General Speaker Advice and Recommendations

Multiple options and approaches are possible in that room, depending upon your level of "purism".

If you prefer a simple setup with flexibility, consider using active speakers with DSP and a frontend of your choice.

Please bear in mind that these observations come from someone accustomed to using 15" speakers, so my sense of what is acceptable in a living room might be a bit skewed.

• Looking at your room, I'd suggest placing the speakers against the back wall and using DSP to align the bass if necessary. Utilizing room gain can be advantageous!
• If you're against DSP, opt for speakers that perform well near a wall, potentially sealed ones.
• Adjust the seating to be closer to the point between the two windows.
  Install diffusers on the sidewall between the windows and absorption on the first reflection points.
• Be careful of too much treatments!
• Depending on your speakers, try moving them further apart and angling them inwards to minimize sidewall reflections.
• Experiment with extreme toe-in.
• If feasible, choose the largest speakers that fit. Bigger speakers usually provide better results.
• Larger speakers offer improved directivity and are less influenced by room acoustics than smaller ones.
• Subwoofers could be beneficial. Align them with the speakers if placed against the same wall, reducing alignment issues. I would not use a speaker system without subwoofers.
• Be prepared to learn REW (Room EQ Wizard) and familiarize yourself with your room.
  This is where significant savings can be achieved ,as you realize that the room is at least as important as the speakers. How moving things around can have a big impact on perceived sound!
• IMO Speaker setups involve more variables compared to headphones. (speaker placement, listener placement).
• However, you can "tune" their sound more as you can move things around.

Personally, I prefer employing full-range DSP for all my speakers. Achieving good outcomes can be intricate and time-consuming. Nevertheless, I've been content with my speakers for quite some time now and haven't felt the urge to upgrade, so there is that.

 

This would be a pure 2ch system. My thinking is/was to try and keep it simple so 2.0 as opposed to 2.1. I guess I could put a TV in between so I can watch stuff too. Not really into the whole surround thing.

This is very interesting. The Buchardt S400 passive had come across my radar, but I hadn't looked at the actives.

This is probably where I'm at with expectations. I've never had the option for a proper 2ch setup, and am not looking for the ultimate sound, but a place where I can enjoy music coming from in front of me rather than from headphones.

The A500 with Platin Hub should be within budget and would save on the pre/amp. I guess I'd only be able to use the SE outputs from my DACs and would need a switcher as there's only 1 analogue input (Edit: ah, there's a 3.5mm AUX in). Or I suppose just go digital in and keep the DACs for headphone use, since it would all be ADA's anyway. There's the option to add subs if bass is not enuf.
https://buchardtaudio.com/pages/platin-hub-details

Would have to borrow the wife's crapPhone though.
https://buchardtaudio.com/pages/i150-room-correction

 

If your source is a computer, you can EQ before the signal even leaves it, and keep your chosen chain otherwise the same.

I won't at all guarantee no effect on sound quality. I think this depends on both the EQ software itself and on the skill of the EQer. Of course, actives give the facility of per-speaker speaker-specific tuning. Even the analogue ones will.

 

I've struggled before to get a good stereo image when I've had a TV of decent size between the speakers, but usually get a good image with physical, 3D "stuff" (furniture, tchotchkes, books, etc) between the speakers, and/or with some acoustic absorption/diffusion panels on the wall behind the speakers.

Since this is your first "proper" stereo, I'd focus on getting a good sound out of the speakers first, then think about adding a TV, or maybe a projector.

 

Along with treating first reflection points, this has been working pretty well for the rear wall being too close behind my listening chair:


The piles of guitar/DIYstuff/trash on the floor provide additional diffusion. The room sounds pretty dry and dead at low volume, but medium to high volume where I do most listening sounds great.

 

From what I remember, sitting that close to a wall you're better off using thicker broadband absorption (like a GiK 244/monster trap) instead of foam. Foam is cheap, but really only reduces slap echo (and even that it does less effectively than other products).

 

It's definitely not optimal, but it worked wonders for imaging and soundstage. Before the foam, moving my head fractions of an inch changed the sound dramatically and most vocals/center panned stuff was super recessed, both of those problems are fixed now and imaging is more stable. In the current cabinets with no EQ, bass drops off sharply at 50hz, so I don't mind a bit of boominess from room gain. There are nodes and dead spots that could be addressed with higher quality treatment, but the budget called for foam at the moment.

Edit: the GiK stuff does look good and seems reasonably priced, thanks for that. I'll be giving it a try soon hopefully.

 

GIK is pricier in Europe but still affordable, having neither the time nor talent nor desire to build room treatment stuff myself I did order there, even had stuff custom made.

 

Re: DSP

to limit the correction to a certain frequency is a method quite often used. I think the result depends to a large extent on the tool you are using. I use acourate for measurements and filter generation. Its use is not as straightforward as REW but in my opinion it yields better results especially if you want to correct the complete frequency range. However if new to DSP I would start out with REW, make myself familiar with the basics and if I find that this is something for me I would consider buying acourate.
There is a book on DSP in general whose author Mitch Barnett uses acourate. Just google his name + DSP, for those with time and willing to dive deeper. Especially for people who do not want to treat their rooms DSP is helpful, even as others have said before, it can’t solve all the problems. Nevertheless the one off licence fee for acourate was probably the best bang for buck in terms of improving sound quality. I chose to do quite some room treatment so the dsp is just the icing on the cake. Again where the best compromise room treatment/dsp lies is a personal preference. I upload the generated filters to Daphile which runs on a Zotac CI 620 (similar to what @Thad E Ginathom proposed). Works in other software ( e. g. ROON), too of course.

