Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
99.156.148.228
Responding to the post below concerning pointing the edges of maggies toward the listener. Tried it last night with my 3.6's and Holy S**T. Wall to wall sound stage with good depth and wonderful tonality. This is the best I have ever heard my 3.6's Also psychologically not seeing the large panels in my smallish room but what looks like two thin sticks makes it feel that there are no speakers in the room. Since maggies are easy to move around I would suggest you try this
Alan
Follow Ups:
I think it's great that there have been so many responses to this thread. I hope those who havn't tried it will because it is really easy to do
Alan
I almost never post on AA, but I read it almost every day. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you, Alan, for this suggestion. I doubt if I will ever be going back to the recommended direct reflection set-up (never say never). For my relatively small room (11 X 15 X 8), your change (and the removal of some of the dampening panels I was using to absorb rear and side reflections) has significantly expanded my sound stage (width and depth) without compromising the imaging, IMO.
I'm now looking at the edges of my 1.7s and have lined them up with the corners of the front wall. Tweeters used to be inside and have simply been rotated so that they are now farther away from the front wall (closer to the "leading edge" that I see from my listening position at the point of the imaginary isosceles triangle). The back edges of the speakers are about 4 feet from the front wall and the leading edges are about 26 inches from the side walls. The leading edges are about 77 inches apart. My head is about 91 inches from the center of the axis of the leading edges and about 32 inches from the back wall.
I didn't think there was a chance in hell of this working as the fronts of my speakers now fire directly into a window shade (on the left side) and a cd shelf cabinet on the right. Further, I was pretty pleased with the old set-up. But, thanks to you, my listening enjoyment has been increased significantly. I blame you for making it much more difficult for me to leave my listening room these days.
Hey RA,
Thanks for trying this and I am so glad you are getting results like I have.
That is good news about the window shade and cd rack. I am just using bare walls but now I have some freedom.
Thanks for posting!
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Good info......but you set is better..
Magnepan MG1.6QR Speaker – James Tanner, Bryston:
Hi All
Below are my comments on the Magnepan MG-1.6QR loudspeakers in one of my demo rooms. There is a preamble I gave (room acoustics, my history and bias’s) with my review on the MG3.6’s and Thiel 3.7’s earlier this year which you can refer to if you wish.
Thoughts on the Magnepan MG-1.6QR speakers:
I have 3 different soundrooms but eventually chose the smallest of my rooms for final auditions. The room is (16x12x8)The speakers are on the LONG wall and are 2.5 feet from the front wall – angled in at about 30 degrees – tweeters on the outside. They are 2.5 feet from the side wall and 9 feet apart center to center. I am sitting about 9 feet back. As I stated in my earlier posting the speaker/room interface has to be considered in totality when evaluating a specific speaker in a specific room and the Magneplanar 1.6QR is a very good example of why that is. The speaker is a Dipole so the radiation pattern looks like a figure ‘8’ pointing at the listener. As a result there is NOT a lot of reflected sound energy bouncing back from the ceiling, floor and side walls. The energy is concentrated to the front and rear of the speaker. With tons of reflected, though delayed, energy from the back wall.
The technical aspects of the speaker I will pass on as they are readily available in full at http://www.magnepan.com/model_MG_16
To start with I would also like to put to rest some myths about dipole panel type speakers:
They are hard to place --- Wrong!
In fact, given the dispersion characteristics, as detailed above, the only concern you have with a panel dipole is the reflective nature of the front wall behind the speakers. Typical monopole (point source) speakers radiate energy in an omni-directional pattern at certain frequencies and a highly directional pattern at other frequencies so the reflective characteristics and the standing wave patterns of the listening room dimensions play a very large part in the final outcome of sound quality. In fact, I would say getting the room speaker interface correct is going to do more to providing you with state of the art sound than any other aspect of your sound system. Expensive speakers placed incorrectly can sound much worse than medium priced speakers placed accurately.
So the advantage of a dipole panel is that the wave launch from the speaker is such that the floor and ceiling and sidewall reflections and room nodes are acoustically discriminated against. There is no energy in the ‘plane’ of the diaphragm with a dipole panel. What that means is that there are no early reflections coming from the floor, ceiling, or sidewalls. Early reflections produce what is called ‘comb-filtering’ which generates dips and peaks in the in-room frequency response. So contrary to popular belief the dipole is actually much easier to place than a more conventional omni or point source speaker. All you have to deal with is the front wall reflective issue. Many people have to use their basements or spare rooms for their audio/video systems and typically these rooms leave a lot to be desired acoustically. Well, take a dipole and place it properly and that lousy sound room can come to life- reason --- the dimensions and surfaces of the crappy basement room are much less instrumental in affecting the overall sound quality.
You need a big room for panel dipoles----Wrong!
Obviously the size of the speaker has an effect on the room size required (MG20.1 for example) but the MG1.6 is not exactly a small speaker physically. So on first look it would seem a larger room would be a necessary requirement. I tried the MG1.6’s in my three different soundrooms and they definitely provided the best sound in my smallest room (16x12) So don’t be afraid to experiment with medium sized panels in smaller rooms. It is true that larger diaphragms and multi-driver loudspeakers take some distance to integrate properly but usually if your back a few meters all will be well.
MG1.6QR Listening:
Let me say straight out that this is a great speaker to audition if you want to move from ‘OK Mid-Fi’ sound to ‘excellent High-End’ sound at an affordable price. In my small room and placed on the long wall it was one of those magical moments when the speaker just works. The soundstage was huge and the tonal balance was superb. The speakers literally disappeared in the room and other listeners I had over for a test-listen asked. ‘Where the hells the sub hidden?’ I measured the speaker using my ETF system (the one we use in setting up recording studios) and I was getting 35Hz at about 2dB down. That’s pretty good for a dipole this size, but remember that most of the bass integration and capability is very placement sensitive (for both the speaker and the listener). If you want to ring out the last little bit of performance from these speakers please experiment with placement and listening position – believe me it will be worth the effort.
One point I would like to make here is that over the many years I have been a prisoner of this great hobby I have literally measured hundreds of speakers using the state-of-the-art measuring apparatus of the time. Everytime I measure a Magnepan speaker from the early days of Tympani IV’s to the tiny SMG’s they always measure superbly. The Magneplanars are, always have been and continue to be an extremely well engineered product which is not always the case with many of the more exotic and expensive speakers out there. Anyway – I digress….
The integration I refer to above is an important point. Think of a dipole panel (or any speaker for that manner) in a room like a pair of headphones on your head. What you’re attempting to do is to place the panel in the room so that it “COUPLES ACOUSTICALLY”. By couple acoustically I mean the speaker is interfaced into the room in such a way that it makes the room and speaker behave as one. The speakers acoustically disappear in the room and allow you to hear only the recording itself. Using the headphone analogy --- put on a pair of headphones and while listening pull the headphones away from your ears about 2 inches on both sides of your head. Sounds terrible – right? The reason is that you have ‘decoupled’ the headphones from your head/ears and the result is not very accurate acoustically (no bass or definition, etc.) to say the least. The same thing happens with a speaker in a room. If you can find that physical location in the room where the speaker ‘couples acoustically’ you will be rewarded with a fullrange and tonally accurate balance throughout the entire listening space.
