[jimdgoulding]

Thanks again for all the great posts guys.  Lots of good ideas.  When it comes to "dedicated" listening, I usually throw blankets over the TV, coffee table and marble fireplace hearth trying to cut down on those hard surfaces.  As for the nearfield listening and an equidistant triangle, I think I'm getting closer.  Probably could do an 8.5 foot spread with the speakers 2 feet or more out from the back wall with the couch pulled a foot off the back wall.  That should get me pretty close.........

Hope it goes without saying that nearfield listening and an equilateral triangle are not exclusive.  Where would things have to be for you to try a triangle with 7' legs.  Heck, man, I use speakers with over and under drivers like yours inside of a 6' triangle!  Close your eyes and you wouldn't know it.  Some recordings will give it away but not because of the size of images or breadth of space.  Don't hesitate to try it cause you may think that things will be too something and the legs between you and the plane of your speaks could be slightly longer.  You can open it to taste.  Still think you should move out your coffee table and by now you understand why.  John's idea about replacing it with your ottoman is interesting.

Postnote-  Believe you said previously that your bass was best integrated at 30" out from the back wall.

[Sound-Doc]

There are absolute answers to all your questions. If you want you can call me and we can chat. I find it too difficult to do on a forum, it needs in depth explanation.  303-759-5505   Rod...

[jimdgoulding]

Jim,
I think it's healthy to admit that all recordings are made differently and that they are indeed recordings, not live music in some sort of textbook space and time. However, if you really believe this philosophy (and I certainly do), then you wouldn't worry too much about being a purist, since there is no real reference to be pure to. Be true to your personal preference, and accept the rules as academic guidelines.

Kinger has the right idea to experiment and listen. Keep trying and keep learning Kinger, but stop and enjoy it when you find the spot that sounds best to you. They're your recordings, and your room.

Yes, but not all designers use the same methods to achieve good sound. My speakers actually came with printed instructions to place them as close to the side and rear walls as possible. I'll be darned if that's not where they sound their very best. And yes, for all recordings.

Pretty cool, huh? 

Quiet Earth Angel (anybody remember that tune?)- Your speakers are designed/balanced for near wall placement.  The manual wouldn't have told you to put them there if they weren't.  I come from a time when bout every speaker was a rather large box speaker.  East Coast sound vs. West Coast sound was the thing.  Unless you had stacked KLH 9's or something, guys weren't getting the third dimension.  Still got those Met 7's?  Got some aftermarket stands?  Bring them out (sans their grills) as discussed, put on a 60's English label classical recording or two and your Audio Note gear will do the rest.  You'll have less bass with those lil puppies free standing but it will be linear bass.  Just play around with the distances like what has been suggested here to get the best balance.  I'd venture that Kinger's Salks will sound their best free-standing and equidistant from himself.  They would to my definition of high fidelity, I'm pretty certain.

Btw, lest someone think I would be trying to eliminate the room, that would be incorrect.  Understanding the relationship of one's room and speaker behavior is worth a very lot.  Best friends is what we are.

[Nuance]

The SongTower's are an MTM design, and if I do remember correctly sitting too close to that design can cause lobing and/or comb filtering issues.  I wouldn't sit any closer than 7 feet.  This is per the crossover designer, Dennis Murphy, for that its worth. 

Kinger,

I currently have a similar setup,, and treating the right wall (which is as close to the speaker as yours is) made a HUGE difference in soundstage width and the precision of imaging.  Also, having the speakers the same distance from the back wall is not a guarantee that the sound will arrive to the LP at the same time.  This would only apply in a perfectly equidistant room, with no obstacles to absorb or reflect (besides room treatments, of course).  Pictures, couches, windows, etc will all effect the timing of the sound.  Your goal is to ensure the timing is the same from each speaker, and if moving one three inches does that, then do it.  My right speaker is 4 inches further away, but that snaps the soundstage into place, and it measures properly in REW as well (used to be 1.1dB louder when positioned the same distance from the LP).  Moving it a few inches made a large difference in my room.

Have you used a level meter, or even better, REW to measure the SPL levels and get things perfectly level matched?  That should help, but the room interaction is what you'll need to fix.  That right wall is killing you, just like it was killing me until I treated it.  Rest assured my next home hunt will not be complete until I find a room suitable enough for great sound.  It might be a long hunt...

[jimdgoulding]

God is in the nuance.  I can't remember who penned that?  Long ago, think I remember that.

[Quiet Earth]

 Jim, if I hurt your feelings or rained on your parade, then I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.

I thought your post was a good opportunity to discuss our expectations from the stereo format in general. People talk about stereo imaging like it is something they encounter in real life. I believe that it is an artificial thing attached to the stereo recording, and that it should be enjoyed in which ever way floats your boat.  Your expectations of what stereo should sound like are just fine and your methods are certainly the most popular. I'm not disagreeing with them either. I'm just saying that it took me a long, long time to admit to myself that I was bored with it.  To continue on with it made me feel empty.

