[Jazmanaut]

My 2 cents to discussion on topic.
I run Mastering suite, and my nearfieldish system in well treated room is very flat in full range and amazingly revealing.
My second system is in my livingroom area, and is a bit older hi-fi, or even high end, depends who do you ask. Not as accurate. More like a very, very good homesetup, for casual listening.
My third and most used, is proper hifi in my kitchen, with turntable and such. It´s for backround music and setting the mood.

And then comes my headphones: I got proper inears, for sports, and travels. They sound very good, and fit in very small space.
I got several closed cans for my live mixing and tracking purposes, wich also serves me in enjoying music in noisy environments.
And then i have couple of my open headphones, wich are for enjoying music in a hi-fi matter, even when i´m not in my studiochair, or in my sofa.
Or when it´s not possible to play it in proper volume all the times. (I´m maried man)

So to me question in topic is a bit absurd; Wich of my system is the best? It depends purely on purpose on hand.

 

[Pokemonn]

FYI cardas cable has speaker setup pages. i dont know those info is truth or false...
in my experience, distance between rear wall and speaker is important.
http://www.cardas.com/room_setup_main.php

 

[gregorio]

[1] ... learning and implementing room treatments would probably require a considerable deal of my time, energy, and money. ... That's why I have no problem upgrading equipment first even if it is backwards, especially if the other aspects couldn't come until much later anyway.

2. Are most room treatments easily reversible? Which types aren't?

1. That depends on how you define "considerable" in the context of amount of learning, time and money. Compared to the cost of a lot of audiophile equipment and the amount of time/effort many audiophiles put into researching products, reading reviews, etc, then no, it's not "considerable". In fact, considering the magnitude of the improvement, it's insignificant compared to the time and money many audiophiles put into products for improvements which are often marginal (at best)! Sure, some spend 5, 6 or even well into the 7 figures on acoustic treatment, depending on exactly how you define acoustic treatment. Some people spend 8 or 9 figures on a car, depending on the requirements of their work but for me, 5 figures is OK. I've spent well into the 5 figures on acoustics because my job requires it but with a budget just in the 3 figures, one can achieve astounding results compared to an untreated room. As 3 figures is not necessarily very much compared to the cost of upgrading the equipment, your argument doesn't make much sense to me, especially as you realise it's backwards anyway. It appears that you are still thinking of room, monitors and acoustic treatment as completely separate items, when in reality they are all completely inter-dependent. Your room defines what speakers you need, the acoustic treatment defines what speakers you need, the speakers and the room define what acoustic treatment you need, etc. Do it the other way around and you run the risk of wasting considerable money on a "frankenstein" system.

2. This and some of the other questions you've asked are taking us progressively off-topic. Why don't you start a new thread about rooms, acoustics, speakers/monitors, etc?

G

 

[SP Wild]

Hmm what do you think of the JBL Control Ones? Specifically combined with the Control SB1 sub?


(To OP)
I have the Control ones and their matching SB-1 Sub, there is NO Veil! Neither is there with my Thiel MCS1's I would imagine you're not powering the speakers you're using properly.

Hmmm.... The problem is obvious. You clearly need more monstrous woofers. I recommend minimum 21 inches.


On a more serious note, I am quite enjoying the evolution of this thread. Some good information here.


Y'all can thank me later.

 

[SP Wild]

One thing I do agree with is that audiophiles often times do work backwards sometimes with basic engineers principles.

I just decided to set up my old Tannoy passives and honestly, I never heard them sound so terrific.

Last time I connected them they sounded horrible compared to the monitors which was in stark contrast to how I thought they sounded pretty good when I first heard them in this room.

Last time I had them on iso acoustics stands... Which in my experimention with variables... For which speakers are far more and complex than headphones. Yeah those iso acoustics stands do nothing but destabilize the image and intoduces distortion artefacts to my speakers, so far, the KRKs, Adams and Tannoys sound worse on them. I am currently using Auralex foam pads, so I don't scratch the bottom of my speakers when getting OCD with speaker position, they don't kill the sound, they may even do some kinda 'decoupling' whatever.

The next thing is that high passing at 50hz, makes the Hi Fi Tannoy passives competitive with the resolution of the studio monitors. By getting rid of 50hz and below, the woofers can breathe in the midrange. The smear is cleared and the soundstage explodes with better location and instrument definition. Without this function the midrange eminating from the woofer is f...ed, period.

I am running the speakers of a huge 4 channel car amp which I bridge to run stereo. The high and low pass is variable in the amp, making comparisons easy.

It's unfortunate that basic integrated audiophile amplifiers sold to drive commonly expensive bookshelf audiophile speakers don't have this hi pass function. Because this simple function will make more difference than any Dac, amp, cables or power filters. Just the fact that audiophile amps don't have bass and treble controls screams of amateurism.

All this in comparison to my headphones... (in order to pretend that this thread hasn't gone off the rails ages ago!)

 

[Music Alchemist]

Tonight I moved the speaker system about a foot to the right and raised them on the stands to the point where I could insert the safety pins. (Which aligns the tweeters with my ears when I sit upright as opposed to slouched.) The sound is even more impressive now! I was also able to comfortably switch the low frequency trim switch to the default 0 (instead of -2 dB) position since there's less (but more precise) bass.