By the way, a neat way to check and see if you have this coupling is correct is to go outside the room and listen from down the hall. If everything still sounds well balanced and coherent you’ve got it right! In fact one trick we used at audio shows years ago (please don’t laugh – a smile is OK) was to take a long cord and a pair of quality headphones and go outside the demo room and listen in the hallway with the headphones off – then on – then off etc. The closer you got to the headphones sounding like the speakers in the room the closer you were to finding the magic spot in the room where the speaker coupled acoustically.
The MG1.6QR speaker is of medium efficiency (86 dB) so you should use a stable reasonably powered amplifier to drive them. The good thing about the Maggie’s though is that although the impedance drops fairly low the speaker is a very ‘resistive’ (4 ohm) load over most of the frequency range. Speakers like electrostatics (Quads), on the other hand, may have low impedance loads but they are also very ‘reactive’ loads. They tend to behave like a capacitor and store energy which can play havoc with some amplifier output stages. So you don’t need exotic amplifiers to adequately drive the MG1.6QR’s. In my small soundroom I was using the Bryston 4B SST (300watt @ 8 ohms) with great success. In a bigger room more horsepower may be required.
Sonically I have to say this speaker, within its dynamic capabilities, is absolutely blowing me away. Everything is just so coherent as if everything is coming at you in the same time and space. Maybe it’s the simple 2 driver Mylar membrane crossed over at 600Hz but whatever it is it’s a strong argument for simpler is better sometimes. The soundstage is spacious and the instruments are very well positioned. It does not have the bloated image size of some of the larger panels out there so the point source crowd will not be too alienated with this Maggie. The midrange – especially voices – have a ‘you are there’ affect that I have truly only heard on the best systems out there.
The only area where I feel the MG1.6QR fails a little is unless you mate it with a good amplifier you may at times feel it sounds a little ‘plastically’. It seems like you are hearing the diaphragm material (Mylar) sometimes. It sounds a little zingy. One of the listeners I had over comment when using her own Class D amp that “anyone who likes ribbons will love these”. What she meant by that is that ribbon drivers have that ability to sound incredibly detailed but sometimes have a ‘ringing’ quality to them.
The other positive quality I found was the MG1.6QR’s ability to delineate very soft micro sounds. Small, and almost imperceptible sounds seem to materialize in space with much more definition than I am use to hearing. Not in the sense that they are calling attention to themselves but more in the sense that the sound was being hidden by other speakers I have used. I worry sometimes that this might be a diaphragm resonance which is exaggerating that particular frequency range but I don’t think so because it varies from recording to recording.
Also don’t be afraid to try some big amplifiers on these beauties. I tried a pair of our 28B SST Mono amplifiers (1000 watts) in my big room (23x16x8) and I have to say it was a match made in heaven. At a recent audio show Magnepan had a 3 channel STEREO system set up using three 7B’s and the result was just superb. So if you get a chance to hear a 3-channel STEREO setup as done by Magnepan at some of their demos run do not walk to hear this demo. The ability to hold the center image in place is scary. You can almost sit anywhere in the room and the damn vocalist is locked in the center ----really good!
Many people chose large traditional multi-driver dynamic speakers because the sound very dynamic, move a lot of air and provide a visceral impact to the listener at the expense of inner details and subtle rendering of micro dynamics. Others chose small point source nearfields because they provide a pinpoint image and expansive soundstage at the expense of limited output and no real low frequency capability. Others opt for electrostatic thin membrane planar type loudspeakers because they provide that last bit of detail and resolution in the sound but are restricted to a limited loudness and dynamic level. I think the Magnepan type of design (a planar dynamic) is a terrific compromise between these other types of loudspeakers. Here you have a planar dipole that gives you much of the speed and resolution of the best electrostatics but provides excellent dynamics as well.
One last point to be aware of is that the Mylar membrane used in all the Magneplanar’s are 'stretched' under incredible tension when the speaker is manufactured. It takes about 6 months for this stretch to 'relax' and as it does the lower end of each driver’s frequency response improves. With that relaxation comes an improvement in transient attack and integration. So the moral of this story is to not be too quick to judge the speaker in the first few months of use as things will change for the better as it matures.
So, all in all, I find the MG1.6QR speakers superb in a number of areas:
• Their ability to disappear and provide a huge soundstage with well- defined focused images floating in space is excellent.
• Their ability to respond to transient information is a major benefit in providing inner details and a ‘you are there’ presentation.
• Their ability to sound incredibly coherent and integrated, as if everything is happening in the same time and space.
• The ability to use them in smaller rooms.
So I am a bit surprised at how well these MG1.6’s performed. I mean these speakers were designed a number of years ago and in the past I really had not considered them – being into the bigger MG3.6 and MG20’s etc
Funky
I actually bought a pair of 901s once (back in 1981) - 8 little drivers up front and 2 in the back, IIRC. Bose referred to them as direct/reflecting. They sounded horrible, except for the midrange. I struggled to find a placement that worked, but gave up on them.This 'Rooze' arrangement results in *all* of the sound being reflected - essentially no direct sound reaches one's ears. Besides, no arrangement turns a dipole into a bipolar speaker. It looks weird. The concept sounds ridiculous, however, it produces the closest thing to 'live' sound I've heard from a stereo in my home.
It's pretty amazing.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 10/05/11
LOL you had your Bose turned around backwards!!! The 8 drivers are SUPPOSED to go in the back and the two are up in the front. Actually the this positioning idea is even MORE indirect than the 901s and is more like a Shahinian speaker where it throws sound off all the walls. but almost nothing right at you. Great for hall recreation but little else.
A better analog would be four dipoles outdoors, two located at the sides, and two at the front, toed-in, and fed a delayed and inverted signal -- essentially the same backwave you get in a conventional arrangement but, perhaps, with channels reversed owing to the toe-out. Nothing at all like the Bose from a psychoacoustical perspective, and as far as I can tell from their website, nothing like the Shainians, which they describe essentially as omnis. You can't eliminate the direct sound from a conventional speaker. You have to use a directional geometry for that, e.g., a dipole. And that makes all the difference psychoacoustically.
I D idn't R emember C orrectly. The badge was on the front which would make it rather difficult to set them up backwards. What I do remember is that they were dreadful. I returned them after a couple of weeks and picked up a pair of AR91s.
Yes, this is more indirect than the Bose 901s. The imaging with this arrangement is less precise. As I mentioned elsewhere, it sounds very 'relaxed'. Instruments and voices still seem to originate from this or that direction, but without pinpoint focus.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
You don't hear any sound from the speaker itself, so the first reflection off the side walls becomes the initial sound. So the ratio of first arrival to reflected sound is roughly what it is with the speakers in a conventional orientation.
No, there is NO direct sound reaching you so it is not like putting the speakers in the conventional position where I would say around 30-40% is direct sound. A first reflection is not direct and depends on the wall material/coverings. Bose 901 are 1/9th direct sound or so.
The point isn't that the sound from the sides isn't reflected, obviously it is, but that it's the first arrival, so psychoacoustically, it's interpreted just as direct sound would be. That makes it very different from the Bose effect, in which the delayed reflections are at a significantly higher level than the direct sound, and have the subjective effect of adding excessive reverberation. Rather, the ratio of initial to delayed sound is about the same as it is in a planar in a conventional orientation: the wall isn't a perfect reflector, but the COA of sheetrock is low, under .10 in the mids and highs, so except perhaps at the very lowest frequencies the amplitude loss from the bounce is perceptually insignificant.
love it
optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
This reminds me of a suggestion of Wharfedale in the eighties. If think they used dipoles but it could have been bipoles. The setup looked like in the picture.
