Unsound - agreed on 40Hz, and even 20Hz at moderate levels in a moderate room with moderate music. I like the 20Hz 'sound' better than 40Hz, possibly because of the relative lack of low end phase shift, to which I am sensitive. The bass response effectively starts as low as there is program material. There are ways to successfully aid the bass against overload ie subwoofers, etc. I use an SS2 behind each main speaker, whatever model. In the Thiel passive XO mode they contribute only below around 40Hz (plus overlap), and there isn't much music down there. But nonetheless, that supplementary deep output provides local air pressure to aid the main woofer's room coupling. I'm surprised how much more authority the bass gains.
Please say more about 2>4 upgrade path.
My CS5 comment was market-based. And as you allude, most of that was self-inflicted, in my opinion. The product is good, especially the 'improved' version with Jim's driver designs. It's not common knowledge, but I consider the CS5 and the squandering of its potential segue into higher range markets to be classic self sabotage. The product as designed wanted a $15K (some said higher) price and another 3 months in development. Rather than settle into that league, Jim and Kathy were adamant about keeping it under $10K. It didn't 'fit' the market there. There was much too much speaker there to make sense, and its amp requirements etc. took it into the higher league anyhow. (Note that we had 100+ carte blanch firm pre-orders with no price stipulation.) You might detect my flabbergast these 30+ years later; this rant has never taken words before. One example of 'what happened' is that I had designed the baffle to include 3 stones (marble, granite & basalt) in 3 particle size ranges for an inert - extremely well-damped, good-looking baffle. The stone mix had enough variation and visual texture that the gel coat would be clear, to see into the stone matrix - all quite subtle since ground marble takes dye well. The casting molds required higher maintenance, and it would be 50% heavier, but what a baffle! I found the right supply partner in Atlanta and settled on $100 / each with quantity guarantees, etc. (Note that a company like WA might add $25K for such an element). I was elated. That is until I learned that Kathy came behind me, capped the price at $50, reduced the spec to ordinary bathtub cultured marble, and gloated over the cost reduction, all on their way to a $9300 / pair introductory price, which caused market confusion against the $15-$20K pre-marketing by distributors and dealers. End of rant.
It's called family business. The J&K alliance was internally infamous. They abandoned the CS5 platform and stated that it was 'too expensive' to sell through. I suppose polite professionals are supposed to keep such things under their hats. But I think that you fans might benefit from some leaks whose potential harm has long-ago elapsed.
|
@tomthiel, as usual an excellent response.
I do think that 40 Hz is not too much to ask of a 10" woofer.
Of course, as has been discussed before these suggestions could double one’s amplifier budget. And, with 1st order crossovers there would be quite a bit of overlap, suggesting that even more so than with other configurations, using identical amps would be preferable. It might be more palatable if there was an upgrade path from 2 channels to 4. Or more?
It’s quite a testament to all at Thiel Audio that a 30+year old speaker is still so relevant today!
Other than the huge amplifier requirements and depending on perhaps too complicated a crossover when a more thought out baffle arrangement might have sufficed, I don’t consider the CS5’s to be unsuccessful. When properly powered, in the right room, they are still amongst the best I’ve heard. Perhaps you mean from a marketing perspective?
Could your suggestions applied to an updated 3.7 with a sealed box and woofer drivers from the smart subs might be a consideration? As I understand it, as is common with so many integral self powered subs with Class D amps, the amps are often problematic. Would the sub drivers have huge power requirements? Too much to be practical with Class AB amps?
@jafant , I don’t believe eq parts would be a concern.
|
tomthiel
Keep up the outstanding Renaissance Thiel work.
Happy Listening!
|
Excellent discussion and an exchange of ideas moving the 3.5 into 2020 and beyond. The addition of subwoofer(s) seems a logical progression given that critical parts for the older EQ might not be readily available.I can remember 1985, a long time ago, indeed.
