Description

I have not updated this in more than a year. Finally sold the Sarastro 2s to a friend. The Sarastros were not a good match to my room. The rear firing config. excited the longitudinal mode significantly. They have some non-linearities that I cannot effectively compensate for given my room limitations. This is not to the speaker's fault as they sound much better at my friend's larger listening space. To say the speakers are too big for the room would only be partial truth.

This is not due to lack of effort. I went thru acoustic consulting with Rives and then local expert Bob Hodus. Read up on Handbook of Room Acoustics and Sound reproduction. After the consultations, I did a lot of experiments to improve the room acoustics. Rm is 22'x14' x 10'. Dimensions are not bad but one side wall has windows occupying >2/3 of surface area. There are also a door & a fire place along the mid axis of the room, two walls were interior walls which are less robust in bass reinforcement. Room is at mid level with living space above and below. Previously, after reading the Get better sound book, I had settled for a listening location at 4ft from backwall. This allowed for boundary bass boost which overcame a bass cancellation problem (mid axis, quater wavelength listener to boundary) at 35-40hz. However, primary length mode at 25hz (7db) muddled up the sound. Despite treating the rearwall, the comb filtering effect from the rearwall markedly reduced transpancy and smoothness.

Rives Audio: I went with level 2 consultation and also bought the room measuring kit to allow for repeated measurements along the way. I was quite weary of the actual translation of mathematical modeling into the field. Richard was very helpful in educating me to use ETF and BARE. He was excellent in recommending RPG products, different type of curtains, blinds for different applications. Rives also had all the contruction methods for bass traps and diffusors. Although I preferred the looks of built in traps and diffusors, I went the way of RPG and GIK. My friends had ripped out acoustic constructions that they didn't like and that's just too painful for my wife. Room tuning is complex and requires much trial and error. Base of my previous experiences, I was also worried about resonances of wood diffusors (ceiling and sidewalls). Rives ultimately set the listening location at 9ft from the rear wall. The result was much improved clarity and smoothness along with reduction of room modes. The suckout at 35-40hz is still present but reduced in bandwidth and severity. Richards felt that is acceptable in my case as there is smoothing in human hearing. Bass was flat on psychoacoustic curve on BARE. (I thought this has something to do with combination of gating and smoothing. I could produce a similar curve on Fuzzmeasure when I played with smoothing and gating time.) Rives also had even handed approach in balancing RT 60, freq response, absorption and diffusion.

Bob Hodus: I seeked the help of local expert Bod Hodus in hope of eliminating the suckout entirely and also to provide a second opinion before engaging in a sofit / ceiling construction proposed by Rives. Bob was a pleasure to work with and very willing to educate. His approach was entirely hands on. He focus mainly on frequency response curve and uses absorption mostly. Using continuous test sweep, we went thru inumerable listening locations, reconfiguration of bass traps and speaker locations. At the end of the day, he got rid of the suckout entirely, low bass 20-40hz was linear without boost or suckouts. It is done by sitting 12 ft from the rear wall. THat left me with only 10ft betw me and the front wall, not a lot of room to position the rear firing Sarastros. I was excited with the new result and invited listening group over. All felt low bass was excellent but trade off was made in clarity of midrange as speakers are too close to the wall.

I thought about this for a while and kept rereading the Handbook of Room Acoustics. "Bass is best thought of as waves or pressure zones and high frequencies are more similar to light rays (hence the term specular reflection)." Although my room is symmetric in dimension, the asymmetric construction allowed for the most even bass pressure distribution at the 12 ft point. What if I were to set up the speakers along the opposite wall and check if bass linearity persist at the same spot. Sure enough, the bass alignment remained the same and I got 12ft betw me and my new front wall. This allowed for more room for the speakers to breath. It also prompted me to choose a speaker with no rear wiring port/woofers. I went with the Isis after auditioning Rockport, YG, Magico. I am quite happy with my third pair of Avalons.

After the bass foundation was set, I proceeded to adorn all surfaces and experimented with a few tweaks.

