Jim Smith @ My House

Fantastic insights Jim. I spoke with Mark last week and he is completely overjoyed about the results.

I'll be reaching out to you for a session late next year in our new home near Mike Bovaird.
 
Great stuff, Jim! Good to read about you walking through the steps I followed from your book.
 
Mark Powers RoomPlay description, continued, pt. 2 –

A couple of notes that I forgot to mention:

1 – I evaluated the system without the subs. I wanted to hear the main speakers only. So we turned the input level of the subs all the way down, but left them on (so that the unpowered REL drivers wouldn’t interact with the bass from the Salon 2s).

2 – I checked the system’s absolute polarity (I have owned an acoustic polarity checker for years). My entire playlist has been corrected for absolute polarity, and I did not want to mistake incorrect absolute polarity for some other issue. Some folks are not so sensitive to absolute polarity and some are.

I first noticed that I was sensitive to it in 1984, when I was trying to get a pair of Magnepan Tympani 1Ds to sound right while playing an LP that featured a famous performer. I could get his voice to sound present or his guitar to do so (by flipping the polarity of both speaker cables), but not both at the same time. Turns out that the performer’s mic was in inverted polarity to his guitar pick-up! FYI – this performing/recording artist owned T-1Ds back then... :)

FWIW - I was intimately familiar with the T-1Ds, having written the set-up manual for them back when I was at ARC.

In the late ‘80s, Clark Johnson’s book, The Wood Effect, was written to introduce, verify, and explain the acoustic polarity phenomenon.

FWIW – about 1 in 5 of the systems that I initially encounter are in inverted polarity!

Moving ahead

Once we had selected the Anchor Point, it was time to begin voicing the speakers to the room. As I mentioned, there had been audible room reflections, especially noticeable with solo performers. Now that we had moved our listening seat further away from the system, that effect was worse!

Without lots of room treatments (which wouldn’t have been acceptable in Mark & Susan’s beautiful living room), the way to address that issue was to reduce the time delay from the speakers. In other words, bring them closer to the listener.

Since Presence is the next critical issue after Dynamics have been addressed (IMO), I knew that we had to move the speakers forward anyway. Mark had a wide equipment cabinet between the Salon 2s. He already had the speakers forward of the cabinet a bit. But Presence wasn’t happening like I wanted.

So we brought (slid) them forward several feet. I explained to him that I was going to voice the system for its best performance, and we would find a way to record/mark where the properly voiced speakers were located. For background/casual listening (and for marital harmony), he should leave them in the original position. But when he wanted to hear what he’d paid for, I was gonna give him the keys to another order of magnitude of musical involvement.

And that is what happened. It took a while to position the speakers for the best combination of Presence & Tone.

And now, the disturbing echo was gone!

I will say that many audiophiles set up their systems for pinpoint imaging. I don’t follow that path. When it is followed, it negatively affects Presence & Tone. So if an audiophile especially values the “audiophile sound effects” capability of his/her system, pinpoint imaging is the way to go.

When I am voicing for Presence & Tone, and it is finally as good as I can get it, the result is always dramatically more musical satisfaction. In fact, I only stop when I finally realize that I am falling into the music while listening to songs that I have heard thousands of times!

In our case, we still weren’t there yet. But hopefully, we only had two more areas to address… (1) the peak at 100 Hz and (2) integrating the RELs seamlessly into the system.

Re the peak at 100 Hz, I was pleased to discover that the Classe’ offered various digital techniques to address the issue. For me, there was only one choice – parametric eq at 100 Hz to reduce the mid-bass peak. I selected 100 Hz, a narrow Q, and reduced the amplitude of the peak. I spent some time listening to various level adjustments of the peak until the bass was smooth and nimble.

Re integrating Mark’s REL subs to the system, we checked which way they should be aimed (an often overlooked critical step) for smoothest response at a higher frequency than we would use. I didn’t want any out-of-band resonances coming back to haunt us even though we were rolling off the RELs lower than that.

At any rate, we found the optimum set-up and and now it was time to see if the polarity of the correctly positioned RELs matched that of the Salon 2s. Some folks check between the sub and main speaker to see which sub polarity has the loudest bass (correct polarity at xover point). Personally, I could care less how it works over there. I want to know how it works at the listening seat. Please note that this is ultimately done with both subs.

