hi
Ive been very interested by Joachim special speaker placement that can be shown here https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...d=0ahUKEwjQo4TTwrLLAhVBvIMKHctsAjkQMwgdKAEwAQ
Sadly, I dont know how far off I am from Joachim's ratio between the listenin position (LP) and the speakers + the distance between Left and Right speaker that Joachim use...
Id love to know the ratio! Anyone?
I know the study at UNEX was available before there: http://www.immediasound.com/Speaker set-up 2009.pdf
but it seems to have been removed... HELP?
I have been trying it in my system and quite shocked by the instrument seperation it provides, the details in HF is greatly increased and total holographic soundstage, even the bass is more tight.
I have tested on me, a friend and my GF, we all three much prefer the setup 4 feet away from LP and the speakers 6 feet apart compared the ordinary way ( 6 feet away from LP and speakers 6 feet apart)...
Ive attached the two setups (the normal way) VS the Joachim way (when my GF is in the picture)
Ive been very interested by Joachim special speaker placement that can be shown here https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl...d=0ahUKEwjQo4TTwrLLAhVBvIMKHctsAjkQMwgdKAEwAQ
Sadly, I dont know how far off I am from Joachim's ratio between the listenin position (LP) and the speakers + the distance between Left and Right speaker that Joachim use...
Id love to know the ratio! Anyone?
I know the study at UNEX was available before there: http://www.immediasound.com/Speaker set-up 2009.pdf
but it seems to have been removed... HELP?
I have been trying it in my system and quite shocked by the instrument seperation it provides, the details in HF is greatly increased and total holographic soundstage, even the bass is more tight.
I have tested on me, a friend and my GF, we all three much prefer the setup 4 feet away from LP and the speakers 6 feet apart compared the ordinary way ( 6 feet away from LP and speakers 6 feet apart)...
Ive attached the two setups (the normal way) VS the Joachim way (when my GF is in the picture)
Attachments
Last edited:
Suesskindaudio | Phenomenon
This speaker is only 66.5 cm high but throws an enormous soundstage with the latest placement.
This speaker is only 66.5 cm high but throws an enormous soundstage with the latest placement.
The first Suesskind link leads to a 'page not found',
edit: on the Susskind site, click the link with the GERMAN tile... no problem
but there's a description here ( pages 3&4 of the review):
Audio Physic Virgo loudspeaker Page 4 | Stereophile.com
edit: on the Susskind site, click the link with the GERMAN tile... no problem
but there's a description here ( pages 3&4 of the review):
Audio Physic Virgo loudspeaker Page 4 | Stereophile.com
Last edited:
ok, ive just finished setup with your exact ration 2.85/2
People really should try.
Ill be listening for a couple of weeks but so far, the sound is spacious, I still have a strong phantom center. the sounds weirdly sounds more coherent with more space between the sounds which allow for better understanding of the music.
It reminds me of headphones. I hear much more details in HF. I really like it!
People really should try.
Ill be listening for a couple of weeks but so far, the sound is spacious, I still have a strong phantom center. the sounds weirdly sounds more coherent with more space between the sounds which allow for better understanding of the music.
It reminds me of headphones. I hear much more details in HF. I really like it!
Last edited:
is that your new company joachim?
and lastly, what is the toe-in you use? Right now I have the tweeter pointing right at my ears...
Last edited:
I've had a similar set up for a while. It works very well however it is far better with broadband absorption on sides and rear wall which allow the speakers to completely disappear. The sound stage becomes precise and enormous. Proximity to the rear wall can be a problem unless you absorb the reflection. It's too close for diffusion. This is with woofer with waveguide tweeter speaker set up also.
definitely, I use side walls boradband absoprtion and on the back wall as well. when my GF was listneing, as I rearranged the side wall reflection, she commented right away how better the sound was once I placed accordingle the side wall panels.
Im VERY impressed right now by this unorthodox placement.It creates a bubble of sound and its just much more enjoyable.
Im VERY impressed right now by this unorthodox placement.It creates a bubble of sound and its just much more enjoyable.
We made an AES paper :
http://academic.research.microsoft....ent-for-optimised-phantom-source-reproduction
Unfortunately you can not download this direct any more.
