but I am going to go back to a 2-channel only system.

I find that I listen to 2-channel probably 90% of the time and when I do
watch movies in 2-channel mode I don't miss the surround nearly as much as I thought I would.

I've decided to sell off my theater stuff (processor, surround/center speakers and amp) and focus on getting my 2-channel setup where I really want it... however I need to figure out what that destination is first.

Anyone else had this epiphany?

I've been in denial for a few weeks now - and I finally listened to that little nagging voice in the back of my head.

I feel better now. :)

but I am going to go back to a 2-channel only system.

I find that I listen to 2-channel probably 90% of the time and when I do
watch movies in 2-channel mode I don't miss the surround nearly as much as I thought I would.

I've decided to sell off my theater stuff (processor, surround/center speakers and amp) and focus on getting my 2-channel setup where I really want it... however I need to figure out what that destination is first.

Anyone else had this epiphany?

I've been in denial for a few weeks now - and I finally listened to that little nagging voice in the back of my head.

I feel better now. :)

Hi Jim,

Well to share this thought with you. You are making a move that I find really interesting to read about. Most everyone is going to the upper end of H/T and 7.1 Audio and here you are going to a 2-Channel Setup. Interesting. :)

It seems to me that the thing that holds almost every person up on how far they will go with H/T and Audio is $$$$$$$$$ Dollars available or that they are willing to spend on same.

I look forward to reading further Post here as to how this works out for you. Also the take that other members here will have on this move you are about to make.

Good-Luck !!!!! ;)

Terry Honaker (tigerhonaker)

I think to sum up what I am trying to say - is that I've realized that my $ is better spent on improving my 2-channel listening - than it is with H/T.

I am much more critical to 2-channel - and I feel that downgrading the H/T portion of my system in order to upgrade the 2-channel would be very rewarding and a wise investment considering what I find ultimately more rewarding.

In a perfect world - I would have both a cutting edge theater and 2-channel rig... but my finances simply aren't in agreement with that concept at the moment - so I much choose one.

By sacrificing the components I've listed above - I can move my 2-channel system up several notches.

Stay tuned - I may completely reverse this idea tomorrow - but I don't think so...

Jim

Your goal could be met keeping what you have and over time up grading the components to better
compliment the two channel side. It would be a integrated system but you would have the best of both worlds. At times you may want to take advantage of the surround modes for certain movies if not for yourself but your friends.

but I am going to go back to a 2-channel only system.

I find that I listen to 2-channel probably 90% of the time and when I do
watch movies in 2-channel mode I don't miss the surround nearly as much as I thought I would.

I've decided to sell off my theater stuff (processor, surround/center speakers and amp) and focus on getting my 2-channel setup where I really want it... however I need to figure out what that destination is first.

Anyone else had this epiphany?

I've been in denial for a few weeks now - and I finally listened to that little nagging voice in the back of my head.

I feel better now. :)

Easy response-you are more of an audiophile thana videophile

I too am a 2 channel purist

but I am going to go back to a 2-channel only system.

I find that I listen to 2-channel probably 90% of the time and when I do
watch movies in 2-channel mode I don't miss the surround nearly as much as I thought I would.

I've decided to sell off my theater stuff (processor, surround/center speakers and amp) and focus on getting my 2-channel setup where I really want it... however I need to figure out what that destination is first.

Anyone else had this epiphany?

I've been in denial for a few weeks now - and I finally listened to that little nagging voice in the back of my head.

I feel better now. :)

I am working on both. I highly recommend rear speakers for home theater, even if they are cheap models just for basic surround effects. If I had to choose high quality in one over mediocre quality in both, I would do the same thing you are doing. My solution for now has been to buy the best high-end two channel components in a reasonable price range (Ayre, IMO reasonable), a high-end multichannel processor in the reasonable range (Meridian), and high-end mains (front right and left speakers - Wilsons). I am temporarily using studio monitors in the rear for surround (really cheap Samson Resolv80a speakers. Hey, they work fine for movie surround effects...), and no center channel, but I will eventually put the same brand as my mains (Wilsons) in the rear and center channel positions, though lower priced models (I won't be doing W/P 8s all around).

Cheap speakers in the back work great for movies, but not as well for surround music. I don't care though, the two channel sound is so great that I sit around listening to that most of the time. There isn't enough surround music for me to care anyway, and I don't like fake surround (logic 7, etc). Most of the surround music on the market is classical, with a little jazz and very little classic rock... No wonder it isn't attracting a wider audience. Hopefully TrueHD and DTS-HD will make way for more modern video concert releases with high definition surround sound music soundtracks.

Jim,

I've been considering doing a very similar thing, too. I've been doing both hifi and HT in my room for the past three years. My motivation is getting off the A/V merry-go-round and going DIY. I have met several folks here in Phoenix capable of helping me design almost everything - speakers, amps, preamp, modded front-ends, interconnect, and their systems are proof of their skills. I think the beauty of hifi is that a really good 2-channel experience can be 3D/holographic...

A/V can be a fun hobby, but I am very close to becoming burnt out on the buying/selling trying this/trying that, and I'd rather start learning how systems are designed and constructed instead.

Good luck on your end,

- Steve O.

Good luck...I, too, have never felt you could have excellent 2 channel and Home Theater in one room..

Good luck...I, too, have never felt you could have excellent 2 channel and Home Theater in one room..

My solution was to have Rives Audio design it completely optimized for two channel listening, and then I could use DSP and Room Correction for the multi-channel part of the room design. I also don't prefer a very live sounding room, so that makes it a little easier for me to accomplish the goal of having both in one room (that and my screen is also recessed into the ceiling, so it comes out far enough into the room to allow optimal speaker placement and seat positioning for two channel listening).

I compromised on the multi-channel end and not the two channel end because DSP and Room Correction technologies can fix a lot of the issues with bad multi-channel speaker setup as well as funky room issues, and the techologies are evolving fast enough that they will continue to get even better than they are now at a decent enough rate IMO.

Good luck...I, too, have never felt you could have excellent 2 channel and Home Theater in one room..

I share this belief. I have because of that 2 different set-ups, in 2 different rooms. The 2-Ch is purist High End Audio, and my HT middle of the road. I improved it , moving from an Hitachi RPTV to a Ruby and Stewart screen, from PSB T-5 to Dynaudio Contour.
I do believe however that surround are necessary for a better immersion a better cessation of disbelief to really involve you in the movie. Case in point try Gladiator, in the beginning of the movies, when Maximus is gathering his troops.. Horses in the back, Weapons , clanging, wind blowing, the whole ground vibrating from the horses and people steps all around, the room disappear and you are there...Try that in 2-ch...
I am not that critical on movies sound but have come to realize that a certain quality in sound reproduction and surround if intended by the director and producers are necessary in movies.. For me the ceiling is lower in HT. I would say I need clarity, boundless dynamic capabilities, bottomless bass. I do not care about neutrality and accuracy as I do in 2-Ch.
I do believe the original OP will miss surround in HT, not in music, not much and in my case not at all. So far in music multichannel does not please me...I think the majority of Recording Engineers and Record producers do not care (yet) about the technology. There is also in my opinion an immense logistics problem in multichannel reproduction: How to place 5 speakers in a room?... It is far from trivial when one knows and has experienced how much is involved in placing 2 in a room.

I was thinking of doing the very same thing - going back to 2-channel after many disappointing movies. Then I watched Superman Returns last night and the sound is what really saved the movie. That was just about the most amazingly intense 5.1 track I've heard in a long time, maybe ever. Movie had holes all through, but the soundfield certainly didn't. Maybe you should watch that first and decide ;)

Jim, its simply a question not only of what you prefer soundwise the most and how important multi-channel vs stereo is to you, but bucks as well.

I still say that when one has a dedicated room like me with equal speakers, etc all around that it can give great sound for stereo and multi-channel and movies. But most rooms really don't allow for the same full range speakers all around - and if you can't do proper placement it won't sound like it should if you're using the same full range surround speakers.

You've got a Theta CB3 surround processor, right? Do you have a Six Shooter? What are your center and surround speakers?

