• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sub 25K active speaker/system choice

OP
L

lherrm

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
203
Likes
361
Location
Reunion Island
kermit-windstorm.gif
 
OP
L

lherrm

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
203
Likes
361
Location
Reunion Island
Is the printer there to help with imaging? I thought you have GLM for that :)

It will indeed help with having some "impressions".
 
OP
L

lherrm

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
203
Likes
361
Location
Reunion Island
We have guests at home, so couldn't spend time on it yesterday.
Had to find my digital cables again, fortunately they're not lost.
Hooking them up to the RME Fireface and Mac mini tonight, hopefully.
 

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
Interesting how you went from Solo 6be to these. I started with those too and really enjoyed them. But these wipe the floor with the Solo 6be. I’m sure you would agree.


Also while some folks talk about reflections and envelopment the folks at GIK talk about creating an anechoic path from the line of the speaker to your ears. Basically at least cover the reflection points on the ceiling and walls and floor if possible (used 2 thick rugs).

The front and back wall are debatable regarding absorption vs diffusion depending on your needs and tastes.

Of course the W371s obviate the need for full on treatment but some judicial treatment always helps.
 
Last edited:

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
Here are some pictures of the room (please don't mind picture quality and room disorder/mess as it is not the purpose).

Front :
View attachment 173778
Back :
View attachment 173779
Left :
View attachment 173780
Right :
View attachment 173781
Ceiling :
View attachment 173782

Cleaning/puting things in their storage/normal places aside, I don't have much place to setup treatments.
Corners are already filled. The white wall in front is used for videoprojection (using about 60% of the space), there's a window on the back and a bay window on the right (there are supposed to be drapes on them sooner or later). The ceiling has a beam every 40cm.
If anything was to be added, it would need to be : almost invisible + take as least space as possible.
That ceiling can take a cloud. The rest I guess you don’t have space.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,773
Location
Canada
Also while some folks talk about reflections and envelopment the folks at GIK talk about creating an anechoic path from the line of the speaker to your ears. Basically at least cover the reflection points on the ceiling and walls and floor if possible (used 2 thick rugs).
For stereo, since it's spatially terrible, you rely on reflections to create some sense of space. Which is why Toole's book suggests not treating the first reflection points in that case.

Amount of treatment is a matter of preference of course, but the idea of removing the room for a stereo system really doesn't make any sense, because dead rooms sound bad. There is a happy medium, this is covered pretty well in the book. For multichannel it's a bit different since the surrounds and tops/heights(if available) produce many reflections on their own.

Nevertheless, there are people who insist that heavily treating stereo rooms is a good idea, but the research doesn't support it and personally Ive been very underwhelmed by the (stereo) sound in rooms with treatment on sidewalls, including professional studios.
 

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
For stereo, since it's spatially terrible, you rely on reflections to create some sense of space. Which is why Toole's book suggests not treating the first reflection points in that case.

Amount of treatment is a matter of preference of course, but the idea of removing the room for a stereo system really doesn't make any sense, because dead rooms sound bad. There is a happy medium, this is covered pretty well in the book. For multichannel it's a bit different since the surrounds and tops/heights(if available) produce many reflections on their own.

Nevertheless, there are people who insist that heavily treating stereo rooms is a good idea, but the research doesn't support it and personally Ive been very underwhelmed by the (stereo) sound in rooms with treatment on sidewalls, including professional studios.
So I’ll readily admit that I don’t have much listening experience as you might have had.

All I can say is that each additional panel has helped my system and helped me get towards an all green GRADE report. However I have not put in my cloud yet and maybe I could remove some side panels.

The issue I have is a woefully asymmetric room. One side has an alcove which does not help. The other has a wide opening to its own space of kitchen etc.

Blocking sound hitting the kitchen space and rattling the cabinets etc has been very helpful to me.

The alcove on the left is standing wave central. The more I covered it the better.

Now I do have a fully covered wall above the fireplace. That is where I will remove panels and see if that left reflection is helpful or hurtful once the cloud gets installed.

Now we are getting into theory and opinion. My opinion is that the “space” is already in the recording and that I don’t need to add more.

