 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
| Model: | Get Better Sound |
| Category: | Accessory |
| Suggested Retail Price: | $45.00 |
| Description: | Book |
| Manufacturer URL: | Jim Smith |
| Review by Leefy on November 20, 2008 at 17:35:50 IP Address: 70.79.91.28 | Add Your Review for the Get Better Sound |
Sorry to say, I have found myself to be a bigger “user”of AA than I have been a contributor. My posting has been minimal at best in view of the enormous help that this community has been to me so this is my first attempt at contributing in the form of a review. I’d like to take a few paragraphs to state my own background and biases so that you can give whatever weight you deem appropriate to this review.
I am an A/V dealer in Canada and have been involved in audio as an enthusiast and later as a dealer for about 40 years. My current gear list is in my profile, if you’re interested. I have owned lots of stuff over the years ranging from Quads to horns, solid state to tubes, big stuff and little stuff, so I hope I can at least claim an open mind (or at least a very unfocussed one!) in my equipment choices over the years. Much of the equipment I have owned is not stuff I sell as a dealer. Its stuff I purchased as a perpetual hobbyist and strictly to please my own tastes.
I met Jim Smith (author of the book under review) through his help in purchasing a pair of Avantgarde Duo Omegas while he distributed that product. His VERY specific set up guidelines for that product (often at odds with the manufacturer’s and infinitely better sounding) gave me an immediate respect for his credentials. The fact that he continued to offer his advice on AA about Avantgarde product setup long after he was no longer involved with the company showed me he was not hesitant about giving his advice for free. I figure if he was charging for it now in book form, it was worth finding out if it was worth the investment. I have no connection with Jim or his book and have never been a dealer for any product he has ever been involved with.
I am no beginner at this hobby but I am always willing to learn. I certainly don’t need to be told to “make sure the speakers are in phase” or to “make sure one of them isn’t behind a potted plant” so I wanted to find out if the book really could give a person with substantial experience some useful tips.
The book:
The book is designed as a reference volume, so with few exceptions (the sequence of laying out the speakers in the room for example which should be done in a very specific order) one can read whatever section seems most interesting and in any order. There are 202 “tips” in total and they are divided into 23 chapters that group them into categories with related info. It is written in a conversational and informal style so there is nothing “textbook” about the approach. It is illustrated with charming and simple line drawings that illustrate salient concepts. Sample headings? “Stereo system bass and subwoofers”, “working with your room” “the value of having a true reference recording” and so forth.
Are all the tips earth shattering? Certainly not, if you are experienced. I’m open to learn but hope there aren’t 201 things in this hobby I’ve never thought of! Is there plenty of meat to justify 45 bucks (way more in my weak Canadian dollar) absolutely.
Specifically, I have never been satisfied with the bass balance of the AG’s in my room and have often found myself “retweaking” the adjustable bass levels on the Duos bass units (curse those adjustments!!). I would find that I would set a balance that struck me as perfect on some audiophile spectacular demo disc (the kind you never actually listen to…) only to find it “not quite right” on the next sonic spectacular. The tips in this book (#74 - #77 specifically) cover a very specific setup technique for optimizing the seating position on real music and left me feeling satisfied that the balance was finally reliably “correct.” Coupled with this, tip #201 which details the process of working through the setup with a specific reference recording (in this case Tears of Stone by the Chieftains) describing specific points and musical frequencies on the disc made for a pleasurable afternoon of tweaking with surprising improvements in a system I thought was fairly well dialed in. I have access to sophisticated RTA equipment but was able to improve on my previous RTA assisted setup with a change in seating distance of less than 4” all done by ear.
I would have been delighted with the purchase of the book for this advice only.
His other discussions about room setup and speaker placement are admirably specific and made further refinements to my system. (after reading this book it didn’t seem completely anal to make sure the speakers were separated in a ratio of.83 compared to the listening distance and to measure that the speakers were equidistant from my ears within 1/16”.) This focus reminded me of the importance of attention to detail it setting up any audio equipment. The cumulative effect of these incremental tweaks is quite remarkable and is contained with only a few tips.
I found other intriguing stuff in terms of thinking about some old concepts in a new way. Jim’s take on the concept of a “wide sweet spot” should be required reading for any audio enthusiast. He talks about stereo bass, AC polarity, tight “audiophile” bass versus the real musical experience. He deals with room treatments, digital room correction, compression and other topics dear to the hearts of enthusiasts but often with an unusual insight that makes those topics fresher and more thought provoking.
