PDA

View Full Version : Speaker positioning-sound stage and its depth.



Varun
19-08-2009, 06:56
Forum People,

I have only one turntable and one of each item- so have very little to say on much of what is talked about on this forum.

Anyway-here goes another gossamer thread-it has been placed in the Analogue section on purpose

For a vinyl listener like myself- the depth of sound is crucual and positioning of instruments, especially when it comes to large orchestra. That was my problem with Naim SBLs used stationed close to the walls. The four soloists in Beethoven's 9th seemed sitting in each other's laps. The effect was one of two dimensional sound- at the same plane as the grills.

Not wishing to upset the CD listerners, my experience with CD systems is that that what exactly happens with CD sound. Then we have a situation where massive bucks have to be spent to make it sound like Analogue- as in Wadia CD players I am told. I mentioned the Proac response large speakers once. Used with a two box Accuphase CD player-300 W/ch VTL walve amplifiers with the speak well positioned into the rooms, the sound did not move behind the speaker plane.

Long fragile thread- I am sure people will have comments to make.

Varun
19-08-2009, 06:59
Forgive Typos again, in order not to lose it, I made a copy but posted in error-before checking.

The loss of long messages only happens with "quick replies" which seems to have a time out cooky watching it.

Clive
19-08-2009, 08:15
Hi Varun,

I find that open baffles speakers help to give CD some image depth but of course LP then just gets even better too. OBs have a strong "second arrival" - the reflected sound from the rear of the speakers. The image occurs between and behind the speakers so ideally they should be 1m to 2m from the rear wall. In an ideal room the effect is dramatic.

I agree about the general lack of depth of image with CD. Playing just CD the effect is ok with my OBs but when I then put on an LP I feel shortchanged.

Varun
19-08-2009, 09:05
Please enlighten Clive-OBs are SD Acoustics?

NRG
19-08-2009, 09:07
I'm not familiar with your amps but past experience has taught me that amplifiers using feedback give a tighter more focused sound stage at the expense of sound stage depth and width when compared to sinilar non feedback designs.

Clive
19-08-2009, 09:12
Please enlighten Clive-OBs are SD Acoustics?
Hi Varun, they are Bastanis Atlas.

DSJR
19-08-2009, 09:52
CD is quite capable of giving the soundstage depth that is REALLY there in the recording. SOME top end LP systems tend to compress and give the impression of more space and depth than is really there in my experience - over-egging the pudding. I was always surprised how "dry" master tapes often sounded in terms of acoustic reproduction...

The secret is always to get the best sources possible in both above formats and, given a good, well cut and mastered example of either, one can forget the mechanics of the reproduction and enjoy the music on offer. The Micro Seiki player I have was the first CD player I ever heard which actually gave a "walk-in" soundstage on a good recording when used from it's balanced output stage (they provided cables for the purpose). The Naim CDS-2 was superb at disappearing from the musical scene I found, as does most of the NAS range of turntables (I look forward to one day hearing a "proper" Techie..).

Now back to the subject in hand. Placing speakers too close to the wall always ruins any impression of soundstage depth - that's why Linn and Naim - sorry - Dinn and Laim ;) never bothered with it as their often screechy speakers needed to be put close to a wall to get any bass. The kind of electric blues and rock played on these systems didn't need a "soundstage" anyway. I must admit though to being surprised by a mate's very early "bolt up Naim" active Isobarik system, the speakers not too close to the wall could sound incredible on a decent radio broadcast, the early 'Briks when active having something lacking in later examples biased more to "rhythm."

One other thing. many Pro-Ac speakers have a recessed midband (the "Tyler [response] Hammock") and this can give an "impression" of soundstage depth that isn't there in truth, as the mid is thrown back behind the plane of the speakers. My BC2's have a slight response recession in the upper midband which doesn't always favour LP reproduction, hence my liking for the more assertive AT moving coils....

Varun
19-08-2009, 09:59
I'm not familiar with your amps but past experience has taught me that amplifiers using feedback give a tighter more focused sound stage at the expense of sound stage depth and width when compared to sinilar non feedback designs.

Hi Neal,

I have never worried about design side of things so will not know. May I add that there are 3 aspects to IMAGING.

