[SteveFord]

I got out the tape measure today and the speakers WERE set to that 1/3 1/5th rule.  I had just moved them around until they sounded right.

One thing that did make an improvement was swapping amps around - the 250s are now downstairs with the old 300s upstairs.  The 250s seem to have more punch to them which helped to wake up the 3.6s.
Perhaps I'll stumble across a used pair of Manley 500s or VTL 450s that I can actually afford.

[andyr]

I got out the tape measure today and the speakers WERE set to that 1/3 1/5th rule.  I had just moved them around until they sounded right.

Well, there ya go! 

Perhaps I'll stumble across a used pair of Manley 500s or VTL 450s that I can actually afford.

VTL 450s ... mmmm, yummy! 

Or, alternatively, use your 250s on the mid/ribbons and some 300w ss monoblocs on the bass panels, and actively bi-amp. 

Regards,

Andy

[SteveFord]

I figure that a set of used 450 or 500W tube monoblocks will run a good three to five grand.
What would you recommend for 300W solid state monoblocks for the bass panels? 
The problem is that I'm going deaf.  I wonder why that might be?!?

[andyr]

I figure that a set of used 450 or 500W tube monoblocks will run a good three to five grand.
What would you recommend for 300W solid state monoblocks for the bass panels? 
The problem is that I'm going deaf.  I wonder why that might be?!?

3 to 5 grand - sheesh!!    And quite a lot per annum for replacement tubes, no doubt!!

300-500w ss monoblocs (into 4ohms) for the bass panels - have a search (or ask) on the Planar Asylum to get some more suggestions but, from what I've read, Wired4Sound have some inexpensive Class D that some people even use for full-range (though I wouldn't - though I admit I've never heard them  ) so they should sound sweet enough for the bass.

Or an oldie like a Crown.

I must admit, my bass amps are 200w into 4 ohms and I have never felt I am lacking in bas response ... but it would be nice to have 300w there, just to see if it makes any difference.    Then again, as I'm not going deaf ... mebbe I don't play them as loud as you? 

Regards,

Andy

[SteveFord]

Stereos and guitars have something to do with it but it's mostly the 100 mile/day commute on a race kitted Buell...

[Wind Chaser]

Six inches!

Last week I moved my speakers almost six feet apart and the difference was seismic!  No pussyfooting here.  If you have the space, use it.  3' off the front wall is too close, pull them at least one foot, preferably two feet further out into the room.  Try damping the front wall immediately behind the panel.  In my experience stats are very directional so I wouldn't worry about proximity to the sidewalls damping the AV system in between.

Stats require much more effort to get them to perform optimally than the average speaker.  Many people never come close to getting them to that level.  If you really want to hear what stats can do, you need to serious effort into setting them up.  I gave up on mine after two weeks, but somebody who knew what what to do was able to score big time in one afternoon.

[SteveFord]

Good news, I fixed my loudness issue with the 3.6s for no cost!
There is an archway on the long right hand wall and on the other side of the archway was a cloth covered couch.
The sound was bouncing out the archway and being sucked up by the couch as well.  Covering the archway with a blanket (for my experiment) and replacing the listening chair with the couch allowed me to happily blast my brains out which is how it should be.
Now I just need to make some real stands for those speakers to replace those ridiculous little feet they provide and I should be all set.

[Letitroll98]

I've been playing with Andy's 1/3-1/5 placement guide and have had a lot of fun with it.  I was able to achieve very flat bass and midbass response, but imaging was crushed.  However it looks like I may end up with a hybrid between Andy's method and the Audio Physic placement, which imaged fantastically but had severe bass response issues.  Mapping out your room with odd and even dimensions for both speaker placement and listening position nodes is invaluable. 

[andyr]

I've been playing with Andy's 1/3-1/5 placement guide and have had a lot of fun with it.  I was able to achieve very flat bass and midbass response, but imaging was crushed.

Can you explain further, L98, how "imaging was crushed "?     Do you mean:
* the sound stage width or depth was substantially reduced?
* the placement of instruments was not as clearly defined as before?
* or???

I would've thought I have pretty good imaging with my system - but mebbe I've never experienced anything better, whereas you have? 