Frontal wall: Tried RPG skylines, hemifusors, abfusors, wood constructed diffusors, BAD Arcs. The wood constructed diffusors were the worst. They diffused effective but they also sounded. THere was marked resonace in 150-200hz range measurable on both Fuzzmeasure and ETF. Subjectively, they were like adding more speakers in the room. They enriched the wood tone during playback. With more of them, the main speakers disappeared as more of these diffusors made sound. This was pleasing for a short while. I think there are marketed room tweaks that work on similar effect. They extend the midrange resonance to balance out the slap echo in the highs and bass boom in many untreated room. The 7inch skylines were very good and produced smooth midrange and treble (largest effective bandwidth). They brought a lot of focus to the center stage if you put them in the center (suggested by Rives). I almost installed them permanently until I played the XLO test disc. It consisted of Bill Johnson walking around the room while percussing a gong. With skylines at the center, he could not walk away from the center but he could walked far away to the side. THe extruding blocks of the skylines were actually vibrating during playback. It was ruining the subtle spatial clues need for proper localization. I suspect the effect would be less if I was further away from the front wall. The hemifusors were better in this regard as there are no extruded blocks to vibrate. The BAD ARCs were the best as they were combination tools (absorb + diffuse). The soundstage was the most organized and yet able to portray variations in depths. Abfusors were almost as good but why pay more for the same thing. I later constructed a dome with 3 to 4 BAD ARC panels of varying curvature and width to be placed at the center. This dome pushed the centerstage forward and increased focus ( effect can be modified by changing width and curvature). I could see why so many rooms have this. This did not work for me as I was quite close to the speakers (8 ft). I ended up with three panels evenly spread out in front.

Sidewall: Tried aborption panels first. They decreased reflections and created more focused but smaller soundstage in comparison to the diffusors. They decreased the amplitude of the reflections as seen on the ETF impulse response but the reflections were still very focused in the time domain. With combo tools like BAD ARCs, the reflections were decreased in amplitude and also spreaded out over time. It tricked the ears into thinking the boundaries were farther away. Not treating the first reflection point of the ipsilateral speaker created a wide soundstage in a different way. The sound source appeared wider but price was paid on impulse response and soundstage specifity. Treating the 1st reflection of the contralateral speaker was just as important as the ipsilateral reflection point. The crosstalk was reduced. ie, the left ear heard less of the right speaker.

Backwall: I used a few RPG skylines to great effect. The slight resonance is no longer an issue as they are behind me and ten feet away. Later, I tried 5 columns of Ikea expedit shelfs positioned in at an angle. This worked even better with better bandwidth. Depth was increased to 12inch and area of coverage was increased. I had two very narrow band suckout(less than one sixth octave) from only the left speaker at 50 Hz and 110Hz. These completely disappeared after installing the Ikea shelfs. Only part of each shelf was filled with a mix of cds and LPs to maximize the diffusive effects. One drawback, they increased midbass reverb at 60-80hz via combination of blocking the fire place, altering overall room acoustics and there own resonances. I had to increase bass traps at the corner.

Ceilling: Very important yet frequently overlooked area. Before treating the ceiling, the soundstage would rise when orchestra went full tilt (Similar effect to broadening of sound source). Hemifusors and skylines were similar in effect. When they fell off, hemifusors survived much better as there were no extruded blocks to be broken. One of my more embarressing moments when hosting. Lucky it did not land near the tonearm during play. I had considered doing suspended wood panels or maybe acrylic panels. After having the Expedit shelfs increased bass reverbs, I am not going that route on the ceiling. Just imagine if a wood panel came loose from the ceiling.

Bringing it together: All these traps, diffusers, combo tools are used to optimize soundstage, impulse response and frequency response. They frequent have unintended effect on reverb at a particular bandwidth. The soft diffusors were great as they did not make sound of their own. However, they markedly curtailed the high frequencies (>10khz) reverbs as they increased soft surface area of the room significantly. Large hard surface adds resonance of their own and alter room acoustics. Attention needs to be paid to maintain RT60 in an even handed manner. This is at least as important as freq response curve. As the RT60 trends down for a higher resolution sound, it is very easy to kill the high frequencies and quite difficult to bring down mid and low bass reverb.. At one point, my system sounded lean in bass. I had five large removable wood panels installed to block off all windows in the room and installed a 2 inch solid wood door with soundproofing. Surprising, the amplitudes of the room modes and bass alignment are not significantly different but the RT 60 at the bass 40-80hz were drastically prolonged. The noise floor of the room dropped to 40 db but it was like a tomb. The bass was muddy and standing waves were very problematic. In this exercise, I learnt that at least in my situation, the room dimensions governed the amplitude and freq. of the modal response but the degree of reverb is largely controlled by the structure. It is very hard to paaively trap mid and low bass reverb (

I am sure my experiments and observations are flawed. Feel free to point out any deficiencies so I can learn and benefit.

