I check depth with Chesky Test CD Vol 1. I don’t want any "extra" depth where it doesn’t exist on a recording. Try Track 12.
Speaker positioning and center image depth
I’ve been in so many conversations with people who boast of the depth of the soundstage from a particular pair of speakers to fall well behind said speakers, and others who claim the sound is very much more forward for some speakers. For me, I’ve found that most times, it just depends on how the speakers are positioned in the room.
I find a combination of just slightly too much toe in and just not enough distance between speakers in relation to the listener create a more powerful and forward center image and potentially a narrower soundstage as the speakers end up not taking advantage of the side walls. On the other hand, having the speakers toed out too little at a larger distance from each other results in a more distant center image and at times loses clarity.
Distance from the walls also makes a huge difference here, as well as how well the room is treated. And there are many variables that will change the way a speaker projects the sound.
Of course, many speakers do a better job of imaging a particular way over others, but I’m not convinced of generalizations made about these projections (how forward vs deep a speaker sounds) in reviews or forum threads. For me, it usually has much to do with how it’s set up in the room.
That said, I do believe some speakers play incredibly large, and others small such that the thresholds (toe in, distances, etc) are all variable, which help a speaker work in some rooms better than others. And of course every speaker imparts it’s own sonic character, some more open and transparent and others more recessed and warm, etc.
I’m curious as to other peoples’ reactions and experiences with regards to speaker depth/forwardness, and if they agree with what I’m finding or if they believe the speaker has a much larger role than the room the way I am describing. I’m always looking to learn more.
76 responses Add your response
@tablejockey The issue with the golden ratio for which (I sense) you advocate is the extreme confinement of the space (disregard dedicated or not) down to almost near-field listening. Take my room as an example, with the golden ratio rule, the listener is literally 6 ft 3 inch away from the speakers in a 14’ x 18’ size room. Why do you want to confine your listening space down to a 6 ft equilateral triangle, equivalent to 7% of the 14’ x 18’ room space? I sit in the Ikea Pong chair with ottoman and my feet are half way to the speakers. That is insanely ridiculous. I do not enjoy. No one will. Not to mention the SS is not as good as the positions I end up with using LOTS. Have you ever tried yourself I wonder? To answer your second question, the positions I end up with as shown gives me the widest SS and a bit less SS depth compared to 5 ft setback from the front wall. The center image is focused and instruments and vocal are well separated within the SS. |
+1 @johnk Great point. +1 @juanmanuelfangioii If we didn't feel both rewarded and frustrated through the process, we wouldn't feel so highly about the hobby overall. Sometimes enduring the frustration is what makes the rewarding moments even more fulfilling. |
Simple fact: All speakers have a different "in room" response. My issue is with the overcomplicating of setup os it chews the fun out of your gum (Richard Julian line). Get a pair of Magicos and maybe the shop will come over and set ’em up for you...maybe...I use horn drivers which can help with the dreaded "early reflection" issues, and 2 subs allow for control of standing waves. You don’t want those waves standing around. Also note that nobody knows your earballs, taste, and what your listening room sounds like, and don’t let any of us come over and hear it...we don’t want to see your crappy decorating taste or sit on your disgusting old furniture. I like the sound of a room as it’s where life occurs, and a couple of reverberant tones shouldn’t harsh your mellow...shouldn’t, but man, I bet it makes you want to throw your cable elevators at the cat. |
The golden ratio is significant for the visual art but, imho, not so much for the speaker placement due to the complex interaction between the speakers and the room, room setup and the horizontal dispersion pattern of the speaker drivers especially tweeters. Rather, there is a more flexible tool called LOTS (Loudspeaker Optimization Techniques for Soundstage) introduced by Ron of New Record Day. In my room where the width (W) is 14 ft and the depth (L) is 18 ft, the golden ratio triangle is a special case of the LOTS positions. First, the speaker positions from the golden ratio triangle are within the LOTS tracks (see diagram) without exception (because 0.276W is between W/4 and W/3). Second, in this combination of W and L, the listening positions suggested by these two methods coincide. Based on my experience, the most probable LOTS positions locate between the minimum distance of 3 ft to both the front / side walls and the vertices of the equilateral triangle. With that being said, you probably do not need to experiment all the way from the front wall to the L/3 position within the LOTS tracks as suggested by Ron. The min. distance of 3 ft is suggested by Tarun of A British Audiophile based on the theory that “any sound that hits your ears from the reflective surfaces that is not delayed by 5 millisecond is perceived as the direct sound.” The speed of sound at the sea level is approximately 1100 ft/sec and the half of the distance travelled in 5 millisecond is just under 3 ft. So, using these empirical rules, I end up with the speaker positions just a bit wider than the LOTS tracks with slight toe-in. I felt, a bit wider separation between the speakers helps maximize the soundstage (SS) width. I also felt further separation from the front wall gives a bit better SS depth but 3 ft is maximal separation I could live with in my room. So I sacrifice a bit SS depth to make the room more functional for other purposes. Again, it is a trade-off I am willing to live with in my room.
