Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 9310 times.

capwkidd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 201
Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« on: 21 Jun 2013, 04:21 am »
Would they work out well? Would/COULD you use (or even FIND) a sub that would match them? Thoughts?

josh358

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #1 on: 21 Jun 2013, 04:13 pm »
Would they work out well? Would/COULD you use (or even FIND) a sub that would match them? Thoughts?
I'd think they'd be wonderful, if you an live within the SPL limitations of a large electrostatic or as you suggest use a sub. I don't think you'll be able to get a sub to match but some will be better than others and is it really that important for movies? It could be disengaged for serious music listening.

I'd think that a more significant issue would be real estate -- the Sound Labs are big and have to be out from the wall, so they'd tend to block the view. Given a big enough room you could use an acoustically transparent screen in front of the speakers, and raise it when you want to do serious music listening (since AT screens aren't all that great -- do a search on the AV Forum for some interesting threads on making better ones). You'd also have to consider angles, the Sound Labs are controlled dispersion speakers with the coverage angle depending on model -- it's specified on their web site -- so you'd have to be sure that the coverage of the desired model was adequate for your desired seating plan.

Use for home theater is one of the reasons I went back to Tympanis for my own speakers, they sacrifice some electrostatic clarity but they have more slam. But that doesn't necessarily apply to the huge sound labs. If you do a search, there's a thread here started by a guy who wanted to use dual Sound Labs to achieve high SPL's and you might find some of that info of use -- not to mention that if you have some SPL figures, the company should be able to give you advice on what configurations might do the job.

BobM

Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #2 on: 21 Jun 2013, 05:38 pm »
If you really want that dynamic SLAM then I would stay away from panels alltogether. Cone speakers would give you more of that kick in the chest feeling and horns have it in spades.

josh358

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #3 on: 21 Jun 2013, 07:38 pm »
If you really want that dynamic SLAM then I would stay away from panels alltogether. Cone speakers would give you more of that kick in the chest feeling and horns have it in spades.
True, but planars are more realistic than reasonably-priced dynamics.

Years ago, I had a pair of Tympani 1-D's, and they were amazing home theater speakers. The realism really does add to the experience, in that rain sounds like rain, etc. It transports you into the film.

I was working at the time in motion picture audio and while the monitors we used in the mix rooms had abundant slam, VHS hi fi through the 1-D's blew them away and I was able to turn the level up beyond what a reasonable human would want to listen at.  They're still the best home theater speakers I have ever heard.

Also, mine is a dual-use system and audio is my highest priority.

Satie here has gotten 120 dB levels out of his modified Tympani IV's. I got a pair of IVa's and plan to modify them along the lines he did. Eventually I'll add some subs for pedal notes and dinosaur footfalls, but Tympanis aren't small speakers -- by virtue of extension and  SPL they play in the realm of medium-sized dynamics, though not as you say horns, or behemoths floor standers like the Alexandrias. It's a compromise I've loved ever since I was charmed by the inimitable clarity of electrostats, but not their dynamic limitations.

ajzepp

Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #4 on: 21 Jun 2013, 11:34 pm »
Maggies for HT is an amazing experience. I would imagine SoundLabs would be equally so.

I became addicted to watching movies on my Magnepans. As Josh pointed out, the realism is just incredible. Just cross 'em over to a sub for the LFE and you're good to go.

SteveFord

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 6427
  • The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #5 on: 21 Jun 2013, 11:43 pm »
Let's face it, we're enablers so
JUST DO IT
and report back.
If you're married, well, you can get used to being single again. 

Duke

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 1160
    • http://www.audiokinesis.com
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #6 on: 22 Jun 2013, 12:16 am »
Would they work out well?

Yup.  I have several customers using big SoundLabs in a home theater, one of whom is moving soon and engaged professional acoustician Jeff Hedback to assist in optimizing his new home theater room around them.

Would/COULD you use (or even FIND) a sub that would match them? Thoughts?

Planars do indeed have smoother in-room bass than monopole speakers, at least according to an Audio Engineering Society paper by James M. Kates on the subject.   In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a dipole is roughly twice as smooth in-room as a monpole. 

Smooth bass = fast bass.  This is because it is large peaks that make bass sound subjectively slow.   The ear/brain system is good at hearing frequency response anomalies in the bass region, but has poor resolution in the time domain at low frequencies.  This is why something like a good transmission line can sound "fast" when it is demonstrably "slow" - it is the frequency response curve that the ear is getting its cues from.   So my first point is, the goal is "smooth" bass.

