Speaker positioning-sound stage and its depth.

[StanleyB]

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]

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]

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 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]

Interesting Jerry,I may have to try that with my statics.Imaging is a priority for me too (hence the statics!)

[REM]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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.