They went digital, would you?

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby gene9p » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:18 pm

Peer Gynt wrote:This is another picture like what was shown the other day, where the speakers are obviously extremely close to the wall.

Am I just out to lunch (as usual) and missed the memo on how to make such placement give a reasonable bass response or a reasonable soundstage?

Or are these systems blessed with appropriate software fixes to mitigate the obvious problems of speaker placement?

Or am I just the only one who is curious about why I can't place speakers in this manner and expect to be pleased with the result?

Or ... Or ... Or ... ?

Inquiring minds really want to know...


seems to me you are taking over this site. Every thread....you might want to lay low a bit. :roll:
CLASSIC 2 WALNUT,w CLASSIC 3 ARM, SDS
HW SPECIAL VAS NOVA .4v
MANLEY CHINOOOK
Vinnie Rossie LIO integrated
KRELL CD Player
BRYSTON BDA-1
HARBETH 7es-3
MORROW AUDIO + AUDIO SENSIBILITY Cables
WAYNE'S OUTER RING
User avatar
gene9p
Senior Member
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:16 am

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby Peer Gynt » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:52 pm

gene9p wrote:
seems to me you are taking over this site. Every thread....you might want to lay low a bit. :roll:



So you don’t know the answer, but you think I ought not ask.

Ignore me. I have far fewer posts than you.

FWIW, I asked this same question about the system with HW in the picture in another thread.

Linn have software they call Space Optimization. You put the speakers in their optimal location, take some measurements of the sound field at the listener, and then move the speakers back to the wall where the software makes corrections until the listener is treated to the original sound field.

Klipsch and Bose have designed speaker systems where wall and corner placements are expected and accomodated by the driver design.

What is helping these presumably good speakers to give their best?

It’s a serious question. Post if you know.
Peer Gynt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:56 pm

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby 10ovr » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:29 pm

Peer Gynt wrote:
gene9p wrote:
seems to me you are taking over this site. Every thread....you might want to lay low a bit. :roll:



So you don’t know the answer, but you think I ought not ask.

Ignore me. I have far fewer posts than you.

FWIW, I asked this same question about the system with HW in the picture in another thread.

Linn have software they call Space Optimization. You put the speakers in their optimal location, take some measurements of the sound field at the listener, and then move the speakers back to the wall where the software makes corrections until the listener is treated to the original sound field.

Klipsch and Bose have designed speaker systems where wall and corner placements are expected and accomodated by the driver design.

What is helping these presumably good speakers to give their best?

It’s a serious question. Post if you know.

The problem I have is limited space,,When I first ran the Focal speakers they were lacking in the mids and low end being that close to the wall so I added the REL subs ,,The RELs filled in what was missing ,,Could they sound better in a bigger room away from the wall ? Yes ,But it is what it is,,and besides the only thing that counts is how it sounds to me and it sounds great,, LOL
10ovr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:22 pm
Location: Fountain Hills AZ

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby Brf » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:40 am

IME, many systems are in multi use environments, therefore, the component(s) placement are in competition with ergonomics and estethics. I have three systems; the living room system, which is a multi use room, the speaker’s placement are compromised due to estethics and WAF, whereas, in my dedicated listening room, the speakers are about 1/3 into the room and all components are positioned to maximize performance.

It’s a tough balancing act when your main system resides in a multi use room. I’ve seen friends spend big $$$$ on incremental improvements when a simple speaker repositioning would yield a bigger improvement. Unfortunately, for them, repositioning the speakers is not an option.
User avatar
Brf
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3601
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:23 am

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby Peer Gynt » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:06 am

Thanks for the responses. I was hoping for some magic.

Up until recently, I ran a system in a multi use room too.

My wife was a good sport and I was able to place the ML Theos and FB210 sub, and tune them using the ML PBK.

I’ve recently eliminated that system and sold off much of it. Even though my wife didn’t complain about it (much), I know she was happy to see it go.

If I could have put the speakers against the wall, it would not have bothered her nearly as much.
Peer Gynt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:56 pm

Re: They went digital, would you?

Postby Golear » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:53 pm

Peer Gynt wrote:Linn have software they call Space Optimization. You put the speakers in their optimal location, take some measurements of the sound field at the listener, and then move the speakers back to the wall where the software makes corrections until the listener is treated to the original sound field.

Klipsch and Bose have designed speaker systems where wall and corner placements are expected and accomodated by the driver design.

What is helping these presumably good speakers to give their best?

It’s a serious question. Post if you know.


There's REW and there's also DIRAC, too. They'll do frequency EQ in order to give you a flat response. They'll compensate for the peaks and valleys in the speaker, as well as in the room. With more smarts, they might even account for speaker position. They just adjust the level at specific frequency points, for each channel. The advantage is that there are many frequency points, and one can set them independently for each channel.

Linn adds time into the mix. If you split the digital music stream into different buffers, then you read from the buffers based on a time delay. You can compensate for the speaker and/or less than ideal speaker placement in the room. If your siting position is not dead center, but closer to one speaker, then you can put a delay, so that the sound from it arrives at your ear at the same time as the sound from the speaker that is further away.

The EQ is done in the digital domain, in order to have added capabilities and to avoid the limitations/complexities of analog filters. This means having to do Analog to Digital conversion, doing the math, then converting Digital to Analog.

REG, an audio reviewer who teaches math at UCLA, wrote that the math for room correction is recursive and they limit the number of recursions because of available computing power - at the time, it was 4. Is this enough? It's hard to say. Also, the correction only addresses the first reflection in the room. All the other reflections are ignored - the math becomes too hard to account for them. So there's a fair bit of approximation.

Also, the aim to make the frequency response as flat as possible. But is that all there is to good sound? There are, no doubt, other distortions. In my book, flat frequency response is over-rated. There can be other inaccuracies that are worse.

I don't like the fact that one has to convert to analog, then do the math and then convert back. This may be fine for digital sources. But it seems like a big penalty for analog sources. And they haven't made a big impact. I think there are some speaker systems which use packages like REW and DIRAC - but to control the bass/subwoofer only.

The software may be fine for Bose, TV rooms and around swimming pools, etc. But not for the high-end. It's much harder to dial in a high-end system.
Golear
Senior Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Previous

Return to Just For The Record

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

x