[John Casler]

I have been into Audio since 1969. 

I have been into HIGH END Audiophile sound since 1972.  I have visited many showrooms, shows, and friends and customers homes and I have found it just keeps getting better and better.

I recently made some changes to my system, and find that even after 10 years of my present VMPS speaker system in the same room, the sound just keeps getting better.  I have had thousands of exciting and stirring listening sessions over the years when I tell myself, it simply cannot get any better than this

BUT IT DOES.

My most recent system is as follows:

SOURCES:

OPPO BDP-103 Disc Player
NuFORCE PreProduction Prototype Music Server

DAC:

NuFORCE DAC-9 192k

PREAMP:

NuFORCE P-20 Preamp

MAIN AMPS:

NuFORCE Reference 18 (powering my Tweeter/Neopanels section)

VMPS PBS (Powered Bass System) 525wpc (powering my woofer section)

MAIN SPEAKERS (L&R)

Pair Brian Cheney Signature Edition RM-40s in Macassar Ebony

CROSSOVER/BASS FILTER:

NHT X-2

SUBWOOFERS:

4 (yes 4) LARGER SUBS Stacked in PAIRS  (flanking the RM40s) These LARGERS also have the new ULTRAMega Passive Radiators.
1 High Boy LARGER (placed behind my listening chair firing towards the rear wall/away from me) This "rear-firing" Larger has Brian's 12 and 15" ULTRA-MEGAWoofers.

SUBWOOFER AMPS:

VMPS PBS powering the Flanking LARGER Banks (775 wpc to each bank)

VMPS PBS powering the HighBoy LARGER (525wpc)

POWER and CABLES:

All Cables are WyWires and I am using the Power Broker Power Distribution System

The Room itself and the Listening Position are Heavily Treated.

The Front wall is pretty much 6" wedge Panels with Acoustic Blankets and barriers behind them and hanging from the ceiling.

My listening chair is surrounded, open only to the front, with a special combination of Acoustic Materials that virtually reduce all High and Mid frequency reflections from side walls and ceiling.

I have a heavy Persian Rug over Carpet and Pad that eliminated floor reflections.

 This creates a virtually undistorted (by room sound) LISTENING CHAMBER.

Sitting in this chamber without anything playing is the most tranquil of experiences in that there is very little sound reaching your ears.  I might suggest it is similar (for your eyes) as sitting in a pitch black room.

When you DO hit Play, the sound basically EXPLODES into being with a soundstage and imaging that is hard to describe or imagine until you actually hear it yourself.  The purity of it all is staggering compared to any other system I have ever heard.  For practical purposes you do not hear room reflections, and all you hear is the quality of what the speakers and subs are playing.

The remarkable thing is that while it sounds rather LOUD in the listening chair, it is not loud at all.  This is because most all the NOISE that you normally have to overcome with VOLUME is subtracted out of what you are hearing.

The finest details, the incredible dynamics and the wonderful midrange is undisturbed as it reaches your ears and flows into your conciousness.

Yeah, it is pretty special, and while I have heard systems that cost in excess of $300,000, I have never heard anything that approaches the quality of sonic perfection I hear today sitting comfortably in my Listening Chamber. 

I have to admit, however that a system like this DOES REQUIRE a dedicated listening room to be this good.  If you have such a room, and the desire to hear what is really on your recordings WITHOUT the majority of ROOM CREATED DISTORTION (any sound that is reflected from your room and not in the actual recording) you can hear it too.

[Phil P]

"Sounds" great John. Can you post some pics of your "Listening Chamber"? Am interested in seeing what you setup looks like.

[Hipper]

I've been using Auralex foam and a digital equaliser for the last few years to try and control room problems and thought I was getting a lovely sound, BUT......!

From reading material on the internet I concluded that I was wrong because the foam only worked down to 125Hz and even though I thought I was controlling lower frequencies with the equaliser, in fact that's not really possible. From calculations and measurements it was evident that I had problems at 40Hz and multiples of that.

I've now installed various bass traps following advice from GIK Acoustics, and according to measurements (using REW) and my ears, the sound is much improved. The bass I hear goes lower as room modes have been considerably (but not completely) tamed, and that seems to have allowed for a more balanced and enjoyable sound overall. Some tinkering with the equaliser has improved things further.

It seems to me there's always more to be had out of the system, and most of it, once you have pretty good gear, is from speaker/listening positions, room treatment with a small amount of equalising to complete the job.

For me there are further options for improvement to investigate. As well as additional room treatment perhaps, subwoofers for helping solve suckouts and room modes; active crossovers with more amps.

[John Casler]

"Sounds" great John. Can you post some pics of your "Listening Chamber"? Am interested in seeing what you setup looks like.