I too find myself listening to mostly 2ch but I sure like the option to have surround sound. I have found that a Theta Gen VIII integrated with a CB III and two amps; one for the front left and right (DNA-2) and the second for the surrounds will come as close as I need to come to what you are trying to reach.

Good Luck,

John

hah, i've been talking about doing this again all week. i have a decent HT system (all full sized logans) but it just doesnt do much for me (not the sound, the surround experience). honestly, its more of a "wow" for others at this point

I was going to toss my 2ch rig out and sold the rel out of it just to miss it and wish I hadn't. :(
I should just scrap it all and get something I really like I think.

Steve -

I am running a Meridian 861, with an Aerial CC5 center, 10T's front. 10T's driven by a Levinson 336, CC5 and surrounds (Linn) driven by a Proceed HPA3. Don't get me wrong it's a fantastic sounding setup... but 90% of the time the 861 is powered off as I listen to my unidisk through my ARC LS-26.

I think that I would rather sell what I rarely use and use the money to maybe step up the speakers - or just stick the cash back in the bank.

It's a simply fact that I don't seem to be using the surround stuff enough to justify the cost.

My solution was to have Rives Audio design it completely optimized for two channel listening, and then I could use DSP and Room Correction for the multi-channel part of the room design. I also don't prefer a very live sounding room, so that makes it a little easier for me to accomplish the goal of having both in one room (that and my screen is also recessed into the ceiling, so it comes out far enough into the room to allow optimal speaker placement and seat positioning for two channel listening).

I compromised on the multi-channel end and not the two channel end because DSP and Room Correction technologies can fix a lot of the issues with bad multi-channel speaker setup as well as funky room issues, and the techologies are evolving fast enough that they will continue to get even better than they are now at a decent enough rate IMO.

Just curious, how did your room sound with movies without any dsp/room correction after Rives optimized the room for 2-channel? I'm in the process of getting a level 3 Rives room and I am getting them to bias it towards 2-channel but after spending the big bucks on a full ATC active surround setup I'm expecting it to sound awesome too in surround (with movies). I don't plan on using any dsp or other processing.

Steve -

I am running a Meridian 861, with an Aerial CC5 center, 10T's front. 10T's driven by a Levinson 336, CC5 and surrounds (Linn) driven by a Proceed HPA3. Don't get me wrong it's a fantastic sounding setup... but 90% of the time the 861 is powered off as I listen to my unidisk through my ARC LS-26.

I think that I would rather sell what I rarely use and use the money to maybe step up the speakers - or just stick the cash back in the bank.

It's a simply fact that I don't seem to be using the surround stuff enough to justify the cost.

But what are your surround speakers? 10Ts? SR3s? Do you have any subs? SW-12(s)?

You need to look at the components that you'll sell and what you'll get for them to determine if its worth it for you. Or maybe if you don't get that much for the center and surround speakers, maybe sel the Meridian and go for a cheaper surround processor since you don't use it that much.

Just curious, how did your room sound with movies without any dsp/room correction after Rives optimized the room for 2-channel? I'm in the process of getting a level 3 Rives room and I am getting them to bias it towards 2-channel but after spending the big bucks on a full ATC active surround setup I'm expecting it to sound awesome too in surround (with movies). I don't plan on using any dsp or other processing.

I only had a level 2 The Bogg, so your situation is very different from mine most likely. I couldn't rebuild the entire basement, nor could I build a new space from nothing. That severely limited my opportunities for speaker placement. Post a pic of the schematic if you have one; it would help a lot to see what your layout will be. Perhaps you had the space and room shape to allow a better surround setup than I have.

If you are not using any DSP and Room Correction and have the room optimized for two channel the quality depends a lot on the speaker positions and room treatment, as well as your personal tastes for a "live" vs. "dead" room. If you like a "live" room it will not be as good for multi-channel IMO, because for every speaker you are potentially increasing the comb filtering by:

(N * (N - 1))/2

You are also increasing all other reflection issues in the room as well. If you like a dead room and have perfect speaker placement, it is not as bad, but these are exactly the reasons I decided to go with DSP and Room Correction in my room, because I couldn't have both perfect on their own merits (I don't think that it is even possible to have both 2-channel and multi speakers setup up optimally in the same room, since they require fairly different layouts anyway - thus the need for DSP and Room Correction - I could be wrong though). If you look at my HT thread, you will see how the irregular shape of my room required sacrifices to the surround in order to optimize two channel sound, e.g. the surrounds near the couch on the back sidewalls. The brain doesn't localize sound well from the rear anyway, so I figured it was better to put the quality where it would be the most noticeable and have the greatest impact, in the front.

Thankfully with the technologies out there, you can still get the best of both situations if you are willing to alter the signal. IMO, getting great two channel is likely the harder of the two to achieve, as the extra speakers in a surround setup will compensate for any faults by making a more enveloping sound field around the listener despite any imperfections. Two channel will be much more revealing of the room they are placed in, the placement in that room, and the listening positions (and speaker positions) relative to the room boundaries. So IMO, if you get that right, it is easy to correct surround sound issues with modern technology (and face it, with the speed of evolution in technology, it will only get better!).

To answer your question though, it didn't sound bad once I set the speaker positions up in the processor's software at the right distances (since the right rear speaker is further back than the left rear speaker) and with equalized volume levels. Keep in mind though, my particular room shape forced Rives to position the speakers close to the couch in order to conform with standard 5.1 setup protocols (I went into this knowing I was choosing optimal two channel over optimal surround sound and planned on using technology to compensate for the inconsistencies). It didn't sound as good before the DSP and Room Correction as it does now with the room correction though...

The best person to ask though is Rives himself, he is the expert. He will tell you flat out what the situation is with your room. It said on my concept drawings when I was choosing the layout, "This speaker position is good for 2 channel listening, but not so good for home theater." It could be that your room allows for both.

Here are pics of the front and back of my room for reference:

http://www.jkalman.com/images/audio_room/wilson/IMG_3055.jpg

http://www.jkalman.com/images/audio_room/wilson/IMG_3012.jpg

http://www.jkalman.com/images/audio_room/wilson/IMG_2819.jpg

Good luck...I, too, have never felt you could have excellent 2 channel and Home Theater in one room..

The key to doing both successfully, from my experience, is to have a room that is actually wider than deep. In order to do HT well, you need a room that is 20-25' deep, to do music well, you need a room that is 20' or so wide, so you almost need a room that is about 20'D x 25'W +/- to do both well for one row of seating, and about 25'x30' (at that point, either direction is pretty good) for 2-3 rows. Not many people can probably get that kind of room freed up for that kind of purpose. The whole narrow/deep HT room just never really opens up for music, IMO, but that's 99% of all dedicated theater rooms. I've never actually seen someone do one that is designed really well for both. Besides, once the room is that big, people automatically go for the biggest screen possible, which is often a waste. It just pushes you back into the room and puts your speakers too close to the rear.

I'm sure Q won't listen to me, but his room ^ has a screen that is too big, the speakers too far apart and the seating too far back with the speakers misplaced. Of course, the screen might be smaller than it looks, but, if so, I would raise it and slip the speakers underneath as they certainly aren't that tall. We almost always put the speakers *under* the screen if possible, not to the outside and use speakers that are less tan 3' tall.

I also think there's a huge fad of over treating HT rooms so that they just suck the life out of a pair of stereo speakers. I'm not sure I see the point in it beyond spending too much of someone's money. It would be cheaper and better to build the room a bit better and bigger, rather than making into "the dead zone". Lots of ways of doing this without overdampening.

Ali,

For a sense of perspective:

The room dimensions are ~33' x ~18' x ~9' (& ~7.7') (Length x Width x Height). The ceiling is ~9' in the center area (the tray ceiling area with the RPG high profile Skylines on it), but ~7.7' under the larger soffit areas, if you are trying to figure out an approximate volume for the room.

The listening couch is ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the back wall, the speakers are ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the couch, and the front wall is ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the speakers. So the room setup is split into ~1/3rds.

The ratio of the distance between the listening position and each speaker, to the distance between each speaker and the other speaker, is varying currently somewhere between these two limits: 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. Each offers a different and enjoyable experience with the music.

The speakers were voiced to those positions by a Wilson dealer. They weren't far off (~6" on one side, even less on the other side) from Rives' projections on where they would sound best according to his acoustical design of the room (something Rives said was likely, as projections are not 100% accurate).

