Speaker positioning: why do audiophiles neglect this so much?
Went to a recent seminar featuring Jim Smith, well known author of the book "Get Better Sound" and hi fi set up guru.
The basic gist of the discussion was that the most important elements of a high end stereo installation are listening position and speaker positioning, in that order. The actual hardware (speakers, amplifiers, source, cables etc) are of less importance relatively speaking.
Yet it is clear from this web site and it's contents, that set up is discussed much less than the actual hardware.
When I look at the Virtual Systems page on site, I'm estimating that, maybe, 10% of the systems posted are close to well set up. Thus, hardly any of the featured hardware is performing close to it's maximum potential.
Shame, and why is it so? Not sexy enough to talk about system set up in depth? Lack of knowledge? Or is it simply too hard to do and too complex a subject?
In a small room near listening will be affected by all the room controlled or uncontrolled acoustic.... I know it perfectly well by listening experiments... My room is 13 feet square...
ANd my speakers/room acoustic beat my 7 headphones limitations...
My system value is 500 bucks...
Then why?
Acoustic science and psycho acoustic is always prioritary for me...
.
But what if you do low volume/near field listening? Or headphones?
With no real boundary interference is room treatment necessary?
Here I would think the electronic gear would take priority.
@mahgisterShouldn’t have been too bad at low level (and near field) except at the lower frequencies (<250Hz)…
Still that’s nothing to sneeze at (starting around middle C on a piano) Also correcting those lower frequencies throughout the room are perceived as 40-50% increase in music quality to most listeners…
You don’t have to sell me on the importance of optimized room acoustics with proper treatments.
I would not be inclined to agree with that statement. Most audiophiles, including myself, are somewhat neurotic on speaker positioning. As stated by others, many of us cannot go ‘all out’ in treated rooms where the audio system is the only consideration. We have to find a balance between domestic harmony and achieving best possible audio system sound. We still want to be loved by our significant others, many of whom put up with, but are lessthan thrilled with an audio system intruding on their ‘house & home’ color co-ordinated aesthetically exquisite living room arrangements 😁. I am sure most of you are well acquainted of what I speak.
Here’s what I have been taught vis a vis good practices for an audio system, and placing speakers in a decent sized living room. Of course it can vary dependent on sealed or ported enclosure / panels / electrostats / horn/ compression drivers;
1) Use a tape measure and spirit level to insure left and right drivers are at same height from ground, and are perfectly level front to back and side to side. This can have a DRAMATIC impact on the perfect stereo image that locks in at center and spreads to room boundaries with that center image locked in even when moving well the outside sweetspot.
2) Position the speakers at least 3 feet out from front wall. I like to position them at around 5.5 - 6ft out.
3) Position the speakers at least 3ft out from the side walls. I like at least 6ft feet out from side walls.
2 and 3 should eliminate too much reflected sound muddying the original sound wave.
4) Position speakers equi-distant from a) the front wall and b) the listening position
5) Move listening position forward or backwards incrementally (by inches) to establish perfect tonal balance and presence. I like to feel the music around me, so to speak, so I will sit around 9ft away. It’s not quite near-field, but is probably quite a few feet closer than many of us will sit away from our speakers.
6) Use furniture sliders to easliy move your speakers in small increments to achieve ideal toe-in balance.
7) use tape measure, string (two person job) laser pointer as aids to help establish exactly matched left right distance to listening position (isosceles triangle).
Its been my experience that the more perfectly balanced / equal in distance, height and side to side / front to back level each channel is, the better the sound one will achieve.
I guess my feeling is that for many of the people with pictures here on AG it MAY be that they don't work on the room that much. But OTH for those who have their systems in a family area there often is a WAF (wife acceptance factor) issue or also just not enough room to move speakers where one would want. Guys with dedicated rooms need the actual bigger area and money for all that correct acoustics might entail.
Even in a living room if you know the importance of acoustic versus costly upgrade, at least you can improve in some degree your listening experience at low cost if you think and read about acoustic instead of reading marketing reviewer of gear......
That is my point...
