0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 107466 times.
Hey Jake- Hi. I, too, think the room is a component of the system as well as speaker placement if that wasn't clear. This will determine the amount of room gain and quality of imaging we get. I'm not pure Cardas* but nearer that than MS as I understand it and for reasons you have experienced and described so aptly.In the second picture of Dan's room it appears to me that the speakers are out a good ways from the front wall. Looks to me that the listening position is about mid way into the room. My guess is that he is getting good loading from the front end of his room. Loading that's kind to frequency response and imaging. I'd likely put the speakers a little nearer together thinking that they would disappear even more and allow a stage to develop freer of speaker position and freer of walls. And I would sit nearer but mindful of the fact that it is a tall speaker with multiple drivers. I like a wall of sound but I also like a hall of sound depending on the recording. Just want to give a recording as much freedom as I can. I use the room, too, with this in mind.
Right on, empirical is what you observe but begats the question to me as compared to what? I've been in a lot of venues and sat at different distances from the stage. The memory of this is my reference point. High fidelity to me means truth to the source. And that would include the setting for on location recordings. Our rooms and speaker placement are a source themselves and I just want mine to be in service to the event. So, I use speaker placement and room loading pretty discreetly.
You and Laura should get a hold of a copy of Rachmaninoff's Symphonic Dances with The Dallas Symphony. The CD is dryer and more staid than the vinyl version in my system, so I would recommend the latter. I believe this is available on a pressing made in Europe. Toni Rambold would know. The reason I am recommending this will be obvious to you on first listen (turn it up!). I think the dynamics will be served very nicely by Laura's MS placement. There is not much depth of field on this recording so it should all be upside.
* my speaks are nearer the front wall than Laura had hers and my room is a bunch smaller. Laura's room is so large things may have sounded a little threadbare where she had them. But, I'm sure they don't now and I expect that is a compelling virtue of her new placement.
I think one can feel 16Hz and especially 8Hz more than hear it. But whatever, getting the lower 2 octaves back into the mix is important. I intend to try a MS with my speakers once I replace the large TV between the speakers with a flat screen. It's free to try. I doubt I'll get it perfect on my own but hey, I don't mind trying.
Umm...so C0 to C2 equals 16.35 Hz to 65.41 Hz and we were hearing good bass output to roughly 60 Hz before Rod moved the speakers and were clearly hearing the lowest pedal note of a pipe organ after he was done how does that not equate to two octaves lower?Musical scale to Hz conversion here.Granted we took no measurements and it's likely the output that low wasn't equal to notes above the speaker's rated lower limit we could clearly hear the notes and it certainly adds to the musical experience Laura now enjoys.
Well, I wasn't knocking the setup method....I don't like to knock things I have no experience with. Dave
Well, I wasn't knocking the setup method....I don't like to knock things I have no experience with. Laura said her system sounds much better than before...and she should know better than anyone My point was only regarding the two octave gain....I don't think any setup method would allow that, and I think before and after measurements would show this.Dave
Laura- Empirical evidence? In our hobby?
Laura,Did your depth of field and sounds that appear to the outside of your spkrs change for the better after MS?
I want images to populate the front end of my room wherever they want to and to have a life of their own and be incandescent. And they do.
Right on, empirical is what you observe but begats the question to me as compared to what?
Laura's room is so large things may have sounded a little threadbare where she had them. But, I'm sure they don't now and I expect that is a compelling virtue of her new placement.
Two octaves covers a lot of freq (20-80hz).....I suspect a good amount of exaggeration here Dave
Maybe the speaker or listening position got moved out of a room mode null?
From what I gather, the listening postion has nothing to do with it. It's my feeling that it's all about getting the loudspeakers and the room to work together so that listening position isn't as critical as it is with a standard Cardas setup. I think it's all about getting the best acoustics out of a given envirement w/o all the acoustic bandades. Of course I could be all wrong as I'm only making an assumption from what I've read about Master Set. Cheers,Robin
Dave,No intent to exaggerate and as Jake mentioned, we didn't take measurements, and while it was probably only one octive of bass, it sure seemed like two octives. As I have posted earlier, the lower bass notes were there (I heard them in other parts of my house), but my pre Master Set location was cancelling out the lowest bass notes. After the Set, I am hearing full bass extension in my listening room--the missing notes are there I have listened to a lot of familiar music since Saturday afternoon and it has never sounded better in my system.Laura
Thanks Laura, I understand. I'm very happy for you...you have a nice room, and some great gear. Getting that bottom octave singing like it should makes your whole music collection a new listening experience Dave
Hi Laura There will always be naysayers but the proof is in the pudding.I never thought speaker wire could make a diff. till I heard it for myselfYour write up was not only informative but fun........Bill