The screen size is 128.5" diagonal. My Viewing Distance ratio to the screen is ~1.56 (1.5 would be optimal, especially considering it is a high definition theater). It conforms to either the MPAA or THX angle of view standards (I don't remember which one...). The screen is at a length where my entire family can enjoy watching it without hurting their necks, including from bean bags on the floor if any of my kids have a sleep over party.

That is the nice thing about hiring an expert and not some amateur who posts uninformed opinions on an online forum, I get expert results that conform to science and accepted theatrical standards, not pseudo-science. If I ever change my mind and want help from someone who doesn't know what they are doing, I'll be sure to give you a call Ali.

Actually, to be correct, my screen needed to be a little bit bigger to match up with the correct viewing distance and viewing angle. Rives designed that size into the schematic, but I couldn't make a larger screen size work because the canister holding the screen is too big to work in my ceiling (I have a steel beam in the way...). I specifically asked to have the room designed for High Definition movies, though, well made DVD movies look incredible none the less.

John,

Those speakers look to be about 80" apart. How far apart would you recommend?

Regards,
Darrell


I'm sure Q won't listen to me, but his room ^ has a screen that is too big, the speakers too far apart and...

Well, Q, your "expert" didn't even get most of the basics right, IMO. I mean the easy, non controversial stuff. Yes, yes, I know, 15 years of doing all this stuff and still an "amateur".

The room dimensions are ~33' x ~18' x ~9' (& ~7.7') (Length x Width x Height). The ceiling is ~9' in the center area (the tray ceiling area with the RPG high profile Skylines on it), but ~7.7' under the larger soffit areas, if you are trying to figure out an approximate volume for the room.

Though this is more work, I'd have turned that back part behind the couch into a separate room and made the length more like 22'-24'. That is a better dimension for a one row system. Then move the couch forward to about 8' from the back, ~15' from the front, shrink the screen a bit. The skylines just tossed on the ceiling like that are silly. Just stuff to sell people. No sense throwing them out but lack of ceiling diffusion is the least of your issues.

The ratio of the distance between the listening position and each speaker, to the distance between each speaker and the other speaker, is varying currently somewhere between these two limits: 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. Each offers a different and enjoyable experience with the music.

Wilson's recommendations may work for Wilsons and single audiophiles, (I think they're wrong and sets it up for a tiny sweetspot and exaggerated soundstage), BUT, even if you accept them, they are wrong for that room because it puts the speakers too close the wall. This is trumped by the fact that the speakers should be no closer than 2.5' (3' is better) from the wall! Even *if* you subscribe to the "no sweetspot too small" theory. You should absolutely move your speakers further from the side walls. Pull off the first reflection point treatment if the soundstage isn't big enough. Then you have some sweetspot and a more natural soundstage.

The speakers were voiced to those positions by a Wilson dealer. They weren't far off (~6" on one side, even less on the other side) from Rives' projections on where they would sound best according to his acoustical design of the room (something Rives said was likely, as projections are not 100% accurate).

Get a new dealer. Simple geometry dictates those positions are wrong. Heck, everything is off.

The screen size is 128.5" diagonal. My Viewing Distance ratio to the screen is ~1.56 (1.5 would be optimal, especially considering it is a high definition theater). It conforms to either the MPAA or THX angle of view standards (I don't remember which one...). The screen is at a length where my entire family can enjoy watching it without hurting their necks, including from bean bags on the floor if any of my kids have a sleep over party.

That says you are only 14' from the screen for optimum, but you're saying you're further from that if I get you right. Optimum is 1.5x width, not 1.5 diagonal, IMO. That puts you in all but the last row a normal theater (for a 30' wide screen, the theaters are typically about 50' deep), so with a true HD projector, you could argue that even 1.25x width is okay too. IOW, you're more than 14' away, right?

That is the nice thing about hiring an expert and not some amateur who posts uninformed opinions on an online forum, I get expert results that conform to science and accepted theatrical standards, not pseudo-science. If I ever change my mind and want help from someone who doesn't know what they are doing, I'll be sure to give you a call Ali.

You know Q, I could help you a lot more if you'd listen rather than insult me. You're only shooting yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

John,

Those speakers look to be about 80" apart. How far apart would you recommend?

Regards,
Darrell

They are ~134" apart center to center. Each speaker is ~150" to ~165" from the listening position. I keep moving the position to experiment with the ratios 1.1:1 and 1.25:1 to see what I end up enjoying the sound the most, though I don't have to choose one. I can always move it around any time I like (that is part of the fun).

John,

Those speakers look to be about 80" apart. How far apart would you recommend?

Regards,
Darrell

Actually, they're much wider than that. If the room is really 18', the tweeters look to be 13-14' apart. Assuming a 15' listening distance from the centerline, they shouldn't be much more than about 10' apart. This also gives you 4' on either side of the speaker, plenty for good imaging. Again, in that room, the big limitation on Wilson's recommendation is that the speakers shouldn't be closer than 3' to the side walls and that limits you to 12' max.

Keep in mind that 80" wide screen is 92" diagonal. He's talking 128" diagonal (111" wide) and the speakers are well to the outside of that.

They are ~134" apart center to center. Each speaker is ~150" to ~165" from the listening position. I keep moving the position to experiment with the ratios 1.1:1 and 1.25:1 to see what I end up enjoying the sound the most, though I don't have to choose one. I can always move it around any time I like (that is part of the fun).

Again, if the soundstage is too small with the speaker set up properly, then pull the treatment from the first reflection point (not often needed with correct placement!!!) or angle the speakers out slightly. We get our biggest soundstaging with speakers placed away from the wall rather than wider apart. As you get get too close the side walls, early reflections get in the way of our location processing and you just get a jumble. You can treat the early reflection, but it's better to not have to do so. Treating the sidewall should really mainly be for emergencies or to create a slightly warmer sound with bright speakers or an overly bright room.

You know John, for an amateur who does not have those speakers and seems to dengrate anything wilson any chance he gets, you are putting a pretty strong position forward.

THe system was designed with the best in acoustic modeling software and you simple respond with coments like

The skylines just tossed on the ceiling like that are silly. Just stuff to sell people.

THis is what sets people off. On one side they have experts in the field that have done the modelling and the testing and the in field measuring and on the other side we have a guy who just throws out comments.

Most commercial theatres are an uncomfortable experience because you HAVE TO be too close to the screen for comfortable viewing.

WHat is really annoying about you John is that instead of an approach like "you know, after 15 years experience and countless theatres, i would approach things differently." You go on to list all the things that are wrong with comments like

your "expert" didn't even get most of the basics right, IMO. I mean the easy, non controversial stuff. ,

The skylines just tossed on the ceiling like that are silly. Just stuff to sell people,

Get a new dealer. Simple geometry dictates those positions are wrong. Heck, everything is off,

You know Q, I could help you a lot more if you'd listen rather than insult me. You're only shooting yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

Seems like you are the one being an ass

You know John, for an amateur who does not have those speakers and seems to dengrate anything wilson any chance he gets, you are putting a pretty strong position forward..........

Seems like you are the one being an ass

In addition to being actually correct, I think I started off pretty well, but it's hard to stay on track with the "he's an expert, you're an amateur" crap. I mean, I don't care, I can take it, no skin off my back, but that doesn't mean, then, that I have to be politically correct about it.

Exactly what are those skylines doing? And does it matter if all the other stuff is wrong?

"Experience, who needs that, I have a computer!" :rolleyes:

Most computer programs are set up to deal with bass, not with getting proper imaging/soundstaging. That's why most "dedicated" HT systems can't do music well.

In any case, once the first insult is hurled, I figure "why not be an ass if everyone else is going to be...."

Here we go again :(

As per the notification e-mail:

Hello QueueCumber,

Alimentall has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - I never thought I'd say it.... - in the Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) forum of AVS Forum.

This thread is located at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=869047&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

Well, Q, your "expert" didn't even get most of the basics right, IMO. I mean the easy, non controversial stuff. Yes, yes, I know, 15 years of doing all this stuff and still an "amateur".

