How I used AI to tune my system

[Vivek Batra]

Hi Folks

It's been a long time I contributed anything on this esteemed forum with very informed enthusiasts. I did something with my system with the help of AI (Chat GPT) and gained a lot out of, so sharing a direct write up from the AI, if it could help others as well. I started with explaining my gear, room size and a photo of current placements, the gpt gave back a modified photo with new placement options to try. The result is as below.

Dialing in My Klipsch Forte III + Luxman System

# System Overview

* Speakers: Klipsch Forte III
* Amplifier: Luxman L-590AXII MkII
* DAC: Luxman DA-06
* Room: ~18 × 14 ft, false ceiling, carpet, curtains, couch
* Front wall: Mostly wooden (~10.7 ft center), ~17" concrete on each side

---

# Initial Observations (Before Any Changes)

I started noticing a few things:

* Bass suddenly felt excessive (turned out to be loose speaker connection)
* Sound was **very sharp / slightly shrill at times**
* Imaging was **pinpoint accurate but too narrow**
* Sweet spot was extremely tight — had to sit exactly in center
* Sound felt **“in your face”** rather than layered
* Left/right separation was very strong, but sometimes unnatural

At that stage, everything sounded technically impressive—but not always enjoyable.

---

# Step 1 — Fixing the Basics

* Tightened speaker connections → bass normalized
* Confirmed placement symmetry
* Understood that Forte III are highly revealing and directional

Lesson: Small physical issues can cause big sonic changes.

---

# Step 2 — Speaker Placement Overhaul

This was the biggest change.

### Before:

* Speakers ~30" from side walls
* ~8.6 ft apart
* Listening distance ~11 ft

### Adjustments explored:

* Slight outward toe
* Increased listening distance
* Careful spacing relative to wooden wall
* Eventually settled around:

* ~8.5–8.7 ft spacing
* ~22–24" from front wall
* ~11 ft listening distance

---

# Immediate Results

* **Shrillness reduced significantly**
* Sound became **more relaxed and natural**
* Sweet spot widened noticeably
* Center image remained intact
* Listening fatigue dropped

This was a turning point.

---

# Step 3 — Understanding What Changed

What I learned:

* Wider spacing + more distance = less direct horn energy
* Slightly off-axis listening = smoother highs
* Room reflections (especially wood wall) started helping instead of hurting

---

# Step 4 — Imaging Shift (Interesting Discovery)

After placement changes:

* Sound became **more centered and cohesive**
* Left/right separation moved slightly inward
* Stage felt less “etched” but more natural

Initially felt like I “lost separation,” but actually:

I gained **coherence and realism**

---

# Step 5 — Fine Tuning for Width + Depth

Goal:

> Keep width, regain layering, maintain center

Adjustments:

* Increased speaker distance from wall (22–24")
* Reduced excessive toe-out
* Tuned in **1-inch increments**
* Adjusted listening height slightly below horn axis
* Used wooden wall for mild diffusion instead of damping it

---

# Step 6 — Tone Controls & Loudness (Game Changer)

I realized something important:

Loudness ON sounded more engaging

Instead of blindly accepting or rejecting:

I created usage patterns:

### Presets I now use:

**1. Reference Mode**

* Tone OFF, Loudness OFF

**2. Relaxed Listening (daily use)**

* Bass +1
* Treble -1

**3. Low Volume**

* Loudness ON

**4. Old Recordings**

* Bass +1 or +2
* Treble -1 or -2

This made a bigger difference than expected.

---

# Final Result (Where I Ended Up)

Now my system sounds:

* Wide but not exaggerated
* Centered but not stuck
* Layered (front–back depth improved)
* Smooth yet detailed
* Much less fatiguing
* Enjoyable across more seating positions

Most importantly:

> I listen longer and enjoy music more

---

# Key Learnings

1. **Speaker placement > gear upgrades**
2. 1-inch adjustments matter more than expensive cables
3. Horn speakers reward precise positioning
4. Tone controls are tools, not compromises
5. Room interaction defines final sound
6. “Perfect imaging” is not always “best listening”

---

# Final Thought

I started with a system that sounded impressive but demanding.

I now have a system that sounds:

> **Balanced, engaging, and easy to live with**

---

If anyone is using Forte III or similar high-efficiency speakers, I highly recommend spending time on placement and small adjustments before changing gear.