Hi Phil,

Although is isn't very pretty, (and since it is in a Man Cave, it is pretty dark) I'll try to snap a few.

[John Casler]

I've been using Auralex foam and a digital equaliser for the last few years to try and control room problems and thought I was getting a lovely sound, BUT......!

From reading material on the internet I concluded that I was wrong because the foam only worked down to 125Hz and even though I thought I was controlling lower frequencies with the equaliser, in fact that's not really possible. From calculations and measurements it was evident that I had problems at 40Hz and multiples of that.

I've now installed various bass traps following advice from GIK Acoustics, and according to measurements (using REW) and my ears, the sound is much improved. The bass I hear goes lower as room modes have been considerably (but not completely) tamed, and that seems to have allowed for a more balanced and enjoyable sound overall. Some tinkering with the equaliser has improved things further.

Yes, Acoustic Foam alone won't do it.  Because it is a Man Cave, and you cannot see them, I also have a few mattresses (Queen and Twin) lining some of the walls.  These then are covered by Acoustical Blankets (look much like Moving Pads) and then out of sight by being covered with the Wedge Foam or other Acoustic Blankets hanging from the ceiling.

 

It seems to me there's always more to be had out of the system, and most of it, once you have pretty good gear, is from speaker/listening positions, room treatment with a small amount of equalising to complete the job.

For me there are further options for improvement to investigate. As well as additional room treatment perhaps, subwoofers for helping solve suckouts and room modes; active crossovers with more amps.

The latest improvements were in the form of the NuFORCE P-20 Preamp, and the REF 18 amps.  Due to the room and Listening Chamber treatments I was able to hear the differences from my former AMPs (which I thought sounded incredible)

And I might add, the listening chamber is constructed from my Speaker and SUB shipping cartons.  These are then filled with old clothing, towels and bedding to be more absorbent to middle and lower frequencies.  Then they too are covered with Acoustic Blankets, and then various combinations of Wedge and Egg Crate foams.

And in my room corners and some for the other boundaries I have more Bass Con"Trap"tions along rear and side walls.  All in all, it is like a BLACK HOLE for reflections.

[John Casler]

And I will EDIT the system above to reflect that the absolute most recent change was to add the WyWires Power Broker.

This addition made a "distinct" improvement to the bass.

As well, the whole system from Power Cords to Speaker Cables are also WyWired

[rbbert]

A mostly or totally (acoustically) dead room is certainly one approach to home audio reproduction; I suspect that for most of us it will be less than satisfying, though, for a number of reasons.  To start with, it won't work with dipoles or bipoles.  For the rest of us, research at Harmon International by Floyd Toole and others strongly suggests that for (blinded) listeners the best sounding speakers are those whose off-axis response closely approximates on-axis response, and that controlled reflections and/or diffraction between the speakers and the listener as well as behind the listener will (again) give the most pleasing sound (to most listeners).

Just more food for thought.

[Carl V]

speakers are those whose off-axis response closely approximates on-axis response, and that controlled reflections and/or diffraction between the speakers and the listener as well as behind the listener will (again) give the most pleasing sound (to most listeners).

Just more food for thought.

The last frontier- aka the room- has always been a source of contention.
Like most things in audio there is no clear winner...it's a matter of preference.

But to add some food for thought....many years ago I was in a man's room
with Accustats and Many Many many absorbtion panels & some Diffussors.
it was an "amphisonics room' if I recall. ( at 57 my memory is suspect).

It was an incredible sound experience.  He even had panels down the middle
of the room close to your face (cross talk cancellation).

There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat.

But if you can get away with the man cave look....a well damped room like a monitoring
room has some advantages.  You are not layering ambiance on top of recorded ambiance.

ymmv. imho yadda yadda

[Housteau]

The last frontier- aka the room- has always been a source of contention.
Like most things in audio there is no clear winner...it's a matter of preference.

How true.  I don't consider the room just as another component, but as a major component.  However, I think this is where much of this contention can begin.  Many feel that the very best component is no component at all, that is one without any acoustic signature of it's own.  In general I fall into this camp for all components, except for the listening room.

Brian believed in the LEDE (live end - dead end) listening room and did all of his critical listening this way.  Take a look at some of the photos from the different audio shows and how he had those smaller rooms set up to highlight his speakers.  The LEDE concept seemed to work best for monopole designs.  What I thought was interesting is that Brian moved to creating both bipole and dipole designs and yet continued with that LEDE concept.

Rives Audio, you know those folks that design some of the most exotic and technically correct listening rooms worldwide, do not believe in this LEDE concept at all.  In fact, they believe in what could be considered as anti-absorption.  Their rooms are designed to allow the higher frequencies to mostly remain, but be controlled through various reflective, diffractive and diffusive techniques.

