Poll: speakers parallel or inclined to the listener?

[chaosrealm93]

Different amounts of toe in for different speakers. The ones I have now sound best when toed in about 15 deg

[english210]

Still playing with mine. Aerial 7ts, +/- 6' apart, about 8 1/2' from my seat, and varying distnaces from the front wall...right now the outide edges of the front baffle are 44 1/2", inside edges are 44", so slight toe in. I key in on image width and depth, and so far this doing well. Many recordings have instruments placed well outside the limits of the speakers, and height and depth are wonderful as well.

 

But I am not so naive as to think I'm done experimenting

[Sam Lord]

I have a few opinions on this subject.

 

1) Time alignment, AKA correct group delay, is vastly more important than room acoustics when speakers are well positioned in rooms. Direct radiation trumps reflections when group delay is correct. Most audiophiles have never heard correct group delay, so they fiddle in the dark with idle speculation about room tonal balance while their systems fail in the above fundamental performance.

 

2) I have set up very many speaker systems, and I have never heard speakers with the above correct setup sounding better with substantial toe-in.

 

3) Wherever one uses speakers with 3 or more fixed drivers, there is only *one* listening distance where group delay is correct. Speaker makers universally fail to inform customers of that direct result of physics. However, adjustable crossovers can achieve correct group delay with ease. 2-way or 2+ way articulating speakers (remember old B&W 801s with the moving tweeter enclosure? Bingo!) can also achieve the goal. Group delay errors at 18kHz become noticeable in the 2-4usec range.

 

4) Anybody can learn to obtain correct group delay for fun and profit. Just use a pair of two-way speakers, use repeatable tilting mechanisms like coins under spikes, and listen to tom-tom hits.

[Jud]

I have a few opinions on this subject.

 

1) Time alignment, AKA correct group delay, is vastly more important than room acoustics when speakers are well positioned in rooms. Direct radiation trumps reflections when group delay is correct. Most audiophiles have never heard correct group delay, so they fiddle in the dark with idle speculation about room tonal balance while their systems fail in the above fundamental performance.

 

2) I have set up very many speaker systems, and I have never heard speakers with the above correct setup sounding better with substantial toe-in.

 

3) Wherever one uses speakers with 3 or more fixed drivers, there is only *one* listening distance where group delay is correct. Speaker makers universally fail to inform customers of that direct result of physics. However, adjustable crossovers can achieve correct group delay with ease. 2-way or 2+ way articulating speakers (remember old B&W 801s with the moving tweeter enclosure? Bingo!) can also achieve the goal. Group delay errors at 18kHz become noticeable in the 2-4usec range.

 

4) Anybody can learn to obtain correct group delay for fun and profit. Just use a pair of two-way speakers, use repeatable tilting mechanisms like coins under spikes, and listen to tom-tom hits.

 

On the subject of correct tilt, as with other set-up and placement topics, the Vandersteen owner's manuals are concise and clear. See p. 6 of http://vandersteen.com//media/files/Manuals/3asigmanual.pdf . See also p. 9 re toe-in.

[Sam Lord]

Jud, that's a good manual. I have no love for Vandersteen the man, but he knew a good design (and baffle-less and time-alignment methods) to, um, "borrow" when he saw it.

[mkrzych]

Your Dali's use both a 1" dome and a super tweeter of the ribbon type. Due to the very high crossover point to the ribbon, they exhibit even horizontal dispersion from 3.5khz on up......BUT ribbons have very narrow vertical dispersion so the ceiling and floor doesnt get illuminated with reflected HF energy and bounce back at the listener with energy.

 

They need to be listened to with the vertical axis between the ribbon and the dome. The dome's directivity match is poor to the ribbon in the vertical. There will be a very deep null at the crossover point. Horizontal toe in will be dependant on the distance to the side walls and your personal preference. I suggest experimenting only in the horizontal.....the vertical needs to fixed.

