Jump to content

Grant Slack

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Grant Slack

  • Rank
    10+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello again. The rear speaker height of ear level is fine for listeners on the centreline of the speaker setup. However, if your room is set up in such a way that some listeners' seats are getting anywhere near to the surround speakers, then the idea is to elevate the speakers significantly, in order to prevent listeners in those seats from being easily able to identify the presence of those speakers, which can be irritating. I may have mis-remembered the 300mm: I checked my preferred reference for this topic, Sound Reproduction (3rd ed) by Floyd Toole, and he says to lift them by 600mm, even more if listeners are still locating them too often. I apologise for the earlier mis-quote. Regards Grant
  2. Hello, this is an interestng problem. I see that you asked for expert opinion, and I cannot help you there. But I will still offer a few thoughts, if I may. I am assuming that your bass trap is a resistive absorption panel, but it is difficult to tell from the photo. If so, then it will not provide any help, no matter where you place it. It would need to be about 1m thick, at a minimum. However, if it is a membrane absorber, then it would need to be in position 1 / option 1. Someone mentioned above, however, that you actually need a resistive absorber at the back wall, which makes a lot of sense to me, for frequencies other than bass. So, your back wall is not really the right position for a membrane absorber, ironically! I must admit to being intrigued that you have identified the nature of your problem so specifically, being a cancellation off the back wall at 1.5m. Is this something that you determined from a room mode calculator, i.e. theoretically? Or, did you make some measurements and determine, not only the presence of a null, but also the 'direction', i.e. which wall it is coming from? The reason that I ask is that room mode calculations are notoriously inconsistent with the reality that comes from measurements. This is not because the calculations are wrong, but because reality is messy and complex. The number and placement of speakers makes a big difference to the way room modes are stimulated. In a way, I am wondering whether your problem is 'real' and deserving of a solution. Sorry, that sounds bad. 😐 Please don't take offence. I mean, how deeply have you investigated the issue? Regards Grant
  3. Hello. You might already have the speaker layout properly configured, but just in case, may I make a suggestion. Where straight ahead from the listener is called zero degrees, your speakers should be at 0, 30 and 120-150 degrees, if possible. Also, regarding tweeter heights, the front left and right speakers should be near to ear height, the centre speaker the same, or within 300mm of the same height, and the rear speaker near to 300mm higher, to counteract any possible seat headrests, or people seated in the second row. Good luck with your setup.
  4. Grant Slack

    Grey or white Screen

    I would, and did, choose a white screen for a darkened room. If I correctly recall my research before buying my screen, the only reason for a grey screen in a darkened room is if your projector is massively overpowered for the situation in hand.
  5. Hello, if I may ask the OP a question. This thread is in the Product Reviews forum. I am not sure, what is the product under review? regards Grant
  6. Grant Slack

    Upgrade path for my system

    Hello, welcome to SNA, and what a nice piece of new kit! I really like the idea of a British theme. What I would like to suggest is a really plush, large rug between the speakers and you, extending at least as wide as the speakers, and preferably with a nice grade of felt carpet underlay between it and the floor. All the best with your new journey, cheers Grant
  7. Grant Slack

    Pioneer UHD players ?

    This interests me. When I eventually replace my Oppo 105, assuming it stays reliable, it will be to get 4K video and high-dynamic-range video. I hope Pioneer does pick up the gap left by Oppo's departure.
  8. Grant Slack

    Should Hi-Fi sound real?

    Hello, and thank you for engaging with my comments in so much detail. However, I am at risk of starting to repeat myself, for which I apologise. In answer to the question in your last sentence, I don't think that Dr Waldrep's message does apply to acoustic music recordings. He specifically excluded them from his discussion. If I may be completely frank, I think that he may have slightly misconstrued Mr McGowan's intent. If Mr McGowan had stopped with the words, "My definition* of sound is simple: how real does it sound in the room?", then Dr Waldrep might not have objected. But McGowan continued with, "How close to what my own memory is of live music, or recorded music sounding live", and Waldrep chose to object to that comment, because "the vast majority of live music", i.e. non-acoustic, is adulterated, and therefore not a suitable reference point. I suspect that they both have the same overall intent for recordings, to sound right and not wrong. I actually don't believe that they have a fundamental point of difference. While I am being, perhaps too much, analytical, I think that Dr Waldrep could have written better. His first paragraph says that, when he is asked which is the best goal, live concert sound or timbral accuracy, he believes that, "I don’t think one response is more correct than another", yet he then proceeds to disagree with the live sound goal. And he does so on the basis that the "vast majority" of live sound is adulterated, which is a good point, but probably a misconstruction of Mr McGowan's real meaning. (*the term "my definition of sound" is somewhat confusing, too. In all likelihood, Mr McGowan has written a little loosely, and is being overanalysed, firstly by Dr Waldrep, and now us.) That is why I said, earlier, that maybe too much is being made of where they disagree, and not enough of to their common fundamental commitment to recordings that sound 'right' when played back. Cheers Grant
  9. Grant Slack

    Hello from Adelaide

    Welcome to Adelaide. No. Wait. Welcome to SNA. Hope to meet you at a GTG.
  10. Grant Slack

    A soundbite of wisdom

    My soundbite of wisdom, is not actually my wisdom:- Buy and read from cover to cover, "Sound Reproduction" by Floyd E. Toole. Read it with the same humility that he wrote it with. When he differs from all your new buddies on the audio websites, choose wisely. cheers Grant
  11. Grant Slack

    Should Hi-Fi sound real?

