Speaker positioning and setup.

[Mihnea]

Would anybody care to share how they go/went about setting up their speakers in their room to find the best positioning? I'm having a hell of a time getting mine in the right spot. Playing with distances off the back and side walls, toe in, etc. It's proving to be pretty tough. My room is also awful acoustically, lots of hard surfaces and I get lots of echo/reverb, i've been planning some acoustic treatments but do I do that before or after getting my speakers positioned?

 

Have any of you ever followed any of the 3 "methods", listed below?

 

1. Cardas method

2. Audio physics method

3. Wilson audio setup procedure

 

I liked the cardas method because it is just simple math but it isn't practical for my room, it puts the front of the speaker nearly 6' off my back wall.

 

I also tried the WASP method but talking loudly while I slowly walk away from a wall to find where the sound "opens up" proved to be a failure. Is the best way just back and forth, side to side, while taking notes? Will the "best" position I find without treatments also be the best after adding some bass traps and possibly a panel or two at the first reflection?

 

Hi Robby,

 

A few months ago I went exactly through the same issues as you, new audio system in a room where I didn't previously have any system installed. And the first steps were difficult. You can read the forum thread showing my experience here.

 

From all the speaker positioning schemes I tried (the Golden Ratio, Cardas and Barry Diament), none matched my room and equipment too well. What finally worked was the Vandersteen positioning scheme suggested by Jud. You need to make a few calculations and measurements, but in the end it just works. It's not different from what Barry mentioned earlier in this thread about finding a locations inside the room which excite the room the least. The Vandersteen guide does just that.

 

I agree with the poster who said that toe-in is a fine tuning thing. You need to find the perfect spots for your speakers first and for the listening position before going there.

 

In my particular experience, some bass traps solved the booming bass issue I had near the rear wall and also improved the bass response in the listening area. I also needed some absorbent panels for the first reflections (left, right and rear wall). But I only need those when volume goes up, not for casual living room music listening levels, so I keep those acoustic treatments off the wall until I need them.

 

Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.

 

Mihnea

[bdiament]

Hi mayhem,

 

Are your experiences primarily using Planar panels or a mixture of conventional cone and dome loaded box speakers?.....for if you were talking Maggie's or similiar dipolar systems then I could understand your experiences and guidelines.......but if you were to apply the same principles to front loaded boxes....well....the same assumptions don't apply.....not even close.

 

My experiences are with all types of speakers, over the course of several decades and are, apparently, quite different from yours. There were cones and domes in boxes (of different types), cones and domes outside of boxes (think Dahlquist), electrostatics, electrostatic hybrids, planar magnetics and planar magnetic hybrids.

 

None of these altered the physics of rooms. That is, none of these moved the location of pressure zones or boundary effects or resonant modes, harmonics, etc.. As far as the room is concerned, what differs is the degree to which each design type stimulates the room. That's all.

 

What I've found, consistently over the years, with many different rooms and many different speaker types, is that with a good understanding of how rooms (*all* rooms) respond to sound (*any* sound), it really isn't difficult at all to find optimal positions for the listener and the speakers. Much like arriving a the right focus with a camera lens, arriving at the right position results in things snapping into rightness: the speakers "disappear" into the room (to the extent possible with any given design and room acoustic) and what remains is a focussed delivery of the recording.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[mayhem13]

Hi mayhem,

 

 

 

My experiences are with all types of speakers, over the course of several decades and are, apparently, quite different from yours. There were cones and domes in boxes (of different types), cones and domes outside of boxes (think Dahlquist), electrostatics, electrostatic hybrids, planar magnetics and planar magnetic hybrids.

 

None of these altered the physics of rooms. That is, none of these moved the location of pressure zones or boundary effects or resonant modes, harmonics, etc..

