[jimdgoulding]

I visit fellow audio enthusiasts and music lovers in my community and am surprised how often it's obvious not much thinking is given this.  I think those of you with speakers with front firing drivers in a box can honor the stage and acoustics of the venue in those of your recordings made on location (most all classical is as well as live recordings) if you do a couple of things.  On second thought, here's my formula in a 12'x15'x8' dedicated listening room:

Speaker baffles are 54" off the wall behind them, 41" from their centers off the walls beside them, their centers are 62" apart and the boxes are toed in but I can still see a tiny portion of the inside cabinet.  The distance between the front of my cabinets and my ears is 72".  That last figure can vary.  Five more inches and an orchestra becomes more collected into a cohesive whole and the hall itself, rather than just the stage, becomes more perceptible.  Nearer and the musicians gain more presence and physicality*.  Take some time when you can, extrapolate those numbers to your available space and hear what happens.  Don't forget to get your chair off the wall, too.

Can't predict the level of improvement on studio made recordings.  Especially ones with a lot of mixing.  But, on recordings made in real time and space . . just do it.   

Now, your speakers need to be placed in the enclosed end of your room and placed symmetrically as described.  If you don't have a dedicated room or one with all right angles, try your best to at least get your speakers in the enclosed end of the room.  Even if your room has to serve other purposes, it's worth trying out. 

I guess the biggest benefit is three dimensionality and truism of hall or parlor on smaller works or whatever.  No fair to disagree if you've haven't tried it.  Your system might be better than you think. 

*There is only so much space between your speakers.  Too loud and the images blow up at the expense of dimensionality and space, unless you have a very large room, I suppose.

[JLM]

You're describing the Cardas setup formula that I've been using for years.  With "the" chair in the resulting equilateral triangle the images really snap into place (even 8 year olds have confirmed this).

Pulling away from the walls really helps to remove room effects and differing the side/front wall distances helps further.

And yes, to a fault most audiophiles accept flawed room setups compared to what they've invested in their gear, hence my moniker.

[Guy 13]

You're describing the Cardas setup formula that I've been using for years.  With "the" chair in the resulting equilateral triangle the images really snap into place (even 8 year olds have confirmed this).

Pulling away from the walls really helps to remove room effects and differing the side/front wall distances helps further.

And yes, to a fault most audiophiles accept flawed room setups compared to what they've invested in their gear, hence my moniker.

Hi JLM,
if my memory serves me right,
I think you told me exactly what you wrote above
and I did it and it works great for me.
Thanks.

Guy 13

[Hipper]

What you seem to have done is more or less 'The Thirds' positioning - speaker and ears a third in from the relevant walls (as well as Cardas maybe). The idea behind the 'The Thirds is to try and remove the effects of the room as much as possible.

I did some measurements in my almost dedicated listening room and found 'The Thirds' and 'The Fifths' were the best locations. I tried 'The Thirds' for a few months and it certainly was interesting and three dimensional, but most of the studio bound music I listen to led to absurd situations. Even a live recording where I knew the locations of the players was incorrect. In the end I find 'The Fifths' more satisfying although less enveloping.

Another thing worth knowing is the dispersion of the sound from your speaker drivers. For instance my speakers have a ribbon tweeter which is said to have a thirty degree vertical dispersion and broad horizontal spread. The speaker also has ribbon mid range drivers. I have tried ceiling acoustic treatment and found it does nothing. Knowing the ribbons dispersion pattern could have told me that. However it will need some side wall treatment if you don't like side wall reflections - I do!

[jimdgoulding]

Good to hear from listeners who appreciate how speaker placement can help reveal what's in those bits and grooves.  ALL of what's in there.  The Cardas site has an illustration of his rule of thirds.  Some experimentation regards width placement and/or toe-in is in order, ime, should you prefer a broader stage.

Lots of we listeners don't listen to unamplified music and/or discreetly microphoned music.  Optimum speaker and seat placement is a benefit to studio made music, too, but that isn't the same as live in the club or concert hall.  Sitting in an equidistant triangle the perspective is much like I'm listening from the conductor's podium.  Moving my seat further away and it's Row C.  Further still, and it's Row J and so on.  And the stage and hall narrow proportionately.

Not everybody is into realism.  Some of my friends are more into sensationalism.  I venture there, too, for amplified music.  But, normally, I seek realism as tho I were there in the venue and my room, speaker and chair placement within it, is my ticket to admission.  Could be yours, too.

Like Hipper (than thou?), I don't use side wall treatment either.  JLM, I noticed your moniker many moons ago.

[gregfisk]

I'm building a dedicated listening building that will also serve as a guest house. Space is open 20'x30'x10 and was planning on using the Cardas method at least to start out. I'm wondering if this approach works with OB designs as that's what I'll be using. I haven't read any info. about this and was wondering if the same rules apply?

[jimdgoulding]

Good question, Greg.  I don't know the answer but hopefully someone who does will reply. 