I dont say to people that dont own a dedicated room that they are wrong, i just say look at what you can do acoustically even in a living room at low cost BEFORE upgrading...
All audio threads speak about upgrade... I speak about something more essential : acoustic...
I must be right if a reviewer with a way more costlier system than mine enjoy only an " in between speaker sound" not even knowing that it is not optimal acoustic at all... 😁😊
Alleging only fuzzy distortions and "out of phase" effect and attributing that IN A BET to my room CANNOT EXPLAIN timbre and imaging and other acoustical cues perceived coherently TOGETHER in my room...This is just plain acoustic ignorance invoking simplistic explanation about something they are unable to figure out to begin with confirming my point about general underestimation of acoustic in magazine......But they sell NEW gear not acoustic knowledge right?
If they will focus on acoustic, who will pay their publicity?
This fact will not change the scientific fact that acoustic and psycho-acoustic ONLY can describe our sound/music experience and perception not a new complex design of gear by itself alone EVER nevermind his cost....
Only fetichist think otherwise...
I guess my feeling is that for many of the people with pictures here on AG it MAY be that they don’t work on the room that much. But OTH for those who have their systems in a family area there often is a WAF (wife acceptance factor) issue or also just not enough room to move speakers where one would want. Guys with dedicated rooms need the actual bigger area and money for all that correct acoustics might entail.
The listening position and speaker position are very important IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ROOM. The speakers and the room have to interact properly to achieve sota imaging and sound that is not strident. Most people have to do the best with what they have in regards to the room. Few of us have the opportunity to design rooms specifically for two channel reproduction.
I do see systems that make me scratch my head. I also see systems that make clever use of the resources at hand. I certainly think people would be better served by analyzing their situation and managing the acoustic environment than pissing money away on silly fuses.
Another problem is that most people have no idea what they are striving for. They only know what seems to sound good to them and they have no idea what that is because they have never measured it.
You will hear rather frequently of people complaining about sibilance thinking it is a problem with either the recording or their equipment. I would guess that 95% of this is poor control over room acoustics.
Most systems I am invited to hear have this high frequency haze over the sound due to high frequencies bouncing all over the room. A cymbal does not come from one specific location but all over the place. You can locate the fundamental but the harmonics are spread out making the cymbal much wider than it should be.
The best systems are going to sound dull at first. They will always play at louder volumes without strain making you think they are nowhere near as loud as they actually are. There will be little if any sibilance behind female voices and imaging will be pinpoint and holographic, instruments and voices in space not splattered against a wall. The image will not extend beyond the speakers unless the engineer is resorting to trickery. You should feel the music even at lower volumes.
What are you listening to? Any idea? Have a graph of your system's frequency response? Group delays? The response of individual speakers? Out to sea without a compass would be the likely description.
Rightful room acoustic and good system NEVER sound dull...
That remark say much about your system/room than about anything else... Sorry...
The best systems are going to sound dull at first.
Wrong too ...It only reflect acoustic ignorance transformed in audiophile dogma, ignorance of two main factors in room control: listener envelopment (LEV) and sound source width (ASW) and their acoustic interrelation ...
The image will not extend beyond the speakers unless the engineer is resorting to trickery.
I will refer now you to this paper at the end to understand what i speak about because you demonstrated that you have no IDEA about its existence and how to create it in your room...
A clue : electronic equalization will NEVER do it... 😁😊
But you are right about something too, good system
They will always play at louder volumes without strain making you think they are nowhere near as loud as they actually are.
Yes this is true...
And:
There will be little if any sibilance behind female voices and imaging will be pinpoint and holographic
This is true...
You are not totally wrong... 😁😊
But dull no, no good room /system is dull EVER, in the oppposite all good System/room are astounding BECAUSE of the naturalness of timbre perception and dynamic....Simple...
And listening to only a sound " in between" the speakers No thanks keep it for you... Your system/room is, if not flawed, uncontrolled and the treatment is not very well made...Very sorry for you....Put aside your electronic equalizer manual and read some room acoustic paper... 😁😊
To help you this is an abstract of this paper which will explain what i spoke about because you have no clue it seems ...But beware this article is one among others that will be necessary to read to understand how to implement Lev and ASW correct balance in a small room...