 

The really serious design flaw of the Dali Mentor 2 is the 6.5" mid driver playing all the way to 3.4khz. It's already beaming from 2.2khz and there's no directivity match to any other driver in the system. With a fixed vertical position dictated by the poor vertical response of the ribbon, the mid is now significantly off axis and content from 2.2khz up to nearly 4hz is recessed significantly. It's not a flavor i could live with daily, but probobly works on occasion as a flavor of the month.

 

So in summary, fix the vertical window to ear height level with the space between the dome and the ribbon, experiment with toe in to taste and enjoy! Get two subwoofers if you dont have em already.

 

Coming back to the subject, some time ago I've got the response from product house (PM) of the Dali contradicting that statement, what do you think about it:

 

"DALI uses the ribbon because of its brilliant ability to disperse high frequencies, and the crossover point between 10KHz – 14KHz is chosen because it is where the soft dome loses its ability to disperse. I also do not agree that the crossover point for the woofer causes a drop on the frequency response. All DALI speakers are build for wide dispersion, and does not need to be toed in. The frequency response is optimized for between 10 to 30 degrees off-axis.

 

DALI do not give out data measurements on our speakers, but German magazine i-fidelity.net did a test and measurements on the MENTOR 2.

 

Here is the link for your, http://www.i-fidelity.net/testberichte/hifi/dali-mentor-2/laborbericht.html"

[Kal Rubinson]

The poll needs a third option: It depends.

[semente]

Coming back to the subject, some time ago I've got the response from product house (PM) of the Dali contradicting that statement, what do you think about it:

 

"DALI uses the ribbon because of its brilliant ability to disperse high frequencies, and the crossover point between 10KHz – 14KHz is chosen because it is where the soft dome loses its ability to disperse. I also do not agree that the crossover point for the woofer causes a drop on the frequency response. All DALI speakers are build for wide dispersion, and does not need to be toed in. The frequency response is optimized for between 10 to 30 degrees off-axis.

 

DALI do not give out data measurements on our speakers, but German magazine i-fidelity.net did a test and measurements on the MENTOR 2.

 

Here is the link for your, Dali Mentor 2:*Laborbericht*-*i-fidelity.net"

 

Those measurements were made in-room and are unsuitable for evaluating the dispersion characteristics of a speaker.

 

Dispersion and tonal balance are two fundamental loudspeakers characteristics that manufacturers (and audiophiles) don't agree on.

 

The Toole school defends that speakers should have an evenly balance wide dispersion pattern.

On the other hand, the BBC concluded that it was beneficial to reduce off-axis output in the "presence" region and top; they do have a point because the ear is most sensitive in the presence "region" and most domestic rooms have hard naked walls that reflect high frequencies.

 

As for tonal balance, both B&K and the BBC favour a down-tilting in-room frequency response as more "natural" and "warm", and the later adds that an attenuation of around 2dB at the "presence" region will produce a note convincing representation of the orchestra.

 

 

As such, if the measurements you linked are accurate the Mentor 2s probably sound "coldish" and quite "bright" (or "fast", "3D" and "hyper-detailed", depending on who you ask).

 

R

[mkrzych]

Those measurements were made in-room and are unsuitable for evaluating the dispersion characteristics of a speaker.

 

Dispersion and tonal balance are two fundamental loudspeakers characteristics that manufacturers (and audiophiles) don't agree on.

 

The Toole school defends that speakers should have an evenly balance wide dispersion pattern.

On the other hand, the BBC concluded that it was beneficial to reduce off-axis output in the "presence" region and top; they do have a point because the ear is most sensitive in the presence "region" and most domestic rooms have hard naked walls that reflect high frequencies.

 

As for tonal balance, both B&K and the BBC favour a down-tilting in-room frequency response as more "natural" and "warm", and the later adds that an attenuation of around 2dB at the "presence" region will produce a note convincing representation of the orchestra.

 

 

As such, if the measurements you linked are accurate the Mentor 2s probably sound "coldish" and quite "bright" (or "fast", "3D" and "hyper-detailed", depending on who you ask).

 

R

 

Yes, I know about this contradicting schools of speaker design and interpretation. For me Mentor 2's do not sound "coldish" or "bright", I have chosen them because they sounded more matured and less in-your-face in the high frequency then Ikons for instance. Yes, they're detailed, but it depends on the recording which I assumed is a sign of neutrality.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dalethorn]

The poll needs a third option: It depends.

