[stvnharr]

For example, you mention that in an MS setup the vocalist does not move left/right as the listener does.  The key difference is that, at the live performance, the vocalist is a single point source and does not move as the listener does,
but in a hifi setup the vocalist's position is created by the varying amplitudes of 2 speakers (ie. stereo).

Darren,
Thanks for your long and considered post. 
For the most part we are talking 2 different languages here.  I have kept the above quote as it sums everything up quite well.

With Master Set we are creating a single sound source into the room from the two speakers with the procedures that I have described in my various writings and postings.  Creating a single sound source is what Master Set is all about.  This can only be done when the 2 speakers are in the decoupled zone, decoupled from the wall behind the speaker and the room, and each speaker providing exactly equal sound pressure into the room.

When the two speakers sit outside this decoupled zone, you will ALWAYS get the two speakers acting in the way(s) that you have described.

I'm just going to leave it at that.

Steve

PS. I might like to add that at a live performance in a venue, most all vocalists/musicians play into the venue sound system, and that's what is heard.  Only at an unamplified classical concert, which most all are, do you actually hear the vocalists/instruments as single sound sources, usually multiple single sound sources.

[satfrat]

Thanks for the effort Steve. Hopefully down the road I'll have an opportunity to hear a properly setup Master Set system so I can better witness this decoupling sound stage for myself. Some things are just better exerienced than explained.

Cheers,
Robin

[stvnharr]

Thanks for the effort Steve. Hopefully down the road I'll have an opportunity to hear a properly setup Master Set system so I can better witness this decoupling sound stage for myself. Some things are just better exerienced than explained.

Cheers,
Robin

Robin,
I agree!!! It's best to hear it.  Describing in words is too inadequate.
I think my effort yesterday may have made it sound like the sound is a bit small and 2-D, but that is not the case at all.  It's quite 3-D and nearly dimensionless.  But you really have to hear it.

I might like to go back to the very first time I ever heard speakers set up in MS.  It was at RMAF 2007.  And I only went into the room to say hello to an old friend I hadn't seen in 2-3 years.  I saw the Vienna Acoustics Mahlers set up close to the wall with this extreme toe in, and it looked like the weirdest thing I had ever seen.  That and I don't particularly like these speakers as I find them to have a colored midrange.  I only listened to things as a way to say hello and all that.  I had never heard of something called Master Set, and as this was at an audio show, well, a lot of folks are hawking some new thing.  So I paid little to no attention, just said hellos, listened a few minutes, and then was off to another room.
But the sound in the next room didn't sound too good in comparison to the last room, so I went back for another listen.  I stayed long enough to move seats a couple times, and noticed that the sound didn't change.  I then began to notice a realness to the sound of vocalists and instruments, that was a real cut above the "standard good quality audio sound" of most any high quality audio system.  I then began to listen to some of the talk about Master Set.  And the more I listened, the more I wanted to "get that sound".  And I went on from there..............

But it was from listening to a good Master Set that made it all happen.  The fact that anyone would read my writings and want to do this on their own is simply amazing to me.  What audio thing has not been graced with words as the best thing to happen since sliced bread?

I just hope my writing can help a bit and not get things too confused.  Master Set is not easy to do and get perfect.  If it was easy it would be available in a handy little write up sheet that anyone could do in a few minutes.  The MS guru, Rod Tomsen, would just give customers a little sheet of instructions with speaker delivery, rather than do it all himself, and charge for it no less, as it can take up to 3 hours to do.  My little MS Lite tip can likely be done in half/three quarters of an hour, and only hints at what can be achieved.  But even as I've read this morning, not all situations lend themselves to a definitive decoupled zone in the room.
I got a bit lucky in my room in the picture and got a good MS back a few months ago, and wanted to share that experience with others in the hope that my experience could be duplicated by others.  It's all a process, and every situation is it's own unique situation.  But I do feel quite strongly that speakers set up in MS is the best 2 channel listening experience going.

Steve

[DSK]

...Darren,
Thanks for your long and considered post. 
For the most part we are talking 2 different languages here...

AGREED.

With Master Set we are creating a single sound source into the room from the two speakers with the procedures that I have described in my various writings and postings.  Creating a single sound source is what Master Set is all about.  This can only be done when the 2 speakers are in the decoupled zone, decoupled from the wall behind the speaker and the room, and each speaker providing exactly equal sound pressure into the room.

MY POINT IS THAT (I BELIEVE) THE "COUPLING" EFFECT ONLY REFERS TO SUB 200HZ FREQUENCIES WHERE THE EQUALISATION BETWEEN SPEAKERS IS A GOOD THING TO OVERCOME ROOM EFFECT, BUT WOULD (SEEMINGLY) UNEQUALISE FREQUENCIES ABOVE 200HZ DUE TO DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM LISTENER AND NO ROOM EFFECT (REFLECTIONS ASIDE) TO OVERCOME. AGAIN, I CAN SEE HOW TOE-IN (POINTED AT THE USUAL LISTENING POSITION OR CROSSED IN FRONT OF THIS) COULD HELP OVERCOME THIS BUT I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THIS.

I'm just going to leave it at that.

ME TOO (I'M NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF MAKING MYSELF UNDERSTOOD IN WRITTEN FORM). WOULD BE GREAT TO CATCH UP WITH YOU AND DISCUSS AT HUGH's ONE DAY.

PS. I might like to add that at a live performance in a venue, most all vocalists/musicians play into the venue sound system, and that's what is heard.  Only at an unamplified classical concert, which most all are, do you actually hear the vocalists/instruments as single sound sources, usually multiple single sound sources.

AGREED.

PS. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF REPEATING THE MS PROCESS USING THE FINAL MS SETUP AS THE STARTING POINT (IN ORDER TO FIND A SECOND MS SETUP THAT WORKS IN IDENTICAL FASHION BUT HAS THE SPEAKERS FURTHER OUT INTO THE ROOM)?

[stvnharr]

...Darren,
Thanks for your long and considered post. 
For the most part we are talking 2 different languages here...

AGREED.

With Master Set we are creating a single sound source into the room from the two speakers with the procedures that I have described in my various writings and postings.  Creating a single sound source is what Master Set is all about.  This can only be done when the 2 speakers are in the decoupled zone, decoupled from the wall behind the speaker and the room, and each speaker providing exactly equal sound pressure into the room.

MY POINT IS THAT (I BELIEVE) THE "COUPLING" EFFECT ONLY REFERS TO SUB 200HZ FREQUENCIES WHERE THE EQUALISATION BETWEEN SPEAKERS IS A GOOD THING TO OVERCOME ROOM EFFECT, BUT WOULD (SEEMINGLY) UNEQUALISE FREQUENCIES ABOVE 200HZ DUE TO DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM LISTENER AND NO ROOM EFFECT (REFLECTIONS ASIDE) TO OVERCOME. AGAIN, I CAN SEE HOW TOE-IN (POINTED AT THE USUAL LISTENING POSITION OR CROSSED IN FRONT OF THIS) COULD HELP OVERCOME THIS BUT I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THIS.

I'm just going to leave it at that.

ME TOO (I'M NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB OF MAKING MYSELF UNDERSTOOD IN WRITTEN FORM). WOULD BE GREAT TO CATCH UP WITH YOU AND DISCUSS AT HUGH's ONE DAY.

PS. I might like to add that at a live performance in a venue, most all vocalists/musicians play into the venue sound system, and that's what is heard.  Only at an unamplified classical concert, which most all are, do you actually hear the vocalists/instruments as single sound sources, usually multiple single sound sources.

AGREED.

PS. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE IDEA OF REPEATING THE MS PROCESS USING THE FINAL MS SETUP AS THE STARTING POINT (IN ORDER TO FIND A SECOND MS SETUP THAT WORKS IN IDENTICAL FASHION BUT HAS THE SPEAKERS FURTHER OUT INTO THE ROOM)?

Hi Darren,
There are only two relevant principles involved in setting speakers in Master Set.
The most important thing in Master Set is the relationship of where each speaker is positioned in regards the other one so as to make them equally sound pressurize the room in accordance with the power of the amplifier and the design of the speaker.
The other is that the speakers must be in the decoupled zone.
There is nothing more!!!!!!
When these two principles are followed and perfected, in accordance with the outlined steps, all the concerns you have stated, in regard to equalization of frequency distribution and distance of listener to/from the speaker, become mitigated and irrelevant. You obviously do not understand why this works as it does. But it does work, and it works very well.  And I cannot really write any more without just repeating myself.

In regards your point above in the PS. You cannot do Master Set OUT of the decoupled zone farther out into the room.  Remember, once you pass the anchor speaker out farther into the room the 2 speakers recouple and the sound you hear is the combined sound in the center of the two speakers. Remember, the idea behind setting the anchor speaker is to independently set one speaker at a reference point in order to have something for the other speaker to match.  THAT is what Master Set is!
Sure you can set the speakers anywhere you want and try to match and center the sound, but it won't be a Master Set and it won't give you the same results.

Catching up at Hugh's is always nice.  Perhaps we can work something out in the month before I return to the States.  The MS I've done at Hugh's is not as good as what I have here in my small room.  I tweaked it up a bit about 10 days ago, but it's still not quite right, and I'm not sure why.  I've obtained a single source of sound with the speakers such that the sound doesn't move with the listener, so it's close.  There are just some other unresolved issues.

I'm not privy to the Sumiko seminars, and thus my knowledge is severely limited, and it also may not be completely correct.  I am pretty much self taught in Master Set and I think there is a bit, or maybe a lot, more to it than I now know.

Steve

[DSK]

...
When these two principles are followed and perfected, in accordance with the outlined steps, all the concerns you have stated, in regard to equalization of frequency distribution and distance of listener to/from the speaker, become mitigated and irrelevant.

You can't just say that the laws of acoustics (at least as are generally accepted currently) are "mitigated and irrelevant" without explaining why.

...
You obviously do not understand why this works as it does.

I have freely admitted this. But, I have raised some reasonable questions that you have not responded to and it seems that you understand the procedure but not how it works either. That is fine, but just say so and I will stop asking questions.

...And I cannot really write any more without just repeating myself.

I do not need you to repeat anything. I have carefully read and considered your posts. What I have been trying to do is get you to fill in the blanks about how MS overcomes commonly held acoustic principles rather than just say "it works .... you don't understand".

...In regards your point above in the PS. You cannot do Master Set OUT of the decoupled zone farther out into the room.  Remember, once you pass the anchor speaker out farther into the room the 2 speakers recouple and the sound you hear is the combined sound in the center of the two speakers. Remember, the idea behind setting the anchor speaker is to independently set one speaker at a reference point in order to have something for the other speaker to match.  THAT is what Master Set is!

Steve, again you have dismissed a query out of hand without thinking about what I have said.
I completely agree that there will be speaker locations where the speaker doesn't have particular bass frequencies emphasized (peaks) or cancelled (nulls)... "decoupled" as you put it. However, these are not confined to one single location that is the nearest one to the wall. Yes, as you bring it forward further it will re-couple with the other speaker, but as you continue to move it further forward there (presumably) will be additional points where it again decouples from the other speaker. You then bring the other speaker forward again until it couples again and provides the same thing as the first MS did, but at a point further forward from the wall. Will it sound any better? I don't know. But it IS still MS as you are using exactly the same principles and procedure but doing it twice.

Steve, I have no problem with you disagreeing with ideas or beliefs I throw up. What I do have a problem with is you dismissing them without reading them properly, without valid reasons or counter arguments (other than "it works"). Again, if you don't understand what is happening (but enjoy the result) that is fine. Just say so and I'll stop assuming that you do and will stop trying to coax this information from you. From your responses it appears that you don't have a very strong grasp of room acoustics and perhaps that is why you have been unable or unwilling to respond to any of my questions and resort to simply repeating the procedure.  This is meant as an observation rather than a criticism.

Unfortunately, written arguments can sound "heated" when they are not and asking a bunch of questions can be thought to mean that I disagree with you when I don't. My single motivation was to see if you could help fill in the blanks for me so I can better understand the concept and acoustic principles being deployed and how MS apparently overcomes the principles of acoustics and stereo that I do understand. It seems perseverence will not achieve that and will only serve to wrongly appear as though I'm trying to poopoo the MS concept or have another agenda, so unfortunately it seems best that I stop  until we can hopefully discuss it in person at some point. I have no horse in this race, just the pursuit of knowledge.

I will still try MS when I get the chance and will be happy to attain the same improvements you have, BUT I will still want to know WHY and HOW.

Cheers Steve.
 

[gsm18439]

Steve

Thanks for your reply. Does moving a speaker closer to the back wall predictably make it louder (or softer)? Or does it vary from room to room?

Gary

[stvnharr]

Steve

Thanks for your reply. Does moving a speaker closer to the back wall predictably make it louder (or softer)? Or does it vary from room to room?

Gary

Gary,
The principal of room gain is well known and accepted. The closer you move a speaker to the wall behind it, the room gain is increased, and vice versa.  This applies to any room.  Remember, we are talking millimeters here, so moving a speaker a couple millimeters or so makes for a VERY small change.

Steve

[stvnharr]

I will still try MS when I get the chance and will be happy to attain the same improvements you have, BUT I will still want to know WHY and HOW.
 

Darren,
I am merely trying to help anyone who wants to set up their speakers with the Master Set principles, as I know them and have applied them to my own situations. I am not here to discuss the finer points of room acoustics etc., and how Master Set applies there.  You can take that up with John Hunter.
Master Set works! I don't really care about the hows and whys!

I cannot tell you why there is a small zone in the room where the sound decouples from the wall behind it as it clearly does.  Until I did the step, as described, I never knew you could play both speakers and only hear sound from one. I'm not concerned with the physics of this, I just know that it happens. I know the placing the speakers in this small zone is what MS is all about. That is enough for me.
The idea of the relative placement of the two speakers so as to equally pressurize the room is a new concept. Given that I know the results, I accept this idea without question. It works, and works quite well.

All I can further tell you is that if you go to a Master Set presentation and ask all the questions that you have put forward here, you will be summarily told, "You have to forget about all that stuff. What's important is..................."  Essentially that's why I wrote much of what I wrote.  I have seen the blank look on faces when told that. I have seen the looks of disbelief on faces that you can just set the speakers in a certain way, without any kind of box or cable or computer software, and overcome most all the commonly held acoustic beliefs and obstacles to good electronic playback sound.

Darren, I think you've set yourself a big obstacle with the why and how stuff.  IF you are serious about doing MS, just do it, and then judge the results. You can work out the why's and how's later.  However, I must caution that without hearing a really good MS it can be a bit hard to know if you achieve the proper result. You do get the stable sound that doesn't move when you move, and you do get increased clarity and a lack of distortion and listening fatigue over and above what you now achieve. If you already have quite good sound, and I'm sure you do, the improvement may only be small. AND you have to follow the steps exactly as described, no "what if I do this or that or change this or that".
And remember, this is not SERIOUS stuff, it's listening to music.


Steve
 

[jaywills]

"I cannot tell you why there is a small zone in the room where the sound decouples from the wall behind it as it clearly does.  Until I did the step, as described, I never knew you could play both speakers and only hear sound from one."

This reflects my experience with it.  I've tried bringing them further into the room, but haven't found a second point of decoupling (as suggested in an earlier post on this thread).  No dog in this particular hunt; just had a good experience with using this method to place my speakers (Gallo 3.1's) in my room.  Cordially,

[DSK]

Cheers Steve.

[stvnharr]

"I cannot tell you why there is a small zone in the room where the sound decouples from the wall behind it as it clearly does.  Until I did the step, as described, I never knew you could play both speakers and only hear sound from one."

This reflects my experience with it.  I've tried bringing them further into the room, but haven't found a second point of decoupling (as suggested in an earlier post on this thread).  No dog in this particular hunt; just had a good experience with using this method to place my speakers (Gallo 3.1's) in my room.  Cordially,

Glad to hear you've had some success with this.
Let me clarify something.  The first point of decoupling, out from the wall, is where it all begins. It's not the setup point.  Once you are in this decoupled zone you search for the bass nodes and smoothest and best bass.  There's supposed to be 5 or so nodes.  These are all hard to hear, and it is easy to move over them if you make movements that are too large.  It takes a lot of experience and very critical ear to hear things in this particular step.
My room is small.  I just anchored the speaker at the first bass node and didn't go any further.  I actually should probably try to find another node farther out, as my matched speaker has a fair bit of offset and is closer to the wall.  But it's okay for now.
How far out did you move the speaker in trying to find the recoupling point?  My experience has been that there's only about 5 or 6 inches of decoupled zone.  Just as an experiment, in another set, I moved the anchor to be speaker out about a foot from somewhere in the decoupling zone just to hear what happens, and the sound recoupled with the speaker against the wall and was very centered.

Steve

[jaywills]

"How far out did you move the speaker in trying to find the recoupling point?"

The "de-coupled" zone, in my room, was ~4-5".  No speaker movement forward past the re-coupling point, up to ~ 2' in front of me (where I stopped experimenting) resulted in a second de-coupling.  I listen ~ 7' in front of the speaker plane.

[andyr]

Hi Steven,

Given "jaywills' " comment that the "decoupled zone" - which I believe you said was the start of the MS movements - was only 4-5" off the front wall and, as you're moving in 1-2mm increments, the final position will shirley not be more than 600mm forward of this ... I'd be interested to know how deep a soundstage you hear, as a result of the Master Set?

Certainly, smooth bass is an important sonic goal but a deep sound-stage (when the source has this!  ) is another, IMO.  However, an all-encompassing "sweet spot" is not as important (as I sit on the couch, by myself, at the point of the isosceles triangle!  ).

Yes, I know the amplifier influences sound-stage depth but we're all using AKSA amps here ... so I would've thought that any difference in sound-stage depth must be due to speaker positioning and room treatments?

Regards,

Andy

[jaywills]

"Given "jaywills' " comment that the "decoupled zone" - which I believe you said was the start of the MS movements - was only 4-5" off the front"

Good morning, Andy, I'm sorry, but it appears that my apparently ambiguous post has misled you somewhat.  The 4-5" zone to which I was referring was the zone itself in which the speaker remained decoupled.  That zone began ~14-15" out from my front wall and ended ~18-20" out from the front wall.  Sorry for the ambiguity in my earlier post.  Cordially,

[stvnharr]

"Given "jaywills' " comment that the "decoupled zone" - which I believe you said was the start of the MS movements - was only 4-5" off the front"

Good morning, Andy, I'm sorry, but it appears that my apparently ambiguous post has misled you somewhat.  The 4-5" zone to which I was referring was the zone itself in which the speaker remained decoupled.  That zone began ~14-15" out from my front wall and ended ~18-20" out from the front wall.  Sorry for the ambiguity in my earlier post.  Cordially,

Good, it seems now that you have found the "de-coupled" zone.  The important thing about setting the speakers in this zone is when you set the "anchor" the sound of this speaker stays fixed, and does not change when you move the other speaker into position.  This is how you can match the sound pressure levels as you have a fixed point of reference in the anchor speaker.

Steve

[stvnharr]

Hi Steven,

Given "jaywills' " comment that the "decoupled zone" - which I believe you said was the start of the MS movements - was only 4-5" off the front wall and, as you're moving in 1-2mm increments, the final position will shirley not be more than 600mm forward of this ... I'd be interested to know how deep a soundstage you hear, as a result of the Master Set?

Certainly, smooth bass is an important sonic goal but a deep sound-stage (when the source has this!  ) is another, IMO.  However, an all-encompassing "sweet spot" is not as important (as I sit on the couch, by myself, at the point of the isosceles triangle!  ).

Yes, I know the amplifier influences sound-stage depth but we're all using AKSA amps here ... so I would've thought that any difference in sound-stage depth must be due to speaker positioning and room treatments?

Regards,

Andy

Andy,
I kinda sorta wrote on this a few days ago, in reply to someone's post, but can easily do it again as I always seem to write a little differently.
Given that the speakers in MS are not all that far out into the room, a couple feet or so depending on the depth of the speaker cabinet, traditional logic suggests that the sound is going to be rather 2-D, as depth of sound is generally effected by how far out into the room the speakers sit, hence, the popular 5 feet out into the room sets.  And certainly my first impression of MS with the VA Mahlers, very large speakers about 20" deep, sitting close to the wall, rear of speaker seemed about a foot from the wall, made me take a real double look.

All I can say is that in my room here in Ballarat, which you've now seen in a picture with the speakers, the sound is just dimensionless. The front baffle of the speakers are ~2 feet into the room from the wall behind, not all that far.  Yet, the sound seems to make the wall invisible, and also seems to project a bit forward from the baffles with no real defined boundary. 
In my old 5 feet out into the room sets I sometimes found myself behind the speakers, walking to the bathroom or something, and I would find myself a bit amazed that the sound, as heard from behind, seemed to be mostly just in a narrow plane between the two speakers. Yet when sitting in front of the speakers it seemed to go back 5 feet to the wall.

A lot of people may disagree with me here, but I don't think there are many recordings with much "depth of soundstage", as the phrase goes.  Most recordings of any genre are multimiked to some degree. So it's all about the microphone level(s) the recording engineer sets, and how the mastering engineer puts it all together, and balancing mostly left-right rather than front-back.
At a venue, the drum kit is usually behind the band, mostly for reasons of space. But the drum sound gets fed into the mixing board and heard from the venue speakers that are left and right of the band.  You can see the drummer behind the band, but he doesn't really sound farther away than the people in front.
In an orchestra the louder instruments are at the back of the orchestra, but you just hear the loudness level of them when they play depending if 1, 2, 3, or 4 brass instruments play. You don't necessarily hear them as faraway, just how loud and from the location in general, if that makes any sense.
However, I must admit that the bass drum always sounds like it's behind everyone else, whether live or in recording. So,............

I dunno, being that the speakers sit out in the small zone where they are decoupled from the room boundary behind them (wall) I get the feeling from listening that the sound is not bouncing off the wall as one would think it would being so close as it just seems "not quite touch" the wall, almost stopping before it reaches the wall.  I know that sounds kind of "out there" but every MS I've heard has been that way.

Hope this helps and didn't confuse anything too much.

Steve

PS.  Been a long long time since I've heard planars or electrostats, but I do know that they do radiate sound out a bit differently than a box does.  So, I truly do not know how much of what I write here really applies to your situation.

[AKSA]

Darren,

I really think you should hear what Steve has done to my listening room.  Could you come listen this Saturday morning, perhaps, around 9:30?  Andy Redwood will be here too, we can start with an exquisite coffee on a cold autumn morning!

I'd love to show it off to you - do bring your favourite CD, though I've got the Duet all connected up, thanks to Jeremy Howard.

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Andy,

A lot of people may disagree with me here, but I don't think there are many recordings with much "depth of soundstage", as the phrase goes.

Steve

PS.  Been a long long time since I've heard planars or electrostats, but I do know that they do radiate sound out a bit differently than a box does.  So, I truly do not know how much of what I write here really applies to your situation.

Hi Steve,

A good recording IMO which displays a really deep sound stage is the live recording of the Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" tour.  I listen mostly to "Hotel California" and the track before that (side 2 of my double LP!  ) and the audience clapping disappears into the distance.  Though I'd think that all the clapping on the album should be similar.

If you have it, perhaps you need to listen to it and then come round and hear how my Maggies present it.    Then you'll be in a position to say whether the relatively-close-to-front-wall positioning generated by the Master Set procedure reduces soundstage depth or not. 

DSK has pointed out that my "mathematical" positioning does not provide the same smooth bass response you seem to get with your MS positioning (as he could hear some 'light' and 'heavy' bass notes on "BotRH", when he was round my place a coupla weeks ago).  So it would seem there's certainly room for improvement in my speaker positioning, as far as bass nodes are concerned.    But I would hate to conquer that and then suffer from lack of soundstage depth! 

Regards,

Andy

[stvnharr]

Hello,
Well, at the risk of just adding to the confusion, I would like to try and address some concerns about Master Set that have come up. I would like to begin by mentioning  that Master Set is the result of over 10 years of research and experimentation by John Hunter and others at Sumiko Importers in California.  This is also still an ongoing happening.  Sumiko has occassional seminars for Sumiko dealers about speaker positioning that are limited to Sumiko dealers, and nothing is published about this.
I merely am trying here to present what I have observed and performed in the performance of setting up my speakers with Master Set protocols.

A number of queries have been raised such as why not try this or that instead of what you are doing.  Well, MS is pretty well developed as it is.  I am not interested in experimentation with it.  Some of the aspects presented may seem to fall outside some established norm, and people want to redirect things to that norm.  Well, no.  Just do MS as best you can and judge the results.  It's free, and it's obviously reversible if you don't like it.  It only requires time and a desire.

I've written lots about the "decoupled zone".  It's easy and verifiable to find a spot where all sound seems to come from one speaker out in the room with another one against the wall.  And moving this same speaker a few more inches out into the room there is another spot where the sound reconnects with the speaker against the wall and all sound heard is in the middle of the two.  Who knew that such an area existed?  I don't know the physics of this, why is occurs, etc.  But it occurs and is not some illusion or trickery.  Anyone can verify that this exists by simply doing it.
Master Set protocol has the "anchor speaker" anchored in this zone.  I have been queried about setting up outside this "decoupled zone".  Well, if you are out in the room from the "decoupling zone" you are coupled to the room, and subject to everything in the standard mantra.  If you are in towards the wall from the "decoupled zone" you are coupled to the wall, and this is usually not desireable.
I believe that since one of the tenets of Master Set is to set the speakers in this "decoupled zone" it is what separates MS from more standard methods of speaker positioning. There is something different happening in that small area of the room.

Master Set protocol uses the term "equal sound pressure into the room from each speaker".  Ever hear that one before? I think it's safe to say that most everyone thinks the speakers are playing equally loud into the room, unless there is some irregularity in the electronics. Master Set protocol says that each speaker pressurizes it's own half of the room.  Ever hear that one before?  This requires that one accepts the assumption that each speaker essentially only pressurizes the half, or part, of the room in which it sits with an invisible divide inbetween the two speakers.  When you hear how well MS works, it's a lot easier to accept this, rather than just accepting something new and previously unknown/unheard of.
With this assumption is it quite easy to understand that each speaker is filling a different area with sound.  And the same sound level into different sized areas results in slightly different overall sound levels in each area.  The result then is two slightly different sounds in the same space where only one sound should be hear.
Master Set protocol equalizes this imbalance with small movements of a speaker using room gain to adjust one speaker up or down in relation to the other one in order to make the overall sound level in each half, or part, of the room equal and result in the only one sound in the room.  This is why the speaker are at a slight offset to each other in relation to a measured distance out into the room. The offset may be small, like a half inch or so, but it's usually going to be there.  Equal distance out into the room would require absolute perfect equality in size of each half of the room.
Rooms with one side being very different from the other side, like mine all seem to be, make it all quite hard as the size imbalance is quite large. But the room can still be equalized.

I've been queried about equal frequency distribution in the room.  Well, that not the above paragraph.  However, equal frequency distribution should occur once the protocol in the above paragraph has been set, assuming that each speaker is identical in it's filter networks.

I've had a few queries about planars and dipoles.  The Master Set mantra is "any speaker in any room".  I have no experience with either dipoles or planars.  However, since MS is based on finding the decoupled zone, if you can follow the protocol and find a decoupled zone with a dipole or planar, then MS can be set.  With a box speaker this zone seems to be somewhat close to the wall.  With a dipole or planar the zone may be somewhat farther out into the room.
Master Set is generally done TOTALLY by ear, without any linear measurement of any kind.  It's all about listening for the sound you hear. I have used a tape measure only as a guide to making sure I make movements that are small. When I didn't use a tape, my small movements were generally too large and I just skipped over the spots I was looking to find.

The topic of soundstage depth has come up, in the previous message in fact. All I can say is that MS gives you whatever is in the recording. It sounds natural and not exaggerated in any way.

Remember my analogy of focusing binoculars to setting the speakers with MS?  Ever hear anything like that before? It does require some acceptance of new ideas that may seem quite odd and in total violation of the accepted norm.  But it works perfectly as described. Master Set works because if you follow the protocols you are able to make a single sound out of two, like any naturally occurring sound.

Anyway, that's enough for now.

Steve