What angle do you have for speaker positions?

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

You lose audiophile credibility points. 

Ah, yes, of course,

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Flat reflective surface between speakers effects imaging negatively or so the conventional wisdom goes. 

Well, since the speakers are well forward of the TV screen , I don’t think it’s  problem. The speakers image beautifully. 

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Plus you lose additional audiophile credibility points because it indicates you may adulterate your pure audio experience by also having video included. 

OK. My TV is not connected to my audio system - except that I use it as a computer monitor for my Tidal account, which I access on my Mac PowerBook with an app on my iPad from my listening chair.

[Ralf11]

both George & I have long tweeters ('ribbons') & I bet reduces the deleterious effects of a screen in between them

 

not sure about whether a dipole makes it worse or not

[esldude]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

both George & I have long tweeters ('ribbons') & I bet reduces the deleterious effects of a screen in between them

 

not sure about whether a dipole makes it worse or not

Oh of course it makes it worse.  Now you have sound directly behind the speaker to interact with what is between them.  In box speaker not much sound goes to the rear.  I'm afraid you guys are going to lose some points. 

 

Now your only defense is if you put the screen directly in the null zone for each dipole speaker, then you have half a defense for your un-audiophile system configuration.  

 

 

[semente]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

OK. My TV is not connected to my audio system - except that I use it as a computer monitor for my Tidal account, which I access on my Mac PowerBook with an app on my iPad from my listening chair.

Ideally you should be projecting onto an acoustic panel. But unfortunately most of us don't have a home studio or dedicated listening room.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, esldude said:

You lose audiophile credibility points. 

 

Flat reflective surface between speakers effects imaging negatively or so the conventional wisdom goes. 

 

Friend of mine had an email sig that said simply, "You can't win." Must be true. Folks who tweak system components are told this means nothing next to the interaction between speakers and room, then they get finicky about room setup and....

 

(I have my [unblanketed] TV mounted on the wall between my speakers.)

[PeterSt]

OK. First off, I once had one of these in the office board room:

This is from long ago (say 25 years) and it may be a surprise what they were for, which was ...

 

Capture more light from overhead projectors (beamers) which weren't of infinite lumen back in those days. So because of the shape they would reflect more light.

 

And sound.

 

Such a screen is the most nasty thing to have, especially in a board room where people may sit everywhere, and depending on the position of the speaker of the moment (somewhere in the room), you just couldn't be in "your" position because of the converging sound towards you and the totally odd sound because of it (which could be way loud just the same). So now suppose you have one of these:

 

you'll be f*cked. And you may not even realize it is the cause, with music.

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

... your un-audiophile system configuration.  

 

 

 

 

yeh - I'm losing street cred

 

 

 

 

* actually the Maggies are angled, so the screen is pretty close to the null - and... the back wave is reflecting back to the listening position, so...

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, semente said:

Ideally you should be projecting onto an acoustic panel. But unfortunately most of us don't have a home studio or dedicated listening room.

So True. 

[Sonicularity]

32 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

yeh - I'm losing street cred

 

 

 

 

* actually the Maggies are angled, so the screen is pretty close to the null - and... the back wave is reflecting back to the listening position, so...

 

Street cred?  This is like losing cul-de-sac cred. 😋

[Miska]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

Oh of course it makes it worse.  Now you have sound directly behind the speaker to interact with what is between them.  In box speaker not much sound goes to the rear.  I'm afraid you guys are going to lose some points. 

 

Have you tried speakers with cardioid radiation pattern (like Amphion Krypton)? I've heard quite a number of such, just don't own myself any right now.

 

Dipoles like Magnepans and electrostatics are very good if the back scatter is correctly dealt with. Usually they also have very high vertical directivity of a line array (minimal floor and ceiling reflections) while have dipole polar pattern and thus with minimal side wall reflections.