|
As an electrical engineer/director and also an active gigging musician I'm like @wolf_garcia. Too myopic for my own good. :) My listening space is dominated by a tape measure and blue tape on the floor combined with saxophones on stands around the room.. End of the day I'm really not convinced that if I move my speakers four more inches into the room that I really can even hear a difference. All that happens is when my wife comes up stairs to dance along with Just Dance on the Nintendo Switch she just comments that the speakers are in the way :) |
@blisshifi , if we can trick the ear into accepting the spatial cues on the recording as being the more plausible "package" of cues, rather than the spatial cues inherent to the playback room, we can achieve that elusive "you are there" experience (assuming a good recording). As long as the playback room’s acoustics are perceptually dominant, we are limited to a "they are here" presentation, which admittedly can be quite enjoyable, but "you are there" can be memorable. How to implement this concept of course depends on the system specifics, but I wanted to emphasize that "recording cues dominate" is a different paradigm from "playback room cues dominate". And of course all of this is assuming the speakers can actually image well to begin with. Duke |
@audiokinesis Your post is thoughtful, and I appreciate that you have not (yet) redirected the conversation in any way to focus on how the role of subs can manipulate the stage (for better or worse), yet of course that is a whole other direction for discussion. I for one would certainly enjoy learning about tested observations / white paper between speaker depth and stage depth, but I agree largely with what you say, as long as a speaker can actually image well. And for sure, managing the reflections and reverberations are as important as the positioning itself. @mijostyn Both great points, self-awareness and humility go a long way here.
|
@blisshifi, my impression is that soundstage depth can either be dominated by the room or by the recording, the latter being preferable but generally more difficult to accomplish. First looking at the room as the constraining factor: As a ballpark first approximation, it seems to me that soundstage depth is related to the distance from the speakers to the wall (or equipment rack, or TV, or whatever) that is behind and/or in between them. My untested observation is that soundstage depth often seems constrained to twice the distance to the reflective surface between and behind the speakers. So if the speakers are out three feet from the wall, it seems to me that soundstage depth tends to extend to about six feet - which is cool because it is perceived as extending beyond the physical room boundaries, but imo there is significant room for improvement. Diffusing, re-directing, or broadband-absorbing the first reflections off the wall behind the speakers (and avoiding having the equipment rack or TV there) can help to "unmask" the soundstage depth cues which are already on the recording. Also, well set-up (i.e. far enough out into the room) bi-directional speakers like the Borresens/Raidhos, Quads, and Maggies you mentioned, have reflection characteristics which can be exploited to shift the perceived acoustic space from "playback room" to "recording venue", whether the recording venue cues be real or engineered or both. Duke
|
First, respect to you and your experience. I have benefited from many of your comments and you’ve posted helpful advice to questions I’ve asked, as well. Regarding your comment, here, well, all I can say is that there are others with similar levels of experience as yours who do measure, tinker, adjust, and treat rooms. It would seem they're all wasting their time. |