Though this is more work, I'd have turned that back part behind the couch into a separate room and made the length more like 22'-24'. That is a better dimension for a one row system. Then move the couch forward to about 8' from the back, ~15' from the front, shrink the screen a bit. The skylines just tossed on the ceiling like that are silly. Just stuff to sell people. No sense throwing them out but lack of ceiling diffusion is the least of your issues.

Now you are an acoustic engineer? It is funny, for some reason you would think that because you have been doing this for awhile that you must have learned something through osmosis. I guess not. It doesn't matter how long you have been doing this, if you aren't intuitive or intelligent enough to grasp the concepts at a level commensurate with an expert who studied this field scientifically (including a comparable understanding of engineering physics, sound wave acoustics, and psychoacoustics), then what good are you? Perhaps you should take up bagging groceries. Just because you feel entitled to consider yourself an acoustical engineer, doesn't make you one by any sense of the definition.

I didn't have the choice of rebuilding the entire room. The Skylines break up sound without extra absorption, since the rest of the room is covered in panels to kill slap echo and treat first reflection points I guess this was the best option without making the room too "dead" (we'd have to ask Rives, since he designed it). Rives doesn't make the skyline treatments, I had to call companies and order them separately. Rives recommended I make treatments myself wherever possible, but I'm lazy.

Wilson's recommendations may work for Wilsons and single audiophiles, (I think they're wrong and sets it up for a tiny sweetspot and exaggerated soundstage), BUT, even if you accept them, they are wrong for that room because it puts the speakers too close the wall. This is trumped by the fact that the speakers should be no closer than 2.5' (3' is better) from the wall! Even *if* you subscribe to the "no sweetspot too small" theory. You should absolutely move your speakers further from the side walls. Pull off the first reflection point treatment if the soundstage isn't big enough. Then you have some sweetspot and a more natural soundstage.

Interesting, the center of my left speaker is 3' from the wall, and the edge of the speaker is 2.5' from the wall... These happen to be the areas where the bass frees up due to the soffit ending near that position in the room on one side. The right side of the room is off center to the left because of issues with steel beams and a soffit which hides them, again things I couldn't change.

I'm well aware my room isn't perfect. Designing for a perfect room is easy. Designing for an imperfect room is not easy and requires a lot of balancing between elements, apparently something you do not excel at. Likewise, positioning speakers under these circumstances also requires a balancing act. There are sacrifices that have to be made. Though I suppose it is beyond your mind to comprehend that perhaps I was told to build the ceiling soffits the way they are built just for these reasons? It certainly bothered me during the design phase, but it was explained to me that things were designed this way on the ceiling to counteract the irregular shape of the room.

Those numbers you listed are too arbitrary anyway, the distance from the wall has nothing to do with an absolute value, it is variable. Though you hate to admit it, you basically confessed to this in another post without meaning to when you said "approximately," or "around." What is more important is finding the area where the sound interacts the least with the room. There is no easy way to do this in a room that is very irregular like mine. Computer programs help if they take irregular room shapes into account (CARA?) certainly, but ultimately voicing and experimenting with the room is the best determinant.

Get a new dealer. Simple geometry dictates those positions are wrong. Heck, everything is off.

Oh, but have you heard my room? Nah. Do you know if all the compensations in the room design work (soffits, treatments, layout, passive resonator positioning, bass trap setups, bookshelf placing - placed to counteract room imbalances)? Nah. Just more typical Alimentall posts, hot air and BS filled with self-promotion and delusions of grandeur.

That says you are only 14' from the screen for optimum, but you're saying you're further from that if I get you right. Optimum is 1.5x width, not 1.5 diagonal, IMO. That puts you in all but the last row a normal theater (for a 30' wide screen, the theaters are typically about 50' deep), so with a true HD projector, you could argue that even 1.25x width is okay too. IOW, you're more than 14' away, right?

My seating position is currently 14' 6" from the screen, though it varies. I'm aware it is 1.5 x width to get the viewing distance ratio.

You know Q, I could help you a lot more if you'd listen rather than insult me. You're only shooting yourself in the foot as far as I'm concerned.

ROFLMAO... You are too funny. It doesn't matter what I say to you, you wouldn't go away even if I payed you. Your advice is awful, presumptuous and often WRONG. Tell me what I have to say to you so you just go away once and for all? You can't help yourself, you wouldn't stop if your life depended on it.


***************

Again...This thread is located at:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=869047&goto=newpost

There is an asymmetry in my room design specifically because of the irregular shape of my room. The difficulty is maintaining the total room volume, that is an asset in a music listening room, while counteracting the irregularity of the room shape (that can also be an asset in breaking up room modes and reflections - but can be a bane for symmetrical speaker setup). Most of the room appears to be designed with these intentions and that was likewise the impression I recieved while interacting with Rives during the conceptualization phase.

I would ask questions like "why is the resonator not centered between both front bass traps?" The answers to questions like these were always about counteracting the irregular room shape. I would ask, "well, why not decrease the size of the room by 1/3rd and make the soffits the same size on both sides?" His answers were along the lines of, him trying to preserve room volume as much as possible while counteracting the irregular shape of the room.

Rives knows what he is doing, you Alimentall do not. It isn't like you asked me why he did those things, you just decided they must not work without even trying to see if there is perhaps some intelligent design going on behind it all. I actually did ask those questions of Rives himself while he was designing my room. I also researched it in books because I was skeptical and wanted to understand it. I can also hear the final product... Magnificent.

I didn't have the choice of rebuilding the entire room. The Skylines break up sound without extra absorption, since the rest of the room is covered in panels to kill slap echo and treat first reflection points I guess this was the best option without making the room too "dead" (we'd have to ask Rives, since he designed it). Rives doesn't make the skyline treatments, I had to call companies and order them separately. Rives recommended I make treatments myself wherever possible, but I'm lazy.

Well, I just wouldn't have used those particular devices as that's really not the proper use of them. They should be aimed towards the sound you're trying to diffuse, not down at the carpet. If Rives told you to do something else, then I have a little more respect for them.

Those numbers you listed are too arbitrary anyway, the distance from the wall has nothing to do with an absolute value, it is variable.

At about 3' delay, you're just entering the danger zone where your brain is starting to get thrown off by early reflections. By about 2.5', you're still okay, but by 2', you've got issues. It's not a "hard number", but it's a good one and easy to use to good result.

Oh, but have you heard my room? Nah. Do you know if all the compensations in the room design work (soffits, treatments, layout, passive resonator positioning, bass trap setups, bookshelf placing - placed to counteract room imbalances)? Nah. Just more typical Alimentall posts, hot air and BS filled with self-promotion and delusions of grandeur.

Yes, but all that stuff won't help much if your speakers aren't placed as well as possible. IOW, it's more important to remove a problem than try to compensate for it.

My seating position is currently 14' 6" from the screen, though it varies. I'm aware it is 1.5 x width to get the viewing distance ratio.

If that's the case, and you're 11' from the back wall (1/3rd), then the screen must be, what, 7' from the front wall? While you're right, there are certain limitations in every room, I'd certainly have given you different advice. Screen further back, speakers maybe a bit further back, but certainly closer, more near field, couch further forward. Not sure you'd need or want that first reflection point. Seems strange to me to put speakers near a wall, then try to dampen the reflection from being too close.

ROFLMAO... You are too funny. It doesn't matter what I say to you, you wouldn't go away even if I payed you. Your advice is awful, presumptuous and often WRONG. Tell me what I have to say to you so you just go away once and for all? You can't help yourself, you wouldn't stop if your life depended on it.

I don't know, I thought you had me on ignore. I try to help people even if they dislike me, which I think is nicer than insulting people who are trying to lend you a hand because you dislike them.

The ignore feature is rather useless unfortunately. Any time you respond to a thread I keep up to date on, it sends me a reply....

It is very simple really. One, sound doesn't travel in one direction only, it travels outward in all directions. So when you have sound hitting boundaries that are completely flat, such as the ceiling and the floor beneath it, you get a lot of sound waves reflecting back and forth creating slap echo and other reflection created sound issues. If you use too much absorption, it deadens the room, if you don't use something, you get slap echo. The skylines break up a large range of frequencies all at once, without deadening the room (in fact, they actually create a bloom effect with the scattered waves that adds illusory depth to the ceiling as well - i would guess, also intentional design). I would assume those are the reasons, again I'm not Rives, so best to ask him...

