[bmckenney]

Hi Jack,

I don't have any experience with different construction materials in a room but I can see how that might make one change the position of a speaker a bit.  As for a difference in dimensions or a non symmetrical room, again I can see that resulting in some adjustments too.  The only practical experience I have in that areas is a vaulted ceiling from left to right across my room.  I still have my speakers in the exact Cardas based location.  I used an average for the ceiling height dimension before I fed it in to the calculator.  The sound is excellent like this.  Adjustments of 0.5 to 1.0 inch didn?t make a difference in what I heard from a frequency response and dynamics and room energy point of view.  The only thing I can detect that the odd ceiling does is the side with the higher ceiling seems to have weaker images to the outside of the speaker (images inside the speaker are just fine).  Maybe I could tweak it a bit and fix what I think might be an issue, but what I think I?m hearing is so small I?m not sure it?s worth it.  I might try some absorbers on the first reflection point sometime down the road and see what that does.  Thanks for adding some great insights to this thread!

Bryan

[bmckenney]

After using the Cardas calculator, I discovered that I had moved my speaks actually closer together at 44" from my side walls (56" apart) and I came back to this.  I have positioned both my chair and my speaks 54" off the front and back walls.  This is all from center to center and includes the toe in (less than before) of my speaks.  Orchestras are behind my speaks and spread out independent of speaker placement and my room's walls, it seems.  Depth is excellent.  Close your eyes, and yer there!  Close miked music is more in the room.  So, my experience from reading this and using Cardas as a starting point has made my speakers more transparent to the event.  I'm less aware of them and my room and more aware of the venue and what's happening, clearly.  Tone is just fine to the limits of my speaks and things are more convincingly real.  This thread done good here.  Happy trails and thanks for the upgrade.

If anyone wants to know, my room is 15'x12'x8'.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Jim.  What you hear is very similar to what I hear with position dialed in.

My latest theory is that speaker position is even more important than using room treatment.  My system sounds pretty good with average speaker position and room treatment, but superb when position is dialed in.  And I've heard some other systems with great speaker position and none to little treatment sound pretty darn good.  I can't live without either now so maybe they are both equally important.  I can't decide, but its not something I have to worry about now.

Bryan

[gstraley]

Just curious. Most people are talking about the Cardas and the Master Set method. Has anyone tried the Higherfi method yet to hear what it sounds like? Of all the methods that have been discussed, this method out of all of them seem to take the rooms individual shape and construction into account. Most of the other methods do not seem to define the distance between the speakers or the distance from the side walls like this method takes into account. I find it difficult to be able to calculate a side wall that has a doorway or hallway into another room or a hallway behind a speaker that I have seem many set ups have. I have also been to many place where a guy has only a couple of feet from one side wall and has over 10 feet of open space before the other side wall. Not an expert with the Cardas and Master Set methods how are they able to deal with that? If you are lucky enough to have a dedicated listening room that is lets say 20 x 30 and a door leading into the room behind the listeners seat then these methods could work great. I have been over to a lot of audiophile houses and only a couple of people have a perfectly rectangular room to be able to calculate those methods.
  I really am curious how the method that you listen with your ears at the speaker location works.

Gregg

[bmckenney]

Gregg,

My room is not perfectly rectangular.  It has s left to right vaulted ceiling and the height parameter is an input in to the Cardas calculator in my case.  And there is a big opening on the right wall, back of room, to a front foyer.  I just carved out the basic rectangular dimension of the room ignoring doorways or entrances, small intrusions etc.  Plugged the numbers in to the Cardas calculator and it worked.  I think if there is some basic rectangular shape within the overall room, you can carve it out or use averages, and use a math method instead of trial and error method and save a lot of time and remove guess work and subjective listening etc.

It won't work for some rooms.  Obviously round rooms. Or square rooms.  And it might not work for some L-shaped rooms.