Roger Gustavsson
Hey RG,
That is a pict of the "sideways" setup. The "rooze" angles the front edge toward the listener.
Both can be fantastic!
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
works as you found out. I know there is only one way to setup mags...
For those of you who might be confused, here is a diagram. You simply move the inside edges of the speakers toward you until you see only the thin edge of each speaker:
Pretty amazing what it does and my preferred setup with the sideways setup a close second
I THINK that it requires a vertical speaker to work so keep that in mind. If you do have an angle on your speakers then do let us know if it works. If it doesnt you might want to get a vertical pair...
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Hi Downrazor,
Do you think such a setup would work well with an electrostat?
I have ML CLS 2A'S in the basement in an open area away from the side walls.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Freetowor,
I think it might work great. This is based on trying the sideways setup, not the Rooze exactly, in a showroom with some Martin Logans.
It worked great. The staff was horrified that I had moved their speakers but once they heard it they were amazed.
As Mart points out in an earlier post, the electrostats have a similar dipole nature as mags, so I think it is safe to say it might just work.
I think though that the sidewalls will play a big role here so YMMV, but worth a try as it just turns the speaker and probably is a 5 minute or less amount of effort. Well worth the time and effort if it works the way I think it will.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Thanks for the reply downrazor. The CLS is a mighty tweaky speaker, probably moreso than Maggies,(I also own a pr of MG1-IMP)and produces little weight in the bass below 40-60 Hz so I am currently using stereo
subs. I'm sure these will have to continue to fire forward unless one would sit between the speaker ala headphones. Of course bass freqs. are omnidirectional so I might be wrong on this.
Jerry
Hey J,
There is only one "o" in dawnrazor :)
FWIW my subs are underneath my mmgs and seem to be OK in that angled config. They do have some room correction mics and that probably helps alot.
But if they are separate subs as it sounds, then dont worry.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
I did not relocate my sub when I went to the rooze configuration and they sound just fine
Alan
Yep you are right. If the subs are separate then no need to mess with them.
Thanks for trying the setup. There seems to be a punditry here that has a "canned" setup investment and poo poos all kind of things that are outside of their norm.
It is sad because there is more magic in those maggies with a little experimentation. The "one size fits all" mentality is to be avoided, even in this case the setup doesnt work for one of Josh's rooms, but you cant dismiss something based on someone else's results.
That is the problem, everyone seems to forget that all of audio is in the context of a system, including the room. Very hard to draw general rules given the system nature of audio. Guidelines sure, but some inmates make it sound like there is ONLY one way to do things. The Rooze will open your eyes to how that is not true...many paths indeed.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Particularly when the results were amazing in another of Josh's rooms! (But not the one he can use for a listening room, alas. It would a lot better for a conventional setup too, bigger, symmetrical, rectangular, and with the mantle on the side.)
I'm glad to see more people trying this, when I stumbled on it I think you were the only who tried it. I was just fooling around, I wanted to see if the Monsoons would work as near field monitors and then as a lark I turned them on edge to put myself in the dipole null. It never occurred to me that it would actually sound good, or that anyone had actually tried it. I was blown away. I'd love to find a better way to accomplish the same effect, one that would work in more rooms and maybe not rely on reflections that can color the sound.
Large birch ply boards at the reflection spots...figure it has to be a large reflective surface to allow reflection of the broad beam.
Just thinking of the possibilities for my room. May cover the critical bad areas and make it work. I guess one can paint the panels and stick them to the walls to minimize space loss.
Wonder if someone else could try it with the Tympanis? I don't have any reason to suppose it wouldn't work, but it would be great if you could get some feedback before going to that effort.
Another thing you could do is get some of the pink styro insulation sheets at Home Depot and try it with those before committing. Or maybe some foam core at an art supply house.
Reflections are going to be going all the way down to 20 Hz, though at the long wavelengths, I don't think clutter is going to matter much, since the waves will just diffract around it. It would be interesting to know just how big the reflectors have to be.
Now I understand what the Rooze setup looks like. No I've never did anything like this.
When it works it's an ear opener.
Hey Josh,
Been thinking about why it might not work. First off you have to understand how the Rooze works....not sure I do mind you, but I think if you look at it, sound is bounced off the sidewalls and ends up hitting the listener. This might explain why it sounds like there are no speakers. Rooze himself entitled his post on this something like "sound without speakers". Regardless this setup is awesome and the speakers just disappear better than they ever have.
If your room is not conducive to this or if your speakers are not vertical I think that might cause it to not work.
Seems that most who try it do experience an "ear opener" as you say!
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Something about that illustration bothers me. It assumes absolutely pistonic motion ((actually, thinking more about the movement of the disturbed air molecules) and only accounts for the very center of the speaker) - which ain't reality (is it?). I'm just suggesting that the actual picture isn't that neat. Isn't one of the marvels of the ribbon tweeter the fact that its width renders it essentially omnidirectional? Didn't Al have his 20.1s in a version of that arrangement?Looking at my room and thinking about the Rooze is generating a number of questions. I imagine my current room treatment configuration is incompatible - some of which cannot be altered. It's only a WAG, but I'd reckon the proper angle depends on how the relative reflections of the different drivers reach the listener's ears.
Perhaps, I should explain something about the art of procrastination. Thinking (okay, over-thinking) about such things gives the procrastinator a valid reason to delay action ;-).
On a positive note, I think I've managed to conceptualize a potentially workable arrangement. On the other hand, it could only be done as an experiment because even what I have in mind goes to hell as soon as the screen drops from the ceiling - I positioned the screen a few feet out from the front wall (drops a couple inches in front of my rack).
Hmmm, I guess I have some more thinking to do. Meanwhile, I'll just continue to suffer.
----
Specifically addressing Dawnrazor: Did I miss an email in which you sent me photos of your completed project?
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 09/30/11
Hey Waz,
Something about that illustration bothers me. It assumes absolutely pistonic motion ((actually, thinking more about the movement of the disturbed air molecules) and only accounts for the very center of the speaker) - which ain't reality (is it?). I'm just suggesting that the actual picture isn't that neat. Isn't one of the marvels of the ribbon tweeter the fact that its width renders it essentially omnidirectional? Didn't Al have his 20.1s in a version of that arrangement?
WTF. Just turn the speakers till the inside edge is aimed at you. Should be easy to do. See what happens. It is a 5 minute experiement. If it works it will be worth it. If not then you can say you are right. Al had a sideways setup. I dont think he tried the "rooze".
Still working on the project. Actually I got a new job and it requires a home office so there is now a reason to finish things. We'll see what happens.
You are indeed a know it all waz so you will figure it out :)
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
So, if I understand you correctly, you want me to do something like this?
(please forgive the crappy photo)
Surprisingly, it (just ignoring everything else and rotating them) worked quite well in my room - if a little weak in the center. I came back to the house for some vocal material. I'll diddle with placement. Overall, it sounds very pleasant - open, airy and immense. Okay, back to it...
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
You were over thinking things. Now that wasnt so hard was it?? Just a little turn.
Though I would do it the other way so the mylar was bouncing off the sidewalls, though IIRC the ribbon is open in the back??
And in my case the speaker are closer to the sidewalls so it might make an improvement as the angle wont be as steep.
Like a conventional setup you do have to fiddle with it! I dont have any center weakness, and center image and vocals are something I focus on and would not be happy with if they were diminished.
