Building a Room Full of Balanced Harmonics

Greetings Zonees

Now you get a clearer idea where the balsa is doing some good in my set up. Since then, there is a M Green cherry finished piece supporting the phono stage (over Harmonic Feet) and four pieces under the power amp.

Sonic has learnt that:

a. the Balsa is to be finished or cured by Michael. Some stuff I stained with finish from a can doesn't work. And I guess stuff bought from a hobby shop is not going to produce the effects the genuine finished balsa is going.

b. the effect is a warming and richening of harmonics. I also get more projection in the viola and alto voice range.

c. the Balsa likes to have things resting on them, not spiked (at least in my system)

d. like all things we can go too far and things get muddy.

e. top avoid d. Sonic is using Balsa under all the gear in my system rather than concentrating the pieces I have on one or two pieces of equipment. This may apply to other types of wood from Michael too.

Learnt some interesting about phono cartridges -- the frequency response varies across the record surface with groove velocity. The more pronounced example of this is with conical styli. If the frequency response is flat between 1 kHz and 20 kHz at the outer edge of an LP, the extreme treble will start to roll off as the cartridge traverses the groove so that when we reach the innermost groove, the response is down -5dB or more at 20 kHz. I guess elliptical and the hyper elliptical styli mitigate this.

Comments on my recent posts, Michael?

Sonic

Sonic.beaver wrote:

Hi Zonees

Things are coming together nicely but Sonic delayed my post for more time so as to be sure.

It turned out the speaker position that made the soundstage get into focus while yielding the most musical match with the balsa was just a couple of inches further towards the front wall from my original placement (before the latest Bookcase Wall saga) with the distance from the side walls and the slight toe in angles the same.

The first big advance with the balsa was to use a 2.5 inch x 2.5 inch x 0.25 inch square over the bearing of the CD player transport, then the metal down rod of the top tune canopy engages the balsa lightly. The increase in weight and projection in the upper bass was very good.  Before this the down rod just touched the plastic cover of the bearing.

This piece of Balsa is the treated but not stained version from Mr Green.

Happily Sonic has a fair bit more balsa in the plain and cherry stained varieties from Michael and I am planning on several more places to apply them to improve the width and low end of my system.

When the balsa over CD transport tune started to settle, the rear width of the soundstage also started to expand and image beyond the walls a little but I am noticing it without the wishful thinking I displayed in earlier attempts and descriptions.

Sonic has realised an uncomfortable thing: I have been tuning my sound too much to classical - baroque, small ensemble, sometimes choral works and single instruments - and this has caused me tom miss a whole world of the deep bass. Not that it is not there, but not optimised. I heard an outdoor rock concert set up with stacked JBLs.  It was being set up for a show that night (which Sonic didn't attend) but for the test, the crew played some CDs and I heard the low synths and low electric bass hitting me hard in the gut.  It was too loud for me but Sonic understood....I left the place saying to myself "Sonic must be honest, my system no way can do that depth of low notes" on the occasional CCR and stuff I play.

So the quest is starting for a better low end (without a subwoofer of course) and far from the classical musick being worse for the tuning, it is even better in terms of spatiality. String quartets and quintets sound lovely.

Balsa and bass advances.....

Sonic

Easy enough to head in a particular direction as far as type of music goes. I can not say how much this is an issue with me. My mind gets so into a recording even, that after a while I start to think "how far am I from the rest of the music I have", I guess to be honest for me that's a be part of the hobby (getting locked in on one piece of music) that maybe I love more than any other. I love going after one recording and taking it to many different places.

As for the balsa, it's so nice to see it as part of the tonal family.

Time to make a sandwhich and work my way through this reading. Oh how wonderful it is to get settled after a trip and let the tune pull me into it's pages.

"Bass is the foundation I love so well. Making it flow all the way up as far as size of harmonic fatness from bottom to top makes the music explode in size and dynamics. I'm one of those who doesn't find harmonic thiness all that enjoyable. Give me that bottom"

That paragraph came from Mr Green himself not Sonic, though now with the recent Tunes I am in close agreement with Michael.

Here is a picture of the Balsa under my amp:



Sonic just made the Big Step!

As suggested by Michael -- move the Bookcase Wall further forward.

Now Sonic knows that a move of about 4 inches created a big boom in the upper bass and a rolled off the low bass which was painful to listen to.  But Michael was of the opinion I needed to move the Bookcase Wall even further than this towards Sonic's Magneplanar MG1.5QRs.

So this is what I did -- the Bookcase Wall forward by 16 inches and the listening chair moved towards the front wall by an similar amount.

Now my listening room as defined by the front and the side walls up to the Bookcase Wall is wider than it is long.