[JackD201]

Hi Bryan,

You're right, if the the imaging between the speakers is fine already the added jockeying might do more harm than good. I PMed you though. There's a freebie tweak that might work if the speaker model you have is the one I think it is

Hi Gregg,

By higherfi do you mean Chris Moon's HigherFi? The one that buys and sells all the really expensive stuff? If so, that's the method I haven't tried. I'll look into it.

In cases where there's a lot of space on one side and close to none on the other and furniture placement doesn't allow for a diagonal arrangement, normally some broadband absorption on the tight side and maybe movable panels on the open side can help a lot. Not ideal perhaps but better than nuthin'.

I like master set in that it focuses on getting the balance right at the listening position via a systematic procedure that relies on listener feedback. A nudge here and there until the listener likes what he ends up with. I may be a rule of thirds guy and have my starting points that way but I still push, shove and grunt until I can "lock on" to my satisfaction. When faced with a room that needs to use the wide wall then I start with Audio Physic. I guess that's just how it goes. Not everybody as you said have the luxury of a dedicated room. It falls to us to try our best to make lemonade out of lemons right?

[bmckenney]

Jack, got your PM but could not reply back with the browers I am on right now.  That is not a bad idea actually.  I'm on the medium tweeter setting for both channels so I could try the high on the right side.

Why are you pushing MasterSet when Cardas is clearly superior?   

Isn't it obvious that I get paid for each mouse click made on the Cardas calulator?

Bryan

[JackD201]

 

What I'm pushing is for our lazy friends to get off their bums and experiment a little!

[stvnharr]

Just curious. Most people are talking about the Cardas and the Master Set method. Has anyone tried the Higherfi method yet to hear what it sounds like? Of all the methods that have been discussed, this method out of all of them seem to take the rooms individual shape and construction into account. Most of the other methods do not seem to define the distance between the speakers or the distance from the side walls like this method takes into account. I find it difficult to be able to calculate a side wall that has a doorway or hallway into another room or a hallway behind a speaker that I have seem many set ups have. I have also been to many place where a guy has only a couple of feet from one side wall and has over 10 feet of open space before the other side wall. Not an expert with the Cardas and Master Set methods how are they able to deal with that? If you are lucky enough to have a dedicated listening room that is lets say 20 x 30 and a door leading into the room behind the listeners seat then these methods could work great. I have been over to a lot of audiophile houses and only a couple of people have a perfectly rectangular room to be able to calculate those methods.
  I really am curious how the method that you listen with your ears at the speaker location works.

Gregg

I can only address Master Set.  You set the distance between the speakers in a most common way, by moving the speakers apart until a centered mono image begins to widen out etc. You want as little center overlap from each speaker as possible.  It's somewhat akin to adjusting the width of each lens on a pair of binoculars.
The caveat to this is that you want to be able to start out pretty much with you the listener and the two speakers in an equilateral triangle.

As to room shape, well odd shaped rooms will often lead to each speaker pressurizing the room differently, and you adjust the postitioning to take this into account.  What you are aiming for is equal air pressurization into the room from each speaker from it's space in the room, if that makes any sense.  Doorways and odd shapes and all are actually quite a benefit in that they help lessen the wall reflections and let the sound out of the room so it can't just endlessly bounce around the room, as in a closed rectangular shaped room.

[TooManyToys]

I've got one of those problem rooms.  Not only is it on the small side,



but the sidewalls are not consistent, it has to share WAF constraints, and it has to be a family room.


However, being a manager of an R&D facility for 25 years, there has to be some mathematical constant with the MasterSet methodology.  I would agree that with some rooms, and in fact such as mine, that the equations may be too complicated to fully implement.  But in many rooms there has to be a constant.

I would also think that the clarity of finding the MS ideal could be documented with instrumentation, possibly with something as simple as REW with a waterfall chart.

[jimdgoulding]

Permit me to take a shot at this.  TooManyToys, as a test, bring your speaks out into your room 1x their cabinet depth and bring them closer together 2x their cabinet width.  Leave your seat alone.  Got any onsite recorded classical music?  Close your eyes.  What are you hearing then?         