 

Certainly. First, after suitably stuffing the room (or not) to achieve ideal absorption/reflection, then you sit in your comfy chair and have the partner perform the toe-in/toe-out until ideal balance and detail is achieved. (Oops, was that 2 things at once? Hmmm...) Then after reviewing a number of favorite recordings and taking copious notes (so's to avoid repeating past mistakes), the last final tweak is made and (brilliant, spectacular success, perfect soundstage etc.) or, "there's just something - a hardness it sounds like - gawd that's bugging me to no end". Now aren't you glad you took notes?

[徐中銳]

"All DALI speakers are build for wide dispersion, and does not need to be toed in."

 

Greetings Krzysztof,

in short, Ken with his lifetime of experience :

 

And Ricardo, this Thread's too long for me to try to read diligently from the start and...

 

In addition to Malcolm Steward's advice I'd quoted, I'll find you another time the article I've bookmarked about...

[mkrzych]

Greetings Krzysztof' date='[/font']

in short, Ken with his lifetime of experience :

 

And Ricardo, this Thread's too long for me to try to read diligently from the start and...

 

In addition to Malcolm Steward's advice I'd quoted, I'll find you another time the article I've bookmarked about...

 

Yes, I know about Ken's ideology to toe-in speakers extremely, but is it also good method for the normal listening environment? He is doing that because of the number of people in the room to extend the stereo image somehow AFAIK. Of course I can try in my set up as well, since I am doing only slight toe-in for my Dali's and the tweeter mid axis is not crossing just before my face, rather far behind. Is it something very wrong?

[EuroChamp]

It depends on the speakers, it depends on the room and on personal preference.

Everything is allowed as long the result ist a good listening experience.

(my opinion)

[徐中銳]

Alright, the TAV Show 2013 article as promised, translated from Vietnamese into English by me referring to Google and Bing online translators :

Present in the room listening were Marantz Premium 11 Series products to Boston Acoustics M340 loudspeakers already set-up soundstaged pretty good by the distributor—but Ken Ishiwata took off his coat and begins to reposition the speakers again. Although at the age of 66, Ken's assured adjusting of those heavy speakers was strong and swift as a young man's.

 

The first music test track was of solo piano, Ken began rotating the left speaker to toe-in at the central listener, he paces back and forth to hear it at the sides as well as facing the speaker. Then continuing the same process with the right speaker.

 

Next, Ken changed discs to vocal tracks, constantly tweaking the toe-in of the two speakers. The special thing is that throughout his procedure of setting-up he does not stand in the sweet spot to hear, instead stands off on the left corner of the room.

 

After Ken nodded approval at his set-up—we're amazed the speakers are almost shooting at each other in a toe-in angle we've not seen anywhere. His last test track was a traditional Japanese drum recording and the audio performance as newly set up by Ken can be described as a miracle—he helped to extend the soundstage, we can pinpoint the position of each drum ranging from front to rear that extends out of the room—the speakers disappear completely !

 

However, what we found most surprising was the system's sound being almost unchanged when moving from the seating position to either left or right and even for the corner of the room. Concept of sweet spot no longer exists, Boston M340 speakers at the hands this « wizard » become omni-directional speakers in just 20 minutes.

 

Try, if you like, translating to your own native language from original

 

[semente]

I am with mkrzych on this one: crossing the axis in front of the listening spot is common in show because it widens the sweetspot area.

But it's not the "best performing" arrangement for stereophonic sound with well designed speakers.

 

R

[徐中銳]

I prefer writing a Post after enough consideration that I needn't follow it up for days, months, and perhaps never.

 

But since no one else has said so to Ricardo, firstly, why must a « sweet spot » ? Is that your criterion for « well designed speakers » ? Of « stereophonic sound » I had already quoted Andrew Everard's It's the Soundstage, Stupid...

Don't you, if not dance, move to music ? Are you really straitjacketly stationary ? Can—do you listen with family, or a few friends, around ?