«EFFECTS OF EARLY REFLECTIONS ON LISTENER ENVELOPMENT
Hanyu,Toshiki; Sekiguchi, Katsuaki; Koizumi Yuki
Nihon University
ABSTRACT
It is well known that later reverberant sounds contribute to listener envelopment (LEV). On the other hand, the effect of early reflections on LEV has not sufficient ly been clarified. In this paper, listening tests were carried out in order to examine the effect s of early reflections on LEV.
As the result, it was confirmed that early reflections affected not only the auditory source width (ASW) but also LEV. In ad dition, there were some cases in which early reflections suppressed LEV, specifically when the early reflections increased ASW.
would love to see your system, just to see how you have optimized it. What speakers do you use and in what room size. I for one love to check out rooms and get ideas not oily for sound, but also for ambience. Hope you can share a pic or two.
I can't believe that many audiophiles haven't considered speaker placement as important.
Jim Smith wrote a valuable book. I own a copy. Great food for thought for someone making their 1st serious investment in home audio. Provides a focus towards the fact that the room and treatment of same is important.
This issue is not loss with most of the contributors on this forum.
I have a small crappy room (12x11x9) with some relatively big speakers. The room is treated, and the sound is about 80% of what I could get in a better room. I will take it because it sounds good enough to make me enjoy music. If you have a perfect room, I think you are in the minority.
I also have a prefect room when I use my headphones. I am listening in my perfect room now.
The cardas system of speaker placement worked great for my tannoy.. Room biggish for UK 7mx5m and 3.5m tall. Used absorbtion rear and side, scatter panels side and bass corner traps. Thick carpets between speaker and sofa... I'm pretty happy
Well after reading the thread to me there is one other thing missing that is recording quality. As an old friend used to tell me one third of sound quality is the total equipment another third is the room setup and the final third is the recording.
@mahgister, I am "incredibly" honored that you think I am wrong and what trash can did you find that paper in? LEV? Give me an FN break. FBS is more like it. I think you need to stick to philosophy. You might try Marxism.
@retiredfarmer, good recording is always a nice plus but that is really a different subject. We are talking about what comes out not what goes in. The system including the room have their own signature regardless of what goes in.
@richdirector, It is always nice to be happy but, you are out to sea without a compass. You have no idea what your system is doing. You are just happy with the results even though the results could be even better if you knew what was going on.
@johnnycamp5, You risk damaging your reputation by agreeing with me:-)
We often post up to describe our preferences. We enjoy the hobby in our own way… thats the beauty of it (and most other hobbies).
Go nuts on room treatments but lousy gear, or vise versa, or both, or neither, or any other combination of parts and pieces one sees fit…
“@mijostyn I’ll risk further damage to my reputation and agree with you once more… IME the listening room is always a very large part of the system…
Im too new to this board, I don’t yet know folks…perhaps most here would not form an opinion about me yet.
If they would (this early) then I’d not be too concerned anyhow lolololololol…
So beyond the basics that you mentioned what have you observed in room setups that are "NO NO's" and what are things that people are ignoring in the set up? What did Jim Smith say that are more advanced or overlooked in room setup? Just curious as to what could help us all make it sound better?
Well no it is all part of the reproduction. Junk in junk out a horrendous recording it doesn't matter what the equipment is or what the placement is like it is horrendous. In fact the closer a person has to a reference grade system and perfect setup the worse that bad source material sounds.
I try not to insult people but giving them ARGUMENTS and sometimes article of science...
this article is ONLY ONE of more i could have posted here to answer your post about soundscape limited to be ONLY between speakers never filling the room outside of the speakers plane like in my experience....i posted a research paper in ACOUSTIC by three non marxist japanese ACOUSTICIANS explaining some aspect of LEV ... Insulting them will no do great for your reputation and image here...