What is the biggest obstacle to smooth bass?  The room!  The room will impose a peak-and-dip pattern on a subwoofer's output, which will play a much larger role in how the system sounds than minor differences from one high-quality subwoofer to another.   We can move the subwoofer and/or move the listening position and change the peak-and-dip pattern, but we cannot get rid of it.   We can equalize and get smooth the bass in one location, but now we have actually made the bass response worse in other locations.  While this might be acceptable for single-listener audio, it is not a good solution for home theater where you have multiple listening positions. 

Something not so obvious is, smooth bass = loud enough bass.   If we have an 8 dB peak from the interaction between subwoofer and room (which is not unusual), it will stick out like a sore thumb.  So we bring the overall level of the subwoofer down until we can tolerate the peak.  Let's say we can tolerate a 4 dB bass peak, relative to the normal midband SPL.   Since we started out with an 8 dB peak, now the average level in the bass region is down by 4 dB!  Now this situation seems like a prime candidate for equalization, but if we just have a single subwoofer, that 8 dB peak is most likely a local phenomenon - in other locations in the room, we may very well start out with a dip at that frequency.  So if we EQ out that peak, we're creating a huge dip elsewhere within the room. 

The solution I advocate is using multiple small subs distributed around the room, rather than a single ubersub (equalized or not).  Each sub will generate its own unique peak-and-dip pattern at any given listening position, and the sum of these multiple dissimilar peak-and-dip patterns will be much smoother than any one of them alone would be.  Two subs is twice as smooth as one, and four subs is twice as smooth as two.   And that improved smoothness (remember smooth bass = fast bass) is not limited to the sweet spot, but holds up throughout the room.   And if we do feel the need to apply some EQ, chances are it will be addressing a global problem rather than a local one, so we won't be ruining the bass elsewhere in the room.

If you do an informal survey of people who have tried subwoofers with panel speakers, this is what you will find:  People who try just one sub often get rid of it after a while, as the discrepancy between the lumpy in-room bass of a single sub and the smooth in-room bass of two dipoles is just too much.  People who try two subs, on the other hand, usually keep them in the system.  This is because the discrepancy is a lot less.  Yours truly builds a dedicated four-sub system that seems to work quite well with dipole main speakers, four subs being better than two from this perspective. 

For loudest deepest bang-for-the-buckest bass, go with a single large ubersub.   For best sound quality over the widest area and especially best blend with dipole main speakers, go with multiple subs, two is good and four is better.   Eight subs is of course better still, and you'll be some dealer's new best friend - but four is probably the practical point of diminishing returns.  And they don't have to be four identical subs.   

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.

ted_b

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6345
  • "we're all bozos on this bus" F.T.
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #7 on: 22 Jun 2013, 12:25 am »
If anyone has heard Ray Kimber's Isomike surround presentations with Soundlabs...wow.  Also, good buddy Tom Caulfield (tailspn), who won two Grammys this year for engineering (classical, Chandos) has a 5.1 room at home, of nothing but Sound Lab panels and a Sonoma workstation.  :o

Rocket_Ronny

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1403
  • Your Room Is Everything - Use It Well.
    • ScriptureSongs.com
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #8 on: 22 Jun 2013, 02:30 am »

From my take, if you are setting up a killer 2 channel rig that can double for home theater then sure go for it if you can properly set up the speakers.

If you are going for just a home theater rig then I don't see how these would be the right pick. First, you need to get these speakers away from the walls to take advantage of dipoles do so well. They are BIG and get in the way. They are not explosively dynamic like other speakers can be.

Myself, I would go for a high eff. horn based system, or something close to that sound. Explosive, dynamic, speakers that can go against a wall and be out of the way is what I would do for home theater.

But like Steve said, just go for it as we are all enablers.

Rocket_Ronny

jimdgoulding

Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #9 on: 22 Jun 2013, 02:50 am »
You have got to be shitting me.  But, ok, I guess.

Rocket_Ronny

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1403
  • Your Room Is Everything - Use It Well.
    • ScriptureSongs.com
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #10 on: 22 Jun 2013, 03:18 am »

Quote
You have got to be shitting me.  But, ok, I guess.

Nope, not at all.

I have seen SOOO many guys buy fantastic dipoles and stack them against the wall and I ask myself why bother. I think it's because they just don't know what the speakers are capable of. Now I am assuming the speakers would be right up against the wall if a home theater system only and if so I would go with speaker that can do that better. Even mini monitors with subs I would prefer. They would image better for sure.

