|
|
Post by DavidR on Jun 13, 2022 8:55:44 GMT -5
What speaker are we talking about? I didn't see them mentioned. It's a bookshelf speaker with a ribbon tweeter. Since I'm being paid to write the review, I'll hold off identifying it until the review gets published. Cordially - Boom OK For (((me))) ribbon equals shrill; horns equals harsh (usually).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Jun 13, 2022 9:40:01 GMT -5
Good points KeithL ! I remember some of those processors that you could use with any material. I mentioned those two recordings - Tool and Mickey Hart - because they produce imaging in my system not only far outside the envelope of the speakers, but also behind the MLP ... unless I turn my head, which demonstrates that the sound is all coming from the front. But - and many on here have seen my room diagram - my front Magnepans ARE toed out 45 degrees and aimed at very reflective side walls in a room otherwise dominated by diffusion and bass traps. The effect is VERY dependent on the recording. And also what's interesting is that sometimes when I use DDSurround upmixer on some studio recordings, the image collapses more to the center instead of widening and surrounding. Whatever phase information is in some recordings seems to backfire when upmixed. As Keith says you can get a hole in the middle with this radical configuration. I found with lots of measurements (impulse and ETC) that with careful attention to reflections in the space from speakers to MLP I could eliminate the hole and get uniform soundstage starting about 3ft left and right of the speakers and right through the center. depth of soundstage is also recording dependent but can go several feet behind the front plane of the speakers. Back to those two recordings ... the Tool recording is relatively recent and it's certainly plausible that they intentionally processed it to produce the effect. The Mickey Hart recording is 32 years old so I think less likely. I researched a bit and could find no references to spatial processing for either recording. So Boomzilla ... if you have access to those two recordings I'd be curious to hear if you get the same effect. Also ... a couple years ago a friend in the industry lent me a pair of prototype Fluid speakers to try. They were small bookshelf size with about a 7" woofer and coaxially mounted folded ribbon tweeter. Biamped internal power and no doubt some DSP. They measured very smooth from 40Hz up to 20KHz. They sounded good for what were, I think $1100/pr speakers, but despite the tweeters measuring so well the highs sounded mushy compared to the Magnepan ribbons. I had them on stands right at the edge of the Magnepans in the 45 degree position, so I turned the Fluids toward the wall and the effect was very similar to the Magnepans. Marcel, just fyi, my maggies are toed IN, tweets aimed to just behind my head @ MLP. I'm in a low backed chair, 38% room length from back wall. 1.7s are 4' from front wall, 3.25' from sides, and I get that same effect with "8:05", the M.G. song I mentioned. (which, btw was recorded in '67 !). I can't wait to download and hear that Tool piece. Thanks for the heads up. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jun 13, 2022 9:44:39 GMT -5
Good points KeithL ! I remember some of those processors that you could use with any material. I mentioned those two recordings - Tool and Mickey Hart - because they produce imaging in my system not only far outside the envelope of the speakers, but also behind the MLP ... unless I turn my head, which demonstrates that the sound is all coming from the front. But - and many on here have seen my room diagram - my front Magnepans ARE toed out 45 degrees and aimed at very reflective side walls in a room otherwise dominated by diffusion and bass traps. The effect is VERY dependent on the recording. And also what's interesting is that sometimes when I use DDSurround upmixer on some studio recordings, the image collapses more to the center instead of widening and surrounding. Whatever phase information is in some recordings seems to backfire when upmixed. As Keith says you can get a hole in the middle with this radical configuration. I found with lots of measurements (impulse and ETC) that with careful attention to reflections in the space from speakers to MLP I could eliminate the hole and get uniform soundstage starting about 3ft left and right of the speakers and right through the center. depth of soundstage is also recording dependent but can go several feet behind the front plane of the speakers. Back to those two recordings ... the Tool recording is relatively recent and it's certainly plausible that they intentionally processed it to produce the effect. The Mickey Hart recording is 32 years old so I think less likely. I researched a bit and could find no references to spatial processing for either recording. So Boomzilla ... if you have access to those two recordings I'd be curious to hear if you get the same effect. Also ... a couple years ago a friend in the industry lent me a pair of prototype Fluid speakers to try. They were small bookshelf size with about a 7" woofer and coaxially mounted folded ribbon tweeter. Biamped internal power and no doubt some DSP. They measured very smooth from 40Hz up to 20KHz. They sounded good for what were, I think $1100/pr speakers, but despite the tweeters measuring so well the highs sounded mushy compared to the Magnepan ribbons. I had them on stands right at the edge of the Magnepans in the 45 degree position, so I turned the Fluids toward the wall and the effect was very similar to the Magnepans. Marcel, just fyi, my maggies are toed IN, tweets aimed to just behind my head @ MLP. I'm in a low backed chair, 38% room length from back wall. 1.7s are 4' from front wall, 3.25' from sides, and I get that same effect with "8:05", the M.G. song I mentioned. (which, btw was recorded in '67 !). I can't wait to download and hear that Tool piece. Thanks for the heads up. Classic positioning! My 3.7's were basically like that (actually more like 5-6ft from the front wall eventually) before I did the Rooze. I'll give the 8:05 a try. Thanks! BTW, if you're still in the Philly area ... come over and have a listen! |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,269
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 13, 2022 10:19:38 GMT -5
Ribbons should NOT be in the least bit "shrill" - if they're handled correctly.
