Hi,
My speakers (Dynaudio Contour 1.8 mkii) are in my living room ( 26'L x 14'W x 9'H ) and the speakers
and listening position(earlier) form a equilateral of 8' and speakers being roughly 3' away from side walls and 4'
from back wall.
Sometime back I moved my listening position much ahead such that I am just 4' away from line of speaker and
began preferring that listening position, due to much more enveloping sound, better stereo image and lesser
influence of side walls
Based on this I am beginning to wonder that if I were to setup a nearfield stereo setup in my study room
(say something like Dynaudio studio monitors with 6.5-8" woofers and a good subwoofer) such that they are
3' (or maybe 4') away from sitting position, it could be good setup which I can use while working as well.
But is there anything I would lose as compared to living room setup ?
(this is assuming I sell the current floorstanders to get the new monitors)
Thanks....
Hifisound
What would be different in this setup? The distance from the speakers stays the same in your example of 1.2m (ditch the imperial system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_units) already ). If the new setup would mean there is more room between the speakers and the walls, this might have a positive effect. If your study room has a soberer interior than your living room on the other hand, this means there will be less dampening material to prevent unwanted sound reflections.
Preferably you use carpet on the floor (and ceiling too if you're going for a dedicated listening room) and false drapes behind/besides the speakers to absorb waves that would otherwise reflect. This prevents spots throughout the room where standing waves or nodes occur and certain frequencies get an unwanted boost or get cancelled out. With these spots, moving 30cm out of your regular listening position can change the sound entirely.
Moving speakers closer to (reflecting) walls behind/besides them can however aid in bass volume, which some might find desirable. I would recommend never placing them closer than ~20cm from a wall though.
You speak of "enveloping sound" and "better stereo image".
Why not simply get a comfortable pair of circumaural headphones?
Why not simply get a comfortable pair of circumaural headphones?
Those I have already have : HD600s
and may soon get MDR-7506
Why not simply get a comfortable pair of circumaural headphones?
Those I have already have : HD600s
and may soon get MDR-7506
If I had HD600s and bought 7506's, the latter headphones would be to be sacrificial lambs to take wear and tear off of the 600s.
If I had HD600s and bought 7506's, the latter headphones would be to be sacrificial lambs to take wear and tear off of the 600s.
Well 7506 will be for office use, when I need to be near sleeping baby at home, take along when travelling, etc...
Other cases it would be the HD600s...
So in a way you are right
Propheticus : For ease of comparison, I am assuming similar interior and sufficient distance of speakers from wall
One doubt I have is how to best handle 2.1 bass management with actives and sub (for passives one can use AVR)
Maybe one can still get an AVR and ignore the power section.
Just PREs with bass management are generally costly (the cheapest maybe is Emotiva UMC-200).
Or its generally easier to do manually for 2.1 setup ?
Any thoughts on the above ?
Propheticus : For ease of comparison, I am assuming similar interior and sufficient distance of speakers from wall
One doubt I have is how to best handle 2.1 bass management with actives and sub (for passives one can use AVR)
Maybe one can still get an AVR and ignore the power section.
Just PREs with bass management are generally costly (the cheapest maybe is Emotiva UMC-200).
Or its generally easier to do manually for 2.1 setup ?
Some higher priced (but still lower than the UMC 200) AVRs have a complete set of preamp outputs.
Any AVR can have RCA jack outputs if you add some speaker-to-RCA adaptors which cost a few dollars.
Some higher priced (but still lower than the UMC 200) AVRs have a complete set of preamp outputs.
If AVR is the most practical option than maybe better to go for passive nearfields.
(Though I don't see any from Dynaudio now, whose "house" sound I like)
Btw, Arnold, I remember reading somewhere you have now a 3.1 setup ( of Infinity centers).
Is that for nearfield ? If no, will it be useful in nearfield ?
Saw this post on an another forum
link (http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/27791-pro-audio-monitors-home-2.html) see post #16
At so nearfield wouldn't room effects be quite minimized ? (Can't try this with my current floorstanders )
Will one get good imaging,soundstaging at so close quarters ?
And will Audyssey multiEQ etc be useful for such a nearfield setup ?
Thanks..
Room effectw will be somewhat reduced but still quite important. Having bass booming out of the corners, or significant reflections from anywhere, passing through the listening space, but slightly out of time and phase doesn't make things better.
Some higher priced (but still lower than the UMC 200) AVRs have a complete set of preamp outputs.
If AVR is the most practical option than maybe better to go for passive nearfields.
(Though I don't see any from Dynaudio now, whose "house" sound I like)
Btw, Arnold, I remember reading somewhere you have now a 3.1 setup ( of Infinity centers).
Is that for nearfield ? If no, will it be useful in nearfield ?
