Setup wasn't a problem, between the ARO software on the subs and the Audyssey EQ on the Denon AVP. I haven't heard any phase issues so far.
My two channel material is spread to all seven speakers using THX's surround music algorithms. The effect is subtle enough that I rarely notice the speakers on the sides or behind me (some occasional albums have an issue here or there); the rewards far outweigh the disadvantages, because the surround algorithm completely fills out the entire soundstage more so than two channel alone ever could.
I'm extremely happy right now. My current setup has exceeded my previous expectations. I was just hoping to lessen the remaining room anomalies that were coloring the sound and instead the anomalies have been basically eliminated completely... Finally. :D
I set up all seven Salon2s and the four Fathom F113s and the sound is earthshaking. A very satisfying, deeply visceral sound. I can feel the bass notes resonating in my chest cavity and everywhere else!
I set the subs up in the positions recommended for optimal low frequency extension. Two side by side in the middle of the front wall and two side by side in the middle of the back wall.
We are moving, so I won't have this room much longer. The good news is, I might be building a new room 100% from scratch in the new place. This time it will be exclusively a Home Theater setup and two channel material will have the ambient sound extracted to fill the surround channels. I was heading in the "ambient sound extraction" direction anyway in this room, but since we have decided to move I can now make the room perfect for that intention.
I might even have to add two or four more Salon2s to complete the entire design (one pair for each row of seats for a total of 9 or 11 speakers depending on if I do two or three rows).
Putting two F113s right next to each other would have the same effect as one Gotham, it is just a matter of horizontal vs vertical alignment. So, by placing two Fathom 113s next to each other, I get the same effect at almost half the price... ;)
The speakers arrived but were damaged during shipping, so I am waiting for replacements now. The new Bryston amps for those speakers are here, but I haven't used them yet.
The replacement Stewartscreen arrived also, and I installed it already. The Acoustic Transparency works completely transparently as far as I can tell. It is nice to be able to use the matching center channel. It sounds great!
I also have other updates in the works. I am getting a Denon AVP for my preprocessor unit and I am replacing my two Revel Sub30s with four JL Audio Fathom F113s. The last thing I plan to update is the Denon DVD-5910 universal player when their new universal player is released (the one with Blu-Ray in it as well).
That would be a hell of a lot better than buying a projector and never having one that works correctly IMO. I don't care how cutting edge a company is, if they can't get me a working product or back up their own warranty, then they aren't a good company.
I'm still waiting to see what Sim2 is going to do. I will do everything I can to avoid a lawsuit (contact higher ups in the company before proceeding, etc), but I will do what I have to do, and I would certainly sue for legal fees and duress as well... This has caused me a TREMENDOUS amount of stress. :(
I actually have a few things wrong with my Sim2 C3X 1080 unit and Sim2 are saying they don't see it... One of which is a whole white bar missing from the zoom screen (I have pictures). It doesn't happen with every screen position the projector is in, but it does happen when you mount it upside down and set the screen to display right side up. So when the projector is upside down and it is playing things as right side up, part of the viewing screen is missing. Then there is also an issue with the red pixels being more than a pixel off on the left side of the screen in that same mounting position (also have pictures). This is the second bad projector I have gotten from them, and it appears that they are trying to weasel out of honoring their warranty. I hope I am wrong.
When the consumer market gets bad, you really get to see which companies follow a code of ethics and which follow the almighty dollar. I certainly hope they stand behind their warranty and I don't have to pursue this legally... But I certainly will.
It has been months since I have had a properly working projector. At the price point of these projectors and with their short shelf lives before they become outdated nowadays, I have missed out on the premium portion of my investment... At this point I wish I hadn't been persuaded to buy one of these and went with the Runco instead.
I don't see a reason to change the amps to anything else. If I did, it would be to get higher Watt amps. I don't feel I need higher watts though. My system peaks at 103 dB (maybe only 100 dB on the center channel because of the extra distance...). I don't listen to stuff at loud levels, so I don't think I need the extra headroom...
If I did upgrade it would probably be to the Bryston 28B SST on the front three channels. The rears and sides are (and will be) close enough to the listening position that I likely don't need more power there, but the front three are a bit further away in comparison. I wouldn't mind getting stable output up to 105 dB or more...
Yep Mikeduke. I'm looking forward to it. I just put the order in for another pair of Salon2s and a set of Bryston PowerPac 300 SST amps to power the Salon2s.
I swear to God, I'm done after this!!! Until Lexicon releases a new reference and 4000x2000 projectors come out at least... :D
No Mike, I gave up on having separate sections for analog and digital. I just don't see the point any more, especially after listening tests between the two. Digitizing even the analog in order to process the sound just offers too many advantages over the pure analog in my setup. I sold the Ayre pieces and switched to a preprocessor with more aggressive EQ parameters available in the unit (Lexicon MC-12B HD). My system has never sounded better... I'm very happy, and besides adding additional channels/speakers to strengthen the surround, I'm not changing anything major for a long time (perhaps when the next Lexicon reference unit is released...).
You might be interested to know that I am going to pursue a full 7.2 surround system of Salon2s! I'll update when it is finished, stay posted!
System edited: Took the Ayre K-1xe, C-5xe, and Meridian 861 out of my system. I got tired of juggling two separate sections, one analog and one digital. Now everything goes through a Lexicon MC-12B HD with EQ. I can use analog bypass for the vinyl and anything else I choose. This system is hassle free finally and with the EQ the frequency response is as close to perfect as I could get it while still maintaining a natural sound. I'm still playing with it, but I don't expect to get it too much flatter, except in one or two places... Everything sounds pristine, and I am extremely happy. I don't plan on any major upgrades for a long time to come now (except perhaps to upgrade to a newer Lexicon reference when it comes out, and to add amps with more juice if necessary).
System edited: I switched from the different model Wilson speakers to the Revel Salon2s all around. This will improve my surround experience by an incredible amount. I so far feel I've lost some mid-range transparency, perhaps due to differences in the driver materials, but what I have gained in timbre matching and seamlessness in the surround field more than compensates for the losses elsewhere... With two channel, where I have lost some "lifelike" character in some places, it has been made up for in other places. Percussion is a little more "lifelike" sounding on the Salon2s for sure, while some vocals and some guitar passages were a little more "lifelike" on the Wilsons. I'm hoping to narrow the gap more with more precise room correction and spatial correction of my setup using something like the Trinnov Optimizer.
It is a good piece of equipment that sounds excellent also. I chose it for a few reasons. I wanted balanced outputs, I wanted a device that could do everything with two channel output (DVD-A, SACD, DVD-V, CD, MP3), and I wanted it to match up with other equipment I was planning on buying for my two channel setup (pretty much all Ayre). I didn't test it against other equipment of its type, because there were none of its type at the time that had all those features.
It is especially nice that the signal goes from the C-5xe all the way to the amps in balanced mode. This ensures that I don't have to worry about EMI inside or outside of the equipment until the signal hits the speaker wire.
Holy cow! That system edit didn't post well. Here is a version with paragraphs...