[bmckenney]

I've got one of those problem rooms.  Not only is it on the small side,



but the sidewalls are not consistent, it has to share WAF constraints, and it has to be a family room.


However, being a manager of an R&D facility for 25 years, there has to be some mathematical constant with the MasterSet methodology.  I would agree that with some rooms, and in fact such as mine, that the equations may be too complicated to fully implement.  But in many rooms there has to be a constant.

I would also think that the clarity of finding the MS ideal could be documented with instrumentation, possibly with something as simple as REW with a waterfall chart.

That room looks like a great candidate for the Cardas approach.  It's basically rectangular.  Why not use it?

[TooManyToys]

Permit me to take a shot at this.  TooManyToys, as a test, bring your speaks out into your room 1x their cabinet depth and bring them closer together 2x their cabinet width.  Leave your seat alone.  Got any onsite recorded classical music?  Close your eyes.  What are you hearing then?       

Not a damn thing.  They are gutted while I'm building and installing Skiing Ninja crossovers.

But taking it seriously, they are now more then 2x cabinet depth from the rear wall, and if I place them where you state then they are into the same space as the display.

[TooManyToys]

That room looks like a great candidate for the Cardas approach.  It's basically rectangular.  Why not use it?

I have.  If going 2 channel, I can bring them out to the Cardas values.  But that puts the left speaker into the plane of the bay window which does effect the balance.  The Cardas values are 38.1" from the side walls and 61.7" from the rear wall.  So also when you bring the speakers out they block the TV, so only works for music. 

The Cardas calc leaves 62" between the centers of the speakers.  I have a display which is 60" in width.  So unless I bring the display out almost 5 ft into the room, there are areas of the display that will be blocked with the speakers.    No WAF factor there with the TV that far into the room either.   



You don't even want to do the calcs for rotating the setup 90 degrees clockwise.

[jimdgoulding]

Permit me to take a shot at this.  TooManyToys, as a test, bring your speaks out into your room 1x their cabinet depth and bring them closer together 2x their cabinet width.  Leave your seat alone.  Got any onsite recorded classical music?  Close your eyes.  What are you hearing then?       

Not a damn thing.  They are gutted while I'm building and installing Skiing Ninja crossovers.

But taking it seriously, they are now more then 2x cabinet depth from the rear wall, and if I place them where you state then they are into the same space as the display.

I meant 1 more time their cabinet depth according to the scale of your first rendering making them 50" out.  I'd go for 54", actually.  Same for width according to scale.  Wouldn't be as far as Cardas from the wall behind but you won't be giving up depth of field, IME.   Might want to put a couple of GIK panels in front of your screen for music.  You could separate your speaks 64" I would think, 66" might be ok for your situation or less.  Best.

[bmckenney]

Jack, too bad.  There are quite a few room pictures that I've seen where HT/Video gets in the way of good speaker placement.  It's worse than the dreaded WAF.

[stvnharr]

However, being a manager of an R&D facility for 25 years, there has to be some mathematical constant with the MasterSet methodology.  I would agree that with some rooms, and in fact such as mine, that the equations may be too complicated to fully implement.  But in many rooms there has to be a constant.

I would also think that the clarity of finding the MS ideal could be documented with instrumentation, possibly with something as simple as REW with a waterfall chart.

There is nothing mathematical about Master Set, AFAIK.  If you have read the postings in the various forums about how it is done you won't find anything set in any kind of a mathematical way.  That's not to say that there isn't some benign mathematics at work behind everything.  It's just simpler to just listen and do it by ear.
It took the Sumiko guys 13 years to come up with what they call M.A.S.T.E.R.S., and it's done by ear.  I'm sure that if there was an easy mathematical way to do it, they would have found it somewhere in those 13 years.
But I'm not a Sumiko guy, so you would have to ask one of them to be certain.