Happy Listening!
|
A Renaissance 3.5 would require all new drivers. The extant woofers are bulletproof and decent, but lack the sophistication of later designs. They are a 1985 solution. The replacement midrange needs to be a full range driver, which is findable, we just haven't yet succeeded - same with the tweeter. The XO upgrades I have been developing this past year all apply to the 3.5 to up the performance league dramatically.
The EQ could also be executed better. It is all discrete, and therefore upgradable, but it is likely that a talented circuit designer could do the job better today. Now, IF the EQ could be a requirement rather than an option, then other possibilities emerge. The midrange / tweeter could run on one channel with no boost to its low end. The equalized woofer would run on the other channel for good power balance. The crossovers could be incorporated into the EQ before the power amplification stage. It is possible that the woofer, or all the drivers could run crossoverless for direct, lossless feed, or with driver-specific and tweakable elements installed in an outboard XO near the cabinet. Such an active-crossover analog solution would squarely fit Jim's approach and sensibilities, and indeed one of the original design pilots which was deemed unfeasible in the company's fledgling state.
As an aside from history, I really like the 3.5 cabinet which shares technologies with the CS2 and 3 but obsoleted by the 2.2 and onward. Those early cabinets used MDF only for the baffle for its sculptability. The walls are 1-1/8" industrial particle board laminated both sides - for about 1.5x the stiffness of later 1" MDF cabinets. For production management reasons we landed on 1" MDF as our sole cabinet material. But the particle board is better.
Obviously, I am personally more excited by this potential upgrade than by pairing the non-eq 3.5 with a sub. But it would take lots of doing by someone(s) with youthful talent and vigor to pull it off. BTW: the CS3 cabinet is functionally identical to the 3.5; the combined 3 and 3.5 models sold about 7000 pair, and the 03, 03a adds another 2000 pair build of 20mm FinPly (better than BalticBirch or ParticleBoard). Hmmm.
|
unsound - points well taken. Thanks for your linked reminders. And a comment here. My thought was more from the perspective of the extreme difficulty of producing so much bass with the dynamic range and extension possible with today's digital techniques without running out of steam somewhere, especially at the lower reaches of the midrange driver. My hypothetical suggestion would include placing the stereo subwoofer pair to create proper time arrival with the main speakers. The main speakers would be relieved of their heavy chore of reaching all the way to 20 (or 40) Hertz.
All that said, I really love the 3.5s I recently got via this thread, and do consider them, like others here, to be Jim's quintessential work in many ways. I also apply that to the (unsuccessful) CS5 short series. Of note is that those speakers are truly minimum phase transducers, all the way to the deepest bass - and the sound underscores it.
More later. A guest just arrived.
|
|
catalysis
Good to see you here again. Thank You for suggesting subwoofer use with the 3.5 loudspeaker.
Happy Listening!
|
All
yesterday's HiFi Chats featured VPI via YouTube for you turntable owners.
Happy Listening!
|
catalysis - I second your motion re the subs.
|
Hi Everyone,
Just dropping by to say hello for the first time in a while.
Catching up with this thread is always part of my Friday routine and it’s lovely to see that there’s so much enthusiasm for this wonderful brand.
I see one or two new folks with 3.5’s have joined the fun of late. To them I would say try your lovely speakers with dual subs and ditch the equalizer. That’s how I run mine and, with a bit of messing around to find the best sub locations, it takes the 3.5s to another level, in my view.
Still very excited to follow Tom’s development work.
Stay safe folks.
|
Rob - a word for the record about insulation. There's quite a bit to it.Common wisdom is that wood is 'better' than glas, etc. , which I believe oversimplifies the situation considerably. The various materials act differently, so even at equal cost, specific application criteria apply. I ran extensive insulation comparisons at Thiel in the 80s. We landed at pure wool felt on the back wall of midrange enclosures - nothing else comes close to how well that acts in controlling reflections and so forth. In fact, we called the various engineered foams, batts, etc. "wishful engineering" due to their relatively poor performance. When it comes to filling cavities, polyester fiber-fill of various densities and fiberglas are the front runners. Wool has a bad habit of 'unloading' as frequency drops, which is contrary to what is often optimum. Polyester falls somewhere in the middle. Fiberglas has enough crooks and nodes to stand up to bass resonances without squirming. It outperforms the rest in my experience. That opinion is shared by some other designers of note.