Don’t buy this book if you expect 201 knockout blows. It is to be expected that some are weaker than others if you are experienced in this hobby. I won’t call them filler as their usefulness depends on your own expertise. If I was buying my first stereo, I’d read it from cover to cover and short cut many years of trial and error.
Does the book deliver on its promise?
Very much so, in my opinion
1) My own system finally has an room bass performance that is worth way more than the price of a few CDs
2) Like most audio enthusiasts, this stuff is my hobby and I love reading about it, tinkering with it and listening to it. Reading improvement tips makes any staleness and complacency go away and makes me want to skip a TV night and just go try a few things. I think we all share the Eureka feeling when something new in our sound makes us go “wow” This a pretty cheap way to guarantee at least one of those moments no matter how experienced you are. I think it’s a no brainer as one of my best “upgrades”. I could only wish that my last upgrade cost 45 bucks.
| Product Weakness: | None really |
| Product Strengths: | Great value for money. I think anyone would find useful stuff here |
| Amplifier: | BAT VK75SE |
| Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | BAT VK51SE |
| Sources (CDP/Turntable): | Sony SCD1 VSE 5+ mod |
| Speakers: | Avantgarde Duo Omega |
| Cables/Interconnects: | JPS Labs |
| Music Used (Genre/Selections): | na |
| Room Size (LxWxH): | 23 ft x 18ft x 10ft |
| Room Comments/Treatments: | na |
| Time Period/Length of Audition: | na |
| Other (Power Conditioner etc.): | Shuntyata Hydra |
| Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Thanks for sharing this information. I ordered a copy today and hell it is only the cost of a few cd's. I sure I will learn a few things that I may not have been exposed to over the past 25 years and I am sure along the way a lot of BS.
My interest is using the wall panels from ASC correctly and speakers setup in my room. That alone will make the book worth the cost.
PJB
What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean:
A) the distance between the speakers is .83 times the distance from either speaker to the listening position;
or
B) the distance between the speakers is .83 times the distance the listening position is in front of the plane in which the 2 speakers lie.
In example A, the speakers are wider apart than they would be in the frequently suggested equilateral triangle arrangement and the angle between the 2 speakers, measured at the listening position, will be around 72 degrees. That's an angle suggested in one section of the Audio Physic setup instructions and one I've found to produce extremely good results in my setup. Provided the speakers aren't too far apart, this results in a near field type listening arrangement.
In example B the speakers are closer together than they would be in the frequently suggested equilateral triangle arrangement. This will usually result in a far field listening arrangement unless the speakers are extremely close.
Room size and layout, especially whether the speakers are located along the long or short dimensison of the room, can often make one of the above 2 placements impractical or even impossible.
David Aiken
Is it possible to make use of such precise arrangements in a REAL situation?
(nt)
Yes :-)
Or at least extremely close to such precision..
It is hard to measure tweeter to ear distance precisely. Holding a tape measure in contact with the tweeter is not recommended and I don't think my head ends up in exactly the same spot every time but measurements to within a mm or two are quite possible and a lot of that mm or two 'error margin' is going to be related to head movement.
I tend to measure from the baffle plate, and actually use a plumb bob to mark a spot on the floor directly below the baffle of my monitors as a start for the measurement, and measure to a point on a midline bisecting the speakers which is as close to immediately below my head as I can ensure. I might be able to get a bit more accuracy there if I had a second person present to help while I was measuring. My process was probably slightly different from Jim's:
- establish the midline between the speakers and mark a point halfway between the front wall and the wall I use as the 'back' wall, given the bend in the L shape is in that wall. That point is the reference for the speaker plane. I then mark the point directly below where my head is, which is extremely close to the plane of the 'back' wall.
- I've tried several recommendations for speaker placement along the marked speaker plane: quarter room width points, focal points of an ellipse which tangentially contacts all walls, and the 72 degree listening angle. I calculate the distance of the tweeter from the middle of the speaker plane using standard trigonometric formulae or by dividing the width of the room by 4, mark the tweeter position on the speaker plane with the aid of that measurement, and then set the stands up so the speaker is immediately above the marked point and make any minor adjustments by adjusting the stands and also the speaker's position on the stand. Things would certainly be a bit easier with floorstanders where one only has to play with the speaker position, not stand position and speaker on stand position.
Provided the listening chair doesn't get bumped and moved slightly, or my head move slightly,I'd think my locations were accurate to within a mm or two and my head will move more than that during the course of a listening session.