Observations after 3 hours of musick play following the move (analog and digital):

a. Sonic has moved out of that Boom Zone.  The bass is still slightly uneven but no one-note boom and the bass extension is improved.

b. I am getting a feeling in my ears of increased pressure in the room at my listening position.

c.  Now that Sonic is closer to the speakers whose toe-in is unchanged, I thought I would have a severe roll off in the treble because I am further off axis of the ribbon tweeter -- expected to hear something like the warm, rosy Ortofon SPU-GTE moving coils.  Nope...the treble is OK.

d.  Images panned to the speaker positions are now located just a bit behind the speaker panels.

e.  Playing LPs and CDs that I am accustomed to, for a given volume setting on the preamp, some recordings are sounding louder than before, others are sounding softer.

f.  The height of images has increased.

g. Occasional feeling that I am too close to the speakers and the bass/mid/treble are not gelling in phase.  This is likely more a settling issue because so much of the sound I am getting is from the back wave of the MG1.5QRs rather than the front.

h.  The Boo! test is surprisingly OK. Quiet and damped

i. There are enough improvements against initial drawbacks to make it worth sitting out the forward Bookcase Wall and letting it settle.

More in the next couple of days.

Michael -- your views?

Sonic

Hi Sonic

Sorry for all the delays. This week was a flood of biz stuff that could not be avoided. It's not over either as my computer might be down for a couple of days but this is life sometimes.

I'm so happy you have made the jump and are starting to explore the pressure from the other side. I think once you find some different acoustical and mechanical settings and things as you say do settle that you are going to find a balance that is richer than what was there before.

Listen to how the instruments take on a different tonal fatness in the middle harmonics. This makes for some involved classical listening and a different way to look at jazz as well as being great for rock. Making the maggies disappear may seem to be a challedge but if you do in this settling there will be a great reward in the musical envelope that is hard to describe but when heard is a sound that is hard to live without.

Sonic.beaver wrote:

Greetings Zonees

While my pix get posted here is something of an update and stuff y'all may find a good read.

It is been days of listening to just analog  Heard some Pentangle, Big Joe Williams (The Legacy of the Blues Vol 6/Sonet), a Melodiya recording of the Ossipov Russian orchestra made up of folk instruments playing Russian and classical works....musical, entertaining and strange...and Haydn's 3 Orgelkonzerte on DG (Tramnitz/Bamberg Symphoniker/Albrecht)...

Very therapeutic (as Neil Young says).

Now something about headphones after some research by Sonic:

While Sonic is getting my system to develop girth and dense harmonics particularly in the bass, I have been expanding my understanding of how other audiophile friends think about sound/music and developing their systems.

I have a couple of audio acquaintances who are into headphones. One likes them for the detail and the change from loudspeakers, while the other needs to use them due to family considerations. From their thoughts and practices Sonic came up with some ideas too.

The thing is....I don’t like headphones.  They are uncomfortable, the soundstage swings as Sonic’s head turns, the imaging is through my head or in some cases over the top of Sonic’s head....a bit like a Tune trick that Michael played on Bill333 where Mr Green tuned Led Zeppelin to have Robert Plant singing from above Bill333’s head.

OTOH, headphones give isolation and tremendous detail.  They do have risks – you can play them too loud without knowing it and damage your hearing.  A dropped stylus, a failing tube or a diaphragm ending its working life can also send the listener to the Hearing Aid Hut if you listen too loud.

This doesn’t mean Sonic doesn’t find the idea of headphones intriguing.  I think that headphone listeners need Mr Green and his products.  Think about it – if you have a CD player driving a preamp and amp, if you have a turntable and phono stage -- all of this are subject to the Tune Trilogy regardless of the output device.  

CD players, step up devices and amplifiers need grounding and top tuning, screws cracked, cable ties cut. They need canopies, wood to create girth and width and the mains feed need tuning.  Tuneable cables from Michael such as the Picasso work and even if there are no loudspeakers in the room (but round your head), his cables can be used for mains feeds and the wall electricity system tuned. And if you are using electrostatic headphones like the STAX, a lot of tuning can be done with the power supply box and any processor box that you have.

This is because the Tune optimises vibration transfer within and between components.  The various tunes ground the system. All of this will have an effect on the output --  and this includes everything driving loudspeakers or headphones. The only thing is the use of headphones with enclosed circumaural earpieces may reduce a need to tune the room itself.  Although one headphone listener from Japan suggested that we can listen to open back headphones facing a single mono cabinet to anchor the stage.  Effectively this is a hybrid Headphones + Loudspeaker to give both the specificity of headphones plus the width and front focus using loudspeakers.

Sonic may not be surprised if platforms are necessary and cause audible changes for the better with all this gear even with headphones (for the equipment I mean…..buying a platform and putting your chair and sitting on it like a throne dias is too wild even for Sonic). So for those readers using headphones, this is something to consider.  

Michael – your comments?

The audiophiles Sonic talks to have a Stax system with the Magnaplanar MGIIAs and another a Sennheiser plugged into a music server network system.