Big problems with 'glas include irritating dust and a sharp hand. But wait! all 'glas' is not created equal. Thiel's 'glas is not builder's fiberglas insulation, it is a clean, graded product for industrial use. I got our fiberglas certified to our insurer's satisfaction.
If you want to compare different kinds of stuffing, I suggest measuring the outcome with REW, etc. to make sure you aren't compromising performance. Your correct dose will depend on outcome, not on comparative density, mass or volume. Most of the non-'glas products are likely to unload the bass to produce a lower Q with less flat response. Some folks might like that. Jim's goals were toward flat, uncolored bass extension with a 0.7 damping factor, which he considered the ideal. Some folks might prefer a fuller, looser bass from other materials. Let us know what you learn.
|
|
The wool quilting batting is very light ,
so I learned that it is to light and I ended up filling the back half
of the coaxial with the origninal fiber glass and the front with the wool I originally was using .
I changed because after installing the new wiring the sound was bright ,
and compressing the insulation and wool eliminated the brightness .
Using all wool the cost would become a factor ,
Maybe I'll try some bulk wool that is or can be more compressed ,
like the fiberglass .
I haven't used the wool in the bass or passive radiator chamber yet ,
but queen size quilting batting is on it's way .
I'm really enjoying the sound with the Cardas wiring ,
but I'm thinking about trying to reduce the gauge to the tweeters
to see if that alone can or will affect the brightness .
I can't say about the sonics of wool ,
it's less itchy and healthier to handle .
|
@vair68robert
How would you characterize the sonics of the wool batt? And did you attempt to approximate the same volume as the ‘glas?
|
Unsound - I like seeing you think outside the lines. Indeed that coax is a work of art that should find additional uses. To add some perspective, let me summarize Jim’s design process.
•The drivers are developed against their optimum criteria.•Each driver is measured thoroughly in an infinite baffle, and in the cabinet.•The cabinet including baffle shape, chamber parameters are optimized to align the driver to its infinite baffle state (as much as possible).•Driver anomalies such as resonances, enclosure effects, etc. are evaluated regarding which ones can benefit from electronic (shaping) circuitry.•Iterative process of driver changes (surround compliance, mass, etc.) with XO circuitry to bring each driver closest to its 6dB/octave slopes.•Continual comparisons of components, layout, etc. for optimization within the cost constraints.
It may be clear that changing a major element such as the driver, chamber size or baffle geometry for a different will have interactive effects on most of the design parameters. It was common for a speaker in development to get cabinet changes during development. It is likely that the new coax driver would have required different cabinet geometries, enclosure volumes, etc. to ’work’ as a colorless transducer at a level to satisfy Jim.
Indeed with much smaller changes such as replacing the original CS2.2 midrange with the ScanSpeak 10F, there are significant XO changes required because all the resonances and T/S parameters are different from the original. In steep-slope designs a driver can be ’dropped in’ because most of the anomalous behavior is in the extended overlap zones which are attenuated by the steep slopes. We don’t have that luxury.
Just my little peek behind the curtain regarding how everything is hooked to everything, nothing is simple, and no good idea goes unpunished.
|
The bottom line is similar - major surgery required.
|
I assumed that chamber for the coax in the 3.7 and 2.7 were about the same and as Rob had the prototype of the 2.7 available, I used that to compare to the chamber volume of 3.5
|
Hello rules - I suggest that the 3.7 chamber is probably larger than the 2.7 because the 3.7 XO frequency is lower than the 2.7 judging by the larger capacitor bank at the infeed of the 2.7.