 

Secondly, readers do note that above, Ken at TAV was in a very standard regular-sized everyday room ?

 

Thirdly, it's actually more « common » for demonstrators at shows to revert to stereotypical expectations of parallel speakers rather dispel knee-jerk...

 

Lastly, quoting Q&A of where Ken's coming from with his testing tracks :

How do you measure quality?

KI: Of course we have instruments. But these can only measure ‘sonic parameters’ in a static way. Instruments can only measure instantaneously – it’s like taking a still photograph of a dancer: it is precisely accurate but shows nothing of the dynamism, speed and rhythm of the dancer. Music is also dynamic. Its tone, volume, pitch and intensity continuously change. That’s why every time I work on a product I measure its quality by referencing a piece of music that I absolutely know sonically and perceptually from its original source. Only then can I relate the character of each component as part of a whole.

 

It is essential to understand what quality in original music really means. I believe this is the only way to reference the design process. You can’t just take a commercial CD as a reference point, because you can’t know the authenticity of its origins. At Marantz, we understand this importance as an absolute necessity.

[semente]

I prefer writing a Post after enough consideration that I needn't follow it up for days' date=' months, and perhaps never.[/font']

 

But since no one else has said so to Ricardo, firstly, why must a « sweet spot » ? Is that your criterion for « well designed speakers » ? Of « stereophonic sound » I had already quoted Andrew Everard's It's the Soundstage, Stupid...

Don't you, if not dance, move to music ? Are you really straitjacketly stationary ? Can—do you listen with family, or a few friends, around ?

 

Secondly, readers do note that above, Ken at TAV was in a very standard regular-sized everyday room ?

 

Thirdly, it's actually more « common » for demonstrators at shows to revert to stereotypical expectations of parallel speakers rather dispel knee-jerk...

 

Lastly, quoting Q&A of where Ken's coming from with his testing tracks :

 

Good morning,

 

Unfortunately there is no way around it: stereo is a solo experience, it's nature of the beast and there is no way around it (yet?).

Some speakers and speaker topologies produce a wider dispersion but the "sweet spot" is never wide enough; it's a radiation problem.

As far as I know, "sweet spot" can not only be defined as the position in which the illusion of tridimensionality materializes but also as the point where the sound field being produced provides the best sound quality (most balanced, least amount of artifacts).

 

-

 

As for my listening habits, my staple consists mostly of "classical" music but I do listen (attentively) to a bit of jazz and ethnical music every once in a while.

And although not "straitjacketly stationary", when I listen to music I don't move my body any more than I would at a live "classical" concert.

Listening is an intellectual, emotional and spiritual experience that requires my full, undivided attention.

But sometimes a bump into a waltz and my wife grabs me by the hand and has me making a fool of myself for my lack of flair.

 

Pop / rock on the other hand is mostly played while driving, or having a good/goofy time with my wife and children (or sometimes when I'm working or cooking); we dance, jump around and have fun, just as we would at a live gig.

 

-

 

Finally, I do agree that it's quite common to find speakers with their axis pointing parallel to the side walls at shows.

This layout increases the amount of side-wall reflections which in turn produce too different results: increased "soundstage" effect which masks the location of the sound source (the speakers "disappear") and more diffused (or less focused) imaging which is another way to widen the "sweet spot".

 

R

[Sam Lord]

I'll mention one fact and one opinion.

 

1) Fact: Non-coaxial, 2+way loudspeakers with transducers in fixed relative positions within an enclosure and fixed crossovers can only produce correct time alignment (call it coherence for short) at ONE fairly small listening space for direct radiation. The audible error is around 2us for high frequencies. A small ellipsoid contains the space. The rest have audible error of coherence. The alignment of all the reflections will also be in error, that is geometry. Most manufacturers, show demonstrators, and listeners get it wrong IME.

 

2) Opinion: setting up multiway speakers to be coherent in a paralleled position usually has better subjective results because the parallel setup makes the side reflections more coherent than the toed-in position. Room treatment is FAR less important than time alignment. Reason: direct radiation matters far more than reflections WHEN the direct radiation is coherent. For proof, try this in an untreated room with two-way speakers or two-way speakers with separate subs. Your audio life and system value will improve dramatically.

