Major life moment: first true Hifi system

[Galliardist]

Thank you for the comments and advice.

So I understand that usualy people ask what are the right speakers for the a specific room, I am asking the opposite, with those speakers in mind, what dimensions should I design the room in my new home?

I am carving this room out partly from the HT and partly from the garage. It will contain one reading chair and one small desk with an iMac and an office chair.

What are the probable dimensions you have in mind? The right speakers for that size may be a better bet than mandating yourself a large room for the G2s, which look to me like they may require a larger space than some.

I don't know if there are any owners of these speakers on this forum to ask...

 

[Bob from Florida]

Thank you for the comments and advice.

So I understand that usualy people ask what are the right speakers for the a specific room, I am asking the opposite, with those speakers in mind, what dimensions should I design the room in my new home?

I am carving this room out partly from the HT and partly from the garage. It will contain one reading chair and one small desk with an iMac and an office chair.

If you are building your own room, perhaps go with the Golden Ratio - https://www.auralexchange.com/knowledgebase/golden-ratio-in-acoustics/
Could minimize your need for room treatments.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

Thank you for the comments and advice.

So I understand that usualy people ask what are the right speakers for the a specific room, I am asking the opposite, with those speakers in mind, what dimensions should I design the room in my new home?

I am carving this room out partly from the HT and partly from the garage. It will contain one reading chair and one small desk with an iMac and an office chair.

Maybe contact Sonus to ask them what size rooms the Faber Stradavari G2 is designed for? It doesn't mean we have to trust the manufacturer, just it might be helpful as a rough guide. You can also see if the company is responsive and if you be comfortable doing a large purchase with Sonus or not. You can get a feeling if you like their customer service. It's important to think about the intended listening distance between the listener and the speakers. Do you intend the room to be a large social space designed to entertainment many people or a small study for one or two people?

 

[Keith_W]

If you are building your own room, perhaps go with the Golden Ratio - https://www.auralexchange.com/knowledgebase/golden-ratio-in-acoustics/
Could minimize your need for room treatments.

It won't. Toole debunked this in his book. There have been many attempts over the years to come up with a room design that has the least number of room modes. All have failed. There is no such thing as an ideal listening room, it is a unicorn.

 

[Bob from Florida]

It won't. Toole debunked this in his book. There have been many attempts over the years to come up with a room design that has the least number of room modes. All have failed. There is no such thing as an ideal listening room, it is a unicorn.

Have not read Toole's book, but no value to this at all?

 

[Multicore]

Hi @Altair

I can't contribute on the complex problem of building home cinemas. I just wanted to chime in on the "first true HiFi system". Getting your priorities straight is important. If you always wanted a B&O system and that's your top priority then don't be talked out of it. There's a durable meme in hifi that B&O is expensive for the performance it delivers but I think that kinda misses the point about B&O.

 

[AudioJester]

That Perlisten/Storm Audio config looks awesome.
My only question would be if you are better off with 4 rather than 2 subs, particularly to take advantage of Dirac ART, that is 2 subs on rear wall.

Also, can u explain the differences you hear between a dedicated stereo vs stereo in HT.
I would have thought the Perlisten/Storm in 2.1 would destroy Accuphase/Sonus Faber in quality and SPL.

 

[NTK]

Have not read Toole's book, but no value to this at all?

I only skimmed through the paper. The assumption in the method is to first place the sound source(s) in the "optimal" position(s), then the "optimum dimension ratios" should give the least overall sound pressure variations within the room. I doubt for most here those are their requirements or goals.

 

[Keith_W]

Have not read Toole's book, but no value to this at all?

No value at all. From the 3rd edition, Chapter 8.1.1: "One of the legends of room acoustics is that some room dimensional ratios, height-to-width-to length, as 1:1.5:2.5, are better than others. The argument goes that these ratios determine the frequency distribution of room resonances, and it is desirable to have these frequencies distributed uniformly in the frequency domain." He goes on to cite a few studies, including Linkwitz (1998) "the process of optimizing room dimensional ratios was highly questionable", and Cox (2004) concluding "there does not appear to be one set of magical dimensions or positions that significantly surpass all others in performance". The reason these calculations fail is because they assume idealized behaviour of a room and its surfaces, do not take into account the effect of furniture, windows, carpets, etc., where the loudspeakers and listening position will be, and so on. He concludes with "it is not that the idea of optimum room ratios is wrong, it is simply that, as originally conceived, it is irrelevant in our business of sound reproduction".