Redesigning a speaker is a massive undertaking. Budget a man-year more or less depending on your knowledge, skills and hardware.
|
@thielrules, Thanks again. Excellent information. The price of the drivers doesn’t seem unreasonable. The required cabinet work might be more than I bargained for. Not to mention the crossover tweaking.
@sljhigb, the original 3.5’s mid’s 50 Watt rating was an 8 Ohm minimum recommendation. It was capable of handling 500-600 Watts into it’s 4 Ohm load.
|
Just picked up a pair of 3.5s 2 days ago. Paid $275, but the cabinets are pretty beat up… delaminated veneer, minor moisture damage, scratches & broken grill frames. Also, pushed in tweeter domes & a small dent in one mid-range frame. Nevertheless, the drivers reportedly all work and sound great. We shall see. For me… this is the perfect purchase. Beautifully engineered audiophile speakers, highly successful design, years of development by experts with audio skills that far exceed mine. A great platform to work with. Woodworking is no problem; but, I’ve got several projects I’m still working so this one will have to wait a bit. Just starting research on these speakers and what may be my best approach. IF I were jumping in right now with the limited research done. I would look at: ESOTAR T330D tweeters (a favorite of mine) Scanspeak Illuminator 12MU/8731T-00, 4.5” Midrange Vifa M25WO-35 6 ohm 10" original Woofer Shelve the Bass Equalizer & add a 10” or 12” powered subwoofer to each speaker. I like to build powered sealed downfire SWs into the bottom of the speaker.
The Illuminator mid-range is interesting as it solves some of the problems experienced with the original. SPLs a little higher, but it’s able to go lower (300Hz Xover no problem) and has 150W long term max power rating compared to around 50W with the original & 30W with the 10F. It would take a lot to burn up the voice coils on these. Appears to also be a little easier load on the amplifier and it reportedly sounds very good. But Oh-boy is it expensive & will require a bit more breathing room in the cabinet. Driver Name Fs Diameter Vas 2.83V/1m Re Freq/Res Power Price SS12MU/8731T 66Hz 86mm 5.8L 87.2dB 5.9 100-10KHz 150W $291 SS10F/8424G 90Hz 68mm 2.1L 86.6dB 5.8 150-12KHz 30W $190 SS12W/8524G 52Hz 86mm 8.2L 85.8dB 5.7 150-12KHz 70W $63 |
Wow the level of expertise of Thiel DIY'ers is amazing .
Thank you @stspur for your impression of Mills resistors with them being your first upgrade .
They are next on my list .
A correction about the wire used in the Tennessee CS2.7 ,
after replacing the wiring with Cardas 15.5 AWG
I looked at the original wire using a 30X magnifying glass
and can now see the missing dot making a 16 and not an 18 AWG .
A lot of work replacing all the wiring ,
BUT I'd have to say it's worth it given the improvement I'm hearing .
Jimi Hendrix "And the Gods Made Love"
never swirled with such detail before .
One more thing ,
I replaced the fiberglass batting with wool quilting batting .
Rob
|
Unsound, the chamber volume for the coax requires almost a doubling of the space that the 3.5 offers for the mid-range driver (using space measurement of the cavity of the 2.7 compared to 3.5). Most practical way would be an expansion of the chamber on the back of the speaker, using a cardboard tube and wood. The front bevel opening would need to be enlarged with an extra inch or so, for which there is enough room. The new coax drivers are about $550 each, not sure about shipping costs. Depending whether you have the tools and skills to do the woodwork, you can estimate your "investment". |
slhijb
My pleasure to assist you. Thank You for citing your musical tastes and Rob Gillum's help from CSS. There are quite a few DIY guys here that are making real progress on finding modern cross-over/driver solutions for their beloved vintage loudspeakers. Take your time persuing this thread, you will find a plethora of information on Thiel Audio 3.5 model.