We got that right and then it remained to find the optimum roll-off frequency and subwoofer volume. They are directly inter-related. I’m not gonna explain it here as I have to do that in the upcoming and final Copper Subwoofery article.

If you have the interest & the time -
http://www.psaudio.com/article/subwoofery-trick-or-treat/

At any rate, the total integration of the subs took a while but – hey – it’s not rocket science. Maybe an hour or more.

Then my latent OCD raised it’s persistent head, and I messed with slight placement tweaks of the Salon 2s a bit more. Next thing I knew, I had fallen headlong into the music, so I was done.

Thanks to everyone for your patience!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Smith said:
Since Presence is the next critical issue after Dynamics have been addressed (IMO) ...
...

I will say that many audiophiles set up their systems for pinpoint imaging. I don’t follow that path. When it is followed, it negatively affects Presence & Tone. So if an audiophile especially values the “audiophile sound effects” capability of his/her system, pinpoint imaging is the way to go.

When I am voicing for Presence & Tone, and it is finally as good as I can get it, the result is always dramatically more musical satisfaction. In fact, I only stop when I finally realize that I am falling into the music while listening to songs that I have heard thousands of times!
Click to expand...

Jim,

How do you define Presence in the way you have mentioned it?
Just asking to get a better understanding of the term.

Regards.
 
Nikhil said:
Jim,

How do you define Presence in the way you have mentioned it?
Just asking to get a better understanding of the term.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Nikhil,

Great question!

Although I am covering this topic in an upcoming Copper article, it probably needs more explanation in this thread.

It was about 7 years ago. I was voicing a system for a Get Better Sound owner. Not sure if I had started calling these sessions RoomPlay yet.

Anyway, he had seen & heard me voice his system and liked the results very much. Later that evening, he asked me to identify the steps that he had just witnessed. Amazingly, though I knew exactly the desired outcomes for which I was voicing, I had never thought of discussing a description of them with anyone. Nor had I even assigned a name for them for myself! :(

As I thought about it, I realized that it was actually fairly simple to come up with a descriptor/name (though not so simple to achieve the results in practice). I finally explained to him that I have always voiced for Dynamics, Presence, & Tone (these days, I often say DPT).

Dynamics

Generally the smoothest bass possible (reduce the amplitude of peaks and dips by locating the position in the room that isn’t destroying intended musical dynamics by booming away at some frequencies, or having some notes missing in action from troughs/dips. This is the aforementioned Anchor Point from which further voicing to the room will occur.

Presence

Although I teach/demonstrate this critical factor in RoomPlay Reference sessions here in Atlanta (as Mark can attest), as well as voice for Presence on voicing sessions, I admit to incorrectly assuming that everyone knows about it. I should know better, since no system that I have ever voiced reproduced this aspect correctly on initial evaluation.

Really, properly reproduced Presence is continuous and there are no definite types. But in an attempt to simplify it, I break them down into three types – Concert Hall, Recital, and Intimate. When I believe that these three are working, the final listening test I perform to check my results requires that I have nailed the set-up, as a famous performer will move through several Presence types during the recording, and at all times it should seem uncanningly real, as if the performer is literally slowly stepping back some distance and finally turning his head as he sings, looking at the famous female singer as she is about to sing. In other words, the room has transformed into the concert hall – and in an utterly believable manner.

Concert Hall Presence can briefly be described as the eery feeling that vocals or instruments are arrayed at the front end of the room, well behind the speakers. No sound of any kind should appear to emanate from the speakers. It should sound very much alive. Very Present in the room, though distant.

Recital Presence presents the performers on a stage or in an area behind the speakers, but always much closer. It also delineates between the relative positions of the performers, again sounding very much alive and Present. I use the term Recital because it feels as if I'm sitting in a Recital Hall, enjoying a wonderful musical performance.

Intimate Presence is when a vocalist/ performer appears between - and sometimes even slightly ahead - of the speaker plane. It’s as if they have packed up their gear to come over and perform in your room. They are IN your room. The effect is almost unnerving as it definitely sounds as if they are alive and performing between your speakers.