How much toe-in do you have, BTW?  I point my ribbons at my ears.

Regards,

Andy

[jtwrace]

Here is something on speaker placement by George Cardas....

  [font=&quot]Speakers[/font][font=&quot] In A Rectangular Room[/font][font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]by George Cardas[/][/font][/i][font=&quot][/font]
[font=&quot]Very precise speaker placement can open up a whole new dimension in listening, so I will outline the system that is becoming the standard of the industry. This standardized listening room is a Golden Cuboid and is the model for the math used in this system. This method will work with any box speaker, in any reasonably sized rectangular room. You may find that you have already positioned your speakers this way by ear. [/font]
[font=&quot]Active nodes are the main concern when placing speakers in a rectangular room. A node, or the frequency where speakers and parallel walls interact, is proportional to the speaker to the wall distance. [/font]
[font=&quot]The three most importance nodes, in order of importance, are proportional to the distance between the speaker and: [/font]
[font=&quot]1. The side wall nearest the speaker
 2. The rear wall
 3. The side wall across from the speaker [/font]
[font=&quot]A secondary factor is the speaker-to-speaker time constant. [/font]
[font=&quot]When you use this Golden Ratio method to set your room up, the speakers are placed so the three nodes progress or differ from one another in Golden Ratio. This eliminates any unison or near unison resonance in the nodes. [/font]
[font=&quot]Panel or dipole speakers such as Apogees and Magnepans cancel their side waves, so a formula of .618 x the ceiling height can be used for determining placement from the rear wall. Most box speakers radiate low frequencies in all directions thus a formula that places the speaker to rear wall distance at 1.618 the side wall distance should be used. [/font]
[font=&quot]Speaker placement, simply stated [/font]
[font=&quot]The distance from the center of the woofer face to the side walls is: [/font]
[font=&quot]Room Width times .276 (RW x .276) [/font]
[font=&quot]The distance from the center of the woofer face to the wall behind the speaker is: [/font]
[font=&quot]Room Width times .447 (RW x .447) [/font]
[font=&quot]This is all you need to know to place speakers in a symmetrical, rectangular room! [/font] 

[font=&quot][/font]

  [font=&quot]Diagram A[/font][/b][font=&quot][/font] 

 

[font=&quot]Distance[/font][/b][/i][font=&quot][/font][/t][/t]

[font=&quot]Percentage[/font][/b][/i][font=&quot][/font]

       

[font=&quot]Speaker to side wall: RW x[/font]   [/t]      [font=&quot].276[/font]               [font=&quot]Speaker to rear wall: RW x[/font]   [/t]      [font=&quot].447[/font]               [font=&quot]Speaker to opposite side wall: RW x[/font]   [/t]      [font=&quot].724[/font]               [font=&quot]Speaker to speaker: RW x[/font]   [/t]      [font=&quot].447[/font]           [font=&quot][/font] [font=&quot]For those who must know more...[/] [/font]

[/td][/tr][/table]

needs some help

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring=Room+Setup

[rollo]

 It took me years to find the perfect location in my room with the Maggie 3As. A half inch here a half inch there. Then I got it, so i thought.
   One evening Scott Markwell came over for dinner and a listen. Scott has set up Maggies for HP for some time and was very familiair with them. So he says to me "mind if I try moving the speakers. I responded with "it took me years" and went upstairs to cook. Unkown to me he moved them and the listening chair position.  The new location although close to what I had made a huge difference. About 7' apart 6 feet out from rear wall and the tweeters on the outside and adjusted the toe in a tad. It takes time to get it right unless you know someone who is an expert.
 The most helpfull tool IMO is the Sheffield burn in disc with its out of phase track which enables one to get it perfect. very easy to use . tryt and find this disc . It is an essential tool for getting the imaging and everything else right. Have fun.


charles
 

[Letitroll98]

Can you explain further, L98, how "imaging was crushed "?     Do you mean:
* the sound stage width or depth was substantially reduced?
* the placement of instruments was not as clearly defined as before?
* or???

I would've thought I have pretty good imaging with my system - but mebbe I've never experienced anything better, whereas you have? 

How much toe-in do you have, BTW?  I point my ribbons at my ears.