At least i can not find Prof.Hawksfords privat website where it was availlable.
We did also some more concerning spacial resolution. That was over 20years ago.
My setup method is also mentioned in Martin Colloms book.
http://academic.research.microsoft....ent-for-optimised-phantom-source-reproduction
Unfortunately you can not download this direct any more.
At least i can not find Prof.Hawksfords privat website where it was availlable.
We did also some more concerning spacial resolution. That was over 20years ago.
My setup method is also mentioned in Martin Colloms book.
Not wanting to rain on the parade, but what exactly is special about aiming the left speaker "right" and the right speaker "left" so that they either cross on axis in front of the head, or just behind?
Been doing this for maybe 45 years. Should I have published a paper?
Or is there more to this?
Been doing this for maybe 45 years. Should I have published a paper?
Or is there more to this?
joachim method is:the ratio is 2.85/2...
the ratio is speakers are apart from each other 2.85
the distance between the speakers and listening position is 2.
normal way noramlly is around is 2/2
so rather then have the speakers 130 cm apart and 130cm away from me, they are now 130 cm away from me but apart 184 cm.
really unorthodox but really worth a try. its a winner for me
Given you are talking nearfield listening that seems to match the way a number of recording studio designs are done (which are also generally nearfield even for the big soffit mounted ear killers).
So many people repeat the equilateral triangle mantra its starts to be believed as the only way when it's just part of the necessary compromises in fitting speakers into a domestic environment. But using a bed as room treatment is a tad extreme
So many people repeat the equilateral triangle mantra its starts to be believed as the only way when it's just part of the necessary compromises in fitting speakers into a domestic environment. But using a bed as room treatment is a tad extreme
hehe, no the bed is not for room treatment, its just so nice to enjoy music laying down! its a bonus that it helps for floor reflection.Given you are talking nearfield listening that seems to match the way a number of recording studio designs are done (which are also generally nearfield even for the big soffit mounted ear killers).
So many people repeat the equilateral triangle mantra its starts to be believed as the only way when it's just part of the necessary compromises in fitting speakers into a domestic environment. But using a bed as room treatment is a tad extreme
yes, it seems that as default, people respect the equilateral triangle as if its the only right way.
I must admit its the first time i try a unorthodox speaker placement and im very impressed.
anatech and bear. My method differs. It is really about micro placement and working with the standing wave pattern.
Sure, it is a compromise.
bear, please make a paper.
We build a dark room and created a rather complex electronic system where people could press buttoms.
We found for example that CD quality is sufficient to give 1° resolution so spacially it is transparent.
The resolution for 1° on a 360° axis is less then 15usec.
The ear is quite fast and high bandwidth but CD quality ( as an end product ) is more or less transparent. Problem is that measuring 300 CD´s we found only one that had a meager 14 Bit ( Telarc ? ). It is simply not on the medium that COULD be put on the medium.
Sure, it is a compromise.
bear, please make a paper.
We build a dark room and created a rather complex electronic system where people could press buttoms.
We found for example that CD quality is sufficient to give 1° resolution so spacially it is transparent.
The resolution for 1° on a 360° axis is less then 15usec.
The ear is quite fast and high bandwidth but CD quality ( as an end product ) is more or less transparent. Problem is that measuring 300 CD´s we found only one that had a meager 14 Bit ( Telarc ? ). It is simply not on the medium that COULD be put on the medium.
For a giggle I did a quick google and found a book called 'home recording studios:build it like the pros' by Rod Gervais. No idea who this Rod is, but his setup is reference elsewhere and has the std triangle BUT with your head 40cm in front of the point of the triangle.
Running that for your speaker spacing gives a distance from the middle of your head to each speaker of 150cm for 185cm spacing of the speakers. Which is in spitting distance. That is just one quick check. So shows its not forgotten amongst people who care, even if the exact figures are open to debate (like everything else in audio)
Running that for your speaker spacing gives a distance from the middle of your head to each speaker of 150cm for 185cm spacing of the speakers. Which is in spitting distance. That is just one quick check. So shows its not forgotten amongst people who care, even if the exact figures are open to debate (like everything else in audio)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.