I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in.
I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in.
The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and Soundstage's NRC W/P8 measurements reveal it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble control on the Salon2s that I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements.
If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I have posted them in the equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I've also posted a pic of the Salon2s in my room in the equipment list as well.
I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas.
I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. The sad thing is, what seems to be the "best for me" one day can change depending on the listening material and recording quality... So I will try to assess which will meet my overall needs best, in a 2-channel and HT sense.
System edited: I now have a pair of Salon2s to compare to my W/P8s in my listening room. We just put them in the room today. I'm giving them two weeks to break-in. I already did in-room measurements. They aren't that different from each other in terms of in-room response. In terms of listening to the mid-range, the W/P8s image more precisely and cleanly, with more space between instruments and with the instruments better defined in space. I need to do more listening to the bass and treble between the two before I compare those, as they will require more thoughtfulness in my listening than the critical mid-range requires. This is without the Salon2s being broken in, so a lot might change in the next two weeks. This is also without the speakers in the same position the W/P8s were in. I'll have time to play around with these things as the Salon2s break in. The two measure so much alike it is creepy. The Salons2s don't roll off as much in the high frequencies, but from the Stereophile measurements I have seen of the Studio2, it is likely because it is shelved up +2dB for a good portion of the high frequencies. That shelving in unison with natural room roll off makes their in-room high frequency response not rolled off enough IMO. As I mentioned previously, the W/P8s do have slight roll off anyway and Soundstage's NRC W/P8 measurements reveal it as well. OTOH the Salon2s are rolled up, but I do have a treble contro on the Salon2sl I will play with at some point as well to lower it to a flatter anechoic response for the sake of another group of ETF5 measurements. If anyone wants to see the preliminary measurement overlays of the two speakers I have made three overlays in ETF5. The first is of both speakers at 70dB (1/6th octave), the second of both at 80dB (1/6th octave) and the third at 80dB (1/12th) octave. I have posted them in the equipment list. The 70dB (1/6th octave) doesn't differ from the 80dB (1/6th octave) measurement so I won't bother posting it. I've also posted a pic of the Salon2s in my room in the equipment list as well. I have to say, I am a little upset. For all the griping I have heard on fora everywhere concerning the importance of minute differences in frequency response measurements (which I bought into as a reason for making this comparison; in hopes of improving my sound quality), I am a little unenthusiastic when considering the similarities between how they both measure in my room in the critical frequencies... I expected some bass issues in my room to be resolved, but instead the speakers have revealed that those bass humps are room issues, not speaker related issues (yay... and boo...), because we know the Revels are not going to be wildly off a flat frequency response in those areas. I don't think there is such a thing as a "best speaker," only a "best speaker for me." So any decisions I make are ultimately made on the basis of what I enjoy. The sad thing is, what seems to be the "best for me" one day can change depending on the listening material and recording quality... So I will try to assess which will meet my overall needs best, in a 2-channel and HT sense.
Onto the next plan... A suspended microperf fixed frame screen.
Here is the outline:
Original width = 112" Original height = 62.9" Starting throw = 234"
New Anamorphic Screen Width = 143" New Anamorphic Screen Height = 60.85" New implicit 16:9 width = 108.31"
New 2.35:1 Viewing Distance Ratio = 2.89 New 16:9 View Distance = 1.63
Current 2.35:1 View Distance Ratio = 3.65 Current 16:9 View Distance Ratio = 1.58
There would be quite an improvement to the 2.35:1 viewing distance ratio and a little loss to the 16:9 (1.78:1) viewing distance ratio. If I move my seating position forward 6 inches, the 16:9 viewing distance would be exactly the same as it is now and the 2.35:1 would change from ~2.9 to ~2.8. The Wilson dealer left me that 6" window as an option depending on if I liked a more immersive sound vs. a more laid back sound, so it wouldn't hurt my speaker set up and I enjoy both listening positions.
Man, I'm bummed. I just realized my current 112" projection screen is flush to the right wall soffit and the new screen size I had been planning out is 116". That means the new case would be ~4" longer. I would need to go into the soffit (where the steal beam is located) ~2.5" in order to get the better aspect ratio and utilize the projector completely. I might have 2.5", but that would probably look really odd, and because of smaller side soffits, it wouldn't be flush with the ceiling, but rather suspended off of it.
This is looking worse and worse as a possibility (if not completely eliminated as a possibility)...
I could still just hang a fixed screen of some sort with the correct ratios I suppose.
I really don't like that most of the material I watch isn't utilizing the projector completely. Given, it still looks amazing even with the black bars...
1) Extra screen for 2.35:1 at a better viewing ratio (2.5) than my 16:9 with letterboxed 2.35:1 (viewing ratio of 3.6).
2) An ISCO III anamorphic lens, or other comparable anamorphic lens, with a Cineslide. This will be used with the new 2.35:1 ratio screen.
3) I'm looking into a Trinnov Optimizer unit to compensate for slightly irregular surround speaker positionings; a compromise that was initially made to optimize the two channel sound of the setup. The Trinnov optimizer corrects for speaker positioning in 3D by remapping the radiation matrix. The unit also does other room corrections, such as cancellations of first reflections (Direct Field), and Correction of the Room Energy.
4) I'm still considering an analog PEQ such as the GML 8200 for the analog portion of my system, since all my other room correction equipment requires the signal to be digitized. For this reason, I have no room correction on the two channel portion of my setup. Why? Beyond all reason, I want to be a purist with my analog section...
Rives designed the setup for the subs to be in the front with the possibility of adding two more in the back if necessary. I just bought a new projector, the C3X 1080, so I don't have any plans for extra subs yet, but there is potential later on down the road. I don't necessarily think I need more.
Unfortunately, any subs added in the back would have to be smaller than the ones in the front because I just don't have the room in the back for larger subs.
If you want to do something similar for your listening space you should get a Rives Audio consultation. Considering the very nice equipment you have in your setup, it would not be a lot in comparison to get a level 1 consultation in order to take the acoustical treatment of the room as far as it can go for the room shape as it is right now. Of course, after my experience with the level 2, I would recommend the level 3. If I knew then what I know now, I would have spent the extra money to go the extra mile. I always end up paying more for compromises at some point down the road than if I just did it right the first time it seems IME...
I finally got my center channel a few days ago and had time to set it up yesterday. Excellent...
I still have to call Wilson and figure out how to set up the tweeter properly for the custom stand height setting I ordered. Still, without moving it at all, and with simply facing the speaker and stand position upwards towards my listening position, it works great.
My dealer consulted with Wilson on building the stands with sand instead of lead shot. They said "technically" it would be better performance wise to use something like shot, but it wouldn't make an audible difference. They have spikes built into the bottoms for grounding. They are filled completely with sand (no movement room inside). The stands themselves are constructed from MDF. They are solid, and extremely heavy...
My dealer based the design on some custom stands Dave Wilson uses in his own home for his surround channel Sophias, that is why he consulted with Wilson Audio on how to construct them for the best stand height (based on the height of my couch's back) and grounding.
