[jimdgoulding]

Laura-  From where I sit, this has all been about getting the right relationship between your speaks and your boundaries and your listening position.  Sounds like your spot is sweeter.  Sounds like you're cookin with gas.  Nice work.

[vinyl_guy]

Laura-  From where I sit, this has all been about getting the right relationship between your speaks and your boundaries and your listening position.  Sounds like your spot is sweeter.  Sounds like you're cookin with gas.  Nice work.

Thanks Jim. The sound is better than when I started and I have very happy ears right now, but I am willing to see what Rod can do. If he can make the overall sound better than it is now then it will be audio nirvana. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I can always move them back to where they are now.

[jimdgoulding]

Thanks Jim. The sound is better than when I started and I have very happy ears right now, but I am willing to see what Rod can do. If he can make the overall sound better than it is now then it will be audio nirvana. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I can always move them back to where they are now.

Of course, you can.  Think we can both thank bmckenny for starting us moving our boxes.  You would positively freak if you saw where I sit.  But my room is a bunch smaller and my speaks are probably more like a point source (close proximity tweeter to over and under mid/bass drivers).  Wouldn't be surprised if the math is very close considering tho I think I am generally closer to the plane of my speaks- gives me a multi directional stage and palpable imagery.  Happy trails, luv.

Anybody get a chance to see Cowboy Junkies on HDNet definitely oughta.

[stvnharr]

Hello,
Well a little action again here on this thread.  I'll just chime in with a few things.

There has been some mention of sidewalls and distances between speakers.  Doesn't anybody remember the old maxim that you spread the speakers as far apart as you can until the centered mono image begins to widen?  This is the first step in Master Set.

Let's see, I liked the comment about "artificial bass boost".  Oh really, what part is artificial?

I've looked high and low on the Cardas site for some kind of documentation about what the whole measurement calculator system is based upon.  Afterall, it's down to 3 decimal places and seems to be trying to be quite particular and specific.  All I can find is the vague reference to the Golden Ratio of ancient Egypt.  Have I missed something?  Like many others, I used to use this method religiously for some time because well, George is a pretty smart guy and must know............

Oh yes, the dipole question.....  I asked Rod last October about dipoles and Master Set.  His reply was that his third MS was with a pair of Martin Logans, and yes MS works with any speaker.  If that means anything to anyone........

The bottom line with MS, and what you are trying to accomplish in the end, is that you want the two speakers to be working in a perfect relationship with each other so that there are no phase cancellations or additions.  This will result in a single stable source of sound into the room from anywhere. This will result in near stable sound from most any place in the room, not just some small sweet spot listening position.  The sound will be as close as possible to what is designed in to the speaker at it's development. MS is just a method to accomplish this goal.

One thing Laura hasn't mentioned about the visit at Soundings, has been how much or little room treatment was in the room.

Lastly, it'll be good to read Laura's report on when MS is done on her speakers. Hopefully some/many of the details of what goes on during the process will come to light.

Steve

[vinyl_guy]

One thing Laura hasn't mentioned about the visit at Soundings, has been how much or little room treatment was in the room.
Steve

Steve is correct, there was very little room treatment. So little that I can't remember exactly what was there. I think a couple of tube traps in the corners, but that's about it.

Laura

[jimdgoulding]

Doesn't anybody remember the old maxim that you spread the speakers as far apart as you can until the centered mono image begins to widen? 

Think so.  I do

Let's see, I liked the comment about "artificial bass boost".  Oh really, what part is artificial?

That which is boosted I think is what was meant.

I've looked high and low on the Cardas site for some kind of documentation about what the whole measurement calculator system is based upon.  Afterall, it's down to 3 decimal places and seems to be trying to be quite particular and specific.  All I can find is the vague reference to the Golden Ratio of ancient Egypt.  Have I missed something?  Like many others, I used to use this method religiously for some time because well, George is a pretty smart guy and must know............

Oh yes, the dipole question.....  I asked Rod last October about dipoles and Master Set.  His reply was that his third MS was with a pair of Martin Logans, and yes MS works with any speaker.  If that means anything to anyone........

The bottom line with MS, and what you are trying to accomplish in the end, is that you want the two speakers to be working in a perfect relationship with each other so that there are no phase cancellations or additions.  This will result in a single stable source of sound into the room from anywhere. This will result in near stable sound from most any place in the room, not just some small sweet spot listening position.  The sound will be as close as possible to what is designed in to the speaker at it's development. MS is just a method to accomplish this goal.

My preferred source would be the instruments themselves least ways as much as the recording can tell me and the part about what is designed into the speaker at it's development is quite an assumption on your part

One thing Laura hasn't mentioned about the visit at Soundings, has been how much or little room treatment was in the room.