 

Problem with boxed speakers is that they are very directional at highest frequencies while becoming omnis at the low end. So you'd need some diffuse field compensation if you want flat response.

 

But typical room curve would be about -6 dB slope, for my DRC purposes I'm usually fine with B&K curve.

 

[Sonicularity]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Have you tried speakers with cardioid radiation pattern? I've heard quite a number of such, just don't own myself any right now.

 

Problem with boxed speakers is that they are very directional at highest frequencies while becoming omnis at the low end. So you'd need some diffuse field compensation if you want flat response.

 

But typical room curve would be about -6 dB slope, for my DRC purposes I'm usually fine with B&K curve.

 

 

Just get a pair of Ohm Walsh speakers and place them in the room symmetrically...anywhere.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Have you tried speakers with cardioid radiation pattern (like Amphion Krypton)? I've heard quite a number of such, just don't own myself any right now.

 

Dipoles like Magnepans and electrostatics are very good if the back scatter is correctly dealt with. Usually they also have very high vertical directivity of a line array (minimal floor and ceiling reflections) while have dipole polar pattern and thus with minimal side wall reflections.

 

Problem with boxed speakers is that they are very directional at highest frequencies while becoming omnis at the low end. So you'd need some diffuse field compensation if you want flat response.

 

But typical room curve would be about -6 dB slope, for my DRC purposes I'm usually fine with B&K curve.

 

No, haven't had the chance to listen to those.  It would be interesting as there are some advantages vs most box speakers.  

 

I've dealt with back scatter on quite a few panel speakers.  Had some in a very long room across the short side once.  The tall Acoustats.  Sat sort of close, angled them a little more than normal, so there was like 4 feet before the rear reflected off the wall, and that reflection could go about 14 feet before any more walls in both directions.  And they angle was away from the LP.  They sound much like big headphones in the lack of room effect.  But still imaged outside my head.  

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

Dipoles like Magnepans and electrostatics are very good if the back scatter is correctly dealt with. Usually they also have very high vertical directivity of a line array (minimal floor and ceiling reflections) while have dipole polar pattern and thus with minimal side wall reflections.

 

Problem with boxed speakers is that they are very directional at highest frequencies while becoming omnis at the low end. So you'd need some diffuse field compensation if you want flat response.

 

 

One experience when I was regularly visiting home of audiophiles was coming across a quite nice rig that used panels, Acoustats?? - which ticked quite a lot of boxes for realistic sound. Which meant that the other audiophiles present rapidly lost interest, and went outside to chat ... . I was impressed, but noted the extreme beaming of the treble - either there was sparkle, or it ceased to exist - depending upon where your head was.

 

My experience has always been with boxed speakers, which don't show this behaviour - so I don't agree about them being subjectively directional ... I suspect that rigs using pure panel speakers will be harder to optimise to present a subjective experience that's uniform throughout the room, because of this strong beaming.

[gmgraves]

On 6/9/2019 at 3:18 AM, esldude said:

Oh of course it makes it worse.  Now you have sound directly behind the speaker to interact with what is between them.  In box speaker not much sound goes to the rear.  I'm afraid you guys are going to lose some points. 

 

Now your only defense is if you put the screen directly in the null zone for each dipole speaker, then you have half a defense for your un-audiophile system configuration.  

 

 

Oh, fiddlesticks! My system images very well. So well in fact, that my own symphonic recordings are almost holographic!  I can close my eyes and literally point to every instrument in it’s proper place from left to right, front to back, and top to bottom. Just like they sounded live when I recorded them!

[gmgraves]

On 6/9/2019 at 4:34 PM, fas42 said:

 

One experience when I was regularly visiting home of audiophiles was coming across a quite nice rig that used panels, Acoustats?? - which ticked quite a lot of boxes for realistic sound. Which meant that the other audiophiles present rapidly lost interest, and went outside to chat ... . I was impressed, but noted the extreme beaming of the treble - either there was sparkle, or it ceased to exist - depending upon where your head was.