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Thanx Barry

 

My experiences with planers, electrostats and similiar dipole speakers is quite different as the directivity of these types of speaker systems is completely different from flush mounted radiators in boxes. As you already know, these dipolar type systems radiate front and rear, where the rear wave is 180 degrees out of phase with the front wave and as such, at different points along the sides, these waves cancel so unlike the box system, these systems are highly directive in nature. There's MUCH less energy radiated to the side boundaries or combing between the two. While there's plenty of energy remaining from the rearward radiation, as it's out of phase, again the lower in frequency we go, the more drastic the differences from a box system in regards to excitation of the room when compared to a box system.

 

That being said, I can't follow your methodology as I must be missing a very key premise or fundamental to the process.

 

I agree with your ideas on room pressurization and nodes, modes , nulls and the like but i can't wrap my head around your dislike for eQ where needed. Given the extreme variables in both speaker systems characteristics and room dimensions, not to mention furnishings I've found that such method positioning schemes simply don't provide consistent results in real world situations. I can only imagine how difficult all of this might be for those that cannot identify specific ranges of frequency by ear. In such cases, I expect most will come to a threshold of trial and error vs acceptable performance. Thanx for reading.

[Fokus]

what differs is the degree to which each design type stimulates the room. That's all.

 

And that is also a lot.

 

A box speaker couples to room pressure nodes, and a dipole couples to room velocity nodes.

 

A human listener couples to room pressure nodes, unless he has a big hole in his head.

[bdiament]

Hi Mayhem,

 

Thanx Barry

 

My experiences with planers, electrostats and similiar dipole speakers is quite different as the directivity of these types of speaker systems is completely different from flush mounted radiators in boxes. As you already know, these dipolar type systems radiate front and rear, where the rear wave is 180 degrees out of phase with the front wave and as such, at different points along the sides, these waves cancel so unlike the box system, these systems are highly directive in nature. There's MUCH less energy radiated to the side boundaries or combing between the two. While there's plenty of energy remaining from the rearward radiation, as it's out of phase, again the lower in frequency we go, the more drastic the differences from a box system in regards to excitation of the room when compared to a box system...

 

Yes, this is why I said "None of these altered the physics of rooms. That is, none of these moved the location of pressure zones or boundary effects or resonant modes, harmonics, etc.. As far as the room is concerned, what differs is the degree to which each design type stimulates the room. That's all."

 

The reverse polarity radiation from the back of a planar, when combined with the positive polarity radiation from the front, means little or no sound is radiated to the sides or vertically. So planars tend to excite only the front to back dimension of the room. Right off the bat, 2/3 of the room stimulation of quasi-omni monopoles (i.e., box speakers) is simply eliminated.

 

However, the room's resonances remain exactly in the same place. Nothing about *the room* or how it responds to sound, changes. For example, the length dimension of the room will still have its greatest pressure zones at the ends of the room. It doesn't matter if we know the frequency or not because a successful method of treatment to shorten the ringing will be the same regardless. (EQ, an amplitude-based approach, will not change the fact that the room tends to "hold onto" certain frequencies for too long -- a time-based problem.)

 

 

That being said, I can't follow your methodology as I must be missing a very key premise or fundamental to the process.

 

I agree with your ideas on room pressurization and nodes, modes , nulls and the like but i can't wrap my head around your dislike for eQ where needed. Given the extreme variables in both speaker systems characteristics and room dimensions, not to mention furnishings I've found that such method positioning schemes simply don't provide consistent results in real world situations. I can only imagine how difficult all of this might be for those that cannot identify specific ranges of frequency by ear. In such cases, I expect most will come to a threshold of trial and error vs acceptable performance. Thanx for reading.

 

What is needed, in my experience, is a tape measure, not a microphone or RTA. Again, the problems of rooms are time-based and so, require a solution that addresses them in time.

