[Letitroll98]

Letitroll,
I just dragged out the tape measure and from the wall they are at 59 and a smidge, I was measuring from open vertical blinds.

Wherever you got your calculations from sounds right to me.

Letitroll,

Where did you get the measurement information from?  Could use some help in optimizing the sound stage by placing the speakers correctly.

To OP apology for threadjack.

I am the God Wizard of dipole placement and all of my pronouncement must be obeyed.

Or I got them from the Cardas speaker placement calculator.  You pick which answer you like better, I'm partial to #1.
http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php

I've tried for a few years now to prove this wrong, and it keeps working perfectly.  It shouldn't be this easy, but it is.  A couple of caveats, the calculations don't seem to work as well for long wall placement as for short wall.  And I use the tweeter ribbon distance for side wall placement, not the middle of the panel as detailed on the Cardas site.  I cheat by an inch or so to adjust by ear.  The calculations are different for monopoles, but that should be clear by reading the page.   

"I ended up with them 55" out from the front wall which is the magic spot here."

Steve, I was going to ask if you had tried them at 60" but your updated measurement answered that.

As I posted previously, and josh has mentioned several times, 5' is an optimal minimum distance from the front wall for dipole speakers.  I assume that applies to SMGs, 20.7, and everything in between.  When lesser distances are utilized then diffraction at the reflection point can be a substitute.

Yes, as noted above if your ceilings are 8', that distance changes for the few of us with 9', 10' or cathedral ceilings.  And it's not the optimal minimum distance, it the optimal distance.  There are benefits at other distances, mostly further out, some closer in, but only here do I eliminate all detrimental reflections and nodes.  The clarity just locks in, and not subtly.  Of course this is my experience and my opinion, I welcome other views as well.  All I've learned about speaker placement is from others, all of my own ideas are failures, go figure.   

No, I did not have that issue, I did get a hole in the middle where the early reflections from the equipment rack were an issue (also for the Rooze arrangement) and that was solved with a pair of absorptive "walls" (chenile and velveteen throws on styroboard) jutting a couple of feet in front of the rack that prevent the back output of the speakers from reaching the rack.

The thing I need to do to get this working is move the entire setup to the short wall  - but that means moving all the furniture amps and excess turntables - which is not going to happen with my smashed back. But I might be able to finagle it into working right on the wide wall with a split arrangement of the bass panels from the mid/tweet - more experimentation to come when circumstances allow.

I am going to throw a WAG that you had that U shaped soundstage because of a similar object in the middle jutting forward - rack or TV or screen.

I had the hole in the middle with Rooze and solved it by adjusting the speaker placement,  Very seductive, I could easily go back.  Not a problem with the HK.

I did the same thing changing from long wall to short wall, what a pita.

I do have a rack in the center, quite a bit out from the rear wall.  I will consider your solution seriously, however I would note it's a very open shelf rack, no wood sides or backs, so I assumed it would act more as dispersion, but I could be wrong there.

A TV in the stereo room?  Perish the thought!

[Elizabeth]

My room is about 12 ft wide by 28 ft long. I actually sit midway in the room.
The Magnepan 3.6s are about 40 inches to 48 inches from the wall behind them. They are close to the side walls tweeters 'in' and an extra 'wing' (wood board 5" wide) on the outsides (woofer side) The actual speaker near wall edge is about 24" from side walls. 60" between speakers.
Back corners have bookshelves floor to ceiling, and opened drapes with a huge picture window in between (open, nothing but glass)
Between the speakers I have the amp, hidden by a very low leather open design recliner (I keep it tilted so it is very low.)
I like the wider spacing. And the near side wall is fine too.
My side panel additions boost the bass a bit, as my setup is a little bass shy due to  the power conditioners.. etc.

My own decision where to start placement was using various 1/3 1/5 1/7  2/7 1/9 calculations, and then avoiding ones which were too close to even 1/8 1/6 etc sorts..
After the calculations, I stuck them in room. then started angling them, straight on etc, until I was happy. Finally i separated them more and reversed them so tweeter inside.But I reversed them so the tweeter was IN THE SAME PLACE before and after. So the woofer side got much closer to the walls. Then tried various 3" 4" 5" 6" wide additions to the woofer side. settled on 5"

[satie]

I had the hole in the middle with Rooze and solved it by adjusting the speaker placement,  Very seductive, I could easily go back.  Not a problem with the HK.

I did the same thing changing from long wall to short wall, what a pita.

I do have a rack in the center, quite a bit out from the rear wall.  I will consider your solution seriously, however I would note it's a very open shelf rack, no wood sides or backs, so I assumed it would act more as dispersion, but I could be wrong there.

My sources and some amps sit on two racks about 5ft tall both racks are open - they jut out 3 ft from the wall and the equipment in it produces a surface of faceplates all roughly aligned in one plane. Definitely does not act as dispersion.