 

Cheers

[ecwl]

It's interesting how different people decide whether to toe-in their speakers. For example, it sounds like Sam Lord focused on driver coherence. I generally go to a speaker measurement website like Stereophile or Soundstage and look at how the horizontal off-axis response look, particularly in the treble area. If the high frequencies roll off quickly off-axis, I generally point the speakers to the primary listening position. If the roll off of the high frequency is much less off-axis, aka. The tweeter has wider dispersion, I usually toe in less and may even have the speakers parallel. But this is always the last thing I set. I usually optimize for the smoothest bass frequency response first then soundstage then toe in last.

[SteveS1]

Every speaker is different. Some are better pointed more at the listener and some aren't. Good thing it's free to try it both ways. Mine are better pointed down and toed in a couple of inches.

 

This. The desirability of a little toe-in can result from placement in relation to side walls. Mine ended up with a bit of toe-in. The balance between width and depth of soundstage v strong centre focus seems to work best that way. They cross about 4ft behind behind the 11ft listening position.

[Sam Lord]

Another consideration is air absorption. My room is fairly deep so my highs are a bit more attenuated at my listening position. In trials of B&W 802D1s I found a near-zero toe-in position that gave very good (but not perfect) driver coherency but a far better soundstage. Once again, the time accuracy of the direct radiation signal was the key.

 

I think most soundstage problems result from driver incoherence that I spoke of before. Toe-in *independent* of time alignment has never been needed for me to have natural, complete center images and correct placement of acoustic sources.

 

I would love to try out Pass Lab's SP1 speaker someday. With two drivers in the top cabinet and two below, it can easily be placed in a time-coherent array for any listening position. If they ever gave the settings....

[semente]

Another consideration is air absorption. My room is fairly deep so my highs are a bit more attenuated at my listening position. In trials of B&W 802D1s I found a near-zero toe-in position that gave very good (but not perfect) driver coherency but a far better soundstage. Once again, the time accuracy of the direct radiation signal was the key.

 

I think most soundstage problems result from driver incoherence that I spoke of before. Toe-in *independent* of time alignment has never been needed for me to have natural, complete center images and correct placement of acoustic sources.

 

Listening distance would also make an interesting topic.

 

In my opinion and experience, to achieve the best imaging and tonal balance one should listen as near field as possible (far enough to allow driver integration).

The longer the distance to speakers, the least direct sound at the listening spot; one will get a less accurate reproduction of the recorded signal, though sound source will be more difficult to identify and the "soundstage" effect could be enhanced as it's quite dependent on room reflections.

 

Imaging ≠ "soundstage"

 

R

[lmitche]

Wilson Audio outlines a very detailed procedure for speaker alignment, and relative distances in their speaker manuals. These are available online, and are likely to be universal enough guidance for any pair of speakers. If nothing else reading this will teach you the many variables that need to be considered.

[anwaypasible]

ya'll are pushing old information that wasn't worth a damn since the beginning.

the only reason they tell you where to put your speakers as well as how much toe in is to reduce room modes.

the reason you find some speakers sound better with more or less toe in is because of the size of the room in combination with the speaker design.

 

nobody has said the most important factor, the audio mastering used to create sound effects such as virtual speakers.

they know most rooms are rectangle.

but they have no idea how far away your speakers are to the walls or floor or ceiling.

you can't dial in virtual speakers without knowing how far away the speakers are from the walls.

audio mastering techniques can realize there's a very typical pattern in the room, and if they use these factors in practice they are doing more harm than good.

 

everybody can put their speakers in the corners pointed at the middle of the room.

that sets the foundation for the virtual speakers to function.

if one room is 10ft wide while another room is 20ft wide, obviously the virtual speaker location wont be exact - but the location should scale.

no, it doesn't matter if your speakers are close to the floor or halfway between the ceiling and floor - you can use the horizontal specifically.

we know the sound doesn't leave the speaker and lift up higher, thus it is safe to assume the speaker uses the horizontal rather than the vertical.