I actually have an issue with the direct reflection points on the ceiling that was picked up in the ETF5 impulse response measurements that I will be treating with absorption some time in the next month or two when I have time.

I'm not bothering repeating arguments where I've already told you that you are incorrect in your thinking, so I'll pretend the rest of your post didn't exist. However, if you like a cacophony of unintelligible sound when you listen to music, then don't treat your rooms, and certainly don't treat the first reflection points. Who am I to tell you what you like to hear...

There is an asymmetry in my room design specifically because of the irregular shape of my room. The difficulty is maintaining the total room volume, that is an asset in a music listening room, while counteracting the irregularity of the room shape (that can also be an asset in breaking up room modes and reflections - but can be a bane for symmetrical speaker setup). Most of the room appears to be designed with these intentions and that was likewise the impression I recieved while interacting with Rives during the conceptualization phase.

I would ask questions like "why is the resonator not centered between both front bass traps?" The answers to questions like these were always about counteracting the irregular room shape. I would ask, "well, why not decrease the size of the room by 1/3rd and make the soffits the same size on both sides?" His answers were along the lines of, him trying to preserve room volume as much as possible while counteracting the irregular shape of the room.

Rives knows what he is doing, you Alimentall do not. It isn't like you asked me why he did those things, you just decided they must not work without even trying to see if there is perhaps some intelligent design going on behind it all. I actually did ask those questions of Rives himself while he was designing my room. I also researched it in books because I was skeptical and wanted to understand it. I can also hear the final product... Magnificent.

That's great Q. While "preserving room volume" maybe ideal if you're worried about 20Hz bass rather than 25Hz for movies, I'd just have made a different compromise and felt it might have given you some ideas. The picture makes it look like the speakers are *really* close to the wall, but maybe that's an optical illusion, so I might be off base on the location problems. But I would certainly err towards keeping the speaker further from the wall in any case. Wilson's way of doing things will backfire if the speakers have to be too close to the walls.

The good thing about advice is that you're free to ignore it. I don't think it makes as much sense to try to devalue the advice and call it "wrong" or whatever. We know how to do "magnificent" too, we just get there a bit differently and approach it from a high-end stereo perspective rather than a dedicated movie theater perspective. And I make all kinds of compromises I don't want to make all the time because that's the best I can squeeze out of the customer. Maybe 1 in 25 lets us do things the way we really want.

The ignore feature is rather useless unfortunately. Any time you respond to a thread I keep up to date on, it sends me a reply....

And you don't have to read it!!!!! Holy cow. It's like Jerry Springer just turns itself on and makes me watch it :eek:

It is very simple really. One, sound doesn't travel in one direction only, it travels outward in all directions. So when you have sound hitting boundaries that are completely flat, such as the ceiling and the floor beneath it, you get a lot of sound waves reflecting back and forth creating slap echo and other reflection created sound issues. If you use too much absorption, it deadens the room, if you don't use something, you get slap echo. The skylines break up a large range of frequencies all at once, without deadening the room (in fact, they actually create a bloom effect with the scattered waves that adds illusory depth to the ceiling as well - i would guess, also intentional design). I would assume those are the reasons, again I'm not Rives, so best to ask him...

I understand all that, but there are other ways of doing what you did besides using a diffuser like that. In reality, they will create reflection points too and most of the energy in an HT system is going to be horizontal. You're not going to get much slap echo from the ceiling because the carpet will absorb it, most will be side to side/front to back. I just thought the use of skylines were a bit....unusual, shall we say.

The good thing about advice is that you're free to ignore it. I don't think it makes as much sense to try to devalue the advice and call it "wrong" or whatever.

See, the problem isn't that you gave advice, it is that you said this:

I'm sure Q won't listen to me, but his room ^ has a screen that is too big, the speakers too far apart and the seating too far back with the speakers misplaced. Of course, the screen might be smaller than it looks, but, if so, I would raise it and slip the speakers underneath as they certainly aren't that tall. We almost always put the speakers *under* the screen if possible, not to the outside and use speakers that are less tan 3' tall.

That isn't advice, that is one large assumption without even enough information to use as a basis for the criticisms given in the post.

I didn't want to hurt your feelings, and I apologize if I did. Making statements like the ones you made are a direct attack on the quality of my room design and setup. I didn't have the local "carnies" come to my house and set up my home theater, it was designed by a well-known professional in audiophile circles! I think if you heard it for yourself, you would see that the design work takes care of any compromises that had to be made in object placement. It is something you can hear, not see...

Face it, when you do these kinds of things, it is hard to feel sorry for you, even when you act like a victim after the fact. It wouldn't be so easy to react this way to your posts if you didn't do these kinds of things so often and so abusively (however unintentional it is on your part).

I'm done with this, I doubt you will learn anything from this experience, as you haven't from all the others thus far (*washes his hands*).

I understand ^ No hurt feelings, I rarely read too much into anything said on a forum. I didn't mean to say it the way I did exactly, just trying to make a quick summary of what I thought you could do differently. Probably too blunt for my own good, I guess. I just have thick skin, so I don't take offense easily, so I guess I don't expect people to take offense easily either. Heck, people insult stuff I sell every day, so I built up a thick hide and just roll with it. One of my competitors would just walk away if anyone said anything like "I don't like these, too bright" or whatever. Plus, I say the same things *in person* and people don't take offense because I'm pretty soft spoken.

But it is an interesting topic, that I was tempted to start. How *are* most speakers placed within a dedicated room? Many I see put side/rears into the wall rather than away (space limitations usually) or have mains jammed into corners or whatever. Heck, many of the really cool ones visually just jam the fronts in the wall too. Getting back to my main point, are we trying too hard to make dedicated theaters look cool vs actually going for real performance for music and movies?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
The price of freedom is eternal bickering.

Queuecumber

Personally I love the set up of your room and I bet it sound great. For Alimentall to say that Dave Wilson's technique for speaker set up is wrong makes me want to laugh

OB -

Personally I love the set up of your room and I bet it sound great.

I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do.

For Alimentall to say that Dave Wilson's technique for speaker set up is wrong makes me want to laugh

Hey, you're the one that said that Wilson's techniques can't provide a good sweetspot for anything less than $130K. But it's not that, it's that any "technique" gets trumped the moment speakers are placed too close to a room boundary. Aside from that, it corresponds with how speakers are setup in a movie theater. Not that I always agree with movie theater setup either, but if you're trying to produce a movie experience too, movies are mixed with that kind of position in mind. If the screen ratio is right, then the tweeters should be just at or to the outside of the screen. Wilson is obviously going for maximum soundstage size, the most impressive possible. Nothing wrong with that if your room is wide and you're the only person listening.

Hey, you're the one that said that Wilson's techniques can't provide a good sweetspot for anything less than $130K.
Wrong again. But like always I'm sure you'll backtrack. This time the backtracking will take the form of your own personal definition of "good". Of course, since all of us in the 20K+ forum, sans Joel Bernstein, have more money than intelligence, your definition of "good" must be right.

Ron, OB said that only the X2 can provide a sweetspot for more than one person. Not in those exact words, but that's what he said. X2s do it, the lesser ones don't. Now, if *he* wants to backtrack, that's fine, I don't know. I'm just assuming he's right because he's "the Wilson guy". Do I need to rewind the tape?

So.......are you saying that you don't have more than $105? :D

The price of freedom is eternal bickering.

It beats the alternative, the forced silence of fascism under threat of a severe pummeling, life imprisonment or death. Or in lesser cases, loss of job or posting privileges.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-- Lord Acton

Wrong again. But like always I'm sure you'll backtrack. This time the backtracking will take the form of your own personal definition of "good". Of course, since all of us in the 20K+ forum, sans Joel Bernstein, have more money than intelligence, your definition of "good" must be right.

Actually, he said this:

OP -
I am familiar with the sophisticated set up system required for Wilson Speakers,but how do you owners widen up the sweetspot?

OB -
Unfortunately you can't (without the loss of imaging)..