Speakers in the great outdoors will never sound like speakers in a room. No one has to refer anything to me, I've researched all the design work myself in books about acoustics such as "Master Handbook of Acoustics." Speakers don't sound so great in the outdoors when they are devoid of room interactions, they are missing a certain richness of timbre, soundstage expansion, precision in the localization, and dimensionality.
I don't know about the stands (you can guarantee I'll find out though...), but the rest of the room design is well researched acoustical engineering work...
Yeah, and I thought of more stuff I forgot to put on the list...
Like putting red oak veneer on my rear speaker stands and staining them. My dealer conferred with Wilson Audio and designed MDF stands filled with sand to place my rear speakers on so they are raised a little above the back end of the couch....
I also have to have the humidifier installed soon, before it starts getting too dry and static is everywhere.
1. How is the SME20 TT? What did you have before that and how did it compare?
I haven't had a turntable since the mid-80s! My old turntable wasn't anything special, and I didn't even bother taking it out of retirement when I decided to start collecting LPs again.
The SME is awesome. I had a problem with the oil plunger for the tonearm malfunctioning and splattering oil all over the place, but it cleaned up fine (I think). Clark at Acoustic Sounds has been a tremendous help with getting me set back up with vinyl again. The people at SME are also a great help with things. When Acoustic Sounds is closed, SME is open because they are "across the pond." So, I always have someone to get tech support from! Not that I needed much, as this table is perfect for someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of time constantly tweaking their table.
What can I say the TT setup sounds incredible. I've always thought that I wouldn't hear any remarkable difference besides mastering differences, but I found it to be less abrasive (more relaxed?) sounding. CD often sounds to me like it is attacking my brain a little, while with the LPs on this TT, I'm finding it isn't edgy like most CDs seem to be, but rather smooth and less bright in comparison. Perhaps that too is a mastering difference, as I know that albums have to be mastered a certain way to work best on vinyl... Either way, I LOVE the difference!
2. Did you get your Sophias for surrounds yet? Maybe I missed it in one of your updates in recent posts.
Yes, and I added pictures of them as well (I think).
3. Is your room near completion, or do you have any more plan tweaks to the sonic treatments?
God I wish it were near completion...
A few things are in the works:
1) Mounting new RPG Diffusor System's BAD ARC treatments on first order sidewall reflection points. These are replacing RPG absorption panels previously used there, as per Rives recommendation based on the minimized room interaction design of Wilson speakers.
2) I ordered custom sized RPG BAD panels for the ceiling to cover gaps between the 1st order ceiling reflection points and the RPG Skylines.
3) Consulting with Rives on decreasing a bass hump that is a little too large in the 40 Hz to 90 Hz region.
4) Moving the previous sidewall absorption panels around to other areas of the room to tighten up the rear (as per Rives suggestion) and front of the room, to see which I like better.
5) Waiting on a box from Stewart Screen to return the screen for repairs, it had problems during the initial shipping, and was a little damaged. Once I get the box it will be shipped back for repairs, at which time the screen material will also be changed from the Firehawk G3 material to the StudioTek 130 material. The screen will have to be removed from the ceiling and put back in again when it returns.
6) The equipment closet ventilation isn't completed, so it will be worked on.
7) A humidifier needs to be added for the winter, to prevent static in the room, and dryness.
8) The lights need to be replaced. They are malfunctioning (some randomly flicker on and off, with no rhyme or reason), and have the transformers located on the track units. They are being replaced with quiter direct line lighting with a transformer somewhere with soundproofing.
9) Soundproofing of the equipment closet.
10) I have to fish around for the final impulse response issue. There is one reflection that I haven't located yet (likely on the bookshelf somewhere), so I will have to move panels around the bookshelf and take ETF 5 measurements until I find it, and if it isn't there, I will have to move them around the room until I find it...
11) Take pictures of newer equipment to add to this thread.
12) Remeasure room response and post the measurements here, as it is different now due to minor seating position changes and treatment changes. I'll probably wait on this until I finish almost everything else (at least until the treatments and bass hump are modified...).
I try not to think about it all at once... Thankfully, with the lights off, none of this interferes with the listening experience in any significant way to ruin the listening experience. Though things will definitely be improved with adding and changing the treatments, as well as with flattening the bass hump a little bit.
If I think about it all, it gets overwhelming and depressing. Having to remove the screen and send it back probably depresses me the most. I've gotten used to watching Heroes, CSI (Miami, Vegas, NY) and anything else that is on primetime on the big screen... So I'm really going to miss watching shows down there until it gets back.
By natural, I am referring to not using electronic methods like EQ/PEQ/etc. The purpose is to make the acoustical sound of room effects as minimal as possible without altering the original signal's direct sound (the first waves to hit the listener). The room reflections and interferences are all indirect sounds. A certain level of reflection is useful to add fullness to the timbre, but too much destroys the coherency, focus and detail of the soundstage and elements in the soundstage.
If I have to, as a last resort, I may have to use some light analog PEQ, but I'm really opposed to that idea.
Clearing up excess sound energy being reflected around the room tightens the soundstage, as well as focuses the imaging and detail of individual elements in the sound field. Everything in the sound field becomes more localized and identifiable. Without that kind of room treatment everything becomes cacophonous to me. Cacophony is not the kind of sound I prefer when listening to music, and that is the kind of sound I get when all the sound waves are being intentionally redirected towards my listening position. I prefer to hear the music more than the room, though I do realize that acoustic coupling is an unavoidable evil, it can be controlled enough to make it a pleasant experience.
No matter how much you smooth the room's surface you will still have to deal with pressure zones and nulls due to room boundaries. Adding specific devices (traps, resonators, etc) is a way to absorb excess energy at certain locations where waves are reinforcing each other (high pressure zones). This kind of natural room treating allows the original signal to stay intact, while eliminating any aberrations caused by the room boundaries.
I found with my digital EQ (removing the +12 to +15dB hump) that the bass was more taut and defined, but some of the depth/dimension to the soundfield disappeared for certain instruments whose fundamental frequencies use those ranges, especially piano when playing notes that utilize the frequency ranges being altered. I believe this is because of the negative impact equalization has on the direct sound in order to correct for the total room response, since the equalization inevitably drives the direct sound excessively low at the problem frequencies in order to compensate for the modal reinforcement gain.
Unfortunately, changing the soffits in the way you did in your room likely wouldn't be a good idea in my room, since the lower bass frequencies in my setup are already reinforced too much. Likely I will have to use some types of helmholtz resonators and/or resonator panels mounted off the side walls in some of the nodal gain areas of the room that correspond to the problem frequencies.
My soffits aren't symmetrical. No one side measures the same dimensions as any of the other sides. The tray ceiling is off center from the general shape of the room.