Speakers previously owned: B&W 805, JM lab Diva BE, Avalon Opus Ceramique, Thiels, Harbeths, Quad 2805, Avalon Diamond, Verity Sarastro 2

Amps previously owned: Boulder 1060, Vac phi 300.1, Jadis DA88S, Pass lab X350.5, Naim 250.2, ASL 1009 and ASL hurricane, Mcintosh 275.... etc. Heard in my sytem: ML432, Lamm M2.2, etc/

Preamp previously owned: ARC Ref3, Ref 5, BAt 51se, Naim 282. Heard in my system:,Shindo, Halcro

Previous Phono: AYre px5e; ARC PH7, ASR exclusive 2010. Heard in my system: Lamm, Nagra VPS, Shindo, Halco, Allnic

Previous carts: Zyx Universe, airy; My Sonic lab ultraeminent, airtight PC1. Heard in my system: Goldfinger, PC1 supreme

Previous tonearm: Graham 2.2, Davinci 12", triplanar 7

Previous tables: SME 20/2; Avid Acutus

Here is my opinion and preference about different carts that have gone thru my system. Just opinions and I am no expert. My preference is limited by my ability to setup (sub)optimally and by phonostage matching.

My preference in carts have changed and current favourites are Lyra titan i and dyna v1T.

Zyx Universe: Very refined and detailed but not enough macrodynamics and bass.

Airtight PC1/Supreme: Most amount of bass. A little on the warm side. Played well on all three arms, worked well with tube + ss phono. Sounds good with many different loading. Lacked a little detail and refinement comparing to other top carts. The supreme is slightly more refined comparing to the regular PC1. Slow transients.

My Sonic Lab Ultraeminent: This used to be my favourite cart.. More detailed and energetic than the Airtight line up. Quantity of bass is less but quicker. Excellent bass power carried into the decay. Transient attack is not as fast as XV1T or Titan I and perhaps not as open sounding. In combination with the Davinci, it conveys the most ambient info and float the soundstage best.

Dynavector XV1T: I think this is the most neutral cart.. Faster transient attack than MSL/AT and more open sounding. Bass is impactful with less energy in the decay. I like this one on the phantom best. On the Davinci, the midrange is marginally richer (maybe wood wand) but the lightening transient and focus were attenuated.

Titan I: My number one cart after finding an excellent match with DV 507 arm. Fast and open like the XV1T (both stiff body contruction) but with even better grip on the Bass. The transient changes on double bass is very well portrayed from the attack to the decay. It portrayed wide tonal and macrodynamic contrast and make the performance very exciting. More focused and controlled than PC1. To my surprise, I never find it bright when properly adjusted. In terms of setup, the window of optimal performance may be small but not too hard to arrive at. You know when u get this one wrong. I like this less on the Davinci & phantom. The triplanar and Davinci adds a little warmth and roundedness that it does not need. The Graham could not control resonance as well and had a little top end glare. With the 507mk2, the heavy arm and flux damping dissipate the energy perfectly. Just all the glories, nothing more and nothing less.

Coralstone: I never intended to get this one because of the warm fuzzy reputation of Koetsu. My dealer offer a partial trade deal and I could not resist. Another surprise, it is very detailed with a fluid midrange and extended topend. Bass power is slightly less than Titan/ultraeminent but not too fat behind. Only have this on the Phantom so far. Very difficult to align because the stone block my line of sight. I probably have not optimize this one due to neck spasm. It is also better played on an arm with Azimuth adjustment to minimize crosstalk.

Goldfinger v2: Another excellent cart.. Very limited experience but a friend was kind enough to bring it over for a spin. Similar sound to the MSL. Heaviest cart i have handled.
Read more...