Does it make a difference? I can't speak for those with rectangular rooms but with that kind of precision and acoustic treatment at the first reflection points to absorb the first reflections which are slightly different in strength from left to right due to the asymmetrical shape of the room, my centre image is centred extremely well. Without the acoustic treatment and with the resulting left/right imbalance to the soundfield, the centre image drifts quite a bit to the left. Precision certainly makes a difference in my room and I think it would make a difference in any room. The normal small head movements that occur during listening aren't a problem provided the basic precision is there. A few inches difference in the setup is a much bigger shift than normal head movement and that's certainly more than enough to move my centre image to one side. Symmetrical rooms are probably a little more forgiving than my room.
David Aiken
... I have found on occasion that whilst a very precise (and good) image/soundstage can be achieved for a very precise "head position" if you wish to set up a system for a more social setting, a more general positioning is preferable.
Less good for that exact sweet spot but better across, say, the width of a sofa.
I have heard, but haven't tried the theory out, that toeing in the speakers so they cross in front of the listening position broadens the soundstage and gives a bigger sweet spot. I expect that if it does this, it does so at the expense of losing some of the advantages you get in imaging with a smaller sweet spot.
Assuming you want to go for the bigger sweet spot, and that's a perfectly reasonable call in my view, then I think you're better off going after that result quite seriously and not being half hearted about it. You may not get the same results you get with a smaller sweet spot but I'd be prepared to bet that care, attention and precision in going after the wider sweet spot will get you better results over that wider area than a more casual approach will, plus better results in the middle of that area for the times when you are listening on your own.
It's fine to decide that you want a different result to someone else, even most someone elses. Once you decide what result you want, however, there's no reason for not putting in a bit of extra time and effort to make sure that the result you get is not only the sort of result you were after but as good as you can get it to be.
David Aiken
nt
Just a guess!
;-)
nt
Guess we won't agree on this one.
If the system is set up properly , the phase cancellations and resulting uneven frequency response from different pathlengths to an off-axis listener renders more realistic sound not actually possible. It's not just audible, it's depressingly measurable. Unless you can repeal the laws of physics.
Although I wholeheartedly agree that it can still be highly enjoyable if listening with others, one of whom is in the optimum seat.
However, a wide sweet spot is an oxymoron in stereophony.
IMO, of course...
Best regards,Jim Smith
Don't ask me how I do it
;-)
Wellf, I always knew you had it in you!
;-)
A lot depends upon the off-axis radiation lobes of your speakers and upon room reflections. I've got some good sounding positions off to the side of both speakers here which often sound more like the symphony and less like a stereo. Real sound isn't tidy.
Rick
I knew there was a technical explanation out there somewhere. :-)
Won't ask, don't tell .
Or something like that...☺
Best regards,Jim Smith
☺
I couldn't explain it if I wanted to
Is it possible to make use of such precise arrangements in a REAL situation?
Yes.
Best regards,Jim Smith
Lee is referring to the third step in my voicing process, once the plane of the listening seat and the plane of the loudspeakers have been generally determined.In that step, I refer to a finding that showed up fairly consistently in hundreds of installations.
In this section, I'm referring to my preference (not in any way presented as a requirement) for the overall sound quality. I never measure first, but when I do measure after the voicing is complete, more often than not, we're close to that .83 number.
The .83 is my observation of the tweeter center-to-tweeter center as a percentage of the distance from the ear to the tweeter diaphragm. Putting it another way, if the distance from ear to tweeter is x, then y (tweeter center-to-tweeter center) often ended up being about 83% of x.
In that same section, I acknowledge some listener's preferences for the wider separation that results from an equilateral triangle. I mention that I know some audiophiles and reviewers who actually prefer y to be greater than x.
While I can appreciate the sometimes uncanny imaging from wider spacing, in terms of my taste, I don't care for the thinning out of the tonal palette that occurs. I personally do not want to give up a measure of warmth, presence, and tonal density to achieve pin-point imaging. This trend began way back in the early 80s when I was doing a fair amount of free-lance recording for a NPR station and various universities and churches. Playback of the master tapes was where/when this preference began to evolve.
Assuming a certain toe-in as required for each speaker, my goal is for the speakers to disappear and the feeling is that the musicians packed up their stuff to come over and play for me in my room. Srajan Ebaen commented on that aspect when he visited me here in Atlanta for the interview he published (a excerpt of which is on our website).
The point is that I want folks to realize that tuning for one aspect can cause another to suffer. And give them an idea how to move from favoring one aspect to the other. Based on their preferences , they'll have better info as to how to pick the best compromise.
For context, the tip is called, Tip #77: Step 3. Fine tuning tonal balance and stero imaging with stereo separation and speaker placement.