Also I would ideally set up to hear as close as possible what the mixing and mastering engineer heard while cutting the tape. Of course I juice up 0-200Hz and shelf down above 1500Hz. It just sounds better to me.

That’s why I love the Genelec system. I can dial in whatever I want from a reference starting point.

Having said that I will try to take off some side panels on the left and see how it goes.

Right now it’s sounding absolutely incredible and I can’t wait to put up the cloud and i’m getting also absorptive/diffusive panels for the back wall. Maybe those would be better for the side wall also over pure absorptive panels.

I will admit that I can’t easily undo and check the sound. But the results to my ears (vocal intelligibility) as well as my GRADE report have been great.

Edit: also there have been fringe benefits. Apart from a super clean waterfall above 100Hz (working on below).

I have a loud compressor pumping out 60Hz on the other side of my front wall. Dropping bass traps on the bottom of that wall and behind the TV has reduced that considerably. In fact my Genelec mic was showing 60dBc before and now it’s 50dBc. The room is very quiet whether or not the compressor is on. Outside ambient noise is also down significantly. The space sounds a bit eerie until I turn up the music that is.

Also from what I read, while the W371 is excellent at delivering directed bass at your ears it still diffuses out and ends up hanging out and cancelling/reinforcing new bass notes. At the very least even if you don’t believe in side treatments and even if you have W371 I would try to some soffited or tri traps in the front corners. The corners as the most bang for your back and probably you don’t use those spaces. I did front and I will do the back.

After all this, however I feel like I need another sub so I strongly feel a 7380 will be in my future. I wonder if that money should go directly into a pair of W371s but I’ll wait and maybe have all of it. 3 subs. 8361 x 2 and then finally W371 x 2.
 
Last edited:

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,773
Location
Canada
The issue I have is a woefully asymmetric room. One side has an alcove which does not help. The other has a wide opening to its own space of kitchen etc.
Yeah, asymmetric rooms are a different story. In that case, all you can really do is treat to hopefully even up the (lack of..) reflections on the open side. It's very suboptimal for stereo -- multichannel helps a lot. I have a similar space.
 

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
Yeah, asymmetric rooms are a different story. In that case, all you can really do is treat to hopefully even up the (lack of..) reflections on the open side. It's very suboptimal for stereo -- multichannel helps a lot.
I currently have a solid central image and only I use the system so i’m okay with what I have.

I am curious about adding a center but I have no idea how to get a signal into it. What will work on a stereo signal and derive a center channel signal.

I may go multichannel one day but lots to think about and to select a good receiver.

Also I head Auro 3D went out of business? So that is a sad thing to hear.

I don’t know about suboptimal as the recordings are mixed that way with the “anechoic path” to the ears.

But I will experiment after I get the cloud up.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,773
Location
Canada
I currently have a solid central image and only I use the system so i’m okay with what I have.

I am curious about adding a center but I have no idea how to get a signal into it. What will work on a stereo signal and derive a center channel signal.
You want some type of upmixing for that. I prefer Auro3D, but Dolby Surround w/center channel spread is also well liked.
I may go multichannel one day but lots to think about and to select a good receiver.

Also I head Auro 3D went out of business? So that is a sad thing to hear.
They restructured, they're not gone afaik. At least, new products are still including support for Auro3D and its upmixing, which is what I really care about.
I don’t know about suboptimal as the recordings are mixed that way with the “anechoic path” to the ears.
Well, sure, stereo just sounds bad, full stop, end of story. It cannot capture spatial information, it's physically impossible. Most studio mixing just stopped trying to pretend you can. That's why you need to do things that aren't in the recording to make it sound any good. Or just go to multi-channel, as Toole spends more than half of his book advocating.
 

srrxr71

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 4, 2020
Messages
884
Likes
594
You want some type of upmixing for that. I prefer Auro3D, but Dolby Surround w/center channel spread is also well liked.

They restructured, they're not gone afaik. At least, new products are still including support for Auro3D and its upmixing, which is what I really care about.

Well, sure, stereo just sounds bad, full stop, end of story. It cannot capture spatial information, it's physically impossible. Most studio mixing just stopped trying to pretend you can. That's why you need to do things that aren't in the recording to make it sound any good. Or just go to multi-channel, as Toole spends more than half of his book advocating.
So dolby surround. It just takes the L-R signal and sends it to the back.