Side to side
Back to front
and vertical


All three are important- and so the focus. But focus is not so important as musicians swing about and shift on their feet and orchestral positions also change within a rigid framework. For instance the double bases can be on the right or left. One thing that never changes is the position of percussion. Hence the 'roll of the bass drum' can not be and should not be heard from the bottom of the enclosure but from a height well above the speaker enclosure.

All my amplifiers have achieved it- especially EAR 509 and now Plinius Class A.

Varun
19-08-2009, 10:14
QUOTE: CD is quite capable of giving the soundstage depth that is REALLY there in the recording...

The secret is always to get the best sources possible in both above formats and, given a good,

Thanks Dave,

Yes indeed, there are bound to be differences between LP reproduction and CD- I was not going to get into 44Khz Vs 93 (or which ever) and the metallic side to sound which the CD designers have had to dilute by putting in more and more software and hardware and so the expense.

In the end as far as comparisons go- I stick to orchestral sound and that too only the good recordings. Most of these on LP were made in the 60s and that is what has been largely recycled in the latest 180gm re-issues and I have quite a few of those.

The CDS from those have tended to be very poor- as have many digital avatars of rock/pop and Jazz all time greats. There can be in many situations- therefore- no comparison.

I was expecting a learned response from you DSJR. I sincerely hope that I do not get the Senior Member rank as that needs credentials and I have none.

Varun
19-08-2009, 10:21
Addendum:

And I got a learned response. I am not too fussed about imaging- so far as the images do not blurt out of the enclosures- as happened with the SBLs. I always admired QUAD ESLs greatly-very greatly so I suppose that is where this whole business comes from.

Also- MONO recording do equal justice to sound. I have terrific sounding Ellington "Blues in Orbit" which I bought in LA at $40. Thick vinyl and glorious sound.

DSJR
19-08-2009, 13:24
Nothing at all wrong with mono if it's done right.

You may be having a problem with some CD masterings as the added eq given to the vinyl cuts doesn't work when these recordings are dubbed for digital. neither do afficionado's like the later Decca cuts compared to the black label originals for the same reason - the old cuts NEEDED heavy equalisation and the later Neumann - lathe cut ones didn't (neither do thre CD's made from the same tapes), but people were used to the tone-corrected originals.

I understand the same thing originally happened with some of the jazz transfers, the LP originals having eq'd up bass lacking in the CD's.

Finally, the original Sony 1630 pro DAC had NO effect on the sound when looped A-d/D-A and fed with unity gain through a tape loop. The main problem was early proprietory digital editors and mixing desks, which had masses of audible problems. No amount of software will be able to totally eradicate these horrid old manipulators, but that was sorted long ago and judging by some of the sympathetic re-mastering done by the likes of the Audio Archiving Company (ex Decca engineers), I'm happy with the situation.

Thread drift again - apologies all..

Varun
19-08-2009, 14:30
I do not see any thread drift- but value your comments.

May be sources were not good that stood up to an A/B comparison. Here we are introducing another variable. The sound of those ffss Decca's and late 60s Decca's is still good but we seem to lose the plot with thinner vinyl.

The CD in that Accuphase/VTL/Proac Response (4 or 5) was Dark side the Moon and so should have come from the same source as LPs.

I had another disappointing experience when I after returning from NZ visited my old dealer in South London. I listened to a few tracks of music I did not know then chose Rimsky Korasakoff's Shehrezade. The amplification and CD player I was told cost about 50K,and the speakers second to best of the range.

The opening orchestral explosive salvo failed to explode-was flat totally flat. I have never had this experience with vinyl even of the lowest quality. The very expensive system came from one of the BIG NAMES- we have heard mentioned on this forum.

Macca
19-08-2009, 22:30
Hi Varun

I use a more modest set up I am sure and my speakers (Celestion A2 - D'Appolito driver arrangement) are not known for their outstanding imaging.

My experience is that to talk serious soundstaging a room must be large enough to allow the positioning of a big, full range speaker ( of any design) so that it is clear of side and rear walls by at least 2 foot and allowing at least 14 foot from speaker front to ears. Distance between speakers must also be adequate - say 8-10 foot.

Or you can use small speakers and set up as a near field but then you are losing the scale and drama.

