Another interesting post by Headphonesty
#1 on the list?
“Your Room Matters More Than Your Speakers”
5 Likes
Thanks for sharing. Very, very few surprises there.
2 Likes
Like Greg, I’d agree there’s nothing new in that list as such.
I’d argue, even with a poorly treated room, getting the best speaker you can get makes a significant difference. There’s ways to partially mitigate poor room treatment, like near-field listening for example, or significant toe’ing in etc. The human ear is quite adaptable.
So, IMvHO, that statement you quoted isn’t as black & white as all that 
5 Likes
Agreed. Definitely not as binary. In fact, a good argument can be made that treating your room without knowing what speakers are going into it is a fool’s errand. The speakers and the room work hand in hand. And there are so many ways to treat (for) the room. In my case, I chose active compensation with the Legacy Valor system. One of the reasons, not the only one, was that the speakers and their associated electronics adjust for the room, so I don’t have to put all sorts of stuff on the walls, or in the corners, etc. And I can move them into any new room with equal success. But, obviously, they’re not everyone’s cup of tea. So, I guess I would say that the room is as important as the speakers once you’ve picked out the speakers you want. What you’re going to do about it is up to you.
4 Likes
Many of us, myself included, have equipment and a TV between the speakers. I placed acoustic panels (absorbers) in front of the electronics. Imaging was improved. Next I put heavy blankets over the TV and I was surprised that imaging didn’t change much, but high end clarity was greatly improved. When I removed the blankets the highs sounded like motion blur, as if they were smeared. After a few hours without the blankets my ears adjusted and I stopped noticing the smear. I am currently working on using an electric blind to cover the TV. If I get this working I’ll post photos and results. The point of all this is I believe $1000 in treatments can out do $20,000 in electronics (assuming you’re starting with good stuff).
1 Like
Yes, those things make a difference . The best result is of having nothing between the speakers and correct distancing from the front wall (which not only relates to bass response) is worthwhile.
This is why some manufacturers ( e.g. Naim) recommend use of a video projector with a screen that can be retracted for AV sessions.
This is however not limited to AV as racks of audio gear between the speakers have a similar effect. I appreciate that domestic needs are important but if readers are fortunate to be able to move racks placed between speakers so that that they are at a right angle to the side then I expect a clear benefit.
1 Like
Pete, I wonder how having a rack on the side wall would affect imaging. Seems those reflections being so different from the other side of the room could be an issue. What I did was keep my equipment limited to dac and amp and kept them low, and my side walls have identical accostic panels. I don’t have perfect imaging yet but I’m getting close.
I should have explained this better. The rack should not be placed in the same plane as the speakers. It should be as far forward of the speakers as is practical leaving the two speakers in the same relationship to the side walls. I guess to he speaker rear would work but this might have the speakers block IR commands from the listening position if in use.
Most of us have to accept some degree of compromise ( some are very fortunate in this respect judging from images in the showing off thread). My main one is that I cannot have the rack as far forward into the room as I would like. If I did place it where I would like the entrance to my room would be blocked. So I suffer a minor penalty where extreme images beyond the outside speaker edge are less well produced on the left side, which is whee the rack is. However such images are rare and I am only certain of their existence from a test disc.
The test disc in question is excellent for establishing if the imaging is correct as a speaking voice announces where in the stereo picture the sound should be coming from. More than just left or right. This is the first Chesky sampler and audiophile test disc, Chesky JD37. Now decades old and well out of print but there might be a used copy out there.
Excellent if it is not possible to do the above. Try to keep centralised equipment below the upper two thirds of the speakers ( i.e. below the mid/treble drive units). Another compromise that may hopefully be acceptable.
Qobuz offers this one, with several tests, including HiRes, Depth, Atmosphere, Midrange Purity, Naturalness, Transparency etc. :
Ultimate Demonstration Disc: Chesky Records’ Guide to Critical Listening
Released by Chesky Records • 1 August 1995
30 Tracks • 01h 03m 53s
3 Likes
Thanks. Very interesting. However this is quite a different sort of test disc to JD37 demonstrating various audio qualities. That earlier disc has musical examples too but coupled with some technical tests. Forrme the most relevant in regard to correct imaging is track10. Here a voice advises " I am two feet from the microphone and speaking from the centre". This continues with speech from left and right, halfway between centre and left or right, then images beyond the speaker outside edge. Track 11 has synthesised audio giving an illusion of height. All of practical use at least as far as I am concerned when used in conjunction with the Wilson speaker set-up procedure ( W.A.S.P).
Another interesting test is on volume 2 of Chesky test material (JD 68) which tests for depth resolution by a recording of a clicker at 9 increasing distances from the microphone.
Basically I dislike test discs as I prefer to use examples from my recording collection. However these Chesky ones really serve a purpose.
Then of course there is the HiFi News garage door… 
2 Likes
I just found Chesky JD37 on Qobuz, including the tracks 10 and 11 you mentioned:
Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test Compact Disc: Vol. 1
Released by Chesky Records • 5 September 1990
30 Tracks • 01h 01m 09s
and here is also JD68:
Best of Chesky Jazz & More Audiophile Tests, Vol. 2
Various Artists JD68:
Released by Chesky Records • 28 February 1992
71 Tracks • 01h 14m 05s
5 Likes
I visited PS Audio about 10 years ago and spent a few hours listening to their reference system (PS Audio gear and Infinity Reference Standard speakers). Sound wasn’t to my liking, but imaging was phenomenal with perfect 3D representation of everything I played. I didn’t pay close enough attention to the room but I recall the amps were behind the speakers and the equipment rack was against a side wall slightly behind the left speaker. Nothing was in front of the speakers. Lot of treatments in the room. I am trying to get that level of imaging but I’m not there yet.
3 Likes
Most experienced audiophiles know these things already. Speaking as someone with a lot of pro audio experience (140+ sessions), I will tell you many engineers are behind on what genuinely sounds good. For instance, many studios use terrible quality cables like Mogami and Canare, do poor mic placement and fix it in the mix, utilize mediocre pro ADCs and DACs, release files in “midrez” 24/48, typically over-use Protools, create limited dynamic range, do mediocre mastering, do sloppy tape research, and are behind on basic approaches like line conditioning and grounding.
1 Like
I worked on these Chesky releases. I still remember Jeremy Kipnis doing some amazing sound effects recordings for the tracks including someone opening a beer bottle and then drinking the beer.
2 Likes
Many thanks to those above for surfacing these Qobuz links. Much appreciated.
1 Like
I wonder how our high end systems, say $100,000 and up, sound compared to a studio. I suspect they sound better than the average studio. Anyone have any experience or knowledge to share?
A studio, that is the main point. I have been in low budget studios, tied together with buzzy fifth-hand gear, and multi-million $$ ones. So actually the same situation as with high end systems at home. Most sound OK, just a few excellent, and as good as the best studios.
What the studios have in common, unlike at home, is the sound pressure/ dynamics of the monitors.
3 Likes