[Letitroll98]

I'm building a dedicated listening building that will also serve as a guest house. Space is open 20'x30'x10 and was planning on using the Cardas method at least to start out. I'm wondering if this approach works with OB designs as that's what I'll be using. I haven't read any info. about this and was wondering if the same rules apply?

There's a slightly modified formula for dipole speakers on the Cardas web site.

[gregfisk]

There's a slightly modified formula for dipole speakers on the Cardas web site.

Thank you Letitroll98, I will revisit that page. I don't recall seeing that info. so thanks for redirecting me back to the site.

I believe with a boxed speaker I would be about 7' from the front wall and about 5.5' from the side walls, definitely into the room a ways.

[Letitroll98]

http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php

[jk@home]

When I was running Magnepans in my small dedicated room, the Cardas di-pole method gave me the best, smoothest bass out of the speakers, than anywhere else in the room. Moving them off mark just a little was quite noticeable.

With my present monopoles, I get a better, less congested soundstage with the speakers the same distance from the rear wall, but pulled further apart. So I have mid bass subs set at the Cardas (mono) location, with the monitors to the outsides of those. That's why I like a stat/sub system in this room, more flexibility.

So to Greg, I would first try the Cardas dipole method, then go from there.

[Wayner]

First, to clear the air, Cardas did not come up with the Golden Rule, its been around for centuries. I will give him credit for applying it to speaker set-up, but that's where I draw the line. I set my several systems up using the Golden Rule, and I did not like what I heard. I think that the sitting position should be much farther in. This eliminates the reflected wall information to a huge degree, because it reduces the direct to reflected ratio. My Martin Logans are dipoles and they offer even more of a challenge. I think some folks have gone as far as putting sound absorbing material directly behind MLs to tame down some of the reflected sound.

My vinyl room is in near field because the room is smallish. To top all of that off, my sweet spot is shared with my wife, who also likes music, so I have to do speaker placement so that both of us get great stereo. It can be done.

Room symmetry would be ideal, but most of us have problems with that because of positions with windows, doorways and room shapes. I also always place the speakers along the long wall, to eliminate multiple, secondary (or more) reflections before reaching the listening position.

That is how I have learned to set things up and I like the resulting sound field.

Wayner

[NIGHTFALL1970]

I had to put sonex behind my Magnepans to absorb some of the reflections off the front wall.  I don't think I can use the Cardas rule because of the shape of my room.

[JLM]

The ancient Greeks invented the "Golden Ratio" or close to it: 5 to 8.  Imagine those marble rooms needed to minimize echo.   

[gregfisk]

When I was running Magnepans in my small dedicated room, the Cardas di-pole method gave me the best, smoothest bass out of the speakers, than anywhere else in the room. Moving them off mark just a little was quite noticeable.

With my present monopoles, I get a better, less congested soundstage with the speakers the same distance from the rear wall, but pulled further apart. So I have mid bass subs set at the Cardas (mono) location, with the monitors to the outsides of those. That's why I like a stat/sub system in this room, more flexibility.

So to Greg, I would first try the Cardas dipole method, then go from there.

Thank you for this, after revisiting the Cardas website "thank you Letitroll98 for the exact link" I see the locations do change a bit. My room is pretty symmetrical except for a bathroom in the back left corner. Otherwise it's wide open with a kitchen on the rest of the back wall.

[gregfisk]

First, to clear the air, Cardas did not come up with the Golden Rule, its been around for centuries. I will give him credit for applying it to speaker set-up, but that's where I draw the line. I set my several systems up using the Golden Rule, and I did not like what I heard. I think that the sitting position should be much farther in. This eliminates the reflected wall information to a huge degree, because it reduces the direct to reflected ratio. My Martin Logans are dipoles and they offer even more of a challenge. I think some folks have gone as far as putting sound absorbing material directly behind MLs to tame down some of the reflected sound.

My vinyl room is in near field because the room is smallish. To top all of that off, my sweet spot is shared with my wife, who also likes music, so I have to do speaker placement so that both of us get great stereo. It can be done.

Room symmetry would be ideal, but most of us have problems with that because of positions with windows, doorways and room shapes. I also always place the speakers along the long wall, to eliminate multiple, secondary (or more) reflections before reaching the listening position.

That is how I have learned to set things up and I like the resulting sound field.

Wayner

Interesting observations Wayner. My understanding is that the whole point of the Cardas rule or Golden Ratio is to minimize room reflections and the best way to do this is putting the speakers on the short wall so the sound has farther to go before it comes back to the seating position. The perfect room according to the Cardas website is to actually have the back of the room wider than the front wall so the side walls are not symmetrical which again reduces reflected sound waves from reaching the listening position as quickly.

I can certainly see why near field listening eliminates many of these problems but in a perfect world setting back with some breathing room seems ideal to me.

Regarding your ML Dipole speakers being more of a challenge this surprises me. I just finished my first pair of dipole speakers which are Super Vs and are the first OB speakers I have had in my room of 20 years. They are the first speakers I have ever had that actually work well in this room. This isn't the Building I will have but my great room which has tile floors and a lot of glass. It also has large volume because it is approximately 24' x 38' with a flat ceiling of 17' high. Every other speaker has been ported or ceiled with very poor interaction with the room and basically just sounded bad no matter what equipment I used.