I have listened to one of my favourites - Sinatra Live at the Sands CD (in dim light, half a bottle of quality plonk to the good, admittedly) and had the whole back end of the room open up into the auditorium; with Sinatra centre but way back from the speaker plane, the band arrayed in an arc behing him, and then, overlaid on that, wine glasses clinking at the tables way up front and to the left of the left speaker. Not holographic or anything - don't get me wrong..but it was a taste of a mesmerising effect and I think well worth pursuing in earnest if at all possible.

I think dealer demos suffer from the rooms not being so good, and the subjective issue of not being 'at home and relaxed' which is what you are every other time you are listening 'critically' to music.

However if at £50K the damn thing cannot even do an opening crescendo...what can be said?

Martin

Varun
20-08-2009, 05:53
Hi Martin,

You are absolutley spot on and speak my mind-I mean the purpose of the thread. But then this would be well known to all the experts on the forum. I have kept the speakers at least 3 feet from the walls and well away from the corners. You need very big rooms but sadly most of us have never been able to afford such houses. Yes the system has to have place to breath and very important if one has a sizeable gap between the speakers and the listening position. Sitting close to the back wall creates its own problems with the reflected sound reaching your ears also- especially the resonance of low frequencies.

So a squarish rectangle of substantial size. My lounge in NZ was 27x15. I tried a Thiel model -did not like it then a B&W 804 and realized it was too small for the room-hence the 803. An 802 (beyond my pocket) would have been too big for that room.

Macca
20-08-2009, 20:10
Hi Martin,

You are absolutley spot on and speak my mind-I mean the purpose of the thread. But then this would be well known to all the experts on the forum. I have kept the speakers at least 3 feet from the walls and well away from the corners. You need very big rooms but sadly most of us have never been able to afford such houses. Yes the system has to have place to breath and very important if one has a sizeable gap between the speakers and the listening position. Sitting close to the back wall creates its own problems with the reflected sound reaching your ears also- especially the resonance of low frequencies.

So a squarish rectangle of substantial size. My lounge in NZ was 27x15. I tried a Thiel model -did not like it then a B&W 804 and realized it was too small for the room-hence the 803. An 802 (beyond my pocket) would have been too big for that room.

I'm sort of surprised that 27'x15' would still be too small. In basic theory is it not large enough for any domestic speaker? My room is 29' by 11.5' and I think would handle a far larger speaker than the A2 without any issue - my personal interest lies in the big JBLs - I reckon a K2 would work superbly in the space - but then I look at the dual 12'' version and immediately think - 'too big'

The sitting position is pretty much as important as the 'speaker placement - my listening position is on a padded couch against the back wall - if I lean forward maybe 20 degrees I change the sound stage significantly. If I kneel 2 feet in front of the couch it is different again. (I'm talking soundstage changes here and not changes in overall sound quality).

My personal choice is nowadays to go with the philosophy 'a good big 'un in a good, big room' and try and get the rest of the kit to match from that point on. The alternative - smaller standmounts across the width of the room - well I have tried it and wheras it can be just as musically enjoyable I strongly suspect that it is possible to have one's cake and eat it in terms of having quality and depth of sound, tight deep bass, dynamics and soundstage with the larger room/larger 'speaker approach. - What I am suggesting here is that a good set up environment will add so much plus it will compensate for any slight issues with the kit and then some.

Regards

Martin

Varun
20-08-2009, 20:59
Thanks Martin,

I agree entirely that the best person to decide is you yourself. The speakers have to be fairly wide apart as well although I have never followed the equilateral triangle business. I think by big I meant footprint. The bigger B&Ws are very deep and so take up a lot of floor space. I personally would have the LF response getting out of control in a narrow room. Please look at the images of Mike Reed's set up. I do not know the dimensions of his room - but he seems to have set his speakers up very nicely.

You are obviously a very acute and critical listener-an essential ingredient for the enjoyment of music.

Varun
20-08-2009, 21:00
I meant I would worry about the LF.......

Mike Reed
20-08-2009, 22:31
Thanks Martin,

Please look at the images of Mike Reed's set up. I do not know the dimensions of his room - but he seems to have set his speakers up very nicely.

Thank you, Varun; however, my speakers are 'plonked down' rather than 'nicely positioned'. They are just too damned heavy to experiment much ! They do work superbly where they are, though.