Components Toggle details

    • TW Acustic Raven AC
    3 motor
    • Esoteric X 01 Limited
    CD/SACD
    • Graham Engineering Phantom 2
    Unipivot
    • Einstein The tube Mk 2
    Linestage
    • Einstein TT Choice
    phono
    • Luxman M800a
    Two as monoblocks
    • Stealth Indra
    XLR
    • Studer A810
    Reel to reel
    • Finite Elemente Reference double width
    I will not spend this much on a stand again
    • Grand Prix amp stand
    not bad
    • Avalon Acoustics Isis
    Isis
    • Dynavector 507mk2 SE
    black
    • Lyra Titan i
    stereo
    • Lyra Kleos
    stereo
    • Dynavector XV1 T
    cart
    • Minus K BM 8
    0.5hz
    • RPG skylines, hemifusors, BAD ARC
    diffusors
    • fuzzmeasure 10ft from wall behind listener
    8ft from speakers
    • fuzzmeaure 7-8ft from wall behing listener
    10ft from speakers
    • fuzzmeaure 4ft from wall behind listener
    15-16ft from speakers
    • Spiral Groove SG2
    Centroid

Comments 111

Hi Glai, what happened to your Galiber don't see any mention of it.

dev

Wow, Thank you for that response!!!!!! Terrific reply. Did you hear the SG1.1 before buying the SG2? Do you think the Bardo is in the same league as either the Raven or Spiral Groove?

hessec

Owner
Hessec -

I use the Raven more often as I like to tinker with different arms. The Raven is a more flexible platform as armboard can swing to accomodate arms of different lengths. The arm adapters on the Raven is much cheaper as well. SG2 only takes 10inch arms like the centroid and Graham with 10" wand.

As a package the SG2 centroid is very unique. If used with the new line Lyra carts: Atlas or Kleos, the alignment is already set using the tiny hole at the top. I normally would not trust this as carts tend to vary in stylus/cantilever alignment. However, all the lyra I have: Atlas, Titan, Kleos are to spec in terms of channel separation and stylus cantilever alignment. I have tried using other protractors but did not better the preset alignment. This is quite critical as the ultimate azimuth and antiskate setting will change depending on alignment. Poor alignment contributes to additional skating force that needed to be compensated for. It also limits channel separation as the stylus contact point is not optimized (like a train not perfectly aligned with its tracks).

The sonics of the table is very reflective of the designs. They are both great performers to me. The Raven is the heavier of the two and motor noise is very well isolated from the platter. It is richer sounding and has more bass macrodynamics. I suspect bass pitch/drive is very dependent of speed stability but bass dynamics freedom is also somewhat dependent on the low freq noise floor of the table.

The SG2/centroid combo has more focus and is more detail/specific souonding of the two. It also portray wider tonal contrast. A lot is due to the centroid arm. In terms of turntable contribution, a more constant relationship is preserved betw the arm, motor and platter. The graphite composite platter does a great job in resonace control. Friction bearing may contribute to great speed stability as relative fluctuation of sytlus drag is lessened. THis all translate into the most focused sound I have had in my system. The bass macrodynamics is slightly limited comparing to the Raven but not far behind.

glai

Hello glai , what i actually ment by cabinet diffraction was the diffraction around the tweeter and mid .
As you have much expirience with avalons ( a brand i like ), you must have listened with grills (felt) off as well.
I am experimenting with 3 mmm woolfelt at the moment , i described some of my expiriences on my systempage .
I have listened to the isis for an hour with a spectral set up at a dealer .
I do like small intimate speakers also like the diamond , and i found actually that the 4 inch ? mid of the diamond or kharma for that matter was a bit more refined than the 7 inch but that was my impression .
Nice to read such well defined systemdescriptions /measurements .
Last question : did you find the 13 inch woofer(s) Isis slower sounding than the 11 inch (diamond ),as they have more membrane weight.
Greetz hj

andromedaaudio

Glai

I laughed out loud when I saw the image of Expedit (assume from Ikea) and your text description: "sonic disaster."

Is it really a disaster or are you having a bit of fun? Seems the diffraction would be good for room acoustics.

Good to visit your system again !

albertporter

Care to comment on the Spiral Groove table vs. the Raven? Which do you use more often and why? Thanks!! Great room by the way.

hessec

Owner
Andromedaaudio-

I may not be understanding your questions correctly. Cabinet shelfs created problems for me by extending resonance in bass and lower midrange. This resonance is probably not in the same phase as the listening space. This muddle up the sound. The use of felt (probably need to be pretty thick) may alleviate this. I suspected it may reduce high frequency reverb disproportionately.

