inverted polarity. With prior speakers my system and/or ears have not been particularly sensitive to such changes. Yes, sometimes they were slightly audible, but rarely did they produce differences I would classify as significantly different, much less sonically "better" or "worse."

However, with the Larsen 9s, such polarity reversals are often quite audible and also frequently one setting is clearly sonically "better" than the other. My Lyngdorf TDAI-3400, via its original app or via its remote control wand, makes changing the absolute polarity of both channels a simple matter of a few taps or touches and the change is carried out almost instantaneously.

The setting which produces the widest, most expansive soundfield is not always the best sounding. Sometimes this sounstage expansion comes at the price of lack of center fill, for example. Thus, inverting the polarity of both channels sometimes lessens left/right separation somewhat while solidifying center fill and increasing perceived depth of soundstage. Experimentation is key.

Accidental phasing reversal between left and right channels or some of the mixer channels assigned to the left or right stereo channels can easily occur in commercial recordings. It stems from the almost universal use of balanced lines in microphone cables, as well as the availablity of phase reverse switches on a per-channel basis on professional multi-channel mixing desks.

With three-wire balanced microphone cables, while pin 1 is always the ground, either pin 2 or pin 3 can be assigned the positive signal. While in recent decades the AES "standard" adopted internationally is for pin 2 to be positive, sometimes cables are unintentionally wired incorrectly or the standard is ignored. Decades ago there was no standard and for some years the US standard differed from the Japanese standard. For example, the Marantz flagship SA-1 SACD player I owned back in 2000 was wired from the factory to have pin 3 positive, as verified by the Stereophile test report's measurements.

Via quick comparison of internet radio versions of a particular recording with the Qobuz version I am also convinced that some stations regularly "enhance" their station sound by intentional electronic manipulation of the phase relationships between the left and right stereo channels. This manipulation does not amount to placing the left and right 180 degrees out of phase with each other, but uses some lesser amount of phase shifting to intentionally create a "wider" or "bigger" sound.

With recordings made with more than one microphone or one mixing channel per stereo channel (and that descibes most recordings), it may be impossible to get all the sound "in phase" simply by altering the absolute phase of one or both channels. Each stereo channel may be made up of mixer channels with varying phase and the listener cannot correct for phasing within the sounds assigned to the left or right channel. All the listener can do is experiment and use the absolute phase setting which sounds best to your ears via your system.

 

[tmallin]

The Doorknob Issue

Well, that was surprising.

Ever since I "finalized" my Larsen 9 set-up I've noticed a residual tendency for the soundstage to extend further to the left of the left speaker than it does to the right of the right speaker. This occurs with both eyes-open and eyes-closed listening. (Yes, extension left and right beyond the boundaries compassed by the physical positions of the two speakers is a regular occurrence with the Larsens in my set up.)

This asymmetry of the staging was expansively interesting enough not to be annoying, but I did wonder what was causing it. It was also rather subtle, not noticeable on all material and not seemingly interfering with image placement, depth of stage, or any other spatial or tonal aspect of the set-up. Even when present, I doubt that a lot of audiophile listeners would notice this issue at all. I tend to be very sensitive to imaging and staging issues compared to other listeners, I think. Other listeners are much more tuned in than I am to small deviations from proper tonality, however.

I thought perhaps the cause was the fact that the room's wooden entry door to the left of the left speaker is not exactly the same acoustically as the plaster wall to the right of the right speaker. A picture of the speakers and the wall behind them follows:



After some experimentation, the culprit turned out to be not the door itself, but the round metal doorknob of the antique knob-set used as the opening mechanism for this door. The round doorknob sticks out from the wall a few inches, of course, and is only about six inches from the main tweeter of the left speaker. Even though this doorknob is behind the tweeter and hidden from its "line of sight" by the speaker cabinet, and even though the tweeter is surrounded by angled metal plates and is physically angled in and up by 45 degrees in each direction, somehow the tweeter is apparently sonically interacting with this doorknob.

Hanging a terrycloth wash cloth over this dooknob miraculously cured the staging issue I described with no ill effects and with the additional benefit of a modicum of additional central image focus to boot.

I also purchased a felt and foam covered doorknob cover from Amazon. That also seems to work the magic, with or without the washcloth also hanging over the doorknob.

Experimentation showed that the white lightswitch and its cover right above the left speaker was not the source of the problem. Covering up that switch and its wallplate with soft material did not alter the imaging or staging in any way. Of course, this plate and switch protrude from the wall only about half an inch, compared to the several-inch protrusion of the doorknob.

Experimentation also showed that the raised wooden molding around the door was not an issue. Covering that with soft material in the area next to the tweeter had no effect on the sound, either.

 

[tmallin]

Creating an Equilateral Triangle Listening Position

You often hear about setting up your speakers and listening position so as to create an equilateral triangle. Larsen recommends such a listening position for its speakers, as do many other speakers manufacturers. An equilateral triangle has three 60-degree angles and equal-length sides.

Many folks seem to have the mistaken impression that to create an equilateral triangle you measure the distance between your two speakers and then use that same distance to place your ears that distance from the plane of the speakers.

