HSU Research Forum (HRF)

HSU Research Forum (HRF) (http://forum.hsuresearch.com/index.php)
-   Hsu Research - Setup and Placement Recommendations (http://forum.hsuresearch.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35)
-   -   HB-1 placement (http://forum.hsuresearch.com/showthread.php?t=96096)

rbpeirce September 27th, 2018 1:27 PM

HB-1 placement
 
Years ago when I bought these speakers I followed your 1:1.26:1.60 placement recommendation, except I used the woofer height, 33.5", as the short dimension and set them 53.5" from the back wall and 44" from the side wall.

Now, I am re-arranging my room and got to wondering whether there might be some reason why you suggested the other setting. Is there something that makes it better?

On a related issue, when I designed my listening room (25 years ago!) I used a ratio of 1.62 all the way around, having read somewhere that this would greatly reduce room peaks and nulls. I turns out I have a sharp dip around 32hz but the room is otherwise pretty flat. Therefore, I wonder if you know how 1:1.62:2.62 would compare to 1:1.26:1.60, and in either case, whether speaker height would be best at any one of the three ratios?

Dr_Hsu September 28th, 2018 11:11 AM

The idea of 1:1.26: 1.6 ration is to distribute the room modes 1/3 octave apart - the 1.26 dimension will have a standing wave 1/3 octave lower than the 1 dimension, and the 1.6 would be 2/3 octave lower. This distributes the peaks and dips more evenly.

The same argument applies for spacing the speaker from the nearest walls. The floor bounce, side and back wall bounce dips will be more evenly distributed.

My more recent suggestion of 1:2:4 ratio aims at the boundary bounces to cancel. At the frequency where the shortest distance cause a dip, the bounce from the 2 will cause a peak at that same frequency, thereby nulling out (one cancels, the other reinforces). The dip from the 2 is nulled out by the bounce from the 4. Then by arranging the dip for the 4 to be below the crossover, we will have no dip whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbpeirce (Post 136933)
Years ago when I bought these speakers I followed your 1:1.26:1.60 placement recommendation, except I used the woofer height, 33.5", as the short dimension and set them 53.5" from the back wall and 44" from the side wall.

Now, I am re-arranging my room and got to wondering whether there might be some reason why you suggested the other setting. Is there something that makes it better?

On a related issue, when I designed my listening room (25 years ago!) I used a ratio of 1.62 all the way around, having read somewhere that this would greatly reduce room peaks and nulls. I turns out I have a sharp dip around 32hz but the room is otherwise pretty flat. Therefore, I wonder if you know how 1:1.62:2.62 would compare to 1:1.26:1.60, and in either case, whether speaker height would be best at any one of the three ratios?


Dr_Hsu September 28th, 2018 11:11 AM

The idea of 1:1.26: 1.6 ration is to distribute the room modes 1/3 octave apart - the 1.26 dimension will have a standing wave 1/3 octave lower than the 1 dimension, and the 1.6 would be 2/3 octave lower. This distributes the peaks and dips more evenly.

The same argument applies for spacing the speaker from the nearest walls. The floor bounce, side and back wall bounce dips will be more evenly distributed.

My more recent suggestion of 1:2:4 ratio aims at the boundary bounces to cancel. At the frequency where the shortest distance cause a dip, the bounce from the 2 will cause a peak at that same frequency, thereby nulling out (one cancels, the other reinforces). The dip from the 2 is nulled out by the bounce from the 4. Then by arranging the dip for the 4 to be below the crossover, we will have no dip whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbpeirce (Post 136933)
Years ago when I bought these speakers I followed your 1:1.26:1.60 placement recommendation, except I used the woofer height, 33.5", as the short dimension and set them 53.5" from the back wall and 44" from the side wall.

Now, I am re-arranging my room and got to wondering whether there might be some reason why you suggested the other setting. Is there something that makes it better?

On a related issue, when I designed my listening room (25 years ago!) I used a ratio of 1.62 all the way around, having read somewhere that this would greatly reduce room peaks and nulls. I turns out I have a sharp dip around 32hz but the room is otherwise pretty flat. Therefore, I wonder if you know how 1:1.62:2.62 would compare to 1:1.26:1.60, and in either case, whether speaker height would be best at any one of the three ratios?


rbpeirce September 29th, 2018 7:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Hsu (Post 136934)
The idea of 1:1.26: 1.6 ration is to distribute the room modes 1/3 octave apart - the 1.26 dimension will have a standing wave 1/3 octave lower than the 1 dimension, and the 1.6 would be 2/3 octave lower. This distributes the peaks and dips more evenly.

OK. But what about which part of the ratio is the speaker height? Does it matter whether it is the short distance or the long or even the middle? I'm about to apply some room correction software and it would be a lot easier if the speakers were in the best spots. I've assumed it doesn't matter, but I don't know.

I'm also still wondering about the applicability of the 1:1.62:2.62 ratio for the same reason.

Dr_Hsu September 29th, 2018 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbpeirce (Post 136936)
OK. But what about which part of the ratio is the speaker height? Does it matter whether it is the short distance or the long or even the middle? I'm about to apply some room correction software and it would be a lot easier if the speakers were in the best spots. I've assumed it doesn't matter, but I don't know.

I'm also still wondering about the applicability of the 1:1.62:2.62 ratio for the same reason.

It does not matter. It just needs the distances to the three nearest surfaces to be in that ratio.

rbpeirce September 30th, 2018 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Hsu (Post 136937)
It does not matter. It just needs the distances to the three nearest surfaces to be in that ratio.

Thank you.

rbpeirce October 15th, 2018 6:37 AM

2 Attachment(s)
I was able to run a room response curve on the recommended setup. My room has no acoustic treatment, so the frequency response is a bit uncontrolled. Nevertheless, the total range was only(?) 23 db. The signal from 40Hz to close to 2kHz is in a 15db band, but then it flattens out at a lower level (about 7db) but only a 6db band to about 15kHz, kind of like a shelf.

Off the top of my head it looks like I can lower the gain in the ULS-15s a few db but there is a peak at 200Hz I have to figure out how to control. Cross-over is at 80Hz so this is probably some room reflection coming from the HB-1s. However, it is sharp enough I may be able to ignore it.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.