 

I have never heard EQ fix a room problem but I *have* heard it create a secondary problem. The mic doesn't know the difference between the direct sound from properly placed speakers and the sound the room makes in response to the direct sound. The listener's brain, however, *does* -- conscious of it or not, we hear them separately. Hence, attempting to change the frequency response of the room (addressing only one of *several* symptoms and not the cause) with EQ to the speakers, results in a skewed direct response from the speaker. To my ears, the direct sound (which just got skewed) is the one we hear a lot more of, in any well set up room/system.

 

There is no "trial and error" when one is addressing the room/speaker interface with an understanding of how rooms (*all* rooms) respond to sound (*any* sound). Finding minimal room stimulation is as easy as finding maximum room stimulation (which is *always* in the corner - where room boundaries meet - in any room I can conceive of, regardless of size or furnishings).

 

I can understand that it may at first seem like trial and error if your are looking at sound in rooms only in terms of amplitude (i.e., frequency) response. Without a mic to measure the frequency response, how are we to know what frequencies the peaks and dips are at? My point is: would you like to know the frequencies or would you like to remove the *cause* of the peaks and dips? Note the cause of the peaks and dips is also causing a whole bunch of other issues - obscuring low level detail, defocusing the soundstage and images upon the stage, blurring dynamic gradations and hampering dynamic "slam", etc.. (Besides, if I was going to measure a room, I want to look at it in time, not simply amplitude, which alone, in my opinion, has little value. Just one example: Who cares if the frequency response is dead flat when the bass -out of tune with the bass in the recording - lingers for seconds after the treble is gone?)

 

Addressing the issue in terms of frequency response alone will not restore low level detail, focus or dynamics. It *will* in most instances, add the color of the equalizer itself. So as I hear it, EQ and the whole frequency-based approach *adds* problems, it doesn't solve them.

 

It goes back to what I've long called "The Questions": things that don't get asked and so, things for which an answer is not found. The questions I'd ask myself here is: "What did I do wrong in either speaker selection or system setup that I believe will be fixed with EQ? And why do I believe changing the amplitude response will solve this problem (where amplitude response is but one of many symptoms and not the underlying cause)?

 

Upon consideration of such questions, I'd go back a step (or more) and see what I could do to prevent the problem from arising in the first place. What I've been fortunate enough to learn, from folks like Peter Walker, Art Noxon and others, is that rooms and how they respond to sound, are predictable.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Fokus,

 

And that is also a lot.

 

A box speaker couples to room pressure nodes, and a dipole couples to room velocity nodes.

 

A human listener couples to room pressure nodes, unless he has a big hole in his head.

 

In my experience, the room's response to being stimulated by sound will impact the listening experience, regardless of speaker type.

 

Dipoles don't stimulate the room as much as quasi-omni monopoles and that, in my view, is a good thing.

Still, the direct radiation from the speaker is does not comprise the totality of sound impinging on the room.

 

Successful acoustic treatment, in my experience, is consistent across speaker types.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[4est]

Ditto

 

Successful acoustic treatment, in my experience, is consistent across speaker types.

[spdif-usb]

and to absorb early reflections so they don't reach the listener.

It is however worth noting IMO that audio engineers and musicians are usually oversensitive to early reflections and, for recreational listening, most other listeners actually prefer the sound if early reflections do reach them, and this preference appears to include early reflections on the side walls.

 

For reference, see the book from 2008 titled "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd E. Toole, pages 138 - 139 and 173.

[bdiament]

Hi spdif-usb,

 

It is however worth noting IMO that audio engineers and musicians are usually oversensitive to early reflections and, for recreational listening, most other listeners actually prefer the sound if early reflections do reach them, and this preference appears to include early reflections on the side walls.

 

For reference, see the book from 2008 titled "Sound Reproduction - Loudspeakers and Rooms" by Floyd E. Toole, pages 138 - 139 and 173.

 

I would question exactly who it was that asked "most other listeners". That's an awful lot of folks to have spoken with. ;-}

 

My experience has been that when folks (even "civilian" listeners) are shown the difference between having early reflections or not having them, they're going to notice increased clarity without those reflections. More sensitive listeners will notice diminished hardness and an increase in naturalness of tonality.