Best regards,Jim Smith
Edits: 11/23/08
I've never done linear measurements and ratio calculations, but I sit about 11' back from the speaker plane, and the speakers are about 9.5' apart at tweeter center.
"I personally do not want to give up a measure of warmth, presence, and tonal density to achieve pin-point imaging."
I could not agree more, especially on presence. When I try greater separation to gain more air between instruments, I always end up going back to the closer spacing for your above-mentioned reasons. And contrary to some beliefs, sharper toe-in will not make up for the speakers being too far apart, IMO.
Jim,
Thanks for the comments and I agree about taste. I only asked the question about the proportions because I tried to buy the book and your website won't accept my Visa card and I don't want to set up a PayPal account. Is there any other way I can purchase a copy? I'm happy to send an International Money Order or the like. If I could have purchased the book I'd be reading my own copy rather than asking the question.
I've got the wider spacing of the speakers, with y greater than x, in my room because of room shape and layout. L-shaped rooms tend not to figure strongly when setup recommendations are given and in my case the room also has 2 open archway entrances that create 'traffic flow patterns' that also impose restrictions on where things can go. I tried the Audio Physic approach after reading Jonathan Scull's Fine Tune column articles about it and discovered that not only did it give good results in my room but also worked well with the shape of the room and the entrances. Every time I've had someone suggest an alternative I've always had some layout obstacle for trying the alternative while the person suggesting it has always said that they'd be prepared to live with the obstacle though, of course, that's the one thing they wouldn't have to do since they they go home to somewhere else at the end of the night.
"The point is that I want folks to realize that tuning for one aspect can cause another to suffer. And give them an idea how to move from favoring one aspect to the other. Based on their preferences, they'll have better info as to how to pick the best compromise."
I couldn't agree more. Every setup is a compromise. I think the best setup for an individual is the one that doesn't appear to be a compromise for them. It gives them the aspects they want and it puts the things it does less well in the areas where the individual's attention won't be drawn to them. The result is one in which what you get is engaging and involving in its own right and keeps you so interested that you rarely think to notice what you're not getting. When that is done well, the results can often satisfy people with quite different tastes giving them an experience they're happy to enjoy on its own merits even if it's not the experience they want to live with in their own home. I find there's always a lot to enjoy in a system when the owner has spent the time and effort necessary to get a result that they personally find very satisfying. I may not want that system myself and hear it nearly every day but I find myself looking forward to visiting for an evening session every now and then. Such systems often reveal something new to me in familiar music and I then find it easier to hear that facet of the music in my own system once I know that it is there in the music.
David Aiken
Hi David:
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Jim refers in the book to your example A. where the distance between the center of the tweeters is .83 times the distance of the the plane of the tweeter to the listeners ear. (If I'm misinterpreting, I'm sure Jim will chime in to correct me.) I certainly agree about room constraints affecting any of these formulas. In my room, sticking precisely to that formula puts my listening chair in a place of some less than optimal bass nodes. Jim confirmed in an email that he felt smoother bass performance was the more important characteristic to strive for so my speakers wound up at about a .75 ratio by the time I was done fiddling with a good seating position. I had previously placed my speakers closer together than that and found the broader spread to be more convincing in my setup.
Best regards,
Lee
NT
David Aiken
...and skeptical about this book, its contents and its cost, although I haven't seen it.I moved into a new house in May and went from a purpose-built dedicated audio room to a smaller living room (14 X 17 X 8) for my system. It has taken me until now to get the sound treatment and speaker-seating positioning just right.
In fact, last week I felt the seating position was still a little off, so after listening to some bass tones and the standing waves/suckouts, I moved the seat back about 8 inches, adjusted the speaker angles and wala, I had it.
After reading your review here and seeing Smith's recommendation of a .83 ratio to speaker separation and listening distance, I measured mine. It is now .82, pretty close. So it would appear he is on to something.
However in my previous larger listening room (17 X 27 X 10.5), I had the same speakers farther apart and about equidistant to where I sat for a ratio of close to 1.0. I'd say it depends on the size of the room.
And I agree with him about getting the speakers positioned at least 1/16 inch of each other to the side and back walls with the listener in the center - the images really snap into place.
Sounds like he has some good advice to offer.
Edits: 11/22/08 11/22/08
I received my copy yesterday and will begin reading tonight.
nt
I am in the process of reading this book right now and plan on trying several of his suggestions. Much I've heard before and much seems like common sense, but he presents it in a way that I can understand and try.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