OH and those subs might have something to do with the center weakness....
Good on you for trying it!! I think you can hear the potential and why Ahendler is so excited. Especially if you dig a disappearing speaker and an immense sound stage.
Thanks
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
My speaker cables are 12' (IIRC;-) and that imposes limits. They are the perfect length for the designed configuration. This was not in the plans. It is possible, however, to rotate them into this position for music listening sessions and back into the other position when I fire up the projector. Thank to Mye Stands, they aren't a problem to move. I can finally lift things without pain (as long as I'm careful), although there is a persistent numbness in my right hand/wrist/arm.The imaging becomes a bit diffuse - less razor sharp. Almost certainly, elements of my room are contributing to the deficient center image. Mind you, continued listening resolved that impression to a great degree. Listening to almost purely reflected energy is a stunning experience. The chosen angle of the speakers targets reflective surfaces - for both sides. I then positioned my listening chair such that I saw the thinnest profile of each speaker. Frankly, I didn't have much hope that this would work in my room (as it is - and I am averse to changing it). I want to try some more types of music tomorrow, but I was rather amazed at how fantastic this sounded. Yep, the speakers completely disappear.
The subs are at the quarter point on the side walls - it works. Since they're sitting atop sub traps, they are a bit tall. On Tuesday, there will be a new obstacle in that room - a WaterRower.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 10/02/11
Let us know what comes of this. What strikes me often is that maggies have a rap for being hard to setup. I think it is just the opposite if you do a bit of playing in your room.
Who would have thought that you could get good sound by listening to the edges??
And IMHO razor sharp imaging never happens in a real performance. It is more like a musical soup than distinct images, at least at the concert halls I have been to and listened carefully (like the orchestras in Boston and Chicago, and that dreadful period when I was trying to get with this opera singer (I hate opera)). Even when I saw Patricia Barber in the Greenmill in Chicago there werent exactly images like on an audio system.....
You might have improved your system :)
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Right now, I'm doing some serious rearranging so that I can try a setup that will permit a dropped screen. Besides, I haven't tried subs in both corners yet (I did try a corner when I only had one). If the setup seems promising, I figure on removing the side wall treatments - kind of a PITA, but not permanent.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Hey Waz,
That is worth the effort. Even if it doesnt work out at least you know and can confidently say that you have the best setup for your room.
Dont be afraid to get them closer to the sidewalls if you can. Mine was about a foot or even less from the sidewalls.
FWIW Al had his 20s in the sideways setup with the speakers facing each other. It certainly sounded great to me, so it might also be worth experimenting with that too.
Anyhow I am excited for you because either way you will learn alot about your room and speakers and the sound that you like and tradeoffs you are willing to make.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
I listened to some music with the screen down, then we watched a movie. After that, I listened to music with the screen up. I must admit that I'm surprised at how forgiving this arrangement is. I haven't removed any room treatments yet. I will try that tomorrow - probably. Things aren't completely dialed-in, as it were, but it sounds amazing.
I re-routed my speaker cables in order to give Maggie a little more freedom of movement. The center of each driver is 7.5' from the front wall and 3.5' from the side wall. It took a couple of hours to reposition things and get them wired (and the wires 'dressed').
I plan to leave it like this (Roozed) and fiddle for a while. I'll mark the final location and then go back to a classic layout. Half of my rower arrived today - I have a river and paddles, but no boat (should get the rails tomorrow).
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Hey Waz,
That is a great effort and I like the visual improvements like the subs in the corners.
I am glad you are making progress and seem to be enjoying the sound.
Hopefully it is enough for you to conclude that Ahendler Josh, and myself are not crazy?? And that maggie can play nice with the room.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
...Bose lovers! : - ))
[I just could not resist it after seeing so many vector arrows in room drawings (earlier in the thread)...remember their ads?]
d
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Look what you've done to poor Waz's room!
Anyway, he's having fun and getting a workout in the process...
...meanwhile, Josh is stoking the flames to get more ideas for his room. At least, sideways they don't need to face the mantle...
...me? I am just wondering when I'll have the nerve...to face a divorce so almost certain...just doing the tests with the wingies got me restricted to TV dinners this week : - ))
What is it about women and speakers? They'll protect a lout who beats them black and blue, but just try to put a pair of speakers in the living room, and watch the flames!
d
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Damn, and here I thought he was a kindred spirit!
Many years ago, I spent some money rather unwisely.
I ended up returning the 901s in favor of the pair of AR91s that I still use (bedroom system). Shortly thereafter, I sold one of the M400ts.
Trust me; the 3.7s in the Rooze configuration produce the kind of sound Bose can only dream (if even that ;-) of creating.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Warning, Waz, memory lane trip.Even before he had to mod them, a friend thought the AR-91s were an unknown little jewel, in the early 80s. Later, he had to fix the woofers foam and decided to do a little more modding claiming that he could get them closer to his beloved AR 3a, which were stolen. The results were so good that my closest neighbor in those days offered to buy these ARs when he heard them. My friend was not selling.
Then, my neighbor offered twice the price as new, plus a full bottle, 100 tablets, of Tagamet pills. In those days, the new Tagamets were prescription only and the bottle was over $100. We did not know it then but my neighbor could get the bottle for just $1.00 (he worked for the phamaceutical company). My friend and his father needed Tagamet because of a medical condition that runs in the family. So he sold the ARs.
About two weeks later I heard the ARs for the last time. My neighbors got divorced when she discovered that he had an affair. He left her everything but the speakers and his extensive Leica camera system.
Several months later, a gift-wrapped bottle of Tagamet pills was delivered at my office along with a picture of him by his AR-91s in his apartment. He had learned from his ex-wife (via my wife) that I had been prescribed Tagamet for a temporary condition -- too much travel and hasty eating habits did a number on my gastrics for a short while.
In addition to the picture he sent 4 tickets to an upcoming classical concert I could not get tickets for, it was sold out. His company was co-sponsoring the event. The tickets were for my friend and I, still thanking him for the great job on the ARs.
Edits: 10/04/11
You don't need to warn me. I like to read stories like that. I wonder if he still has them - probably does (seems that he really liked them). I know I'm keeping mine. About 10 years ago, I had to replace the surrounds on the woofers - a pretty simple task. I discovered that there were still some tweeters available, so I bought a pair just in case (and went ahead and replaced them just for the heck of it - the old ones are in boxes in my audio closet). A year later, I replaced the crossovers.
One of these days, I'm going to get my JBL C50s back in service. I got them from an uncle who bought them new. They were quite rough when I got them. So far, I've repaired the woofers and passive radiators. There's much more that needs to be done. I once thought about using them as subs, but they're a bit large.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
I have a notebook in which I have a range of setups that I've tried. Putting things back where they were isn't a problem, so why not experiment? Having tried the sideways (of which, I guess, I considered the Rooze a variation), I knew better than to doubt this. My only doubts were about my room configuration, but it doesn't seem to be a problem.
As I mentioned, when I get this 'nailed down', I want to put the 3.7s back where they were for a comparative listen. There's something more 'relaxed' about the sound of this arrangement. I rather like it, but then I also liked the sound of my MMGs turned sideways - that was just impractical for the living room. This is workable - actually seems less crowded too.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
"There's something more 'relaxed' about the sound of this arrangement."
There is, isn't there? Less of a sense of -- for want of a better word -- stereo glare. More like being in a real space.
It came. I assembled it. It kicked my ass.