Room has just been widened by two and a half to five feet or so, so now it is a weird and irregular shape (I'm a believer in avoiding symmetrical rooms, especially squares or perfect rectangles). General dimensions are about 25 feet long into bay window, 10'6" where the speakers are, (but 9' behind them) widening to 16 plus feet, then narrowing to 14'6" at the equipment/ seating end.

The Stereophile review on the ProAc Response 4s in 1994 advocated a slightly asymmetrical position. Odd, but they don't seem to be that fussed as long as they're about two-thirds down the room, whether powered by s/state or 509s.

Varun
21-08-2009, 06:17
Thanks Mike,

It is the space behind which so imporatant. I could not agree more with room shape- but then do we have a choice? My room in Devon- Music Room and Office (WAF did not come into it) and not lounger as the lounger is much bigger and accommodates my daughters 6.1 foot Grand Piano- is 24x14- narrowing to about 11 at the listening end- so that I sat a good 18 feet away from the speakers. The narrower end held the desk -filing and loads of books. The narrowing was caused by a smaller cubby hole which acted as storage and wine cellar.

Mike Reed
21-08-2009, 08:25
Sounds ideal, VARUN, except for the 18 feet between you and speakers; fairly laid-back presentation at that distance, I'd imagine.

StanleyB
21-08-2009, 08:41
I have never been a person of convention, and revel in breaking taboos and rules. That includes the subject of speaker positioning.

I got my speakers very close to the wall, and do my R&D with that in mind. Why? Because easily 90% of of speakers are close to the wall. Be it bookshelf of 5.1 types, the speaker location is very much dictated by convenience and .... the other half (wife, partner, etc.).

So for those type of listeners, the ability of their equipment to still portray a good level of soundstage is of great concern, and ultimate decision in buying habit.

Stan

Varun
21-08-2009, 14:48
Mike first;

The distance may be more like 16 feet and ratio 2:1. It is similar here in L'pool in a smaller lounge (I am renting a detatched bungalow)- so all the distances are lesser.

The best and most expensive seats in concert and opera halls are centre and up in the stalls- half way up the auditorium. The distance I keep gives me a grasp of the whole sound stage- not just the bigger detail.

Stan

Placing of speakers and making choices are two different things. We all have to make choices because we all have to make compromises- in choice (pocket), and placement (room size) etc. In the end each individual person has to be happy with choices they make.

Thanks for your comments. I do not believe I have ever had any speakers close to walls- wife never complained but yes she would if I took over the whole lounge- so would neighbours.

I have been lucky - large house on 5 acres in NZ, nice large house in Devon- in a village reasonably secluded and the same here in L'pool-neighbours well away.

jandl100
24-08-2009, 09:23
Speaker position is a strange phenomenon. I tweak endlessly the precise position and angle of my speakers, I find small changes in angle can make a significant difference, but I am not at all sure that distance to the wall behind the speakers actually matters much.

I usually fire speakers across the narrow width of a room - it just seems to me that most speakers sound better with lots of space to the sides rather than to the rear. Controversial, huh?! :)
When I had Quad 57 and Martin Logan CLS2z full-range stats, though, I got extra lengths of speaker cable so I could fire them down the length of the room with about 7 or 8 feet space behind them. Everything I had read implied that would be superior. ... Nope, as far as I could hear there were no benefits at all to be had :scratch: so I moved everything back to width-ways as it was more convenient. If anything, I actually preferred the sound that way, too. I think the benefits of space to the side of speakers are underestimated!

Maybe I'm just deaf! :(

(I'm a classical music listener like Varun, and imaging is very high on my list of audio priorities).

Ali Tait
24-08-2009, 17:10
Interesting Jerry,I may have to try that with my statics.Imaging is a priority for me too (hence the statics!)

REM
24-08-2009, 18:33
Was it Jimmy Hughes or one of the other self appointed gurus who used to listen to his speakers 'back-to-front', that is with the drivers facing the wall? Pretty sure it was JMH but it could have been someone else, they're all daft enough (mind you if I'd had some of the gear JMH has had I reckon you would be best off listening to it from another house never mind another room!).

Varun
24-08-2009, 18:50
Hi Jerry,

If I could ever buy ESL63s which I could not, I would have needed a big room to do them justice. Not only that they needed to be raised- but what came out was phenomenal.