@sns Agree, especially when considering a tried and true design like the Cornwalls which are meant to be positioned in the corners. When you say meticulous attention, it sure does vary by speaker. Some speakers have incredibly small sweet spots, but getting them right pays off handsomely, and other speakers may have larger sweet spots, but they compromise overall dimensionality. And then there are the speakers that can have a large sweet spot and image very holographically, and those are very special. |
As a long time professional musician and live sound engineer I’m nothing if not meticulous about the tonal aspects of my system, including soundstaging, bass response and any other speaker placement issues. The main listening room treatment is accomplished by having furniture, rugs, book cases, a couple of plants, an 18’ ceiling, a gigantic stone fireplace along a wall, euro style tall windows, a loft, my hair, a 50’s Les Paul Standard in a corner, a small model of the Les Paul on a table because I’m cheezy, etc. Heresy IIIs and 2 REL subs (vintage at this point but carefully adjusted). What does it sound like? I recently added a Pas XA-25 so I’m still astonished by that thing, but what I can say is it’s indescribable. I recently changed the toe-in angle to widen the soundstage a little. I’m meticulous. To achieve this level of sonic wonderfulness you just have to exactly replicate all of my stuff and borrow my ears. That's not going to be easy. |
This is a great thread. I'm also working on my room with my KEF LS50 Metas combined with a KEF KC62. I have a 15x17ft room with a 9ft ceiling. The challenge is the left side of my loft opens up to a stairwell so overall the room width is technically 23' wide but the half height pony wall limits the speaker placement width to 15'. I'm still playing with the placement but currently the front of the speaker are 35" from the back wall. Still more experimenting to come. My wife always ask me about the blue tape on the floor :) |
@twoleftears That's what I thought. :) |
@wolf_garcia Best post. People make things so needlessly complicated. |
I obsessed for years over speaker placement, room interactions, treatments, this with both open baffle and box/ported speakers. And yes, this obsession paid off handsomely.
And then a few years ago, some Klipschorns fell into my hands, expecting the worst, corner placement required, huge wide baffles. And what do you know, wonderful sound staging and imaging right off the bat, nearly as good as my extremely carefully placed Merlin VSM-MM, a sound stage, imaging champ. Guess this points out meticulous attention required for some speakers, much less so for others. |
@hifibliss that's correct I have the wrong song name. It's been awhile the horse goes around the room and comes through the center of the sound stage from across the street. Lol I had an audio file boxer bull dog cross. Lol he would sit deD center and setup and listen. Lol when I played this dice he would bark at the horses as they went around the room. That was a great dog. He would tap his foot in time with the music it was highly entertaining and very fun to watch. Lol I had a cat that loved Ann Murray the cat at the farm and an old basic setup would get up when the Ann Murray cd was over and push the play button so the cat could hear it again both of thos animals I found strange but entertaining. |
@retiredfarmer Lots of great thoughts here, thanks for sharing. I love the Roger Waters Amused to Death album - I was only introduced to it in the last two years. Done properly, the first track "The Ballad of Bill Hubbard" has a full 180-degree wide soundstage. It's very trippy. "Funny how a person doesn't think it sounds muddy until you take some of it away." - Love this, as it all comes down to one's perceptual baseline and what they believe is truth. Making these types of improvements reveal new truths, which are often obscured even when you see music live. I think many audiophiles will agree that their systems often if not always sound better than live shows!