Regards,

Andy

Thanks Andy, exactly the place for an update.  Your original post was quite timely as it was about time for a fresh approach to this room.  The big problem is I only have a small room for the dedicated 2 channel system, 13.5' x 10.17' x 8'.  Room resonances predominate at 71hz +/- 10hz, with a suckout at 125hz.  Even the 1/3 placement brings them out only 40.5" from the long wall, not a lot of space for Maggies to breath.  Both the Audio Physic and Cardas method put them at 60" out, which brings some spectacular imaging.  However the 1/3 spacing tamed both the bump and suckout, with the cost of image depth and width.  So I remapped the resonances and found a better width placement still using the 40.5" 1/3 out that restored much of the imaging, as far as I could test under late night loudness restrictions.  Note that this is a new room without even the TT set up fully and wall treatments set on boxes and shelves until final placement.  So all opinions and ideas are considered, your post was most helpful.  Updates to follow on this or other threads.   

PS, I see jt is a worse digital dyslexic than I am.            

[Wayner]

Amazing that I just found some information on this very topic in the Audio Basics section found on the Audio by Van Alstine website. I think it was in 1982 issue. He discusses the very things were are plowing thru, the causes and the (sometimes) cures of correct planar placement.

Wayner

[andyr]

Thanks Andy, exactly the place for an update.  Your original post was quite timely as it was about time for a fresh approach to this room.  The big problem is I only have a small room for the dedicated 2 channel system, 13.5' x 10.17' x 8'.  Room resonances predominate at 71hz +/- 10hz, with a suckout at 125hz.  Even the 1/3 placement brings them out only 40.5" from the long wall, not a lot of space for Maggies to breath.  Both the Audio Physic and Cardas method put them at 60" out, which brings some spectacular imaging.  However the 1/3 spacing tamed both the bump and suckout, with the cost of image depth and width.  So I remapped the resonances and found a better width placement still using the 40.5" 1/3 out that restored much of the imaging,

Updates to follow on this or other threads.   

Yes, please provide updates as you continue to tweak the placing.

What toe-in do you have?

BTW, I think that the bigger a room gets, the more flexibility it provides - so you're in a dificult situation. 

Regards,

Andy

[andyr]

Amazing that I just found some information on this very topic in the Audio Basics section found on the Audio by Van Alstine website. I think it was in 1982 issue. He discusses the very things were are plowing thru, the causes and the (sometimes) cures of correct planar placement.

Wayner

Frank certainly covers a lot of ground in his "newsletters".  I read through 1982 & then found an article on planar loudspeakers in January, 1983 - but, alas, this only marginally mentioned placement.

Regards,

Andy

[Wayner]

I think the final word was that planars are a different kind of speaker and required lots of experimentation on proper placement, and there would be trade-offs.

Wayner

[Letitroll98]

I think the final word was that planars are a different kind of speaker and required lots of experimentation on proper placement, and there would be trade-offs.

Wayner

Duhhh.



(Kidding of course, just so Mr Obvious given my current situation that I had a laugh)

What toe-in do you have?

Exactly what I'm playing with today.

[andyr]

Exactly what I'm playing with today.

Don't forget L98, that when you adjust toe-in, you need to rotate the panel around the central axis of the bass driver (so it remains on the 1/3rd line). 

Just FYI, I have the mid-line between the centre of the ribbon and the centre of the mid, perpendicular to my ears.  (So the perpendiculars from the centre of the bass panels meet behind my head, as I have ribbons in.)

Regards,

Andy

[SteveFord]

Boy, these things sure are sensitive to room changes.
For the downstairs 3.6s I put a tapestry that my sister made on the r/h wall and I had some small throw rugs in front of the speakers.
It just never sounded quite right so today I moved the throw rugs out about 5' out from the speakers and the sound quality totally changed (for the better).

[Letitroll98]

Yeah, so far I have 6 different room maps with 10 different placements and something like 27 frequency plots (I may have lost a couple).  I'm still getting either great imaging or flat frequency response, but never both together.  I'm headed over to 84 Lumber Monday for some more rock wool and framing, MORE BASS TRAPS SCOTTY!