I can not speak for other panel speakers but positioning is indeed dependent on so many factors- to me the overblown LF response- I mean loss of details is the worst case for speakers close to the wall- the opposite side is if the LF response is thin as was the case in ESL then pushing them against the wall might help, at the cost of depth I would have thought. There are many other issues such as ported or not and position of the port and so on- but then these matters are quite beyond me.

Ali Tait
24-08-2009, 19:27
I think it's often a case of perceived loss of LF rather it's actuality.Reason being we are all used to the bass from conventional box and cone loudspeakers,which has a large amount of distortion regardless of the cost of the speaker.Yes,some are better than others,but as regards bass,with a box speaker,you are hearing a lot of the box and the breakup of the cone i.e. the cone not acting as a pure piston.I think this kind of bass is what we are all used to-it sounds deeper and more forceful by comparison to a static speaker,hence the perceived bass lightness of statics.That was the case for me when I first had a static in my system,but since then I have come to the conclusion the bass from statics is actually far more accurate than that from a box speaker,given the lack of a box.Just MHO.

Spectral Morn
24-08-2009, 21:19
Speaker position is a strange phenomenon. I tweak endlessly the precise position and angle of my speakers, I find small changes in angle can make a significant difference, but I am not at all sure that distance to the wall behind the speakers actually matters much.

I usually fire speakers across the narrow width of a room - it just seems to me that most speakers sound better with lots of space to the sides rather than to the rear. Controversial, huh?! :)
When I had Quad 57 and Martin Logan CLS2z full-range stats, though, I got extra lengths of speaker cable so I could fire them down the length of the room with about 7 or 8 feet space behind them. Everything I had read implied that would be superior. ... Nope, as far as I could hear there were no benefits at all to be had :scratch: so I moved everything back to width-ways as it was more convenient. If anything, I actually preferred the sound that way, too. I think the benefits of space to the side of speakers are underestimated!

Maybe I'm just deaf! :(

(I'm a classical music listener like Varun, and imaging is very high on my list of audio priorities).

I would concur with Jerry's findings but add that the rear distance is still important depending on the speaker type, ported or not etc, for both bass quality and for solid state amplifiers (more than Valve) depth of image tends to be shallower IMHO/E. Digital generally has less image depth than analogue (mainly vinyl). Adding valves to the output of a Cd player can add depth if done right but the bass can be soft....of course all of these design choices will work or not depending on design implementation.

For maximum image depth in a small room I would suggest valve amplification but were the speakers can be given lots of space behind them then good depth can be gained from solid state. This is my experience based on years in the audio trade and in my own systems.

Weight and scale add to image and acoustic illusions. It was only when I went to a more full range speaker (Gallo Ref3.1) that I gained in these areas because of the fuller frequency; over mini monitor type speakers.


Regards D S D L

Varun
25-08-2009, 06:27
There is such a wealth of experience on this forum,

Ali:- I would say I agree with everything you say. The only reservation I have is of meeting the full sound spectrum. I have a weakness for Statics- but never owned one.

As for Neils' comments- they come from an expert. For me it can be a point of NO RETURN - which ever way you go.

Valves -yes most certainly superior to A/B solid state- does not worry me if the bass is soft so long as it has detail- that is where the box colouration we all grew up with-distorts our perception of speakers.

EAR 509 are in a league themselves- bereft of the traditional warm valve sound.

Once when my SA250 needed some minor repairs the Importer loaned me a Plinius P10- excellent amp (200A A/B). I thought it was good but never good enough- so simply did not listen to it-after a few intial tries. That is what I meant by Point of No return.

jandl100
25-08-2009, 09:08
Encouraged by this thread, I've been playing around even more with my Infinity RS2.5 ribbon hybrids.

They are now even closer to the back wall (a mere 30cm from the closest corner) and they sound better than ever, imo. And this is with ribbon mids and treble that radiate as much to the rear as they do to the front. The bass is on the lean but deep side with these speakers, so a bit of extra bass reinforcement does no harm. Yes, the soundstage image now appears to hang in 3D between the speakers, rather than set back a bit, but tbh I am not sure this is not a psychological effect of what I expect should happen! Either way, it sounds great.