June 5th update: Ahh. Now I've got a pretty good placement of the speakers. I rearranged everything in the room. I roughly measured everything (with footsteps...lol) to make it all symmetrical. As is recommended by pros, the speakers are in the center of the back wall, with equal distance between them and equal distance to the walls on either side. My listening position distance is roughly equal to the distance between the speakers. The tweeters are angled towards my ears and are at the same height. So there's an equilateral triangle between myself and the speakers and everything is much more spread-out. It sounds more like I'm in a music studio now. Very nice, to say the least.

June 6th update: A few hours of research brought me to the concept of diagonal placement, with the listening position towards a corner of the room. Some say that this is better for square rooms and fixes many issues with room acoustics. After trying it, I am inclined to agree.

 

[RitzyBusiness]

I can easily forgive the shortcomings of many speakers, merely because a decent system even with improper acoustics has that feeling of clean, natural, easy. The characteristics of speakers imo are so far removed from headphones that I wouldn't even compare the two. They are different experiences on a base level.

I prefer headphones for all their benefits, in particular their intimacy but when alone and wanting to just melt away into music speakers are where its at.

 

[4krow]

From my experience synergy has bee fleeting, but rewarding. Most everything sounds just right, and then for whatever reason, a recording, your restlessness (read OCD), or some other factor sways the system into a sort of blind path. Start over, and wonder what you did right, and why you had the impulse to change it.

 

[gregorio]

[1] As is recommended by pros, the speakers are in the center of the back wall, with equal distance between them and equal distance to the walls on either side. My listening position distance is roughly equal to the distance between the speakers.

[2] A few hours of research brought me to the concept of diagonal placement, with the listening position towards a corner of the room. Some say that this is better for square rooms and fixes many issues with room acoustics. After trying it, I am inclined to agree.

1. What pros? For nearfield monitors you need more distance between the speakers and walls than between the speakers and listening position, preferably at least double! That way reflection levels are significantly lower than the direct sound from the speakers at the listening position and therefore room acoustics less intrusive, which is the whole point of nearfields.

2. There's no absolute rule, which is better depends on the various acoustic properties of the room and their relationship to the speakers and listening position. In other words, in some consumer situations it could be better and in others worse. Neither is going to be particularly good though, unless you get your nearfields well away from the walls and/or treat the reflections.

G

 

[Music Alchemist]

What pros?

Various ones. Look it up if it interests you. When I said the center of the back wall, I was referring to the distance between the horizontal walls and speakers; not having the speakers pushed against the back wall. But that configuration had more acoustic issues than the diagonal placement I'm using now. All of them have problems, of course. I will most likely move into a new house in the next few months, so I'll figure out room treatments sometime after that's taken care of.

 

[ToonMechaMan]

Speakers and headphones are hit and miss for me. Headphones overall have more consistent accuracy but speakers have more punch and I can usually relocate in my room and hear more of some instruments than I can of others whereas headphones you're stuck with what you get unless you mod it. I prefer headphones though, especially for gaming.

 

[LazyListener]

After trying some KEF Q300s in a 2.0 setup around the TV in the living room (untreated, of course), I can say I still prefer my HD 598 headphones. The Q300s image very nicely. That and the sense of listening in a large, open space are about the only advantages the speakers have. The 598s do just about everything else better - resolution, detail, layering. I guess I'd give dynamics to the speakers, too.

With speakers, there's just too much room matching and/or correction required, to get the best, or in some cases, even decent sound. My 598s cost me less than $150 new. I can only imagine how many times that amount I'd have to spend to get speakers sounding as good in a room.

 

[Music Alchemist]

With speakers, there's just too much room matching and/or correction required, to get the best, or in some cases, even decent sound. My 598s cost me less than $150 new. I can only imagine how many times that amount I'd have to spend to get speakers sounding as good in a room.

I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)

 

[Delayeed]

I'm curious what you'd think of the JBL LSR305, because, as I'm sure you know, I think mine (which I got new for just $250) are far superior in just about every way to any headphone I've heard, including ones that cost four figures. (And that's without any room treatments or EQ yet. But I'm in a bedroom, not a living room.)

Agreed. My 305s also destroy every headphone I've heard in all but low level detail (Ether C is miles ahead), other than that yeah. Imaging: Not as 2D and wide as headphones, BUT way -way- more accurate.
Dynamics also, oh man headphones do not even come close to dynamics that any speaker will provide. That being said I do 95% of my listening on the Ether C and HD600 because I love that detail and
frankly don't want my neighbors hear everything I do.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Agreed. My 305s also destroy every headphone I've heard in all but low level detail (Ether C is miles ahead), other than that yeah. Imaging: Not as 2D and wide as headphones, BUT way -way- more accurate.
Dynamics also, oh man headphones do not even come close to dynamics that any speaker will provide. That being said I do 95% of my listening on the Ether C and HD600 because I love that detail and
frankly don't want my neighbors hear everything I do.

I'm still confused about the "headphones have more detail" thing. For example, many say the HD 800 is the most detailed/resolving headphone...but so far I haven't heard a single detail on the HD 800 that my speakers don't also reproduce, whereas I do hear details on the speakers that I never did on headphones, and it's much more natural too. I think headphones just make certain details more apparent, but in a less accurate way.