For those Zonees who are interested, here is an article on the Stax approach from John Buchanan writing in www.head-fi.org/t/485966/stax-srm-monitor-a-history-and-appreciation-of-diffuse-field-equalisation

"Headphone frequency response measurements, conducted with a microphone in front of the headphone driver, much as speaker measurements were conducted, observed that headphones with a measured flat frequency response did not sound as flat as would be expected from a speaker with identical measurements. Comparing the sound of a flat measured speaker with a flat measured headphone revealed extreme tonal differences that started off a whole lot of investigation into why they sounded different and how a headphone’s frequency response could be altered to make it sound like flat measured speakers. An experiment was set up as follows:

1. A loudspeaker playing a frequency sweep was recorded by a high quality, miniature microphone in one of two types of room – either an anechoic chamber or an approximation of an ordinary room (see later) – and the frequency response was charted.

2. The same microphone was inserted into a subject’s ear canal and the same speaker replayed frequency sweep was charted again.

3. It turned out there was quite a difference between the charted frequency response of the two recordings.

4. It was postulated that if the frequency response of the recording made by the microphone in the ear (see 2) could be altered by pre-equalization to ultimately match the shape of the frequency response of the recording of the same microphone when not in the ear (see 1), then replay of that in-ear microphone recording would sound the same as that of replay of the recording made by the same microphone in a room if that pre-equalization was applied.

5. This gave rise to a target measured frequency response for a headphone to sound like a flat measured speaker i.e. if the headphone had a measured frequency response that looked like the target response, it should sound flat when reproducing a recording that had been mixed with speakers in front of the mixer, and sound as if one was listening to speakers in front of him/her, rather than via headphones.

6. The concept of pre-equalization of headphones was thus born.

Pre-equalization could either be mechanical (i.e. the driver frequency response was manufactured to behave that way e.g. the AKG 240DF – not so easy) or electrical (which should be cheaper, easier and field-adjustable), and meant that although the headphones now had a frequency response that had been altered to something that looked decidedly non-flat when measured, it reproduced the sounds coming from a sound source with the same frequency response at the ear canal as if recording and replay over headphones had not been introduced into the chain i.e. the headphone replay should now sound the same as sitting in the room and listening to the speakers.

Two main theories of the correct pre-equalization curve were forwarded. The first, called free-field equalization, suggested that the above experiment be conducted in an anechoic chamber (like a field, free of reflective, absorptive and refractory surfaces).

So, to reiterate, a free field equalized headphone is designed to sound like the reproduction of speakers, as if a listener is sitting in an anechoic chamber. Although an anechoic chamber is more reproducible as a standard, it was argued that nobody listens in an anechoic chamber (and indeed, most listeners find even speaking in an anechoic chamber uncomfortable) and a reasonable approximation of a standard listening area be used to conduct the above experiments. This was called diffuse field equalization.

There are many things that alter sound between the release from the sound source and arrival at the ear canal. Reflections, diffraction and absorption from objects in the listening environment, reflection, diffraction and absorption by the head, hair and ears all contribute to alteration of sound before it reaches the ear canal. Diffuse field equalization, as mentioned before, is an attempt to make the replay of a recording on headphones sound like you are listening to the same recording through speakers in a non-anechoic room.

Experiments were also done so that headphone users were asked to equalize various sharply limited frequency bands’ playback on headphones until they had matched the loudness of the same playback through speakers and with headphones removed. A good correlation was obtained between this method and the probe microphone recording method. The direction of sound (from the front in a reverberant field) with speakers is far removed from actually injecting the sound directly into the ear canal. Naotake Hayashi (of Stax), pondering this problem, possibly because Stax couldn’t successfully mechanically create a diffuse field equalized headphone, and any electrical equalizer would have to be a custom unit, first decided to create a new headphone that coupled its own reproducible miniature room (complete with uneven diffractive, reflective and absorptive surfaces) called the Stax SR-Sigma Panoramic Earspeaker System. It had headphone drivers that fired from anterior to posterior instead of laterally into the ear canals. The sound was bounced off irregular mineral wool into the ear canals, creating a mechanical diffuse field room for each ear as well as having "speakers" that fired sound from the front, rather than straight into the canals. It was partially successful, but listeners either hate it or absolutely love it. Personally I love it, but they were inefficient headphones and they sounded quite rolled off at both ends of the frequency spectrum. They were also huge and very odd looking. Better drivers than the original Sigma drivers (which were the same as the later Lambda non-professional earspeakers) improve the frequency extremes, allowing the merit of the theory to finally shine through (e.g. the very rare Sigma/404 hybrid).