 

Note, I'm just speaking about early reflections, not about putting foam or other absorbent material all over the room - which would indeed make the sound *less* pleasant and the room, unnaturally "dead".

 

There is one early reflection per speaker, per room boundary. In most stereo situations, that amounts to two places on each wall, the ceiling and (if there is no carpet or rug) the floor. Properly treating early reflections does not involve a lot of absorptive material.

 

I would hazard to say that most listeners have not had the opportunity to actually hear properly treated early reflections vs. not properly treated early reflections. I could be wrong of course but based on conversations with many folks who consider themselves audio enthusiasts, whether pros or dedicated amateurs, I have not encountered much awareness of the concepts involved. Usually it amounts to having seen ads on the Web or in magazines. Most of the rooms I visit are without any treatment and the folks who own them have never heard much in the way of acoustic treatments or what they can do.

 

On the other hand, I have visited a number of studios where the owners seem to think filling up the space with egg crate foam is the same as treating the acoustics. Certainly the acoustics are *changed* -- generally, the top end has been killed, allowing the untreated room modes to predominate. Popular but not exactly what I'd call a successful acoustic treatment.

 

So I would not ascribe any particular sensitivity to engineers or musicians, other than perhaps to how the instruments they live with sound. Most audio civilians who I meet don't know the lingo of audio enthusiasts but I'm often quite surprised at how they can very quickly identify when something is "more clear".

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[spdif-usb]

I would question exactly who it was that asked "most other listeners". That's an awful lot of folks to have spoken with.

 

According to what Floyd Toole wrote in his famous book, most people who have spoken about it claimed they did not prefer the effects of there being no early reflections. The book makes for quite an interesting read IMO, and it's even witty at times.

[bdiament]

Hi spdif-usb,

 

According to what Floyd Toole wrote in his famous book, most people who have spoken about it claimed they did not prefer the effects of there being no early reflections. The book makes for quite an interesting read IMO, and it's even witty at times.

 

Well, all I can say is I'm glad those folks aren't making the call for my listening room.

(It would be interesting to find out just exactly what those folks heard. Does Mr. Toole describe the setup?)

 

It has less to do with being an engineer than it has to do with being a music lover and wanting my system/room to get out of the way and give me access to the recording.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[mayhem13]

Well Barry, although I respect your opinions, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic......again. Lol.

[Fokus]

Toole's book is mostly a well organised summary of decades of pertinent investigations by academia, and not just Toole or the Harman organisation.

 

The preference for lateral reflections in recreational listening is well documented. Get yourself a copy. It is a very good read. Perhaps the best audiobook I've encountered so far.

[mayhem13]

Toole's book is mostly a well organised summary of decades of pertinent investigations by academia, and not just Toole or the Harman organisation.

 

The preference for lateral reflections in recreational listening is well documented. Get yourself a copy. It is a very good read. Perhaps the best audiobook I've encountered so far.

 

Which goes a long way towards clarifying what should be obvious.....people enjoy music as a 'taste' where someone's preference for one flavor over another is in arguable. But in music, as reproduced audio, the difference is accuracy where things begin to get muddled.

 

In no defense of Barry as he always states that these are his experiences, I'd add that as an engineer, he too most likely focuses a great deal of attention to accuracy as many do. And for those that share the importance of getting to the music as the artist intended, splaying multiple reflection points back at the listener isn't really the way to get there.

 

In this, I do share Barry's viewpoint as I'd much rather hear the speaker and the music instead of the room. Sadly, the two are inseperable in reality.....but some of what Barry talks about will get you awfully close.

[bdiament]

Hi mayhem,

 

Well Barry, although I respect your opinions, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the topic......again. Lol.

 

In my experience, a great deal of discussing audio involves agreeing to disagree. ;-}

 

Folks just hear things differently. The big surprise for me, is when folks hear things in a similar fashion.

