Has Jim Smith discovered a magic formula for placing speakers correctly?

> A common misconception is that the only problems that should have DSP / Corrective algorithms applied is bass as it is somehow safer to do so

Some while ago when I first read about the wonders of room correction DSP (particularly those in fully active speakers offering electronic XO, DSP and multiple amps), it occurred to me a some speaker builders could cut a lot of costly corners and just install any selection of drivers as long as, between them, they were capable of producing all frequencies. It doesn't matter how ragged the response curve is as the full-range DSP could sort it all out.

I'm not suggesting this already happens as there are currently few of this type of modern active speaker system, all built by reputable makers, but it could happen when we see Ebay offerings of fully active systems at relatively low prices and with claimed flat response curves. I would not like to see that, but I suspect we will soon.
 
Hear Here said:
> A common misconception is that the only problems that should have DSP / Corrective algorithms applied is bass as it is somehow safer to do so

Some while ago when I first read about the wonders of room correction DSP (particularly those in fully active speakers offering electronic XO, DSP and multiple amps), it occurred to me a some speaker builders could cut a lot of costly corners and just install any selection of drivers as long as, between them, they were capable of producing all frequencies. It doesn't matter how ragged the response curve is as the full-range DSP could sort it all out.

I'm not suggesting this already happens as there are currently few of this type of modern active speaker system, all built by reputable makers, but it could happen when we see Ebay offerings of fully active systems at relatively low prices and with claimed flat response curves. I would not like to see that, but I suspect we will soon.
Click to expand...

I believe we already may hear such examples of your last point in computer-based speaker systems both onboard and external, possibly phones, definitely in car audio (except for bespoke high-end car audio), televisions, etc....
 
crwilli said:
Not worth the effort Mark. I am not even sure how DSP entered this thread but it did.

Jim’s process works.
Click to expand...

I think it started with post number one. Some real hiend loudspeakers come with with room correction DSP integrated. Some hiend audiophiles even say that it's the future now today in the evolution of better sound better stereo better hi-fi.

Then to keep on with our ear's measurements topic post number six proceeded to further the exploration of our dear cherish hobby. It is permissible to evolve as music lovers and audiophiles. There are no laws against it, zero. To be free in our love of audio is to explore and advance evolutionary.

It's all about fidelity of music reproduction; the sensorial pleasure of listening through our bones and soul, to view the rainbow above the mountain surrounded by the forests and oceans and flying eagles.
 
For the fun of it I checked the measurements in my system, was already not that far away from the 83% as mentioned (86%)
Shifted my speakers a little closer together and now I am at exactly 83%.

There is definitly a difference, bit more clarity in the mids, sharper transients. I will keep it like this for a while.
 
I re-measured mine today and am at 81.6%.

Bob, I appreciate your comments. If the music moves you, your system is working for you.
 
Just watched. This video was great. Jim has helped me so much with many things, including setup of the rooms in the store and my home system. The results he achieved were nothing less than stunning with oodles of ME (Musical Engagement).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I’ve used Jim’s approach as well as the Wilson WASP technique. Both have rendered terrific results.

When I setup my dedicated music room in our retirement home, the system did not sound as good as I expected. Mike and, a local friend, John came over. Our first step was to determine the best sitting position - we measured with a microphone and listened. This first step alone made a significant difference. Then we proceeded to reposition the speakers - listened, measured and repositioned. Bottom line, ended up with .82 ratio for my Wilson Alexias.

When I replaced the Alexias with the MBLs, I positioned them in the same location as the Wilsons. Over time, I repositioned them with the assistance of Jeremy Bryan (MBL US Distributor), Mike and John. These were minor tweaks. Today, the speakers are at .81 and sounding sublime.
 
I would love to be able to commission a set-up from Jim, but sadly he's thousands of miles away!

I'm not so sure about the 83% rule. He suggestes this is his starting point and works from there. I've not worked out the angle Jim suggests in degrees as that would be easier to measure with a simple compass - often available as a phone app. I may do the calculation and post it here later for anyone prefering to use degrees than a %age of 2 measurements that are often difficult to measure single-handed!


My own more limited experience suggests that perhaps 83% should be a maximim, but narrower angles should be just as good from an imaging and lifelike rendition point of view, though offering a less wide stage. Think about it - apart from orchestral music when sat towards the front of an auditorium, most live music is generated by musicians in an angle of much less than 83%. It would be great if Jim could comment on that observation.

I measured my own set-up yestrday and found X is 287 cm and Y is 415, making a percentage of 69%. To achieve 83% I'd need to move my listening chair or the speakers forward about 60 cm. Or I could move the speakers about that much further apart. Unfortunately none of these is really an option, although I can sit at the front of my sofa rather than relax towards the back to achieve 83%! Doing so does alter the sound, though I'll have to try more varied music before deciding whether I prefer this angle or am happy with it at 69%. Peter
 
Ritmo said:
I’ve used Jim’s approach as well as the Wilson WASP technique. Both have rendered terrific results.