It's also worth mentioning that there are several different types of "ribbons".
There are "true ribbons". True ribbons are a super-thin metal ribbon... with no plastic layer. They tend to sound very nice, but are somewhat delicate, and generally require an internal transformer (because they have a very low impedance).
Then there are "folded ribbons". These are quite popular these days - and are what we use.
These are a sheet of high-tech plastic, usually Kapton, folded into accordion pleats. There is a printed voice coil that runs up an down each of the flat surfaces of the pleats. This is the modern version of what used to be called "the Heil Air Motion Transformer" - or "AMT". As per the original literature:
Because air is squeezed out between the pleats they produce air movement up to ten times faster than the surface of the driver itself moves. This allows them to produce greater air movement with less driver movement and results in distortion up to ten times lower than planar drivers or domes.
Then there are PLANAR tweeters. These are a FLAT SHEET of high-tech plastic, usually either Mylar or Kapton, with a printed voice coil on its surface. Planar tweeters and midranges are quite common... and are often MISIDENTIFIED as "ribbons". (The main driver in Magneplanars is a PLANAR driver... the tweeter strips may be either true ribbons or planars - depending on the model.)
However none of them should be "harsh" if used properly. (Horns are also capable of sounding good - although, in my experience, they often tend to be "shouty".)
Also note that none of these should be confused with electrostatic speakers... which use a whole different technology. (With its own benefits and drawbacks.)
It's a bookshelf speaker with a ribbon tweeter. Since I'm being paid to write the review, I'll hold off identifying it until the review gets published. Cordially - Boom OK For (((me))) ribbon equals shrill; horns equals harsh (usually).
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jun 13, 2022 12:38:44 GMT -5
Ribbons should NOT be in the least bit "shrill" - if they're handled correctly.
It's also worth mentioning that there are several different types of "ribbons".
There are "true ribbons". True ribbons are a super-thin metal ribbon... with no plastic layer. They tend to sound very nice, but are somewhat delicate, and generally require an internal transformer (because they have a very low impedance).
Then there are "folded ribbons". These are quite popular these days - and are what we use.
These are a sheet of high-tech plastic, usually Kapton, folded into accordion pleats. There is a printed voice coil that runs up an down each of the flat surfaces of the pleats. This is the modern version of what used to be called "the Heil Air Motion Transformer" - or "AMT". As per the original literature:
Because air is squeezed out between the pleats they produce air movement up to ten times faster than the surface of the driver itself moves. This allows them to produce greater air movement with less driver movement and results in distortion up to ten times lower than planar drivers or domes.
Then there are PLANAR tweeters. These are a FLAT SHEET of high-tech plastic, usually either Mylar or Kapton, with a printed voice coil on its surface. Planar tweeters and midranges are quite common... and are often MISIDENTIFIED as "ribbons". (The main driver in Magneplanars is a PLANAR driver... the tweeter strips may be either true ribbons or planars - depending on the model.)
However none of them should be "harsh" if used properly. (Horns are also capable of sounding good - although, in my experience, they often tend to be "shouty".)
Also note that none of these should be confused with electrostatic speakers... which use a whole different technology. (With its own benefits and drawbacks.)
OK For (((me))) ribbon equals shrill; horns equals harsh (usually).
Ribbons on those Carver 'ironing board' speakers sound shrill to me. To be fair I have not heard others.
I purchased an original pair of Klipsch Heresy for my son (many years ago) they sounded great at low to normal volumes. As soon as I turned the volume UP they became harsh and did not like them.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jun 13, 2022 15:39:39 GMT -5
Point Maggies straight ahead if ribbons are on outside, toe in about 45 degrees if inside, keeps bass and treble in phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jun 14, 2022 11:56:57 GMT -5
What a very interesting & informative thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 14, 2022 16:28:27 GMT -5
My initial adjustment was to bring the speakers one foot closer to each other and to bring them an additional foot into the listening room. This not only snapped the center image into focus but also restored the depth that I was accustomed to. This placement, however, did nothing to restore the soundstage outside the plane of the speakers.