(Best example for me so far was a large group of engineers blind comparing over a dozen A-D converters where the overwhelming majority, perhaps 99%, chose the same converter. How often does that happen in audio?)

 

Even here on CA, I've got friends who prefer different file formats, types of speakers, etc. It is what makes the audio world go 'round. I'm for whatever gets someone their listening pleasure.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[mav52]

Hi mayhem,

 

 

 

In my experience, a great deal of discussing audio involves agreeing to disagree. ;-}

 

Folks just hear things differently. The big surprise for me, is when folks hear things in a similar fashion.

(Best example for me so far was a large group of engineers blind comparing over a dozen A-D converters where the overwhelming majority, perhaps 99%, chose the same converter. How often does that happen in audio?)

 

Even here on CA, I've got friends who prefer different file formats, types of speakers, etc. It is what makes the audio world go 'round. I'm for whatever gets someone their listening pleasure.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

That's why we are are different, different logical paths in decision making, hearing, education, music taste and different listening environments/rooms. What works for some might not work for others based on the items I noted. Example; A rock music lover, using a simple bookshelf speaker in a small 10X10 room, 35watt integrated amp with a $500 DAC, while others like classical using grand massive towers in a 20X20 room with high dollars amps/pres and DACs in an acoustical neutral room so what works for the Classical person might not work for the rock person, but the theory is the same just on a bigger scale. A lover of rock might not hear the same thing as a classical lover when music is compared but if the musical taste are the same I can see a person agreeing on a piece of music. For me, I would rather not hear the speaker or the room, just the music and to be able to close my eyes and note the location of the musicians, but of course that means the recording needs to be well made ....

[bdiament]

Hi mav52,

 

That's why we are are different, different logical paths in decision making, hearing, education, music taste and different listening environments/rooms. What works for some might not work for others based on the items I noted. Example; A rock music lover, using a simple bookshelf speaker in a small 10X10 room, 35watt integrated amp with a $500 DAC, while others like classical using grand massive towers in a 20X20 room with high dollars amps/pres and DACs in an acoustical neutral room so what works for the Classical person might not work for the rock person, but the theory is the same just on a bigger scale. A lover of rock might not hear the same thing as a classical lover when music is compared but if the musical taste are the same I can see a person agreeing on a piece of music. For me, I would rather not hear the speaker or the room, just the music and to be able to close my eyes and note the location of the musicians, but of course that means the recording needs to be well made ....

 

I'm with you: I want my gear (and its setup) to get out of the way and give me access to the recording.

And I want the recording to give me access to the music. That is the only reason I'm interested in the gear and in the recording: to get to the music. (I listen to everything, from classical to rock to jazz to everything else. To me they're all different flavors of magic.)

 

I also realize that many folks don't really want their gear (or the recording) to get out of the way. They like a certain "sound" and if it gives them listening pleasure, I think that's a good thing.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[mav52]

Hi mav52,

 

 

 

I'm with you: I want my gear (and its setup) to get out of the way and give me access to the recording.

And I want the recording to give me access to the music. That is the only reason I'm interested in the gear and in the recording: to get to the music. (I listen to everything, from classical to rock to jazz to everything else. To me they're all different flavors of magic.)

 

I also realize that many folks don't really want their gear (or the recording) to get out of the way. They like a certain "sound" and if it gives them listening pleasure, I think that's a good thing.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

PS: I like good old foot stomping Bluegrass as well like 'Real Time' by 'Mountain Heart'. Hearing that bass fiddle working the lower end of the speakers or the fiddle singing out, is well, nice..

[bdiament]

Hi mav52,

 

PS: I like good old foot stomping Bluegrass as well like 'Real Time' by 'Mountain Heart'. Hearing that bass fiddle working the lower end of the speakers or the fiddle singing out, is well, nice..[ATTACH=CONFIG]5364[/ATTACH]

 

Yes!

I'd love to do a bluegrass project for Soundkeeper.