I do have a problem with excessive bass starting at 40 Hz and ending at 90 Hz on the 20Hz to 200Hz and 1/6th octave response readings (+12 to +15dB) unless I use the Meridian 861 digital setup with bass management and separate subs. I'm talking with Rives later this month and doing measurements for him to see what can be done naturally to solve the problem. I want to avoid using electronic solutions at all costs, because while they may fix the room response they are still negatively altering the direct audio waves that arrive first at the listening position from the speakers. If I have to do some kind of PEQ solution, I'll end up getting a GML 8200.
I never asked about that issue. Initially only one side of the room had a soffit (the right side) So the other three walls had it added on as part of the Rives design.
From my own understanding of acoustics via Everest's book, the soffits would serve to diffusively break up any waves whose 1/7th of a wavelength is the same size or smaller than the soffit's distance off of any wall (ceiling or sidewall in the case of my room). So the soffits would have a diffusive quality for certain frequencies that don't defract around them.
I'm using BetterCables... I had more expensive cables at one point (Nordost Frey) but I've never heard any differences between the expensive cables and much cheaper cables as long as both are built well and neither are malfunctioning. So I based my choice on the materials used more than a perceived sound difference, e.g. I chose copper with a thin silver coating so that I have that much more extra protection from possible oxidization of the copper layer than I would on just copper cables, since the cables run through the wall for distances as long as 80' (that wouldn't be fun to replace if there ends up being issues with the cables later on).
As far as amplifiers go, I'm very happy with the Ayre MX-Rs I'm currently using. With the W/P 8 sensitivity rating and these Ayre monoblocks, I really don't see any need to go higher in price ATM. I also like the Ayre design philosophy of handling the signal in fully balanced mode internally. My whole two channel setup is fully balanced from source to amp (except the turntable and phonostage). If I were to switch to tubes, I would switch to BAT gear in order to get that same balanced benefit from top to bottom most likely.
I suppose if you are in the market for an amp and don't care what it costs, you could check out the high-end Halcro dm88. I heard those Halcros with a dCS stack and B&W 800Ds... It sounded very very nice.
Thanks. The only issue with the D-1xe that would be a problem for me is SACD playback. The D-1xe doesn't appear to have SACD playback. I play SACDs a lot on my C-5xe (more than DVD-A and regular CDs lately). The SACDs also sound better on the Ayre gear than on the Denon DVD-5910, so switching my two channel SACD listening to the Denon wouldn't work well either.
I did some comparisons last night, and it could be the Meridian room correction software, or bass management software, that was making it sound so different. I'm going to have to do some more detailed comparisons later. There was a lot more acoustical ambience in the C-5xe playback SACD-wise, which leads me to believe that the Meridian room correction or bass management played a large role in the differences (it wasn't a matter of subtle differences).
Update: Sometime today I'm picking up the remaining portion of my parent's and my own record collection from their house in preparation to clean them up when the new equipment arrives in the next week or two. I've also picked out a nice selection of modern material, as well as some classics, to add to that collection. So a good portion of time will be spent today figuring out if we already have some of those albums in the collection already so I can remove them from the shopping list.
A warning to others: Wear goggles when hanging OC 703 over your head. I woke up today and one of my eyes is bright red from fiberglass irritation! (A breathing mask might be a good idea also...)
Update: I spent the last two hours adding Owens Corning 703 to the ceiling 1st reflection points. I'm having some kind of problem with my measuring equipment and ETF5 ATM. Though I was still able to get a solid measurement, I just couldn't take them in the usual way, but the FR was coming out normal, as well as the impulse response et al. I have finally eliminated the largest impulse response spikes at 6 ms by adding those fiber board panels to the ceiling. Now I have to wait until the 20th (Monday) when RPG Diffusor Inc comes back from vacation to order custom sized panels wrapped in Guilford of Maine fabric for those areas on the ceiling.
The other spikes on the impulse response after 6 ms were all eliminated except for the one that is furthest out. I still can't figure out where the hell that one is coming from... I've tried everything, covering bookshelf cubbies, back wall areas, front wall areas, the pipe, etc, etc. I guess I will keep looking because it is the only reflection left interfering with the imaging. I believe it is coming from behind the listening position because I occasional hear a slight imaging from behind me that seems abnormal and it is always in the same spot (my back right). I will have to look into this further once I get these others things fixed permanently. It is so rare that I hear it as to be almost inconsequential.
The other spikes were the opposite wall 1st reflection points for the front speakers, because my final listening position moved outside the range of the panel on the left wall (that covered the right speaker, left wall 1st reflection point) and the right wall was never covered with a panel to deal with the left speakers reflection point there.
I will say this though, the ceiling treatments were a tremendous improvement in the soundstaging. Vertically there used to be a sense of stretching of the soundstage image. The precision and detail of the soundstage was slightly compromised by this as well. There is now more of a ceiling on the vertical imaging of instruments and vocals. It wasn't terrible or anything previously, but it was a little smudged in comparison, in the vertical plane. I am hearing things in the music that were previously veiled by the smudging. It is amazing how GREAT an impact simple things like treating EVERY reflection point can have on the resolution, ambience and overall focus (if that doesn't cover everything, then add whatever else comes to mind to that list, because if it exists in the speaker output, it is improved) of the music.
The next big things I need to do are explore two channel EQ, to consider straightening out some of the frequency response issues, and explore building my own helmholtz resonators as an alternative option to EQ.
Later on, as I add the final treatments in certain places, and finish tweaking their positioning (since I moved my seating one last time), I'll post some more accurate measurements.
I've started adding room treatments and pics to the equipment list, since they are an important part of my system and there was an interest expressed. I'll also add info on the in-room built in treatments designed by Rives Audio for my room.
Update: Changed the back of the room photo to a temp with the Sophia 2 speakers in it. I'm waiting on stands to put them on to raise them up a little bit at which point I will add a permenant photo.
I look at those Alexandrias and I start to suffer from speaker envy! I'm going to upgrade up the line slowly most likely. In a few years I'll likely trade-in for the Maxx II (or III?).
I'm extremely happy with the W/P 8s right now though. I still can't believe the big sound coming from those speakers. The B&W 802Ds I had previously didn't put out as much and they were a lot larger in footprint.
Also, I spent anything extra I felt comfortable spending on that SME setup (Doh!). I could have chosen to trade in for Maxx II speakers instead, but I think I'll wait a couple of years and then make the leap. Besides, I have all my old records from the 70s and 80s as well as my parent's records to use on the turntable. It is like instantly doubling my music collection with one purchase.
I added a pic of one of the Sophia 2 speakers. I also changed the Bryston 9B SST to the PowerPac 300 SST amps I will be replacing the 9B SST with soon (in the next week or two).
I'm also adding two overlays comparing different Meridian 861 functions on and off in different combinations. In particular, room correction and bass management. A 1/6th Octave measurement and 20 Hz to 200 Hz Frequency Response.
Thanks for the input, I'll consider upgrading the digital gear in the future. As it is now, I just invested in a very nice turntable for my setup. In my experience so far, you get much more bang for your buck when investing the bulk of your money on the speakers.
The Ayre monos sound incredible; the best of non-global feedback sound (tube-like musicality) with the solidity and authority of solid state. I'm very happy with them.