I now store most of my vinyl and cds along with wood trunks, box and shelves out of the listening room. Just a few open racks needed for gear.

The Isis are more dynamic than Isis at all listening levels in my medium size room. I suppose due to higher sensitivity and bigger woofers.

Subjectively I feel the Isis has a more organic rich sound comparing to the Diamond. I am not 100% sure on this (factory does not publish crossover pts). Judging by my measurements, I suspect the crossover is around 150Hz in the Isis as the larger ceramic midrange can handle lower the the range. I suspect the crossover for the diamond with the 3-4" midrange is around 300. I feel 200-400hz are quite important for maintaining a wood tone in string instruments and prefer to keep the crossover below this range. Human hearing is also quite sensitive at these frequencies as these are the lower frequencies of the male voice.

Pettyfeversk -

The ARC/Pass combo is quite satisfying. The dominant strength is a very organic, rich, tubelike sound. Soundstage depth is very good with lots of body but not the most image specifity. It has zero listening fatigue yet lots of macrodynamcis.

There is an imped mismatch at the bass freq as ARC preamp has rise of output imped at the bass which may soften the bass slightly.

Within the context of my system and comparing to the best of SS, the combo lacks the last bit of transient attack and low level resolution. The bass is not as iron fisted as large MBLs, Luxmans, Boulders. The bass alignemnt is partly due to zero feedback design of the pass amps ( likely not power related), a slight tradeoff at the interface with ARC preamp ( Ref 5 better than Ref 3; 5se and 40 anniv may be better yet). The PRAT of this combo is not the most pronounced as a result of the very full decay.

I am overemphasizing the differences as the tradeoffs are quite small and many visitors actually prefer ARC preamp/phono in my system. If your speakers are very damped in bass alignment or have powered subs, the bass issue may be irrelevant.

glai

Hi,

How did you like the combination of a Pass Amp with Audio Research tubed preamps? Thanks stephen

pettyfeversk

excellent descriptions of your system , very technical and open minded , nice to read and informative .
What are youre thoughts on felt to reduce cabinet diffraction or off axis absorption as you describe it.
Do you consider it a must for listening ease ?
How would you describe the advantages of a big system like the isis compared to a diamond for example .??
I also am not a 100 % fan of the ceramic mid .

h - j

andromedaaudio

Owner
Sorry for delay. Did not check site for a while.

Dev - I changed out the apex cones from Avalon for the Finite Elemente Cerabase which reduced floor shake and allow cleaner bass. The sistrum would be excellent but I am worried about speakers falling off. The center of gravity is a bit posterior and can tilt given the (im)proper circumstance.

Shane - Thank you. I enjoy your system as well.

I like the Kleos very much for its natural timbre and I believe it can resolve some midrange details that I previously did not hear with the Titan. However, I prefer Lyra Titan i and the Dyna XV1T because these are more resolute in the last half octave of bass and retain more macrodynamics. I got a VDH XGP Ref and it is a nice performer as well. Of the carts I have tried, I feel Lyra have the best QC + sound so I will be joining the line for the Atlas soon.

Cymbop - Glad you enjoy the read. I have done many more experiments with room acoustics and hope to post results when time permits.

glai

Glai, Thanks for the thorough recounting of your room-treating experience. You have helped me to learn.

cymbop

Hi Glai - superb system

I see you have the Kleos. I have one while I wait for an Atlas to arrive. might be a while :-(

How do you rate it compared to the titan i and XV-1t?

cheers

Shane

downunder

Glai,

Minus K, yes finding the actual centre of gravity can be tricky if your table is more involved but once done it's set and forget which is really nice compared to others that need air.

I tried placing some different pces of wood under each foot of my Black Knight and found some sonic differences but very slight. As you are aware my Minus K was custom made to fit the AC3 so the fit was very nice but now having the Black Knight the foot print is substantially larger so I had a pce of 1/2" aluminum fabed up which is placed ontop with blue tack drops placed between and works nicely. So far I found I actually prefer no wood, seems to take a bit of life out of this table "very slight". Will experiment further down the road once my amps have more hours on them.