I guess the room really does make a big difference on what works and what doesn't

[Wayner]

I think his attempt (Cardas) was to tame the bass nodes, since higher frequencies tend to "beam" straight towards the listener and lower notes tend to be more omni-directional (the lower, the more omni). Since bass nodes can create standing waves and amplify certain frequencies (in relationship to wall distances, etc), the attempt was to prevent then nasty wave from ganging up. So, IMO, it may help the lower frequencies to put the (speaker) system and setting spot in the Golden Rule triangle, but I think it tends to mud up the mid-frequencies with first wall reflections in the critical mid-range area.

Probably this is caused by specific speaker design as off-axis response for speakers vary greatly. Also keep in mind that MLs have a curved radiator source for the ESL and the stuff coming out of the back isn't just coming out at a straight line, but rather there is a focal point to the sound (acting much like a ellipsoidal reflector, and spreads it ilk in all directions after striking the rear wall.

The most probable answer to all of this is "experiment"!

Wayner

[stvnharr]

Interesting topic for sure and somewhat the biggest mystery of all. Speaker placement in a room is most of everything as far as the best sound is concerned. And there is just so little real guidance or anything on what to do, other than opinion or placements via tape measure. There is little, if any, dialogue on what one is looking for other than, "good sound, best sound", etc., without any explanation of what that is.

So, here are some questions and ideas of what is trying to get accomplished.
1. When you go to a concert, any concert in any venue, the sound you hear stays stable and in the same place if you move around the venue. The only thing that changes is your perspective to the sound, but the sound itself does not move left-right if you move left-right. Sure, you cannot do this at symphony hall as you have to remain seated unless you are dying or something and don't care about the sound. But the point is that the sound does not move around with you if you move around.
Do you get that with the way you set your speakers up?
2. Sweet spot: Do you have to sit in just one spot to get the best sound? If you go to a concert there are a lot of seats in the venue. If the venue sound is through the venue sound system, is there just a sweet spot or two in which you get the best sound? The venue sound system is just amps and speakers like at home.
3. There are all those drawings with arrows indicating sound direction. Is this really how sound travels from the loudspeaker?
4. Like many, I have used the Cardas and Audio Physic tape measure methods of setting speakers in a room. However, after looking in to both ways of doing this, it just all seemed so arbitrary. A tape measure method somewhat presumes that the room is perfectly symmetrical in all parameters, dimensions, reflecting surfaces, absorbing surfaces, etc. How many rooms are like this? 
5. What about taking the loudspeaker parameters into the equation, as in off axis response curves, both 30 and 60 degree off axis, or polar response curves. Is this information even available to you? Do you see many off axis response curves or sound power plots?
6. Do you do much listening as a part of setting up the speakers?
7. Speaker set up is an XY variable, a double variable. The speakers are each a separate entity. Move one speaker just a little and the sound changes. Do you set just one speaker for best sound and then move the other speaker to somewhat match up with the first? Most everything I've read, heard, etc. addresses the pair of speakers together, as if this XY were just a single variable entity.

The Floyd Toole you tube presentation in the enclosure forum, link posted below, addresses some of the above topics, although more from a speaker design perspective, testing with one speaker in mono, than a set up perspective, stereo setup. But I think it's applicable. He makes a lot of good points, such as, "get the bass right". This comes at around the 1:00:00 mark, slightly before that. And he doesn't just say it, he explains it. Many other topics too.

Toole's CIRMMT Presentation

FWIW, I set my speakers up in a way that considers most of what I've mentioned above. It seems to work well for me.

[Hipper]

Firstly I don't think you can make a comparison between a concert hall and the home listening environment. A concert hall is so much bigger and many of the problems of reproducing sound in a small room don't occur.

The way I would set up speakers and chair now is by using a frequency measuring software and a microphone. You could start at a suggested arrangement, such as Cardas, measure, then make relatively large movements of the speakers making further measurements, all the time recording the positions on a grid. Then compare the frequency responses (FR). Next put the speakers in the best location so far and move the chair/microphone and measure, record and compare. Repeat all this with smaller movements until finally you will find one or two locations that produce the best FR.

Test these with music. Perhaps also test with test tones and your ears, as your ears do not hear the same way as a microphone. Ultimately though it is your music and your ears that will give you the solution.

What is the best FR? I would say flat, but concentrate on the 20-250Hz region as this where the most damage can occur.

It's time consuming, tedious and frustrating work but I think it's the best way.

[vinyl_lady]

My room is 25' x 18' with a cathedral ceiling that is 17' at the peak. I have set speakers using Cardas, the rule of thirds, master set, and Jim Smith's Get Better Sound. In the end, I found the best position by using Jim Smith's methods and then fine tuning by listening to some music I know really well. I think all of the various methods will get you close, but nothing beats that final tuning by ear.