Happy listening

 

[square_wave]

Nice to see this. Setup is one of the most overlooked things in this hobby. The loudness button is actually very useful. It is based on a real psychoacoustic principle called the Fletcher-Munson curves.
At lower listening levels (typically below 65db), our ears don’t hear all frequencies equally. We become less sensitive to bass. We also lose some high-frequency detail. The midrange (especially vocals) dominates. Beyond 75 to 85 db, you don't need the loudness button unless it is to compensate for recording quality where there is imbalance.

 

[Nitin K]

It's really prudent of you Vivek to take the time and make the best of your investment rather than jumping tp conclusions.
I totally agree with you that "Tone controls and loudness along with speaker balance " are essential tools and not a compromise since not all recordings and rooms are perfect. Don't know why most of the newer amps have dropped them.

 

[square_wave]

I totally agree with you that "Tone controls and loudness along with speaker balance " are essential tools and not a compromise since not all recordings and rooms are perfect. Don't know why most of the newer amps have dropped them.

Things in the signal path unless done very carefully, can degrade the sound. Audiophiles don't really like them. So, it landed up being a feature that the majority in the target demographic don't necessarily like. Also, it adds cost if it has to be done well. So it is not a win win situation in the market. Only brands who have maintained the tradition continue. Luxman, Accuphase, Yamaha etc.

 

[Nitin K]

Things in the signal path unless done very carefully, can degrade the sound. Audiophiles don't really like them. So, it landed up being a feature that the majority in the target demographic don't necessarily like. Also, it adds cost if it has to be done well. So it is not a win win situation in the market. Only brands who have maintained the tradition continue. Luxman, Accuphase, Yamaha etc.

Agree with you on the cost Sir. But they generally do have a tone defeat button in case if someone needs the choice to bypass it.
The reason I am saying is that in the midhifi range, a listener on an average listens to digital formats from different sources ( & in some cases records too).

Some of the original old cd's that I have do need tone controls for correction since the mastering may not be perfect or they are old tracks which sound flat. In such cases having them resolves the issue to an extent.
From that point of view integrated amps from Marantz and Denon too have thankfully still retained tone controls in that price range.

 

[Sean de Silva]

I’ve always been a proponent of the "less is more" philosophy when it comes to the signal path. Personally, I have no use for loudness buttons or tone controls; I’d much rather have a system that separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of mastering quality. I want to know exactly which pressings in my collection are top-tier and which are average, rather than using EQ to mask the reality of the recording. I consider myself fortunate that my Atoll preamp doesn't even have loudness or tone controls. This keeps the signal path as clean as possible, as I don’t want to have to "tweak" a CD or LP just to make it listenable. To me, the gear should be a window into the recording. I realize this is just my personal preference and others will certainly opine otherwise, but I find much more satisfaction in the transparency of a direct signal - flaws and all.

 

[square_wave]

I’ve always been a proponent of the "less is more" philosophy when it comes to the signal path. Personally, I have no use for loudness buttons or tone controls; I’d much rather have a system that separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of mastering quality. I want to know exactly which pressings in my collection are top-tier and which are average, rather than using EQ to mask the reality of the recording. I consider myself fortunate that my Atoll preamp doesn't even have loudness or tone controls. This keeps the signal path as clean as possible, as I don’t want to have to "tweak" a CD or LP just to make it listenable. To me, the gear should be a window into the recording. I realize this is just my personal preference and others will certainly opine otherwise, but I find much more satisfaction in the transparency of a direct signal - flaws and all.

I completely get where you’re coming from. And I respect that approach. A clean, unaltered signal path can be incredibly rewarding, especially if your goal is to hear exactly what’s in the recording and differentiate great masterings from average ones.

That said, there’s another type of listener who’s focused more on maximising emotional engagement across their entire collection, not just the best recordings. For them, tone controls, when used sparingly is about making more of their music enjoyable.

Loudness is a slightly different topic. It ties back to the Fletcher-Munson curves. Our ears naturally lose sensitivity to bass and treble at lower volumes (below ~60–65 dB). So even the most transparent system can sound thin at low levels. Loudness compensation, in that sense, is about restoring perceived balance, not altering the recording.

Higher-end, high-sensitivity systems often reduce the need for this because they preserve dynamics and body better at low levels. But the underlying effect doesn’t disappear completely.

