Back in October, a local dealer visited me and my hifi system. I had really wanted someone knowledgeable to have a listen as I've been operating in an echo chamber with pretty much just myself providing feedback on the sound quality. The first thing he commented on was weak bass. We then turned off space optimisation. The result was more to his liking, but I thought things were too out of control. But his point about the lack of bass was made as I was able to hear what he was talking about as we listened to tracks that he was familiar with, and has heard on many other systems. We didn't do any adjustments as we were just too busy listening to music. After a couple of hours, he was on his way, and I was left with getting the bass level up closer to what we heard without SO engaged.
We spoke on the phone the following day. He made the comment that he thought my speakers were already in their ideal location as it sounded so good with SO off. I proceeded to revisit virtual tunedem and the ideal speaker location. I had determined the ideal using the W.A.S.P method. This placed the ideal speaker location at 1.4m from the front wall, while the practical location is 65 cm. I created ideal speaker locations at 70cm, 75cm. 80cm and 90cm. I ended up homing in on 73 cm for the ideal locations. So all is good at this point. I got the boost in bass that I didn't know I needed, and the refinement and detail that space optimisation provides was back. All is good.
At this point I have to say that in the past I've recommended the W.A.S.P. method for determining ideal location. I'm reversing that recommendation now for Akubariks. If Akubariks are within Linn's recommendation for distance from front wall, they may be close to their ideal locations. At least, this is what I arrived at.
Recently, someone posted elsewhere about distance between speakers being 83% of the distance from listener to speaker. I tried this and rather liked it. So I adjusted the listening position forward to establish the 83% ratio. Then, I adjusted listener location in SO. All is sounding good at this point. But I thought I'd better revisit virtual tunedem. I went through the same process as before. But this time, an ideal location within a centimeter of the practical sounded best. So I tried "Speakers are in their ideal location." This ended up sounding the best.
So I'm now enjoying improved resolution and more bass, which has really enhanced the musical engagement. It seems that having the ideal speaker location too far into the room was attenuating the bass too much. Also, if it sounds good with SO off, perhaps the speaker locations are already ideal.
All of this should only affect boundary optimisation. But, like time of flight optimisation, boundary optimisation has a big impact on sound quality. It's not just about room modes.
One more thought; it seems that selecting "Speakers in practical location, don't know ideal location" might disengage boundary optimisation. I'm thinking that having practical and ideal locations being different by a mere centimeter would be a better choice with ideal location being determined by virtual tunedem.
We spoke on the phone the following day. He made the comment that he thought my speakers were already in their ideal location as it sounded so good with SO off. I proceeded to revisit virtual tunedem and the ideal speaker location. I had determined the ideal using the W.A.S.P method. This placed the ideal speaker location at 1.4m from the front wall, while the practical location is 65 cm. I created ideal speaker locations at 70cm, 75cm. 80cm and 90cm. I ended up homing in on 73 cm for the ideal locations. So all is good at this point. I got the boost in bass that I didn't know I needed, and the refinement and detail that space optimisation provides was back. All is good.
At this point I have to say that in the past I've recommended the W.A.S.P. method for determining ideal location. I'm reversing that recommendation now for Akubariks. If Akubariks are within Linn's recommendation for distance from front wall, they may be close to their ideal locations. At least, this is what I arrived at.
Recently, someone posted elsewhere about distance between speakers being 83% of the distance from listener to speaker. I tried this and rather liked it. So I adjusted the listening position forward to establish the 83% ratio. Then, I adjusted listener location in SO. All is sounding good at this point. But I thought I'd better revisit virtual tunedem. I went through the same process as before. But this time, an ideal location within a centimeter of the practical sounded best. So I tried "Speakers are in their ideal location." This ended up sounding the best.
So I'm now enjoying improved resolution and more bass, which has really enhanced the musical engagement. It seems that having the ideal speaker location too far into the room was attenuating the bass too much. Also, if it sounds good with SO off, perhaps the speaker locations are already ideal.
All of this should only affect boundary optimisation. But, like time of flight optimisation, boundary optimisation has a big impact on sound quality. It's not just about room modes.
One more thought; it seems that selecting "Speakers in practical location, don't know ideal location" might disengage boundary optimisation. I'm thinking that having practical and ideal locations being different by a mere centimeter would be a better choice with ideal location being determined by virtual tunedem.
.