 

My experience has always been with boxed speakers, which don't show this behaviour - so I don't agree about them being subjectively directional ... I suspect that rigs using pure panel speakers will be harder to optimise to present a subjective experience that's uniform throughout the room, because of this strong beaming.

Acoustat electrostatic speakers haven’t been made in many years, but yes, they beamed because all but the top of the line were flat panels (and those were comprised of a bunch of smaller flat panels arrayed in curved wooden frame).  I have had a similar experience with a pair of ESL speakers from a company called Innersound (now defunct). I was reviewing their Eros model speakers which were flat panel ESLs. In order to get the (magnificent) highs to “click” one had carefully align the panels with one’s normal listening position using a flashlight (!) in one’s mouth. When properly set-up, and when one held one’s head perfectly still in the right place, the sounded and imaged impeccably. Move your head just a bit off-axis, and everything, especially the high frequencies, collapsed.

Much has changed in the ensuing years (this was October of 2003).  Martin Logan’s have curved screens and don’t beam at all, and neither do Magnepans which use thin ribbon or quasi-ribbon tweeters which act like an almost ideal line source. They don’t beam the highs either. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that because earlier technology had certain flaws, that those flaws haven’t been corrected by now. I had a friend who did that, and it drove me to distraction. He once saw an early projection TV in a store once and it was dim and poorly converged. Ever since then, whenever the subject came out, he would trot out his Projection TV story  even though none of the more modern ones have any of those problems. 

[Le Concombre Masqué]

On 6/9/2019 at 5:06 AM, gmgraves said:

Ah, yes, of course,

Well, since the speakers are well forward of the TV screen , I don’t think it’s  problem. The speakers image beautifully. 

OK. My TV is not connected to my audio system - except that I use it as a computer monitor for my Tidal account, which I access on my Mac PowerBook with an app on my iPad from my listening chair.

I used to roll my Tv on a stand from one room to another to place it on demand (very occasionally, movies only) between the speakers. And then I recently went back to the future with a KRP 500 Pioneer Plasma TV (reset and revolted, damn good) and the thing is so heavy that it cracked the wood floor at door's (between the 2 rooms) level.

A whole life of audiophilia or a gorgeous sound when watching movies was to be forsaken...

When not in use, I just roll the Plasma set as far back as I can in the loudspeakers' room...

And I still get a gorgeous image when it exists on record

[semente]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Oh, fiddlesticks! My system images very well. So well in fact, that my own symphonic recordings are almost holographic!  I can close my eyes and literally point to every instrument in it’s proper place from left to right, front to back, and top to bottom. Just like they sounded live when I recorded them!

 

It would still be interesting to listen with the TV removed from the equipment stand, just to get an idea of how much difference it makes.

I have a small TV and place a thick, heavy coat over it; this makes the sound (even) less tinny/tiring and improves imaging focus, almost as much as propping up the seat cushions to cover/dampen the early reflection areas of the side walls.

[GregWormald]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

It would still be interesting to listen with the TV removed from the equipment stand, just to get an idea of how much difference it makes.

I have a small TV and place a thick, heavy coat over it; this makes the sound (even) less tinny/tiring and improves imaging focus, almost as much as propping up the seat cushions to cover/dampen the early reflection areas of the side walls.

 

I used to put seat cushions on the floor in front of each speaker where the sound reflected off the floor.

[Ralf11]

I have a big rug in front of the Maggies, and big Golden Retriever who acts as a diffuser and absorber 

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

It would still be interesting to listen with the TV removed from the equipment stand, just to get an idea of how much difference it makes.

I have a small TV and place a thick, heavy coat over it; this makes the sound (even) less tinny/tiring and improves imaging focus, almost as much as propping up the seat cushions to cover/dampen the early reflection areas of the side walls.

I’ve done that! It made no difference that I could hear. The imaging was unchanged as was the frequency response of the speakers.