IMO the only Wilson speaker which allows for wider sweet spot is the X-2

Nonetheless the WP7 and WP8 are terrific speakers and if it is your wallet which paid the price then it is your a$$ in the sweetspot and no one else's

Maybe you can give me a better translation, given the OP's description of the sweetspot was "small". Small almost always meaning "one person". OB's response being that the other people don't really matter as they didn't pay for them. What's the real truth, Ron?

(hard to believe I have to take this kind of abuse from a lawyer)

Re-read my post. You attributed a term, and a subjective one at that - "good" - to OB, when he stated nothing of the kind. If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately, just like when I accurately quoted you for your use of the term intelligent in describing the posters in the 20K+ forum (which, incidentally, was another thread about Wilson speakers) and then you wrongfully accused me of putting words in your mouth. It is a simple matter of honor and respect, both of which you continue to fail to exhibit.

I've experienced the entire current Wilson line of speakers firsthand, in many venues, be it Sophia2s, WP7s, WP8s, Maxx2s, and X-2s. In my subjective opinion, they have better than "good" sweetspots.

Incidentally, I read your last citation of OB's post and I did not find his characterizatioin of the sweetspot as "small", a word which you placed in quotes. So, go ahead, continue to back track. You've defined your own word "good" and now I'm sure you will define "small". Your opinions on the subject of Wilson speakers are quite well known. But please don't misquote and mischaraterize OB's or my posts. As an attorney, I readily recognize that tactic and it is quite transparent.

Semantics ^

John, time and time again you pull the same crap. THe only difference here is that it is not morbius fighting you on your selective choice of when semantics matter and do not matter.

Find a new battle dude.

Find a new battle dude.

Stop arguing logically or what?

Actually, he said this:

Maybe you can give me a better translation, given the OP's description of the sweetspot was "small". Small almost always meaning "one person". OB's response being that the other people don't really matter as they didn't pay for them. What's the real truth, Ron?

(hard to believe I have to take this kind of abuse from a lawyer)

Ya want more abuse from another lawyer??? Sorry, you ain't gonna get it! :)

Off-Topic:
Excuse me OP and I will try not to do this again on your Thread: Honest

Well, what an interesting Thread this has turned out to be. I think I got off Lucky now with my Runco VX5000ci Thread. ;)

Thanks guys for not Hammering me into the Ground. Some of you really Play-Rough.

It makes me think maybe I am not really on the same page as the Elite Here.

Although I haven't fully converted my HT into a 2ch setup, nor do I think I ever will, I do have a 2ch Dunlavy SC-III setup at my girlfriend's place (don't ask how I pulled that one off). I have to say, for listening to music, 2ch is the only way to go for me. Maybe it's because I've listened to a lot of live music in venues ranging from blues bars on Beale St in Memphis to large outdoor amphitheaters. In those types of environments - where you have a band playing in front of you - the sound is primarily coming from directly in front of you. One could argue that the echoes and acoustics are really creating an immersive environment, but in my experience I perceive almost all of the sound to be coming from a large stage directly in front of me.

True, you can get some pretty cool effects that make it sound like you're in the middle of a recording studio with multi-channel audio, but I just don't care for that sound - to me, 2 channels creating a sound stage in front of me is most pleasing. Plus, as has already been mentioned, it allows you to focus more money on just 2 speakers vs having to spread it amongst 5+ speakers. Most of the people who post in this section of the forum don't generally have that problem, but there are those mere mortals who do have budgets.

I know this isn't on track with most of the thread, but I wholeheartedly agree with the OP when it comes to enjoying music, so I figured I'd pitch my $0.02 in.

Alimentall

I have come to the conclusion that you find an immense pleasure in trolling threads and hijacking them. Not that you do not have some good points. In all honesty you do. You have enough experience and knowledge to present a different point of view on the debate at hand do not spoil by coming across in such a a deliberately caustic way just for the effect...just to ruffle feathers. a kind of : I-stuck-it-to-these-20K-guys good feeling.
A show of intellectual probity would help in this regard (vide your use and misuse of people quotes, or even your own previous posting dismissing them as "semantics" as soon as they do not fit your purpose) It would be more useful and correct to advance the debate not to demean it.

Back to the discussion at hand: The proportions given in the Wilson speaker manuals are starting points, not hard-coded numbers. The room, the speaker dispersion patterns, geometry, dictate where the speakers should be.. not set numbers.
Most speakers, Wilson's included have an optimum listening area for one person only. For some the area is so small as to require the head to be in a vise lest you lose everything. Wilon speakers are not of that type although DAW is very particular about where you sit : The sweet spot is relatively small in his speakers, I do not find that to be a problem, quite the contrary. Wide dispersion speakers can be quite problematic in certain rooms, it is good to have limited and controlled dispersion. The X-2 is one of those rare speakers that can be adjusted to dial the sweet spot in a very precise fashion. In the X-2 Speaker seating height, position of ears with respect to floor can be accounted and the speaker aimed at the listener in a way very few speakers , including the lesser Wilsons can't. The other speakers in the line can also be adjusted but NOT to such a fine and extensive degree... and that is what OB was alluding to .. From what I can read in his post and having been to his house and having played physically with the X-2.
It would be an ear-opening to Alimentall to hear the latest generation of Wilson speakers, they may not be to your liking but it would be difficult to dismiss them from that audition on...

What the hell happened to this thread since I last posted?????

I thought I encountered a lot of a-holes at work doing colonoscopies but I seem to find more of them on this forum.

Back on topic, what kind of dsp etc.. are you using in your setup, Q?

I like your setup, congrats! It's a good size room. I have a metal support post exposed just like yours. I'll probably just paint it black and leave it like you did.

I had Chris Huston from Rives come up to my place. I have a "difficult" room too with a low 7foot 6inch ceiling. Thought about the level 2 service from Rives but figured the level 3 made more sense given the limitations of my room in several ways. The level 3 is expensive but it's a small part of the total cost of the equipment so I figured it made sense. Just about at the blueprint phase and looking forward to having it up and running.

What the hell happened to this thread since I last posted?????

I thought I encountered a lot of a-holes at work doing colonoscopies but I seem to find more of them on this forum.

Back on topic, what kind of dsp etc.. are you using in your setup, Q?

I like your setup, congrats! It's a good size room. I have a metal support post exposed just like yours. I'll probably just paint it black and leave it like you did.

I had Chris Huston from Rives come up to my place. I have a "difficult" room too with a low 7foot 6inch ceiling. Thought about the level 2 service from Rives but figured the level 3 made more sense given the limitations of my room in several ways. The level 3 is expensive but it's a small part of the total cost of the equipment so I figured it made sense. Just about at the blueprint phase and looking forward to having it up and running.

Considering what it cost to do the room electrically and construction wise, I wish I had gone the level 3 route now, it would have been a drop in the bucket. Foresight is 20/20. Good thinking on your part IMO.

I'm using the Meridian 861 currently. No major prcoessing yet, though it doesn't look like I need anything major as the surround sound is great in movies. I will wait and see how it turns out once I get some Wilson speakers for the back of the room so I can listen to some surround music with all the same type of speakers.

I would hit that metal pipe with your knuckles and see if i rings like mine does. I'm currently looking for a good material to cover it with (something rubber, that can be wrapped tightly around its entire length - then I will wrap it in the acoustically transparent fabric that matches my room treatments) to stop the ringing. It can add a subtle tone to the sound (that comes from its direction) when the speakers play its resonant frequency loud enough.

The other speakers in the line can also be adjusted but NOT to such a fine and extensive degree... and that is what OB was alluding to

That was precisely my point

The X-2 is one of those rare speakers that can be adjusted to dial the sweet spot in a very precise fashion. In the X-2 Speaker seating height, position of ears with respect to floor can be accounted and the speaker aimed at the listener in a way very few speakers , including the lesser Wilsons can't

As was this

I have to say, for listening to music, 2ch is the only way to go for me. Maybe it's because I've listened to a lot of live music in venues ranging from blues bars on Beale St in Memphis to large outdoor amphitheaters. In those types of environments - where you have a band playing in front of you - the sound is primarily coming from directly in front of you.