Happy Listening!
|
@thielrules, Thank you! What kind of expense would one meet to retrofit the co-axial's to the 3.5's? |
Talked several times to Rob about the 10F as the mid-range replacement but never got excited about this option in spite of Rob's claim that it was the best replacement. The difference is size should affect the time coherence even if it may not be audible.
|
Unsound, I seriously explored that option with Rob and measured the cut out and increase in volume that would be needed. Concluded that it is doable and the coax driver are available and if you need to replace both the mid-range and tweeter, financially equivalent. I postponed that option and experimented first with a good wavecor mid-range driver and using active dsp tried out various eq and xo designs. As I can compare it to the original 3.5 and 3.7, I am pretty satisfied with my results.
Tom, I have a pair of sealed subs and if this summer will be slow, I may explore your suggestion more.
|
At the risk of appearing redundant; I still wonder if the 3.5's baffle could be modified to accept the co-axial midrange/tweeter from the 3.7's. Then we would have a genuine Thiel replacement and the advantages of a lobing fix. Sort of a time reversal of what Jim did when he took drivers from previous higher end models to use on newer lower cost models. |
Go guy! Just for grins, my 3.5 dream that never was is to mate the hotrodded unequalized 3.5 to a subwoofer crossed at polarity correct 2nd order low pass to the natural roll-out of the sealed 3.5 bass, which is perfectly aligned in its sealed cabinet. If you have the skills and inclination to mess around with that project, I'm available to work with you.
|
Jafant, TomThiel & Rob @ Coherentsourceserice.com, thanks so much for the responses. Some Thiel fans for years have been looking for a replacement mid-range for the Thiel CS3.5. Several contenders apparently have come & gone. The 10F/8424G & G00 are highly respected drivers; however, there isn’t enough information floating around the web on the original 13M/8521 to make an informed comparison. Madisound replied to me that people have been happy with the 10F/8424G swap which is encouraging, but no specifics. Rob at rob@coherentsourceservice.com (thanks again Rob) just responded to my email that in his testing the 10F/8424G00 is the replacement driver of choice. The 10F-8424G00 is mounted onto a special plate that holds the driver and the trim ring for the CS3.5 mid. He offers the driver, plate & trim at at Coherent Source Service for $250 each, plus shipping. Tom Thiel’s awesome response above nailed some of my questions on the 10F/8424G as a replacement. The two drivers appear a very close match, but Thiel’s design of the CS3.5 places serious demands on the mid-range, so several factors come into play when selecting a replacement… not the least of which is how it behaves with a soft 6dB slope, low 400Hz crossover, high power handling demands and a bass equalizer infusing a formidable power shift. However; for me, most important is how it sounds. If it sounds as good or better than the original, there may be subtle work arounds to meet my needs. I’m still hoping to find Thiel owner who has heard either the 10F/8424G or G00 in the 3.5. If the 10F/8424G or G00 work as replacements, I’ll try swapping out the original Dynaudio D28AFs with the Dynaudio ESOTAR T330D tweeters. I have a pair from another project that never materialized. I contacted Dynaudio concerning the possible swap and they felt it would be a good match. There wouldn’t happen to be anyone with experience replacing the 3.5 tweeter with the T330D? This isn’t a complex a swap as the mid-range.