    Hello, these are excellent comments and I agree with them wholeheartedly. I also believe that they closely represent the message that Dr Waldrep was bringing to his readers, especially your first sentence. My interpretation of this thread is that too much is being made of the fact that Mr McGowan said "sounds close to live" is the reference point, and Dr Waldrep said "no to that". In full, Waldrep objected because "in actuality it doesn’t hold for the vast majority of commercial recordings released by record labels or independents." He specifically set aside all-acoustic performances, and said that for the rest, the "vast majority", there are too many unnatural and imperfect and inconsistent additions, in the creation of a live music production, for it to be the constant reference point. I am quite certain that Dr Waldrep wants to produce recordings where a certain guitar sounds like that guitar, a certain piano sounds like itself, etc. In that sense, he and Mr McGowan have not disagreed. His disagreement is that, in the "vast majority" of cases of live music performances, there is amplification, at least in part, and other factors that make the live sound, that the audience would have heard, not all that wonderful. And so, he is saying, one would not want that sound to be the goal for the producer of a recording. And if Mr McGowan is saying that his memory of that live sound is always the goal for judging a recording, or a hifi component, then Dr Waldrep differs. Mr McGowan made a point of voice being his key reference point, and Waldrep particularly mentions how voice is almost always amplified in live music. He asks, with reference to a common example where voice is amplified but the accompaniment is not, "Is this the sound that an audio engineers would want to capture and recreate?" Are there better options than to use a simple stereo pair of microphones and record the live balance as presented? He says, the answer is yes. cheers Grant
  12. Grant Slack

    Should Hi-Fi sound real?

    I follow Dr Waldrep's blog, a.k.a. "Mr AIX's Posts", and tend to agree with him across most audio matters. This post is no exception. I do not follow Mr McGowan, and, from the references to his views that I have occasionally picked up from following Dr Waldrep, I have no intention to start. I would draw attention to Dr Waldrep's argument specifically excluding unamplified classical and jazz performances, in paragraph 4. On that basis, I find little to doubt in Dr Waldrep's post. He is discussing what he describes as the usual case, being one where the live sound is unnatural, i.e. amplified and otherwise modified (paragraph 6) and localised by the placement of live venue speakers (paragraph 7), which might not be perfect speakers, and whether a recording of that performance should aim to sound unnatural in the same ways. He sensibly concludes that the right answer is, "surely not". As a professional who strives for the exemplar, he bluntly states that he can do better than to match the live sound, in the vast majority of cases. I think that post #1 slightly misconstrues Dr Waldrep's meaning. Waldrep is not saying that the recording engineer is entirely creative, making up any sound he or she feels like. Instead, he is saying that Mr McGowan's reference will, in the vast majority of cases, set as reference a sound that is neither natural nor well made, in the live venue. He convincingly argues that he can do better. regards Grant
  13. Grant Slack

    what is Punk music?

    I always thought Punk was music shredded with razors, then loosely reassembled with safety pins and dipped in vomit-green dye.
  14. Grant Slack

    Newbie building a budget system

    Hello, What a nice birthday present! Let's see what we can suggest for you to make a better system for you in your price bracket. (Did anyone mention that the NAD amp you are thinking of buying does not have a vinyl/phono input, unless I am mistaken?) Here is my suggestion: Schiit Mani phono pre US$129 Schiit Loki tone control US$149 Schiit Magni3 headphone/preamp US$99 JBL LSR305 MkII active speakers AU$500 Don't forget the tone control! It is a new generation device, and the negative comments you might have heard about avoiding tone controls don't apply to it. The JBL speakers include power amplifiers, and are a clear step above the rest in the price range due to their special waveguide mounted on the tweeter. Good luck with your system upgrade! Regards Grant
  15. Dear LL, Are you saying that you have only one CD that has a recorded flaw in its sound? I wish I was that lucky! I also wish I had even one LP that had as few as only one recorded flaw, tick or growl in its sound! Nevertheless, like you say, it is indeed a pity that some LPs or CDs can have avoidable errors in the recording process. This one could have been avoided with some attention to detail in the level setting process. To correct it would have involved reducing the overall sound level of the CD, or at least this piece of music. I sometimes wonder if the overall sound level is also one of their targets during the recording process, to not have it so low that the music requires the volume of the hi-fi to be turned up by an enormous amount more than all of the other pieces of music, which would cause complaints from owners about how they destroyed their hi-fi system when they put on the next CD. cheers Grant