My second attempt was to move the speakers significantly closer to the wall behind them while simultaneously changing the toe in so that the speakers pointed directly toward the listening position. This widened the soundstage, but the center image became less focused (?). This is the opposite of what I expected from this move. No idea why.
What next?
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jun 14, 2022 18:21:16 GMT -5
Does the manufacturer of the speaker address placement? Normally they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jun 14, 2022 18:53:12 GMT -5
Try the speakers halfway toed in…
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 14, 2022 20:44:02 GMT -5
The manufacturer recommends the classic equilateral triangle I started with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 15, 2022 11:24:00 GMT -5
WHOA - Got it this morning. I moved the speakers from their 29" stands onto some 24" ones, and applied some tilt-back to keep the drivers pointed toward the listeners ears. Moved them to about 8' apart with but slight toe-in. AMAZING improvement! In addition to the imaging (now exceptional), the bass detail now blends with the subwoofer MUCH better. Fronts of the speakers are about 4.5 to 5 feet from the wall behind them and are about 7 to 8 feed from the listener. So the manufacturer's "equilateral triangle" did work - I just had an extra foot of so too much length on each side.
Thanks to all who have provided advice. I appreciate you!
Boomzilla
|
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Jun 15, 2022 13:14:09 GMT -5
That must be a rewarding experience. Sounds like some of the stands AR used: |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 15, 2022 14:36:16 GMT -5
It is rewarding. My stands are a touch taller, but the speakers are also significantly smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdubs on Jun 17, 2022 13:47:01 GMT -5
During my MASTER SET training at Sumiko (if you know, you know) we learned to put the speakers against the back wall with no toe. Start with one speaker and move it out until it has the largest quantity of bass (ignoring quality for now). Then move the other out using the same criteria. I heard some 5.25" Sonus Fabers come alive in a very large room with me and my partner using this method. The theory being, this is where the speaker will interact with the room mode(s) at it's best. There is then much more to it using toe-in, tilt, and moving them closer together/further apart to get the best soundstage and imaging. This should work to make the speakers sound the best they are going to sound regardless of room or seating position. This is all using the horrible Ballad of a Runaway Horse by Rob Wasserman/Jennifer Warnes for it's plucked/percussive bass and vocal imaging. I've since learned much more and have learned how to make room dimensions and treatments work for the room... and I STILL do the above. You can start with the "rule of thirds" and the equilateral triangle (reference in previous posts) and adjust from there using the above. www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/rule-thirds/ |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 17, 2022 14:06:37 GMT -5
Jennifer Warnes, at her best, is amazingly good. And at her worst...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jun 17, 2022 16:49:40 GMT -5
Having heard a LOT of really, really good speakers, I find that my speaker preferences are dictated primarily by my listening preferences. This seems an obvious statement, but I think it is truer for me than for most. The dominant factoid that I consider significant is that I do not normally listen at loud (or even medium) volumes. I find that a majority of speakers (even very expensive ones) have a "loudness threshold" that must be exceeded before they begin sounding truly dynamic. Because I listen at such low volumes, many, perhaps even a majority of speakers sound flat.
Two or three highly different speakers have proven dynamic at very low volumes in my home. One pair was (VERY surprisingly) the ancient Dahlquist DQ-10 speakers. To make them dynamic at low volumes, through, I had to drive them with a (for the time) extremely powerful Adcom GFA-1 power cube amplifier. At the time, I worked a rotating shift at a chemical plant, and the evening before I started a stretch of night shifts, I'd basically stay in my den listening to music all night. My wife & baby slept in the other end of the house, so I couldn't turn up the volume at all. Nevertheless, the Dahlquist/Adcom combo provided sublime music with transparency and dynamics.
A second system that provided excellent dynamics at very low volumes was a pair of Klipsch La Scalas driven by a pair of VTL Compact 100 tube mono blocks. The La Scalas were not as linear as the Dahlquists, but the sound spoke to my soul.
And most recently, my Klipsch RP-600m speakers (but lightly modified with a installation of GR Research's "No Rez" internal damping) driven by my Emotiva PA-1 class-D amplifiers and fitted with a subwoofer provide excellent low volume dynamics and transparency.
I'm perpetually tempted by fancier / more-expensive / better-reviewed speakers, but unless they can sound pleasant, dynamic, and musical at low volumes, they're just not for me.
I'm assuming that as I age and presbyacusis sets in, I'll desire higher listening levels, but my audiologist assures me that so far, I've the hearing of a 40-year younger man. Knock on wood...
Boom
|
|