You dont know what is LEV and the correlative with the ASW factor in acoustic it is OK, relax.... But dont insult the messenger : me or the acousticians from Japan... Japan has great acousticians by the way guess why?
I gave you arguments in my posts , you NEVER answer them save by insults or silence...
You are not ashamed to be seen as an ignorant with an answer like that to my post with contain arguments and a research paper explaining some aspect of the acoustical phenomena called "listener envelopment factor" which it seems you dont even know exist ?
i apologize to you for my criticism because it is evident you are UNABLE to understand what you pretend to understand, but an equalizer manual dont equal acoustic experience AT ALL....Like i said already an equalizer is a limited TOOL not an acoustic device like a mechanical Helmholtz resonators set...You can tune some aspect of the sound with an electronical equalizer yes, but you cannot tune a room for the speaker. . The electroncal equalizer is not a part of the room like a mechanical equalizer is...
I did not pretend to know much more but i EXPERIMENTED two years with complete success in my room and i understand why.... This is the reason behind my posts about the importance of acoustic: passive material treatment but also mechanical control via Helmholtz method of a room...
@mahgister , I am "incredibly" honored that you think I am wrong and what trash can did you find that paper in? LEV? Give me an FN break. FBS is more like it. I think you need to stick to philosophy. You might try Marxism.
Very good speaker cables are very expensive. That’s the only reason I have my rack between and behind the speakers. But how can people have good bass and soundstage when their speakers are a few cms from the back wall, that always amazes me.
There will be little if any sibilance behind female voices and imaging will be pinpoint and holographic
Unless there’s reverb or echo either in the recording or mix, then it’s not so defined.
So often I hear instruments well defined spatially, and the singer not so much.
Very much recording dependent, I would guess if the singer has a beautiful voice it’s not masked up so much with "tuning it".
I did not promote any piece of costly gear at all EVER....
I did not promote any costly "tweaks" at all EVER ... On the contrary i dont buy anything save low cost devices in some case...I promote a method of control about mechanical,electricial and especially ACOUSTICAL control and not only treatment OVER UPGRADE obsession ... All my propsed tweaks are homemade or peanuts costs...
For the rest i speak with arguments like Millercarbon did in his own way but perhaps with less rudeness sometimes in my case... I wrote less well because English is not my native tongue... 😁😊
I speak about what i know and which is the most underestimated factor in audiophile life : acoustic and psycho-acoustic basic for speakers/room...
Then spare me your one line allusion with no ARGUMENT....
So we have an official replacement for millercarbon. Another blowhard.
My experience is probably illustrative. I never paid much attention to placement with my Gallo 3.1's, which seemed to have a really wide dispersion and were not sensitive to much moving around. When I changed them for Yamaha NS-5000's I found myself having to read the books on placement and investing in a laser measuring tool. It paid off, but I did have to push them into the living room, which messed up the furniture layout and now dominate the room. Luckily, there's no WAF (or unluckily). I also found I needed much longer speaker cables, and finding high end used ones were difficult, since a pair of 15' cables (my rack is not centered) really costs the moon. The other thing is that the Yamaha's are marginally more difficult to move, but nothing like the behemoths tested in the magazines. However, while they have the advantage of 12" woofers, therein lies the reason a lot of speakers have smaller and multiple woofers and smaller footprints. So with most of us having speakers in living rooms, that's a pretty good argument for sealed box acoustic suspension, tall and small footprint speakers. If you got 'em, somke 'em, which means if a dealer sells this type of speaker, I would think they would sell that benefit. If not, then its up to individuals and the publications to educate on this aspect, the latter which I don't see doing anymore.
Not sure why @mahgisteris trolling... I said I used the cardas method and then experimented from that. I use Acoustic treatment to improve sound. My speakers are placed on isoacoustic feet to further improve bass and imaging...
I'm happy that a 500dollar system with Intelligent absorbtion and treatment is amazing for you.... I do draw the line somewhere... I haven't put acoustic panels on the ceiling as I like seeing my superb victoria cornicing.