I have very little myself- one panel on the wall beside each speaker- and could live without them.

Lastly, it'll be good to read Laura's report on when MS is done on her speakers. Hopefully some/many of the details of what goes on during the process will come to light.

"The Girl Can't Help It, she just can't help it."

[stvnharr]

Let's see, I liked the comment about "artificial bass boost".  Oh really, what part is artificial?

That which is boosted I think is what was meant.

My preferred source would be the instruments themselves least ways as much as the recording can tell me and the part about what is designed into the speaker at it's development is quite an assumption on your part

Hi,
Having the speakers close to the wall behind them reinforces the bass.  There's nothing boosted or artifical about it. It happens.  Having speakers out into the room has always resulted in less bass.

I agree that instruments themselves are the untimate reference for audio reproduction. However, in actuality this cannot really be so as there is no real way one can do any sort of A/B in one's audio room with anything more than a single instrument, or maybe even a very small number.  And unless the instrument(s) are played very softly, they will be much louder and fill the room with sound in a way that the audio system could only duplicate in its wildest dreams.
I think we tend to rely on the memory of the sound of instruments, and memory being a little short, it all gets a little fuzzy.

This is audio, the world of few standards and many relative differences!

Steve

[jimdgoulding]

I think I know what you were saying, Steve, I was just messing with you.  And you deserve recognition, also, for your stimulating point of view and experience.  This thread woulda been a lot shorter otherwise.  And Laura is buyin in.  For the life of me, tho, I can't imagine that having your speakers as close to boundaries as I think MS is suggesting could help but impose some loss of transparency to the event at hand and coloration to the sound.  At my hand, at any rate, as good as it has become.  I'm not pure Cardas, BTW, but it has served a purpose. 

[stvnharr]

I think I know what you were saying, Steve, I was just messing with you.  And you deserve recognition, also, for your stimulating point of view and experience.  This thread woulda been a lot shorter otherwise.  And Laura is buyin in.  For the life of me, tho, I can't imagine that having your speakers as close to boundaries as I think MS is suggesting could help but impose some loss of transparency to the event at hand and coloration to the sound.  At my hand, at any rate, as good as it has become.  I'm not pure Cardas, BTW, but it has served a purpose.

Well, if I think back to October 2007 before I had ever heard or seen something called Master Set, I had the speakers well out in the room, somewhat close to the Cardas calculated distance out, and a bit different on the sidewall measure as the room was not overly wide by any means.  I had good sound from one spot on the couch, and I am only one.  I noticed that if I moved over on the couch that the sound would move as well, but I thought that's just how it is.  I'm a mostly classical listener and didn't listen much to string quartets in those days as the sound with the speaks out in the room just didn't favor a string quartet portrayal, but large orchestra music sounded pretty good, and jazz and pop stuff had that great 3-D audiophile effect.

My first thought upon visiting the Soundings room, other than saying hello, was that the sound probably wouldn't be so great as the speakers were huge and pretty close to the wall.  This was at 4:30 on Saturday afternoon.  By 7pm that evening, I was a true believer, and I had to have "that sound".  And "that sound" was all about where you put the speakers in the room, nothing else.

You really do have to hear it.

BTW, the very next afternoon I managed to drag an amplifier designer friend to the Soundings room for a visit.  After about a half hour we walked out.  My friend was all big eyed and face was pale as a white sheet. He spoke, "It's like all my work has been for naught."  He was referring to the total lack of any distortion effects in the sound, period.  This has been the holy grail of amplifier design for seemingly ever, and now the distortion numbers of most amps have several zeros after the decimal point, and there's still distortion. 
But when you get the speakers working together, the distortion goes away.

Oh, may as well mention this one.  One of Rod's little ideas is to turn the volume up quite a bit on the music.  And then without raising his voice, or walking over right next to you, he will ask you a question that you will be able to perfectly hear without any difficulty.  I'm sure Laura likely had this happen when in the store.
This may not seem like a big thing.  But it is a good way to get across the point about lack of speaker induced distortion, and increased clarity of sound simply by positioning the speakers to work together as one unit.

[Quiet Earth]

  For the life of me, tho, I can't imagine that having your speakers as close to boundaries as I think MS is suggesting could help but impose some loss of transparency to the event at hand and coloration to the sound.

I don't want to come across as being derogatory or imply any negative vibes to anyone. I just can't think of a better way to say this.  Can't you get up from the computer and move your speakers? Push 'em close to the wall and live with it for a while. Tweak the placement a little more and experiment. Give it a little time and effort and then put it all back where it used to be. This could be something you mess with over a few weeks. Why do you have to imagine when you can hear it for yourself?