I used to play with wires as a kid to send these signals to different speakers. It’s very interesting.

So I could just use a program on PC to derive L-R and send it to a center channel.

I will be getting my 8361s next week so I can use a 8341 as a center to test.


Now I have heard your assertions before and you have quoted O’ toole before.

So I would make the effort to audition this perhaps in Natick, MA after the weather warms up perhaps next spring.

No doubt stereo gives you that front focused image that perhaps after trying multichannel sounds boring. But that front image does have a sense of space. It may not envelope you but that’s what it does.

Alternatively I could put 2 8341s behind me and send them L-R.

That’s pretty much all we do given everything is recorded in stereo. I have a few multichannel SACDs. I would test them one day or take them to Natick.

I have heard the Sony SACD demos at Best Buy back in those days. It was cool. But not an ideal setup. But should be good enough to have 5 speakers in the ideal ITU positions.

It didn’t make me feel like spending 5x was a wise decision especially given the dearth of material and even more so for well produced material. Some of them are using multichannel like the early Beatles guys used stereo. Some might be well mixed.

Right now i’m working on perfecting stereo first and then I will work on multichannel. I have the monitors to play with so it can’t hurt.

However the way you trash stereo so hard tells me you are very emotionally invested in your readings/beliefs. The rest of us plebs must be listening to shit.

You maybe coming from a position of wanting us all to hear and enjoy what you are hearing. Many others have multichannel systems. Nobody else talks so strongly about it.

No doubt I trust your reading of O’Toole. But he speaks in theory and of what could have been. We could have had a 3 channel format back in the 50s. They tried but couldn’t sell it.

Right now practically it’s all going to be some kludge derived from stereo let’s face it. I know there is an Auro 3d cult out there along with all the other audio cults.

I would always try for myself. Where is it I can try?

I would rather wait for Atmos music to mature and get the best of what available in hardware at that time. Meanwhile earn interest on my funds. No point jumping the on hardware now to prepare for a format that isn’t fully baked yet.

Just how I handle my affairs having many experiences with buying into early adopter tech.

The receivers are still half baked with regard to even HDMI 2.1. Dirac live bass control still is not available on common hardware.

I am waiting.
 
Last edited:

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,653
Likes
6,773
Location
Canada
So dolby surround. It just takes the L-R signal and sends it to the back.
I'm not sure which version of this you're talking about, but it must be a very old one. The DSU does a variety of things, but one of them is that it extracts phantom center and puts it into the center channel. It actually does this so aggressively that some people prefer "center spread" on, which tones down that functionality somewhat.

None of the modern upmixing algorithms(Auro, DSU, DTS Neural X) do anything as simple as just translating L/R signals to surrounds.
However the way you trash stereo so hard tells me you are very emotionally invested in your readings/beliefs. The rest of us plebs must be listening to shit.
A rather strange way to make an argument. The "readings/beliefs" that you so dismiss as emotional investment are the ones that are the basis of all the work done here from day 1. What objective evidence have YOU got that Toole's summary of audio research is wrong? You trash me for being emotionally invested, but you've posted no support at all for any of your positions?

The reality is that I listened ONLY to stereo for decades. Then, on a whim after reading some posts on here, I decided to try multi-channel classical by buying an extra couple of speakers. And I learned that, even with a mediocre system, good multi-channel recordings sound DAY AND NIGHT BETTER than stereo. AFTER having that experience, I read Toole's book, and understood the research and why stereo can never reproduce a sound field effectively. "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

No one really contests this that I've ever seen. There isn't any research showing, actually, all of that is wrong and stereo is just as good. What they say is, well, yes, multichannel is better, but it requires too many speakers, or there's not enough content, etc. That's perfectly valid, and it's also the definition of a compromise. Everyone has to make some compromises, but you should realize that they're compromises. Stereo is a compromise relative to multichannel. My small 8351Bs are a compromise relative to a full W371A system. And that system is a compromise compared to a 50-speaker spatial audio array. And so on.
 
Top Bottom