|
If you have not got it look for the Roger waters cd amused to death first song if I remember correctly called too much rope. It was recorded in Q sound a room done right you are in for a sound stage treat. In my old house with my active bi amped Maggie's and the help of an old friend with a pitch perfect ear the sound stage depended on the recording but with the right recording the stage was wider than the side walls and as deep as across the street and so good that you could hear or feel if the performer was moving there head while singing. This was on a normal recording not the Q sound I talked about above. It is interesting how much is available in sound quality when you think in the terms of my speaker is a 32 second of an inch out. That brings resolution out and focus out as well. It is much easier to hear with the nore resolution your system has and the little changes done correctly are stunning. I personally like diffusion better than absorption I like the alive sound. That being said absorption or at least some is very important. In my new room I have a decent basic setup but I know it needs the two years of tuning a tiny bit here and a ting bit there. Each little change a person needs to listen to for a few days. One thing that I have found works well on the wall behind the speakers I'd a sheer curtain it should be close to floor to ceiling the amount of fold in the curtain and where they are changes the stage. More treatments are need o n that wall but your system will not sound as muddy after a person does that. Funny how a person doesn't think it sounds muddy until you take some of it away. I actually love the free improvements to one's system it just takes time and listening to accomplish. There's a bee gees live cd with sound number seven that they dedicate the song to Andy the crowd is stunning on that diec. And that sound in particular. A livingstone Taylor discovered where he whistles that is also a stunning disc and the sense that he is right in front of you and you can go up and shake his hand is wonderful. I believe that is a chesky recording. A friend pf mine I had over and he listened to my main system and he brought over a disc for the Mormon tabernacle choir recorded in the temple at Salt Lake that is an absolutely huge sound stage and I am not perfectly setup yet. Quite interesting I went to another Mormon friends son's funeral that was sad young fellow with three little kids anyhow first time I had been in a Mormon stake it was very interesting to look at the inside from an audio file stand point the walls were all treated with mainly diffusion when I talked to my friends afterwards the mother told me that everytime they build a new church there is an acoustic engineer involved. If you ever get a chance worth your while to look at what they have done acousticly. Interesting I went to support my friends and help them grieve and by keeping my eyes open I was able to use some of what I saw for my hobby. You fellows who live in cities with world class performance venues have a great resource both in hearing the music live and looking at how they are accomplishing there sound quality. A very nice bonus of living in a big city.
Regards |
@wolf_garcia This thread is not about me seeking coaching, but sharing my experience and perspective in a way that I want to relate with others who may have experienced the same. If anything, perhaps I’m the one guilty of offering coaching, and if so, then I think that is a wonderful thing. That said, the responses from the community here includes perspective and learnings that have enlightened me as well, so I would say my goal with this thread has been reached, like it or not. |
@wolf_garcia some people are meticulous and very detailed. Some are not, it is your choice, to be or not to be.
|
@baylinor Are you referring to the video from New Record day? I don't see the advertising angle. There are different ideas about speaker placement and what will actually work in your room. Having multiple options only enhances the communication in my mind. |
@baylinor I hope that was not directed at me? I was only sharing information. |
| Post removed |
This video was helpful to me. When I did my tests, I put down lots of tape and moved speakers from the front wall incrementally, same with side to side. Listening positioning, too. I won’t lie -- it’s extraordinarily laborious, but the upside is that as you take notes during the process and start to rank best positions, you begin to see that there are multiple good positions and that there is a plurality of benefits. In some positions, it’s bass tightness, in others, evenness of tone, in others soundstage, etc. Getting the bass right is priority #1 for me because other things can be dealt with more easily. |
@juanmanuelfangioii and @tablejockey I would say the Cardas and 1/3rd rules are very good places to start, but I also argue that the height and slope of a ceiling will greatly influence positioning. Taller ceilings (>11ft) and sloped ceilings both complicate matters as the volume of the room increases and as such some speakers need to be nearer to the wall to take advantage of the possible room gain. When people walk into my room, which is 19x23 with a sloped ceiling (9’ in front for me, 18’ behind me), they tend to say “This is the best type of room, it emulates a horn”. Yes, reflections are minimized in this kind of design, but so is the ability for a speaker to charge the room. Oh, the fun adventures of positioning! |
@twoleftears I love the humor, but I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you actually wish that the soundstage was more forward. If so, try toeing in slightly memore or bringing your speakers closer together. |
Addition to the Cardas diagram. Just plug in dimensions. I find something between this and room 1/3rd's works in my room. Both are going to have the speaker dominate the real estate. For dedicated rooms only. I have a pair of ML panels 8' out in a 13x26' long room. Along with, a pair of subs, this produces a satisfying, reasonably convincing presentation. The ML's get slid WAY back towards the wall when not playing. http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php
|
These are the calculations I have used over the years from Cardas. Slight tweaks but has been optimal for me in my small listening room. 12X14 with 9x11 vaulted ceilings. This is on the Cardas Audio website. http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_main.php
|
| Post removed |
@larry5729, @falconquest and others who have set up their speakers using the Master Set methodology. Do you find this methodology to produce a holographic stage? I’ve heard dealers set up rooms where the sound was very well distributed and tone was spot on, but it generated more of a wall of sound vs pinpoint, holographic imaging. Generally, I’ve found it is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a truly holographic presentation that delivers outside of the primary listening position. |