Been listening to a lot of Tim O'Brien, Darrell Hall, Tony Rice and Peter Rowan lately.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Of course, my gear doesn't know (or seem to care) what music is being played at a given moment.

 

I've never heard a setup that was great for one type of music, that wasn't also great for another type.

Or a setup that wasn't good for one type of music that *was* good for another.

 

Regardless of price or design, every good setup I've heard treated any signal passing through it the same way.

And every bad setup did too.

 

It is the listeners that seem to differ. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Jud]

Of course, my gear doesn't know (or seem to care) what music is being played at a given moment.

 

I've never heard a setup that was great for one type of music, that wasn't also great for another type.

Or a setup that wasn't good for one type of music that *was* good for another.

 

Regardless of price or design, every good setup I've heard treated any signal passing through it the same way.

And every bad setup did too.

 

It is the listeners that seem to differ. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Agreed. And I would extend that, as I believe you would, to individual pieces of equipment: Ideally, each should be neutral and not be "better" at a certain function like retrieving detail or with a certain kind of music.

[Hipper]

I would agree with the person that suggested your starting point would be to find out where your particular speakers perform best from the manufacturers, and users.

 

Then, place them approximately as suggested, ignoring toe-in initially. This is because the first thing to get right is the bass - 200Hz and below. Once the bass is sorted, the mids and highs are properly revealed. Finding the right bass sound will involve moving the speakers backwards and forwards, and also moving the listening chair. You should check the bass in your listening chair. A symmetrical set up is best.

 

I suggest you use a test CD, such as Stereophiles first test CD or better, Alan Parsons Sound Check 2 CD. Both have test tones at various frequencies amongst other things. You could use REW, microphones and so on to measure these things and that would be more accurate, but they also take a lot of learning. You could just use your ears to begin with, and your sound pressure level meter (I in fact started this way but eventually used a Behringer DEQ2496 plus cable, microphone and stand. This does measuring, auto equalising and lots more).

 

It's difficult to boost weak frequencies but easy to dampen strong ones, so in your movements, try and get a certain level of all bass frequencies and dampen the boomy ones using bass traps. Once installed, test the bass again to get the best levels. It may be that bass traps still do not give you a flat response. In that case you can use an equaliser to reduce some frequencies, and can also add a bit to some but it's not a good idea to add too much.

 

Your room is 13'x25' and presumably 8' high. That's the equivalent of 43Hz, 22Hz and 70Hz respectively. These and multiples of them may well be the boomy frequencies.

 

Once you get your bass as right as possible play a couple of CDs where you like the bass and see how it sounds.

 

Now deal with the higher frequencies. This is where it's helpful to know how the mid and high frequencies coming out of your speaker drivers spread out. Mine for example is said to make a 30 degree fan shape. This is where you look at toe-in, reflections off the floor, ceiling, back and front walls, and side walls. I've not found any problem with ceiling reflections, and I like the effect of side wall reflections. The floor can be dealt with by carpet (no coffee tables!). The main problem will be back and front wall reflections and any asymmetry in your room set up.

[robbbby]

Hipper, thank you very much for the feedback, I am going through all the suggestions one by one and doing constant listening and adjustments.

 

This comment/question is more for Barry since it is his preferred positioning method and he seems to have lots of experience setting up as such.

 

I decided to give the rules of thirds a shot. I first wrote it off after reading since it didn't seem practical for my room (24'-3" long x 12'-11.5" wide). It seemed very odd to have my speakers so far out and close together in the middle of the room, especially since it would mean I would only be sitting 8' away from such large towers, seemed very near field listening to me. Since i'm playing around I figured I had nothing to lose and that i'd give it a shot to see how it sounds compared to the other positions I had tried. I measured everything up, moved my couch back a foot and positioned the speakers. It looked very odd, and I felt odd sitting down with the speakers so close to me. Alas, I queued up the MFSL remaster of Cowboy Junkies - Whites off earth now for a listen and also some dire straits. I must say, it was the best I had heard yet from all the playing around I have been doing and I had not yet done any toe in. The bass, though i'm sure still problematic, was the best I had heard yet from my speakers, it wasn't boomy but clear and defined by each note.