Each to their own I guess.... I fight the wars I want to fight
On the subject of placing equipment between speakers, Jim Smith focused more on the visual distraction of this vs. degradation of the sound--he also focuses on this being possibly a location where bass frequencies might be strong and why you need to avoid placing your equipment there--but he did say that if you must place your equipment between the speakers then at least try to place the equipment behind the plane of the speakers. There are plenty of great listening rooms at th various shows and almost every one has the equipment between the speakers (so you focus on it?) I've tried several different methods of speaker placement: Cardas, equilateral triangle (the most recommended here and elsewhere) and Smith's approximately 83% rule where the distance between speakers is 83% of the distance from speaker to listening position. The latter was the best i found in my room along with some of his other tips about where to locate listening position. However, i never felt his tips were absolute and he confirmed this when i scheduled a phone call with him to hear his recommendations on addressing an irregularity in my listening room shape. Speaker position important? Yes. Generic? No
This recording of Pat Bianchi and Pat martino , two of my favorite musicians, fill the room OUT OF THE SPEAKER PLANE,....
If not, this will indicate most of the time not a problem with your gear choice itself, (my audio system is low cost basic one) like most people could think, but a lack in acoustic treatment and especially in acoustic mechanical control of the room...
All my posts here are pointing toward this direction, in spite of ill informed people with no experience in acoustic who think the sound MUST always be BETWEEN the speakers plane save for out of phase gear or distorting reflections...
Here the soundscape is outside the speakers sometines by the left or right and the organ sound fill the room with the guitar in the center.... Listening to it we are like with an headphone in an intimate relation with the sound... It is like this IN MY ROOM....
This intimacy is called in acoustic science " listener envelopment factor" or LEV it is a factor relative to another one called the relative sound source width factor (ASW) These factors rightful ratio LEV/ASW emerge when we learn how to play with the timing of reflections lateral and back one, and also with the location of Helmholtz diffusers in our room, we may learn how create this effect which include the listener in some intimate relation with the sound which does not come from the speaker anymore at all and is no more between the speakers now...
It is not my choice of speakers, or dac, or amplifier that will explain this acoustic phenomenon , no brand name gear publicity is necessary at all here , my gear being basic, only understanding of acoustic, and basic psycho-acoustic can explain and describe it...
Then if someone want to contradict me i will wait for his arguments and not for his insults like from some above ignorant posters...
Reflections can be useful and they are postive when we learn how to control their timing and their RATIO, lateral one and also back reflection in particular, when they are rightfully TIMED with one another by acoustic treatment and mechanical device control with and rightfully timed also with the TWO direct frontwaves coming from each speaker for each ear...
Reme,ber than in a small room loke mine at the speed of sound in each second the waves cross the room 13 times...Meditate the consequence if this fact for psycho-acoustic and acoustic...Acoustic did not consist to buy prefabricated acoustic panels sorry...They are tool only which can help... But tuning a room ask for way more.... The good news is the cost may be peanuts, it was for me...
I am not a gear fetichist but a student of experimental acoustic IN MY ROOM ....
My results are the proof of the acoustic pudding.... Gear fetichism dont explain acoustic, it is the reverse....
Do the best you can and then enjoy the gear and the music. How do audiophiles sleep at night suspecting that their system is only 97% of what it could be? How can you stand it?
I guess that is Darwinism at play. The happy, satisfied tribe got wiped out by the angry tribe that took their nice river view. So the angry tribe propagated.
To answer the OP directly, it’s because room treatments is more like terraforming wherever you are stuck, and the angry tribe doesn’t want to terraform, they want what’s over the hill where the happy people live. And when they conquer that, there’s another hill with a happier tribe beyond. We could all use to be reprogrammed to be a little more satisfied and a little less "grass is greener."
Now I'm going to go back to swapping cables and installing my new gear...
Systems in living spaces just aren’t going to have speakers pushed into the room as they should be to breathe.
Every time I set them up the Haus-boss will say that the sound is coming from behind the wall, or the sound is too spread out.
And secondly that the speakers are too far out into the room.
This is the curse of the domesticated male, in a domestic cave managed by the females of the species.