Your floors, sounds like we have some similarities. I have been able to assist with eliminating some since I placed my speakers on Sistrum platforms, doing this has provided a real positive effect over all. My floors consist of two layers of 3/4" glued and screwed together and into resilent floor joist below. This room was not intended to be my main listening room as I have a designated one which has concrete but to date has just ended up that way mainly due to the welcoming environment.

If I would have only known I would have designed things a little differently.

Have you tried any other means under your speakers to assist to eliminate such. I first tried slabs of granite, limestone, soapstone under mine "at that time tried my speakers with no spikes and then with spikes" Once I placed them on the Sistrum platforms this was my prefered sound by far, you will need to possibly raise your listening chair so your ears are in the ideal location because adding such raises the height.

dev

Owner
Peter-

Sorry for the delayed response. I had a busy week.

Tried the minus K because a friend had excellent result with vibraplane. Went for -K as I prefer not to have an air compressor and -K has a lower resonance frequency and offer vertical and horizontal isolation. The - K increased resolution of vinyl play in all frequencies, clean up the bass. The soundstage is more precise. I am quite sure this is due to reduced transmission of acoustic feedback. I am on suspended wood floor but did not have severe foot fall issues before the -K. When I measured crosstalk while adjusting azimuth, there is tiny signal from the cartridge when someone walks around the room. The -K largely eliminated this effect. Without the -K, my speakers shake the floor during dynamic passages and acoustic feedback limits the performance of my system.

The minus K comes with a standard top plate which I think is made of thin aluminum. I ordered mine without the top plate and use my own. I have tried maple, acrylic of varying thickness, layered granite ( Adona). My primary goal was to get the load close to the maximum specified wt for the minus. At near the maximum load, the -K achieve the lowest resonance freq and hence the best isolation. The different platform material also sounded a little different. Maple slight emphasize the wood tone ( surprise), acrylic and layered granite are neutral and not very different.

I have gone from one motor to three motor ( see pics for specific items) so I tried different thickness of acrylic to compensate for wt change. The thinner and thicker acrylic did not sound sig. different.

The -K is basically a complex well designed spring loaded suspension system. It worked much better than the one featured in my previous Avid Acutus table. It can be a little tricky as the center of gravity of the load (table, arm, motor, platform, accessories like ring & clamp) needs to sit at the center support which is about 3"x3". If the load is not centered, the suspension will tilt and so will the table. I think this is a disadvantage comparing to a stable equllibrium of hanging suspension (like your SME or Basis).

glai

Owner
Lapierre -
I would choose the larger room as the are more options for speakers/listening location placement. The reflected impulse from room boundaries would also arrive later and with smaller amplitude in the larger room. This would make for cleaner impulse response and better resolution.

Good luck and please report on result.

Mapman-Thank you for the complement. Anyone can do this with measurment tools. One does not need to dive into the theories and mathematical modelling. (though it helps). Good results can be obtained with trial an error. The more difficult part is to discern which compromises to make to achieve the sound one want. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area but the Handbook of Room Acoustics is very good read.

glai

Owner
Peter-

Sorry for the delayed response. I had a busy week.

Tried the minus K because a friend had excellent result with vibraplane. Went for -K as I prefer not to have an air compressor and -K has a lower resonance frequency and offer vertical and horizontal isolation. The - K increased resolution of vinyl play in all frequencies, clean up the bass. The soundstage is more precise. I am quite sure this is due to reduced transmission of acoustic feedback. I am on suspended wood floor but did not have severe foot fall issues before the -K. When I measured crosstalk while adjusting azimuth, there is tiny signal from the cartridge when someone walks around the room. The -K largely eliminated this effect. Without the -K, my speakers shake the floor during dynamic passages and acoustic feedback limits the performance of my system.

The minus K comes with a standard top plate which I think is made of thin aluminum. I ordered mine without the top plate and use my own. I have tried maple, acrylic of varying thickness, layered granite ( Adona). My primary goal was to get the load close to the maximum specified wt for the minus. At near the maximum load, the -K achieve the lowest resonance freq and hence the best isolation. The different platform material also sounded a little different. Maple slight emphasize the wood tone ( surprise), acrylic and layered granite are neutral and not very different.

