Speaker toe in


Has anyone heard of The Tannoy Method used for speaker tie in? I have a picture I wish I could upload showing this method used on some Acoustic Research speakers. The speakers are toed in quite a bit past the listening axis. Is there a benefit? One person claims it take the room out of the equation. Thoughts?
luvrockin

Showing 5 responses by audiokinesis

"Has anyone heard of The Tannoy Method used for speaker toe in?"

I have not heard that name before.

"The speakers are toed in quite a bit past the listening axis."

I have been making speakers intended to work well with this sort of configuration for about fifteen years.

"Is there a benefit?"

The short answer is, there are at least three benefits when done right: Less coloration, deeper soundstage, and wider sweet spot. There is one possible detriment: The soundstage may not be as wide.  And, the technique probably will not work well with most speakers.

Warning, the long answer gets a bit geeky and technical. Please skip if that sort of thing doesn’t appeal to you (I post this because my sometimes geeky posts have offended people).

First a bit of background on relevant speaker design, which probably applies to the Tannoys: Imo the kind of speakers you want for this are ones with a fairly narrow and uniform radiation pattern over much of the spectrum. For example, you could use a 90 degree pattern (-6 dB at 45 degrees off-axis) constant-directivity horn crossed over to a large diameter midwoofer at the frequency the midwoofer’s pattern has narrowed to 90 degrees. Tannoy’s concentrics probably have similar radiation patterns, with the midwoofer cone acting as a constant-directivity horn.

Next, a bit of background on the effects of early sidewall reflections: Early reflections are more likely to cause coloration and degrade clarity than later ones, and strong early same-side-wall reflections play a role telling the ear you are in a small room which tends to overlay the soundstage on the recording, and in particular soundstage depth. Strong early same-side reflections do however broaden the soundstage’s apparent width, albeit at the expense of some image specificity, because the early sidewall reflection is smearing the image widths a little. (Personally I prefer to just move the speakers a bit further apart.)

Finally, a bit of background on how the ear localizes sound: The ear uses two mechanisms to localize sound: arrival time, and intensity. With a normal speaker setup (mild toe-in), when you are in the center sweet spot, the arrival times and intensities are the same from both speakers. If you move your listening chair to one side, the near speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, but it also "wins" intensity, because you are now on-axis (or nearly so) of the near speaker but you have moved further off-axis of the far speaker. So the image tends to shift towards the near speaker even further than your chair has shifted.

Now imagine speakers having the proper radiation pattern and 45 degrees of toe-in, such that their axes criss-cross in front of the listening area. For the listener off to one side, the near speaker naturally "wins" arrival time, but the far speaker "wins" intensity! This is because you are now on-axis (or nearly so) of the far speaker but well off-axis of the near speaker. These two localization mechanisms offset one another somewhat such that you still get a decent soundstage, though of course imaging is best up and down the centerline. The key is, the output of that near speaker must fall off smoothly and rapidly as you move off-axis. Relatively few speakers meet this criterion... most speakers have a pattern that is too wide and changes too much with frequency for this technique to give good results.

This well-controlled radiation pattern combined with the extreme toe-in essentially eliminates the early same-side-wall reflection. In fact the first significant sidewall reflection for the left speaker will be the long, across-the-room bounce off the right side wall, and vice-versa. So the first significant lateral reflections arrive at the opposite ear from the first-arrival sound, and this relatively late-onset cross-correlated reflection is generally interpreted by the ear/brain system as spaciousness rather than coloration and image widening. And thus with less small-room signature superimposed atop the soundstage on the recording, we hear more of the recording and less of the room.

I wouldn’t say the technique "takes the room out of the equation", but imo it does usefully reduce detrimental room effects. At an audio show where we used this sort of setup, an electronics manufacturer who was sharing the room with us for the first time remarked that it was the first show where they were not "fighting the room the whole time". (We were doing something unorthodox in the bass region as well, which is beyond the scope of this thread.)

Duke

"The guy talks about how he went from a heavily treated room with a traditional speaker setup to a corner placement and it sounded better without any treatment."

This makes sense to me, assuming by "heavily treated" he means "lots of absorption". Here’s why:

The ear derives timbre from both the first-arrival sound and the reverberant energy. When there is a significant spectral discrepancy between the two, like when most of the highs in the reverberant sound have been absorbed by foam, the net result sounds unnatural and can become fatiguing. Sometimes using a lot of absorption is the lesser of two evils, but imo it makes sense to seek other solutions first.

Duke
"So this doesn’t make the soundstage laterally narrower??"

With the right kind of speakers (described in my post), not at all, except for the loss of the image broadening effect of early sidewall reflections. The soundstage width is normal, and the depth and sense of immersion in the acoustic space of the recording have been reported as better than normal. If desired, soundstage width can be increased by increasing the speaker spacing.

I get many questions about (and sometimes well-meaning offers to "fix") my speaker setup at audio shows. They are usually skeptical when I explain why my setup is correct for my speakers. Then I ask them to close their eyes and tell me whether they hear whatever problem they expected, and they never say they do. Then I ask them to sit in whichever chair is farthest from the centerline and tell me if they still hear a decent spread to the instruments. And they always say they do.

In my experience, intermediate amounts of toe-in usually do not work well. I would suggest either going all the way to axes criss-crossing in front of the center sweet spot (assuming you have suitable speakers), or just sticking with a normal configuration.

Duke

Twoleftears said: "And in a long-wall set-up? Presumably you aren’t so worried about side-wall reflections..."

Very true.

However the proximity of the wall behind the speakers could constrain the soundstage depth (assuming you can’t pull them out into the room as far with a long-wall setup). I’m not saying the one configuration is more right than the other, but ime there are tradeoffs which often require trying it both ways in order to evaluate reliably.

Imo the arguments for speakers with good radiation pattern control go well beyond minimizing sidewall reflections, but that is one of them.

You know, if your ears weren’t both on the left-hand side of your head, all this talk about soundstaging might make more sense...

Sorry, I couldn’t resist!!!

Duke

Mijostyn wrote, regarding a side effect of extreme toe-in: "High frequencies may drop off as you toe in the speaker."

Yup! Severe toe-in can result in less high frequency energy in the first-arrival sound, but correspondingly a bit more in the reverberant field (which is typically starved of high frequencies relative to the first-arrival sound).

The solution is, tilt the tweeter’s response up a bit! This kills two birds with one stone: It corrects the spectral balance of the first-arrival sound, and further improves the spectral balance of the reverberant field. So the tonal balance is now better throughout the room.

Since 2006 I have been making speakers with user-adjustable high frequency tilt, via a single high-quality changeable resistor (in an dedicated terminal cup) on the back of the speaker cabinet. Imo this is superior to a variable L-pad. Typically this external resistor is bypassing a resistor in a particular location on the crossover board.

Anyway you correctly identified one of the potential downsides of severe toe-in, and that downside is something I should have thought to mention earlier. It hasn’t been an issue for me from the beginning because the tilt adjustment has been built into all of my controlled-pattern speaker systems, and that’s probably why I didn’t think of it.

Thanks for bringing it up! 

Duke