If by "plane of the speakers" you mean a plane or line connecting the positions of the drivers of both speakers, as measured straight ahead from the listening position to the center of the plane connecting the speakers, then this is NOT correct! Such a listening position will not create a 60-degree subtended angle between the two speakers. At your listening position the subtended angle between the two speakers will be less than 60 degrees and thus you will not have created an equilateral triangle listening set-up.

The simple formula for creating an equilateral set-up is that the distance from your ears to the plane of the speakers should be the distance you get by multplying the distance between the two speakers by 0.866.

This formula follows from trigonometric functions. To analyze the listening set-up, divide the equilateral triangle into two right triangles by drawing a line from your centered listening position straight ahead to the plane or line connecting the drivers of the two speakers. The angle between your listening position and either the right or left speaker should then be 30 degrees, half the 60 degree angle of an equilateral triangle.

The cosine of an angle is the ratio defined by the length of the adjacent side of the triangle (the line straight forward to the plane of the speakers) divided by the hypotenuse of the triangle (the line from your ear to the speaker drivers). The cosine of 30 degrees is 0.866. You can look this up in trig tables or get if from a scientific calculator.

For example, if the distance between your two speakers in 84 inches, you have the formula: cosine 30 degrees = X / 84 inches, where X is the unknown distance from your ears straight forward to the plane of the speakers. Thus 0.866 = X inches / 84 inches, and X inches = 84 inches x 0.866 = 72.74 inches.

If you placed your listening position 84 inches back from the plane of the speakers you would be more than 11 inches too far from the plane of the speakers to create an equilateral triangle listening position.

To create an equilateral listening position without using trigonometry or other math, with most box speakers (not the Larsens), you can use direct measurements. You would measure from the part of the cabinet which is at your ear height, which is usually about tweeter height. If you aim the speakers at your ears and the drivers are in an up and down straight line on the face of the cabinet you could measure directly from the tweeter to your ear with a laser measuring device held at your right ear canal for the right speaker. To get an approximately equilateral triangle position without math, just move your centered chair back and forth until you measure the same distance from your ear canal to the tweeter as the two tweeters are apart from each other.

If you are pretty sure your speakers are placed symmetrically in the room, you can check that your chair is centered between the two speakers by measuring from right ear to right tweeter and left ear to left tweeter and moving your chair side to side until the two measurements match. Or, you can use the tip of your nose as the reference point for determining if your chair is centered.

 

[tmallin]

Continuing on the topic from the last post of creating an equilateral triangle listening position with your speakers:

The Larsen speakers are a special case. Their near-wall placement makes this process of creating an equilateral triangle listening position easier, but their unusual driver placement and angling introduces unavoidable ambiguity. In short, both the trigonometric calculation method and the direct measurement method will get you in the ballpark, but both will yield somewhat ambigous results. Despite these ambiguities, however, either method will yield a much closer approximation than the erroneous assumption that the listening position should be as far back from the wall behind the speakers as the speakers are apart.

I'll use my own Larsen 9 set-up as an example. The center of the main tweeter on the Larsen 9 is actually about 3 inches from the outside edge of the speaker. My speakers measure 85 inches from outside edge to outside edge of the two speakers. The sound from the speakers spans at most the angle between those two tweeters, which in my set up is related to the distance between them, or 85" - 6" = 79". Multiplying 79" by .866 = 68.4 inches from ears to the plane of the speakers to have an equilateral triangle of ears and tweeters. In my set-up my ears are about 72 inches from the wall behind the speakers. The tweeters are a measured 4 inches in front of the wall behind the speakers. Thus, the listening position is about 68 inches from the plane of the tweeters. This is just 0.4 inches less than the position which would create an equilateral triangle with the tweeters.

But the measurements are different for the bass/midrange driver atop the cabinet since, due to the angling of the drivers, its center is both closer to the center of the cabinet and further from the wall behind the speakers. I'd say the larger driver's center is about 5 inches from the outside cabinet edge and about 5 inches from the wall behind the speakers. For those drivers, 85" - 10" = 75" of separation, center to center. The listening position to create an equilateral triangle with those drivers would be 75" x .866 = 64.95" from the plane of those drivers or about 70 inches from the wall behind those drivers. Thus by sitting 72 inches from the wall behind the drivers I am two inches further away than would be required to create an equilateral triangle with them.

Thus, I'm sitting a bit too close with respect to the tweeters and a bit too far away with respect to the larger drivers to create an equilateral triangle. It's thus not really possible to nail down an exact listening position which creates an equilateral triangle with the two drivers atop the cabinet.

Direct measurements from my ear canal to the speaker drivers would yield the same ambiguities. Plus, both drivers are below my sitting ear level so such such direct measurements will always show a longer laser path to the drivers than to the actual plane of the speakers.

In my system I have a fairly precise method of getting my listening chair exactly centered between the two speakers. First, measuring the distance of each speaker cabinet from its nearest sidewall is easy since there is an unobstructed path for either a tape measure or laser measuring device.

For my listening chair, I have inserted a quilter's pin with a white knob top into the firm back of the chair at the exact center back of the chair. In my set-up I have an unobstructed line of sight from this pin to both side walls. With the chair pointing straight forward toward the midpoint between the speakers, I adjust the chair position side to side so that the distance from this pin to each side wall is equal, as measured with my laser measuring device to the nearest 1/32 of an inch. Here is a picture of this quilter's pin and how it is used with a laser measuring tool: