EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2612 times.

dallaire1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 245
EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« on: 28 Sep 2021, 11:19 am »
Wondering what distance you guys have decided on as far as distance between speakers in relation to distance to main listening position ? I have played with this for literally hours and hours. I have come to find for me at least a spot on equilateral triangle with toe in 6 inches outside either shoulder is where everything comes alive with seamless enveloping  soundstage. I have used my laser pointer to achieve this, would be so much harder with a tape measure.

doggie

Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #1 on: 28 Sep 2021, 11:29 am »
I had the exact same results for my X5's and used a laser "tape measure" also.

Now the speakers just seem to be coincidentally sitting in the same room with the musicians :)

dallaire1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 245
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #2 on: 28 Sep 2021, 11:51 am »
It's a crazy good sound when the speakers disappear. Pure bliss.

Tangram

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #3 on: 29 Sep 2021, 03:37 pm »
Well you've done the hard work which is what is needed to get the most out of these speaks. I am not too far off of where you ended up. 82" from the tweeters and 75" between speakers. Toe-in is identical - 6 inches outside my shoulders.

This is so room-dependent but I consistently see comments about similar toe-in. Funny, given that this is a high dispersion tweeter which should be quite forgiving.

I would add that IF POSSIBLE, include a re-evaluation of where your listening spot is, since it is an integral part of the speaker placement equation. In particular, 6" forward or back can be the difference between, say, being in a bass node or not.

Finally, and I think you are in this camp, there isn't much point in fine tuning the speaker position unless the speakers are broken in. Rough placement is fine, but the "move in one inch increments" tuning is best saved for after break in.

abomwell

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 366
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #4 on: 29 Sep 2021, 05:31 pm »
Wondering what distance you guys have decided on as far as distance between speakers in relation to distance to main listening position ? I have played with this for literally hours and hours. I have come to find for me at least a spot on equilateral triangle with toe in 6 inches outside either shoulder is where everything comes alive with seamless enveloping  soundstage. I have used my laser pointer to achieve this, would be so much harder with a tape measure.

Here is a very interesting FAQ response to ideal dipole setup from the Linkwitz website:


Q31 - Is there an optimum room placement for a dipole?

A31 - Yes, there is, from a sound reflection and also from a standing wave point of view. Both are a consequence of the figure-of-eight or cos(angle) free-space polar response of a dipole with its opposite phase front and rear radiation and very low output at 90 degrees off-axis.
Assume the dipole speaker is placed at the same distance from the front wall as the listener has to the wall behind him. The negative polarity sound from the dipole's backside is reflected off the wall behind it towards the listener. The sound from the front side of the dipole travels directly to the listener and also to the wall behind him where it is reflected back towards him. The rear wall reflection reaches the listener at the same time as the reflection off the wall behind the speaker. The two reflected sounds have traveled the same total distance for this particular speaker and listener  setup. The two reflections cancel each other, because they are of opposite polarity. (Jorma Salmi, "Dipole source placement in a room", 92nd AES Convention, 1992, Preprint 3327)
A diagram helps to clarify the case. It shows the plan view of a rectangular room with dipole D and listener L. The four hard room boundaries can be removed and replaced by four image sources D1 through D4. The special setup, where a = b, does not help with reflections 3 and 4 off the side walls. Moving the speaker away from the side wall reduces the strength of the reflection, because the radiation goes to an angle where the dipole output is attenuated relative to the on-axis level. In practice it may be difficult to move the speakers far enough into the room to satisfy a = b, but keeping them at least 1 m (3 ft) from the rear wall is recommended.
Occasionally a cardioid free-space radiation pattern is suggested for a speaker, because it would radiate, like a dipole, 4.8 dB less power than a monopole for the same on-axis SPL. Unlike a dipole, the cardioid radiates weakly towards the rear. Thus, there is little reflection off the wall behind it. But, there is no cancellation when a = b. In addition there will be stronger reflections off side walls, floor and ceiling.
    It is important to understand that the discussion up to this point has only dealt with the first reflection off a single room boundary. The next order of reflections involves both front and rear walls and the image model would have to be expanded with additional sources. Successive reflections always occur and they lead to the gradual build up of stored energy in the form of room resonances or modes. Thus the cardioid speaker, even though it does not radiate towards the rear, excites a strong longitudinal mode between front and rear walls, similar to the dipole. The dipole, though, excites side-to-side and floor-to-ceiling modes only weakly, because they propagate along the null-axis of its radiation pattern. Furthermore, by angling the dipole its coupling to specific modes can be changed, whereas cardioid rotation has considerably less effect.
The cardioid radiation pattern is the sum of a dipole and a monopole and its in-room behavior lies between the two constituent types of sources. It has the reduced total power output of the dipole into the reverberant field above the Schroeder frequency. It lacks in adjustability of coupling in the discrete mode frequency range where it behaves more similar to the monopole. The low frequency response rolls off at 6 dB/oct like for a dipole and has to be equalized. Unlike monopole and dipole the cardioid produces no first order reflection from the wall behind it.
    The dipole has minimum room mode excitation when it is placed near a pressure maximum (= velocity minimum) of a mode and when its axis of radiation is not aligned with the direction in which the mode travels. Pressure maxima are at the room boundaries and room corners. A dipole woofer should be placed near the side walls, provided the distance from woofer to listener is nearly the same as that from the midrange. Again, most likely practical limitations will have to guide best dipole speaker placement for room modes as well as for first reflections off room boundaries.
Top