 

those speaker placement guides are for lazy people that don't calibrate their frequency response.

you'll sit there messing with it until you get a mixture of the flattest frequency response with the least amount of phase distortion that would cause a loss in detail.

 

but when creating a virtual speaker and you need the soundwave's reflection to build on the virtual speaker, your speaker is far away from the wall and the math simply gets lost in translation.

 

the funny thing about calibration is, you can place your mic up high or down low or anywhere in the middle to equalize that area using timing corrections.

but it takes advanced timing corrections to get the math to translate to the listening position when trying to build on virtual speakers.

then your speaker's are going to require a weirder pattern of electricity going to them because they've got to scream at the top of their lungs to make it to the side wall reflection on time, only to slow down excessively for other parts of the math equation.

your amp is going to be over-worked, and if neither one of them fails you are still going to be using more power and that could cause lower output volume since you've got to turn it down because of distortion from the amp and|or more power going to the voice coils.

 

i bet there's a lot of sound effects that don't make sense and it sounds like jibberish because your speakers aren't translating the math equations properly.

 

it's stupid to think the speakers output sound effects using only the direct radiation pattern from the cones as the single source of sound effects, because the next step is using the reflections to build on those sound effects.

there is more to audio mastering than simply using (for lack of a better word) crossfeed.

when you toe in your speakers, you are cutting your crossfeed short by reducing the depth that can be cast out from the speakers.

if you think one speaker can interact with the other speaker in such a specific way that creates a sound effect, why aren't you thinking the speaker can interact with the rooms reflections?

 

there is more to audio mastering than simply panning a sound from left to middle to right.

i'm certain of it.

i can use reverb to make a stereo pair of speakers play a phantom sound source on the back wall that is louder than the sound near the speakers.

it didn't matter if i walked up and down the back wall or if i walked left to right in the middle of the room.

and don't bother looking for a vst reverb plugin to do it yourself, because i've looked and couldn't find one with the advanced controls necessary.

 

they are trying to put everybody in padded cells with a screen and holes in the pads for the speakers.

but at the same time convolution is growing older, and the older it gets the more of the room's echo will be removed while still being able to use the reflections for virtual speakers and sound effects.

 

face the fact, if you put your speakers in the same place pointed in the same direction - regardless of room size there is an empty canvas that repeats itself for the audio mastering engineers to do their work.

there's soundwaves bouncing around in all directions, sure, but they are the same for all rectangle rooms (minus missing walls (or corners) or angled walls).

the phantom speaker might be twice as far away from the back wall in a 20ft room than a 10ft room, but they will both be centered in the middle of the room - and as far as percentages go, they will be the same.

so what if the distances aren't perfect as long as the percentages are.

 

there's going to be a large number of people stuck trying to get rid of speakers that are made for a specific room size as well as meant to work in those rooms without calibration.

you'll find these speakers when you do a calibration and they sound worse with the details than without the calibration.

that is because you can design a speaker to work in a specific room size, using a waveform from the speaker that mixes with the the room to create a good waveform at the listening position.

but they are preset gimmicks for the lazy.

the reason you find some speakers work better with more or less toe in is because the adjustments you are making is helping the final shape of the waveform at the listening position.

that is how you build a speaker for room sizes between ____ and ____ being the limit with different spacing and toe in to get the waveform shape good at the listening position.

that is also why you can use a pair of speakers designed for a bigger or smaller room to get the same results simply spacing them further apart or closer together depending on how far away the listening position is.

 

by not calibrating your speakers and following the usual suggested speaker placement advice, you are getting rid of the basics of muddy sound.

are you going to move on & get rid of the next problem?

 

you don't need to worry about whether you listen in the middle of the room or somewhat further back or against the back wall.

my receiver was built in 2002 or 2003 and it has the option to easily create the possibility of simply selecting which of those three positions you are using.

in theory, all of the sound effects (minus the back wall effects) can be shoved further and further back (closer to the listening position) depending on preference.

all you gotta do is calibrate the timing using calibration at the listening position (with the speakers in a sensible location obviously).

 

you can't expect the audio mastering engineers to help you if you aren't helping them.