No my somewhat *creative* use of Infinity center channel speakers is for a 15 x 22 x 9 listening room.
My choice of passive nearfields would be Behringer Truths.
Nearfield speakers have 2 major ingredients - a driver configuration that works well close up, and a spectral balance to match. The Behringer Truth driver configuration is a slam dunk because that is what they are designed for, and any modern AVR should have whatever it takes in the way of built in equalization to handle any touch up of the spectral balance issue.
My choice of passive nearfields would be Behringer Truths.
Nearfield speakers have 2 major ingredients - a driver configuration that works well close up, and a spectral balance to match. The Behringer Truth driver configuration is a slam dunk because that is what they are designed for, and any modern AVR should have whatever it takes in the way of built in equalization to handle any touch up of the spectral balance issue.
I may be able to get 2031P pair + AVR like Yamaha RX-V371 for roughly same price as pair of 2031As (in India) and maybe later add one or 2 subs.
But 371 doesn't have YPAO etc.
Receivers are wonderfully priced in US but almost all are rated at 120V 60Hz.
Though I can get a step down transformer (240->120V) I am not sure if mismatched freq (60 vs 50Hz) would be a problem in long term..
Btw anybody compared 2031P/A with a higher priced well known monitor like Mackie 824mk2s ? Are Mackies significantly better (apart from their much extended bass response) ?
I may be able to get 2031P pair + AVR like Yamaha RX-V371 for roughly same price as pair of 2031As (in India) and maybe later add one or 2 subs.
But 371 doesn't have YPAO etc.
..
..
..
Btw anybody compared 2031P/A with a higher priced well known monitor like Mackie 824mk2s ? Are Mackies significantly better (apart from their much extended bass response) ?
My mistake : Non US version of 371 has YPAO as well!
Another minor concern though will be the size of the receiver for a typical desktop setup !
Note that the passive crossover in the B2031P is a fairly simple affair (1st and 2nd order, IIRC) and performance is not up to par with the 4th order active XO in the B2031A.
A performance analysis and XO rebuilding suggestions can be found in this thread (http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?action=browseT&forum_id=267&thread=35&back=&sort=&z=1) (in German, however - feel free to ask if online translation does not yield satisfactory results).
BTW, these speakers actually work rather well at medium distances of ~2.5 m. Their driver distance is a tad too big for real nearfield use, and they are quite directional as well (which reduces diffuse reflections but can make listening position annoyingly critical at low distances). The slight bass boost (stock, both versions) also helps. So ironically, these "nearfields" actually make better real-life hi-fi speakers.
I've had a look at the Contour 1.8 MkII. These are classic broadly-radiating hi-fi speakers and should actually hold up reasonably well close-in, though the two woofers and 1st-order XO might make the vertical radiation pattern look a little... adventurous.
I'd say that at 4', something with an 8" driver would be too big... unless it's a coaxial, but that's another can of worms. I'd rather look at 6.5", maybe 5", with a woofer-tweeter distance as small as possible. Mind the position of the bass-reflex port(s) in case there is a wall at the back, and do not expect to be able to put nearfields directly onto a desk (small stands are usually required to avoid coloration).
I like the concept of active speakers, as they enable better crossover performance and often allow for FR adjustments, but they are not without their problems. Noticeable levels of hiss are not that uncommon. One of mine has issues with a faulty protection relay, and getting access to the electronics is a real chore in this model (as in the back being secured by 10 hex screws AND glued on, requiring trickery and brute force).
Note that the passive crossover in the B2031P is a fairly simple affair (1st and 2nd order, IIRC) and performance is not up to par with the 4th order active XO in the B2031A.
A performance analysis and XO rebuilding suggestions can be found in this thread (http://www.hifi-forum.de/index.php?action=browseT&forum_id=267&thread=35&back=&sort=&z=1) (in German, however - feel free to ask if online translation does not yield satisfactory results).
Will go through it. Thanks.
BTW, these speakers actually work rather well at medium distances of ~2.5 m. Their driver distance is a tad too big for real nearfield use, and they are quite directional as well (which reduces diffuse reflections but can make listening position annoyingly critical at low distances). The slight bass boost (stock, both versions) also helps. So ironically, these "nearfields" actually make better real-life hi-fi speakers.
So even more a problem in setups like one I mentioned before (link (http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/27791-pro-audio-monitors-home-2.html)see post #16) ?
I've had a look at the Contour 1.8 MkII. These are classic broadly-radiating hi-fi speakers and should actually hold up reasonably well close-in, though the two woofers and 1st-order XO might make the vertical radiation pattern look a little... adventurous.
I am planning to try to experiment with even lower distances than 4' . Let see how it turns out.