 

I EQ for a different reason: to correct for my ears rather than the room. But it is still EQ... and what I do is to "wire" my audio player, Youtube, etc, to an equaliser (I use Calf, free Linux software) and then to the interface. JACK does the "wiring"

If I was spending money on hifi these days, I'd go active. I always wanted to. Because, I guess, I was wooed by the idea of "professional" kit and a neutral sound.

So now the money goes on photography, because I can see better than I can hear. But if there was a bigger supply of it, I'd still love to implement a dream speaker system! And get into room correction and treatment .

 

I do, too. A nice steep notch Filter to cancel out the frequency of my tinnitus

 

As someone else suggested I would go with the biggest speakers possible for decent bass response and then DSP any peaks out. Also small/medium speakers may sound too congested and strained when turning the volume up. Adding subwoofers can't fix this.

Concerning the rabbit hole room correction by software there are two questions:

Is @gixxerwimp only listening with digital sources or also analog?

Are you willing to educate yourself and be able to tweak yourself (soometimes very complex software, taking hours and hours) or do you want a simple solution and be done with it?

If the latter, I highly recommend Home Audio Fidelity. You do the measuring and the guy sends you the files with the convolution filters for your software (e.g. Roon or HQPlayer, maybe others). You can also let him adjust the correction to your liking afterwards. There's also options with cross talk reduction where you have to measrue your head and ears. You can find lots of satisfied users in the Roon forums. I am one of them.

 

I only listen to digital sources, and want a simple solution.

After going through a long and convoluted mental journey, I've latched onto @yotacowboy's suggestion and will likely go with whatever active solution Buchardt is selling when the time comes (years from now). The simplicity and flexibility of their systems suits my needs perfectly. The Dutch & Dutch option mentioned by @dsavitsk would be very attractive if price were no object, but it's definitely out of my league.

Thanks to all for the advice and feedback.

 

Only saw this now. My strong recommendation would be to evaluate PLANARS. Because of the low basement ceilings, you want speakers with MINIMAL vertical dispersion. I (and another friend) have had decades of experience of being “relegated” to the subterranean realm… LOL…. I ran my Apogee Duetta Signatures in my finished basement man cave for over a decade. Long before my friend went through a succession of Maggies and ultimately to Martin Logans in his basement. Over those years, we also tried out point-source (dynamic) speakers of various types. All of them had imaging issues and sonic bloats well into the lower mids; likely due to that huge ceiling surface proximity issue. In all cases, we always lavishly carpeted the floor (because under it, somewhere, is always concrete)…

As far as how BIG a set, you really need not worry… you aren’t trying to “energize” that large space behind you; all that matters is at the plane of your ears! In fact, the space behind you helps with imaging and focus, because there are fewer (and much later) rear wall reflections.

Net: something too few consider about planars is that their radiation/dispersion pattern - while in SOME rooms a PITA - in others is and can be a God-send.

[on edit: In your budget, a new set of Maggie 1.7’s would be awesome to give a try to test. You could find a “bigger” set used in that range.]
HTH

 

I would put the Paradigm Founder series on your listen list since they are Canadian.

Also I’m in the “always a subwoofer” camp. Even “full range” speakers are not the same

 

Minimum phase EQ (so regular parametric EQ in software) has the same phase response a passive crossover would have, like a notch filter.

It corrects the phase response introduced by the peak or dip you're trying to correct. So phase isn't why it sounds weird.
The single driver speaker corrected by EQ would likely have a very nice looking step response and by using RePhase for phase response filters (convolution) you can even correct phase response errors introduced by the speaker crossover.


However I agree that things become distant and imaging gets worse, at least with well designed speakers. For one thing by designing speakers by ear the phase response and magnitude errors sort of find the best compromise when done by a competent designer.
Take the Canton Reference 3K. When I used RePhase to correct its 4th order MT crossover phase errors the small dip it had there became more evident and I would have to raise that area by 1 or 2 dB. The phase error sort of calls attention to it, along with the dispersion mismatch, of course.

And most importantly I don't think any digital EQ is transparent, so imaging becoming blurry and it sounding a bit weird or off is to be expected, I feel.

However by combining minimum phase EQ (peak or notch filters) and convolution I think the result can be worth the bit of transparency you're losing. That's what I do with my LS50 Meta on the desk. My DIY speakers don't need that kind of stuff.

 

So now it turns out I might not get the basement for my listening area, as it makes more financial sense to keep it as a rental unit. So I'll likely get one of the spare bedrooms and am back in the small room camp. The Buchardts are still very attractive, maybe their new A10 which I think is replacing the A500. But I may be back in the market for a passives and an amp, as a small room seems less intimidating to fill with sound, though I guess potentially more problematic.

 

That Buchardt has room correction, might be just what you need to get that smaller room more agreeable. Also a bunch of filters.

 

Perhaps phase is not problem per say.
Now, I do not have measurement apparatus to test this, as such it is speculation from my part:
Digital stuff messes with micro-timing. Likely why S-D dacs are so difficult to make musically pleasing and sound like the real thing.

 

Looking at soundbars.. But not I'm thinking I can get something like an Aiyima T9 and two passive bookshelves and a powered sub and for about the same price I'll have bigger speakers and can switch out components if something breaks.

Anyone done this?