Radical toe in once more

Thanks to both of you!

My room is quite large, I dont have major problems with side wall reflections or back wave boom, and the off axis treble response is quite smooth. So my speakers sound very good with radical toe in but also good with conventional toe in. I am just in two minds, regarding the front wave.

Hi @newbee 

Jokes aside - I agree with most of what you said. Listen. Take time. Small changes can have a large impact. - This is all the more true with dynamic bipoles like mine.

Just to clarify: my room is large enough that radical toe-in is not needed in order to avoid sidewall reflection (or to enlarge the sweet spot). In fact for several years I have used conventional (slight) toe-in, where the speaker axes crossed some feet behind the listener position. It is just recently that I've changed to radical.

I also agree that listening for soundscape depth is important, and often intriguing. I find that radical toe-in is as good or maybe better in terms of depth (it was good before also). 

What I have not considered, or not so much, is the area behind and between the speakers. There, I have my stereo rack, and sadly, there is not much I can do about it, although I know its not ideal. Oh well. 

Here is what I did not understand: "What you have by doing 'severe' toe in is to point that off axis signal off the wall between your speakers." Are you describing the off-axis sound from the backfiring drivers? In my case, radical / severe toe-in means that the sides of the speakers point towards the middle of the wall with the stereo rack, yet the sides are 4 feet away from the rack, and there are no drivers mounted at the sides of the speakers (only back + front). So I hear less direct sound, when listening close to the sides. And the off-axis sound from the backfiring drivers hits the wall at the sides, not in the middle with the rack, but close to the corners. Maybe I should do the 'mirror test' for first reflections, but it seems to be a non-issue. I could also stack something in front of the rack, or use more absorption/diffusion on the wall, but Ive tried these things before, the improvement is only marginal. Thinking I am lucky, since I have the space to let the speakers 'breathe'.

One of the joys of experimenting with speaker positioning and toe-in is to discover more of the speakers' potential. Recently I brought a pair of stands to a holiday house and was amazed at how much better a pair of Audioengine A5+ sounded. And it was really easy to do mini-adjustments to get them "just right". I wish it was just as easy with my heavy floor standers.

Yet my experiments, so far, have confirmed my positive impression of these speakers. They are indeed chameleon-like, changing according to the music and production. When set up correctly, especially with the right material, they can sound like electrostats, but with dynamic punch, both in the treble and bass. This is also due to excellent amp and speaker matching.

The speakers are a sophisticated attempt to use "best of" reverberant energy in order to improve the perception of the sound as a whole. So, for example, the output is spectrally correct, or quite similar, wherever you are in the room, the main timbre is the same. This is way beyond Bose 901, which I used many years ago. A main 'trick' is to postpone the reverberant sound, so it arrives at least 10 msec later than the direct sound from the front of the speakers - and according to my experiments, 15 msec (by radical toe-in) is even better.

So yes, my ears guide this journey. I would welcome some hardcore science also - if there is a problem with the sound waves from the front drivers crossing in front of the listener, and if so, what is this, and in practice, can we hear it, or is it totally marginal.

Thanks everyone. Like I suspected, no consensus. Same thing from my web searches. I read about a guy who went back to conventional toe-in although radical sounded better. Why? It «looked wrong»!

Sure, I will follow my own ears, but in this case I’m not sure. Is there something slightly «artificial» with radical toe-in? Or just my imagination? The one effect that I am sure of, regarding the front sound, is that the tweeters are a bit tamed – less direct beaming – with radical toe-in. Which can be OK in my case. I am also fairly sure that there are positive effects on the back-firing sound, as mentioned, although some are debatable (like more bass but maybe less tight from the room corners). I can well understand listeners who have used a long time, getting the angle right!

Ceiling and floor reflections – yes this is a valid point. I first overdamped the ceiling, and later removed most of it, to good effect. A silk carpet does a good job on the floor (not wall-to-wall). The speakers are designed to sound lively and immersive in a normal (not overdamped) room. They are big and heavy, and my back is not so good, so quick A – B testing is not easy. Disconnecting the back drivers would defeat the bipole speaker design. Likewise a lot of absorption or diffusion behind the speakers, although a little bit is fine.

So what do I do? Go back to conventional and forget the rest? My wife says, maybe radical is better, so why dont we keep it that way.

Radical toe-in is the main suggestion from the speaker designer, although other positions may also work well in a large room like mine.

My thinking might change if someone told me I am breaking a basic law of audio, my membership here should be withdrawn and whatnot! Has not happened yet. So I will keep it radical, for now.