Stax later decided (around 1986 – 1987), instead, to bite the bullet and build 4 custom equalizers to electrically equalize their latest headphone range to provide individual target diffuse field responses for each of its various, then-current headphones (the ED-5 for the SR5 normal bias headphone, the ED-1 and SRM-Monitor for the Lambda Professional high bias phone and the ED-Signature for the high bias Lambda Signature). The headphones could then be less bulky than the Sigma and more fashionable (see my avatar for what the Sigma looked like – it definitely had a style only a mother could love).

Again, reactions to Stax engineers’ diffuse field equalized headphones literally polarized listeners into “hate it” or “love it” camps. I would guess that economically, this proved to be a dead end, and no further research into diffuse field equalization has ever been mentioned by Stax. Consequently, the rather rare equalization units sell for a premium on the used market these days.

As mentioned above, the four ED diffuse field equalizers were designed for three different Stax phones. The ED-5, ED-1 and ED-Signature were placed between the source and the headphone driver and are connected by way of RCA cables. The ED-1 matched the construction and size of the SRM1 Mk2 and was finished, like those units, in either black or silver. The ED Signature matched the chocolate brown of SRM-T1/S/W. The SRM-Monitor incorporated an ED-1 and an SRM-1 Mk2 Professional into one large package and was finished in either black or silver, and had switchable RCA or XLR inputs. The ED-5 unit was made to match the then current SRD-6 transformer unit (an interface between a speaker-driving power amp and the Stax earspeakers) in silver.

The ED-Signature would most likely also match the 404 and Lambda Nova Signature. The ED-1 equalization (in my case, provided by a very rare SRM Monitor) sounds excellent with the Lambda Nova Signature and surprisingly good with the Omega 2 Mk 1, despite being the wrong equalization for the latter. The upper midrange/lower treble, in particular, sounds quite a bit flatter and the low end remains in good balance with the mid and high. As Bill Sommerweck said in his review of the ED-1 in the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, track 9 on Stax' own “Space Sound” CD changes from objectionable (without the equalizer switched in) to quite listenable with the equalization switched in. In my opinion, there is no magical out of the head experience, except when listening to the aforementioned CD, or the Ultrasone binaural tracks (i.e. binaural recordings). These are seriously spooky, but sound 3 dimensional with or without equalisation. Try them with someone who is not used to listening to headphones and see what happens when you cue up track 1 or 2 of the former, or the fireworks track of the latter. Sabine whispering in your ear - oh yes! Shower spraying on your shower cap!

Now, here is where things start getting weird. I had a listen to the SR-007 Mk 1 phones with the equaliser on and it also sounded great - it may just be happenstance, but I've never heard Miles Davis’ "Kind Of Blue" sound so wonderful and with plenty of lower bass (which even the SRM-717 doesn't seem to match). This is strange, because the frequency response for the ED-1 is absolutely flat in the bass and should neither increase or decrease bass presence, and the equalisation should not be suited to the SR-007 anyway. I would have thought it unlikely to be a de-emphasised treble spike on the SR-007 Mk 1, as noone has commented on that phone having a treble spike before. I don't know, but whatever, this pre-equalisation is not just scientific theory and sounds superb. To me, the sound has moved from lots of good hi-fi parts and to an organic and holistic experience. In my opinion, the Stax SRM Monitor is quite simply the single best piece of equipment I have ever purchased, and galvanized me to write to Dr Gunther Theile to congratulate him on his pioneering work (in conjunction with Stax) on this unit.
The SRM-Monitor, without the equalizer engaged, is a very good pure A class FET DC amplifier with clear dynamic sound and excellent low level detail resolution (indeed, under these circumstances it is almost the same as the SRM1 Mk 2 Professional, apart from the added balanced input which appears to make improvements to the sound, smoothing the slightly spiky sound of the SRM 1 Mk2 Pro). Compared to new Stax amplifiers, such as SRM-717, the sound is slightly less refined and on the dry side, but still very impressive. Stax tube amplifiers such as SRM-T1, SRM-007t etc might offer a little bit more refinement and are more fluid in their presentation as well but are not as powerful. In my opinion, the SRM-Monitor is superior to almost all new cheaper Stax amplifiers (SRM-323, 303 and down).

However, when the Diffuse Field Equaliser is switched in, this amplifier becomes magic. A reduction in any residual Lambda series tizziness in the upper midrange and a slight filling in of the Lambda midrange trough allows the Lambda to sound much flatter while retaining the power it is capable of. The vocal reproduction is much improved overall, coming closer to the nearly perfect Sigma series in that department. The bass quality is also improved, which is odd, as the equaliser appears to leave the bass frequencies unchanged.

The SRM-Monitor also sounds great with the SR-007 Mk1, especially with the Diffuse Field Equaliser switched in, despite the equalizer being specifically adjusted for the Stax Lambda Pro. There is no hiss or hum at any setting of the volume control."

WOW, arrrg

There is so much here that I want to have it in bite sizes and made into little discussions.