A compromise is… some marks on the floor and they come out occasionally,.. but stay they back most of the time.
“The basic gist of the discussion was that the most important elements of a high end stereo installation are listening position and speaker positioning, in that order. The actual hardware (speakers, amplifiers, source, cables etc) are of less importance relatively speaking.”
Cool. All I need is Bose wave radio with it and my chair in the right spot.
This is what people tell you when they want you to pay them to come to your house and setup your system for you.
rauliruegas always ends his posts with " enjoy the music not distortions." I could not agree more. Distortion is always measurable and there are usually ways to decrease these distortions... if you know what they are and what is causing them.
If you want the best performance out of your two channel system you have to know what you are dealing with by measuring it. Throwing fancy cables and fuses at the problem praying they will work is an odd way to go about it when devices are available at a reasonable cost that allow you to understand what your system is doing and point the way to improvement. It is entirely possible to get relatively inexpensive systems performing at a very high level, higher then systems costing 10 times as much. Back in the early 80s we constructed a system around Rogers LS3 5As on stands, Levinson electronics and RH Labs subwoofers in a carefully treated room that was positively stunning. What we had was very expensive measurement gear that today with the computer power we have is a mere fraction of the expense and available to everyone.
There is some equipment that is incapable of SOTA performance but, there is a forest of inexpensive gear that is capable of performing at the highest levels if you know what you are doing with it.
What is it exactly that we are trying to achieve? Certainly there can be no argument that we want the lowest levels of IM distortion and noise. You want to start with the flattest frequency response ideally from 18 Hz to 20 kHz and even more importantly the response curve should look the same in both channels ideally within 1 dB of each other. This can be very tough to achieve. It generally requires a purpose designed room and the clever use of room treatment or under less ideal circumstances digital signal processing. If both channels are not doing precisely the same thing you can not expect to achieve the best imaging. Any asymmetry in the room can cause serious diversions of the response curves. I learned this the hard way. I put a window on the outside wall of my listening room thinking it would not cause too much trouble. It caused a 10 dB variation in the frequency response above 12 kHz in the right channel that caused me to burn out a high frequency balance control trying to correct it. This Summer we are removing that window and boarding it up.
The problem with being a true audiophile is that you are always thinking something could sound better. Some people throw money at the problems others throw luck and money. I prefer to throw thought and as little money as I can get away with. One more thing. Do not replace your own thinking with someone else's. Humans are way too dangerous for that. Marketing is the fine art of lying your ass off to get anybody to buy your stuff. You would be best served by blocking it out entirely.
"The problem with being a true audiophile is that you are always thinking something could sound better. Some people throw money at the problems others throw luck and money. I prefer to throw thought and as little money as I can get away with. One more thing. Do not replace your own thinking with someone else's. Humans are way too dangerous for that. Marketing is the fine art of lying your ass off to get anybody to buy your stuff. You would be best served by blocking it out entirely."
Good read-insightful post, mijostyn.
Audio as a hobby is one of the more satisfying activities, but it's also maybe the most polarizing when it comes to discussing "how it REALLY works".
I was at my neighborhood record store yesterday. The owner is 70 with some of the most interesting customer stories/collection encounters. One of his longtime regulars(retired audio retail) and a customer(audio enthusiast) started with a light casual chat because they discovered the mutual audio obsession.
According to the record store owner, it started out as a conversation anyone could understand. It then evolved into audiospeak which he felt was getting heated because of some disagreement about "audio rules" and other things he didn't have knowledge of. He had to graciously "time out" these guys because it was starting to look bad in front of the other customers!
To him, audiophiles are just as strange as his Millennial/Gen Z customers.
Side note-I picked up this 1957 release. Anyone into Jazz on LP should have this in their collection. World Pacific was one of true "golden era" labels. Real audiophool quality that will make ANY setup sound great. The Mastersounds are the Montgomery brothers. Being a Wes fan, I get anything associated with "the thumb." Good listen.
The problem with being a true audiophile is that you are always thinking something could sound better.