Jafant, thanks for asking about my musical tastes? I guess they’re all over the place. I’m a product of the 60s fused with parental influence from the 30s to 40s. Beatles, Stones, Buffalo Springfield, Blue Cheer, Tull, Neil Young, Mayall to Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong & Ella Fitzgerald. As time progressed got into country rock, blues, jazz, bluegrass and Americana. As I get older my tastes mellow, I now enjoy quieter more emotional music, but with exceptional detail & depth. Clean, clear intimate audio, able to hear a vocalist draw a breath between lyrics, fingers sliding down a 12 string guitar, a tad of darkness. This has led me to SET amps & high sensitivity speakers. What it my system? As a hobby, I diddle with audio equipment. Finishing building a pair of OB Lowther PM6As (silver voice coils), Tone Tubbys and built in subwoofers (almost done). Also currently building some modified 4Pi’s, again with built in subwoofers (mid way through). Lastly, finishing a DIY turntable & Transcendent Masterpiece 300B preamp (almost done). My main system - Merlin VSMs, Joule VZN-80 & Joule Preamp (on pause due to lightning damage). Active system - Transcendent Grounded Grid preamp, Welborne Lab 2A3 Moondog monoblocks and diy Tang Band W8-1772 OB speakers (with built in subs). I’ll eventually mate the modified Thiel CS3.5s and powered subs with my Marantz Estotec SM6 amplifier. As you might guess, my wife is a patient woman. |
slhibj - Limited knowledge and experience here. I hope that directly experienced users will comment. Although the FR and other performance and technologies of the SS 10F are appropriate, I worry about the 30 Watt power rating compared with 50 or more (memory fails) for the original. Rob and I have chosen the 10F for a CS2 and 2.2 replacement. But the 3.5s XO is an octave lower (400 vs 800Hz) plus the Equalizer boosts the low end of the midrange driver considerably. Consider that the stock MR were somewhat fragile if driven hard - we replaced hundreds with burned voice coils. So, I'm leery of the the 10F for the 3.5. But my opinion is just that, an opinion without definitive experience.
We (here) need to find a 3.5 replacement. I suggest you contact Rob Gillum at Coherent Source Service to learn his recent experience regarding your problem. And I also look forward to hearing from others here.
|
slhijb
Welcome! Good to see you here. Stay tuned until one of the Panel's 3.5 experts chimes in to address your query.I look forward in reading more about your musical tastes and system.
Happy Listening!
|
Looking to replace the damaged mid-range in my Thiel CS3.5 speakers.
PBN Audio recommends the Scanspeak 10F/8424G 4” as a replacement.
Apparently no modifications to the crossover are required. Has
anyone heard the CS3.5 with the 10F/8424G? If so, can you describe the
sound? Power handling long term max power of 30W and a relatively low 400Hz crossover seem OK? This is reportedly a most outstanding driver. Do you think it is an improvement over the original mid-range driver?
Moved this question to the Thiel Forum. Hope it's in the right place. Thanks.
|
|
Coherent speakers must heed the listening position to test properly. JA knows this. His normal, small room would add too many early reflections to give readable graphs. So he chose 50” which gives false readings for coherent sources. There are other review rags using more legitimate methods.
Early on, JA explained, even apologized for the misleading readings. But subsequent ownership policy changed that. |
I now realize what I've been misinterpreting for fifteen years. The infamous Stereophile measurements are taken at 50". Their 2.4 test figure #5 "vertical response family" shows the 1kHz crossover suckout just above the tweeter axis.
So at my 9' listening position vs their 4'
measurement position you suggest I have far more leeway for vertical response, even though my 38" listening position is only 2" above "ideal." Whew.
I can't understand how JA's 50" measurements correlate to the real world for any speakers but pure-nearfield mini-monitors, regardless of XO design or driver spacing, especially the large multi-ways they typically test. |
sdecker - tilting is the less offensive solution. But the changes introduced by either tilting or lifting are very small and either provides better performance than listening at the 'wrong' window. The coherence puzzle has its requirements, and Jim chose the average 3' ear height as part of the solution. The window is not as small as some imagine it to be unless you sit closer than 8' where it falls apart very quickly. Sit at 10' and you get a lot of leeway.
|
The butcher blocks aren't a solution for me due to WAF and stability, and with Tom's information, why upset my frequency balance, when the bass in my room is outstanding as is? But is tilting the speakers <1" back on spikes, which tilts the baffle back the same amount, launching the wavefront 'higher', as the laser pointer indicates 8" higher at 9'? Even if in so doing I lose a couple degrees of phase and gain a taller listening window before midrange suckout? Or don't I really? |
stspur
Thank You for the update. Good to read we have another DIY member of the Panel.