I should mention here that most, if not all of this room design contention has to do with how the higher frequencies are to be controlled.  I believe that just about everyone believes and understands that the lower frequencies act very differently and need to be controlled differently.  Absorption is the universally accepted method of control here, as well as the proper placement of those lower frequency drivers within the room.

I suppose that we each set up our rooms in the way we enjoy hearing our music.  I have never really enjoyed that razor sharp image that can be created by monopoles.  Although appealing in many ways I also find that unnatural sounding compared to true live sound.  When I have someone over and they are talking to me standing between and just behind my speakers, they do not sound like a pinpoint in space, they sound like a full sized three dimensional human being.  This is how my V60 bipoles reproduce vocals and instruments.  To me they sound properly dimensional and fully fleshed out.  Since I have gotten more into live recording I have had an advantage of having many of these musicians over to my home and I have been able to hear how they naturally sound in my room.

Even before I was into recording as I am now, I had bipoles.  My first were the Accoustat 1+1, then the Martin Logan CLS, Infinity rs1bs and finally the VMPS RM V60s.  So, my current personal listening room has been designed to get the best out of my bipoles.  In order to do that I have found that I have needed to not take either extreme mentioned earlier.  My room uses combinations of various absorption, diffusive and reflective techniques.  I have found that the rear wave from a bipole needs to be controlled, not eliminated.  I have never understood why Brian felt he needed to dampen out that rear wave to a point where the V60 became nearly a monopole.  I suppose that maybe he was more used to that monopole sound and felt his customers would be as well.

[rbbert]

Good post 

[John Casler]

A mostly or totally (acoustically) dead room is certainly one approach to home audio reproduction; I suspect that for most of us it will be less than satisfying, though, for a number of reasons.  To start with, it won't work with dipoles or bipoles.  For the rest of us, research at Harmon International by Floyd Toole and others strongly suggests that for (blinded) listeners the best sounding speakers are those whose off-axis response closely approximates on-axis response, and that controlled reflections and/or diffraction between the speakers and the listener as well as behind the listener will (again) give the most pleasing sound (to most listeners).

Just more food for thought.

Hi Robert,

There is absolutely nothing that trumps "preference".

Brian's CDWGs were designed to allow those with such a preference to experience Constant Directivity, which is what Floyd was attempting to measure and study relative to preference.

Many do opt for pleasing sound as their path over other considerations.

Either way, the great thing is that one can continue to make small improvements, (or even large ones)

[John Casler]

But if you can get away with the man cave look....a well damped room like a monitoring
room has some advantages.  You are not layering ambiance on top of recorded ambiance.

ymmv. imho yadda yadda

Hi Carl,

This duplication of room created sound is a lesson we learned in our "live versus recorded" events.

While we could come exceptionally close to reproducing the performers, (position, size, tone, image, etc) the main issue to the most lifelike presentation was always the recording of the room interaction, and then having the same interaction layered again during playback.

When I play those recordings on my system, they sound astoundingly real and take me very close to the original performance, since I do not get the additional room interactions.  They in fact, are stunning, and exactly what Brian had as a goal.

[Hipper]

Carl, do you mean Ambiophonics? The idea of Ambiophonics is to eliminate 'crosstalk' from the speakers (where your left ear hears sounds from the right speaker and so on). In effect it tries to create the headphone experience, hence that barrier you mention.

This thread, first post, explains something about it, and my post, #4, gives sources and questions:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-waterloo-effect-interaural-crosstalk.323457/

By the way, I've tried the 'Waterloo Sunset' effect and it's there!

[John Casler]

How true.  I don't consider the room just as another component, but as a major component.  However, I think this is where much of this contention can begin.  Many feel that the very best component is no component at all, that is one without any acoustic signature of it's own.  In general I fall into this camp for all components, except for the listening room.

Brian believed in the LEDE (live end - dead end) listening room and did all of his critical listening this way.  Take a look at some of the photos from the different audio shows and how he had those smaller rooms set up to highlight his speakers.  The LEDE concept seemed to work best for monopole designs.  What I thought was interesting is that Brian moved to creating both bipole and dipole designs and yet continued with that LEDE concept.

Brian and I spoke about this often.

The LEDE was his preference, because he liked the reduction of reflected sound of the Dead End, yet felt the he needed the familiar "air" from sitting in the Live End.

His exploration of monopole, dipole and bipole were because he had (like I do) appreciation to the various types of sound release into the room, and their strengths and weaknesses. 

The RM v60 was his attempt to make a SUPER SPEAKER that could contain "multiple" technologies.  That is, you could go from Complete Monopole to Complete Dipole by simply adjusting the foam insert.  This gave users an incredible flexibility in their implementation into their rooms.  I feel this speaker was seriously underestimated and appreciated in its breadth of capabilities.