- Your speakers are designed/balanced for near wall placement.  The manual wouldn't have told you to put them there if they weren't.

Yes, that was my point exactly.

[jimdgoulding]

Dude, I didn't see what your original post was about as it relates to the Op and I don't get what this one is about either.  I mean I'm happy for you and all and I'm not going to jump off a cliff anytime soon.  To each his own.   

[Quiet Earth]

 . Well Jim, I figured when you started calling me names that I must have offended you. I'm glad that I didn't. Let's move on.

I was inspired to shoot off my mouth about stereo being fake when you brilliantly said "Which begats the question to me . . what sound?" You took the words right out of my mouth. But for different reasons I guess.

I think we put a little too much idealism in speaker placement and room acoustics because recorded sound and live sound are so vastly different. Our expectations are uncalibrated when put a record on .  Take our OP for example.  Here is a guy who discovers through unorthodox experimentation that he can achieve a more enjoyable sound by breaking a rule. (Notice I said more enjoyable, not more accurate.) Then he asks "why would this be?" and says "if it's what it takes I'll live with it".

I'll live with it. That's interesting.

I went to my daughters piano recital a few weeks ago, closed my eyes and imagined that I was listening to my stereo. There was no stereo. No left, no right, no front or back (except for people coughing in the audience). All of the notes and pedal sounds came directly from the lid of the piano which was angled up and pointed at the audience. There was no hall ambience either. Just a big ass mono piano sound. It was awesome but there was something wrong with my speakers. Why aren't the notes spread all over from left to right?

I went to my daughter's 5th grade music recital at school this morning. Trumpets, clarinets, trombones, flutes and one drum. Way too many of them, spread out about forty feet across and twenty feet deep in the multipurpose room. There was no stereo effect except for the drummer who was all the way to the right of the big ensemble. There was a slight front to back depth perception but no obvious room ambience cues. Just a single, coherent sound that was very tall, wide, and dynamic. What I noticed the most about it was that it had texture and contrast. It was a big, wide, mono, living-breathing sound. Who moved my speakers out of alignment?

This is just meant as food for thought for the thread, not an argument for right or wrong. Hope that is OK.

[jimdgoulding]

My opening was meant affectionately and tongue in cheek.  I hadn't imagined that you or anyone might think otherwise.  Earth Angel is a favorite song from my youth.  And Earth fit with Quiet, oh well, I guess that was too esoteric after all.  Please accept my apology.  I certainly meant nothing weird or bad.

I hardly ever can detect stereo in my set up, either, and a good engineer, what I would call a good engineer, wouldn't want you to.  Things are realistic to include the settings when that is a part of a recording.  Realistic in everyway I can think of.  That is not the case on every recording, as I'm sure you know, but listening to solo piano on a stage in a hall, for example, is extremely convincing in good recordings in my room.  That's what is meant when guys say that live music is the reference.  It's IN good recordings.  In particular, in good on location recordings.  Our job then becomes to get it into our rooms.  And/or, to have a complimentary ticket into the hall.  I couldn't get there your way.  Glad you can.

Oh, and to clarify my meaning on something.  When I said your speakers were meant to be placed where you have them, I meant for purposes of frequency balance and dynamics.  I don't think the recreation of a three dimensional soundspace was a design goal.  I just don't see how it could be.  Maybe that's a shortcoming on my part.  Thanks. 

[BobRex]

I went to my daughters piano recital a few weeks ago, closed my eyes and imagined that I was listening to my stereo. There was no stereo. No left, no right, no front or back (except for people coughing in the audience). All of the notes and pedal sounds came directly from the lid of the piano which was angled up and pointed at the audience. There was no hall ambience either. Just a big ass mono piano sound. It was awesome but there was something wrong with my speakers. Why aren't the notes spread all over from left to right?

I went to my daughter's 5th grade music recital at school this morning. Trumpets, clarinets, trombones, flutes and one drum. Way too many of them, spread out about forty feet across and twenty feet deep in the multipurpose room. There was no stereo effect except for the drummer who was all the way to the right of the big ensemble. There was a slight front to back depth perception but no obvious room ambience cues. Just a single, coherent sound that was very tall, wide, and dynamic. What I noticed the most about it was that it had texture and contrast. It was a big, wide, mono, living-breathing sound. Who moved my speakers out of alignment?

This is just meant as food for thought for the thread, not an argument for right or wrong. Hope that is OK.

I really woudn't expect much "imaging / soundstaging" from a solo piano recital - that's one area where recordings really screw things up.  On the other hand, I've been to a number of orchestral concerts (Boston, Philly, local...) and I DID hear imaging and soundstaging with individual instruments in their "proper" places.  Imaging and soundstaging do happen in real life, assuming the venue supports it.  While the imaging wasn't as precise as a good recording, it was there.

[jimdgoulding]

God is in the nuance.  I can't remember who penned that?  Long ago, think I remember that.

I was scrolling old threads and have remembered who said that.  Popped into my head when I clicked on this one.  Markus Sauer.  It was the title of a two part article written in Sterephile some years ago.