Happy Listening!
|
Hey fellow Thiel 'Gonners! Just wanted to give you updates on my 3.6 XO project. Thanks for all the wonderful advice thus far! I placed orders for Mills MRA -12 resistors some time ago and they have trickled in slowly due to shipping delays from our present unpleasentness. The first round did come in last week and was able to place 1, 6, and 15 ohm resitors into service this weekend. WOW! I'm just astounded at difference just a few new resitors can make: much taller and wider sound stage with less congested imaging. Can't wait for the remaining to arrive and have already placed orders for the ClarityCap CSAs as well.
There is smige of midband Squack but I am to understand that it's from the heated solder and will settle after time. 24 hours in and I'm already noticing it's disipation.
I'm continuing to stick with original layout values for now however I discovered a discrepency in my XO setup: the original layout uses a 1.8ohm resistor in series after the midrange first station gang . my XO uses doubled 10 ohm restistors in it's place. These are original Thiel resistors so I know they were plaaced into service at the shop. I'm to understand that there were a few updates after the last layout was used and the final version printed though. Leave it to Jim and the team to continue upgrading even after production was well underway; a testimate to their integrity and passion. More to come.
|
Yes, the butcher block will work. But remember that the bass will shelve down at 200Hz to lose a little weight as you raise the woofer up from its design height from the floor.
|
dhoff01
Yes, butcher block will work. Fine tune the height of speakers to your musical preference.
Happy Listening!
|
|
|
jazzman7
Nice catch! Happy Listening!
|
|
sdecker - I was thinking more in terms of a butcher block or something similar to help raise the height, but I hear what you're saying.
I'm also lucky in that I have my own dedicated room above the garage, but I still have to make it aesthetically pleasing for the missus. Not that I'm complaining, of course..
|
dhoff01: raising the speakers 2" on the spikes, if they could go up that high, would be precarious and less-stable. Not that sound travels this way, but putting a laser pointer atop the speaker and raising the front spikes 1" up moves the laser pointer up 8" at my 9' listening distance. I'm doing this to manage a taller vertical listening window w/o suckout, even though I'm sure it takes a very small hit in overall coherency. The tiny amount of potential phase shift from this is still far better than every non-time-aligned speaker out there!
Regarding the positioning, a lot of it is a function of living room WAF symmetry. But the walls to the side and rear are so far away from the speaker boundaries, I can't believe they play a role at these distances, especially because none of them are 'true' walls in my open floor plan.
If my toe-in was any less, it wouldn't be visible. It was from putzing with speaker width apart vs soundstage breadth vs HF balance. If I went from <10 deg toe-in to zero, the effect would be minimal for sure. But after 15 years of tweaking these speakers to this acoustic, I can now notice ridiculously small changes. So rather than obsess about it, I take the time to find a reasonable compromise and let them sit in that position for years :-) |
Good stuff guys. Thanks for chiming in.
sdecker- instead of tilting the speakers, have you tried raising them altogether by a couple of inches so you can also maintain time/phase coherency? Or is there another disadvantage to doing it this way? Just curious..
I also find it interesting that you both toe in and you keep your speakers positioned equidistant in the corners. I prefer not to toe in mine, as I find it takes away from the width of the soundstage, but that’s just my personal preference. I also always heard that you shouldn’t place your speakers at the same distances to the side and back walls, but always questioned whether this was truly required when considering speaker placement.
|
dhoff01
I try to measure everything from or to the tweeter on my 2.7s ,
speakers are 8ft apart and 8ft 6 inches from my ears
31 inches from front wall and 32 inches from side wall
with 1/2 inch toe in .
Listening height is 36 inches .
I just recently moved the speakers 6 inches further away and reduced the toe in by 1 inch after changing speaker cables to take advantage
of the improved depth and sound staging .
|