I'd say that at 4', something with an 8" driver would be too big... unless it's a coaxial, but that's another can of worms. I'd rather look at 6.5", maybe 5", with a woofer-tweeter distance as small as possible. Mind the position of the bass-reflex port(s) in case there is a wall at the back, and do not expect to be able to put nearfields directly onto a desk (small stands are usually required to avoid coloration).
Say something like Infinity P163s be better suited then for 2'-3' distance ?
I like the concept of active speakers, as they enable better crossover performance and often allow for FR adjustments, but they are not without their problems. Noticeable levels of hiss are not that uncommon. One of mine has issues with a faulty protection relay, and getting access to the electronics is a real chore in this model (as in the back being secured by 10 hex screws AND glued on, requiring trickery and brute force).
Actives + E-mu 0404/Tascam US-366 would occupy much less space on desktop too unlike Passives + AVR.
But AVR has its own advantages.
But is there anything I would lose as compared to living room setup ?
How quiet is your room? Many times the whir of the computer's cooling fan, etc. and other background room noises will mask any residual, faint hiss in an audio setup, however in very quiet environments it is not uncommon to hear some degree of hiss, at least during the music's quiet passages or between tracks.
Going with a "nearfield" speaker like the active (amplified) Behringer B2031A introduces you to two new potential problems compared to your current experience with your living room setup, regarding noise. One is that the amps in the speaker add their own amount of back ground noise. [Not that I'm claiming it is necessarily audible.] Reviews from third parties which have objectively tested the noise for this speaker, to quantify this noise level meaningfully using instrumentation, are impossible to come by, but if anyone has an example to prove me wrong, by all means, post it.
Secondly, when using
any pair of speakers up close, let's say 3 ft away from the listener instead of 12 ft away in a living room situation, you raise the noise arriving at the ear, which of course includes the audio chain's overall background noise, by a very substantial 12 dB or so. In some setups this easily could change your perception from "My living room system has pretty much no noise" to "My system has a constant, faint hiss which annoys me if I listen for it". This is a
potential problem, depending on your circumstances, gear, and sensitivity to noise, it is not a guaranteed problem.
If you google "Behringer B2031A hiss (https://www.google.com/#q=behringer+b2031A+hiss)" you will get several anecdotal accounts of the hiss annoying people, although which of these two forms of hiss and to what exact level it occurs is hard to assess from simple, cursory reviews. [If you jam your ear right up close to a tweeter, an inch away,
you are going to hear some noise, and many laymen don't know to expect this.] To be fair, it could be that there are many similar complaints about all of this speaker's rivals, I don't know, and in general my experience has been that the internal amps Behringer products use are usually better than average, although there are exceptions.
I thought pro nearfield active monitors would be dead quiet. But thanks for that info. Would keep that in mind.
But most probably I will go for an AVR + passives like Behringer 2031P or Infinity P163s.
Hope that wouldn't have noise issues.
Also I did a small experiment with my current floorstanders (Contour 1.8 mkii) in my living room.
I placed them slightly more than 4' apart and sat around 2' from line passing through the speakers.
This is very similar to position I described in my opening post except that distances then were 8' (apart) and 4' (sitting from line of speakers)
Its a very different experience to listen that way (same as even when distances were 8 and 4).
The speakers seem out of the picture and its just sounds and voices at various places in air. Quiet enjoyable.
I may be breaking all conventions here, but its an interesting listening position. Very headphone like but with good imaging and soundstaging.
I am also wondering if I should place the floorstanders besides by study table and use them as desktop speakers (which is why I experimented with 4' and 2' )
Though one minor difference (with my floorstanders) I think is that the treble is not so crisp as it's at larger distance. Very very minor difference, but need to compare more properly to conclude on that.
But this shouldn't be an issue with good nearfields I guess, anyways.
Passives sound like a good bet to me and I think it is great you are running experiments to determine what works for you.
Besides speaker height, tilt, distance, boundary reinforcement (proximity to room/desk surfaces), room acoustics (including furnishings) , and lateral L-R separation, "toe in" is very important (especially for imaging). Lots of new folks automatically shoot their speakers straight forward because they "look pretty" that way, but angling them in is usually better. Although aiming them so they shoot at the listener is a good start, I recommend at least temporarily trying a method where their paths cross just slightly forward of the listener. This may improve the size of the "sweet spot" through a principal called "time intensity trading". I'll let you read up on that elsewhere, but here's an interesting demonstration of the principal in action, which works well with headphones:
Time Intensity Trading Demo (http://auditoryneuroscience.com/topics/time-intensity-trading)
Here is the setup I used sometime back (sitting position is B). Now I just changed the distances from 8' to 4' and 4' to 2'
And I did use toe in, albeit it's on other side of what you recommended.