[bmckenney]

Oh yes, the dipole question.....  I asked Rod last October about dipoles and Master Set.  His reply was that his third MS was with a pair of Martin Logans, and yes MS works with any speaker.  If that means anything to anyone........

Jim, I am no expert on dipoles.  I only know what others have written.  With dipoles you have a timing thing to deal with.  The timing of the backwave reflecting off the front wall and then back to the listener.  And if the speakers are close to the front wall, the timing will be too "fast".  What's really weird is Cardas's calculation for direct radiators is only a golden ration of the room width.  But the dipole calculation adds another input parameter, ceiling height.  The greater the ceiling height, the greater the distance off the front wall.  I don't know what ceiling height has to do with the backwave reflection of a dipole.

My experiments with dipoles and distance off the front wall were this.  The closer to the front wall, the worse it sounded.  Once I took that leap of faith and moved them out the full distance using the Cardas dipole calculator, the sound clicked.  So I just don't see how MS is going to work for dipoles.  Sounds like it works for direct radiators, sure.

My speakers are 6' feet off the front wall and the overall dimension if 22' long.  The bass is outstanding.  It would be just crazy to move them any closer when I have great bass response where they are and I have to deal with the dipoles.  But like I said earlier, I think there are multiple distances off the front wall where you'll get ideal bass response and if I didn't have dipoles I'd try to find that MS place closer to the wall just to see if I could just as good bass response.

And someone posted that before MS they had a very narrow sweet spot using close to Cardas placement.  Using Cardas dipole I can sit to the outside left of my left speaker and I can not hear my left speaker.  I hear a pretty good stereo image with room width soundstage like I was in the sweet spot.  It's amazing.  And my speakers don't disperse widely, they are quite direct out front, so I was expecting the left speaker to beam at me a bit.  So I am not going to subscribe to the thought that MS is the better method for "sit anywhere listening".  Not that I care for this attribute personally.  But maybe its a good indicator of a well setup room.  And it can be achieved using either method.  Not as a rule, just a generalization.

I'd love to do a shoot out between the two methods.  Would be very interesting.

[jimdgoulding]

Earth-  Speaking for myself, not a thing, except I don't know why I would want to.  I'm very pleased with what I am getting.  Tonality, clarity, imaging, soundstaging, dynamic gradation from soft to loud, attack, bloom and decay, you name it, and bass, too.  It all sounds best ever to my experience and senses.
 
No proponent of MS has said a thing about the frequency response measurements posted on the previous page made on dynamic and forward firing radiators in common with what I have.  I concede that MS may be wholly approriate for somebody.  Waveforms spilling around cabinets and combining more quickly with direct radiated waveforms/information would increase volume, I would think, but I also would think that depth of field would be foreshortened and little things obscured.  I get the sense of live instruments on a stage in more cases that I thought possible.  The intimacy and palpable presence, the dimensionality of instruments themselves and the air around them, just keeps on rewarding me.  Bass is full bodied and note clear, textured and even.

[TooManyToys]

Not a proponent of either methodology, but I have no problem with that graph other then there seems to be a cancellation dip.  The above 100 Hz data is not here and we only know from the narrative that the response did not change in this higher range.  But from where the data ended at 100 Hz one could argue that the "MS" position is closer to the 100 Hz+ level then the "Cardas" position.

Honestly I think the "the response has got to be flat" or "no reinforcement from the rear wall" holy grail is overblown.  It's got to be what the person likes to hear.  And if Laura is happy with what she has (or anyone else for that matter) that is all that counts.  If the sound police start coming to homes and stating that the speakers have to be 1/3 out into the room and one chair out in front of them at a measured distance, the interest in all things audio is going to drop pretty quick.

Me, I like having some reinforcement under 150 Hz.

[macrojack]

With the right equipment, you can move your speakers all over the room without touching them. I see all this master set nonsense as frivolous busy work. However, if it feeds your neurosis and keeps you off the streets, have at it.
I used to work with Rodney years ago and he was certainly the least audiophile of any of us. In fact, character that he is, he used to laugh at us for our concerns and suggest off road motorcycling which is what he was very good at.
He's an entertainer at the level of Seinfeld or Leno and a world class salesman. And he knows enough to sell whatever people are dumb enough to buy.

[vinyl_guy]

One of Rod's little ideas is to turn the volume up quite a bit on the music.  And then without raising his voice, or walking over right next to you, he will ask you a question that you will be able to perfectly hear without any difficulty.  I'm sure Laura likely had this happen when in the store.
This may not seem like a big thing.  But it is a good way to get across the point about lack of speaker induced distortion, and increased clarity of sound simply by positioning the speakers to work together as one unit.