"Oh Lord, I want more time in a day"

"if I ever get caught up" is what has been rolling through my mind the last 2 weeks. Caught up and be able to spend the time I want on posting.

That vented   I have been playing outside the audiophile soundstage for quite a while and at times even find the frontal stage boring as compared to the through you stage. That is if the "through you" stage doesn't have a doubling effect (when you are aware that the back wall has developed a separate stage from the front wall. If the stage is complete the sound is fasinating and extremely headphone like.

I think as you all know that the industry has it wrong and recordings should be able to be viewed however the listener chooses to present the info. Not only are recording a remarkable discovery and gift, but I also think we shouldn't limit our explorations of the stage and what the stage can provide.

I have been inside the sonic envelope for years and love the freedom of musical flow. Again I encourage people to think about the recording itself and maybe let go that the music must be in this frontal box. I know for myself, everytime I open up a soundstage this listener who sits down after me says "ooooowww". They discribe it as ghostly musical experience, and not in a negitive way but more the great sense of air that they are now sitting in.

I'm into all stages (that's my job) but sometimes I look at the typical audiophile stage and go what? Think about it. Is the guy sitting on the train listening to his headphones not enjoying the stage or not hearing separation of cues properly?

Hi Michael and Zonees

Michael, is your sentence "Is the guy sitting on the train listening to his headphones not enjoying the stage or not hearing separation of cues properly?" saying that headphones give a good stage and separation of cues or that headphones give poor stage and cues (it can be read either way).

Here’s how my new Bookcase Wall setting is progressing after the first report on Friday:

The Second Observation

The bass is not developing the one note boom around 100 hz with a fast roll off below which characterized earlier forward moves of the Bookcase Wall.  So far the bass is strong yet nicely extended.  With the first bit of settling, bass is warm and big, Sonic hopes it gets more even and extend lower and not increase in level too much from here or some notes will be too strong.

Instruments are getting fatter. They are fatter across the width of the stage.

The treble is sloped off.  I’ll need to increase toe in of the MG1.5QRs to get more sparkle and balance.

Should I tilt the MG1.5QRs back a bit after increasing the toe in?

Some Magneplanar owners advise Sonic that this gives good ambience and musicality.  

What are your views Michael?

The DecoTune stacks at the front wall are giving a positive effect.  Removing them compromises the soundstage and acoustics of the room.

I have not tried moving the FS-PZC behind the Bookcase Wall about.

Sonic

"
Michael, is your sentence "Is the guy sitting on the train listening to his headphones not enjoying the stage or not hearing separation of cues properly?" saying that headphones give a good stage and separation of cues or that headphones give poor stage and cues (it can be read either way)."

Hi Sonic

I feel that sound stages are there for the taking and that there is more to them than what the audiophile room setup would suggest. I would say that the headphone soundstage in some ways is closer to the real recording than the typical audiophile soundstage. Not that I choose the head phone stage over the stereo/room stage. My favorite though is a full room stage with me in the envelope. If you listened to my favorite set up you would say it is between the frontal stage and the headphone stage. Things are indeed all around you with your main attention though being pulled to the front for most of the sound but with a very real presence of the recorded space all around. Within that there are many things that do come from behind.

Hi Sonic

I'm really happy to see these moves as they are going to give you more presence, but keep in mind such moves do mean there are things to the overall system that will need to be adjusted.

There are weird things that do and can happen with the angles of these types of speakers in general. I have found that tilting them easily makes as big of a difference as toe in.

I'm also very glad that we are using the word "fat". It's so easy to fall into the thin trap and when there we loose so much of the content. Listen to those wonderful sizes of the instruments. We might say that it is the real size sometimes but is it the real size when we are thinking of the room along with the instrument? A real instrument in a recording sense is very full and rich, many times even lush. I for one love listening to all the diferent rooms that music is played in. When I hear a recording and don't get that sense of hall I start looking for what is missing. It's like going to the beach but everyone is white, white   . their there but out of place till they get a bit of color. In music terms I need that color.

Hi Michael and Zonees

The Third Observation

The images are getting larger and fatter, the volume for a given setting is rising a bit.

Sonic got more expansiveness in the rear of the stage by placing 1 kg exercise weights on the bases of the FS-PZCs in the front corners.

The musick is very “here”…it has always been this way with Sonic system when compared to audiophile systems where their sound is very “there” where the instruments are set between and behind a pair of speakers at the far end of the room, may be giving full frequency, may be giving pin point imaging but always “there”. Now the sound of the performers are increasing even more in “here”.

I wish more width was heard. The musick is being played in spaces that are sounding larger than my room but it is only an impression. Unlike Michael I cannot yet run into the adjoining spaces with a tape measure.

After Michael’s post, Sonic has an inclinometer in hand….the MG1.5QRs will be angled back next.

Sonic

Hi Sonic

I like the words "here & there". This is very descript and is easy to hear in our minds eye for those who have experienced it both ways.