 

consttraveler

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 158
  • I think I won!
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #5 on: 29 Sep 2021, 05:39 pm »
Huh?  All of the above is subject to WAF in my house.

abomwell

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 366
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #6 on: 29 Sep 2021, 05:49 pm »
Probably the main takeaway I get from this is, if it can be arranged, sit away from the rear wall as far as the speakers are from the front wall. It should be interesting to hear.

Tangram

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #7 on: 29 Sep 2021, 05:55 pm »
Here is a very interesting FAQ response to ideal dipole setup from the Linkwitz website:


Q31 - Is there an optimum room placement for a dipole?

A31 - Yes, there is, from a sound reflection and also from a standing wave point of view. Both are a consequence of the figure-of-eight or cos(angle) free-space polar response of a dipole with its opposite phase front and rear radiation and very low output at 90 degrees off-axis.
Assume the dipole speaker is placed at the same distance from the front wall as the listener has to the wall behind him. The negative polarity sound from the dipole's backside is reflected off the wall behind it towards the listener. The sound from the front side of the dipole travels directly to the listener and also to the wall behind him where it is reflected back towards him. The rear wall reflection reaches the listener at the same time as the reflection off the wall behind the speaker. The two reflected sounds have traveled the same total distance for this particular speaker and listener  setup. The two reflections cancel each other, because they are of opposite polarity. (Jorma Salmi, "Dipole source placement in a room", 92nd AES Convention, 1992, Preprint 3327)
A diagram helps to clarify the case. It shows the plan view of a rectangular room with dipole D and listener L. The four hard room boundaries can be removed and replaced by four image sources D1 through D4. The special setup, where a = b, does not help with reflections 3 and 4 off the side walls. Moving the speaker away from the side wall reduces the strength of the reflection, because the radiation goes to an angle where the dipole output is attenuated relative to the on-axis level. In practice it may be difficult to move the speakers far enough into the room to satisfy a = b, but keeping them at least 1 m (3 ft) from the rear wall is recommended.
Occasionally a cardioid free-space radiation pattern is suggested for a speaker, because it would radiate, like a dipole, 4.8 dB less power than a monopole for the same on-axis SPL. Unlike a dipole, the cardioid radiates weakly towards the rear. Thus, there is little reflection off the wall behind it. But, there is no cancellation when a = b. In addition there will be stronger reflections off side walls, floor and ceiling.
    It is important to understand that the discussion up to this point has only dealt with the first reflection off a single room boundary. The next order of reflections involves both front and rear walls and the image model would have to be expanded with additional sources. Successive reflections always occur and they lead to the gradual build up of stored energy in the form of room resonances or modes. Thus the cardioid speaker, even though it does not radiate towards the rear, excites a strong longitudinal mode between front and rear walls, similar to the dipole. The dipole, though, excites side-to-side and floor-to-ceiling modes only weakly, because they propagate along the null-axis of its radiation pattern. Furthermore, by angling the dipole its coupling to specific modes can be changed, whereas cardioid rotation has considerably less effect.
The cardioid radiation pattern is the sum of a dipole and a monopole and its in-room behavior lies between the two constituent types of sources. It has the reduced total power output of the dipole into the reverberant field above the Schroeder frequency. It lacks in adjustability of coupling in the discrete mode frequency range where it behaves more similar to the monopole. The low frequency response rolls off at 6 dB/oct like for a dipole and has to be equalized. Unlike monopole and dipole the cardioid produces no first order reflection from the wall behind it.
    The dipole has minimum room mode excitation when it is placed near a pressure maximum (= velocity minimum) of a mode and when its axis of radiation is not aligned with the direction in which the mode travels. Pressure maxima are at the room boundaries and room corners. A dipole woofer should be placed near the side walls, provided the distance from woofer to listener is nearly the same as that from the midrange. Again, most likely practical limitations will have to guide best dipole speaker placement for room modes as well as for first reflections off room boundaries.
Top

I've been told the exact same advice by a retired sound engineer. Unfortunately, for the vast number of audiophiles, it isn't physically possible to follow this advice without putting the speakers where the coffee table should be! In my case, I have a dedicated listening room but to keep things symmetrical I've needed to put the speakers on the long wall of my rectangular room. If there is one cardinal room rule, it's "Keep the speakers symmetrical from yourself and from room boundaries". Otherwise, the center image (often vocals) shift off to one side and once you hear that you can't "unhear" it.

abomwell

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 366
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #8 on: 29 Sep 2021, 06:10 pm »
My room is almost 15' square (which is a less than ideal). When I get my X5's (hopefully soon) I can initially try placing them 4' from the front wall and my chair 4' from the rear wall. That will allow an 8' equilateral triangle and also satisfy the suggested Linkwitz placement.

Early B.

Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #9 on: 29 Sep 2021, 08:10 pm »
Once you've got your speakers dialed in, it's also good to be able to move your sitting position because the sweet spot can shift slightly depending on the recording. I bought a "critical listening" chair with casters for this reason.

dallaire1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 245
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #10 on: 29 Sep 2021, 08:28 pm »
Great posting of the Linkwitz findings. I have not read that one  :scratch: I thought I have read most all of his stuff on his site at one time or another. I almost, about ten years ago purchased his LX521. Kind of glad I didn't cause the M3's for me are game over for speakers ! I have placed the couch in my sunken living room 6 inches forward and thinks it helps a little more with "the center of the head effect" when seated dead center, only problem is, the wife said "honey, what is the couch doing in the middle of the room"?? so its back where it was. :duh: I also have an asymmetrical rectangular room. I have my setup with the M3's on the long front wall, with 8ft. couch 5ft. out into room from back wall. I've placed a reasonably large 8x4 3inch thick panel setup behind the couch. I used the laser tape butted flat against the front baffle to show where the direct sound hits the wall behind me. I works quite well for now.

This stuff is so intriguing to me, I could forego sleep just to play with the sound and setup, however I think I will stick with this setup. Now just focus on more definitive room acoustic measurements and treatment, there's always another level to reach it seems in audio ! 

Jack the cat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1120
  • At the gates of delirium
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #11 on: 29 Sep 2021, 08:36 pm »
This is a start -

http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_main.php then the fun begins....

Desertpilot

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 530
  • Retired
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #12 on: 30 Sep 2021, 03:16 pm »
I can't meet any of the "standard" speaker position recommendations.  I've already stretched my wife's approval factor to the max.  But, my X3s seem to give me excellent sound reproduction.

Edge of left speaker is 20 inches from left sidewall.  Clayton recommends 18 inches minimum for side cancellation.  Good enough?
No right side wall.
Speakers are 5 feet from front wall.  This is good.
Speakers are 9 feet apart and 11 feet to MLP.  No possibility to meet equilateral triangle.
Ceiling is vaulted 11 feet to 14 feet.
Toe-in is modest 15 degrees.
Rear wall is 30 feet away.

I've tried literally every possible position change (much to my wife's amusement).  Current placement yields the best sound.  I must say that, in my experience, these speakers are very forgiving and sound great no matter how I position them.  Changes yield subtle improvement.  As an aside, I read a post somewhere that a listener whished he could put his speakers on a device that would reposition them depending on the type of music.  I find this to be true.  Solo piano music seems to sound best with no toe-in while full orchestra sounds better with a good amount of toe-in.  Bottom line, you can't win.  You compromise to get the best overall sound possible in your room.

Marcus

Tangram

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 177
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #13 on: 30 Sep 2021, 04:47 pm »
I can't meet any of the "standard" speaker position recommendations.  I've already stretched my wife's approval factor to the max.  But, my X3s seem to give me excellent sound reproduction.

Edge of left speaker is 20 inches from left sidewall.  Clayton recommends 18 inches minimum for side cancellation.  Good enough?
No right side wall.
Speakers are 5 feet from front wall.  This is good.
Speakers are 9 feet apart and 11 feet to MLP.  No possibility to meet equilateral triangle.
Ceiling is vaulted 11 feet to 14 feet.
Toe-in is modest 15 degrees.
Rear wall is 30 feet away.