But, if you can set up the Sound Labs properly then go for it.

Rocket_No Shit_Ronny

James Romeyn

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 3329
  • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
    • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #11 on: 22 Jun 2013, 04:49 am »
If anyone has heard Ray Kimber's Isomike surround presentations with Soundlabs...wow.  ...


+1.  Any reference to 2-ch as state of the art audio spatial effects is, well, naive or foolish.  The best cost-no-object stereo pales by comparison to Ray's never again to be displayed 4.0 DSD with proprietary Iso-Mic recordings (read about the technology), 2 floor to ceiling Roger West stats per corner x four corners + oodles of Pass class A.  $330k and worth it.

Finally got my Trinaural system pretty close to Ray's above described system except, well Ray's is still more holographic and can locate images farther into the room center.  I realize the following is unworkable.  I mention it only to describe the power of Ray's system.  I suspect Ray could locate an image in the room center if he so desired.  The reason it won't work is because human bodies are almost 100% gelatinous and absorptive (notice power demands increase with quantity of listeners in your room?) and hence the listener's body would interrupt the image placement.       
 
« Last Edit: 23 Jun 2013, 12:14 am by James Romeyn »

steve f

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 682
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #12 on: 22 Jun 2013, 06:02 am »
Effects, spatial clues etc, are primarily an efect of the recording. Unfortunately few good two miked recordings exist.  The next most important factor is the room itself.

I personally believe that the traditional box speaker has reached the end of its design potential. ESL hybrids, some planar magnetics, dynamic drivers in properly designed baffles, and yep, horns, have greater potential. We still have a long way to go.

Every processor I've ever auditioned causes listener fatigue (for me at least) in that I can't sit and listen for a half hour or more. I don't know why that happens. My "home theater" is my stereo with flanking and distributed subs, mostly to smooth room nodes. Current speakers are Linkwitz Orions.

James, could you provide a couple of links to your type of systems? Thanks.

Steve

josh358

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #13 on: 22 Jun 2013, 01:03 pm »
From my take, if you are setting up a killer 2 channel rig that can double for home theater then sure go for it if you can properly set up the speakers.

If you are going for just a home theater rig then I don't see how these would be the right pick. First, you need to get these speakers away from the walls to take advantage of dipoles do so well. They are BIG and get in the way. They are not explosively dynamic like other speakers can be.

Myself, I would go for a high eff. horn based system, or something close to that sound. Explosive, dynamic, speakers that can go against a wall and be out of the way is what I would do for home theater.

But like Steve said, just go for it as we are all enablers.

Rocket_Ronny
Dipoles work if you don't need theater-style seating, since you can move them out from the wall without blocking the screen. I've done it successfully with a 108" screen. I fear, though, that Sound Labs aren't appropriate for that approach, since they're too big and the mid/high acoustical center isn't offset as it is in Maggies.

If you have a big enough room, you can use an acoustically transparent screen. That would also allow the use of a full-height center channel.

James Romeyn

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 3329
  • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
    • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #14 on: 22 Jun 2013, 04:09 pm »
Dipoles work if you don't need theater-style seating, since you can move them out from the wall without blocking the screen. I've done it successfully with a 108" screen. I fear, though, that Sound Labs aren't appropriate for that approach, since they're too big and the mid/high acoustical center isn't offset as it is in Maggies.

If you have a big enough room, you can use an acoustically transparent screen. That would also allow the use of a full-height center channel.

Last sentence: from the perspective of ideal audio performance any HT employing flat panel technology is fail by definition.  Several things make this so: a screen located for ideal viewing height (I read about 20 hours on this subject prior to siting my perforated screen) and any, I repeat any, properly sited C channel speaker require to be in the same space at the same time.  Flat panels are almost always mounted too high to make room for speakers, ranging from moderately to stupid beyond comprehension.   

Every single speaker targeted specifically for C Ch use, including Wilson's $50k piece, exists to work around the unworkable physics defined above.  I've not tested the following theory, but I'd take at least a steak dinner bet that I could blindfolded tell with at least 90% accuracy in ABX whether or not we switched between any maker's L/R speaker and their so-called matching C Ch speaker, level matched to .1 dB.  If short boxes can replicate the performance of tall boxes, stop making tall boxes. 

Theaters have not been placing the C Ch speaker behind a perforated screen for fifty years by serendipity. 

If you want a good laugh, or to cry with disbelief, visit Wilson's page and look at user images of screen and speaker placement for HT's costing $100k.  Nobody said you gotta be smart to be rich. 