Honestly, rowing is one hell of a workout. I only did a couple 15 minute sessions, but I'm definitely feeling it. I think I'm going to like this machine. I have about six months until my next birthday, by which time I want the physique I had ten years ago. Somehow, I think rowing will help get me there.
I went to see Leland (my Maggie dealer) today, but all I bought myself were three power cords, some RCA caps and a set of Q-feet. I ordered a new system for my daughter: Marantz UD8004 universal player, Marantz PM8004 integrated amplifier, Definitive Technology Mythos STS, and some Audioquest cables. I think she'll like it - ought to be a decent system (I blew my $5k budget, but that's nothing new).
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
I'd never thought we would get to rowing machines. At last I have something to contribute. I use the German KETTLER KADETT, which is really a fantastic machine, and with full extension rowing oars, it really provides a great workout. . It offers an experience that simulates the real thing. It is also beautifully designed.
You can more accurately replicate the rowing motion while I can more accurately replicate the resistance of water ;-).
I looked at lots of machines, but wanted something that looked less like a machine and had a low profile. It isn't documented anywhere, but a neat thing I discovered about the WaterRower is that I can sit facing the other way, lean forward and push the handle (over my head) - thus working the opposing muscles.
I've only just begun, but I can definitely say that rowing is a great workout. I started with 15 minute sessions, then a short sprint. That's about all I can muster right now. I feel it everywhere. The worst part is the whey protein drink afterwards - disgusting!
How long have you been rowing?
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Maybe you can hook it up to a generator, and power your system from it. Incentive to row!
Just learned I had a second dental abscess after $2800 in dental expenses last month. At this rate, the only new audio equipment I'll be able to afford this year is a pair of earbuds . . .
That hurts physically as well as monetarily. Somehow, I've never had that experience. Sorry to hear it. Of course, there are worse things. I'd really rather not deal with any of the worse things.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
LOL, yeah. I've really been lucky, never had a serious illness, so I can't complain. But it's been a frustrating month -- abscess, surgery, strep throat, now another abscess. I haven't been able to get much done, just sitting around bored.
Had a cracked tooth, that developed into an abcess, it took nearly a year to get diagnosed correctly and I got a few not really necessary cavities done. Multiple doses of antibiotics till the abcess would die down.
Take things easy, and lay about. Read Dostoyevsky's "The Prince" or the Brothers Karamazov.
Thanks. I'm supposed to be reading War and Peace. I did put it on my Kindle! Surely, that counts?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who's had trouble getting abscesses diagnosed. I'm actually glad they found these, I've been complaining about intermittent pain in those two locations for years, now I may finally get some peace.
So this is why my 1.7s suck the life out of the sound!If i put them in the other room an got a big amp an left the door open, an pulled some teeth that would have work for what a day,an some here are going on an on about the sound an have not even done the setup?
Satie what about that room....this is why none of this works for me i have a room made for sound.To bad i dont feel like i have miss anything..
Keep up the work, dont no were your going but get to it...
Working out the physics of it, there is a likely improvement in one aspect of sound that I had not been able to address effectively. That is that of the venue acoustic being recreated "within" the listening room - though the apparent soundstage expands beyond the walls, there is a distinct feeling of it being inside another acoustic. So rather than have a sense of being there, you have a sense of observing yourself being there. There is one more layer of the sense of unreality that I am hoping to remove.
The setup as it is now does convince me most of the time that I am in the event and I often find myself disoriented when I open my eyes since I was fooled into expecting to be in a concert hall or a living room with a chamber ensemble.
We all no it never ends, most say if i could just get the sound i wont that would be that.
I get away from them as soon as i can....I well get there one day an it well sound the best ever...the day i die...
Sorry Josh,
I know a guy who served in the army and did a few years in the middle east. He said he had all kind of injuries from ankles, to knees, hips, shoulders, etc.
He said he thought he was tough until he got an abscess. Said that was the worse pain he ever had.
Hang in there man.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Thanks, DR. I can believe him, I've had them that were that bad. Luckily, this one didn't get that that bad -- I've learned over the years to go to the dentist when you get the first signs. They put me on an antibiotic until the surgery and it's quieted down.
Also, they can stay silent until you get septicemia, that happened to someone I used to work with -- she was rushed to the hospital, didn't even know she had one.
I'm just glad that they finally found these, I've been having intermittent toothaches for years now and couldn't get them to do anything.
"Less of a sense of -- for want of a better word -- stereo glare. More like being in a real space." Well said that is exactly what it sounds like. By the way I just tried speakers parallel to the side walls and lost bass doing it. The speakers sounded a little bright this way . Back to the edge on position
Alan
The sideways configuration worked actually pretty well for me upstairs, I think I'd rate it 2 or 3 out of the placements I tried, but it didn't have the special magic of the edge on arrangement. I'm glad to hear that others are hearing the same things that DR and I did -- it's nice to know we aren't totally nuts. :-)
What would account for the bass disappearing?
I dont know. I ran subs mostly but I dont think the bass had problems.
Every room is different I suppose.
Anyhow I like that description of lack of stereo glare. The Rooze really does sound less like speakers than it does live music.
How do you explain Dr. Chaos' experience where the midrange was lessened?
I never had that and Waz is not mentioning that kind of experience. Must be a room thing. Mine is pretty reflective with hard wood and no treatments. Just some curtains, a chair and a bed.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
I don't know, I was wondering about the midrange loss too. Typical construction materials shouldn't do that, if anything they'd cause bass loss.
As I mentioned, my room is treated. What's on the front wall (diffusion mainly, but there's a rug covering the acoustic foam covering the window in the center of that wall - thank you, building code) is going to affect the result. What's on the side walls is also a problem, and it couldn't be in a worse place for the Rooze. I'll give it a go this weekend (by Tuesday), but I'd bet that my room will present a problem because it isn't live enough (and it's dead in all the wrong places for the Rooze). To be workable, it would have to work with the screen up and down.My other point is that I'm a champion procrastinator - just spitting out excuses ;-).
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 10/01/11
Maybe if it works you can just hang a solid screen on the front wall? Or use the wall itself (with an insert for the window), e.g., get some screen fabric and bond it to the wall (or Parkland plastic or that laminate that everyone on the AV forum uses, forget the specs but could find them).
In the first place, I'm not the slightest bit unhappy with my current arrangement. Everything about my 'new' (over a year old already) room was designed to be as it is. The screen drops in front of the rack I built and well below the top shelf.
(old photo - hadn't even installed the baseboard yet)
The screen is at the ideal throw distance from my projector, based upon the screen's size. Besides, I spent $4K on that screen! The screen is as important as the projector. My projector can't be moved. I nailed up boards to which to mount the screen and projector - at very specific locations. I also located an outlet and ran the PVC for my projector's cabling (well over a grand in the pair of HDMI cables). None of that can be changed.
(best shot I could find, but you get the idea)
(actually, the early photo tells the tale better)
All told, I invested nearly $150K in this project. It was the realization of a very old desire and I mapped out every detail before we started. It is staying the way it is. It doesn't bother me - I'm absolutely satisfied.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 10/01/11
OK, no pressure, just thought you were curious about the Rooze arrangement.
My projector plate isn't mounted in the ceiling, it sits on the surface, but even so, it would/will be a PITA to move. Screen I have to rebuild anyway, since I had it in the back yard and someone broke it . . .
