• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

The Heeman HT

PaulyT

Behind the Curtain
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Superstar
Well this is long overdue, but I promised I'd write something about my experience with @heeman's HT. While there might have been some alcohol involved at times :laughing: there were at least a few occasions where we were clear-headed enough to do some serious evaluation.

First impression: when you walk into the room, you can just hear the effect of the acoustic work he's done in there. Or rather, you don't hear much at all, it's just ... quiet. While I've been in some outstanding HTs of various members here, I have never been in a room that's so fully built and treated for sound, so this was an entirely new experience for me.

We went through some 2ch demo music, both of Keith's and my own usual evaluation tracks. Imaging was outstanding, very clear separation of sounds, left to right. I did not get quite the sense of forward/back depth of soundstage, comparing mainly to @Zing's - but Zing's room layout is completely different, with the speakers much further out into the room which is oriented the "long" way (screen on the short wall). I think that placement has a lot to do with it, or at least that's my unscientific impression. And sometimes I think that this front/back stuff in a stereo recording is largely just a trick of imagination, not really something in the recording itself... dunno.

Anyway, I've heard the Dyn C1 before, at @CMonster's old house, so I kinda had some idea what to expect there, and they did not disappoint. Clear midrange and treble, no shrillness, except on one or two tracks but I can reasonably conclude that the recordings were at fault in these cases, somewhat harsh vocals.

But what completely blew me away about this HT was the bass. I mean, I've heard tons of bass output before, but never in a room that makes the bass so CLEAN. I consider myself completely schooled in what proper, tight, clean, effortless bass can sound like, and again this was a totally new experience for me. It's hard to even describe in words, sort of a know-it-when-you-hear-it kind of deal. All I can say is, wow, between the bass bins, sub placement, and bass traps and general acoustics, it was amazing. I never knew that bass could sound as articulate as midrange.

Musically the highlight of my time there was the Norah Jones concert video I posted about. But we listened to a lot of stuff of various styles, and it was a great time. Man I wish I had room (and budget) for a system like that... makes my poor little HT-like-thing seem pretty pitiful. :laughing: Keith's put a HUGE amount of work into that room, and it shows, and it has clearly paid off. Something to be proud of, for sure.


And oh yeah there might have been a pretty passable projector and screen setup in there too... I barely noticed. ;) (Actually it was great and the movie experience was a lot of fun, but you all know that the video side of things has never been my biggest interest.)
 
Last edited:
And no, I didn't take pictures, sorry. It looks like a black/gray room with some speakers in it. :rofl: But Keith's posted plenty in his build thread.
 
Thank you Pauly for your somewhat timely review.

I was really hoping that I could have stopped by Keiths place when I was in WI in June, but alas it was not to be.

Sounds to me like Heeman did the amazing job we all knew he did based on his build thread.
 
I think that placement has a lot to do with it, or at least that's my unscientific impression. And sometimes I think that this front/back stuff in a stereo recording is largely just a trick of imagination, not really something in the recording itself... dunno.

It is extremely dependent on the particular recording, and it is a sonic trick, as there is no way to directly encode depth cues into a recording using only two channels. However in good recordings which exhibit good depth cues, this is due to the normal acoustic cues one hears in real life such as more distant instruments having more room sound around them, more delay, and a tonal character which our ears interpret as being farther away. With natural orchestral material, this is most easily accomplished by using single point microphone techniques because by doing this, all sounds (including reverberation) are coherent in time and space to that one point.

Unfortunately, the spaced omni technique is the one which is most heavily used and this tends to compress the front to back depth; not completely, but largely. Worst still are multi-microphone techniques which flatten the soundstage out almost completely. Modern studio recordings using close miking are going to be the worst, except for cases when synthetic reverb is added which can simulate depth in some cases.

I've mentioned this recording before, but I mention it again since it is probably the best recording I've heard in terms of capturing depth cues and an extremely natural timbre of the orchestra:

https://www.amazon.com/Ralph-Vaugha...ords=job+a+masque+for+dancing,+vernon+handley

The last track on the disc (part four of the piece) is my standard demo track.
 
I've mentioned this recording before, but I mention it again since it is probably the best recording I've heard in terms of capturing depth cues and an extremely natural timbre of the orchestra:
Thanks, yeah I actually bought that when you brought it up last time, but I admit I haven't listened to it closely yet... :/
 
I really hope I'm able to experience Keith's system & room someday.

I did not get quite the sense of forward/back depth of soundstage, comparing mainly to @Zing's - but Zing's room layout is completely different, with the speakers much further out into the room which is oriented the "long" way (screen on the short wall). I think that placement has a lot to do with it, or at least that's my unscientific impression.

I agree placement plays a part but I wouldn't necessarily say it "has a lot to do with it" in and of itself. I think it has a lot to do with it because of the room. Therefore, I think my room/layout is the bigger factor.

As far as placement, I used the 3rd & 5th rules: speakers are at the 1/3 mark and seating (ear location while sitting) is at the 4/5 mark. So, yeah, my front speakers are 6 feet out into the room from the front wall. But the fact that I have essentially no rear wall - AND a fireplace up front - the depth of the stereo image is pretty good. I don't really know if the 2-3 feet of extra fireplace depth actually does anything but it sure seems and sounds like it does.
 
I visited before the rear panels were added for defusing the sound, and with Pauly with them installed. The room and the bass are the key to his system. I played back the Peter Gabriel blueray at my home in comparison and was true to my waterfall charts having some ringing in the 20 hz and 30 hz regions. Causing the lowest bass to be bloated and not as clean.
 
Back
Top