I'm being lazy, I'll have to post something soon. I only finally took the plastic wrap off fully yesterday despite having been using them since day one. ;)
I just put in an order for an SME 20/2 turntable, Lyra Titan cartridge and Sutherland PhD phonstage.
I haven't had a chance to take pics of the Wilson Sophia 2 speakers yet, but I will likely get a chance some time this weekend. I'll update when I do.
I will say this though... After doing the subjective fine tuning of the surround field wih the Meridian 861 (the coarse tuning required minor adjustments by ear), and despite my not so perfect surround speaker positioning, the surround field (back to back, front to back on both sides and front to front) is seamless.
I am happy to be retiring those Samson Resolv 80a studio monitors from the surround positions in the listening room to my new office area so they can be used with my Digi 002 and Mac G5 for recording music once again.
I didn't get to listen carefully or critically with them off of the tray ceiling. The entire room was done all at once, so I can't help you with your question much. They should break up any direct sound waves and reflections that hit them (1st point, oblique, tangential, etc) and create a "lively" bloom effect instead of simply absorbing the sound or reflecting it. At least that is my understanding of how these kind of diffusors work based on information that RPG gave me when I inquired on the Skyline's effects. They also said that the greatest impact is had when the closest (longest) peaks on the Skyline are ~6' away and not much closer than that to the ear height.
I hope that was helpful. The best way to get more precise information is to call RPG and ask them.
I got my Wilson Sophia 2 surround speakers today. They arrived unharmed, of course... How could they not in those amazingly strong wooden crates? I haven't plugged them in yet to hear them, and won't have time until tomorrow most likely, but I don't see how they would be damaged internally without the crates showing signs of wear, and there is no overwhelming wear on the crates.
The dealer built me custom 8" high stands to put them on, but those haven't arrived yet. Once everything arrives I'll have him over again to voice the surrounds, and the center as well (so I plan on some time in August for all of this to occur).
I'm very excited and will be bringing my Bryston 9B SST out of storage to use until the Bryston Powerpac 300s arrive for their permanent use.
Those pipes made A LOT of noise. Insulating them as thoroughly as we did with mineral fiber and OC703 eliminated the sounds of running water completely. Now I have to do a similar thing in the electronics closet, as the ventilation fans we are adding are making noise I can hear through the closet door. So we will be surrounding the pipe in OC703 as well as partially boxing it off and adding a solid door to the closet instead of the hollow door we have been using.
I was listening to Yes "Yessongs" earlier today. That has currently been one of the hardest live albums for me to get good playback from on a sound system, in my experience. It didn't sound too great on my last loudspeakers at all. It finally sounds right to me on the W/P8s. For me that is a great and worthy achievement, as it is one of my favorite live albums.
I used to have the conception that because studio albums on the W/P7 sounded so eerily lifelike, that somehow a live recording wouldn't sound as coherent or great. I never got a chance to test the Yes "Yessongs" album on the W/P7s, but if the W/P8 can be any guideline for what I could expect on the W/P7, then I was completely wrong. Why did I believe this would be the case on the W/P7? At the time I couldn't upgrade to the W/P7, and I fell in love with it from the moment I heard Love Street from The Doors' "Waiting for the Sun" on a pair when demoing Ayre gear. I think it was my best attempt at making myself feel like my current speakers were somehow better at something that the speakers I really wanted weren't capable of doing. A little comforting deception on my part until I could finally afford to take the leap into the W/P8 speaker.
"Heart of the Sunrise" in particular, to single one song out, was mind-blowing. The bass solo really shows off the improvements made to my passive resonator and the merit of the deep bass frequency response of the W/P8. The bass solo is tight, coherent and consistent from top to bottom. Steve Howe comes in near the end of the bass solo with his melodic counterpoint on the guitar, and as Squire and Wakeman eventually join in, the notes move from the fringes of the soundstage to the center (the heart of the sunrise?). The notes have never been so individually clear and localizable as they are in my current setup.
Then Anderson begins to sing and I become keenly aware of his voice in the original acoustic space (though with the obligatory acoustic coupling that occurs between any reproduced sound recorded in an acoustic space and the new space it is being reproduced within - i.e. it is a miniaturized version of the original scope and magnitude of the event). The acoustics of the original venue are clearly defined in the music, but the voice reveals it most clearly, and consequently, I now hear the original acoustic space more in all of the other instruments as well, as my awareness of its presence has brought it to the forefront of my consciousness.
It is a different experience to sit here and type this, and nowhere near the ecstasy the music evokes in my mind when actually listening. I can only take aspects of the entire experience and break them down into relatable chunks. The gestalt is much greater than these singular elements in my experience so far. This setup continues to light my endorphins on fire!
I keep myself very busy, that is why when I get the chance to sit for awhile and listen to music, like I did last night, I really appreciate it. I'm enthralled with my new speakers, so much so that I put in an order for the Wilson Audio Specialties Watch Center for my center channel speaker and Sophia Series 2 for my surround channel speakers. I'm in for a pound now, instead of just a penny.
I haven't listened to Sting's first solo album (The Dream of the Blue Turtles) all the way through in a long time (likely since I was in highschool and bought it as my first CD for my first CD player). It is a very well engineered album, also quite involving and engaging on the Watt Puppy 8s. I close my eyes and get to be there.
We finished some of the last notes on the room construction yesterday, and I think I hear a VERY clear difference in the bass response and coherency. It is now tighter, faster, and more distinct. What did we do? Well we caulked the passive resonator in the front of the room to be sealed air tight and we applied the final framing to its entire edges so it matches the framing around the rest of the room (red oak). It is now sealed tight, and the bass seemed to respond in kind.
I can hear the difference when I tap on it as well. It used to reverberate longer and oscillated more during that vibration, now it has a fast, steady decay. It seems to be the same effect I'm hearing from the lower bass as well.... Who knows though, perhaps it is all in my head. I won't know until I take measurements and compare the 3D spectral decay charts (if I understand what they are correctly...).
I've made an unfortunate discovery upon hooking up my Meridian 861 and two Revel subwoofers for the first time through the processor itself instead of using the subs chained together with the speakers.... The bass management doesn't appear to work at all. In fact, at the least, the crossovers settings don't appear to do anything at all no matter what source I use in my system (including digital and analog outputs to the processor). No matter what I set them to, they still send the whole signal through to both the regular speakers and the subwoofers at the same time.
I called Meridian and the guy there at Meridian USA doesn't seem to know how to troubleshoot the problem even though I was quite explicit on what is wrong and how I tested it. I am going to call the UK branch on Monday and hope they have better technical knowledge of their own equipment and why it might not be working correctly.
My speakers are all set to small and I am running the subs in stereo mode. I have no center channel. The person at Meridian tech support stated that he has never dealt with any people who have no center channel before and perhaps that was causing all the problems. I hope the people in Britain have a more comprehensive troubleshooting department with a more complete approach than the, "I don't know, your local dealer might know more, perhaps it is an unusual setting in your system" approach to helping the customer.