So it really comes down to priorities: absolute transparency vs consistent musical satisfaction. Both are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.

 

[Sean de Silva]

I completely get where you’re coming from. And I respect that approach. A clean, unaltered signal path can be incredibly rewarding, especially if your goal is to hear exactly what’s in the recording and differentiate great masterings from average ones.

That said, there’s another type of listener who’s focused more on maximising emotional engagement across their entire collection, not just the best recordings. For them, tone controls, when used sparingly is about making more of their music enjoyable.

Loudness is a slightly different topic. It ties back to the Fletcher-Munson curves. Our ears naturally lose sensitivity to bass and treble at lower volumes (below ~60–65 dB). So even the most transparent system can sound thin at low levels. Loudness compensation, in that sense, is about restoring perceived balance, not altering the recording.

Higher-end, high-sensitivity systems often reduce the need for this because they preserve dynamics and body better at low levels. But the underlying effect doesn’t disappear completely.

So it really comes down to priorities: absolute transparency vs consistent musical satisfaction. Both are valid ways to enjoy the hobby.

Fair points, and I certainly understand the rationale behind both tone controls and loudness compensation, particularly in the context of the Fletcher–Munson effect and low-level listening.

My position, however, is less about denying the validity of those tools and more about preferring not to rely on them in my own system. I personally derive greater satisfaction from adapting myself to the recording rather than adapting the recording to my preferences. If a mastering sounds thin, aggressive, compressed, or beautifully natural, I want to hear those differences laid bare.

To me, that variability is part of the fascination of the hobby. The recording engineer, mastering choices, pressing quality, microphone placement, room acoustics — all of it becomes exposed through a transparent chain. That’s ultimately what I value most.

I also find that minimalist electronics and a shorter signal path tend to produce a presentation that sounds more immediate and coherent to my ears, which is one reason I gravitate toward gear designed around simplicity rather than adjustability.

But I do agree that there’s no single “correct” way to enjoy music. Different listeners prioritize different aspects of the experience, and that diversity of perspective is part of what makes this hobby interesting.

 

[square_wave]

Fair points, and I certainly understand the rationale behind both tone controls and loudness compensation, particularly in the context of the Fletcher–Munson effect and low-level listening.

My position, however, is less about denying the validity of those tools and more about preferring not to rely on them in my own system. I personally derive greater satisfaction from adapting myself to the recording rather than adapting the recording to my preferences. If a mastering sounds thin, aggressive, compressed, or beautifully natural, I want to hear those differences laid bare.

To me, that variability is part of the fascination of the hobby. The recording engineer, mastering choices, pressing quality, microphone placement, room acoustics — all of it becomes exposed through a transparent chain. That’s ultimately what I value most.

I also find that minimalist electronics and a shorter signal path tend to produce a presentation that sounds more immediate and coherent to my ears, which is one reason I gravitate toward gear designed around simplicity rather than adjustability.

But I do agree that there’s no single “correct” way to enjoy music. Different listeners prioritize different aspects of the experience, and that diversity of perspective is part of what makes this hobby interesting.

Totally valid points. I want to say that some of this is very relative to the price points one is playing in. A mid level pre / power with no tone controls in the signal path may not sound as coherent as a very high end amplifier with such controls even if they are in the signal path. To avoid being an audio snob, I also want to say that price is not the only criteria here. There's always the high end diy and boutique manufacturing. That's a different story altogether.

 

[Sean de Silva]

Totally valid points. I want to say that some of this is very relative to the price points one is playing in. A mid level pre / power with no tone controls in the signal path may not sound as coherent as a very high end amplifier with such controls even if they are in the signal path. To avoid being an audio snob, I also want to say that price is not the only criteria here. There's always the high end diy and boutique manufacturing. That's a different story altogether.

I understand your point, but personally I’m far less interested in where a component sits on an imaginary “mid-fi vs high-end” ladder than in whether it delivers the kind of presentation I enjoy.

The Atoll PR100SE + Atoll AM100 pairing gives me exactly the sort of sound I value: clean, direct, fast, transparent, and unembellished. That matters more to me than feature counts or price-tier classifications.

A component having tone controls doesn’t automatically make it superior, just as the absence of them doesn’t automatically make something “purist.” Ultimately, the end result is what counts.