Hi Michael and Zonees

The Fourth Observation

Sonic inclined the Magneplanar 1.5QRs back by 1 degree. Interestingly they look more tilted back than that. But that is something optical.

Musick on.  there are omni directional speakers in here   The sound is louder and the stage flipped back when I stood at the plane of the speakers looking Settle in for a few hours. The sound is more orderly (or my ears are getting used to this). The sound is fuller and weighty but not leaden or boomy. The bass seems to go lower.

Then I got out my tape and checked the positioning and found that in the angling back the distance from the side walls had slipped – that is, gone closer to the side walls by ¾ inch per side.

Sonic moved the speakers to the earlier position from the side walls without changing front to back distances or toe in. And the ¾ inch per side outward move dropped the bass level severely   It was as extended but the whole bass range from 100 hz down dropped (shelved down) something like 5 dB.

The clarity is tremendous and the transient speed unlike what I am accustomed to but the bass is missed. Such a small move to make such a big change! Reset to the starting position and got the bass back. Whew!

Michael, what do you think? What happened?  

Sonic

Hey, Sonic,

Just wondering; how do you come up with these specific frequencies, such as your recent mention of 100hz and 5dB? Are you constantly running test tones and using an analyzer of some sort?

Hi Robert and Zonees

Sonic uses test tones played off specially custom recorded CDs that have discrete tones and 1/3 octave tones.  I measure levels using and a (corrected) Ratshack Sound Level Meter.  Of course measurements are not everything and Sonic uses these devices to measure an effect that I hear rather than find an effect.

With time I have got a pretty good idea of what frequencies I am listening to in the bass. For sure the things many audiophiles associate with "deep bass" is not that low.  But Sonic measures using the test CD so you see how I get to mention specific frequencies.  As for SPLs, without an analyser with any integrating, weighting or averaging functions,  I take as far as I can the mid point of the meter swing.  Other times Sonic use a guesstimate given that +/- 3 dB is just audible, +/- 6 dB is noticeable and so on.

Robert, have you tried tilting back your Magneplanars?  Please discuss what you hear when your 1.6QRs are upright or tilted back and which you prefer.

Now Sonic's system:

My speakers are tilted back 2 degrees not 1 degree as I said in my last post.  I midread the marks on my Inclinometer.

So here's how Sonic's system looks:

The front view:



The 2 degree tilt of the MG1.5QRs:



And what's behind the Bookcase Wall:



The sound is giving strong weight and girth.  Very good:D 

Michael --  your comments?

Soon Sonic is planning next to use kraft paper on the front window's glass panels which Michael advised Sonic to consider.

Sonic

Hi Sonic

Sounds like your laminar flow is further from wall than usual or that your room is hunging the presure zones closer to the wall. Whatever the case when you get your speakers in the right place working with those bottom build ups things can drop really low.

This is one of the reasons I don't worry about little speakers being able to produce bottom notes. If a speaker is free resonant and the room will produce it, it's gonna go low.

Hi Zonees

Sonic is now planning the kraft paper thing -- get the thinnest or next to thinnest paper I can find then stick it at the corners over each of the large glass window panels, if promising (after some settling) also cover the secondary panes.

Be very careful to do the Boo! test.

Will need to revisit the number of ETs and DTs now attached over the front window. With the glass controlled, there will be less bass leakage so the balance is likely to change.....with Sonic's increased bass, we may get too much bass or better extension....I suspect the results will have some predictable and some very surprising things. The reverb time may or may not change, the Boo! may come back as a big problem or it might not.

With the system settled to the point I can get a stable view of the angled back speakers and the placement for improved bass, the kraft/builders paper project can start.

Michael -- how do you attach builders paper to your window panes? Tape at the corners or apply several strips of tape along the edges to keep the paper tightly in contact with the glass over its entire area? Any adhesive applied at the centre/middle of the paper/window pane

What was the effect you noticed when you applied this tune that made you recommend it?

I noticed in your pix you had a bamboo blind hanging over your builders paper treated windows. What was the reason for this? I think at one point you had only paper over your windows.

Sonic

Hi Michael and Zonees

The Fifth Observation

Sonic is hearing from the musick that with the solidity of the images and the improved bass from my recent Tunes to the loudspeaker positions (the toe-in and tilt), I am getting an ambient field that is the equivalent of surround music from the 5.1 and 7.1 processors.

The best thing is that I am getting no sense of the presence of any rear loudspeakers creating the ambience -- because there are no rear loudspeakers.

In this respect, I guess we are hearing what two-channel can deliver when rightly set up.

I have found that movement of the single FS-PZC behind the Bookcase Wall has effect but I am not going to start moving that or adjusting the Tuning Bolt until we get this settling stablised.