This is an awfully expensive piece of equipment to be lacking a very strong and well trained technical staff to troubleshoot it when it is not working correctly IMO....
Measurements were done with long sine sweeps, full range on ETF5. I am adding more treatments in the next few months, as well as altering some to different types of treatments. So when the time comes, I will replace the old measurements with newer ones....
Update posted: I added measurement pics to the equipment menu.
The nulls appear to be common to the room in the 20Hz to 200Hz FR measurement, as I had them on the 802Ds when near these positions as well. The reinforcement in the 60Hz to 80Hz region may be a characteristic of the speaker, though the 802D had a similar reinforcement there as well because it too is known to measure heavy in that bass frequency region.
I liked the Lamm room also. I keep forgetting about that room, I don't know why, possibly because it was the end of a long day when I finally got to it. I did enjoy the BAT room better, but I visited that a few times during the day, so it could be that I just had more time in their than in the Lamm room and am not remembering it well. In any case, they both sounded fantastic. I also liked the MBL room, even though my listening was distracted by the loud presentation in the room next door (there was a flimsy partition on the right side of the room, nothing solid enough to sound proof).
I agree on thw Wii. I couldn't find one on the day of release, but I had talked my father into waiting on line in Florida (where there isn't as much demand) so he could give one to his grandkids (my kids) as a present. So I have had a chance to play around with it. Pretty innovative control system, too bad Sony and Microsoft weren't more on top of that idea when they made their systems, though I don't know how I would be able to integrate that into my HT (the equipment closet is pretty far away).
I loved how the W/P8 sounded on the BAT monoblocks at HE2007. I wouldn't mind hearing the BAT monoblocks and/or the Audio Research Reference monoblocks in my room. Of course, I would want to match them with all tube equipment from the beginning of the signal processing to the end. IMO, it wouldn't make much sense to mix and match gear from different companies, as it defeats the vision of the designer and the specific criteria they were trying to accomplish with their equipment. So I would want to do the Reference CD7, Reference 3, and Reference 610T with ARC, or the VK-150SE, VK-51SE and VK-D5SE with BAT.
A BIG selling point for me with the Ayre gear was the balanced wiring internally. The equipment is qired to handle the signal in balanced form all the way through to the amplifiers, this means I can be lazy with setting up my wiring in the equipment closet. Any signal interference caused by stray power lines is eliminated before it goes out to the speakers, no matter where it occurs. So the only wires I have to be cautious of are the speaker wires. I would likely want to stick with that kind of philosophy, so BAT seems like the more logical choice, but I would want to hear both in-depth first.
I was very impressed by the audible difference between tubes and solid state at the Stereophile workshop during HE2007. It was quite a difference in sound. The tubes sounded slightly more dimensional, warmer, a little more detailed, though ever so slightly higher pitched tonally. I really never expected the difference to be so noticable. I think it surprised a few people. It was more immersive and less clinical, and I sort of liked that.
Oh, BTW, I think I was using bad terminology when I referred to them as recessed. I didn't mean 3-dimensionally as much as obscured/veiled by other frequencies. It often was very hard to hear male vocals, they seemed hidden behind other frequency ranges most of the time.
You were right about Dark Side of the Moon having those qualities (as I mentioned I think in an earlier post), but it is a lot better on the Wilsons. It was also better on those studio monitors I was using temporarily - though there were no redeaming qualities at all on those monitors for listening enjoyment, they just happened to bring male vocals out of the obscurity I was experiencing on the 802Ds.
**** One correction from my last post. I meant to say "so far, no luck" not "so for, no luck."
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'm going to be adding measurements of the room sometime in the next day or two (perhaps later tonight), so people can see how well things are measuring.
That is a major gripe people have against Wilson speakers it seems (i.e. how they measure). I think the setup process really helps to integrate the Wilson response with the room response. I still have some fine tuning to do, and extra treatments are on order (four RPG BAD ARCs), but I was very happy with how well it measured after the Wilson voicing. The only areas where I am having problems are areas that my last speakers had problems with as well in the already treated room, all of them due to room modes.
Unfortunately, in the 1/6 and 1/12 octave measurements, the biggest problem is in the ~60 to ~70 Hz region, also a room mode issue (a mode reinforcement). That frequency is so low that it can't be effectively treated in my space because it would require corner traps with ~5' x ~5' dimensions to achieve the required 1/4 of the largest frequency's wavelength needed to impact the soundwave.
Also, there is an impulse response issue at 6' after the direct sound reaches the listening position. This appears to be an issue of reflection on the ceiling. I haven't had time to work on it yet, but we plan on covering all reflection areas on the ceiling with custom made treatments wrapped in the same acoustically transparent fabric we are using in the room already. If that doesn't solve the issue, other options will be explored.
I'm not a fan of the perfect measurement school of thought, since any room is going to alter any perfect speaker's perfect measurement to its own mold anyway. So a flat speaker isn't going to measure flat in a real world circumstance unless it is EQed anyway. So those kinds of arguments have always annoyed me since they aren't based on listening to music and the sound of a speaker as much as being biased against a speaker without having even listened to it. At least that has been my experience so far with EVERY person who has made this argument against Wilson speakers that I have interacted with personally. They all tout that one same argument, and none have listened extensively. I haven't met a person yet who has come into my listening room, audiophile or non-audiophile who hasn't left completely blown away by how real the music sounds.
Speaker preference is subjective, and Wilson isn't the only speaker I like. In fact, I miss that diamond tweeter on the 802Ds... If these W/P8s had that tweeter to match their incredibly vivid mid-range I don't think I would ever leave my listening room. I would never exchange the W/P8 midrange for the 802D midrange though, the 802D midrange was congested, raspy and veiled sounding in comparison. I also love those Dynaudio C1s I heard on the Simaudio gear at HE2007 and would really really love to talk my wife into letting me put a pair in the Master Bedroom in the future (so for, no luck...), as she 100% wouldn't let me put Avantgarde Unos in their (I tried that one already).
I'm definitely happy with my speakers and plan on using them for awhile to come. I don't begrudge other people for having their own preferences, except when they do so at the expense of another speaker that they have never heard (demoed). I can't blame people for pushing their current speaker, though I can see how it would be annoying. The way I look at it, they are often simply very excited because they love their speakers so very much (or hopefully not as often, are extremely unhappy with their speaker choice and are trying to convince themselves otherwise).
Thanks. Those are nice speakers I have heard. I haven't had a chance to listen to any of the JM Labs yet, at HE2007 they were only open during specific times when I wasn't able to be around... I look forward to hearing them some time in the future.
The room dimensions are ~33' x ~18' x ~9' (& ~7.7') (Length x Width x Height). The ceiling is ~9' in the center area (the tray ceiling area with the RPG high profile Skylines on it), but ~7.7' under the larger soffit areas, if you are trying to figure out an approximate volume for the room.
The listening couch is ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the back wall, the speakers are ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the couch, and the front wall is ~1/3rd the distance of the room length from the speakers. So the room setup is split into ~1/3rds.