In fact the entirety of Chapter 8 deals with this and it would be impossible for me to type it all out here, so all I will say is that there is no such thing as an ideal room. I can only offer my own anecdote that in my experience, larger rooms are better because they sound more "spacious".

 

[Bob from Florida]

No value at all. From the 3rd edition, Chapter 8.1.1: "One of the legends of room acoustics is that some room dimensional ratios, height-to-width-to length, as 1:1.5:2.5, are better than others. The argument goes that these ratios determine the frequency distribution of room resonances, and it is desirable to have these frequencies distributed uniformly in the frequency domain." He goes on to cite a few studies, including Linkwitz (1998) "the process of optimizing room dimensional ratios was highly questionable", and Cox (2004) concluding "there does not appear to be one set of magical dimensions or positions that significantly surpass all others in performance". The reason these calculations fail is because they assume idealized behaviour of a room and its surfaces, do not take into account the effect of furniture, windows, carpets, etc., where the loudspeakers and listening position will be, and so on. He concludes with "it is not that the idea of optimum room ratios is wrong, it is simply that, as originally conceived, it is irrelevant in our business of sound reproduction".

In fact the entirety of Chapter 8 deals with this and it would be impossible for me to type it all out here, so all I will say is that there is no such thing as an ideal room. I can only offer my own anecdote that in my experience, larger rooms are better because they sound more "spacious".

I don't think it is quite that "black & white". I can certainly understand the effects of furniture, etc with regards to reflections and absorption. I also get that there is no such thing as a perfect room. Since he is designing the room from scratch - this is the chance to "minimize" bad things about room dimensions. Small improvements are still improvements - but how would you prove it anyway without trying to build identical rooms with different ratio's. Bigger rooms, I can believe have a greater chance for improvements - greater distances before reflections of low frequencies resulting lower amplitude standing waves at the room nodes. A lot of us - me included - don't get the chance to design a room. We just find a way to be happy with the room we get to use.

 

[Galliardist]

but how would you prove it anyway without trying to build identical rooms with different ratio's.

Well, you can prove a fair bit by taking rooms and comparing model or calculated results with what actually happens in the room, and you can compare the same room with different furniture and speaker and listener placements, and indeed with different speakers, systems with subwoofers and so on.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Well, you can prove a fair bit by taking rooms and comparing model or calculated results with what actually happens in the room, and you can compare the same room with different furniture and speaker and listener placements, and indeed with different speakers, systems with subwoofers and so on.

In other words the "empirical method" AKA trial & error.

 

[Esprit]

How about a system with active monitors?
For example Genelec.
You can connect your system digitally (AES/EBU) and have DSP to calibrate and optimize the environment.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

How about a system with active monitors?
For example Genelec.
You can connect your system digitally (AES/EBU) and have DSP to calibrate and optimize the environment.

I think he wants a traditional hi fi system with a Luxman amp.

 

[Esprit]

If I had his budget I would have the room designed first. Then I would start with three 8381A as LCR

 

[asov87]

Not trying to guide you away from your current choices, but to offer more regarding speakers: KEF Blade for stereo, combined with their HT architectural speakers…just saying you might want to give them a listen.

 

[asov87]

Also, as others have said before, don’t forget to enjoy this journey as well, is fun to learn, to experiment, to get to know your own tastes

 

[Galliardist]

In other words the "empirical method" AKA trial & error.

Not what I meant. I'm suggesting you can prove things about rooms and setups by measuring, in response to a suggestion that rooms don't always behave according to their size.

 

[steve59]

With the budget you have allowed I'd recommend going to as many 'hifi' shops as possible. Go in, ask to look around, know the size of the room, the type of system, stereo or home theater and when they ask about budget suggest you're still deciding where the law of diminishing returns is for you, hopefully that will get you past the budget components. Suggest a preference for a full range stereo without subs and when they take you into their hi end room pay attention to everything, amps, pre amps, room treatments, and speaker placement. Try to hit at least 4 shops and be transparent. If you're lucky you'll find a dealer with integrity and the products you like. With you're money you should expect home set up and a satisfaction guarantee. I wouldn't underestimate the value of a home set up if maximum fidelity is your goal.

 

[Jaxjax]

Spend abit on travel 1st & go visit some of the best rooms possible in your budget.
Speakers & room trump all IMO
A full on high end pro based system should be listend too Go on a HT / 2 channel lstening room /studio tour before you buy any gear if going 250k
If your in the USA, Kevin at Upscale or Kat would know were you can hear those Focals in a proper dedicated room for sure.
Joe