Newbee You ask some important questions. All five voters sat in the same seats throughout all comparisons, so the perspective of each listener never changed.
Certainly none of the side positions is as revealing as the sweet spot, which can accommodate two people -- one in front of the other. However, we spent a considerable amount of time in advance of the event to position the other seats so that acceptably focused images and a convincing soundstage is perceived from the other three positions -- two on either side of the sweet spot in the back row and one to the side in the front row. None of the voters raised the concern about the lack of image focus or not being able to hear dimensional details. Later when discussions were allowed, the three voters sitting at the side positions were surprised they were able to tell each players ability to present a focused image and believable soundstage. These side perspectives may not be correct, but it was the best we could do given our time constraints.
I do not know if the other voters prefer nearfield listening. However, I know they can easily recognize good, focused imaging and excellent soundstaging when they hear it. However, stereo imaging and soundstaging capabilities, although important, are only two of the many criteria each voter had to keep in mind as when they listened. In fact we did not prediscuss or define these sonic parameters. We simply asked each voter to listen, compare and honestly and confidently cast a vote as to which player they liked in each pairing.
The speakers used are neither dipoles nor horns. The drivers are not horn loaded, do not use ribbon tweeters, and has excellent off axis response. It is appropriate at this point to provide the room dimensions (hopefully this info partially addresses other members curiosities):
width - 12 feet
length - 15 feet (see * more info)
front row - ~9.5 feet diagonal from front of each speaker
back row - ~11.5 feet diagonal from the front of each speaker
The wall behind the seats has a central window, which is covered with 2 layers of fairly thick curtains. The floor is wool carpeted with foam insulation underneath and this is supplemented by another 6x8 ft area rug on top. The cement foundation is underneath the carpet. Spikes are used at the rear of each speaker to couple them to the foundation. A single Finite Elemente Cerapuc is used in front of each speaker as a vibration control treatment.
*There is no wall behind the speakers and this contributes greatly to this system's superb imaging/soundstaging. The lack of wall behind the speakers also partially contributes to a flat FR response measurement from the sitting position. The room node interactions are negligible at +1.5 dB at 80Hz and flat at nearby frequencies. My very first post includes details of the very good in-room, from-the-listening-position SPL measurements. These data also clearly detail that there are no slight mid-range recession or a slight elevation of the high frequencies.
I do not know if there is shortening of the decay time of the signal (imparts a fast sound and a clarity due to the shopping off of the trailing edge of the signal. Please pardon my obvious lack of technical knowledge, but I can only guess this is more perceived than measured, yes? This system has never been described as fast, slow or muddy. Besides its superb imaging, soundstaging and layering/delineation capabilities, it is also dynamic and articulate, while also having a tonal balance that results in a believable representation of real instruments or voices. These along with the systems overall musicality and resolving ability are the reasons why we keep using it for our comparisons.
I cannot confirm the excellence of the sound is simply the absence of any distortions. We never measured this system in this regard so we have no meaningful information to share. Suffice it to say that there is distortion (what system doesnt), but none of its symptoms have ever noticeably/audibly surfaced. Weve used other systems in the past so this is not the only one with which we have experience. However, during last four years weve done comparisons using this system, no one has ever commented something that would lead us to investigate if distortions are an issue.
As to the type of listening fatigue I think you described, not one of the voters mentioned or commented anything that had to do with system edginess or harshness. Another member already raised concern about careful AB comparisons for 6 hours. We took plenty of breaks in the kitchen and family room areas, while the set-up, level matching, and blinding was being done for each pairing. Fatigue of a different kind eventually set in. We would have kept going were it not for one voter having to leave, another voter needing to join his family and the others wanted to go out and get steak ;-)
Certainly none of the side positions is as revealing as the sweet spot, which can accommodate two people -- one in front of the other. However, we spent a considerable amount of time in advance of the event to position the other seats so that acceptably focused images and a convincing soundstage is perceived from the other three positions -- two on either side of the sweet spot in the back row and one to the side in the front row. None of the voters raised the concern about the lack of image focus or not being able to hear dimensional details. Later when discussions were allowed, the three voters sitting at the side positions were surprised they were able to tell each players ability to present a focused image and believable soundstage. These side perspectives may not be correct, but it was the best we could do given our time constraints.
I do not know if the other voters prefer nearfield listening. However, I know they can easily recognize good, focused imaging and excellent soundstaging when they hear it. However, stereo imaging and soundstaging capabilities, although important, are only two of the many criteria each voter had to keep in mind as when they listened. In fact we did not prediscuss or define these sonic parameters. We simply asked each voter to listen, compare and honestly and confidently cast a vote as to which player they liked in each pairing.
The speakers used are neither dipoles nor horns. The drivers are not horn loaded, do not use ribbon tweeters, and has excellent off axis response. It is appropriate at this point to provide the room dimensions (hopefully this info partially addresses other members curiosities):
width - 12 feet
length - 15 feet (see * more info)
front row - ~9.5 feet diagonal from front of each speaker
back row - ~11.5 feet diagonal from the front of each speaker
The wall behind the seats has a central window, which is covered with 2 layers of fairly thick curtains. The floor is wool carpeted with foam insulation underneath and this is supplemented by another 6x8 ft area rug on top. The cement foundation is underneath the carpet. Spikes are used at the rear of each speaker to couple them to the foundation. A single Finite Elemente Cerapuc is used in front of each speaker as a vibration control treatment.
*There is no wall behind the speakers and this contributes greatly to this system's superb imaging/soundstaging. The lack of wall behind the speakers also partially contributes to a flat FR response measurement from the sitting position. The room node interactions are negligible at +1.5 dB at 80Hz and flat at nearby frequencies. My very first post includes details of the very good in-room, from-the-listening-position SPL measurements. These data also clearly detail that there are no slight mid-range recession or a slight elevation of the high frequencies.
I do not know if there is shortening of the decay time of the signal (imparts a fast sound and a clarity due to the shopping off of the trailing edge of the signal. Please pardon my obvious lack of technical knowledge, but I can only guess this is more perceived than measured, yes? This system has never been described as fast, slow or muddy. Besides its superb imaging, soundstaging and layering/delineation capabilities, it is also dynamic and articulate, while also having a tonal balance that results in a believable representation of real instruments or voices. These along with the systems overall musicality and resolving ability are the reasons why we keep using it for our comparisons.
I cannot confirm the excellence of the sound is simply the absence of any distortions. We never measured this system in this regard so we have no meaningful information to share. Suffice it to say that there is distortion (what system doesnt), but none of its symptoms have ever noticeably/audibly surfaced. Weve used other systems in the past so this is not the only one with which we have experience. However, during last four years weve done comparisons using this system, no one has ever commented something that would lead us to investigate if distortions are an issue.
As to the type of listening fatigue I think you described, not one of the voters mentioned or commented anything that had to do with system edginess or harshness. Another member already raised concern about careful AB comparisons for 6 hours. We took plenty of breaks in the kitchen and family room areas, while the set-up, level matching, and blinding was being done for each pairing. Fatigue of a different kind eventually set in. We would have kept going were it not for one voter having to leave, another voter needing to join his family and the others wanted to go out and get steak ;-)