The ratio of the distance between the listening position and each speaker, to the distance between each speaker and the other speaker, is varying currently somewhere between these two limits: 1.1:1 to 1.25:1. Each offers a different and enjoyable experience with the music.
The closer position is more immersive, detailed at the individual instrument level, and seems more timbrally accurate sounding, though also tonally brighter, but the brightness could be a sign that I need more treatment on the ceiling reflection points for both speakers and at the right sidewall for the left speaker (this was confirmed through ETF5 meaurements - an impulse spike is occurring ~6' longer than the direct sound from both speakers according to Richard Rives, as I measured both speakers separately as well as simultaneously).
The further away position is more dry (not as immersive), offers a greater holistic focus of the music as a whole, i.e., greater total detail at the expense of less individual detail, and seems duller tonally and timbrally compared to the closer position.
The first position is great for a cathartic experience with the music, while the second is incredible for album analysis. Though to be fair, both positions offer the opportunity for epiphanies. The first position offers an epiphany of the emotional nature and the second position offers an epiphany of the intellectual nature. The first position places you inside the event so you can be a part of the experience, while the second position places you outside the event so you can analytically comprehend its entirety.
As you can imagine, I will probably never settle on one position, and luckily I only have to move my seating position around 6 inches to go back and forth between the two. The speakers are that refined in their localization and imaging!
Sean Turner from HiFiBuysNashville did an incredible job of voicing the speakers. Before the voicing started I had them in a position that wasn't terrible, but the very bottom of the bass was disconnected from the more high frequency portions of the bass notes and there were other issues as well that were more subtle. It was amazing to hear the difference in the two different locations he found where the speakers would work (unfortunately, the very best position would have been behind my movie screen, so it wouldn't work, though Sean guessed it would only be a 2%-3% difference between the two positions he found). Once he placed them in positions close to the final spots you could hear the whole frequency spectrum align. It was a mind blowing experience to hear such a radical difference in how these speakers present the music simply by moving one speaker even a single inch (as was demonstrated to me by Sean in the process of voicing them). The music completely came into focus and frequency spectrum aligned in a way I didn't think was possible. Bravo!
The Wilson Watt Puppy 8 speakers arrived on Wednesday. A friend and I set them up and the dealer came and voiced them today. All I can say is, breathtaking. The difference is night and day between these and my old speakers in my listening room. I'm having none of those congested, cavernous sound issues in the high-bass and mid-range with the new speakers, and most oher issues were eliminated as well. Absolutely marvelous.... WOW!!!
I'll post more later as I haven't had enough time to sit back and enjoy them. At some point in the next week I'll replace my pictures on this thread and express more of my sentiments. For now, suffice it to say, the moments when I close my eyes and feel I am hearing the real thing right in front of my face are so common now, that I am regretful that I didn't do this sooner.
Switching albums that had this issue to other speakers revealed that not all speakers have those characteristics that bothered me on the 802Ds. No speaker is perfect, nor will any speaker perfectly reflect the engineers' or artists' intent, and the album wasn't engineered to be perfect on the 802Ds, so it still is a matter of how you like to hear things presented. Even if it were engineered to be perfect on an 800D at Abbey Road studio, it would only be perfect set up in an exact replica of that space with the speakers in the same exact position.
Far too many of my albums have that cavernous, listening to music through a long tunnel sound, on the 802Ds for me to believe that it is all coincidence, especially when I don't have those issues on other speakers, including my Samson Resolv40a studio monitors (even if they do not sound as good in comparison to the 802Ds).
To be fair and make sure it wasn't completely in my head, I went downstairs to listen to some of the SACD version of Dark Side of the Moon on the Resolv80a monitors. While there are areas of songs, such as Breathe that have muffled chorus lyrics no matter what speakers I used, it is still different sounding vocally in general. The singing is in most instances more forward and less acoustically cavernous sounding. I could hear a definite difference when going from vocals that were lower down frequency wise (like Peter Gabriel, Billy Corgan and Jim Morrison) on the 802Ds to something like Steely Dan's Donald Fagan's vocals in his higher pitched songs. Testing Jim Morrison's "Love Street" on the 802Ds and the W/P7s is what convinced me to save up and change speakers initially, very different representations of the same music. Again, my preference.
Definitely not a bad speaker at all. My friend recently mentioned to me that I just don't like the characteristic laid British sound as much as the more forward American presentation. I had also heard people refer to the B&W sound before as muffled and/or tubby (dealers selling other speakers of course), but those were terms I could relate with when making contrasts to my more recent considerations.
Funny you should mention Alan Parsons. One of the albums where I had more issues than others on certain songs was Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon."
It isn't a consideration I think. I had the 802D speakers in this same room without any treatments, with a little bit of treatments and with the room completely re-designed via a Rives Audio level 2 consultation. I've also had the speakers in different spots in the room, as well as at the other end of the room with a completely different setup. At some point I'll post RT60s, when I get a chance, likely after the Wilsons are voiced this weekend some time.
I believe total room absorption is taken into account in Rives' design in terms of decay time. He asks for a list of everything that will be in the room, their materials and their dimensions before he begins the design work. That is enough information to make a close-enough approximation of the total room absorption for decay rate purposes. Rives also designs his rooms for a live sounding room (as per his website - though because this was also a HT room perhaps it is a little deader, I did ask to optimize it for two channel listening). I spent a lot of time on the phone asking him what exact kind of carpetting to use in my space (pile and padding, etc) in order to compensate for the material I was taking out of the room (i.e. I asked what carpetting he would recommend for his level 2 room design and he told me what general pile type and padding they design the room around).
The inherent character of the 802D never changed. The problems with that area of the vocal range never changed, despite moving the speakers around. It was often nasally in that range and the vocals sunken behind the music (I think this is possibly a Rohacel or Kevlar sound that I just don't find appealing). Cleaning up the room didn't resolve this, though it did bring out more detail in all of the frequencies and helped localize the instruments on the soundstage, it just wasn't enough detail and localization to compensate for the negatives I was finding subjectively in terms of my preferences. It just happens that male vocals in that particular range are one of my favorite things to listen to since I am a fan of rock music.
I don't think they are bad speakers. They are excellent and sound incredible. They just didn't have enough of everything I wanted for me to stay with them. Once I heard something with remarkably more of the things I wanted over a year and a half ago, I was spoiled (the W/P7s). I liked the W/P8s even more once I heard those after they were released, so to me it was worth it to switch. Ultimately, the detail and "live" sound of the Wilsons is something the 802Ds just couldn't reproduce to my liking. I demoed the 800Ds a number of times as well, and it couldn't make a recording sound "alive" to my preference level either in comparison. I just prefer that sound more to the B&W studio sound. Call me crazy, call me a romantic, but I'm happy with it and that makes it a worthwhile investment to me. To me, one is just subjectively better than the other since I prefer its sound a lot more to the other one. Just my personal preferences really.
Yes, somewhere in my AVS thread (on page #4 I think), there are graphs. Not the first comparison graph but the second one, as the first one includes the Meridian room correction software in the measurement.