It is not always true...
When your vibrations control is done, when you had put in place some solution about the decresing of the electrical noise floor of the house and gear, and when the acoustic treatment and especially mechanical control of the room is done well, your audio system NOW play at his optimal working level... You are done and only stay a marvellous musical experience...
You now know how good are your piece of gear and what his the weakest link in your system... In mine it is my marvellous Sansui....NOt my low cost dac at all ... 😁😊 Because the dac is performing so well at a cost so low i dont feel i need to upgrade it at all, i am even afraid to change it and be deceived... It is a freench battery dac with a minimalist design, low noise level, TDA 1943 by french designer Christophe Mariac, Starting Point System...
The only upgrade i am not afraid to do now is my beloved Sansui AU 7700...
not the speakers which are the top design of British designer Mission Cyrus 781 which bass power are marvellous... And before i enjoyed the superioir Tannoy dual gold concentric....Then....
Anyway the possible upgrade wll cost me a lot more than the price of my beloved Sansui ... 100 bucks for the Sansui +recap price of 100 bucks by a more than honest repairman yes... I am lucky... compared to the low cost Sansui it will cost 6,000 bucks to buy a ZOTL.... 😁😊😂😊
I will not do it, not by self sontrol and abnegation or because it is too much money... I dreamed about the ZOLT Berning amplifier for a long time and i read about it...
I will not do it because i dont need it to enjoy music now thanks to acoustic well done...
Would it be an improvement to reach a higher "clarity" and accuracy of the timbre sound ?
Yes it would...
Is it a strong tentation to do this upgrade now? Not so much because even if inferior to the ZOTL my Sansui, i KNOW IT now, do the job very well even if it would be upgraded by the ZOTL... I know it because i enjoy a good timbre already and details thanks to ASCOUSTIC well done ... Acoustic put the Sansui on his best potential level where i can stay and live with it...And at the same time i know what are is probable weakness compared to the ZOTL tech...Clarity...
But i am not frustrated at all with this konwledge...
Confirming then by my experience that Acoustic well done exceed most upgrade in S.Q. powerful improvement... The Sansui is not transformed in a better amplifier for sure after acoustic, but i now can listen to ALL his qualities without feeling a lack on any count even accuracy or clarity.... But this is the factor that will be improved... Why ? Because all the other factors matter less at the end and ayway the Sansui give a lot of them very well...
I am done upgrading for years now...
Then all audiophile dont chase their tail... I did not...
Acoustic is superior most of the times to any possible upgrade if your gear choices has been good choices to begin with for sure...
A lot of us have come across a number of procedures and formulas about speaker positioning that rely on subjective listening. My experience is that listener position alters the LF response over speaker position at ratio of about 3:1 measured distance from the front wall. I would highly encourage people to make room measurements to understand what is happening. It more precise and efficient than listening alone, although certainly not a total substitute. I am not interested in judging what works for other people, but clearly setup is THE cheapest way to maximize value.
Ported vs Non-ported/ proximity to walls, and of course your drivers sensitivity, 2 way, 3 way; crossover components.....these are but a few that will all affect your listening pleasure. Ultimately, it comes down to your ears.Oh yeah, forgot to mention, vinyl/lossless(cd media), streaming device(s).
I've seen tape on the floor in order to get the pentultimate position for speakers. There are equations to determine"the best", but like I said in the last post, YOUR EARS WILL TELL YOU WHEN ALL THE VARIBLES ARE "PERFECT"
First, determine the optimum listening position in the room by determining where bass response is best (most even, not at a null). Instrumentation can help here.
Next, relative to the listening spot, find the optimum speaker placement. Start at the 83%rule mentioned above, as a starting point. Adjust from there. Many fine adjustments over time are necessary for best results.
Treat first reflection points.
Lastly, a blend of absorption and diffraction is best ( ratio of 1:2 respectively - more diffraction).
All other things equal, avoid equipment between speakers. If unavoidable, place it low to floor and behind speakers.
Before spending on better equipment, try the above methods to improve performance of what gear is already there.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
