2. tech-talk
  3. 1034995107

Where do I position 4 speakers for 3D stereo sound

My room is 22-15-8 feet. I have a pair of K-horns, and a pair of Lascalas. The K-horns are along the short wall facing outward using four foot false walls. The Lascalas are in the rear to provide a 3D effect. Both pairs are using separate Mark Levinson 334 amps. I am aware that these speakers are designed to be played loudly. However, when played at a low volume, they can create sound effortlessly, and without any distortion at all. My problem is how far back from the K-horns should the sweetspot be positioned,and where should the rear speakers be positioned
to provide the best 3D sound? If the sweetspot is ten feet from the K-horns, then all speakers will be equal distanced from the sweetspot. But is ten feet too close to the front speakers? If the sweetspot is moved back, will I be too close to the back speakers creating phase problems? In that case, should the rear speakers be reflected off the back wall, or side wall? With this in mind, the high frequencies from the tweeters will be lost? Does anybody have any ideas about this problem?
redwoodgarden
pbb
1,140 posts
 
Just took a look at the Dynavector site and, indeed , the additional channels face forward towards the main speakers. The system is called Super-Stereo. I don't know much more about it, but look it up. Seems you need propriatery speakers though. Cheers.
redwoodgarden OP
150 posts
 
Thanks for your suggestion, Pbb. I think you may have hit the mother load. I've spent hours today looking at the Dynavector website and was very pleased with their presentation. Hopefully I'll be able to use the Lascalas for the rear speakers. I'll check that out tomorrow.
twl
3,251 posts
 
The best place you can position 4 speakers for "3d-Stereo sound is stack one pair on top of the other pair. Try the best you can to match the output levels. Remember, stereo is a 2 channel format. It never was meant to have more than 2 channels, nor any surround sound additions. The music is not recorded that way, and anything you get back there is not correct.
Additionally, every conceivable method of 2 channel surround sound has been done, and re-done, a hundred times. I guess you weren't around in the 70's when this was being tried the first time around, and led to the awful Quadraphonic being introduced, only to die a couple years later. Hafler circuits, ADC digital delay units, "ambience" processors. They've all been done to death.
If you want "Stereo" than you want 2 channel. If you want surround sound, then move over the the HT world where "more is better, and even more is even better". Soon they will have 48.1 systems with 48 amp channels and 48 speakers, with one for the center, of course. For that "movie theater" sound. Yecchhh.
4yanx
1,576 posts
 
As a former owner (in another lifetime) of Pioneer 949 and Marantz 4400 receivers, ESS Satellite 4 speakers (bet few ever heard of THEM), a thorens TT with an AT quad cartridge, and a Teac reel-to-reel, I agree with Twl that they never quite got it "right". It was kinda fun hearing Keith Emerson's keyboard go spinning around the room, though.
johnmcelfresh
97 posts
 
Rosewoodgarden,

I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that "only back speakers" can provide rear ambience. I find that, running 2 channel, I get a lot of rear information with recording that carry the ambience. I have rear speakers and a high quality HT processor/preamp, but I usually listen to music 2 channel only (front L/R speakers only).

Our brains will convince us of almost anything, if the clues are in the music (spacial clues are usually based on time and reverberation sounds).

Perhaps the recordings you typically listen to are lacking in this sort of ambient information. Try "Jazz at the Pawnshop" or "Missa In Tempore Pascale" - even Loreena McKennitt's "The Visit", turn off the lights and just listen - you'll hear a lot of sound from behind you (provided you room is reasonably setup).

Good luck.
More to discover