Yes, I experienced this when I visited Soundings. Rod took the remote and turned the volume up and then continued conversing with me without raising his voice or moving closer to me. We carried on our conversation at a normal speaking volume. It was part of the Master Set experience in Rod's store than convinced me to have him come to Spokane and set my speakers. As I said before, I am willing to experiment here--nothing ventured, nothing gained--and I can always move them back.

I am far more interested in what my ears hear than I am in measurements.

Laura

[bmckenney]

Not a proponent of either methodology, but I have no problem with that graph other then there seems to be a cancellation dip.  The above 100 Hz data is not here and we only know from the narrative that the response did not change in this higher range.  But from where the data ended at 100 Hz one could argue that the "MS" position is closer to the 100 Hz+ level then the "Cardas" position.

Honestly I think the "the response has got to be flat" or "no reinforcement from the rear wall" holy grail is overblown.  It's got to be what the person likes to hear.  And if Laura is happy with what she has (or anyone else for that matter) that is all that counts.  If the sound police start coming to homes and stating that the speakers have to be 1/3 out into the room and one chair out in front of them at a measured distance, the interest in all things audio is going to drop pretty quick.

Me, I like having some reinforcement under 150 Hz.

I don't see any sound police dictating to people in this thread, if that's what you're implying.  If it was just a hypothetical statement, that's kewl.

What people are saying is this is important stuff that can produce real results better than any kind of component can, and this is how I got best results.  If someone wants to give it a shot using whatever method they choose, good for them.  If you are going to try it, then here is how you do it.  That can become a bit of "put them here" to start with kind of thing but that is information sharing and important.  Otherwise, where does one start with placement anyway?  If people do not get results because they don't know where to start, they will indeed lose interest in audio because the sound kinda sucks.

[stvnharr]

With the right equipment, you can move your speakers all over the room without touching them. I see all this master set nonsense as frivolous busy work. However, if it feeds your neurosis and keeps you off the streets, have at it.
I used to work with Rodney years ago and he was certainly the least audiophile of any of us. In fact, character that he is, he used to laugh at us for our concerns and suggest off road motorcycling which is what he was very good at.
He's an entertainer at the level of Seinfeld or Leno and a world class salesman. And he knows enough to sell whatever people are dumb enough to buy.

I always got the idea from your posts that you had a personal animosity with Rod Tomsen over something.
However, your personal issues have no bearing here on this thread.

[stvnharr]

Earth-  Speaking for myself, not a thing, except I don't know why I would want to.  I'm very pleased with what I am getting.  Tonality, clarity, imaging, soundstaging, dynamic gradation from soft to loud, attack, bloom and decay, you name it, and bass, too.  It all sounds best ever to my experience and senses.
 
No proponent of MS has said a thing about the frequency response measurements posted on the previous page made on dynamic and forward firing radiators in common with what I have.  I concede that MS may be wholly approriate for somebody.  Waveforms spilling around cabinets and combining more quickly with direct radiated waveforms/information would increase volume, I would think, but I also would think that depth of field would be foreshortened and little things obscured.  I get the sense of live instruments on a stage in more cases that I thought possible.  The intimacy and palpable presence, the dimensionality of instruments themselves and the air around them, just keeps on rewarding me.  Bass is full bodied and note clear, textured and even.

The graph is essentially meaningless as it was not done in a Master Set setup. Just having speakers close to a wall does not make a speaker placement a Master Set.  It's just another out of phase placement.

Now, I'm always somewhat amused at the reactions of people to the Master Set idea.  I've even seen odd reactions from people at shows about what they've just heard and experienced, asking if it's some gimmick or software or some product that can be bought.  But a showman's deceptive trick is a new one, thanks Jack.

For me it's about getting better, and more realistic, sound reproduction, nothing more.

As you wish........................I'm just putting it out there.

[macrojack]

stvnharr - My comments  about Rodney have as much bearing on this topic as your sanctification of him does. I think the master set business is some sort of johnny appleseed mission for you. As I said, have at it, but don't attempt to decide who should contribute or what subjects they may treat. That is not your province.

Incidentally, as far as I know, Rod and I have always been on good terms. Do you have info to the contrary or are you speculating?

You come off as a one trick pony, pal. I've never noticed your participation in anything around here that didn't involve pushing your master set product.

[stvnharr]

stvnharr - My comments  about Rodney have as much bearing on this topic as your sanctification of him does. I think the master set business is some sort of johnny appleseed mission for you. As I said, have at it, but don't attempt to decide who should contribute or what subjects they may treat. That is not your province.

Incidentally, as far as I know, Rod and I have always been on good terms. Do you have info to the contrary or are you speculating?

You come off as a one trick pony, pal. I've never noticed your participation in anything around here that didn't involve pushing your master set product.

Gee, what a grouch!!!!

Your Pal,
Johnny