I have gone from one motor to three motor ( see pics for specific items) so I tried different thickness of acrylic to compensate for wt change. The thinner and thicker acrylic did not sound sig. different.

The -K is basically a complex well designed spring loaded suspension system. It worked much better than the one featured in my previous Avid Acutus table. It can be a little tricky as the center of gravity of the load (table, arm, motor, platform, accessories like ring & clamp) needs to sit at the center support which is about 3"x3". If the load is not centered, the suspension will tilt and so will the table. I think this is a disadvantage comparing to a stable equllibrium of hanging suspension (like your SME or Basis).

glai

Wow, nice job, and very well thought out!

Plus the measurements on display to demonstrate the measurable results!

Can't beat that!

Gotta sound fantastic!

mapman

Glai well done.

Thanks for the detailed description of your room and treatment. Great read and very insightful.

Checkout my last post on new room selection. Just curious about which room you would select and treat.

Thanks,
Lapierre

lapierre

Glai,

Thank you very much for sharing your extensive experience with your room treatment project. I found it a fascinating read.

I'm also intrigued by your TT set up. Could you write a bit about how you decided to put your unsuspended Raven AC on a maple platform and then the Minus K and what the sonic results are?

I also have an unsuspended TT (SME 10) and was considering this same solution. I had it on a Mapleshade block with spikes and it is now on a Townshend Seismic Sink. I love the improvement of added isolation, but wonder if draining vibrations via spikes into maple and then putting the whole thing on isolation is the perfect combination.

Thanks, Peter

peterayer

Owner
Ambience- Nice moniker. I only use GIK bass trap at the corners. The rest are wood/paper q7d diffusors. Yes, the GIK bass traps absorb quite a bit at 200-300hz range. Surprising the RPG skylines/hemifusors/abfusor/BAD arc also possess this unintended quality. That is the reason I use diffusors of mixed contruction. I am considering the RPG corner traps which has less absorption at the lower midrange.

Dev- Room can be extremely difficult and I was suffering a lot. I have friends who happy and unhappy with Rives or other any other acoustic consultation service. Consultants are kind of like gear, they have their own priorities and rationale in choosing compromises in room design. I had lots of questions after reading the Alton Everest's book and they were answered by Rives and Bob Hodus. I did many field experiments in my room and treated it basically like a case study. In this way, both consultants added to my fund of knowledge. We as audiophiles are so difficult to please. On retrospect, I feel no consultant can tailor to my taste via remote control/consultation or even via a few short visits, let alone a short visit from the dealer. It is quite a task to learn the characteristic of the room and the intended and unintended effects of the acoustic tools at hand (traps and diffusors of different constructions). Rives' strong points were having construction recipe for diffusors and traps. He was also instructive on how to interpret the data. Which measurable problems is more noticeable during subjective listening. My main disappointment was that they would not look at measurements generated with softwares other than ETF or their measuring kit ($1K). I respected their preference but maintained that lots of data can be distilled from other programs like Fuzzmeasure. IMHO, the fuzzmeasure are more reflective of subtle changes in RT60 and easier for manipulating the data: gating time, 1/3 to 1/48 smoothing, self correction. The Rives comes with a better mic but Fuzzmeasure counters with self correction.

I did the level 2 consultation at $3K and spend $1K on the Rives measuring software and tools. I occasionally feels that it is quite expensive. Can you believe level 2 comes with only a single measurement from local dealer and none to verify rectification of problems during or after construction. Your friend's $200K experiment made me feel a lot better. I have since visited quite a few friends. In measuring their room and optimizing them, I have answered a few more questions. Early on during consultation, the mid axis cancellation was attributed to the door in the middle or leakage to the room/space above or below the listening space. This view was also shared by a few experts/dealers who have visited my room. To Rives' credit, he did figure it out midway thru the consultation. The quarter wavelength cancellation is well documented in the Alton Everest book or other websites. I have later measured three rooms of similar dimension but different in door location, concrete foundation/suspended wood and with/without space above/below listening room. Neither of the above factors made a difference. In one case, the side wall has an opening to a kitchen and this cancellation completely disappeared. I am now convinced that if I ripped out part of the side wal . I can fix this completely. I have not mustered up enough courage for this project. Boarding up all the windows was bad enough for me. One thing, Bob Hodus taught me about room acoustic: lots of things are unpredictable, no one knows till you try. I am thankful to my group of friends that steer me right. When many opinions converges, they are almost always right. Most of my friends, local dealers have good ears but where they differ is problem solving skills: in isolating the problem and in solving it. I sucked at analog setup and had many comments like speaker too big for room, suspended floor means poor bass. Meanwhile, it was due to THD from maladjusted VTA.

