The Room, not us, determines our speaker choices

I never expected that I'd write a post in agreement with Mrtennis either. BUT- I'm one that could never be happy with boxed speakers as well(except as studio monitors). I too have been using Maggies(a couple of the smaller models, modded, 24" from the front and side walls) in an undersized room for over ten years now. I've actually found the beaminess of the planar to be an advantage with regards to reducing reflections. My only problems were in my enjoyment of realistic SPLs(plugged in and acoustic jazz/blues) and the correct placement of my two transmission line woofers(actively bi-amped). The room overloaded quite easily, and I was forced to keep the TLs between, and lined up with, the planars. Covering my back wall with Auralex and using LENRDs in the corners(no WAF at my house) solved the first problem. Of course æsthetically: The room is a complete embarrassment, BUT- I've always had excellent sound staging(YEAH, I know: That's not supposed to be possible), solid imaging(even with an equipment rack between the speakers), and the timbral accuracy I love. Adding a TACT RCS 2.2X to the mix some years back solved the woofer placement/time domain issue and allowed me to REALLY smooth out my bottom two octaves. Room acoustics CAN be overcome, to a large degree, with the right treatments and equipment. It's all much easier without a wife, but getting rid of her(very expensive process) is why I've got such a pitiful listening room now. At least that exponentially reduced the ambient noise levels. =8^)

I recently picked up Jim Smith's "Get Better Sound" book, and he essentially says that the listening room is the most important "component" in the system.

hi magnumpi:

i have been to ces for 16 years. i have noticed certain speaker systems consistently sound good, in spite of bad rooms. most manufacturer's blame the room, when, often it is the equipment.

"a bum mechanic blames his tools". a poor speaker designer blames the room.

a decent speaker, will always sound "good", even in a bad set up, but mat sound better when a room is treated.

just as it is easy to recognize a great recording on a mediocre stereo system, it is easy to recognize a great speaker in a bad room. make the best of your room, but choose your speakers wisely.

don't be a box speaker fool, panels rule ! LOL

There's no denying that room acoustics are of primary importance when setting up either a recording studio, live music venue or a listening room. I'd generally rather have so-so equipment in an excellent room, than excellent equipment in a so-so room. REALLY what one needs is a basic understanding of what will work easily, and what won't, when making equipment choices. Most don't get to build the room around their chosen equipment. BUT- It's been my experience that no problem is insuperable. Equipment can be modded and rooms treated, to achieve most REASONABLE goals. Of course- Good musicians, recorded well and planar speakers ARE indispensable in the recipe(at least in my cookbook).

Saw a good flick last night called, "Bottle Shock"

There's a great line in that film that comes to mind reading the all too familiar "pass the Grey Poupon" rhetoric I read here often.

You’re a snob, and it limits you

Put a pair of great speakers in a small, floor-to-ceiling-tiled room and they will most certainly not sound "good", and few, if any, would want to spend any time listening to music in that room. To a lesser extreme a room can certainly obscure the attributes of any speaker, some more than others. Compare ten pairs of speakers in the bathroom setting I describe and I doubt very much whether anyone could tell that much about how each speaker distinguishes itself from the others as when set up in a more ideal environment that suited the specific speaker. Sure, you'll be able to glean some useful information from the comparison, but I don't think I would want to make a decision based solely on the information I came away with. Broadly comparing the rooms at CES with those at RMAF I personally thought that there were far more rooms sounding better at CES than at RMAF and I do believe the difference in the rooms being contended with had something to do with that. To some extent I'd agree though, that the differences are not so extreme in practice as to really obscure being able to discern important qualities of a speaker's performance. There are consistencies in performance that come to mind from one show to the other (Roger Sanders for instance - though I felt his speakers sounded great in both cases, I thought at T.H.E. show recently, they were actually more compromised by (?) than at RMAF so go figure). I would not, however, dismiss the room so flippantly...it almost seems like a contrarian fishing expedition to me. I don't see it as a mechanic blaming poor tools. A mechanic working to tune a Ferarri in a well-lit, comfortably heated, well equipped garage vs the same mechanic, same tools, tuning the same car in a cold vibrating room with dim lighting. Same tools, same mechanic, different environment = likely different results.