Initially we first attempted the Live versus Recorded with the RM v60 model.

Later on, as Brian tended to do, he began to think that the bipole design would be more suited to the "live versus recorded" events and goal since its sound release was in many ways the opposite of the collection devices (mikes), or at least that was his idea.

This yeilded the RM-50.  And since it was placed well into the room and away from room boundaries, it was better than the RM v60 for that purpose.

Rives Audio, you know those folks that design some of the most exotic and technically correct listening rooms worldwide, do not believe in this LEDE concept at all.  In fact, they believe in what could be considered as anti-absorption.  Their rooms are designed to allow the higher frequencies to mostly remain, but be controlled through various reflective, diffractive and diffusive techniques.

I should mention here that most, if not all of this room design contention has to do with how the higher frequencies are to be controlled.  I believe that just about everyone believes and understands that the lower frequencies act very differently and need to be controlled differently.  Absorption is the universally accepted method of control here, as well as the proper placement of those lower frequency drivers within the room.

100%, the frequency ranges will be handled differently, according to your preferences.

I have found that the rear wave from a bipole needs to be controlled, not eliminated.  I have never understood why Brian felt he needed to damped out that rear wave to a point where the V60 became nearly a monopole.  I suppose that maybe he was more used to that monopole sound and felt his customers would be as well.

As above, the Damping Block was supposed to give one the ability to adjust (you know B and his putty, and L-Pads) the sound to you OWN preferences.  As I said, it actually achieved that goal very well.

[John Casler]

Carl, do you mean Ambiosonics? The idea of Ambiosonics is to eliminate 'crosstalk' from the speakers (where your left ear hears sounds from the right speaker and so on). In effect it tries to create the headphone experience, hence that barrier you mention.

This thread, first post, explains something about it, and my post, #4, gives sources and questions:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/the-waterloo-effect-interaural-crosstalk.323457/

By the way, I've tried the 'Waterloo Sunset' effect and it's there!

Oh Yes, I have tried this, by hanging Acoustic blankets from the ceiling so that the left ear hears mostly the left speaker, and vice versa.

You have to have the divider pretty close to your face.  It also reduces the comb filtering effects of having speakers converged slightly in front of you.

I think the effect might be better if you have a recording that was actually made for that set up.

I did hear positive improvements, but "even I" didn't warm up to it long term.

[Housteau]

This duplication of room created sound is a lesson we learned in our "live versus recorded" events.

I remember this well.  Although it happened each year it was that first year I had experienced it for the first time, and it seemed to be the worst case of all the years that followed.  It was 2009 at the Alexis Park and my first time to help out with the VMPS room at these events.  Ray Kimber donated the use of his recording gear as well as technicians to do all of that for us.  It was after this first 'live vs recorded' event when Jim Harger and I started to make those recordings ourselves for Brian in 2010, 2011 and 2012 at the Flamingo.   The room in the Alexis Park that year was less than optimum to begin with and then to have that 'double room effect' take hold, it became a real challenge to get the best sound we wanted.  The bass was also a real issue.  The VLAs were supposed to be there, but were not and stacked (largers?) were used instead.  I think that the V60 needed more high frequency extension for that large room.  One of the subs in each stack was turned around to face away from the listening position creating dipole bass, which had the best integration. 

What made that 'double room effect' so bad is that the recording and playback happened within the same exact acoustic space moments apart.  That is how it got it's name.  However, I believe that adding in the controlled acoustic signature from another room during playback has the potential to increase the realism of the music when properly done. 

Now that the purists have run screaming from this thread I guess should explain a bit more about what I mean.  Once again this is a personal preference.  There are those that consider adding in anything that may have not been in the original recording, such as perceived sounds coming from outside of the listening triangle to be unnaturally created by the room and to be of the devils work, something to be avoided as technically they are not in the recording.  I have read some speaker designers state this.  I think that most of us have experience that says otherwise and know that these sounds can be natural as well as created in the studio.  I find that adding in the proper amount of room acoustic, especially for dipoles helps to flesh this out.  Is all of this from the recording, or am I creating some of it with the room?  I don't know for certain, but what I do know is that I like it and it allows my music, both commercial and what I record to sound natural.  I will admit that I prefer a very wide soundstage as long as it is realistic.  That is one of the reasons I set up along the long wall. 

As a side note there are some speakers that do not provide such a very wide soundstage.  Some are even dipoles.  I remember that my Martin Logan CLS system could not do this, mostly limiting everything to within the outer edge of each speaker.  I had my Infinities at the same time and remember how stark those difference were between them.