Interestingly, the biggest change for the good, was changing the speakers around so that the tweeter ribbon, which is offset from the centre of the speaker, is on the inside rather than the outside. (See http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3569 for pics of the speakers and you'll see what I'm on about - or have a close look at my current avatar). A definite "Wow!" moment. :)

It's definitely worth experimenting with speaker position and not just using the established rule set or allegedly good practise. Don't just assume what will be best - try a wide variety of things and see.

Ali Tait
25-08-2009, 14:32
Hi Varun,
The statics I use are kits from an Australian company called ER Audio.I have a pair of ESL III's and also a pair of Acorns.See here-

http://www.eraudio.com.au/DIY_Speaker_Kits/diy_speaker_kits.html

Varun
25-08-2009, 17:23
Thanks Ali,

Many thanks for posting the link. Have you had the chance to compare them with other Statics? I am afraid I am the worst DIY man -more likely to wreck the stuff then build it. Besides I do not see myself making big changes as every change has a dominoe effect and you soon find that you have to change other things as well.

And Jerry.

Keep us posted with your experiences please.

Ali Tait
25-08-2009, 18:58
I have-I used to have a pair of Quad 57's.The Quads have a great midrange if your head is in exactly the right place,but the ESL III's have a lot more top and bottom and of course the incredible transparency of an electrostatic.The Acorns are the top of the range,and better the III's with a more refined sound and even more bass.People who have heard both say the Acorn is as least as good and better in some ways than any of the new Quads.Nick Gorham has built a breadboard direct-coupled amp with 813 valves as a prototype for me,just using what he had to hand,so there is a lot of stuff not really suitable,but the sound is one of the most amazing things I've ever heard.I find it difficult to see how anything commercial could better this,and it's only at the prototype stage.The proper version will be built as monoblocks (So I can pick them up myself!) using GM70's as the 813 cannot generate quite enough voltage to drive the statics to full volume.Bass is also a little curtailed as the chokes being used at the moment are too small.The mids and top are simply breathtaking though,a walk-through soundstage,holographic imaging, and the speed has to heard to be believed.I can't wait to hear the sorted amp! Won't be for a while though.

Varun
27-08-2009, 06:02
Sounds most committed Hi-Fi audiofile gear Ali.

Let us know how the new valve amp sounds!

Varun
27-08-2009, 06:37
All this talk about back to wall Vs off-but just look at Marco's speakers in the corners more or less and he is delighted.

B&W on their website provide a guide as per room size. I spoke to them one and they said that there are people in UK using 802s in small rooms.

As for the big speakers- I once heard Kef 105- they had a very impressive big sound.

There also have been big boxes- such as Rogers- I saw it once huge black squarish encloser.

Spectral Morn
27-08-2009, 10:38
All this talk about back to wall Vs off-but just look at Marco's speakers in the corners more or less and he is delighted.

B&W on their website provide a guide as per room size. I spoke to them one and they said that there are people in UK using 802s in small rooms.

As for the big speakers- I once heard Kef 105- they had a very impressive big sound.

There also have been big boxes- such as Rogers- I saw it once huge black squarish encloser.


Hi Varun

The relationship between speaker, room and system is the factor/factors here. While there are obvious issues to try and avoid i.e massive full range speakers in tiny room or mini monitors in massive room; the rest is a mixture of trial and error. Always see what the manufacturer designer suggests (good starting point) what end users on forums report, but at the end of the day the only way to really know, is to take it home and try it in your system and room (quite often the room will have the final say on the matter). That and only that tells the tale.


Regards D S D L

Varun
27-08-2009, 18:51
Thanks Neil,

Yes- in an ideal world a good trusty dealer would help you have a home audition. I have been lucky mostly. The issue of course often relates to very heavy equipment such as speakers-say likes of 802s or for instance Mike's Proacs. Also the risk of accidental damage etc and so on.

Spectral Morn
27-08-2009, 19:56
Thanks Neil,

Yes- in an ideal world a good trusty dealer would help you have a home audition. I have been lucky mostly. The issue of course often relates to very heavy equipment such as speakers-say likes of 802s or for instance Mike's Proacs. Also the risk of accidental damage etc and so on.

Your not the first guy to say this...I am shocked that home loans seem to be rare on the UK mainland. As far I am concerned home loans or home demos are core requirements in any audio dealer.


Regards D S D L