Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 2, 2017 11:10:08 GMT
Since going to small, Bluetooth stereo speakers, it has allowed me to play around a lot more with speaker placement and the effect that this has on sound.
Since the speakers aren't exactly Hi-Fi, I have been trying to 'squeeze' the most out of them and have found that where you place them has way more effect than most other things.
I no longer feel the need for ultimate quality, but since using headphones so much, one thing that I now savour; even with cheap speakers is Imaging. Since I can move them anywhere, I can twiddle with absolute ease until I find the best place in order to pinpoint sounds. Here's the weird thing..... it seems to be different for different recordings. Some snap in easily with the speakers quite far apart and others need them closer together in order to get a proper central image.
Too far apart and you really do get a hole in the middle. Thin recordings benefit from placing the speakers against a wall or even use corners to get an even bigger bass.
Too close together and there is no image. I find that I have to play something with a strong central sound first. Order to get the speaker spread right. It generally goes 'snap' with a proper triangle setup (60 degrees) but tweaking helps even more with some recordings.
I'm playing them at a lower volume too, but the image seems to focus better like that. Perhaps low powered speakers that are small just work better this way.
For me, the image seems to be more important than absolute sound when using speakers. I think perhaps the room alters the sound quite a bit so really, nothing is particularly flat so my ears just attune to the timbre whereas the image snaps in or isn't there at all. Set up in the best triangle formation, the image seems to spread back from the speakers and not much in front, so the speakers seem to Mark the front of the stage for me. In fact, lifting my head and closing my eyes really does make me feel that sounds are emanating from way behind the speakers!!
There's a lot to be said for mobile speakers!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 2, 2017 14:45:00 GMT
I've always found smaller speakers easier to set up. They also tend to have better imaging than larger speakers. Probably has something to do with integrating the sound from multiple drivers. Larger, well designed speakers for the most part have a better soundstage. The best of them can do both. But then there is usually a price to pay for that in terms of wallet damage. And time. Can take me days or weeks to tweek a large multi driver system. Need a real time analyzer and test CD's etc. worth it in the end. But I have to say my little two ways in the family room are great. I can fine tune them for a movie track that is out of control or adjust for a less than great recording set-up for music. I'm taking notes. We'll be down sizing in a few years as well. Being California that means going from a 4 bedroom to a 3!  |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 2, 2017 17:47:02 GMT
My downsize was a lot bigger unfortunately!!!
Tannoy made speakers at one point with the tweeter and main driver integrated in order to improve soundstage.
I do wonder whether in the U.K., where rooms tend to be quite small, we use speakers that are too large for the size of the room tbh.
There's something about the 'cleanness' that is really nice with small speakers, but the reallly low end is curtailed. Sometimes though, it's better not to have something in sound rather than try to plant it on top to compensate, if you see what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 2, 2017 21:59:25 GMT
I do. For me there is nothing that ruins a well recorded piece of music than speakers where the bass is not properly tuned to the room. I'd rather it roll off a little sooner. It just ruins the whole emotional impact of the sound. Intrudes into the mids as well. I wonder if with our larger room sizes, especially here in California, is why some folks aren't as in love with some of the British speakers as others. The bass isn't tuned for the larger room? Just speculation.
I heard a system once. Excellent speakers. Expensive as well. Way too big for the room. Bass rattled the windows and even some objects would resonate on certain notes. The guy couldn't figure out why it didn't sound the same as it did in the showroom. Didn't have the heart to tell him as they were on close out and he couldn't return them. Hope he was able to sell them and found something that worked for the room.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 3, 2017 4:08:20 GMT
I used floor standers for a long time. They were in a bigger room though and didn't sound so great here where I moved to, so they went..
The room size difference may well account for British speakers not doing so well in the USA Ron. We seem to have had a preference here over the years for bookshelf or smaller monitors rather than the big ''uns. At one time, the little Mission speakers did really well, but for me, they lacked low end and could be strident in the top.
I've often wondered whether smaller studio monitor type speakers are perhaps better for our smaller rooms. I used some Yamaha monitors quite a lot in my old place, upstairs in a small room and I felt that they really worked well. Quite different to floorstanders but great imaging. A few years back, I used Spendors and Rogers speakers which were an old BBC favourite. I liked them a lot. I stupidly replaced them with some very small Missions but really didn't like the top end which to me was very strident. Metal dome tweeters became THE thing to have and I also had this solid silver cable that was not at all flexible. When you bent it, it stayed that shape!! It was flat with parallel wires but it actually seemed to make the sound of the Missions even more brittle.
That experience turned me to bigger floorstanders in order to get a more mellow sound. I started with some big Kefs and finally, before I moved here, some Proacs which I really liked, but too big for this place. In my old house, I'd even set up reflector panels by using mirrors to find reflection points to deaden the room!! What a nerd.
It's funny how we go on about headphone differences being so great, but speakers are just the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 3, 2017 4:29:54 GMT
Well join the rest of us nerds Ian. I have diffusor panels on the front wall, , bass traps in the corner and placed difussors using a 4 foot mirror to find the refection points on the sidwalls. I also use a mic and Real Time Analyzer to find a flat bass response in the room. Then I have a 3 way laser to make sure the speakers are placed properly. Then a laser ruler to get the distance from the sweet spot to the tweeters within an 1/8 of an inch. So not too overboard. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 3, 2017 8:48:14 GMT
 Probably sounds BETTER' than the original then!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 3, 2017 18:14:16 GMT
That's what the manufacturer claimed in their brochure! Ask my wife. I am not OCD or anal about anything. Too much work. Except one thing. Speaker placement. May need medication at some point. |
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 3, 2017 19:19:04 GMT
I am now with these cheapos. Funny thing is just how small the 'sweet spot' is. Quite critical where it suddenly seems to give a better 3D impression.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 3, 2017 19:37:49 GMT
IMHO. Small sweet spot gives the best 3-D imaging. A wider sweet spot you trade a bit wider soundstage for a less focused image. Never heard a system that could do both really well. Think it's a matter of the physics of how we perceive sound.
|
|
Rabbit
Administrator
Posts: 7,087
|
Post by Rabbit on Sept 3, 2017 19:50:16 GMT
Really? I've never thought about it. Now that it's literally seconds for me to move the speakers anywhere I like, it's instantly noticeable whereas with room and stands, it's just not so easy, so I guess most people find a convenient place and stick themselves somewhere in front and in between.
With some recordings, I need to shift my head up a little and then it focuses. Once I get a reference point, I can relax and flow out again because the memory of where that sound was stays, so I can find the rest.
Really weird, but just shows how the brain gets some kind of reference point and can then base everything else around on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronzo56 on Sept 3, 2017 22:05:01 GMT
Our hearing is fascinating to me. Wasn't made for music much less stereo. Made to keep you alive by locating the source of a sound, and filtering out noise from an unfamiliar sound or a dangerous sound. Probably why a lot of people complain of not sleeping well the first night in a hotel or at someone else's house. Interesting how enigineers figured out how to trick the system into thinking a vocal or instrument is located in space in front of you. Original specs for stereo was to use 3 speakers up front. Think it was RCA. They field tested it. The sound was rated superior to two speaker stereo, but the housewives of the time complained about the center speaker. The idea was dropped for two speakers. Original WAF.  I have to move my head as well on some recordings. Really gets me when they mix the vocals slightly off center. Never sure if I am in the sweet spot or not. Eric Clapton Unplugged messed with me for years until I got the DVD and realized he was off to the right and the other guitar was off to the left of center. They mixed it just the way it sounded at the mixing board in the theatre. No wonder it is such a great live recording. |
|