 

it's stupid to build amplifiers that are less capable, then simply add more speakers to make up for the amplifiers lack of capability.

for audiophiles, it is hard enough to find a house with a living room that has four walls.

then expect them to put 7 or 9 full range speakers in the room? that is asking too much.

people forget there are a whole bunch of houses that are about 100 years old with small rooms.

buying or building 7 or 9 full range speakers is expensive alone.

then factor in people unhappy with their first choice, they've got to sell the speakers and probably take a loss in the sale.

 

back in the day, the only reason you needed rear speakers for a quadraphonic setup was because the room was big enough that the front speakers couldn't play loud enough from the rear when seated in the middle of the room.

nowadays they demand it to make the speakers & amplifiers less sophisticated.

i know audio can have a strong hold on people.

i know audio can help people hold it together.

people without room shouldn't be penalized because there is less amount of space for the extra speakers.

doesn't matter if the person is raising a family, a business, or going to college in a dorm room.

 

if my post isn't clear enough with reason, the audio industry is going to leave you behind.

i'm certain of this, because it isn't feasible to put a strip of speakers along the entire wall of the room - how could they when different room sizes would require a different number of speakers?

plus building home theater receivers with that many individual amps is absurd.

 

it's disappointing looking at dolby's speaker placement for 9.1.2 speaker configuration.

they show speakers on stands that could get knocked over and cause severe damage to children or pets (or a broken toe or ankle).

then you look at the speaker placement from above and you realize their suggestion for front wide speakers is in the middle between the front speakers and the rear surround speakers.

but we already know they can use a virtual speaker for that location, the only difference is the front speaker choosing to use the inside field or the outside field.

5.1 systems have been able to hit that spot in the past, and it is the easiest spot to hit since it is simply in the middle between the front and rear speaker.

with that said, you see they cut out the 25% portion of the rear of the room by placing a speaker there.

what's next, they cut out the 25% portion for the front?

 

see there is hell to pay, because giving you a speaker location with an angle is said to work with the waves in the room since they are all the same - thus they can mix with those waves to get a math equation worked out.

but, and this is a big but..

regardless of dialing in the distance of the listening position from each speaker, that doesn't tell the processor anything about whether you are in the middle of the room, a little further back, or against the wall.

also, it doesn't tell the processor whether your speakers are all the way against the wall or if they are on stands further away from the wall.

if you can't quantify the room, you can't quantify sound effects.

all you get is mediocre panning when there's much more to be had.

i'm saying all the waves, the axial .. the tangential .. the oblique .. they aren't working in favor for you as they could, thus they are working against you, thus the reason they tell you to use sound absorption paneling.

 

i'm just saying, convolution is coming and it will remove the need for sound absorption paneling - but your speaker placement would still be wrong.

 

i've heard my whole room sound as if it was raining, i don't expect the same effect to happen if the speaker's location isn't helping.

and if they can output such a bloom that fills the entire room, there's no reason why they can't use the reflections more.

even with youtube's compression, i've heard audio that places sound on the back wall - wasn't nearly as strong as what i did, but the possibility is there given the bit depth and sample rate.

i'm assuming the effect i did was using 16 bit 44.1khz or 48khz audio, but it might of been 24 bit without my knowledge.

even if it was, the new home theater receivers do 24 bit audio and this receiver is technically only 16 bit with super audio cd abilities.

i was also able to get strong phantom speakers on the sides of me using the reverb with stereo speakers.

if i can gain three phantom speaker locations using reverb, they should be able to do more virtual speakers.

[Jud]

Wilson Audio outlines a very detailed procedure for speaker alignment, and relative distances in their speaker manuals. These are available online, and are likely to be universal enough guidance for any pair of speakers. If nothing else reading this will teach you the many variables that need to be considered.

 

Same with Vandersteen manuals. Both brands of speakers are time aligned, which is likely the reason they counsel this level of care in setup. (The Vandersteens are phase aligned as well - don't know about the Wilsons, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.) However, as you say, the advice is good for most speakers, as it helps with avoiding room modes, imaging, and soundstaging.