I gave up on MC audio over 2 years ago for this very reason and when I posted my beliefs here on AVS I was roasted as a heretic. I still love DSD format and my Meitner will upsample to 2X DSD but even when I listen to a MC DSD I will only listen to 2 channels for the above mentioned reason. Even though I can still play MC in my room I have completely abandoned it. I have also excluded my XS from pure audio listening because I enjoy the dynamic range of my X-2's (20Hz-20 KHz). One day last year when Ron Party was at my house and listening to my newly acquired Lamm ML 2.1 amps we played many tracks both with and without the XS. If I remember correctly Ron preferred listening with the XS on. At 18 wpc the Lamm certainly provides very involving bass but not to the extent that the XS can give or my previous ARC Ref 600 Mk lll amps.

Very OT....sorry to the OP.

I would hit that metal pipe with your knuckles and see if i rings like mine does. I'm currently looking for a good material to cover it with (something rubber, that can be wrapped tightly around its entire length - then I will wrap it in the acoustically transparent fabric that matches my room treatments) to stop the ringing. It can add a subtle tone to the sound (that comes from its direction) when the speakers play its resonant frequency loud enough.

Good point. Let me know what you come up with so I can copy your idea! ;)

The metal pipe is round and relatively small - I doubt this is causing major issues in the room.

To dampen the ringing it would be better to drill a hole in the top (assuming the pole is hollow), and fill it with sand or lead shot. If you want to go overkill, coat the outside of the pole with further vibration dampening material...

This is basically what Sound Anchors applies to its metal stands, but they use a different metal to begin with.

- Steve O.

Very OT....sorry to the OP.

Haha - your reply was the most OT (ON-topic) reply in quite a while.

I am enjoying reading the replies however. Now... anyone looking for a Meridian 861 or Proceed HPA3? ;)

Jim

The metal pipe is round and relatively small - I doubt this is causing major issues in the room.

To dampen the ringing it would be better to drill a hole in the top (assuming the pole is hollow), and fill it with sand or lead shot. If you want to go overkill, coat the outside of the pole with further vibration dampening material...

This is basically what Sound Anchors applies to its metal stands, but they use a different metal to begin with.

- Steve O.

Perhaps to you it would not be a major issue, but it bothers me. It is annoying when certain songs hit that frequency and you hear the pole resonate at the same pitch as a note in the song. It is audible, and as such it irritates me when I hear it. It is obvious because the sound of the pole comes from a different direction than the sound of the music, i.e. localizes as coming from the pole.

Yeah, I realize drilling a hole in it and filling it with something is the best solution acoustically, but it is a terrible solution engineering wise for my house foundation (a hole in the pipe would weaken the pole's tensile strength). The beam is there as a support for the house. If it wasn't essential to the house, I would have removed it. The best solution I have looked at so far, that doesn't damage the pole, is to find something that stretches tightly and wrap it around the pole, since putting a pillar of drywall around the pole will increase its size (I don't want to increase its size).

Thanks though.

Yeah, I realize drilling a hole in it and filling it with something is the best solution acoustically, but it is a terrible solution engineering wise for my house foundation (a hole in the pipe would weaken the pole's tensile strength).
It is "compressive" strength, not "tensile." A small hole near the top would not be significantly detrimental. At mid-height, holes would be a bad idea.

It is "compressive" strength, not "tensile." A small hole near the top would not be significantly detrimental. At mid-height, holes would be a bad idea.

My bad, I meant compressive strength. It would be bad for that....

Considering the value of my house, I am not willing to play that game.

THe pipe must be great when you are listening to Tubular bells though... :D :D :D

If it is ringing with HF content, it is pretty simple to cover it. quite literally, some felt glued to the pipe should be sufficient.

As far as the MC thing goes, THe reality is that good MC content is still in its infancy. Lets be totally honest, there is some cool stuff, but the technology and most importantly the ENGINEERING KNOW HOW to squeeze a great MC recording is few and far between. But awesome stereo stuff is still everywhere.

Perhaps I'm a heretic, but, I have switched from pure two channel to synthetic multichannel.

My old setup was big Genesis ribbons and big Krell speakers fed by Ref2 Mk2 (the top of their line at that time) and VTL 750s fed by a dCS stack and Koetsu/Basis/Aesthetix front ends in a custom designed well treated room. It sounded very nice, with all the usual two channel accolades from me.

I've since switched to a Meridian 861/800 based trifield 7.2 system. Getting this system, and the room, fully tweaked and dialed in has been MUCH harder than with the two channel system, even with extensive professional assistance. It's also proven much more expensive.

In the end, on the vast majority of redbook CD tracks, I strongly prefer the well optimized Trifield setup to well optimized two channel. Sound staging is much more three dimensional and realistic, the overall ambience is better, and the music is just more engaging.

The same can't be said for any other surround processing mode, particularly all of the various Dolby/THX variants I've tried. Pure dreck in my system.

trifield does not count. Trifield is well documented to sound much better in most situations.

Please lets not get into a debate aobut phantom centres.

but I am going to go back to a 2-channel only system.
I find that I listen to 2-channel probably 90% of the time and when I do
watch movies in 2-channel mode I don't miss the surround nearly as much as I thought I would.

Maybe a good idea. Better to be a master of one than a jack of all. I too listen mostly to music. On vacation this week and have been enjoying some great Jazz in stereo and good Scotch so I understand. I do not think a psychotherapist could do better :). Considered downsizing myself but it is my wife that stops me. She's really into the hometheater thing.

Maybe a good idea. Better to be a master of one than a jack of all. I too listen mostly to music. On vacation this week and have been enjoying some great Jazz in stereo and good Scotch so I understand. I do not think a psychotherapist could do better :). Considered downsizing myself but it is my wife that stops me. She's really into the hometheater thing.

I can see why a wife would object to a husband downsizing himself ;)

- Steve O.

Alimentall I have come to the conclusion that you find an immense pleasure in trolling threads and hijacking them. Not that you do not have some good points. In all honesty you do. You have enough experience and knowledge to present a different point of view on the debate at hand do not spoil by coming across in such a a deliberately caustic way just for the effect...just to ruffle feathers. a kind of : I-stuck-it-to-these-20K-guys good feeling.

Well, I don't like hijacking, but I do like to bust people's balls a bit. What surprises me is just how *easy* it is ;)

A show of intellectual probity would help in this regard (vide your use and misuse of people quotes, or even your own previous posting dismissing them as "semantics" as soon as they do not fit your purpose) It would be more useful and correct to advance the debate not to demean it.

Well, once the debate has come to semantics, there is no point in arguing it. You just call it what it is and move on.

Wide dispersion speakers can be quite problematic in certain rooms, it is good to have limited and controlled dispersion.

This is very true, however, it's hard to control dispersion in a speaker without doing other damage to the sound. A really great speaker with unfettered dispersion, but in a well controlled room is my favorite kind of sound, but I have a controlled dispersion speaker in my live living room and it works very well overall.

The X-2 is one of those rare speakers that can be adjusted to dial the sweet spot in a very precise fashion. In the X-2 Speaker seating height, position of ears with respect to floor can be accounted and the speaker aimed at the listener in a way very few speakers , including the lesser Wilsons can't.

Well, that is true, but you also have to consider what that kind of design does in terms of diffraction and reflection. There's a downside to almost every attempt I've seen at aiming the sound so precisely.

It would be an ear-opening to Alimentall to hear the latest generation of Wilson speakers, they may not be to your liking but it would be difficult to dismiss them from that audition on...

Perhaps. I don't dismiss them as not being great sounding, I generally dismiss them as being too expensive to have such measured inadequacies. I'm sure they provide a great sonic experience and it might raise my expectations in certain areas. I'm quite sure I could find things about which to complain, because I'm a PITA that way :)

I gave up on MC audio over 2 years ago for this very reason and when I posted my beliefs here on AVS I was roasted as a heretic.

Not by me! :)

trifield does not count. Trifield is well documented to sound much better in most situations.

Tri-field would be hard to give up for a Meridian owner, I would think. While I think it can lose some clarity and precision on some well done CDs, it sure makes bad ones sound amazing.

Well, once the debate has come to semantics, there is no point in arguing it. You just call it what it is and move on.
You started a thread recently to discuss wide dispersion speakers, hence I can see how you might call it "semantics" to virtually equate a "small" sweetspot, to use your term, with one that is what I would call very precise and/or narrow.