With the rooze arrangement some recordings get weird image placement, like the Julliard/Firkunsi Dvorak on CBS where the string instruments are panned too hard and sound like they are too far apart, nearly as if they were playing inside the opposing sidewalls. I have not found a solution for these. The HK setup does not do this.

[Letitroll98]

My sources and some amps sit on two racks about 5ft tall both racks are open - they jut out 3 ft from the wall and the equipment in it produces a surface of faceplates all roughly aligned in one plane. Definitely does not act as dispersion.

Good point.  My components are so eclectic that there is definitely not a one plane presentation.  However while I was typing my last post I was thinking it's not anywhere close to a root 7 dispersion panel either.  I haven't dismissed you solution, just so many other things on tap around here it may be a few weeks. 

With the rooze arrangement some recordings get weird image placement, like the Julliard/Firkunsi Dvorak on CBS where the string instruments are panned too hard and sound like they are too far apart, nearly as if they were playing inside the opposing sidewalls. I have not found a solution for these. The HK setup does not do this.

I thought the main idea behind these placements was to "melt the walls" and have image placements well beyond the confines of the room.  I do understand if you mean un-naturally spread to the point where it sounds distorted in placement.  For myself, in orchestral terms, if I don't hear the bass and percussion 40' behind the front wall and the violins and brass 20' on either side of the speakers, there's something wrong in the system.   

[medium jim]

I agree, the best test of the soundstage is with full on orchestral music where instrument placement is critical.

Jim

[satie]

I thought the main idea behind these placements was to "melt the walls" and have image placements well beyond the confines of the room.  I do understand if you mean un-naturally spread to the point where it sounds distorted in placement.  For myself, in orchestral terms, if I don't hear the bass and percussion 40' behind the front wall and the violins and brass 20' on either side of the speakers, there's something wrong in the system.

The Rooze arrangement does definitely "melt the walls" but a piano quartet has a definite size and the folks should not end up sounding like they are 25-30 ft apart.
The Rooze arrangement is tricky for my setup because the TIV bass panels - which produce 4' wavelengths and above (300hz LR4 LP filter) are not radiating in the same manner as the mid/tweeter so that the bulk of the output does not come from reflections but from direct radiation. To confirm this, I put 1' wide wings in front of the edge of the mid/tweet panel (which faces the listener in the Rooze arrangement) and indeed there was a substantial reduction of miidbass energy.
Thinking that it may be an advantage I turned the bass panels to face front to the listener and bounced the mid/tweet off the wall as per Rooze. I adjusted the distances so that the wall bounce and the direct radiation from the bass panels are in phase ( about 13' away and the mid/tweet about 9 ft away) and it sounds nearly the same as it does with the bass panels in the edge-on arrangement. That leaves trying the mid/tweet facing the wall and the bass panels acting as a front wing for the mid/tweet's backwave. To obtain time alignment the centerline bounce pathway should be 2' longer than the direct bass radiation at the XO. Have not set that one up yet.

Wanted to add that In my "normal" setup I don't get 20' either side of the speakers (they are each a little over 4' wide), I get about 15-17ft either side of the tweeters when those are about 8.5' apart (inside arrangement).

[Letitroll98]

Yeah, we're on the same page here, I thought you might mean unnatural imaging.  I agree with it as well, on some recordings I would notice the same thing.  And the 40' and 20' was a little facetious, I don't know how you put a tape measure on virtual images, kinda like measuring rainbows.  More accurate would be a good bit beyond the side and rear walls.  Lastly I'd note that I'm back to ultra conventional placement, very close to Cardas placement guide locations, so it's kinda academic for me until I get the placement crazies again.

[guest61169]

I don't have total faith in Cardas formula.  Even here:
http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php
...it's like they don't even know the difference between front wall and rear wall.   (or their definition is different)

Maybe I'm just missing something.  I just can't understand how distance from front wall could be independent of room length and width.  Room nodes are related to length and width too, not just ceiling.  Using his formula, dipoles are optimally placed (with 8' ceiling) 5 feet from the front wall...whether the room is 8 feet long or 80 feet long.  Interesting, but I think I'll just stick to trial and error and patience.

In my room the (approximate) best place for dipoles is the same as the (approximate) best place for box speakers.

[medium jim]

I don't have total faith in Cardas formula.  Even here:
http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_calculators.php
...it's like they don't even know the difference between front wall and rear wall.   (or their definition is different)

Maybe I'm just missing something.  I just can't understand how distance from front wall could be independent of room length and width.  Room nodes are related to length and width too, not just ceiling.  Using his formula, dipoles are optimally placed (with 8' ceiling) 5 feet from the front wall...whether the room is 8 feet long or 80 feet long.  Interesting, but I think I'll just stick to trial and error and patience.

In my room the (approximate) best place for dipoles is the same as the (approximate) best place for box speakers.