Audioblazer - Yes, that is exactly what I did. Moving the speakers closer to the wall and sitting further away from the wall behind the listener. This worked in my room and in another friend of mine. I am a little skeptical of the Stein product as two friends have the Acoustic Revive blue light thing. I could not hear the difference. I understand you can hear a positive change. Can this be demonstrated in RT60 or any other parameters?

BBB- They are positively addictive/additive. The next book I am getting is one on diffusor design.

glai

Those diffusors are addicting aren't they. I have 18 in my room. It really works wonders.Nice set up you have. Bet is sounds awesome!

booboobaer

Glai, thanks for the detail write up. Looks like Rives recommendation seems to give a suck out in the 30+hz region . I have similar graph like yours except my RT60 seems fine falling within 0.35s-0.42s. However I do have a peak centering around 65hz. Seat at 7.5ft from rear wall with ikea expedit shelf ( for purpose of diffusion ) with speaker about 8 ft from front wall. Well I suppose i got to remove the expedite shelf & probably put up bass trap along back wall now that my side wall & front wall are mainly set with PRD diffusor . Also will experiment by seat forward & shifting speaker backward & see how it perform. Will complete my diffusors & shifting my LP rack in a couple of days & see how my room perform.
By the way I suggest that you demo 4 stein harmoniser with 6 stones & 3 diamond ( important) , you will feel the improvement in bass , soundstage & imaging. Unbelievable unless you demo

audioblazer

Hi Glai, thanks for sharing.

Rooms can and will drive you crazy and it amazes me when so called experts do their thing but in the end the result is less than optimal. I have been in some pretty involved constructed from scratch and treated rooms over the years which most have cost the owners large and I must say I've been less than empressed.

I find the worse treated rooms being when one is trying to combine both 2 ch and home theatre.

Put it this way most sucked! Owners ended up ripping it apart, trying another direction and spending more money.

I was just at a guys place who spent over $200K and the room was done by someone who you mentioned, this room is used for both 2 ch and home theatre, need I say more. Large room and looks very impressive, has close to a Mil invested in gear but listening to 2 ch was very disappointing.

You know it's pretty amazing because as soon as you add something it changes.

I recall years ago in my designated room when I still owned the Isis speakers and I added a vey nice custom soft leather couch instead of having basic wood frame with canvas type chairs for others who would drop by for a listen. My over all sound changed to the worse and took me the longest time to finally figure out the culprit was, the darn couch interacting. It was vibrating and was also reflecting the sound defeating everything that I had previously done.

Just having additional individuals in the room changes the sound, never mind depending on where they are actually sitting. In the end we must compromise otherwise we will be missing out on listening to music.

Spiral Groove table, I'm sure you must be enjoying. Simple compact design but from what I reall listening to one paired up with a A90 cart was very nice indeed.

Now all you need to do is get one of those Wave Kinetics NVS turntables with the base, latest buzz from specific individuals and compare. It's very intertaining reading their threads and how quickly what was in their view the cats meow is no longer.

dev

What you ended up with was echo behind sweetspot, and absorbation of high frq? The GIK panel absorbs from 300hz and may absorb as high as 7khz, most likly the same same as the LP`s? I think maybe, mowing the shelf up or down(not equal on both sides) would help reverbs.

A.

amibience

Owner
The expedit shelve along the backwall was a horrible idea. It was a very effective diffusor but there were too problems. The LPs on the shelves were very absorptive and the RT60 of high frequencies went to 0.22 sec. The sound was very precise but very dull. No sense of space sharing with the music at play. Further more, it muddled up the bass. The Rt60 from 100hz and below went to 0.8sec. I suspect the expedit shelve partition the room into two zones with different reverbs. I was suffering from bimodal decay. Went to GIK q7d diffusors and much better.

glai

Showing 26 - 50 of 111 posts