See here :
setup (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=102582)
One can move forward a bit than B too...
I will go through the link you provided (Time Intensity Trading Demo). Thanks!
Note that the passive crossover in the B2031P is a fairly simple affair (1st and 2nd order, IIRC) and performance is not up to par with the 4th order active XO in the B2031A.
Note that speaker drivers have built in minimum second order acoustical crossovers. If you coordinate those with electrical crossovers, 4th order acoustical crossovers are present.
The essence of Linkwitz and Riley's landmark AES paper was the benefits of a 4 th order acoustical crossover...
Those these are actives, any feedback on KRK Rokit RP10-3 ?
How flat are these in its freq response ?
Hi,
My speakers (Dynaudio Contour 1.8 mkii) are in my living room ( 26'L x 14'W x 9'H ) and the speakers
and listening position(earlier) form a equilateral of 8' and speakers being roughly 3' away from side walls and 4'
from back wall.
Sometime back I moved my listening position much ahead such that I am just 4' away from line of speaker and
began preferring that listening position, due to much more enveloping sound, better stereo image and lesser
influence of side walls
Based on this I am beginning to wonder that if I were to setup a nearfield stereo setup in my study room
(say something like Dynaudio studio monitors with 6.5-8" woofers and a good subwoofer) such that they are
3' (or maybe 4') away from sitting position, it could be good setup which I can use while working as well.
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx)
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx)
Current thought is to buy AVR (Yamaha 371 ) + 2031Ps
But if I were to buy 2031As (for good deal/simpler desktop setup etc) along with say something like Tascam US-366 what would be best way to add sub(s) later ?
Something like Behringer DCX2496 ?
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2031A.aspx)
Current thought is to buy AVR (Yamaha 371 ) + 2031Ps
But if I were to buy 2031As (for good deal/simpler desktop setup etc) along with say something like Tascam US-366 what would be best way to add sub(s) later ?
Something like Behringer DCX2496 ?
We are back at the AVR.
We are back at the AVR.
Hmm.
Unless one wishes to take Geddes sub approach I guess......
We are back at the AVR.
Hmm.
Unless one wishes to take Geddes sub approach I guess......
Please explain. Last time I was in Geddes AV room (February this year?) he was using an AVR to centerpiece his system.
Please explain. Last time I was in Geddes AV room (February this year?) he was using an AVR to centerpiece his system.
I was going though this article (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxgUOGOB5HbfNkh6LUtHX09aTzA/edit?usp=drive_web&pli=1) and saw that DCX2496 is recommended (though Geddes himself doesn't use it).
So then I was wondering if one needs to add mulitple subs to system like 2031As + Tascam US-366 using DCX2496, one can feed the digital-out of the Tascam to DCX2496.
Also, if I understand correctly, he recommends sending full range signal to mains so AVR crossover won't get used.
And setting required freq ranges on each sub won't be possible though atleast simple AVR like 371, isn't it ?
So what I intended was , not that AVR can't be used, but if a external crossover like DCX is required anyways, one can still use simpler/smaller device like US-366 for now.
... one can feed the digital-out of the Tascam to DCX2496.
I think this would be an issue. Would need to to use analog out to DCX2496 to have common volume control.
So would need to use RCA L & R output to DCX and connect the mains to either Tascam or DCX.
Trying to get manual from Behringer (as the website has some issues) to confirm this.
... one can feed the digital-out of the Tascam to DCX2496.
I think this would be an issue. Would need to to use analog out to DCX2496 to have common volume control.
So would need to use RCA L & R output to DCX and connect the mains to either Tascam or DCX.
Trying to get manual from Behringer (as the website has some issues) to confirm this.
I know it's a an old post but... if I can help you.
I was in the same situation. Finally I bought a pair of 2031A's. No hiss at all. Impressive. My first setup was
PC->UCA202 (really cheap, spdif optical out and woks with REW)->DEQ2496-> B2030As
Once you use REW and EQ with REW (I use a ECM 8000 micro and a cheap Xenys 802) the sound was really astonishing. But... I added a M-AUDIO SX10 subwwofer. It really shocked me.
Now I've bought a DCX2496 to set XO an gains without moving the sub each time (you know, you start playing with and you never end). And I bought a US-366. A lot of problems with the sound card. The drivers, suddenly stoppings... A real nightmare. My recommendation ... look for a used Cakewalk UA-25EX sound card. It has spdif optical out and it works perfectlly and tested in REW or DRCoP.
My current setup:
PC->UA-25->SDPDIF optical->DEQ2496 (EQ)->AES /SBU link to DCX2496 (XO)->3 XLR outs->SPL Volume 8-> B2030A's and sub
There are some modders in internet that offers DCX2496 with multichannel volume control.
Hope it helps