I agree with noway on this one.  If it were so darn easy, why hasn't Magnepan figured it out and laid out the floor plan for us on their site or in the manuals!

Jim

[Letitroll98]

Hey, I'm with ya.  I said I keep trying to prove it wrong, it seems way, way too simple to me as well.  But until you actually try it, blind speculation is just that, a guess and not credible.  I'm totally fine with anyone who says it didn't work for them, a couple people have already said this in other threads and other forums.  And I love investigating other methods, if I didn't make that clear, and I cheat on Cardas numbers by adjusting an inch or so for ear.  But I suggest you try it before pronouncing it a dud.  It's free and fun to play with speaker placement.     

[satie]

Yeah, we're on the same page here, I thought you might mean unnatural imaging.  I agree with it as well, on some recordings I would notice the same thing.  And the 40' and 20' was a little facetious, I don't know how you put a tape measure on virtual images, kinda like measuring rainbows.  More accurate would be a good bit beyond the side and rear walls.  Lastly I'd note that I'm back to ultra conventional placement, very close to Cardas placement guide locations, so it's kinda academic for me until I get the placement crazies again.

Actually, I like to do image maps where I use drawings of the room and put on them the apparent locations of images. The landmarks in your room help to map it out and it tells you something about the realistic (or not) soundstage matching up with a real one. With the Rooze so much of your soundstage is outside the room boundaries it is somewhat pointless to do it since there are no landmarks. The HK arrangement seems to work images into a more realistic soundstage that has more depth and comes further into the room rather than being spread out width wise disproportionally as with Rooze's arrangement.

The big band recordings are amazing on the HK arrangement as they are generally lined up in the back of the stage 2 or 3 deep. So the limitation of my room does not enter into it. Then you have say the trombones and trumpets spread out on the right like a real brass section with person sized gaps between the images in both depth and width dimensions. The brass are panned to stand at about the right speaker spreading just behind to 4ft in front of them and to both sides. They don't taper off into the distance out of the room as some recordings do in the Rooze setup.

[SteveFord]

Once you get them placed wherever it is that you want them take a level to them.
My living room floor is tilted back and sideways a bit so I ended up putting some soft pads underneath the stands to get the ribbons going straight at my head instead of up to the ceiling.
Much more betterer.

[medium jim]

Steve:

I was actually thinking about tilting mine forward slightly.

Jim

[SteveFord]

A lot of people do, give it a shot.

[medium jim]

A lot of people do, give it a shot.

In a smallish room, yes....I'm even thinking about moving the ribbons back to the outside just to see...

Jim

[medium jim]

Last night I used 4 decks of playing card to angle my Maggies slightly forward and will give them a listen later today.  I left the ribbons on the inside for now and if I like what I hear will leave them alone.

My hopes are too center the soundstage a bit more, which would also increase the size of it.  If it works, I will add a sand bag to each for stability.  Although, it is rather stable as they are.

Jim

I had my listening session and all I can say is yes!  The soundstage not only leveled a bit lower, but got more intense (wider/deeper) and more intimate.  I'm back in a very nice place again.   Just to be clear, it is only a few degrees of lean forward, but it made a world of difference.  I guess I need to get a couple of sand bags

[andyr]

The depth comes from a couple of sources. 

The first is how far apart you have them and the amount of toe in....the wider you can get them and still have the middle imaging the better.

The second is your relative head/ear height with optimum where your ears are slightly above mid-panel. 

Wait, there is a third factor, Tubes....Tube amplification/preamplification will create a huge (wide/deep) and holographic soundstage. 

Jim

And a fourth factor ... I found in my last room (27' x 17' rectangle) that when I put some dispersion just in front of the front wall, to break up the direct reflections from the ribbons to my ears (ribbons were on the inside, there), the sound stage got dramatically deeper.  I made up some DIY "Room Tunes" using Jon Risch's instructions and it was very easy to test - with the RTs in place ... significant depth; lay the RTs down on the floor ... soundtsage flattened.


Regards,

Andy

[medium jim]

Andy:

I'm using diffusion in the middle of the front wall and some absorption behind the panels (front walls) to basically do the same thing...it makes my 16x15 room sound larger.

Note:  Andy's Frankenpans would sound huge no matter the room size!

Jim

[andyr]

Note:  Andy's Frankenpans would sound huge no matter the room size!

Jim

Thank you, Jim. 

Unfortunately, the future room (in the new house we are building) has to be much smaller - just over 19' by a fraction under 12'.  So Frankenpans will be arranged on the long wall, with ribbons out.

Given your above experience, I will also experiment with a slight degree of tilt for my mid/ribbon frames. 

Regards,

Andy

[medium jim]

Andy:

I was blown away by the difference, Steve Ford surmised that in my case, the music was going over my head and could see where that might be the case for a lot of other Maggie owners.

Jim