Speaker positioning and center image depth


I’ve been in so many conversations with people who boast of the depth of the soundstage from a particular pair of speakers to fall well behind said speakers, and others who claim the sound is very much more forward for some speakers. For me, I’ve found that most times, it just depends on how the speakers are positioned in the room.

I find a combination of just slightly too much toe in and just not enough distance between speakers in relation to the listener create a more powerful and forward center image and potentially a narrower soundstage as the speakers end up not taking advantage of the side walls. On the other hand, having the speakers toed out too little at a larger distance from each other results in a more distant center image and at times loses clarity.

Distance from the walls also makes a huge difference here, as well as how well the room is treated. And there are many variables that will change the way a speaker projects the sound.

Of course, many speakers do a better job of imaging a particular way over others, but I’m not convinced of generalizations made about these projections (how forward vs deep a speaker sounds) in reviews or forum threads. For me, it usually has much to do with how it’s set up in the room.

That said, I do believe some speakers play incredibly large, and others small such that the thresholds (toe in, distances, etc) are all variable, which help a speaker work in some rooms better than others. And of course every speaker imparts it’s own sonic character, some more open and transparent and others more recessed and warm, etc.

I’m curious as to other peoples’ reactions and experiences with regards to speaker depth/forwardness, and if they agree with what I’m finding or if they believe the speaker has a much larger role than the room the way I am describing. I’m always looking to learn more.

 

128x128Ag insider logo xs@2xblisshifi

@audiokinesis Your post is thoughtful, and I appreciate that you have not (yet) redirected the conversation in any way to focus on how the role of subs can manipulate the stage (for better or worse), yet of course that is a whole other direction for discussion. I for one would certainly enjoy learning about tested observations / white paper between speaker depth and stage depth, but I agree largely with what you say, as long as a speaker can actually image well. And for sure, managing the reflections and reverberations are as important as the positioning itself.

@mijostyn Both great points, self-awareness and humility go a long way here.

 

 

@blisshifi , if we can trick the ear into accepting the spatial cues on the recording as being the more plausible "package" of cues, rather than the spatial cues inherent to the playback room, we can achieve that elusive "you are there" experience (assuming a good recording). As long as the playback room’s acoustics are perceptually dominant, we are limited to a "they are here" presentation, which admittedly can be quite enjoyable, but "you are there" can be memorable. How to implement this concept of course depends on the system specifics, but I wanted to emphasize that "recording cues dominate" is a different paradigm from "playback room cues dominate".    

And of course all of this is assuming the speakers can actually image well to begin with.

Duke

As an electrical engineer/director and also an active gigging musician I'm like @wolf_garcia. Too myopic for my own good. :) My listening space is dominated by a tape measure and blue tape on the floor combined with saxophones on stands around the room.. End of the day I'm really not convinced that if I move my speakers four more inches into the room that I really can even hear a difference. All that happens is when my wife comes up stairs to dance along with Just Dance on the Nintendo Switch she just comments that the speakers are in the way :) 

The golden ratio is significant for the visual art but, imho, not so much for the speaker placement due to the complex interaction between the speakers and the room, room setup and the horizontal dispersion pattern of the speaker drivers especially tweeters. Rather, there is a more flexible tool called LOTS (Loudspeaker Optimization Techniques for Soundstage) introduced by Ron of New Record Day. In my room where the width (W) is 14 ft and the depth (L) is 18 ft, the golden ratio triangle is a special case of the LOTS positions. First, the speaker positions from the golden ratio triangle are within the LOTS tracks (see diagram) without exception (because 0.276W is between W/4 and W/3). Second, in this combination of W and L, the listening positions suggested by these two methods coincide.

Based on my experience, the most probable LOTS positions locate between the minimum distance of 3 ft to both the front / side walls and the vertices of the equilateral triangle. With that being said, you probably do not need to experiment all the way from the front wall to the L/3 position within the LOTS tracks as suggested by Ron. The min. distance of 3 ft is suggested by Tarun of A British Audiophile based on the theory that “any sound that hits your ears from the reflective surfaces that is not delayed by 5 millisecond is perceived as the direct sound.” The speed of sound at the sea level is approximately 1100 ft/sec and the half of the distance travelled in 5 millisecond is just under 3 ft.

So, using these empirical rules, I end up with the speaker positions just a bit wider than the LOTS tracks with slight toe-in. I felt, a bit wider separation between the speakers helps maximize the soundstage (SS) width. I also felt further separation from the front wall gives a bit better SS depth but 3 ft is maximal separation I could live with in my room. So I sacrifice a bit SS depth to make the room more functional for other purposes. Again, it is a trade-off I am willing to live with in my room.

lanx0003-

Reality is if you don't have dedicated space-whatever sounds good to your ears.

Equal side/front wall distance introduce SQ concerns?