When I setup my dedicated music room in our retirement home, the system did not sound as good as I expected. Mike and, a local friend, John came over. Our first step was to determine the best sitting position - we measured with a microphone and listened. This first step alone made a significant difference. Then we proceeded to reposition the speakers - listened, measured and repositioned. Bottom line, ended up with .82 ratio for my Wilson Alexias.

When I replaced the Alexias with the MBLs, I positioned them in the same location as the Wilsons. Over time, I repositioned them with the assistance of Jeremy Bryan (MBL US Distributor), Mike and John. These were minor tweaks. Today, the speakers are at .81 and sounding sublime.
Click to expand...

Determining the correct listening position is the first step and often the most misunderstood. The use of the ratio Jim has found to be effective works only after listening position is determined based on smoothest bass. Many (most?) pick a listening position without much thought and then fight with their speakers and components to deliver performance that will always be compromised.
 
I had recently struggling quite a bit with a lack of density and weight in my midrange. Something just sounded off regarding this. Thought it was mainly a back wall distance phenomenon and a node at my listening position, or from running DAC into amp without pre. Looked at this video, did some measurements, and my ratio was 1.1. Brought it down, and voila, midrange tonality and weight are dramatically better. I miss the grand scale of the wider placement during classical, but dynamics, timbre, and weight all sound much better. Sounds more natural.
I will now be cancelling that audition I had scheduled for a Vinnie Rossi Brama Integrated.
 
I suspect there's more $$ for sellers in the equipment & more bling for the users.
Regardless, the room may be the most critical piece of equipment.
Someday, I'll have mine set up & configured correctly.
 
Ricky64 said:
I had recently struggling quite a bit with a lack of density and weight in my midrange. Something just sounded off regarding this. Thought it was mainly a back wall distance phenomenon and a node at my listening position, or from running DAC into amp without pre. Looked at this video, did some measurements, and my ratio was 1.1. Brought it down, and voila, midrange tonality and weight are dramatically better. I miss the grand scale of the wider placement during classical, but dynamics, timbre, and weight all sound much better. Sounds more natural.
I will now be cancelling that audition I had scheduled for a Vinnie Rossi Brama Integrated.
Click to expand...

Outstanding! Congratulations! Amazing what happens when everything snaps together. Enjoy the music!
 
crwilli said:
My experience with DSP has been revelatory.

My use of DSP (convolution filters in ROON) has improved every aspect of playback In my room. Dynamics, imaging, Timing and of course, solid and clear low frequencies.

I have no doubt an expert like Jim could improve on what I have achieved without DSP but very confident new filters added to his placement would improve it further.
Click to expand...

100% Agree.
 
Delija said:
The problem with the EQ/DSP in general is very simple - tt can fix something, but not without a cost. It "kills" the transparency, dynamics, resolution... Even the best DSPs lose that last nuance in hi-end sound.

....
Click to expand...

Nonsense
 
Lee Scoggins said:
World famous stereo system guru Jim Smith and I shot a film where he reveals his magic formula for optimizing speaker placement. Try it and let me know what you think…

The Magic Formula for Perfect Speaker Set-Up?! | W/ Jim Smith - YouTube
Click to expand...

TL;DR?

Let's save folks some time: Distance from the listener position to each speaker = distance between the speakers divided by 0.83

Example: If distance between speakers is 10 feet, then the distance from listener position to each speaker should be 12.05 feet (which is 10 feet divided by 0.83).
 
Subwoofers are not used just for "bass".
If your room has deep, you won't be able to correct severe deep without using a subwoofer, in such case, it won't help if you have the right spec speaker.
 
nicoff said:
Nonsense
Click to expand...

I don't think so and for this reason - all signal processing is bad for signal purity and gets further away from the ideal of "straight wire with gain".

Whether the processing is an old-fashioned simple tone control, or a graphic equaliser, let alone the hugely complex modern room correction DSP, the entire signal (if the DPS is within a full-range amp) is subjected to the processing - even though the upper frequencies may not be actually adjusted. They nevertheless suffer and this can be clearly heard of equipment is of very high calibre. Some of the music's excitement or goose-bump factor is missing when the DSP filter is engaged - no doubt about it. My Dirac Live is the version that can only adjust sub 500 Hz, but the entire signal HAS to pass the filter as there's no bye-pass.

However, if one has a system where the signal is first split into Bass and Non-Bass and the Bass only goes to DSP and its own amp, while the Non-Bass goes directly to its own amp, then this will resolve the problem. Avantgarde and Martin Logan hybrids for example do just this - the incoming signal from the power amp goes straight to the horns or panel, but also to a bass-only amp with DSP and then on to the bass drivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top