As I mentioned above, when I evaluate a system, the ultimate test of properly reproduced Presence in a room is the recording I mentioned above, where the vocalist moves around as he sings, and walks through several layers of Presence as he does so.

When Presence is reproduced correctly, the effect is musically engaging in a powerful manner.

Tone –

Not the attitude of the performers. :)

I am referring to the timbre/tonal aspects of the reproduced sound. This is ALWAYS primarily affected via speaker separation and toe-in & sometimes speaker height or tilt.

Hope this helps – sorry I haven’t mentioned the recordings & performers in this thread, but I am unable to do so.
 
Jim,

Thank you very much for the explanation. Very much appreciated.
It's been a pleasure following this discussion on RoomPlay.

Regards.
 
What is the song/album that you use to voice for presence, where the performer is walking around "through several layers of presence" ?? I would like to try that recording in my system. Thanks Jim for your thoughtful explainations of system setup.
 
JDLaudio said:
What is the song/album that you use to voice for presence, where the performer is walking around "through several layers of presence" ?? I would like to try that recording in my system. Thanks Jim for your thoughtful explainations of system setup.
Click to expand...

JDL - thanks for your note and your question.

As I mentioned in the last line of my reply to Nikhil, "sorry I haven’t mentioned the performers in this thread, but I am unable to do so."

I should have been more clear and said "recordings & performers". I will change it now.
 
Jim Smith said:
JDL - thanks for your note and your question.

As I mentioned in the last line of my reply to Nikhil, "sorry I haven’t mentioned the performers in this thread, but I am unable to do so."

I should have been more clear and said "recordings & performers". I will change it now.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the reply Jim.
 
Really appreciate the info in your thorough posts here Jim. Very helpful.
Many thanks.
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One of my favorite topics! I just purchased your book/dvd (have been meaning to for awhile). One thing that has me confused is the anchoring. Isn't the listening position dependent on speaker placement and not vice versa? I don't understand how its possible to not move the speakers around to find the best 25-250 Hz region. IOW, I'm reading it as just place your speakers "somewhere" and move the listening potion around until you find the smoothest 25-250 Hz region. I'm oversimplifying it but..

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the logic, but I have always placed the speakers based on room dims/room modes and so far the 1/3 rule has by far without question been the sweet spot, to which the listening position is based from and toe in (using laser) is to the midpoint of the back wall.

Hopefully the Anchoring will make more sense when the Get Better Sound material arrives.:D
 
I have Mr.Smith's DVD, and it's an excellent source of listening room set up information.

If I was able to have someone "voice" my system, it would be Peter McGrath.
 
mauidan said:
I have Mr.Smith's DVD, and it's an excellent source of listening room set up information.

If I was able to have someone "voice" my system, it would be Peter McGrath.
Click to expand...

Peter is an old friend. He has good ears, as well as good taste in music.

I remember helping him voice his Levinson HQD system in 1977, as well as training his staff re Magnepan set-up.
 
Swisstrips said:
One of my favorite topics! I just purchased your book/dvd (have been meaning to for awhile). One thing that has me confused is the anchoring. Isn't the listening position dependent on speaker placement and not vice versa?
Click to expand...

No.

Swisstrips said:
I don't understand how its possible to not move the speakers around to find the best 25-250 Hz region. IOW, I'm reading it as just place your speakers "somewhere" and move the listening potion around until you find the smoothest 25-250 Hz region. I'm oversimplifying it but..
Click to expand...

I never said somewhere. :)

Place the speakers in the general area you expect to use them.

Find out where in the room to sit without suffering from unpleasant and musical-engagement-killing room-boundary effects at the listening seat.

In this case, its the room, not the speaker.

Swisstrips said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the logic, but I have always placed the speakers based on room dims/room modes
Click to expand...

Quite common, though, in my experience - having successfully voiced many hundreds of systems - it never works.

I've always said that the only time a spread sheet can work in a room is when the only thing in the room is the spread sheet... :amazing:

Swisstrips said:
and so far the 1/3 rule has by far without question been the sweet spot,
Click to expand...