I was just thinking about what I'd have to change in order to try it. It isn't insignificant. I thought the sideways deal was really amazing when I tried it with my MMGs - a huge surprise. I'd love to give this a go, but it seems silly to try it without setting up the room for success - or, at least, removing that which dooms the experiment to failure. I think we should at least acknowledge that my opinion of the Rooze shouldn't hold much sway if it hinged upon a half-hearted and ill-conceived execution of the arrangement.
My point in the previous post is that I put a lot of thought and effort (and cash) into my room - it's all designed to work as it is. Changing it poses problems, but it works very well precisely as it is. Still, I am curious. I intend to try the Rooze (and sideways) with the 3.7s as an experiment, but I want to make sure I give it a chance to amaze me.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
I can see why you wouldn't want to be disappointed. On the other hand, I wouldn't have expected it to work in the room down here, with all the clutter -- the right channel was actually bouncing off of cardboard boxes.Here's a snapshot of the front left corner of the junk-filled room I tried it in (complete with R2 unit):
And yet in my listening room upstairs, with nothing in it, it wouldn't work at all. Go figure.
Edits: 10/02/11
The junk is more concentrated on the back wall
I have owned most of the Magneplanars and have tried many different ways of installing
these speakers. Here is picture of one of my setups.
After 4 rooms and many years of experimenting this is my final setup. The room is
29' long by 19' wide with a 11' cathedral ceiling, and the sound is so very real. Acoustics
is vital in getting a huge soundstage, imaging and very articulate bass. Voice reproduction
is so easy to understand and the feeling of great space is awesome. Magneplanar Tympani
midbass, with Martin Logan Sumiits are a match made in heaven.
No pretty setups in my room - definitely no sense of order. Has not been organized in years. You keep your spaces so neat.
I have Martinlogans setup all so,SL3s an the bass out of the mg2.5s with two subs also,room 18'w 26'L an 13'h soundboard all open big stage...
I cant get a way from ESL i have Acoustats also,i find ESL beet maggys but there like this site are a lot of fun....
I have owned most of the Magneplanars and have tried many different ways of installing them ..... me too nice set up.I bet the best sound you get is in bed...all most a sleep..great more pix
Edits: 10/06/11
The rear of this room has junk in it too. :-) :-|
What are the distances involved?
Where is the front corner of the speaker relative to the walls, and what angles have you tried it -relative to the sidewalls.
What is the distance between the speakers and how much of an effect does that have?
Is the setup more successful at a particular orientation? like 1/3 into the room and the panels aligned with the line from the listening seat to the room corners? Or is it better with the speakers well inside the line from the seat to the room corners, or outside that line?
Hey Satie,
All good questions.
I have only tried this in the current room. I have a graph from the sideways setup and basically just turn the speakers so the edges are to the listener.
The speakers were about 1ft from the sidewalls in the sideways setup. I just turned them so the edges were all I could see. DISREGARD that stuff in the corners (21" from sidewall and 13x16) since that was there to figure out where the subs would go. They ended up below the mags and sound great there.
You see that this is a tough room with the bed and the closet and 2 doors. So I dont have a ton of options to try to answer your questions. The sideways setup is awesome and allows me to make this room work...the Rooze does too and I will use it because it fixes one thing.
In the sideways setup, and I might add in the conventional setups too the sound stage had a bit of a "n" shape with the left and right sounds being a bit forward in relation to the center image. A boomerang basically for Andyr if he is around. It was slight but noticeable. The rooze is better in that regard.
Also the pole pieces are angled into the front wall and the mylar side is aimed at the sidewalls.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Can't speak for DR, but I found it worked well with the speakers about 2/3 of the way back in the room and towards the center a few feet apart, and me maybe 1/6 of the way from the back wall. Critical geometry consisted of making sure they were edge on to me. That put the front room corners near a null. Fussing with position altered the apparent lateral position of instruments, and the spread around the walls, according to conventional rules -- at under 10 ms, reflections cause source location to move in their direction, and in this room, the front reflections were < 10 ms from the sidewall reflections, so as I altered speaker angle, the image tended to shift towards the area of the front and side walls that were most heavily illuminated by the backwave, e.g., the area that corresponded to the maximum of the figure 8 pattern.
You do have to experiment because the room itself and the type of wall construction plays into the resultant sound. But having said that all I did was leave my 3.6's in there original position and just rotated them so the edges pointed directly at me. The results are stunning
Alan
Are tweeters close or tweeters far?
In my case they are far.
Alan
I tried the Rooze in exactly that configuration with 3.6's.
It didn't sound bad at all, very 'airy'. The bass was there, and the ribbon tweet was there (crazy wide dispersion), but the mid-range wasn't as much. When I changed back to normal I thought it was better.
Of course a conventional speaker would have sounded execrable in the same config.
Hey ah,
Here is one of the first posts about this if not the first.
It is hard to tell but I think you and I might be doing an "inverse" rooze.
Regardless it is stunning and in this post there are some great comments about how wonderful such a setup can be.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
So he had a 28 X 45 room? boy thats big.
From his description and the drawing he said was correct it seems that he was putting the speakers out 9 feet into the room and sitting 4' away from the plane of the front of the speakers. with his back 5' from the wall.
I could not find a reference for his speaker to speaker distance, for some reason 12' sticks in my mind. Though that is the depth of the soundstage into his room.
If it was arranged as in the drawing with those figures, then he had his speakers aimed broadside to the corners on the back wall. Roughly 40 degrees.
From your picture the speaker edges are just under 10' apart and offset from the walls 1.5 and 1' from front and side at the far end and so the inner edges are 1.7 and 2.5' away from the side and front wall, and so you have an angle of 65-70 degrees. Does that sound right?
Hey Satie,
It sounds right and when I get things setup again, then I can measure with some precision.
I wouldnt put too much stock in that diagram. That was old and I think I might have moved the speakers a bit closer or farther after the diagram was made. So it may not be accurate.
All I know is that turning the speakers was great and a bit better than the sideways setup. My room is not treated at all so maybe that has a lot to do with the results.
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
Yes it is interesting that in that setup even though the speakers are behind you the sound still appears to come from in front of you. My current listening room is not big enough to do this but it is the original Rooze setup
Alan
Rooze says later on in the thread "Just to make one clarification, the listener is looking down the length of the room and not towards the wall closest to them. You are looking between the speakers with the backs of the speakers facing you." According to the drawing, the listener is between the speakers and the rear wall, with everything towards the rear of the room, which is the same way I tried it.
I am guessing that there would be a benefit from arranging the nulls to be aimed at the listener and the corners of the front wall if you don't need to excite room gain for bass - which Rooze did need in his big room - so he had his setup broadside to the corners of his back wall.
I don't really think the "behind" vs. "in front" is particularly important.
I am trying to figure out whether I can place the speakers to aim at the even surfaces on my walls where they are symetrical on the sidewalls- not too many of those around since the room is rather loaded. Whatever else is going on, I don't see this working without some friendly clear walls.
Hard to say, since as you change the angle, you're also changing the relative strength of the sidewall first reflections, and changing the separation of the front wall reflections (which could actually be reversed). As I recall it, the latter had a clear effect.
Do you mean behind the listener? I don't think that works. Reflection will be off the side wall and rear wall, and it will sound like you're facing in the wrong direction. I think I actually tried it at one point.