Two more thoughts. I can easily hear differences in the sound from the frontfiring tweeters, depending on their angle. They can sound strident, a bit hard and bright, if pointing directly at my ears. When they point in front of me, they are ‘tamed’, as mentioned. How much depends on how far in front the crossing point is. Someone wrote, one foot is best, and this may be right in my case also. One or two. It depends on the tweeter off-axis sound, too far off axis is not good. Note that I am not trying to widen the sweet spot, it is OK as is in my room. The other thought concerns the crossing itself. With radical toe-in the main direct sound waves from the speakers (esp the treble) cross before they reach my ears. Does this create a kind of disturbance? Or ‘pre-processing’? Just speculating, here.

Thanks @newbee. I'll think about it...no no! on with the music : - )

Yesterday I bought Endresen and Wesseltoft: Out here, in there, on 2 x LP 45 rpm (Jazzland records). It sounded so good that my wife played the whole thing once more (doesnt happen often). So I think we're nearly there. The setup is much like @rhljazz described. Ca. 40 degrees toe-in. I don't hear any front wave disturbance with the female vocal. The treble is a bit tamed, which is OK in my case. In a sense, this whole thing is like going back to start. Following the speaker designer's advice, with some minor adjustments from there. It will be interesting what my audio friends think, since they preferred conventional toe-in, some years ago. Anyway, it has been an interesting experiment, so thanks again for all advice.

Hi @avanti1960

Thank you. I have done some of this procedure before, and I have also investigated through measurements (REW, Cara etc). Basically I am back to using my ears. For now I think I am fairly close to ideal, but in the future I may try your ’back to basics / conventional’ method.

@gumbedamit 

Get a buddy to swivel the speakers while you are in your listening position.  Simple!

thanks will try when i get the chance

@mijostyn 

You can find this under my systems info.

Speakers: Audiokinesis Dream Maker v2 two-way bipoles. In phase. Big wide floorstanders made to "use" the reverberant sound.

Room: Dimensions: 8,30 x 6,10 x 2,62 m / 27,2 x 20,0 x 8,5 feet

@atmasphere - the reason why conventional toe in also works quite well in my room is that it is quite wide, sidewall reflections are not so disturbing.

Thanks. Interesting diagram. And unconventional. Care to explain a bit?

Maybe I should clarify that I am testing toe-in in a living room with natural living room damping from furniture, book and record shelves, etc, as well as carpets and some ceiling damping. I don't want to overdamp and have removed some measures. The speakers are designed to benefit from an ordinary, not heavily damped room. They should stand well into the room, with much space to breathe also to the sides. They should then be toed in for optimal performance, considering the effects of changing the sound from the back as well as the front drivers. They are made to sound spectrally correct, the timbre should be similar from wherever in the room you hear them. They sound best - I think - with radical toe in since this increases the time gap between direct and indirect / reverberant sound. Although maybe with some penalty regarding the front firing sound. The jury is still out. But with the axes crossing only a foot or so in front of me, it seems a small minus.

I find that I can use my listener chair as a volume control. Moving it backwards means less volume. It also means that I move back some seats in the listener hall, or the sound space of the recording. If I move my chair towards the speakers, I feel more like I am sitting in the front seat section, besides the greater volume. This is with the radical toe-in of the speakers. The effect is similar but weaker with conventional toe-in.

The listening chair position is also a kind of tone control. The closer I sit to the central axis of the direct sound the greater is the perceived output of the treble. This is easy to hear. The whole speaker becomes too beamy, insistent, in your face. I guess this is why most speaker manufacturers advice NOT sitting in the crosspoint. But adjust with toe-in.

When I do some gym, between the speakers, with my ears just few feet in front, they almost sound like my best headphones. They change character a lot, depending on position.

Thanks @newbee. Very interesting. I have the greatest respect for Duke at Audiokinesis, the designer of my speakers, who has been extremely supportive. And yes, I am now back to radical toe-in. I thought this was mainly a fix for small rooms, but obviously it is more than that. I will check out your theory of 1st reflection indoctrination / habituation. May well be the case among some of my "conventional is best" audio friends. And your out of phase "from all about the room" advice.

Maybe I should even give my LCS "effect" speakers a new try. Now that I am back to radical. The LCS - Late Ceiling Splash - is the forerunner of what Audiokinesis now calls Space Generator. It is kind of proto-Atmos, all in the analog domain. It didn’t quite work with my main speakers, but that was (mainly) with conventional toe-in. I’ll give it a try.

Having fun? You bet. I love this aspect of our hobby, how to improve things for low cost, and learn more about sound along the way.