But please don't spew that OB said the only way to get a "good" sweetspot with Wilson speakers is to purchase X-2s. That is not semantics. That is just plain false. He never said that, and no amount of revisionism on your part will make it so.

He said that, he just didn't say it *exactly*. That's what makes it semantics. That's why most lawyers think differently because it's not the meaning of the words, it's the words themselves. The meaning of the word "is".

Well, of course, I'm used to products that have nice, wide sweetspots because they have wide, smooth dispersion and I don't have to make excuses or apologies for them. Wilsons aren't that bad as far as dispersion, it's just that they have erratic FR combined with erratic dispersion. That's what would make them so finicky.

He said that, he just didn't say it *exactly*. That's what makes it semantics. That's why most lawyers think differently because it's not the meaning of the words, it's the words themselves. The meaning of the word "is".
Well then, apparently you know more about what OB meant than OB, or anyone who is not interested in being right at all costs. I'll bet you the ranch that OB never even meant to imply what you are suggesting. It is only when wearing "wide dispersion" colored glasses that one can read OB's posts for what you suggest, namely that Wilson speakers are incapable of delivering a "good" sweetspot.

Well then, apparently you know more about what OB meant than OB, or anyone who is not interested in being right at all costs. I'll bet you the ranch that OB never even meant to imply what you are suggesting. It is only when wearing "wide dispersion" colored glasses that one can read OB's posts for what you suggest, namely that Wilson speakers are incapable of delivering a "good" sweetspot.

Ron you are so absolutely correct.

Well then, apparently you know more about what OB meant than OB, or anyone who is not interested in being right at all costs. I'll bet you the ranch that OB never even meant to imply what you are suggesting. It is only when wearing "wide dispersion" colored glasses that one can read OB's posts for what you suggest, namely that Wilson speakers are incapable of delivering a "good" sweetspot.

What do you think he was actually trying to say? And if not that, maybe OB can clarify for everyone because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that thought that. Or did he just mean that they only sound good at one spot? ;)

Actually OB, Joel/John would make a great attorney. He's got a bulldog in him and is relentless in his arguments. He will argue that red is black and yellow is purple if it furthers his interests. He will never concede anything, no matter how obvious. I think he missed his calling.

What do you think he was actually trying to say? And if not that, maybe OB can clarify for everyone because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that thought that. Or did he just mean that they only sound good at one spot? ;)
Are you dense? I've only been telling you in virtually every one of my posts on this subject. Now I know exactly how the good Doc Grant felt in trying to explain oversampling to you.

Give me more channels, or give me death. Two channel is so, like, 80's, man. I'll take the Lexicon doing a subtle wraparound into the side and center speaker any day. It sounds very nice without being artificial sounding, to me anyway, and doesn't require mega bucks, and the sweet spot is pretty large and enveloping.

Are you dense? I've only been telling you in virtually every one of my posts on this subject. Now I know exactly how the good Doc Grant felt in trying to explain oversampling to you.

Well, how about explaining the contradictions then? It's not wide, but it's wide? Live with it, but it really is wide? Who cares about the people beside you anyway, but it's not a problem? I get :confused: when people say what they mean, then try to act like they never said it, or have a hard time being intellectually honest or whatever.

As for Michael, there was one critical thing that was missing in his explanation. Since I don't just "accept" things and fill in the blanks to get the intended result, Greg was able to fill in the missing piece of data I needed. Without that, the explanation didn't fully make sense. I mean, c'mon, I'm giving it up to Greg on this one.

Give me more channels, or give me death. Two channel is so, like, 80's, man. I'll take the Lexicon doing a subtle wraparound into the side and center speaker any day. It sounds very nice without being artificial sounding, to me anyway, and doesn't require mega bucks, and the sweet spot is pretty large and enveloping.

True, but it would be *so* much better with well recorded multi-channel music. Someday maybe.......

I get :confused: when people say what they mean, then try to act like they never said it, or have a hard time being intellectually honest or whatever.
RMOTFLMAO!

Re-read my post. You attributed a term, and a subjective one at that - "good" - to OB, when he stated nothing of the kind. If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately, just like when I accurately quoted you for your use of the term intelligent in describing the posters in the 20K+ forum (which, incidentally, was another thread about Wilson speakers) and then you wrongfully accused me of putting words in your mouth. It is a simple matter of honor and respect, both of which you continue to fail to exhibit.

I've experienced the entire current Wilson line of speakers firsthand, in many venues, be it Sophia2s, WP7s, WP8s, Maxx2s, and X-2s. In my subjective opinion, they have better than "good" sweetspots.

Incidentally, I read your last citation of OB's post and I did not find his characterizatioin of the sweetspot as "small", a word which you placed in quotes. So, go ahead, continue to back track. You've defined your own word "good" and now I'm sure you will define "small". Your opinions on the subject of Wilson speakers are quite well known. But please don't misquote and mischaraterize OB's or my posts. As an attorney, I readily recognize that tactic and it is quite transparent.

Alimentall...please read this post as it contains the essence of what I was trying to say

Actually, OB, I think I know what you *meant* to say, as opposed to what you did. But you didn't think I wouldn't have fun with it, did you?

Actually, OB, I think I know what you *meant* to say, as opposed to what you did. But you didn't think I wouldn't have fun with it, did you?

more back tracking huh John?

No, I'm just distinguishing between what you *may* have meant to say and what you *did* say. Feel free to "back track" from your first statement if you wish. But you did say the Wilsons basically had a small sweetspot, in context. Either that or they're impossibly finicky and erratic. Pick one.

But if it makes you feel better to think I'm "backtracking", go for it.

John...what is it about you that makes you so inherently dislikeable?

Here was the original question



I heard some Wilson Watt/Puppy 8s this weekend with DCS front end and CJ preamp and mono amps. Transparent Reference wire throughout..............Beautiful sounding music flowed into the listening room. Spent two hours there listening to some favorite music. Changed my perception of Wilson speakers and Conrad Johnson gear (it was not soupy warm but straight up neutral).

My question has to do with the sweetspot,kinda narrow...............The speakers were toed in I guess in accordance to Wilson's standard. Have some of you WattPuppy owners toed your speakers in just a little to widen the soundstage and sweetspot? Or does the beautiful music just fall apart when you do that?

I am familiar with the sophisticated set up system required for Wilson Speakers,but how do you owners widen up the sweetspot?


Here was my reply

Unfortunately you can't (without the loss of imaging)..

IMO the only Wilson speaker which allows for wider sweet spot is the X-2

Nonetheless the WP7 and WP8 are terrific speakers and if it is your wallet which paid the price then it is your a$$ in the sweetspot and no one else's

It is true, OB never said the Wilsons have a small sweetspot. He only remarked on the relative sweetspots between the X2 and W/P8, i.e. that one is larger than the other.

The original poster was remarking about the sweetspot being "small," if I remember correctly. The original poster of that post also didn't define what he considers "small," except that a "non-small sweetspot" would allow for his wife to sit next to him while they listen to music and they would both be in the sweetspot (something no great speaker does well since there is only an 8" window off either side of the median axis according to research on this subject - though you can alter the signal but consequently it is also altering other precision aspects of the sound IMO).

Does the OP sit scrunched up against her? Does he have his arm around her? Does he sit a foot away from her? Are he and his wife perhaps very small people (only 8" from shoulder to shoulder on each of them - 16" total), or very large people (32" shoulder to shoulder on each of them - 64" total)? It leaves a lot of room for interpritation of the OP's definition of "small" sweetspot.

Let's just agree that we have different versions of "narrow" and "wide" given what we own. I know what OB's comments said to *me*, but others might feel differently if they're used to 1mm wide sweetspots.

Let's just agree that we have different versions of "narrow" and "wide" given what we own. I know what OB's comments said to *me*, but others might feel differently if they're used to 1mm wide sweetspots.


you are finally correct on something. I think we can all agree that you have "tunnel vision" ;)

others might feel differently if they're used to 1mm wide sweetspots.You've been proven wrong so many times you have become a joke. Now you resort to straw man arguments. An ounce of humility from you is sorely lacking.