Radical toe in once more

Newbee, thanks again, I get it now.

What you say about recorded sound is mostly known to me, although it is nice to get it so well and briefly formulated.

On one level I agree that in and out of phase recorded sound has nothing to do with speaker performance. Yet the capability of speakers to reproduce out of phase as well as 'ordinary' in phase sound comes into the picture too. So, for example, how well are my speakers able to reproduce cases like Roger Waters: Amused to death, where some out of phase 'mystic mix' production is able to recreate sound not just floating around, but locate it precisely beside you, and even a bit behind you.

Just to be sure I tested with my Hifi News test LP, side 1 track 2, voice in and out of phase. Test: passed. No problem. The in phase sound is clearly centered between the speakers, while the out of phase sound is not, but rather floating around. Two modifications, though. The in phase sound supposed to be centered between the speakers is evident also a bit outside of the speakers, in my case. Maybe reinforced by sidewall reflection, allthough it sounds quite good, the timbre is the same as in the center, it seems spectrally correct. Secondly, the claim is that the out of phase sound should come from everywhere, but that is not quite true. It comes from the general direction of the speakers. Not from the other parts of the room.

Results do not surprise me at all. I have similar issues in my present main room but, in another room using 'crap' stuff I get the out of phase sounds from the rear and sides of the room as well. I conclude this has more to do with the room and set up than anything else. But I'm OK with it. If I really wanted a room full of sound I'd probably cheap out and just use an old fashioned Hafler set up but it has too many distracting problems in trying to get it set up, but as I recall (and I could be wrong) it relied on out of phase sound coming from 2 additional speakers in the rear of the room. An over simplified version of 4 channel sound requiring only an attenuator for the rear channels. I think you'd hate it! :-)

A little update. The overall outcome of this discussion is that the speakers are toed in ca 40 - 45 degrees (much like the advice from Audiokinesis), with the listening chair closer to the speakers. Sound is a bit more headphone like. Yet the hot treble problem is less prominent (as long as I sit behind the point where the direct treble sound crosses).

So why did I prefer a different setup, for several years? With the speakers less toed in, pointing more towards the wall? Not sure. Some audio friends with good ears preferred this setup. I liked it, myself. I thought, there is something artificial when the treble drivers cross in front of the listener. No longer sure about that.

It may also have to do with changing listening and music tastes. When I got the Audiokinesis Dream Maker speakers, I was very concerned that they should fill my quite large (50m2) living / listening room. Big music (think Dark side of the moon) should sound, yes, convincingly big. Over the years I have relaxed more. If the music is big it should not need a lot of volume to prove it. And even if the radical toe in gives a more headphone and nearfield type of sound, the rest of the room is well served also, with these speakers. I had a big sub. I sold it. I had effect speakers. They went out. The Dream Makers are best on their own. Positioned as adviced by the designer.

I’ve been periodically playing with placement of my Tannoy Stirlings over the course of the past year and a half. Per their manual, radical toe-in is recommended. Historically I found the treble energy to be a little much while reducing the soundstage in exchange for a very solid and dimensional phantom center.

On a whim I went back to the radical toe-in for the past three weeks with the drivers crossing about a foot in front of me. For tone, I pushed the speakers a little closer together while giving more space between room boundaries. Perceived width of soundstage diminished a little, but I think to some extent this perceived width was artificial due to 1st reflection points which now seem more detrimental than beneficial in my room. This became clear after the radical toe-in which remains “insightful” in terms of depth and clarity, but not “too hot” in treble which I suspect is from the reduction of space between speakers and crossing of drivers in front of the listener (more so than previous experiments with speaker placement). I’ve found myself appreciating the depth and tone much more so than the width of the soundstage.

Room acoustics and what’s considered appropriate and not too “attention grabbing” continue to be a challenge. Speaker placement is one of the few things I can control as a listener which may explain periodic experiments and lots of tape and a tally of measurements in a notebook.

Very educational thread, OP.