The day your reference for the best audio describes a system with speakers in the wall or flush with the wall, please post here.  Speakers require front wall clearance for ideal spatial cues.  Kimber's Iso-Mic system employed two large stats in each of four corners, but he develops images clear as day 1/3rd toward the room's center via his proprietary recording technique and the speakers in the rear corners.  (The only Achilles Heel is cost and the huge heart-shaped mic baffles require large venues and crane mechanism for placement...I've heard professionally the best 2-ch for several decades including studio work; you are sadly hugely mistaken if you think it compares favorably to Ray's work or Trinaural.)

As Kimber proves unequivocally (he gets far too little credit in print because it damps 2-ch gear sales) the best music reproduction requires more than two channels.  Pure analog Trinaural accepts any unbalanced stereo program.  Output is balanced/unbalanced in-phase or inverted 3.0 or 3.1, processing all three front channels (C Ch is not summed mono).  Besides well outperforming stereo, Trinaural's C Ch also integrates perfectly with HT, as long as that HT employs perforated screen (retractable is available, also available in small sizes by special order for close viewing distance). 

It's a black mark on the high end industry that the above is not common knowledge.       
 

josh358

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #15 on: 22 Jun 2013, 04:23 pm »
Last sentence: from the perspective of ideal audio performance any HT employing flat panel technology is fail by definition.  Several things make this so: a screen located for ideal viewing height (I read about 20 hours on this subject prior to siting my perforated screen) and any, I repeat any, properly sited C channel speaker require to be in the same space at the same time.  Flat panels are almost always mounted too high to make room for speakers, ranging from moderately to stupid beyond comprehension.   

Every single speaker targeted specifically for C Ch use, including Wilson's $50k piece, exists to work around the unworkable physics defined above.  I've not tested the following theory, but I'd take at least a steak dinner bet that I could blindfolded tell with at least 90% accuracy in ABX whether or not we switched between any maker's L/R speaker and their so-called matching C Ch speaker, level matched to .1 dB.  If short boxes can replicate the performance of tall boxes, stop making tall boxes. 

The day your reference for the best audio describes a system with speakers in the wall or flush with the wall, please post here.  Speakers require front wall clearance for ideal spatial cues.  Kimber's Iso-Mic system employed two large stats in each of four corners, but he develops images clear as day 1/3rd toward the room's center via his proprietary recording technique and the speakers in the rear corners.  (The only Achilles Heel is cost and the huge heart-shaped mic baffles require large venues and crane mechanism for placement...I've heard professionally the best 2-ch for many decades and you are sadly hugely mistaken if you think it compares favorably to Ray's work.)

As Kimber proves unequivocally (he gets far too little credit in print because it damps 2-ch gear sales) the best music reproduction requires more than two channels.  Besides improving well beyond stereo, Trinaural's C Ch also integrates perfectly with HT, as long as that HT employs a perforated screen (available in small sizes by special order for close viewing distance). 

It's a huge black mark on the entire high end industry that this is not common knowledge.       
Agree completely that speakers should be out from the wall, that center channel speakers have impaired performance (and even if they didn't would be too low for proper spatial rendition and too high to allow optimal screen positioning), and that two channel stereo is inferior -- not just spatially, but tonally as well.

It has long been a mystery to me that the high end claims to be interested in fidelity and yet ignores and even looks down on technologies that can improve it dramatically.

Of course, most home theaters aren't primarily about sound quality and not everyone has the space to allocate 5' feet behind an acoustically-transparent screen. It's also true that at least last I checked the AT screens available weren't great -- there was a long thread about this on DIY audio some years back, they actually had a batch of superior AT fabric made up.

James Romeyn

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 3329
  • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
    • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #16 on: 22 Jun 2013, 04:58 pm »
Agree completely that speakers should be out from the wall, that center channel speakers have impaired performance (and even if they didn't would be too low for proper spatial rendition and too high to allow optimal screen positioning), and that two channel stereo is inferior -- not just spatially, but tonally as well.

It has long been a mystery to me that the high end claims to be interested in fidelity and yet ignores and even looks down on technologies that can improve it dramatically.

Of course, most home theaters aren't primarily about sound quality and not everyone has the space to allocate 5' feet behind an acoustically-transparent screen. It's also true that at least last I checked the AT screens available weren't great -- there was a long thread about this on DIY audio some years back, they actually had a batch of superior AT fabric made up.

Thanks, Josh. 