The room hasn't had the fine tuning done yet though, so it will be worked on more once I get my new speakers voiced for the room.
I do have a diffusor in the front of the room. The passive resonator, or polycylindrical diffusor as it is termed in the Master Handbook of Acoustics - they appear to be the same thing, but I could be wrong - is the cylinder shaped object inbetween the two speakers on the front wall.
The best source for Acoustics I've read so far is "Master Handbook of Acoustics," by F. Alton Everest. Another good book about the nature of sound, music and listening is "Total Recording," by David Moulton. A third great book about music and how we perceive music is, "This is Your Brain on Music," by Daniel J. Levitin. The first one will be the most useful for acoustics. The others are also great books on music, though not as acoustically oriented.
There are also a lot of great sites online for acoustics topics. I've seen Kalman Rubinson recommend this one before: Acoustics Forum. Rives has a lot on the Rives Audio site, and he has published a lot of articles as well at Audioholics.
There are cheaper versions that use different number combinations and sizes, etc, as well. I don't think you can get any of those custom painted though, but if you don't mind airbrushing them yourself... I saw a few on AVS Forums before. Also, if you plan on designing your room yourself, there is a lot of great help to be had on the AVS HT Construction Fora.
I don't remember off the top of my head. I think the price was around $300 with the custom paint. I ordered them over 7 months ago, so I'm not 100% sure on that. $300 seems right, because it was somewehere in the $3300+ price range for all of them. If you need an exact price, they can quote you a price on the phone, that is what I did before buying anything from them (my Absorbers are from them as well - in custom chosen acoustically transparent Guilford of Main fabric). The sales rep was very friendly. ;)
Those panels are RPG Skylines (High Profile versions - not the Low Profile versions, or LPs for short). They are made by RPG Diffusion Systems Inc., and they custom paint them to any color you want. I had mine painted the same exact color as my walls and ceiling. Here is a link to the Skylines.
BTW, in terms of the 802D again, I have heard the raspiness I was hearing referred to before in reviews as "nasally." I also forgot one of the other things that bothered me, often music would sound cupped, like it was being muffled. These things only became readily apparent in a very well treated room and with contrast to speakers well outside the 802Ds price range. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be as detectable to me as it is now.
I also asked my wife's advice on what color to make the treatments (RPG skylines and absorbers). She said, the same color, or as close as possible to the wall and ceiling color. I tried to convince her that something gaudy might be more interesting (like two tones, even if close to each other in color - like the ceiling and walls being two different hues), but she convinced me it would look tacky. She's the designer in the family... So she wins. To me it also made sense that more than one tone might be distracting even with the lights off during very bright movie scenes that create a lot of ambient light. The last thing you want is a room superficiality distracting a viewer's eyes from the show.
Don't get me wrong. The 802Ds are excellent speakers. They just didn't have the combination of sound elements I was looking for ultimately. Some people love the British sound, it eventually bothered me, especially as the room design allowed more of the speaker's character to reveal itself. It is not a bad speaker by any means, especially for the price. Though, if I were going to spend that much again, I would buy those $7000 Dynaudio Confidence C1 speakers paired with two parametric EQ subs (like the Revel B-15a). Those Dynaudio speakers with the Simaudio gear was mind blowing at HE 2007. If you get a chance to hear those, take it. ;)
I chose that color scheme because I wanted a dark color for showing movies, but I also wanted it to work with the Laz-E-Boy leather sectional. It is a family HT room (at least I tell my wife that, it was optimized for two channel listening, mwhahaha - I joke though, she knows everything about it, and just doesn't care), that is why I went with the couch (I have three young children - 2, 3, and 8). I wanted a brighter red, like a crimson, but my wife and I looked through a rather large color book and decided it would be too reflective. We settled on the New London Burgundy because it was red and would work with the couch color. Doing the trim, resonator, bookshelves and wall framing with red oak in Mohagony stain also helped to match the room to the couch.
I would have preferred doing a brighter room, but watching movies in the room was a more important consideration, and the color scheme isn't that important when listening to music or watching movies, since the lights are usually off, or dimmed. I deferred to my wife for the final decision on what color was best, since she has a degree in Graphic Design from Parsons.
Thank you, it took a lot longer than I expected (the thread and the room!). I appreciate you taking the time to look at it, I had fun making it (both the room and the thread). Sadly, it will never be finished (the room and the thread), as I will likely be changing more components and upgrading others as time goes by, especially the projector and speakers (W/P9s someday? Perhaps Maxx3s down the road?? Only time and demos will tell).
I'll definitely post a better comparison between the speakers, if there is anything that I haven't already noticed and listed in my previous post (again, sorry for any imprecisions in my audio jargon).
There were a few things I didn't like about the 802D. The first was the laid back vocals, they receded to far behind most of the other sounds (my friend calls that the laid-back British sound). They didn't localize instruments or voices very well, so the imagining was always ambiguous and fuzzy instead of precise because of it. Male vocals would often get swallowed in other sounds, though female vocals would be fine if they sang at normal female frequencies. For instrumental music they were fantastic, for male vocal rock band music, not so great. They often sounded raspy when certain frequencies were hit (I'm not sure if this is because of the Rohacel or Kevlar) instead of defined.
I'm sure there were some other things if I thought about it longer, but those were the major ones. In particular the laid back vocals and indistinct localization issues bothered me the most.
The W/P8s are at the least more defined/clear sounding (no rasp or fuzziness) in terms of localization and materials used. The mid-range male voices don't get swallowed in the sounds made by the material they use (I assume it is the material and not the other frequencies, since my FR is pretty good). They sound like real people and real instruments actually playing in different locations in the front of any room I've heard them in (the 802Ds never managed to achieve that, at most they sounded like a studio recording playback). I'll have to wait and see how they meld with the room after the Wilson dealer voicing and how the final room tuning works out with Rives to give a better synopsis, though you will have to pardon my lack of precision with audio terminology.
Thank you for the room compliment! :)
I used to post on HTGuide, then one of the administrators took advantage of his position of power to start an argument with me that he couldn't win. He started erasing my posts that proved him incorrect, then he banned me for a month after threatening me in an e-mail, suggestively of course (sore loser I guess...). I decided I didn't want to be part of a community that encourages that kind of behavior from its volunteers and never posted again. They were supposed to erase my account (I e-mailed the database admin to erase me from their system so I wouldn't show up as one of their statistical member numbers that they could use to find advertisers), but I guess they never did (go figure). :D
I love them thank you! Sorry it took so long to respond, I don't check here very often. Once I update the pictures and get my new speakers (replacing the B&W 802Ds - which I have already sold), I'll be around more.
The upgrade depends on whether you need the extra power. If you haven't run across any problems with your V-5xe with your current speakers, I don't see why you would need to upgrade yet, as that amp is fairly current as it is.
&pageHere is an easier to click link to my HT construction thread. I am less than a week away from room completion. The electrical work might take a little longer and then I will need some time to set the room up as well. Altogether I'm probably around two weeks away from completion.