One question - necessary distance of speakers from reflecting surface - advice from Duke - I have forgotten, or maybe not read it, can you repeat? I measured the distance from the middle of my front firing drivers to the side wall - almost 6 foot. The main sidewall reflection area is maybe 9-10 foot away from the drivers and a further 8 foot away from the sweet spot. I've tried some damping in this area, but never noted much improvement, even with conventional toe-in. Testing with more damping, and sometimes more dispersion, has been like, "well maybe, but it is quite ok as is". I've used DAAD columns with adjustable absorption and diffusion, plus home tweaks like a matress up the wall. Note that this is also a living room, not a designated music room. Compromises along the way.

A main finding is that the speakers were designed with this in mind. The idea is that you don't need digital sound correction if you get the speaker and room matching right. You can do it in the analog domain, and that usually works better than digital correction (Audiokinesis has proved this especially through the Swarm distributed subs concept, a repeat prize winner from TAS and others). A large room is a big benefit, the Dream Makers need room to do their work. I see a lot of setups with speakers where the room is clearly too narrow to allow the speakers to breathe, sideways as well as to the back wall.

In my case, with a good room and speaker match, musical images become dramatic and engaging. Especially with top quality analog recordings, without any digital conversion. I also play digital, including DSD double speed recordings of my best albums. Some say you cannot hear any difference from the analog original. Well, I can, in my system. Even if the digital now sounds very good, and closer to the original. 

Yes you are correct, they have ample space behind them. I measured: 6,5 foot from the middle of the front drivers to the wall behind them, 5,5 from the back drivers. I know that they may sound even a bit better half a foot or so more out from the wall, but we have some living room compromises...

@newbee wrote: "I see a lot of folks who think crossed axis’ compromise the sound stage."  Yes, I've recently read some of this myself. 

"What I think they hear are 1st reflection points and think that is part of a normal sound stage. They think in-phase sound outside of the speaker edges is a norm and if they don’t hear it something with there stuff or set up is wrong. Not so, it is right!"

I understand the first part. With radical toe in, the 1st reflection points are 'missing', relatively speaking. My experience also. And some folks miss that, just from habit. But I don't quite get your further point, about phase.

My speakers are bipoles, and as I understand it, all the sound - from the back as well as the front drivers - is in-phase. Dipoles / open baffle speakers are different, since the back sound is out of phase. What I observe with my speakers is that the sound from the sides of the speaker is much lower than from the front and the back. But I think it stays in phase.

Newbee, thanks again, I get it now.

What you say about recorded sound is mostly known to me, although it is nice to get it so well and briefly formulated.

On one level I agree that in and out of phase recorded sound has nothing to do with speaker performance. Yet the capability of speakers to reproduce out of phase as well as 'ordinary' in phase sound comes into the picture too. So, for example, how well are my speakers able to reproduce cases like Roger Waters: Amused to death, where some out of phase 'mystic mix' production is able to recreate sound not just floating around, but locate it precisely beside you, and even a bit behind you.

Just to be sure I tested with my Hifi News test LP, side 1 track 2, voice in and out of phase. Test: passed. No problem. The in phase sound is clearly centered between the speakers, while the out of phase sound is not, but rather floating around. Two modifications, though. The in phase sound supposed to be centered between the speakers is evident also a bit outside of the speakers, in my case. Maybe reinforced by sidewall reflection, allthough it sounds quite good, the timbre is the same as in the center, it seems spectrally correct. Secondly, the claim is that the out of phase sound should come from everywhere, but that is not quite true. It comes from the general direction of the speakers. Not from the other parts of the room.

A little update. The overall outcome of this discussion is that the speakers are toed in ca 40 - 45 degrees (much like the advice from Audiokinesis), with the listening chair closer to the speakers. Sound is a bit more headphone like. Yet the hot treble problem is less prominent (as long as I sit behind the point where the direct treble sound crosses).

So why did I prefer a different setup, for several years? With the speakers less toed in, pointing more towards the wall? Not sure. Some audio friends with good ears preferred this setup. I liked it, myself. I thought, there is something artificial when the treble drivers cross in front of the listener. No longer sure about that.

It may also have to do with changing listening and music tastes. When I got the Audiokinesis Dream Maker speakers, I was very concerned that they should fill my quite large (50m2) living / listening room. Big music (think Dark side of the moon) should sound, yes, convincingly big. Over the years I have relaxed more. If the music is big it should not need a lot of volume to prove it. And even if the radical toe in gives a more headphone and nearfield type of sound, the rest of the room is well served also, with these speakers. I had a big sub. I sold it. I had effect speakers. They went out. The Dream Makers are best on their own. Positioned as adviced by the designer.

@toro3 - thank you. Interesting!