Last paragraph/first sentence.  Gary Summers used to live near me and we socialized a bit (last I counted six Oscars for Re-Recording Engineer).  I had the great pleasure of touring Skywalker Sound with the head engineer, located on Lucas Valley Road (no relation to George) in Marin County, half way between US 101 and Nicasio Reservoir.  (On a side note, only two motorcyclists ever beat me on Lucas Valley Road in my prime both riders on bikes that weighed 120 lbs less and made twice the power. 

After living with this system for some years, I suspect the world's best orchestra musicians, conductors, and composers make HT sound tracks, not straight music recordings.  These orchestras record at Abby Road, Air Studios in London, and other studios having the most incredible acoustics on earth, with stage dimensions of epic proportions.

With all due respect, I posit for most readers there is clear circular reasoning behind your first sentence in your last paragraph.  People settle for inferior sound for HT because they never heard it reproduced better. 

Once you hear HT reproduced right (system performance better than most all all 2-ch systems) you could and would not accept what passes for high end HT audio.  Orchestra stages on HT sound tracks are simply huge, imaging is quite good, and there is incredibly natural detail and nuance.  Certain HT sound tracks bury any 2-ch playback of any cost.  And that's with plain old funky DD and DTS, not TrueHD and not DTS-Master HD Audio (I wonder how much better if at all are the latest HT formats).     
« Last Edit: 23 Jun 2013, 12:01 am by James Romeyn »

James Romeyn

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 3329
  • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
    • James Romeyn Music and Audio, LLC
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #17 on: 22 Jun 2013, 05:26 pm »
Effects, spatial clues etc, are primarily an efect of the recording. Unfortunately few good two miked recordings exist.  The next most important factor is the room itself.

I personally believe that the traditional box speaker has reached the end of its design potential. ESL hybrids, some planar magnetics, dynamic drivers in properly designed baffles, and yep, horns, have greater potential. We still have a long way to go.

Every processor I've ever auditioned causes listener fatigue (for me at least) in that I can't sit and listen for a half hour or more. I don't know why that happens. My "home theater" is my stereo with flanking and distributed subs, mostly to smooth room nodes. Current speakers are Linkwitz Orions.

James, could you provide a couple of links to your type of systems? Thanks.

Steve

Sure, here ya go (sorry, Frank Vignola music playlist is temporarily down):
http://jamesromeyn.com/home-audio-gear/our-premium-performance-dual-use-htmusic-system/

I hear what you're saying about "processor" fatigue.  Anyone who's done this for a long time has heard a system or two that quickly makes you yawn and think about other things to do. 

Trinaural designer is the late James Bongiorno, inventor of the full-complementary dual-differential amplifier circuit now the high end audio standard.  James is not generally known for designing fatigue inducing circuits.  I listen for up to eight hours per day to Trinaural without listening fatigue.  All Trinaural faults involve user-interface.  Performance wise it's noise free and as transparent as anything I've heard.  Mine was second hand when I bought it 07; one failure, an op-amp, which Wyred4Sound principal/boy genius "EJ" turned around quickly for about $100, more than reasonable in my book.  W4S is Spread Spectrum Technologies distributor.  Trinaural released early 00s for $1500, then $2k, now $2500 msrp.  Thanks, Ben Bernanke.       

josh358

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1221
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #18 on: 24 Jun 2013, 01:36 am »
With all due respect, I posit for most readers there is clear circular reasoning behind your first sentence in your last paragraph.  People settle for inferior sound for HT because they never heard it reproduced better. 

Once you hear HT reproduced right (system performance better than most all all 2-ch systems) you could and would not accept what passes for high end HT audio.  Orchestra stages on HT sound tracks are simply huge, imaging is quite good, and there is incredibly natural detail and nuance.  Certain HT sound tracks bury any 2-ch playback of any cost.  And that's with plain old funky DD and DTS, not TrueHD and not DTS-Master HD Audio (I wonder how much better if at all are the latest HT formats).     
That could well be. Or both could be true. I've known more than a few people to have been bowled over by superb sound, without necessarily wanting to go to the trouble themselves. On the other hand, I'm sure ignorance plays a role as well.

Unfortunately, multichannel in general is another area in which the public -- including most audiophiles -- has proved resistant to quality. Although I understand that there are practical issues involved -- not everyone can accommodate the extra speakers and expense.

capwkidd

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 201
Re: Sound Lab's In A Home Theater?!
« Reply #19 on: 24 Jun 2013, 02:18 am »
James..... Where does one get a Trinaural processor from theses days?

Interesting setup you have at home... Isn't there frequency response issues with the floor mounted, ceiling facing speakers?