Also, with MS about all you are trying to do is get the two speakers in perfect phase with each other, and with the smoothest bass.

Also, I think if there was any real money to be made with MS, as in a product or something, there would likely be a lot more information about it, as someone would be trying to sell something.  As it is now, it's just something Sumiko came up with as a way for their dealers to better display the speakers that Sumiko imports, with the hope that the more speakers get sold because they sound better.  The dealers seem to do things with MS differently.  I just happened to learn about it from a dealer I knew, and who has done more with MS than most of the other Sumiko dealers.

As to your last point, I would think that when the two speakers do get into perfect phase with one another it indeed should show up on some kind of charting, as you describe.  However, that would require a some, maybe even a lot, of equipment in order to do the everything.  Once you develop "an ear" for what you are doing in MS, you can basically hear it all happening.  And you already have ears and don't need anything extra.
But I know, doing things "by ear"....................................... .

[TooManyToys]

Steve,

Sorry, the comment was not meant to set you up as the spokesperson to defend Master Set.  I have read about Master Set on the different forums and sites, I fully understand the trial and error methodology.  It?s organized, but it trial and error.  And there is nothing wrong about that.  T&E can be the most productive, least asset method of doing a lot of R&D.

If I were selling a product like a speaker, I also would want that product to be demonstrated in the most advantageous manner.  And it?s great that other people have the opportunity to use the technique outside of the products sales force.

??.Once you develop "an ear" for what you are doing in MS, you can basically hear it all happening.  And you already have ears and don't need anything extra.

But I know, doing things "by ear"....................................... .

Unless you develop a severe case of Tinnitus and maybe have one good day in a week when you can listen to music if your lucky.  For those of us, being able to use something like REW and looking at the decay values for phase anomalies on other then those precious days when you not even sure that what you?re hearing is really what everyone else is hearing would give me a little more peace of mind.

So I return to the statement, it would be interesting to see if there is any spatial relationship between the speaker placement and the room when the Master Set methods are used. 

[TooManyToys]

I meant 1 more time their cabinet depth according to the scale of your first rendering making them 50" out.  I'd go for 54", actually.  Same for width according to scale.  Wouldn't be as far as Cardas from the wall behind but you won't be giving up depth of field, IME.   Might want to put a couple of GIK panels in front of your screen for music.  You could separate your speaks 64" I would think, 66" might be ok for your situation or less.  Best.

Sorry Jim.  Misinterpreted what you wrote.

I made a "blanket panel" of 703 to hang over the display when "music only".  Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[jimdgoulding]

After using the Cardas calculator, I discovered that I had moved my speaks actually closer together at 44" from my side walls (56" apart) and I came back to this.  I have positioned both my chair and my speaks 54" off the front and back walls.  This is all from center to center and includes the toe in (less than before) of my speaks.  Orchestras are behind my speaks and spread out independent of speaker placement and my room's walls, it seems.  Depth is excellent.  Close your eyes, and yer there!  Close miked music is more in the room.  So, my experience from reading this and using Cardas as a starting point has made my speakers more transparent to the event.  I'm less aware of them and my room and more aware of the venue and what's happening, clearly.  Tone is just fine to the limits of my speaks and things are more convincingly real.  This thread done good here.  Happy trails and thanks for the upgrade.

If anyone wants to know, my room is actually (re-measuring) 14'x12'x8'.

Lastly, and after much listening, I only thought my former speaker placement was energizing my room.  Wow.  Now, the whole front end of the place is palpably vibrant with life.  This is a throwback to my days of club and concert hall visits.  Just wow.

[JackD201]

Jack, too bad.  There are quite a few room pictures that I've seen where HT/Video gets in the way of good speaker placement.  It's worse than the dreaded WAF.

Tell me about, I'm a victim of this too but the wife and kids need their video. It forced me to get the adjacent condo unit so I could have a "proper" listening venue. Besides I was losing sweet spot time to Grey's Anatomy and Hannah Montana. In effect I was kicked out