Umm, see the first line in the list below. :rolleyes:

From a RMAF Seminar & later, Copper magazine #12:

The ACK Attack & Uncommon Knowledge

By Jim Smith

In English-speaking circles, the term “common knowledge” refers to a thing that everyone knows, or at least, should have known when searching for the cause of some wretched decision. As in, “I cannot imagine why she ran away with that poor excuse for a man. It’s common knowledge that he is a drunken lout!”

In audiophile-speaking circles, it’s a different thing altogether. I’ve always called the phenomenon “Audiophile Common Knowledge.” It’s the same stuff we’ve heard for years and years.

Although they may be without any basis, or the basis for their truth requires a number of unlikely concepts to line-up, these myths have become almost legendary. For the purposes of this discussion, instead of Audiophile Common Knowledge, let’s use the acronym ACK.

The Problem
The problem with ACK is that it prevents many audiophiles from attaining what is rightfully theirs. That’s because ACK keeps audiophiles from taking the basic steps that can dramatically improve their systems.

Some of the biggest sources of ACK are the various Internet audio forums/message boards. OK, maybe not the forums, but the inhabitants thereof.

By the way, it’s not those who ask legitimate questions that concern me. Although I’m still not sure why anyone would take the advice of a complete stranger on the Internet. Especially when said advice is – all too often – completely wrong, or at least, improperly presented as the first avenue of action.

Surely, ACK that is delivered with such self-assured righteousness must be true! But is it the ACKtual truth?

Self-styled experts
It’s the self-styled experts that are worrisome. They indiscriminately dispense a load of ACK, as if they actually know something. It must be said that sometimes there are pearls of wisdom to be found. But all too often, the pearls are hidden in a pile of ACK.

In their defense, they’ve heard these ACK myths for so long that they (1) believe them to be fact, and (2) they actually believe they are dispensing good advice.

Honestly speaking, I didn’t realize how pervasive – or damaging – ACK really was until I spoke to an audiophile group/society last year. I had prepared an interesting presentation. But I never got to make it, because ACK comments kept coming up.

The time flew by as cherished audiophile “facts” were challenged. Much to my surprise, debunking these myths produced a lively interactive meeting. The debate was fun! Most importantly, a few days later, I received numerous positive comments from various club members, as they tried out my Uncommon Knowledge suggestions.

A similar thing happened at a Seminar on System Optimization that I conducted recently. Veteran audiophiles just didn’t want the discussion to end, once they found out that many of their cherished beliefs had been hindering their sound. And they heard a few simple Tips to improve their systems that they hadn’t previously considered, because they didn’t line up with ACK.

ACK Responsible
In my experience, ACK may be responsible for doing more harm than good. Here – in no particular order – are some ACK favorites – myths that have developed into Audiophile Common Knowledge:

  • The “rule of thirds” is a great set-up guide.
  • Cathedral ceilings provide great sound.
  • A wide sweet spot is best for great sound.
  • Full range speakers don’t need or work with subwoofers.
  • Bass is non-directional, so exact woofer placement and orientation isn’t critical.
  • Bass is non-directional, so only one sub is required.
  • The best speaker drivers must be low-mass.
  • A “fast” bass driver is superior to others.
  • The best sounding systems are dead quiet.
  • Granite makes a great isolation material.
  • Cones & spikes provide isolation.
  • Wide dispersion is desirable for consumer audio loudspeakers.
  • An equilateral triangle (speakers and listening seat) set-up yields great sound.
  • The best bi-amplification is done with transistors on bass, tubes on top.
  • Achieving the tightest bass should be your goal.
  • Speaker set-up diagrams/guides from various manufacturers will provide the best sound.
  • There are several known “good” listening room sizes/dimensions.
  • Building a new listening room with a good spread-sheet program will provide great sound.
  • If you’re past 50, you can no longer hear well enough to really care about your sound quality.
  • And others, equally as revered, and equally as questionable (once you know the facts).
 
Where.. In Coral Gables ? I do remember that system ..............


Jim Smith said:
Peter is an old friend. He has good ears, as well as good taste in music.

I remember helping him voice his Levinson HQD system in 1977, as well as training his staff re Magnepan set-up.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top