Where more Tuning is needed and where some frustration is occurring is Sonic is still not getting the soundstage to transcend the physical front and side walls, particularly the side walls. Something is stuck. I keep hearing on Tuneland about the soundstage that Michael can achieve with images that are 10s or 30 feet in size. At this point, I am not getting any of this.

I think the rear ambience has created a rearward space that is larger than my room which is what Sonic was working towards but the side and front walls are too present acoustically and visually.

Sonic just cannot get them to disappear (especially the side walls) where all I can get is the occasional feeling that the space the orchestra is playing in larger than my room.

This is the only Tune objective I have not been able to make headway with over the last six years that Sonic has been tuning with any determination.

Soon Sonic will be getting into Tuning of the window panes with the kraft paper. Maybe this might overcome the presence of the side and front walls.

Michael -- your thoughts?

Sonic

Hey, Sonic,

You can guess what I'm going to say about having the walls "disappear;" I don't think it can be done with Magnepans (at least not the bigger ones). We have both been going at it, you much longer than me, with more tools and know-how.

Now, I am an admitted "Mr. Short-Term Memory." As I write this, I faintly recall you trying some different speakers in your room, at least for a test of mono (one-speaker), centered (I will review your voluminous posts later). You reckon maybe instead of toeing and tilting the panels, it's time to try a different design speaker again? If I had another pair in the house, I would at this point.

In the meantime, I'm thinking of doing something daffy like covering the rear of the panel speakers with mylar or some such to see what happens with that, after a couple of more weeks of this "Rooze" set-up.

Hi Robert

You might be right that getting the outside-the-room soundstage is beyond the Magneplanars. Maybe I should be thankful for what I got, enjoy the musick and burrow myself into the world of good LPs of classical music.

While my room system boggles the brains of visitors, it is ultimately a tool to deliver musick and some drama (like recorded Shakespeare) and so soothe the soul. For my system, that is the primary purpose, everything is a servant to that goal.

I sometimes ask myself how long am I planning to go on Tuning. I have been working at this for...was it 2006? The system can be left here and maintained and I just enjoy the musick but each time I said this, I learnt something new from Michael that took the sound forward and better.

But the question of how much more, how much longer is on Sonic's mind.

Anyway.... I read your post about the Rooze (oops, am I addicted to tuning?) -- if anything calls attention to the speakers that is one item in my checklist that signals Sonic to abandon the particular tune.

And the observation you are having with the imbalance between the right and left of your room is possibly similar to something that you might see referenced in Sonic’s “voluminous” postings.

There was one recording (a recording of J S Bach’s English Suites for harpsichord) that had all the ambience of the recording venue on the RH of the room. It sounded like the harpsichord was recorded in a large Live End-Dead End room at the junction of the two acoustic zones so one side of the venue is acoustically dead and the other live. It was rather strange.

It took a long time to fix but since the effect was not pronounced or audible on other recordings Sonic just took time. Today the effect is gone. The ambience on that recording is evenly placed Left and Right.

Fixing this took getting several things right – it was getting the ETs hung edgewise on my ceiling spot on (that was when it started to get balanced out), then the placement of the MG1.5QRs had to be optimized -- Left/Right/Front/Back then the toe-in.

There might be a sweet spot just a few inches away. Try a 4 inch move forward and back maintaining the same toe in and distance to side walls.

You might also want to consider the effect of the tilt back angle because that activated a whole bunch of new PZs when I tried it. In all this, the approach Sonic took was to strengthen the weak zone rather to suppress the strong one.

Eventually with PZs the way they are, the flow will distribute and balance out. But once something is damped out of existence, it is gone and the whole system shifts to a lower energy level.

On your point about trying different speakers, I did try the Rogers LS3/5as. It didn't work. They did not vanish the way the MG1.5QRs did (odd isn't it?). The funny bass of the Rogers became very obvious yet there were no benefits like outside-the-room imaging or something attractive to encourage me to persevere. So I gave up.

Glad to discuss more if you like.

Sonic

Hey, Sonic,

 You and I both do have a habit of revisiting things we have tried before to see if they work any better now with a different configuration. Do you recall you were the one who originally advised me to stand my speakers straight up with no tilt and have them parallel to the front and rear walls instead of toed in? At that time, you observed a loss of focus with your speakers tilted.

 I also found that one of my recent experiments actually came from you, but being Mr. Short-Term Memory, I didn't realize it. Looking through some of your old posts, there was a time when you had tried baffles on top of your speakers, something which I recently tried with wood pieces (just as, no doubt, I half-remembered one of Mr. Green's old posts about using tubes when I experimented with same).

 Perhaps we both will have to be satisfied with what we have accomplished. If only we could hop in a time machine and go back a few years, I'm sure we would be simply astonished at how far our systems have come. I blame settling (he said jokingly) and the obligatory few days wait to see how each tweak works out; time passes and the constant little improvements are harder to acknowledge.