Interestingly, the nicely symmetrical room I was in was full of very asymmetrical junk -- dresser on the left, boxes on the right. It didn't seem to interfere much with the illusion though as I recall I did notice some asymmetry in the image. But as I said, I couldn't get it to work at all in my room upstairs.
One of the most interesting things I noticed is that frequency response and distortion didn't seem to be particularly important with this setup. It sounded realistic even when I could hear fairly gross distortion (from driving the little Monsoons hard enough to fill the room). The best way I can describe it is to compare it to an instrument that's played in two different rooms -- the frequency response is substantially different, but it still sounds real.
Actually, I think your spot on.
The initial sound hits the listener's ears from the sidewall reflections. This is sort of like wearing giant headphones and as far as I can tell, it explains a couple of the advantages of the setup. One is that instead of hearing two early arrivals -- the direct sound from the speaker, followed by the bounced sound from the wall -- you hear only one. So you don't get the "double acoustic" effect you get from conventional stereo or even the parallel to the side walls configuration. The other thing that happens is the interaural time delay doesn't constrain the image to a 60 degree spread. Instead, you get the full 180 degree lateral spread that's in the recording. You can't do this with conventional stereo without using crosstalk cancellation, which in my experience anyway is troublesome and fatiguing.
Then, and this is where things differ from headphone listening, you hear next the sound bouncing from the front wall. This pulls the image forward and prevents the "in the middle of your head" headphone effect.
That's my interpretation, anyway. And I agree that it's my listening room that keeps it from working there. My MMG's are vertical, but the room doesn't seem to be symmetrical enough. The room I'm in now works fine, at least with the Monsoons -- I never tried the MMG's down here.
I think it's time to move to someplace with a good listening room!
Hey Josh,
Thanks for the explanation!
You can see in the response to Satie that distances involved and to the issue that the Rooze fixes. What you say makes a bunch of sense especially in light of the issue that this setup solves. That 180 degree stuff seems to be correct.
Like you I need to move to a better room!
Thing is the wife sleeps in that bed in the pict due to my snoring. So now she is all for turning the garage into a listening room. But that will take a bunch of dough....
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
She could always sleep in the garage. :-)
Seriously, a garage listening room sounds pretty great.
LOTS and LOTS of work.
Insulation, inner walls and what to do with that pesky garage door are just for openers.
Now, 'ya gonna let the car sit out? And what about that lawnboy and the bags of fertilizer? You'll end up with an outside shed....and the near inevitable Vermin.....and I'm not talking neighbor kids.
Then you'll deal with permits and the CITY inspectors. Than you'll need an electrcian that speaks hi-fi.
Man, what a project,
Too much is never enough
That's easy, park the car in your wife's bedroom!
Or maybe a folding car?
If I tried a stunt like converting the garage into 'recreation' space, I'd end up living in my Schwinn.
Too much is never enough
Man, some people have no sense of priorities!
I was listening to some music and walked toward the preamp, located on a built in bookcase between and behind the speakers, to adjust the volume (up, of course). As I walked between the speakers I noticed a drastic change in the placement of voices/instruments and depth/width of soundstage. The most interesting position was when I was about 1 foot in front of the plane of my MGIII's.
Needless to say, my neighbors will think I've gone off the deep end if they peek in my windows and see me doing a slow motion cha cha between my speakers this weekend...
Regards,
Steve
Are the 'front' of the panel pointing toward each other, or toward the side walls? Or doesn't it matter.
When you listen with this, you aren't listening to the speakers directly, you're listening to the first reflections. The first one that hits your ears is from the side walls. As far as I can tell, this determines lateralization. Then you get the reflection from the front wall and this pulls the image forward so you don't get an "in your head" headphone effect.
Anyway, I'm thinking that the side wall reflections are equivalent to the direct sound when you're listening in a normal orientation since they get to your ears first, so you may want to listen first with the side that normally faces you facing out -- the diaphragm side on newer Maggies. Though orientation didn't seem to make a difference when I tried flipping it with my Monsoons.
As to tweeter forward/back, you have to experiment but one of the things I noticed about this setup is that variations in frequency response, distortion, etc., all those bugaboos of conventional stereo, became a lot less important. You can still hear them, but they don't interfere much with the realism of the sound. The best way I can describe the effect is that it's like playing an instrument in two different rooms -- the instrument will sound different because the rooms have different acoustics, but *it always sounds like a real instrument*. The main impediment to that realism in conventional stereo is acoustics -- playing a recording made in one acoustic through two little speakers into another acoustic. This arrangement seems to eliminate that. The best way I can describe it is that it sounds like you're in a real room, but without a direct view of the stage. Which isn't quite there, but is a step up in realism from conventional stereo, even the palpable 3D images we're accustomed to.
So what you are saying, is that if it works it would essentially put you in the hall rather than let you "see" the hall and the stage in it.
Is the stage lost in the inside the hall perspective? as in being seated a dozen feet from the conductor?
The soundstage is up where it belongs and at the proper distance, except that you hear much more of it -- the extra 120 degrees of spread that's on the recording, but that you lose when listening with stereo speakers at 60 degrees.
I tried the Stereophile cow bell depth track, and it behaved as it was supposed to, the bell moving front and back and left and right as John Atkinson walks around the church. It never came back to the plane of the speakers, it moved IIRC between the front wall and way behind the wall. I didn't notice any of the between the wall and the speakers imaging I got with the same setup using RACE.
In my room instrument placement was a bit askew, and some of that had to do with where the speakers were aimed on the front wall because I could change the spread and instrument positions some by moving the speakers. It seemed that lateral position was a compromise between the lateral position in the recording and the angle of the front wall reflection, which in my setup was within 10 ms of the initial side wall reflections, 10 ms being the point at which image shift no longer occurs in experiments.
Some of that may also have had to do with the asymmetrical clutter in the room, which is being used to store things from the living room while it's being renovated. I'm not sure.
The best I can compare the effect to is the sense of being in the hall, but behind a pillar. So it's not perfect -- at least in the very rough setup I tried -- but at the same time it beats any conventional stereo I've ever heard for you-are-there realism. Another interesting flaw is that hard panned stereo (as in early Beatles recordings) moved to the side reflections. It seems that some blending or reverb is necessary for the effect to work.
Another interesting effect -- at the needle drop, my brain would seem for a split second to place the image in my own plane, and then it would seem to move forward where it belonged, as my brain came up with a best fit solution to the paradoxical signals (sound from the sides headphone style, followed by a delayed reflection from the front). This certainly doesn't work like the law of the first wavefront! But it kinda makes sense in retrospect, since it's pretty well established that the brain uses room reflections to help out with front/back localization (in an anechoic chamber or when listening to highly directional speakers like the early Quads or the KLH-9's, sounds can sometimes seem to come from behind your head).
Well, I was thinking that the center position of the left picture would give better results because the reflection of the main beam from the midrange would have its center reach the ear. That would make it the dominant. The backwave reflection would be 15 ms behind the primary and should be substantially diminished due to longer distance and off center from the center of the reflected beam.
In my room, the reflection spot of that positioning (middle one on the left pane) seems to hit a sliver of wall that I may be able to clear on both sides of the room so that is practically the most likely spot to work at all. Agreed that the bass is likely going to refract around whatever junk is in the way, the tweeters should reflect well close to the same spot as the mids.
The blue arrows are the centers of the dipole axis off the midrange (250-5-6khz). the angles of incidence are pretty precise.
Going off the axis to the corner towards the side wall does shorten the reflection path a little, but not much. It does lengthen the backwave path.