I've tried literally every possible position change (much to my wife's amusement).  Current placement yields the best sound.  I must say that, in my experience, these speakers are very forgiving and sound great no matter how I position them.  Changes yield subtle improvement.  As an aside, I read a post somewhere that a listener whished he could put his speakers on a device that would reposition them depending on the type of music.  I find this to be true.  Solo piano music seems to sound best with no toe-in while full orchestra sounds better with a good amount of toe-in.  Bottom line, you can't win.  You compromise to get the best overall sound possible in your room.

Marcus

I decided to play around with "extreme toe-in" last night. All the way from no toe-in to tweeters crossing in front of my nose. Honestly, the differences in sound were not nearly as extreme as I expected. I was trying to tame the top end and on bright recordings, it was equally overly energetic regardless of toe-in. Count me as surprised.

abomwell

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 366
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #14 on: 30 Sep 2021, 05:04 pm »
Marcus, if you have parametric EQ available you might want to try a 4 dB dip centered at 3kHz extending down to 1 kHz. That works for me with bright orchestral recordings.

Desertpilot

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 530
  • Retired
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #15 on: 30 Sep 2021, 07:33 pm »
I decided to play around with "extreme toe-in" last night. All the way from no toe-in to tweeters crossing in front of my nose. Honestly, the differences in sound were not nearly as extreme as I expected. I was trying to tame the top end and on bright recordings, it was equally overly energetic regardless of toe-in. Count me as surprised.

My system does double duty for home theater.  Extreme toe-in helps with imaging across my three recliners.  My wife benefits from this placement.  She doesn't care about music so I move them back to modest toe-in which is the best position for me at the MLP.  Happy wife = happy life.

Marcus

Desertpilot

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 530
  • Retired
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #16 on: 30 Sep 2021, 07:35 pm »
Marcus, if you have parametric EQ available you might want to try a 4 dB dip centered at 3kHz extending down to 1 kHz. That works for me with bright orchestral recordings.

Thanks Al.  I do plan on DSP.  But, brightness has really calmed down with modest toe-in and more than 300 hours of burn-in.

Marcus

dallaire1

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 245
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #17 on: 30 Sep 2021, 07:55 pm »
 Tangram,  I know I'm going to get stones thrown at me for this statement. :duh: I have Dirac-Live 3 on my integrated amp. I have spent endless hours playing around with Dirac. There was a time I when I thought it simply took to much energy and low end out of the system. I to have experienced the top end binging a tad hot with the M100 and it is probably my mainly untreated room. But I have found using Dirac full range in addition to post processing touch up to bring the lows back up to sound balanced. I must say, I find myself listening with it engaged more often than not. it simply gives it a really well balanced sound with no bass overhang. I know 99.9% of audiophiles wouldn't entertain the thought. Alright, let the stoning begin  :?

abomwell

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 366
Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #18 on: 30 Sep 2021, 08:03 pm »
No stoning here. I use DSP 100% of the time for lower frequencies below around 300Hz or so. My room correction is via DSPeaker Anti-mode X4 and works beautifully. I can either tilt the treble down via a tilt control, or add a psycho-acoustical dip to make over-bright recordings sound more natural. I love the control DSP offers and wouldn't consider living without it.

Chewbacca

Re: EQUALLATERAL TRIANGLE ? OR NOT ?
« Reply #19 on: 30 Sep 2021, 08:16 pm »
Tangram,  I know I'm going to get stones thrown at me for this statement. :duh: I have Dirac-Live 3 on my integrated amp. I have spent endless hours playing around with Dirac. There was a time I when I thought it simply took to much energy and low end out of the system. I to have experienced the top end binging a tad hot with the M100 and it is probably my mainly untreated room. But I have found using Dirac full range in addition to post processing touch up to bring the lows back up to sound balanced. I must say, I find myself listening with it engaged more often than not. it simply gives it a really well balanced sound with no bass overhang. I know 99.9% of audiophiles wouldn't entertain the thought. Alright, let the stoning begin  :?

:guns::?:whip:
       :stupid:


KIDDING! I've never used it, or even looked into it lol. Just felt like throwing a stone :icon_lol: If it works for you and makes you enjoy the music more, who the heck can tell you to do otherwise?? :thumb:

Also - I've always held true to the equilateral triangle, if not the listening position SLIGHTLY further back... talking inches. I've felt if you get too close you loose your center image, too far away you loose your width.