 

However... As great as it sounds, I cannot live with the speaker setup as such. It is much too intrusive to my living space since it is not a dedicated listening room. Barry, do you have any recommendations or suggestions with regards to moving the speakers back from it's 1/3 position into the room? Is there any other "ratio" or "zone" further back that will have nearly the same benefits of their current 1/3 positioning?

 

Thanks

[Jud]

Hi robbbby, I'm not Barry (obviously), but what you're now asking is exactly what the Vandersteen method does, which I recommended to Mihnea and he found helpful. See the link in his comment in this thread.

[bdiament]

HI robbby,

 

Hipper, thank you very much for the feedback, I am going through all the suggestions one by one and doing constant listening and adjustments.

 

This comment/question is more for Barry since it is his preferred positioning method and he seems to have lots of experience setting up as such.

 

I decided to give the rules of thirds a shot. I first wrote it off after reading since it didn't seem practical for my room (24'-3" long x 12'-11.5" wide). It seemed very odd to have my speakers so far out and close together in the middle of the room, especially since it would mean I would only be sitting 8' away from such large towers, seemed very near field listening to me. Since i'm playing around I figured I had nothing to lose and that i'd give it a shot to see how it sounds compared to the other positions I had tried. I measured everything up, moved my couch back a foot and positioned the speakers. It looked very odd, and I felt odd sitting down with the speakers so close to me. Alas, I queued up the MFSL remaster of Cowboy Junkies - Whites off earth now for a listen and also some dire straits. I must say, it was the best I had heard yet from all the playing around I have been doing and I had not yet done any toe in. The bass, though i'm sure still problematic, was the best I had heard yet from my speakers, it wasn't boomy but clear and defined by each note.

 

However... As great as it sounds, I cannot live with the speaker setup as such. It is much too intrusive to my living space since it is not a dedicated listening room. Barry, do you have any recommendations or suggestions with regards to moving the speakers back from it's 1/3 position into the room? Is there any other "ratio" or "zone" further back that will have nearly the same benefits of their current 1/3 positioning?

 

Thanks

 

I'm not sure if you tried 1/3 placement or the placement I suggested, which is *slightly* different (insomuch as it is the front, inside edges of the speakers that I place at the 1/3 points). In any event, it seems you have noticed that such placement minimized interaction with the room. No setup I've heard sounds as able to me, to get out of the way.

 

Your statement saying "It seemed very odd to have my speakers so far out and close together in the middle of the room..." made me smile because that is exactly how I felt when I first walked into a room with such a setup. Having been into audio for decades already, my response to that experience was to realize that moment represented the first time in my life I heard stereo (and understood what it truly meant). It isn't "some sound from over there and some sound from over there", it is that part of the room coming to Life with the music, in three dimensions, with some recordings, extending well beyond the physical dimensions of the room I was in and sounding like the room the musicians were in.

 

However, with the understanding that such an arrangement may not be practical for you, my next suggestion would be using the next odd dimension: 1/5. (Vandersteen mentions something along these lines too.) Know, though, that such placement just isn't going to do what "1/3" placement does, as the room will "speak" more than it does with "1/3" placement.

 

As always, please don't simply take my word for any of this. The best way to find out is to listen for yourself. You may find the 1/5 placement more in line with your needs and perfectly acceptable for listening.

 

Just before you do though, I suggest completing the "1/3" placement for one more listen: do the toe-in also, just to hear what your system can do with this setup. As a starting point, aim the speakers at the center of the wall behind the listening position.

I suggest doing the same when you evaluate the 1/5 placement. In other words, try each setup to its fullest, with a complete placement of the speakers, including proper toe-in.

 

Most of all, have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio