... There is essentially NO sweet spot with properly done Master Set. The musical images are firmly set in a near perfect stereo image between the two speakers that does not change with one's seating in the room. The seating in the listening room is much like seating at a venue, in that you just move your own perspective to the musicians, but the musicians don't move with you as you move. Over in my far left seat, the music stays between the speakers, but I do have a different perspective to the sound as I am so far to the left. I don't listen here much at all. In a venue, I generally prefer to sit in the middle, and if the fireplace was not in the way, I would do so here. Indeed, until I got Master Set done well, I used to sit on a moveable chair in front of the fireplace to listen.
It may have been lost in the reading about Master Set long ago, but when the two speakers equally pressurize the room, you hear them equally from most anywhere in the room. When they are unequal, you generally hear the one that is loudest from your seating position.
I kind of think you are asking me about "3-D soundstaging" that I might be experiencing here. Afterall, when you put the speakers well out into the room, you get that big 3-D effect from all the reflections. Well, with MS you don't get the big 3-D effect because there really aren't any reflections to muddy and diffuse things.
I've found the "3-D soundstaging" with MS to be rather interesting. I've very conscious of it as I am sitting up close, nearly like being in the first few rows at symphony hall, or the like. The sound is seems to just float in space. The sound seems to float back to the wall without touching it, and almost making the wall invisible. And, as always, the sound never really comes forward from the front baffles of the speakers.
All I can add is that when I listen, the sound seems perfectly proportioned and quite like that of a performance....
As one who has not (yet) tried the Master Set, I'd be very interested in the "hows" and "whys" of how this system works given that it seems (to me) to contradict a number of things that I have held to be true for so long.
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). As you say, in traditional speaker setup methods, the vocalist is dragged toward the nearest speaker (unless the speakers are crossed in front of the listener so that the nearest speaker is more off-axis and this eliminates the effect of the increased amplitude from the nearest speaker). An earlier post seemed to indicate an aggressive toe-in so perhaps this is what is going on here. If not, then what is the reason for MS being able to seemingly defy the laws of stereo?
If we assume a decent listening room (primary reflections are treated so as not to send a strong, coherent reflection to the listener), then the room mostly affects the sub 200Hz frequencies. I can certainly understand that a symmetrical setup (equilateral triangle) may not be "symmetrical" in the sense of the overall room if one half of the room has an extra nook or opening or different shape or .... and can thus accept that an irregular speaker setup may better balance the "pressurisation" of the room under 200Hz as the room may be having a greater affect on the sub 200Hz frequencies of one speaker than the other when in a mathematically symmetrical setup, causing peaks and nulls. I can see how the MS will cause each speaker to end up in the location where it produces the greatest and most even sub 200Hz output without cancelling any of the output of the other speaker. This may reduce the need to turn up the volume as high to energise the room, thus causing the amp(s) to have an easier time and perhaps reducing the situation whereby bass in the room sounds weak but bass outside that room sounds strong. However, the irregular setup in regards to the traditional listening seat (half way between the speakers) will mean that one speaker baffle is closer to the listener than the other and (if not overcome by toe-in crossed in front of the listener) will cause the nearest speaker to be higher in amplitude (above 200Hz) and thus be more dominant than the other. This will usually drag say a female vocalist to the dominant side. If not the toe-in, how is this being overcome?
Over the years I have done a great deal of listening and measurement tests to achieve optimal speaker positioning in various rooms. Given this, and the thought of a spending a whole day listening to The Ballad Of The Runaway Horse while doing 2mm speaker locations changes, I have not eagerly jumped out of my seat and tried MS. Before ever hearing this track, I wondered if I would be able to readily hear the differences in bass notes intensity in order to properly try the MS method. Recently, I heard this track played on a very nice system and readily heard a couple of reticent notes and a couple of strong ones. Others in the room heard the same thing so I gained a little confidence there and managed to obtain the CD. This week, I played it several times with subwoofer off and several times with subwoofer on. All the bass notes sounded very even to me, with and without the sub. My current speaker locations were done using ears and measurements and the system measures +/-3dB from 20Hz to 4kHz using third octave pink noise. So, my thoughts are that perhaps I have more or less arrived at the optimal setup by ears/measurements but the MS method would be ideal for enthusiasts without the measurement facility? I do get wonderful imaging and soundstage width, depth, height and on decent recordings the walls just melt away. The setup is symmetrical to the room and the listener, speakers are currently angled directly at the sweetspot. Listening from outside the sweetspot still sounds pretty good and doesn't seem to drag the vocalist to the nearest speaker as much as most systems.
However, I don't discount the possibility that MS may produce an equally well measuring (sub 200Hz) setup that is superior in terms of efficiency. However, aside from lack of time (and laziness
), the thing that dampens my eagerness to go to the time and effort of trying MS is that I don't understand how an asymmetrical setup could match let alone surpass the performance I have now above 200Hz. Also, I read the earlier comments that the soundstage depth does not seem to be as good when the MS setup places speakers closer to the wall behind. I wonder whether it would be worth trying something to overcome this ... when you achieve the final MS setup, with speakers close to wall behind, using the MS positioning as your new "starting" position, repeat the process. This way, you may achieve another optimal MS setup that is further off the wall behind and may improve depth of soundstage aa
Yes, I do know the only to find out for sure is to try it for myself and I'm sure that when I have the time I will do just that. Given that bass notes in BOTRH are already very even, I guess I would be looking for speaker locations that equal this but provide greater room "pressurisation" at the same volume level on the dial. If this is possible then presumably dynamics would be even better as a result.
Again Steve, not trying to shoot anything down here, and not sure you have the answers to the questions ... just wrestling with all this in my own mind
If it works that's all that matters, though it would be nice to understand why. Several people whose opinions I respect (including yours Steve
) are now singing emphatic praises of MS and it is this that will no doubt eventually drag me off my butt to try it for myself. I hope to visit Hugh again soon, so perhaps a listen to his system (that I know very well) will be the final shove that overcomes the inertia. It's all good. Steve, thanks for your efforts to nudge us all into trying something that may improve our systems at zero $cost.