 Then, too, I believe you and I are going to be life-long tweakers. Could it be that Mr. Green moves so often just so he can start over again and keep his skills fresh, passing along his experiences with all of us?

Hi Robert

Good you reminded me of that bit of what I said to you about no tilt. I got the no-toe-in and no-tilt from a posting from Michael somewhere on the site. The reasoning was logical and Sonic tried it and found it beneficial....my obsessive notes tell me it was (although I written stuff I cringe at in my tue record) -- though I must say that back then I was using the stock Magneplanar feet so the panels were close to vertical but shimmed them with some MW. I always kept a bit of toe-in, very little but it has increased over time. And tried wings for the panels.

Things change and old tunes done to solve particular problems may cause their own problems as the room and system advances. Nice point you made about how far our systems have improved since we started.

So here Sonic is with a forward Bookcase Wall, MG1.5QRs closer to me and toed in by some 3.5 inches and tilted back 2 degrees and the space defined by the front and side walls and the Bookcase Wall a square, and the sound is great.

If Sonic may, I suggest that you give your Magneplanars a bit of toe-in say 1.5 to 2 inches so the tweeters come closer to axial to your ears at your listening chair but maintain the panels' distance to the side walls. Let's discuss what you hear.

Now........the kraft paper has been applied to the window panes and the bamboo shutters retired to another place in my dwelling.

Errr...what's this? Confusion....slow down and take in the effect   

Sonic

Kraft Paper Tale 1

So hearing the confused mess before me, Sonic withdrew from the room but put a CD on repeat playing at normal levels in the room. A Bill Evans recording.

A few hours later, I ventured back and found the sound less chaotic....but for sure the room is too live -- that's OK because all the ETs and RTS that were on the blinds are now removed from the room and they can be reintroduced.

Midrange is somewhat piercing but present, bass is deep but boomy here and there, treble bright but textured. The soundstage is bigger and smaller at the same time depending how you look at it. The good thing is I can hear a pressure energy increase.

The various musical components and ranges are out of sync with each other. More settling before Sonic can assess the tonality and soundstage size. Right now tonal density is reduced.

Michael....comments?

Sonic

Hmmm, removing the front tunes? But I guess this needed to be done in order to put the paper up. Now the trick will be getting the tunes all back the way they were. A task I do not envy.

Not only do removing the tunes make that big of a difference but also the shape of each individual tune. Those panels inside have a mind of their own and sometimes a little shaping needs to take place.

When I first saw how many were put up there a while back I wondered how they were getting along with each other.

Kraft Paper Tale 2

 The sound in my room is coming together, the different ranges are settling to create musick. The midrange is more projected than before making this more like real sound that hifi which often is characterized by a recessed midrange and lower treble that gives a sense of spaciousness – the Gundry dip beloved of some British designers.

There appears to be a more pronounced “knee point” than before in the room. As I turn up the volume on the preamp from silent, there is a steady increase in SPL but not much is happening in the sound till I hit a point somewhere between 9 and 10 o’clock on the dial where in one click the sound expands from decent reproduction to huge images and projected, power sound. I have noticed this effect before but now it is really noticeable.

Another good thing is I was test running the system yesterday when an occasional visitor to Sonic’s dwelling who is no audiophile walked in briefly and in seconds said, “waa (exclamation of astonishment common in our part of the world)…what did you do? Your sound is so big!”

But the room is still ringy, so I remounted the top three DTS in the top row of my ET/RTS cluster formerly on the wooden blinds. Refer to my earlier pix for what this looks like. The cluster is an inverted (point down) triangle made up of three horizontal rows of ETs and RTS. So the top row went back and the control started to come back. I could now sit back and enjoy the sound. A few hours of music play to settling things and Boo! tests later, Sonic decides this is not enough so the next row of two ETs went up. Much better.

The bass is deep and strong, still a little uneven but not bad. More bass than many people get out of Magneplanars of this size without reinforcement from a subwoofer system. The midrange is projected and detailed, treble a little on the bright side but sweet. The sound is more “here”. The ambience effect is sufficiently surrounding the listener.

Just like Robert said, the MG1.5QRs aren’t doing the big 30 ft beyond each side wall thing….though analog give a better hint of hugeness compared to digital.

Michael what are your views on two questions:

1. Shouldn't hard rigid walls be good for bass? If the walls were flexible like drywall, won’t they flex and lose energy and cut the bass?

2. What do you mean “Not only do removing the tunes make that big of a difference but also the shape of each individual tune. Those panels inside have a mind of their own and sometimes a little shaping needs to take place." what is the "shape of each individual tune" and "sometimes a little shaping needs to take place"...shaping of what?

3. What do you hear from systems using a single subwoofer if the sub is placed near one of the front corners but at the midpoint of the front wall and up against the front wall? Compare this with when the subwoofer is close to or in one of the front corners.

Sonic