What do you think?
It does make sense intuitively that you'd want to maximize the energy from the first sidewall reflections, doesn't it. The setup I tried was actually a little bit off axis, because there's a sofa in the middle of the room that limits speaker positioning, so I never verified that empirically. Another consideration though I suspect a secondary one is that you want the path length to your ears to be in time alignment to minimize the audibility of crossover lobes. And you might not be able to curve the Tympani panels as you normally would without reducing the null.
I did check the curvature issue, and the far bass panel would need an angular offset that would bring its null only 1.5 feet from the corner and obtain time alignment of its center beam at the seat.
Actually, I am thinking part of the benefit with the smaller maggies is in the fact that the timing differences between the drivers (from driver offset) become less significant since the travel paths are equivalent to sitting at near double the distance
Actually, as you pull the speakers inwards past the 1/3 of the room you end up with greater distance rather than lower and some of the beam is reflected from the back wall as well when you are past the middle, I figure that is not what you want, so there should be a "no no" zone till you get to the point of bouncing all of the wave off the back wall.
That's my point, a greater distance to the front wall means that the difference between the arrival of the side reflections and the later front reflection is larger. Above 10 ms, the front reflection should no longer shift the image laterally, presumably a good thing.
AFAIK the rear reflections don't have a negative effect, although ideally they too would be delayed by a minimum of 10 ms from the side reflections so that they contribute to spaciousness rather than just coloring the tone. If the second reflections dominate that will help. As I had it set up, I think the rear wall reflections were lower in level than the front wall reflections, if that hadn't been the case the sound would have seemed to come from behind.
That central position has a 16ms delay and the backwave reflection is 31-2ms so it is all fine from that perspective. Further changes to increase distances are really not necessary.
I am going to see if I can get that setup prepped. Not entirely sure it will be possible without serious rearrangement of the room.
I'll be curious to hear how it works. No opportunity to try it here, too much junk in this room to fit them.
I have 1/2 a ton of stuff to move from the right wall to make it work. Gotta get started at some point.
Unfortunately, this room is full of junk from areas of the house that are being renovated. So there's no way I could clear it out. And the living room, which is a similar shape, is all torn up and full of construction stuff.
Put away damping material pile, two bags of trash, a pile of old annual reports that were burried underneath, and reorganized some stuff I have not decided to dump yet. Though I should dump it.So I am approaching half way there.
I have a 2 ft strip of clear sidewall 8-9 feet out from the front wall, with the right side having another 2 ft of less interrupted wall and the left having the corner of a table and the junk on it getting in the way. (my former work area).
Do you think that is enough to bounce off the mid/treble beam?
Edits: 10/05/11
You're having a more productive day than I am!
Regarding width, I don't really know. You'd think it would be enough down to 1 or 2 kHz, but the longer wavelengths are going to diffract around it and will be delayed a bit. That sort of thing didn't seem to matter in the room I tried it in, but the sound was reflecting off so many objects (dresser, computer screen, window behind one the left; boxes and desk on the right) that it's kind of hard to know exactly what was happening. But the effect did seem to be surprisingly tolerant of clutter and small-scale asymmetry.
That makes sense. I don't remember image specificity being strong, but the room was full of clutter which was had an obvious effect.
Another possible benefit would be that the first first reflection has a longer delay if the speakers are towards the rear of the room, as they were when I tried it. Of course, you could achieve an even greater delay by using them as conventional nearfields. A > =10 ms delay of the front first reflection could potentially be beneficial, since it would prevent the front reflection from shifting the image laterally.
I have the fronts pointing at the side walls at an angle. I have what was the inside edges pointing towards me. You could try it the other way around
Alan
'Inside' / 'Outside' doesn't mean much.....
Please use 'panel convention' of tweeter location.....
And, as with any other panel setup, there is not less than 4 orientations.
Tweeter 'forward' or 'backward'....in the case of this setup, and pole piece 'forward' or 'backward'.
I'd put the tweeter nearest me, with the pole piece on the outside of the array. just to start.
Too much is never enough
I had the tweeters on the outside so they are furthest away from me and the pole pieces are facing towards the front wall. I have not tried flipping them around. Enjoying the sound to much to try anything else right now
Alan
Amazing, isn't it? Unfortunately, I can't get it to work in my listening room, I'm guessing because it isn't symmetrical enough.
My maggies are directly facing my ears. I find this nearfield (headphone-like) solution to have great detail and 3-D imaging that floats in space.
Are you sitting between them ? or how far back
I'm sitting between them. I sit behind a desk all day and so I'm limited on how I can position my maggies.
Speakers are out 4' from wall. I am about 7' from speakers and 3' from back wall
Alan
I followed Dawnrazor's recommendation - I was ~ 3' from my sideways MMGs. I really thought he was nuts. I feasted on crow. That arrangement not only worked, but I liked it better than my traditional positioning. It's just not feasible for me.
One of these days, I intend to try it with my 3.7s. Hmmm, someone once said that there's no time like the present...
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
When I heard the 1.7s at Stereo Unlimited in Walnut Creek, they had the speakers parallel to the side walls. I wanted to hear the new 3.7s, but the sound was just so beautiful via the 1.7s in this unusual position, I ended up listening to 4 hours of musical magic! When I returned, they set up the 3.7s in the usual position (facing the listener). The 3.7s were new, but the sound was much inferior to what I had heard from the 1.7s. The sound with the 1.7s parallel to the side walls, transported me to the original musical event. IMO, everey owner of Maggies should try this out.
?
(read this with a Fred Sanford type voice)...and P is for Procrastinator. (My middle initial really is P.)
I had every intention of doing it but I got distracted. I promise to do it this weekend, but my weekends are four days (beginning tomorrow). I'll start a new thread.
"Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is THE BEST." FZ
Edits: 09/30/11 10/01/11
And I though 'P' was for Prozac!
Too much is never enough
I have scanned the article on stereo image in the Hifi News & Record Review.http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_1.jpg
http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_2.jpg
http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_3.jpg
Roger Gustavsson
Edits: 09/30/11 09/30/11 09/30/11 09/30/11
Sorry for dredging up an ancient (but very worthwhile) thread, but I stumbled on these scanned pages in my latest attempt to minimize the intrusiveness of my First Reflection Traps (FRT) in my listening room. Roger Gustavsson very kindly made this post:
=============
I have scanned the article on stereo image in the Hifi News & Record Review.
http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_1.jpg
http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_2.jpg
http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/stereo_image_3.jpg
=============
This article was from November 1984, written by GP Millward (formerly with Wharfedale). I used this guidance with my Gunned MMGs and it does one thing really well: it banishes the head-in-a-vise phenomenon. It also works in my 11 foot by 11 foot space, making it worth checking out by small room listeners.
In a few days, I'll update my FRT thread. But here is the key point: by angling the MMGs at about 15 degrees as shown, the front wall reflection point to the listener is actually the edge-on null. The first reflection is the side wall reflection, and is the out-of-phase signal. By using FRTs angled just right, this reflection gets "beamed" to reflect at what would be the front wall reflection point if the speakers were "normally" placed. That first reflection is delayed by about 10 milliseconds, making it about as good as it can get in such a small place.
MG-bert
Very interesting.I like the enormous stereo field they sho on the planar diagrams.
It seems they are playing with corner reflections since they did not flip the speakers to have the dipold axis be angled away from the listener
Edits: 10/01/11 10/01/11
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: